Tate Brothers Charged with Rape in the UK

[SpuriusMaximus]

Just came out on YT a quarter of an hour ago:

They're not in solitary. Andrew and Tristan are cell-mates. I was already sure of that, since they only wanted a radio between the two of them, not one radio each, but now it's official.

Among several other lies from them and their lawyer.

 

[jimbob]

Just came out on YT a quarter of an hour ago:

They're not in solitary. Andrew and Tristan are cell-mates. I was already sure of that, since they only wanted a radio between the two of them, not one radio each, but now it's official.

Among several other lies from them and their lawyer.

I do wonder if McBride was careful enough to not make proveable lies under oath.

I suspect he wasn't.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I do wonder if McBride was careful enough to not make proveable lies under oath.

I suspect he wasn't.

I don't think the defense lawyer has to testify under oath. He can be sanctioned for submitting lies to the court, but it's not perjury.

ETA: plus, in a case it would get dismissed as hearsay even if he wanted to. There are only two kinds of testimonies allowed in court:
1. Direct. It means you actually were there and saw it.
2. Expert. You don't have any first hand information about what happened there, but are an expert and can interpret the data. E.g., what the braking distance means for the car's initial speed.
McBride can't give either. He didn't see them in their cells. "X told me Y" is automatically dismissed as hearsay. In many cases the opposing counsel would stand up and say "objection, hearsay!" by reflex before that witness even got into much of what Y is. To any experienced attorney, just hearing "told me" or "said" or such, is like Pavlov's bell: they act before even thinking.

 

[Helen]

Just came out on YT a quarter of an hour ago:

They're not in solitary. Andrew and Tristan are cell-mates. I was already sure of that, since they only wanted a radio between the two of them, not one radio each, but now it's official.

Among several other lies from them and their lawyer.

That's too harsh; making them share a cell with a Tate is truly inhumane.

 

[jimbob]

There are now persistent rumours (but caveat: I haven't seen evidence, though I guess no mafia ever held a press conference about such things) that now the Romanian mafia wants them dead too, so they can't testify against them in Romania, after bragging so much online about their mafia connections there and running a casino for the mafia there and having shares in a mafia-run competition and so on.

I've heard similar and it makes sense. They stopped being useful and started being liabilities.

And they're the sort of person who will rat.

I'm still saying they should beg to be sent to the UK, where in almost all prisons they would be kept in a separate sex offender wing, and not be murdered like in the US. And I doubt that the Romanian mafia could order a hit on them in the UK by another sex offender either.

Yup

 

[Andy_Ross]

Time for some good news

Andrew Tate
@Cobratate

My situation is deteriorating.

Despite spending 61 days in the SHU, the punitive unit for inmates who attack other prisoners and guards, I have once again had my conditions downgraded.

Since the time I have come into this jail I have been forced to endure punitive housing.

During my time here, I have watched men come and go, men who have stabbed other inmates.

These men are only forced to stay in these cells for 7 days until rereleased to general population.

I have been here for 61 days and counting.

Today, I was informed that I was finally changing cells.

However, I was moved to another cell inside the same SHU unit in far worse condition than my past one.

 

[dirtywick]

I don't think the defense lawyer has to testify under oath. He can be sanctioned for submitting lies to the court, but it's not perjury.

ETA: plus, in a case it would get dismissed as hearsay even if he wanted to. There are only two kinds of testimonies allowed in court:
1. Direct. It means you actually were there and saw it.
2. Expert. You don't have any first hand information about what happened there, but are an expert and can interpret the data. E.g., what the braking distance means for the car's initial speed.
McBride can't give either. He didn't see them in their cells. "X told me Y" is automatically dismissed as hearsay. In many cases the opposing counsel would stand up and say "objection, hearsay!" by reflex before that witness even got into much of what Y is. To any experienced attorney, just hearing "told me" or "said" or such, is like Pavlov's bell: they act before even thinking.

When Is a False Statement Perjury?

www.mololamken.com

here’s an explanation on perjury, and it applies to more than just testimony and can include written statements as well.

 

[Darat]

Time for some good news

Andrew Tate
@Cobratate

My situation is deteriorating.

Despite spending 61 days in the SHU, the punitive unit for inmates who attack other prisoners and guards, I have once again had my conditions downgraded.

Since the time I have come into this jail I have been forced to endure punitive housing.

During my time here, I have watched men come and go, men who have stabbed other inmates.

These men are only forced to stay in these cells for 7 days until rereleased to general population.

I have been here for 61 days and counting.

Today, I was informed that I was finally changing cells.

However, I was moved to another cell inside the same SHU unit in far worse condition than my past one.

Like I said before he needs to get onto his lawyer to get the extradition to the UK speeded up so he can be housed in better conditions.

 

[jimbob]

Like I said before he needs to get onto his lawyer to get the extradition to the UK speeded up so he can be housed in better conditions.

And of course it's more likely than not that he's lying.

Face it, he managed to perjure himself with something that didn't really matter.

For example claiming in court that he didn't have anything to do with the "OfWudan" Twitter account, when he knew that he was on video saying that he controlled it

 

[theprestige]

A real man would embrace this setback as an opportunity to develop his inner monk, and elevate his game to the next level through applied asceticism and deepening practice of the stoic virtues.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

When Is a False Statement Perjury?

www.mololamken.com

here’s an explanation on perjury, and it applies to more than just testimony and can include written statements as well.

SOME written statements are considered to be under oath lately, such as police reports. Since they effectively count as testimony. Lawyers, not so much.

From your own link: "An individual can be prosecuted for perjury under §1621 no matter where he made the statements, so long as he has been placed under oath by an individual authorized to administer the oath under federal law, or makes the statements subject to the penalty of perjury." It applies to police reports to the court, at least in some states, because they have to tick a box that says they swear an oath that this is true. Lawyers don't do that.

The same applies (albeit more narrowly) to §163: "An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations." Keywords: under oath. Also keyword: defendant. The phrasing in your link is more vague, but this comes straight from the text of the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1623

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Like I said before he needs to get onto his lawyer to get the extradition to the UK speeded up so he can be housed in better conditions.

I'm not familiar with the UK prison system, other than the protection offered to the ones in VP (Vulnerable Protection), which unlike the US includes sex offenders. But they currently seem to be in a sort of VP anyway, since they're not convicted.

That said, I dunno how much better the housing and all is. With all the stuff they got off commissary, it sure sound better than I had it in the army way back when. Admittedly, I got more time outside, albeit most of it not that leisurely

And I got to sleep in a room with more than one other guy

 

[dirtywick]

SOME written statements are considered to be under oath lately, such as police reports. Since they effectively count as testimony. Lawyers, not so much.

it applies to any statement made under oath or written statement made under penalty of perjury regardless of the occupation of the individual

lawyers are held to an even higher standard and can't be making false statements or filings any more than anyone else. they also can't suborn perjury or file false affidavits anymore than commit it themselves, or file false evidence, and if they do can face additional penalties like disbarment

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

it applies to any statement made under oath or written statement made under penalty of perjury regardless of the occupation of the individual

Again, as per the text of the law only if they've been placed under oath. That checkbox for the police is basically saying it's under oath, and even then it's not about profession per se, but about ticking that checkbox when submitting the final report to the court. But there is no such requirement for lawyers.

lawyers are held to an even higher standard and can't be making false statements or filings any more than anyone else. they also can't suborn perjury or file false affidavits anymore than commit it themselves, or file false evidence, and if they do can face additional penalties like disbarment

The only higher standard is that they can be sanctioned or disbarred even if it's not perjury. But if they don't do it under oath, it's not perjury. And again, McBride CAN'T give any admissible testimony under oath even if he wanted to, because he can offer neither direct nor expert testimony about their prison conditions.

Plus, it's almost universally forbidden for someone to be both advocate and witness in the same trial, except for some very few and narrow situations. Cf bar rule 3.7: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...le_3_7_lawyer_as_witness/comment_on_rule_3_7/

Those exceptions being:
1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (i.e., the opposing attorney didn't object, or the judge overruled it.)
2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.
Cf: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...fessional_conduct/rule_3_7_lawyer_as_witness/

I've never even heard of a.3 being ever applied, but then I'm no lawyer.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see him spanked by a judge or the ethics committee for his antics, but it isn't perjury.

 

[dirtywick]

i don't think that's correct. subornation of perjury, false affidavits, and false affirmations are things that would be considered perjury

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

i don't think that's correct. subornation of perjury, false affidavits, and false affirmations are things that would be considered perjury

As per the text of the law, which I've linked to, when it's under oath. Otherwise you can just get sanctioned by the judge and possibly disbarred.

Mind you, I'd love to see McBride disbarred, don't get me wrong.

 

[dirtywick]

affidavits and affirmations are considered under threat of perjury

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

affidavits and affirmations are considered under threat of perjury

If under oath. Which an affidavit is per definition. And legally an affirmation is the same, just you take a secular formal declaration instead of swearing a religious oath. It's just the modern alternative to taking an oath, if you're not religious, but carries the same meaning. Both mean you proclaimed you'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in front of someone allowed to put you under oath. Like, flippin' google them.

I mean, I linked the actual law. What more do you expect?

 

[dirtywick]

i don't think you're correct about that, but it's not really important enough for me to spend any more time talking about it

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

i don't think you're correct about that, but it's not really important enough for me to spend any more time talking about it

Right, it's not important for you to google what those terms mean legally, after it being important to you to talk out of your rear end about it. Got it

Here, I'll even make it easy. 'Cause I'm a nice and helpful bastard. Google "legal affirmation meaning" and "affidavit meaning."