• 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

dirtywick said:
you have to remember how bad of a guy people like tate are when you see them in women's blouses and capris getting handcuffed and think they're just pathetic dorks. no, these guys were running every scam they could think of, raping and abusing women and paying off corrupt governments, and spreading all kinds of disgusting ideas to impressionable teenagers for money and clout all at the same time. there's nothing they wouldn't do for a buck
Click to expand...
I have a horrible suspicion that they are going to turn out as depraved as Jimmy Savile.

And possibly that's what McBride was trying to preempt with his comments about goats. And possibly forcing others into that. It happens in war crimes.
 
Well, is is an interesting twist...

Summary of the interesting part, for those who can't watch a YT short: even if they were to somehow win the extradition case, nothing stops the UK from filing another extradition request. (Presumably after adding new charges, but I'm no lawyer.)

So I guess they better move quickly to a country without an extradition treaty, or the UK can put them right back in federal jail.

But generally it's a YT short and a good concise explanation of the process and what they can and can't do in the extradition trial.
 
Last edited:
Now he's tweeting that he's being kept in jail because the powerful elites fear his becoming president.

Huh? Last time it was PM of the UK.
 
Andrew and Tristan Tate have lost their bid to be released from a Florida jail as they fight potential extradition to the UK to face charges of rape and trafficking.

A federal judge in Miami denied them bail, saying the dual US-UK citizens' wealth and frequent international travel "constitute quintessential flight risks"...

Wednesday's decision means the brothers will remain jailed during what could be a lengthy extradition process.

US Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis ruled that, while the Tates "may not in fact possess what extravagant holdings they portray themselves as possessing online, the record reflects that they possess an exceptional capacity to flee the jurisdiction".

The judge said that their lack of ties to the US and their strong foreign connections "demonstrate a risk of flight that has not been overcome"...

www.bbc.co.uk

Tate brothers to remain in US custody as they fight extradition to UK

A federal judge denied them bail, saying the dual US-UK citizens' wealth and frequent international travel "constitute quintessential flight risks".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
It's even worse

The judge used their own lies (many under oath) against them, to show they're not trustworthy. And stated that under the 11th circuit rules, the lack of credibility in such a case can be used to infer the polar opposite of anything they say.

And it's a sizable list. They testified that they're denied commissary, they're not. Also, yes, now Andrew testified that he does now have the radio he requested from commissary. They testified that they lost weight in jail because of being starved. The government weighed them and showed that they actually gained a little weight. (Must be all those Twix and Snicker packs:P) They testified that they're only getting sunlight for 4h a week in a room with a glass roof. The government produced a document that they're allowed more time in the courtyard than convicted prisoners. They testified that they have nothing to do except stare at a wall. It turned out that Tristan wanted to work as an orderly, and was allowed to. Tristan testified that the Vladimir Scorpius passport from Mexico was a cardboard prop. THEN he testified that some minion of his made it for him as a joke. But the CURP number showed that yes, it's a valid Mexican ID issued with his face on it. Etc.

So, yeah, as I was predicting, lying to a judge's face is a very bad idea.

I guess they can be thankful they're strictly judged for extradition. In a normal criminal case they could face additional perjury and possibly contempt charges. But in an extradition case, the judge is supposed to only judge the extradition, not the case, not any other cases or charges.
 
Last edited:
The UK has formally submitted its extradition requests for Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate to the US.

The formal UK charges are:

Andrew Tate: 42 charges

• 10 counts of rape
• 7 counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• 2 counts of arranging or facilitating travel with a view to exploitation
• 3 counts of arranging or facilitating travel with a view to sexual exploitation
• 1 count of controlling prostitution for gain
• 7 counts of distributing an indecent photograph of a child
• 8 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child
• 4 counts of possessing extreme pornography

Tristan Tate: 17 charges by

• 5 counts of rape
• 6 counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• 2 counts of arranging or facilitating travel with a view to exploitation
• 3 counts of arranging or facilitating travel with a view to sexual exploitation
• 1 count of penetrative sexual assault

Total: 59 charges.

The requests were submitted ahead of next week’s deadline.

The US State Department is now reviewing the files before forwarding them to the DOJ.
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
It's even worse

The judge used their own lies (many under oath) against them, to show they're not trustworthy. And stated that under the 11th circuit rules, the lack of credibility in such a case can be used to infer the polar opposite of anything they say.

And it's a sizable list. They testified that they're denied commissary, they're not. Also, yes, now Andrew testified that he does now have the radio he requested from commissary. They testified that they lost weight in jail because of being starved. The government weighed them and showed that they actually gained a little weight. (Must be all those Twix and Snicker packs:P) They testified that they're only getting sunlight for 4h a week in a room with a glass roof. The government produced a document that they're allowed more time in the courtyard than convicted prisoners. They testified that they have nothing to do except stare at a wall. It turned out that Tristan wanted to work as an orderly, and was allowed to. Tristan testified that the Vladimir Scorpius passport from Mexico was a cardboard prop. THEN he testified that some minion of his made it for him as a joke. But the CURP number showed that yes, it's a valid Mexican ID issued with his face on it. Etc.

So, yeah, as I was predicting, lying to a judge's face is a very bad idea.

I guess they can be thankful they're strictly judged for extradition. In a normal criminal case they could face additional perjury and possibly contempt charges. But in an extradition case, the judge is supposed to only judge the extradition, not the case, not any other cases or charges.
Click to expand...
It was 30 pages of absolutely damning assessment of their case.

Meanwhile for light relief, here's a reaction video to video by their lawyer, McBride who manages to be massively performatively incompetent to push his agenda, and even more so unconsciously incompetent and stupid


The guy reacting, "gadget" has managed to be sufficiently annoying to the Tates that they are suing him for defamation (which is laughable).
 
jimbob said:
It was 30 pages of absolutely damning assessment of their case.

Meanwhile for light relief, here's a reaction video to video by their lawyer, McBride who manages to be massively performatively incompetent to push his agenda, and even more so unconsciously incompetent and stupid


The guy reacting, "gadget" has managed to be sufficiently annoying to the Tates that they are suing him for defamation (which is laughable).
Click to expand...
McBride mentions that the prosecutors have brought an ethics complaint against him, which he naturally claims he's going to beat. He also naturally claims that it's part of the supposed campaign to harass him and his clients. :rolleyes: As we've discussed, he is clearly guilty of unethical conduct; I think what happens to him depends on how seriously the disciplinary committee (and, if it gets that far, the court) decides to treat his threatening of Rubio's son. Personally, I would hope he could be disbarred for that, or at minimum face a lengthy suspension. It's one thing to tell Rubio that your clients' fans won't vote for him if he doesn't spike the UK's extradition request. It's quite another thing to insinuate that false allegations against his son could be forthcoming if he doesn't do so.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
McBride mentions that the prosecutors have brought an ethics complaint against him, which he naturally claims he's going to beat. He also naturally claims that it's part of the supposed campaign to harass him and his clients. :rolleyes: As we've discussed, he is clearly guilty of unethical conduct; I think what happens to him depends on how seriously the disciplinary committee (and, if it gets that far, the court) decides to treat his threatening of Rubio's son. Personally, I would hope he could be disbarred for that, or at minimum face a lengthy suspension. It's one thing to tell Rubio that your clients' fans won't vote for him if he doesn't spike the UK's extradition request. It's quite another thing to insinuate that false allegations against his son could be forthcoming if he doesn't do so.
Click to expand...
I think it's beyond disbarring and into obstructing justice.

From what I understand, he has threatened to release details of people suing the Tates. And then on two separate occasions he failed to redact the details of girls who were suing the Tates. Both occasions he apologised for the "oversight" but to me that's not very credible.

Some of the arguments he's presented to the courts seem to me to stray from interpretation to straight out lying, so I also wonder if he has committed proveable perjury.

He has certainly lied outside court, possibly in a defamatory manner.
 
Last edited:
TBF, I don't think he ever had to take the stand and say that under oath, so I don't think it qualifies as perjury.

Of course he doesn't get that technicality for the rest of his behaviour.
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
Now that I think about it: in exchange for what? In a normal criminal case you might get a sentence reduction for it. But in an extradition case it's binary: either he gets sent to the UK or he isn't. They can't reduce it to dropping him off half-way to Britain. (Hilarious as that might be.)
Click to expand...
Well, it needn't necessarily be here in the US.
 
Susheel said:
Well, it needn't necessarily be here in the US.
Click to expand...
Well, I still vote they get half of the sentence off. As in, get dropped half-way between Miami and London ;)

Or give them a webcam and a 14" dildo, will ya? I'm sure they can continue their OF empire, just not by exploiting minor girls, and SOMEONE out there would pay to tell them where to stick it an how deep :P
 
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