Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

I suspect the only thing I (or anyone else) can do is make Sweden fodder for satire considering that 'rape' and those two 'victims' of a rape. Maybe I can make jokes about Swedish moose being more desirable than Swedish women these days as at least the moose won't cry rape for some bogus reason!

Yes, you could do that, and become known as the [male sexual organ] that make rape jokes targeted at actual rape victims.

Far be it for me to suggest that you actually put some effort behind the putrid filth you spread online from behind the anonymity of your computer.

Heh, I found Anna's description of that another reason to wonder about her story. In an episode of consensual sex with a condom by her own admission she claims that his being on top of her (didja know there are sexual positions like that? It's in the Kama Sutra and everything!) and grabbing her was an attempt to..what was it again? Not put on the condom he put on? Perhaps Anna's imagination ran wild in trying to 'support' the others story?

Keep digging.

Sofia was not unconscious, again by her own admission, and that should be obvious due to her immediate response, which would quickly include assenting to both the sex, and allowing him to do so without a condom.

She was semi-unconscious, and deemed to be unable to give legal consent. Again, the courts say this. She did not consent to sex without a condom. It doesn't matter how much you impotently stomp your feet.

And again, none of this was in issue until they found out he was sleeping with the other, and filed charges in the country with the most violations of innocent people's rights in regards to rape accusations.

Every post like this you make makes it more and more obvious why the rape laws are what they are.

 

[Here_to_learn]

If that prosecutor represented the facts of the case to that court as dishonestly as her EAW, then it is no surprise that they agreed with her.

Dishonestly? Could you please show exactly how the EAW is dishonsest?

Otherwise I'd be most interested in just what exactly the courts said regarding this case. I've read the British extradition one, and found it curious. It reads just like a court decision in a miscarriage of justice, in fact it reads like an Italian judge having to write a Motivations Report on a guilty verdict in which the accused was innocent: tortured attempts to twist the facts out of context to support a verdict already determined.

Are you experienced in reading extradition hearings?

However if I understand it that's just the judgement for the extradition, not a court that could determine guilt and impose a sentence. Thus perhaps it's just a washing of hands, as this isn't really their problem.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here? Of course the whole point of the extradition is to bring the suspect to justice in the country where the crime might have been committed. UK courts are not competent to judge according Swedish law, they judge according to UK law.

What the UK courts did was that they verified that the UAW was lawful, and that the dual criminality requirement was met - that is - would the alleged actions be considered crimes according to English law.

At this stage it's not about guilt, it's about probable cause for the charging. Guilt or not is for the court to settle, assuming he gets charged.

At which time he picked it up! Now, has it ever been determined just why those two women went to that lawyer? Was he perhaps recommended by someone, or was it just coincidence?

In Swedens there is a concept of Målsägandebiträde - basically a lawyer that represents the legal interests of the victims. They asked for CB since they are members of the same party (that invited JA), and knew (of) him.

Which is an excellent explanation for why your 'rape' statistics have become the jest of the civilized world.

Did you read the BBC article that nathan linked to? After that, why would you jest the situation in Sweden?

If he's not on the fringes of the SD with the positions he's taken then you've even greater problems.

Thank you for you view of Swedish politics.

That explains a lot! Perhaps someone else should have that position?

Why? Do you have any evidence that she is not following the law, or doing a bad job?

What are the facts in regards to Irmeli Krans' involvement in this case?

You brought that person up, and now wants me to do research for you?

I cannot read Swedish and don't know how to copy that into a translator. Your description merely says that 'the police' (would that include Irmeli Krans in this instance?) contacted the original prosecutor, which would be the one who dismissed it. I don't understand what else you expect me to take from your admonishment.

Please do read the basics of the case again. For example the Agreed facts document. From the link I gave you, you can see that the Police that received the complaints was in fact a Linda Wassgren, and from the Agreed facts document, you can see that the original prosecutor did not dismiss it, but rather drove the case. It was the second prosecutor that dismissed it, while the third again opened the case.

At any rate I appreciate the additional information your post provided.

That's to bad, since I didn't add any new information whatsoever to the thread. In fact, most of the information can be read in the Agree Facts document which is from February and in fact mostly summaries information that has been documented since long before.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, you could do that, and become known as the [male sexual organ] that make rape jokes targeted at actual rape victims.

Nope, it's cases like this that make a mockery of rape, and who harm innocents by not dissuading false allegations like this.

The two of them either repeatedly had consensual sex with Julian Assange or slept in the same bed with him days afterward while he was living with them and didn't do any complaining about it until they found out he was sleeping with both. They got their pound of flesh for that, pretending that Julian Assange should also do years in prison after all the other damage has been done to his reputation and perhaps even inflicting significant mental anguish is a sadistic position.

The state of rape law in Sweden these days is a disgraceful violation of human rights and should be condemned. You're not going to get anywhere chest-thumping in outrage with me, though I might make more jokes about moose and Swedish women.

 

[uke2se]

Nope, it's cases like this that make a mockery of rape, and who harm innocents by not dissuading false allegations like this.

Yes, of course you want people to believe that, but seeing as you have shown that you are unable to understand how a judicial process works, nobody is going to take your word for it.

The two of them either repeatedly had consensual sex with Julian Assange or slept in the same bed with him days afterward while he was living with them and didn't do any complaining about it until they found out he was sleeping with both. They got their pound of flesh for that, pretending that Julian Assange should also do years in prison after all the other damage has been done to his reputation and perhaps even inflicting significant mental anguish is a sadistic position.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of women who sleep in the same bed as men who has physically assaulted them earlier. In fact, we call them "battered spouses". But I'm sure you'll just handwave that fact.

The state of rape law in Sweden these days is a disgraceful violation of human rights and should be condemned.

You never did get around to explaining why it's a human right to hold down women who reaches for a condom or to penetrate a half-asleep woman without a condom despite her expressed wish for you to wear one. Do you think we should consult the UN?

You're not going to get anywhere chest-thumping in outrage with me, though I might make more jokes about moose and Swedish women.

Joke away. It only sinks whatever credibility you still had.

 

[uke2se]

I'm beginning to believe Kaosium has been trolling us. His trolling is in extremely bad taste, but I suppose any reaction is a success for a troll.

 

[Joey McGee]

Mad.

Correct. Assange is completely mad. According to Helen Lewis at the New Statesman, 2 sources have confirmed Assange is the one who writes those tweets. He's sitting there in his self-imposed prison slowly fermenting in the wetware of his persecution complex and narcissism.

By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world.”

Does he think that the Muslim protesters were embolded by the way the US is treating him directly leading to an increased desire to attack an embassy? Or is he trying to say that in gereral, unless governments allow wanted criminals to escape through embassies, the entire concept of diplomatic soverign soil is diminished? Maybe you could help us with your robust, objective and detached insight.

That tweet was apparently deleted because unrarefied minds didn't understand the word "tacit"

 

[Kaosium]

Dishonestly? Could you please show exactly how the EAW is dishonsest?

I already have in my responses to Phantom Wolf.

Are you experienced in reading extradition hearings?

I am experienced in reading judgments from miscarriages of justice. Looks just like one, same technique.

[I'm not sure what you are talking about here? Of course the whole point of the extradition is to bring the suspect to justice in the country where the crime might have been committed. UK courts are not competent to judge according Swedish law, they judge according to UK law.

What the UK courts did was that they verified that the UAW was lawful, and that the dual criminality requirement was met - that is - would the alleged actions be considered crimes according to English law.

At this stage it's not about guilt, it's about probable cause for the charging. Guilt or not is for the court to settle, assuming he gets charged.

Aha, and the probable cause standard is significantly lower than beyond the doubt of a reasonable person. Incidentally, is the latter the standard of finding for guilt in Sweden?

That makes much more sense of the British extradition judgment if all they had to meet was the probable cause standard. The way they cobbled it together ignoring other standards suggested something more along the lines of an arrest, rather than a conviction. I wonder if in Britain they have a joke about being able to indict a ham sandwich, which is what that tortured conjecture out of the context of the events suggested to me.

In Swedens there is a concept of Målsägandebiträde - basically a lawyer that represents the legal interests of the victims. They asked for CB since they are members of the same party (that invited JA), and knew (of) him.

How common are such high-powered lawyers for cases of this caliber in Sweden?

Did you read the BBC article that nathan linked to? After that, why would you jest the situation in Sweden?

She said the same thing I did, she just didn't realize how deplorable the situation in Sweden has become. A vast number of people have been convicted under Sweden's expanded rape laws. At the same time the number of reported 'rapes' has skyrocketed as well. The fact that this one is taken seriously is cause to believe most if not all of the unprosecuted ones are even more bogus in nature. That squares with complaints I've read by Swedes and others that there's numerous false allegations these days in Sweden, as well as with Anna's 'legal revenge' strategy.

Thank you for you view of Swedish politics.


Why? Do you have any evidence that she is not following the law, or doing a bad job?

Yes, if she's pursuing this as an actual prosecutable case then that suggests most if not all of the ones she's not pursuing are false allegations that should be discouraged, unless it has become so bad in Sweden that people don't take rape accusations seriously anymore? Also trying to prosecute this case and to this extremity suggests bias if not fanaticism, which is also something others thought even beforehand.

You brought that person up, and now wants me to do research for you?

So are the answers that embarrassing?

Please do read the basics of the case again. For example the Agreed facts document. From the link I gave you, you can see that the Police that received the complaints was in fact a Linda Wassgren, and from the Agreed facts document, you can see that the original prosecutor did not dismiss it, but rather drove the case. It was the second prosecutor that dismissed it, while the third again opened the case.

Would Maria Kjellstrand be considered the same sort of prosecutor as Eva Finne? Does Sweden not distinguish between police and prosecution, or is it possible this is a translation difficulty for two different kinds of prosecutors? If there is a Linda Wassgren on the complaints form does that preclude Irmeli Krans being involved in this process? Maybe Linda Wassgren is on the complaint because Irmeli Krans was removed from the case!

That's to bad, since I didn't add any new information whatsoever to the thread. In fact, most of the information can be read in the Agree Facts document which is from February and in fact mostly summaries information that has been documented since long before.

I was mostly only skimming this thread, simply to keep track of the 'outraged' as they were littering it at one time, thus I did appreciate your compiling it a lot closer to the top.

 

[uke2se]

I am experienced in reading judgments from miscarriages of justice. Looks just like one, same technique.

Translation: "I've trolled a bunch about the Amanda Knox case so I believe I know everything about European law, and it's all bad."

Aha, and the probable cause standard is significantly lower than beyond the doubt of a reasonable person. Incidentally, is the latter the standard of finding for guilt in Sweden?

What are you talking about? Your response had nothing to do with what HtL said.

That makes much more sense of the British extradition judgment if all they had to meet was the probable cause standard. The way they cobbled it together ignoring other standards suggested something more along the lines of an arrest, rather than a conviction. I wonder if in Britain they have a joke about being able to indict a ham sandwich, which is what that tortured conjecture out of the context of the events suggested to me.

It is obvious now that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do you understand how the extradition process works now? Do you need someone to go over it again? I mean, it's difficult to put it any simpler than HtL did.

How common are such high-powered lawyers for cases of this caliber in Sweden?

Sweden isn't a country riddled with lawyers. Besides, you have already been given the explanation for why the two women got that particular lawyer. They knew each other. Is this difficult for you to understand?

She said the same thing I did, she just didn't realize how deplorable the situation in Sweden has become.

In your biased and extremely ill informed opinion.

A vast number of people have been convicted under Sweden's expanded rape laws.

Define "vast".

At the same time the number of reported 'rapes' has skyrocketed as well.

Define "skyrocketed".

Please, use actual statistics. I know the numbers because I posted them earlier. If you lie, I'll know.

The fact that this one is taken seriously is cause to believe most if not all of the unprosecuted ones are even more bogus in nature.

Nope. That's just your feverish imagination.

That squares with complaints I've read by Swedes and others that there's numerous false allegations these days in Sweden, as well as with Anna's 'legal revenge' strategy.

Prove this, please. Prove that there are numerous false allegations in Sweden. I mean "prove" as in, with evidence, as opposed to making stuff up.

Please be aware that you need to not only prove that there are numerous false allegations, but also that there are more so than in other nations.

Yes, if she's pursuing this as an actual prosecutable case then that suggests most if not all of the ones she's not pursuing are false allegations that should be discouraged, unless it has become so bad in Sweden that people don't take rape accusations seriously anymore? Also trying to prosecute this case and to this extremity suggests bias if not fanaticism, which is also something others thought even beforehand.

This is so stupid it would be funny if there weren't two actual rape victims involved in this story.

So are the answers that embarrassing?

He asked you to do your own damn googling.

Would Maria Kjellstrand be considered the same sort of prosecutor as Eva Finne? Does Sweden not distinguish between police and prosecution, or is it possible this is a translation difficulty for two different kinds of prosecutors? If there is a Linda Wassgren on the complaints form does that preclude Irmeli Krans being involved in this process? Maybe Linda Wassgren is on the complaint because Irmeli Krans was removed from the case!

You seem very confused. Perhaps you should take some time off from making yourself look stupid on the interwebs and read up on the case?

I was mostly only skimming this thread, simply to keep track of the 'outraged' as they were littering it at one time, thus I did appreciate your compiling it a lot closer to the top.

Troll better next time.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of women who sleep in the same bed as men who has physically assaulted them earlier. In fact, we call them "battered spouses". But I'm sure you'll just handwave that fact.

This case has nothing to do with battered women and again it's disgraceful to mention that in the context of this case, following that link should provide reason why.

You never did get around to explaining why it's a human right to hold down women who reaches for a condom

You never explained how any of that made sense in the context of having consensual sex with a condom by her own admission. Maybe she couldn't read Julian's mind as well as she thought, and maybe he couldn't read hers either so her saying something (when Julian finally asked!) was required and the 'being on top of' part related to how many people have sex.

or to penetrate a half-asleep woman without a condom despite her expressed wish for you to wear one. Do you think we should consult the UN?

I think the fact she assented to it and by the admission of both females Julian Assange took 'no' for an answer ought to destroy completely the accusation of 'rape.'

Joke away. It only sinks whatever credibility you still had.

This case is a joke, this is the punchline.

 

[Kaosium]

Sweden isn't a country riddled with lawyers. Besides, you have already been given the explanation for why the two women got that particular lawyer. They knew each other. Is this difficult for you to understand?

Actually it didn't quite sink in until now! They knew this political lawyer, that makes even more sense of the 'legal revenge' blog.

Prove this, please. Prove that there are numerous false allegations in Sweden. I mean "prove" as in, with evidence, as opposed to making stuff up.

I'm giving Sweden the benefit of the doubt. It's either Sweden becoming like Germany the week or so after Berlin fell and Sweden isn't prosecuting all those rapists, or there's a vast multitude of bogus allegations. Considering the reputation of Madame Ny, I'm thinking the latter.

Please be aware that you need to not only prove that there are numerous false allegations, but also that there are more so than in other nations.

Read the thread, find the statistics and do the math. I don't have to 'prove' anything, just appreciate the ones willing to face the facts which are obvious.

This is so stupid it would be funny if there weren't two actual rape victims involved in this story.

There isn't. The only victim in this particular story is Julian Assange.

 

[uke2se]

This case has nothing to do with battered women and again it's disgraceful to mention that in the context of this case, following that link should provide reason why.

No, you just don't understand why this is relevant. That's not the same thing as it being irrelevant.

You never explained how any of that made sense in the context of having consensual sex with a condom by her own admission. Maybe she couldn't read Julian's mind as well as she thought, and maybe he couldn't read hers either so her saying something (when Julian finally asked!) was required and the 'being on top of' part related to how many people have sex.

Excuse me, but are you saying that the women's testimony about what happened doesn't match what the prosecutor says happened? Could you please prove this.

I mean, the prosecutor quite clearly asserts that the sex was considered to be non-consensual, and it would seem the women's lawyer agrees. In fact, it would seem the two women agree as well. Please quote the relevant part of the women's testimony that says the sex was consensual.

I think the fact she assented to it and by the admission of both females Julian Assange took 'no' for an answer ought to destroy completely the accusation of 'rape.'

You do realize that what you are saying has been deemed as false by three separate courts, right? Please prove your assertions by quoting the relevant parts of the women's testimony which shows Julian Assange to be a perfect gentleman and take "no" for an answer, including refraining from penetrate a half-asleep woman without a condom when she told him to use one before.

This case is a joke, this is the punchline.

Not really funny, if you ask me. I mean, mooses in general aren't that funny. Perhaps this joke would fly among your fellow uneducated arm-chair lawyers, but for a reasonably educated person, it's just not doing it.

 

[uke2se]

Actually it didn't quite sink in until now! They knew this political lawyer, that makes even more sense of the 'legal revenge' blog.

As I said before, there's a thread in the conspiracy theories forum that you should seek out. What you are insinuating here is better suited for that thread.

I'm giving Sweden the benefit of the doubt. It's either Sweden becoming like Germany the week or so after Berlin fell and Sweden isn't prosecuting all those rapists, or there's a vast multitude of bogus allegations. Considering the reputation of Madame Ny, I'm thinking the latter.

I asked you to prove your assertion. Your reply was a non-sequitur. Please prove your assertion that there are numerous false allegations in Sweden. I mean "prove" as in, with evidence, as opposed to making stuff up.

Read the thread, find the statistics and do the math. I don't have to 'prove' anything, just appreciate the ones willing to face the facts which are obvious.

I have read the thread. You have admitted that you just skimmed it. Again, please prove your assertions. Yes, you do have to prove them. This is a skeptics forum, and you're pulling stuff out of your anus.

There isn't.

Yes, there are. Two of them. Three courts have agreed to this. Nobody cares what you personally think the law should be. What matters is what it is.

The only victim in this particular story is Julian Assange.

Comedy gold.

 

[Jaxe]

There's a thread about this in the conspiracy forum. You are welcome to make wild assertions there.

There is no need for conspiracy here wither, AA and Borgström have known eachother for atleast 10 years.

 

[Kaosium]

Excuse me, but are you saying that the women's testimony about what happened doesn't match what the prosecutor says happened? Could you please prove this.

I mean, the prosecutor quite clearly asserts that the sex was considered to be non-consensual, and it would seem the women's lawyer agrees. In fact, it would seem the two women agree as well. Please quote the relevant part of the women's testimony that says the sex was consensual.

Anna says she freely consented to have sex with Assange but she couldn't have let it happen if she'd known he didn't have a condom.

Regarding her fascination with the condom:

She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange's penis to check if he'd really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought 'hope it's over soon'.

Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

Anna made sure twice the condom was installed, and her assuming the pool could only have been made because he deliberately broke the condom for whatever reason makes Anna out as being a little weird.

Do I have to spell out a perfectly rational explanation for how that could happen without the condom even breaking? Do I have to be that vulgar?

You do realize that what you are saying has been deemed as false by three separate courts, right? Please prove your assertions by quoting the relevant parts of the women's testimony which shows Julian Assange to be a perfect gentleman and take "no" for an answer,

Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him.

According to Anna Assange made sexual overtures every day after that evening when they'd had sex. For example by touching her breasts. Anna rebuffed Assange on all these occasions and Assange accepted it.

including refraining from penetrate a half-asleep woman without a condom when she told him to use one before.

After having sex about three times:

She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'.

There's no 'NO!' there, that's assent.

Not really funny, if you ask me. I mean, mooses in general aren't that funny. Perhaps this joke would fly among your fellow uneducated arm-chair lawyers, but for a reasonably educated person, it's just not doing it.

Try this one then, it would seem more to the level of your education.

 

[uke2se]

There is no need for conspiracy here wither, AA and Borgström have known eachother for atleast 10 years.

And what does this mean for the case?

 

[Jaxe]

I think it would be wrong to call Assange a rapist. I would call him an alleged rapist and a fugitive from justice. That's exactly what he provably is. What is needed is for him to give himself up. It is his own doing that this thing has been blown out of proportions.

I would call your reasoning to be harsh but fair, except for the last part, Assange is not without blame, but the Swedish authorities have couldn't have made a bigger mess out of this if they had tried...

He is a fugitive, i'm not sure i'd call it a fugitive from justice... A fugitive from law, yes, but hardly justice...

 

[uke2se]

Regarding her fascination with the condom:



Anna made sure twice the condom was installed, and her assuming the pool could only have been made because he deliberately broke the condom for whatever reason makes Anna out as being a little weird.

Do I have to spell out a perfectly rational explanation for how that could happen without the condom even breaking? Do I have to be that vulgar?

Keep reading.

After having sex about three times:


There's no 'NO!' there, that's assent.

Nope. Not according to the law. Something I happen to agree with.

Also, please quote the part before Assange released Anna's arm. Why was he holding her arm?

Try this one then, it would seem more to the level of your education.

You're welcome to stay out of Sweden. I think I speak for most Swedes here. We love visitors, but those who go here needs to treat women right. We have lots of pretty ladies, you see, and we don't particularly like rapists or those who apologize for rape, like you.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I already have in my responses to Phantom Wolf.

Oh, I was more expecting something like:

According to Brottsbalken, chapter 6, 1st paragraph, the definition of...

You know - a legal argument where you show that the actions alleged does not constitute a crime, and therefor the prosecutor is wrong. This is about the law.

I am experienced in reading judgments from miscarriages of justice. Looks just like one, same technique.

Brilliant legal analysis. If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Have you ever read a judgement that was not a miscarriage of justice? If so, what factor did you use to come to that conclusion?

There are several English lawyers and legal commentators that have analysed the English court decisions. For example http://www.headoflegal.com/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/joshua-rozenberg, http://jackofkent.com/blog/. Have you found support for your position there, or maybe you can show us how your legal analysis differ from theirs?

The way they cobbled it together ignoring other standards suggested something more along the lines of an arrest, rather than a conviction.

Yes? You do know that EAW means European Arrest Warrant? At this stage it's all about an arrest. Charging may come later. The actual court case follows that. Then we will see if the evidence holds up.

How common are such high-powered lawyers for cases of this caliber in Sweden?

I don't know, what are you looking for? It's obviously a case that attracts a lot of media attention, as well as a case that probably will involve complex decisions on the law, so it would make sense to have a lawyer that is knowledgeable and experienced in the relevant area of law, as well as experienced in interacting with the media.

So are the answers that embarrassing?

What? If you have some kind of smoking gun please show it.

Would Maria Kjellstrand be considered the same sort of prosecutor as Eva Finne?

Do your research. MK was the on-duty prosecutor. EF took over when this moved into the regular day-job prosecutors.

Does Sweden not distinguish between police and prosecution, or is it possible this is a translation difficulty for two different kinds of prosecutors?

Of course there is a difference, if you don't even know the basics of the Swedish legal system and the prosecution authority you can start for example on this link.

If there is a Linda Wassgren on the complaints form does that preclude Irmeli Krans being involved in this process? Maybe Linda Wassgren is on the complaint because Irmeli Krans was removed from the case!

Are you making up things as you go?

I was mostly only skimming this thread, simply to keep track of the 'outraged' as they were littering it at one time, thus I did appreciate your compiling it a lot closer to the top.

Then do take a look at this post and maybe read up on what has actually happened in this case so far.

 

[uke2se]

I would call your reasoning to be harsh but fair, except for the last part, Assange is not without blame, but the Swedish authorities have couldn't have made a bigger mess out of this if they had tried...

How has Swedish authorities made a mess out of this?

He is a fugitive, i'm not sure i'd call it a fugitive from justice... A fugitive from law, yes, but hardly justice...

The law is just in this case. Assange is now a criminal without even being convicted in Sweden. He has escaped from bail in the UK. That's all on Assange.

 

[Kaosium]

I asked you to prove your assertion. Your reply was a non-sequitur. Please prove your assertion that there are numerous false allegations in Sweden. I mean "prove" as in, with evidence, as opposed to making stuff up.

I have read the thread. You have admitted that you just skimmed it. Again, please prove your assertions. Yes, you do have to prove them. This is a skeptics forum, and you're pulling stuff out of your anus.

I've already figured it out, as for the precise numbers, I leave that as an exercise for the student.

Yes, there are. Two of them. Three courts have agreed to this. Nobody cares what you personally think the law should be. What matters is what it is.

You're starting to sound like all the ones who kept saying 'nineteen judges found them guilty![/i] but you don't even have a determination of guilt! You do however have a prosecutor who said there was no evidence of rape in the statements until the politically-motivated types went for 'Skandalllllll!'