ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and TH-cam personality, legal researcher and host of the UnTrue Crime podcast Diana Davison, sit down and discuss the aftermath of their trials and the emerging and alarming changes to our legal system. A behind the scenes inside look into real courtroom drama.
Website: www.NotOnRecord...
Sign up to our email list - eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links
Twitter: / notonrecord
Instagram: / notonrecordpodcast
TikTok: / notonrecordpodcast
Facebook: / notonrecord
Telegram: t.me/NotOnRecord
Minds: www.minds.com/n...
Audio Platforms Spotify: open.spotify.c... Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
SoundCloud: / notonrecord
Rumble: rumble.com/c/c...
For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP www.nrlawyers.com.
Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com
#Podcast #law #MeToo
I'm from a eastern european country and ever since i was a teenager i remember that you wouldn't want to date the pretiest girls. Or the crazy ones. It was more of a myth, if you will, among my group of friends, that you could get reported if she feels like it. Once i got slightly older, and i learned how the justice system works, i became more idealistic (aka naive) and i believed that burden of proof rests whith the accuser. Then i got even older, i met more people, and i saw that reality doesn't care about what the law says. Fortunately i didn't get into trouble but i've met a few guys who had problems with women. And the courts will 99% of the time side with the woman. What's worse is that even if you are obviously innocent and get aquitted, the investigation practically ruins your life: the police come and interogate the people you know. Even worse is the corruption; it's been reduced in recent years, but it still lingers in the courts and the police and city halls.
Great coverage, Joseph, Diana! One point tho troubles me. This acceptance that the complainant merely needs to appear credible for their evidence to be accepted as fact. While no-one wants to see a woman crying & distraught, and if she is genuinely in distress, one hopes The Law will do what can be done to look after her. That said, I remember a vid that Colonel Kurtz (aka Kristen Lacefield) did. One moment she was describing how easy it was for some women to will themselves into an emotionally fraught state, then, she dropped her head, and, when she raised it again, her brow was deeply creased, bottom lip was all aquiver, & she was stammering something which clearly came across as heart-felt anguish, while seemingly fighting back tears. 10 seconds of that, during which time she probably had most of her audience nearly bawling in genuine empathy, KL shook her head, gave a dismissive laugh, and recommenced talking conversationally about how easy it could be for a woman to bung on a convincing performance specifically intended to deceive. Now Kristen, I think we can agree, is a particularly decent & honorable woman. That description, we'd like to think, fits most women. But.., how does a Magistrate or a Jury know if that's the case with any given complainant? Tears & a plausible story should never, surely be sufficient to convict on their own. That absolutely undermines the Presumption of Innocence to which every accused is supposed to be entitled.
Thats not what the advocates at the womens shelter said.
True
After writing that long comment below, I read it to ensure it made sense and have concluded that I agree with me 😊
... Can you please make a playlist of your analysis/ explations of law.... Eg hearsay /evidence/myths following episodes are good examples 110/111/56 (too many episodes have been deleted from podcasts and am unable to listen back to those)
This is why we need statutes of limitations. This was not fair to the accused. Even in 2003 the alleged barriers to reporting had been demolished and most cities had SA squads that operate out of what is more like a 5 star luxury hotel and spa then a police station to make 'victims' feel comfortable. So if she didn't report for 20 years, then it just is not worth it to society to take on the cost of going forward with that. The scales of obtaining justice vs the risk of unreasonable prosecutions simply don't balance in virtually all historic SA cases. So there should be a reasonable limit on how long you have to come forward with an allegation.
I suspect many who follow you have a particular question in mind (which I'm asking carefully to avoid unpopular implications):
Roughly what proportion of your SA cases result in a positive outcome for your accused clients?
And do you think that proportion is significantly affected by your diligence in accepting cases?
We've won every case Joseph and I have worked on together. One with a plea to a lesser charge but, no sexual assault convictions.
19 YEARS???
For 19 years she's been reading the TorStar and told that she is a victim of the patriarchy and men must pay one way or another.
That's Canada. No statutes of limitations. In this Country, women arguably have to worry about each man they meet until they determine if he's a threat or not. Men, have to worry about every woman they have ever met because some day she might have a bad day and decide she was victimized by you.
what I cant figure out, is how can the Crown not see the absurdity of a case? (client claims she was kidnapped at a birthday party, with people present, no one complains) These are folks with University educations, making 100k a year on tax payer money.
It is not that they don't see how ridiculous it is. They simply give zero f's. Their job is to obtain convictions, so if there is a chance to get a conviction, they move forward. They all want to be judges, or politicians later on so they care about their own futures, not the futures of the people they are trying to imprison.
Compelling does not equal credible.
Indeed! And credible does not necessarily equal true.
Good job guys!
One questions is - why? Are you allowed to ask why, after 19 yrs she suddenly feels compelled to come forward?
Once again, the woman walks away scott free. Not only did she devestate this guys life, and his wife and kids by extension, but now the mountain of legal fees he owes, that may well affect the rest of his life, including his position to retire - or not. When are we going to start pursuing charges against women for false allegations?
In his book Sex & Cultire, JD Unwin studied 86 societies going back 5,000 yrs, and every time women achieve equality, the society ends - no exceptions. (this dovetails with the Tytler Cycle btw). It's happening right in front of us as we speak. It's all over YT. Men are leaving (passport bros), they won't marry, it's a bad deal that's not worth it, particularly in light of how infantalized women have become, and easily bored, and the chance of divorce and losing everything is like a forgone conclusion. No marriage, no babies. Birthrate is continuing to plummet, as one could easily anticipate. The way to save society is to de-infantalize women. You do that by simply upholding the law, and everyone's right to equal benefit and protection. Charges for false allegations, and no more automatic sole custody - it's illegal. You can't treat ppl differently based on marital status, and unless judges are going to start bargjng into the homes of whole families, and dictating the father go live in the basement (and can only come upstairs Wed's and every 2nd weekend) then you can't do it to split families. The judges' job first and foremost is to ensure everyone's rights are upheld and when you do that, everything works out for the better. Women can only wreck society with the assistance of our courts. In short, I place the blame not on women, but on judges who were given jobs-for-life for the express purpose of ignoring societies latest "trends" without fear of losing their jobs, not as a shield to write activist decisions and get away with it. Any judge that persists in the latest trend i'd recommend fashion or home decor. It has no place in the courtroom.
A good defence lawyer would ask that on cross examination. It's a valid question and lawyers are bound by their code of ethics to advance their clients case fearlessly and to ask any relevant questions no matter how distasteful.
You have talked about historical cases before and this case is 19-20 years old, how does ex post facto work in Canada? There is a SCOTUS case called Calder vs. Bull that points out the four areas that ex post facto applies and one of those is you cannot reduce the amount of evidence required to get a conviction retroactively and that is what the feminist law dogs are doing, everything they can to do to make the least evidence enough for a conviction. You have complained over and over about all the new impediments placed into your way by pro feminist judges and politicians that do exactly that, reduce the amount of evidence to get a conviction. They have passed laws specifically to make convictions easier. How does ex post facto apply to these "historical" cases?
Diana enjoys the drinking aspect of this weekly meeting a bit TOO much. I'm not sure she could consent to anything in this state...
Quickly get tired of the two interrupting each other, especially the woman. A logical discussion would have been nice.
I'd call that "interjecting", rather than interrupting. And overall imho Diana's interjections are on-point, and serve to clarify Joseph's narrative, rather than detract from it. I get the feeling they both really enjoy what they do.