Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 09 Nov 2024, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2024, 9:37 pm

What reason did Kaplan give for his conclusion.

I don't know and don't give a ****. He clearly states the facts and you are too immature to accept them. If you are too lazy to actually read your own link and too stupid to understand the words in it, there is no helping you. Just continue to wallow in your own ignorance.
 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 5:25 am » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 5:25 am

I don't know and don't give a ****. He clearly states the facts and you are too immature to accept them. If you are too lazy to actually read your own link and too stupid to understand the words in it, there is no helping you. Just continue to wallow in your own ignorance.

You care enough to lie about it, Christian

If you are too lazy to actually read your own

I have...which is why you are going on like a raped ape.

The why of the filing matters.


 

Blackvegetable » 10 Nov 2024, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 6:36 am

You care enough to lie about it, Christian

I have...which is why you are going on like a raped ape.

The why of the filing matters.

The why of the filing was to deny a Rule 59 motion.

Let's try this.  Below is the first complete paragraph from page 3 of the filing.  Explain to everyone what you believe it means...paying particular attention to the portion in bold print:

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1

 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 7:26 am

The why of the filing was to deny a Rule 59 motion.

Let's try this.  Below is the first complete paragraph from page 3 of the filing.  Explain to everyone what you believe it means...paying particular attention to the portion in bold print:

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1

What was the substance of the motion?

Blackvegetable » 10 Nov 2024, 7:30 am » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 7:30 am

What was the substance of the motion?

I knew you were too big a coward to answer the question.

 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 8:31 am

I knew you were too big a coward to answer the question.

You are still lying.

We will move on to your partial quote shortly.

First you need to either understand, or acknowledge, the substance of the respondent's motion.




 

Blackvegetable » 10 Nov 2024, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 8:57 am

You are still lying.

We will move on to your partial quote shortly.

First you need to either understand, or acknowledge, the substance of the respondent's motion.

**** YOU SHILLY

ConsRule » 09 Nov 2024, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2024, 8:53 pm

I am not misinterpreting anything...it is a direct quote from YOUR LINK.

The award was made because Carroll prevail on every other issue. 

Damn...you are a world class stupid ****

Not a stupid ****, just a **** eating lying leftist piece of ****.

Blackvegetable » 08 Nov 2024, 7:22 am » wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2024, 7:22 am

Yes...

And another judge has defined Grifty as a rapist..

This is the post that started our back and forth.  Even though it was an attempted diversion from the OP of this thread, it is the subject of our conversation.  I understand, because you're a whiny *** liberal who's assertion (above) is disproven by facts posted by me (the actual verdict form from the trial) and a post by you (a filing by Kaplan in which he clearly states Carroll failed to prevail in her assertion Trump committed rape), you need to divert this back-and-forth to the civil penalties, an opinion by Kaplan in a news article or the reason Kaplan made the filing that proves you wrong. 

However, just in case it hasn't become clear to you, I am not willing to participate in your attempted redirection.  If you care to find an official court verdict or filing that states Trump committed rape as defined by the law at the time of the incident, I will be more than happy to continue.  Note that generally accepted definitions that go against the definition contained in the law at the time of the incident will be categorically dismissed as irrelevant as will anything in an opinion piece not supported by the law at the time of the incident.

I will await such information from you.  Until that time, I have nothing more to say than you are constantly demonstrating you are the typical liberal who has no interest in legal fact when party talking points make you feel better about you lies.
 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 3:20 pm

This is the post that started our back and forth.  Even though it was an attempted diversion from the OP of this thread, it is the subject of our conversation.  I understand, because you're a whiny *** liberal who's assertion (above) is disproven by facts posted by me (the actual verdict form from the trial) and a post by you (a filing by Kaplan in which he clearly states Carroll failed to prevail in her assertion Trump committed rape), you need to divert this back-and-forth to the civil penalties, an opinion by Kaplan in a news article or the reason Kaplan made the filing that proves you wrong. 

However, just in case it hasn't become clear to you, I am not willing to participate in your attempted redirection.  If you care to find an official court verdict or filing that states Trump committed rape as defined by the law at the time of the incident, I will be more than happy to continue.  Note that generally accepted definitions that go against the definition contained in the law at the time of the incident will be categorically dismissed as irrelevant as will anything in an opinion piece not supported by the law at the time of the incident.

I will await such information from you.  Until that time, I have nothing more to say than you are constantly demonstrating you are the typical liberal who has no interest in legal fact when party talking points make you feel better about you lies.

an opinion by Kaplan in a news article

why do you persist in this lie?

When I get back to my laptop, we can take up the matter of the why of Kaplan's filing and what's in it.

Blackvegetable » 10 Nov 2024, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 4:55 pm

why do you persist in this lie?

When I get back to my laptop, we can take up the matter of the why of Kaplan's filing and what's in it.

Why Kaplan filed is not relevant to our topic.  Our topic is if any court, anywhere in the world, has found...in the official verdict...Trump committed rape.

Anything else will be met with "Not relevant to the topic of discussion".
 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 6:36 pm

Why Kaplan filed is not relevant to our topic.  Our topic is if any court, anywhere in the world, has found...in the official verdict...Trump committed rape.

Anything else will be met with "Not relevant to the topic of discussion".

Why Kaplan filed is not relevant to our topic. 

If that were true, you wouldn't continue to lie about it.

Our topic is if any court, anywhere in the world, has found...in the official verdict...Trump committed rape.

That would be this one....and the presiding judge was obliged by the defense to explain why.

And he did..

Blackvegetable » 10 Nov 2024, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 7:25 pm

That would be this one....and the presiding judge was obliged by the defense to explain why.

And he did..
 

Then quote from the filing where Kaplan states the jury found Trump guilty of committing rape under the laws of the state of NY.  Remember, in court...any court...findings must be in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction, not what a liberals thinks (wishes) it was.
 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 7:38 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 7:38 pm

Then quote from the filing where Kaplan states the jury found Trump guilty of committing rape under the laws of the state of NY.  Remember, in court...any court...findings must be in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction, not what a liberals thinks (wishes) it was.

under the laws of the state of NY.

tell me why you are lying about Kaplan's filing.

under the laws of the state of NY.

I don't...it's why the jury awarded 5 million.

Blackvegetable » 10 Nov 2024, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 7:46 pm

tell me why you are lying about Kaplan's filing.

I don't...it's why the jury awarded 5 million.

I'm not lying about his filing.  There is a standing challenge for you to quote, FROM THAT FILING, where he states jump committed rape as defined in the NY Code.

Any discussion related to the award is not relevant to the topic of our discussion.

Why do you guys waste your time with jiggy? He's nothing but a lying leftist peice of ****.

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 8:07 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 8:07 pm

I'm not lying about his filing.  There is a standing challenge for you to quote, FROM THAT FILING, where he states jump committed rape as defined in the NY Code.

Any discussion related to the award is not relevant to the topic of our discussion.

This is a CIVIL trial.......

Do you understand this?

This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts
through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such
behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump
deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain
and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the
bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New
York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used
in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .212.0.pdf

The Evidence at Trial

Ms. Carroll’s case in chief constituted all of the evidence at trial. Mr. Trump neither
testified nor called any witnesses. Apart from portions of his deposition that came in on Ms.
Carroll’s case, there was no defense evidence at all. The defense consisted entirely of (1) an attempt
to discredit Ms. Carroll’s proof on cross-examination, and (2) Mr. Trump’s testimony during his
deposition that Ms. Carroll’s account of the alleged events at the department store was a hoax.

Sexual Battery

Liability

The principal evidence as to Mr. Trump’s liability for the sexual assault was the
testimony of Ms. Carroll, of the two “outcry” witnesses and of two other women who claimed to
have been sexually assaulted by Mr. Trump, the so-called Access Hollywood video, and Mr.
Trump’s remarkable comments about that video during his deposition

ibid.

The United States Attorney General announced in January 2012 a new definition of rape
for the purpose of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report Summary
Reporting System by, among other changes, “recogniz[ing] that rape with an object can be
as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape.” U.S. Department of Justice, An Updated Definition of
Rape, Jan. 6, 2012, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape
(new definition of “rape” as “[t]he penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus
with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without
the consent of the victim”) (emphasis added).

ibid

 

ConsRule » 10 Nov 2024, 8:07 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 8:07 pm

I'm not lying about his filing.  There is a standing challenge for you to quote, FROM THAT FILING, where he states jump committed rape as defined in the NY Code.

Any discussion related to the award is not relevant to the topic of our discussion.

You've lied about the reasons for it.....you've lied about the contents......

I think that's pretty comprehensive.