Phat Unplugged

" . . . but let me continue disagreeing with your point."Sounds like you know more about the law than the judge of the actual trial. Impressive.

I made my points as clearly as I could. If you're not going to address them but just issue unsupported denigration then there's no need to reply.--Percy

The law is all about what the laws say and the definitions they set. Of course, that also involves the precise wording of those laws, which is why lawyers are forever arguing over interpretations. For example, one of the jokes in the second radio series of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy regarding Lintilla:

quote:

---

Lintilla is a rather unfortunate woman who has (as of Fit the Eleventh of the radio series) been cloned 578,000,000,000 times due to an accident at a Brantisvogan escort agency. While creating six clones of a wonderfully talented and attractive woman named Lintilla (at the same time another machine was creating five hundred lonely business executives, in order to keep the laws of supply and demand operating profitably), the machine got stuck in a loop and malfunctioned in such a way that it got halfway through completing each new Lintilla before it had finished the previous one. This meant that it was for a very long while impossible to turn the machine off without committing murder, despite lawyers' best efforts to argue about what murder actually was, including trying to redefine it, repronounce it, and respell it in the hope that no one would notice.

---

So legal findings must be based on the wording of the applicable laws. What I had gleaned from news coverage (MSNBC, which is very good at bringing in actual legal experts (eg, lawyers, law professors, ex-prosecutors) to explain and discuss the legal issues being covered), the applicable New York law regarding rape defines it as requiring penetration with the penis. Hence, penetration with anything else would still qualify as sexual assault, but not rape. Even though what Trump has been adjudicated as having done would be considered rape by anybody, it could not legally be rape. Just as many things that Trump has done are clearly treasonous, they very likely do not meet the legal definition of treason (so no swinging from the yardarm in his future). BTW, my son recently graduated from law school and is currently preparing for his bar exam. Engaging in discussions and arguments with him is going to be very arduous.

quote:

---

Sounds like you know more about the law than the judge of the actual trial.

---

No, Percy knows enough about the law to understand what the judge is saying - and you don’t,To be found liable in a civil case is not the same as being found guilty in a criminal case for a start. The judge - correctly - referred to the former.

Many thanks dwise,I am comfortable using what the actual judge of the trial stated: Good luck with your son, I hope he fights against people like tRump, and not defending them.

This is just an excerpt from a news article. Reading what Judge Kaplan actually wrote offers a more clear understanding of her ruling against Trump's motion that the award was excessive, which can be found here: Memorandum Opinion Denying Defendant’s Rule 59 Motion. This is probably the most relevant excerpt:

quote:

---

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere. The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped”’ her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

---

As best as I can interpret this, the judge is saying that the jury did not find Trump guilty of rape as it is defined in New York Penal Law but rather liable for rape as the term is commonly understood. I think that a common understanding of rape is all the jury could go on because this was a civil case and rape is not covered in New York's civil laws.AbE: According to New York Penal Law Section 130.35 Rape in the first degree, penetration of the vagina by the fingers is a class B felony which has a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum of 25 years.--Percy

Playing armchair lawyer . . .This was a defamation case where Carroll was suing Trump for lying about their encounter and defaming her. What Carroll proved in court is that Trump's actions would be considered rape by a common person on the street which supports the claim of sexual abuse. Even if the act did not rise to the level of a crime, it did justify the characterization given by Carroll.

quote:

---

AbE: According to New York Penal Law Section 130.35 Rape in the first degree, penetration of the vagina by the fingers is a class B felony which has a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum of 25 years.

---

I am not sure that is correct.
Sex offenses; definitions of termsThe law that would have applied referred to “sexual intercourse” which is defined thus: The replacement coming into force later this year refers to “vaginal sexual contact” which is defined thus: All the commentary I’ve seen indicates that the “usual meaning” of sexual intercourse for New York law requires penetration with the penis, not the fingers. If you know otherwise, than I’d like to see a clearer source - and an explanation. Indeed the Judge said as much in confirming that Trump was liable for rape “as commonly understood”.Penetration with the fingers would appear to be covered by “sexual contact”. This appears to be the relevant offence: Sexual abuse in the first degree, a Class D felony.

You are correct, it is not a class B felony. I was unable to reconstruct how I came to make that mistake, unless perhaps I misread "class D" as "class B".--Percy

From Message 413
My diabetes has improved markedly in just the past two weeks. On my Libre 3 App, my average blood sugars are:172 at 7 days out!(best in History)
185 at 14 days out.
196 at 30 days out.
237 at 45 days out.I *have* noticed my cognitive issues. I often REACT rather than RESPOND. My sister says that I have always had a sensitive reaction to people challenging my intelligence. She assures me that I am very smart, but when i get called out here I feel like im in 8th grade getting bullied again. Sometimes I hear voices telling me that I am dumber than my peers....but they dont come from God. I was worse two weeks ago. I seem to be calming down. Yes. I have a foot ulcer and I need eye surgery on this coming Tuesday.One more complication may be my propensity to drink a lot of Diet Mountain Dew with aspartame. Ive heard that aspartame can affect mental clarity.

You're not smart Phat, but you're not dumb either; you've just never learned how to think.Your thinking is polluted. Like Faith, you're irrational and don't know how to apply the smarts that you have. You just don't know how to look at a problem objectively so you swallow anything that appeals to your existing beliefs and reject anything that jars with them.You're uncritical, you can't apply what intelligence you have so to us you appear ignorant and stupid. It's a shame, it doesn't have to be that way.

GOP VP pick JD Vance also drinks Diet Mountain Dew. That could explain a lot about his weird attitudes that are too extreme even for fellow MAGAts (at least the ones concerned with winning an election).Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation. But it does make sense. My mother developed diabetes as an adult and died from complications after heart bypass surgery -- she had always remained active gardening and had developed a strong attitude from overcoming childhood polio such that she presented to the doctor as stronger than she actually was, fooling him into electing that surgery. My older sister who had been the most involved in our parents' later health maintains that it was diabetes that killed her, since, in her words, it attacks all the organs of the body weakening them.When I was on active duty my wife had a friend who taught at the local university we attended. That friend's husband had diabetes and was active in diabetes care awareness education. I saw a photo from one such presentation in which he played the role of a diabetic's foot (wearing a cardboard cutout foot costume) in a panel discussion on foot care, mainly how to prevent losing your toes or worse.My understanding (which could be wrong) is that diabetes affects the circulatory system in ways that restrict blood flow to the body's organs and tissues. Over time, that low circulation takes its toll on the body. And my understanding is that the extremities (eg, the toes, feet, and legs) tend to be early victims to those circulation problems.I know that your doctors have informed you of all this and much more, so you already know. I'm relating this for others to be aware of how serious diabetes can be and therefore must not be taken lightly.

I would describe it differently than Tangle. I find your thinking creative and agile but lacking the ability to make reasonable inferences from facts. That's make you a great fabulist (in the sense of concocting fascinating scenarios, not of lying or being dishonest) but a horrible pragmatist.So why try to be something you're not? Give up commenting on politics and start writing fiction. Maybe you're the next Tolkein or Rowling.--Percy

First an update on my health.I had a foot operation a couple of months ago and a bone spur (which was repeatedly getting infected due to shoe pressure and high blood sugars) was taken out. I now treat that residual wound myself at home under Doctors orders to use Medical Bleach
changing bandages daily and keeping the recovering ulcer clean. It is getting better and I go back to work next week, having been off for 6 weeks. I also had eye surgery and was treated for complications related to diabetes. My sugars have dropped by 150 mg/dL and are within the normal range most of the time when I behave myself.Next, I will attempt to defend my mental health regarding my beliefs and my political philosophy. You guys have started to get personal and it seems that you all agree somewhat politically as well as theologically. Granted EvC is not monolithic regarding beliefs though it appears that I am an outlier here. Virtually ALL of you have chosen Harris over Trump and are critical thinkers and skeptics long before you dare accept Christianity (or at least *My* version of it).