• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Tate Brothers Charged with Rape in the UK

theprestige said:
The judge can't go out and look for transgressions. They have to be brought to the court by someone with standing.
Click to expand...
For contempt of court? Not always. In fact, practically never. The judge can and usually does initiate it autonomously, if someone pissed off the judge. The judge IS the one with standing there. You can be found in contempt and sent to chill out in county jail in 5 seconds, without anyone else reporting it. When it comes to contempt of court, the judge is injured party, witness, judge and jury rolled into one, kinda like Judge Dredd. Ditto for being called in for a sanction hearing if a lawyer pissed off the judge in court.

I've even seen a case where a judge dragged someone to court for a contempt hearing, and sent him to jail, just because he stank of marijuana while being in the elevator with the judge, while being on his way to another courthouse room with another judge.

And they can stack it sky high. Those contempt sentences are automatically consecutive. I've seen a video of someone racking up over a year and a half of jail time for contempt for keeping cussing judge Simpson.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Tate
@Cobratate
An apartment I was sharing in 2014 with 5 other fighters was raided and I was arrested.

All of the devices were taken from the apartment and nothing happened. Nothing was found on them. All charges against me were officially dropped in 2019 regarding this raid.

The devices were then destroyed by the police because they refused to return them.

Now randomly in 2026 they say they have a download of the device (the device is confirmed destroyed) and found a group chat on it with 50 fighters in it sending around gore videos.

A man stepping on a landmine
Cartel cutting some guy's head off
Isis setting people on fire
Some guy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ an eel

Bla bla. And are CHARGING me with this for indecent porn in a group chat?

Um… excuse me. I thought I was a human trafficker? I thought I had girls tied up in basements? From world's biggest human trafficker to an old group chat when I was 24?

Do you have any idea how pathetic and desperate this looks? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. This is what 6 years of investigations have gotten you?

Is this why I’m in federal prison 15 years later? An old group chat?

IT WASN'T EVEN MY PHONE.

Clown world.

Link
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
For contempt of court? Not always. In fact, practically never. The judge can and usually does initiate it autonomously, if someone pissed off the judge. The judge IS the one with standing there. You can be found in contempt and sent to chill out in county jail in 5 seconds, without anyone else reporting it. When it comes to contempt of court, the judge is injured party, witness, judge and jury rolled into one, kinda like Judge Dredd. Ditto for being called in for a sanction hearing if a lawyer pissed off the judge in court.

I've even seen a case where a judge dragged someone to court for a contempt hearing, and sent him to jail, just because he stank of marijuana while being in the elevator with the judge, while being on his way to another courthouse room with another judge.

And they can stack it sky high. Those contempt sentences are automatically consecutive. I've seen a video of someone racking up over a year and a half of jail time for contempt for keeping cussing judge Simpson.
Click to expand...
Sure, when the contempt happens in the courtroom, directly to the judge's face, it's easy enough for the court to take judicial notice and issue a contempt ruling.

But jimbob is talking about a finding of contempt for things the lawyer has done outside the courtroom. For that, someone needs to introduce it to the court as evidence. This is not something the judge can do.
 
As Jay correctly said, attorney misconduct is NOT the same as contempt of court. It's a matter for the bar disciplinary committee. A court CAN sanction him, but that's about all they can do as a judge. A judge CAN submit a complaint about an attorney to the bar, and it probably would get some priority through the screening process. But, as I was saying, anyone else can also submit a complaint. YOU could. I seem to remember you were in the USA. So go ahead and submit a bar complaint about that claim, if you want to. There is really no barrier to entry.
 
Attorney misconduct may have consequences in the court, at the state bar association, or both. A few federal magistrate judges in my district are notorious for threatening and imposing sanctions for even slight procedural violations. For most infractions the penalty is minor such as the awarding of attorney costs. Serious infractions may be reported to the bar, but this doesn't happen for minor violations such as, say, missing discovery deadlines.

My spouse was in a case before a federal magistrate judge who threatened both attorneys sua sponte with sanctions for allegedly failing to follow conference procedures. It was a very tense two weeks for our family. (Only the other attorney was sanctioned.) This was not in response to any motion by any party in the case, nor did it happen "directly to the judge's face." The actions in question (or rather, the inaction) took place entirely outside of court.

Judge Shelby in my (federal) district is notoriously tough. He famously sanctioned attorneys for the SEC under Rule 11 for filing a false and misleading brief in support of a TRO an important case. The facts of the matter came to light in a hearing in which both parties were present. However, Judge Shelby's decision to sanction the SEC over it was made without any motion from defendants, and following an ex parte hearing that defendants did not attend. The defendants had merely contested the TRO. It was Judge Shelby's decision alone that counsel for the plaintiff had violated Rule 11(b) and should be sanctioned.

(We have a drink at the other bar called "Rule 11(c)." It has a couple of drops of the Da Bomb hot sauce in it.)

In the SEC case, the misconduct occurred solely in a filing to the court, not during any proceeding before the judge. In my spouse's case, the sanctionable inaction happened outside the court in the normal course of business and was brought to light by the magistrate judge reviewing the case docket. Judges absolutely have the right to drag attorneys before them for alleged misconduct that occurred in or out of the courtroom. No motion from a party with standing is required. The court has inherent authority to enforce the rules for its officers.

For matters not directly connected with a case or with the procedural rules of the court, my state has a separate agency of the judiciary (OPC) that can investigate complaints issue reprimands, suspensions, or other adverse actions against an attorney for violations of ethics or conduct rules. These decisions are then reported to the Utah State Bar which takes appropriate actions against the attorney's license and then publishes a summary of the action in the Utah Bar Journal. The Utah State Bar is the official registrar of attorney standing, but does not generally act itself in a disciplinary role. Complaints against individual attorneys made to the bar are usually referred to the OPC.

Being bad at the job or engaging in antics or theatrics is rarely behavior that a court or a bar association can sanction until it becomes inexcusably egregious. Even filing a Hail Mary habeas petition would not be sanctionable so long as there's a scintilla of legal posture for it and at least a colorable factual basis.
 
Joe McBride
@McBrideLawNYC

UPDATE:

The final extradition hearings for Andrew and Tristan Tate are proposed for November 19 and 20.

The government wants two separate hearings on two separate days. We want one hearing for both brothers.

The government opposes consolidation, a joint hearing, and even letting Andrew attend Tristan’s hearing, or Tristan attend Andrew’s.

Divide and conquer.

The government also says we declined its protective order. CORRECT.

We still don’t have the name of any accuser.

The UK redacted and hid the accusers’ names in its extradition requests before sending them to the United States.

And the government admits it does not have the names.

Did our government even ask for them??

WE DEMAND THEM.

Instead, our government redacted additional information and told us we could peek only if we signed its strangulation order.

HARD PASS.

No names. No extradition.

FREE ANDREW AND TRISTAN TATE

Link
 
I'm curious as to exactly whom this BS is aimed at. The judge obviously won't buy it, and the State Department knows better. Considering the Tates' track record of doxing and witness tampering, I would hope that the overwhelming majority of the public understands why the UK government is keeping the accusers anonymous for the time being.
 
The standard of proof for extradition is probable cause, the same standard as for a grand jury in a criminal matter. The country seeking extradition need only allege facts sufficient to lay charges. The defense has no right or opportunity at this stage to contest the evidence except to argue it does not allege facts sufficient to lay a charge, or that the charge itself is not extraditable. It is purely a legal determination, not a finding of fact.

Disclosing evidence to the opposing party only under a protective order is standard procedure in every court case.

SpitfireIX said:
I'm curious as to exactly whom this BS is aimed at.
Click to expand...
The public, obviously. Mr. McBride is trying to stir up indignation on pseudo-legal grounds so that people will put pressure on Sec. Rubio to deny the extradition.

SpitfireIX said:
The judge obviously won't buy it, and the State Department knows better.
Click to expand...
The argument isn't being made before the judge, so the judge doesn't have to buy it. What your attorney says in court versus what is said in the media don't have to be the same thing. The First Amendment solidly protects a defendant's ability to protest his innocence to the press regardless of the facts and law. Hopefully I'll have time to read the habeas petition itself. I'm sure it will be entertaining. But that's where the legally cognizable argument would be made.

While the State Department knows better, I'm not so certain it will act accordingly. I don't know how Pres. Trump figures into this, but if there is enough public pressure then Sec. Rubio may consider denying extradition. It's not as if international relations are especially sacred to the Trump regime right now.

SpitfireIX said:
Considering the Tates' track record of doxing and witness tampering, I would hope that the overwhelming majority of the public understands why the UK government is keeping the accusers anonymous for the time being.
Click to expand...
I have never been involved in a court case in which protective orders did not apply to non-public evidence. Requiring the defense to submit to such an order as a qualification to obtain evidence is standard. At this stage of proceedings, anonymous testimony is permissible as long as it is sworn. If extradited, the defendants would have the right to cross-examine the witnesses at trial. Demurring to the order appears to be a legal strategy that allows the defense to wrongly claim in public that evidence is being improperly withheld.

Sadly I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the public does not understand legal process and might be led to believe that a gross miscarriage of justice is about to occur.

And no, Mr. McBride is not in danger of sanctions for these public statements even if they do misrepresent the legal standard and factual record. It's only sanctionable when such representations are made to the court.
 
Last edited:
I've read the habeas petition, which is too large to attach here. As expected it doesn't say anything about anonymous witnesses or consolidated hearings or any of the nonsense Mr McBride has been tweeting about.

It argues that the Supreme Court's controlling precedent on how bail is assessed for extradition cases has been wrongly interpreted for 123 years (in other words, a Hail Mary), that there should be a presumption of bail, and that the government has not met its burden of proof under McBride's new interpretation of precedent to deny the Tates bail. It rather naively argues that surely the all-powerful United States government has the power to keep adequate tabs on the Tates while they await their extradition hearings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom