Joy Katz
Conclusion and Findings
The boy consistently denied your accusation, that is to say, complaint—his consistence impressed us, the impaneled.
The boy never did not not say he did not rape you: again, consistence.
Owing to this consistence, we cannot help but find him the more credible.
We weighed carefully his credibility against that you are verbally skilled at expressing your opinions.
We find that you opine skillfully, your opines are clear.
We find, on the other hand, consistence to be walkonable: a opaquely frozen liquid.
Liquid credibly frozen equips everyone present with solidity,
a safely rigid structure universally recognized.
Recognizing a sturdy, vertical We, credibility is impaneled.
It need hardly be stated that credibility’s rigid edge
will not be flaked, bent, or manipulated by an opiner, even and especially
a skilled one, a woman, and Asian
(the impaneled accept and recognize your self-designation).
We recall that clever opines are a pest we have many times sprayed for (supplementary exhibit: invoices dating back),
nonetheless they return, they are a pain.
We conclude that a boy who unvaryingly denies raping a (we all find)
half-liquified, flaky Asian to be inherently credible—
that is to say, stable—even if intermittently naked, throwing keys, and bending an Asian.
The naked electronics of a complainant are a factor in the plainly recognizable sturdiness of this boy, the unlikely raper.
This idea does not originate with the impaneled: we find extensive precedent.
We can agree that precedent is, in laymens’ terms, a wooden surface everyone present can dive off of.
You should bear in mind how painful it is to be impaneled.
To be impaneled is to receive into our ear-surfaces among other things your
clitoris, a recognized if under-studied suffering of the impaneled.
Understand we risk damaging our real-world, curvy, undulating
earholes with your insatiable electronics.
Therefore we offer these sturdy findings and conclusion
as reassurance
to even a partially liquefied, deft, perhaps even professional opiner (such as yourself).
We are impelled to certify the perpetual, walkonable, obvious
ruggedness of consistent denial, and further
we must point out that rapers are more likely to snuggle.
We find the complainant (you) to be a presence that liquefies rather than solidifies;
that deviates rather than adheres.
We find your claim hereby
a rape of consistence.