EP#56 | Exposing a Domestic Violence False Accusation | Part 2: The Evidence

Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and KZbin 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.NotOnRecordpodcast.com
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/notonrecord
Audio Platforms
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
SoundCloud: / notonrecord
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/notonrecord
Google Play: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Video Platforms
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/NoUC...
Rumble: rumble.com/c/c-842207
For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP www.nrlawyers.com.
Produced by Benjamin Dichter & Max Silverberg
#notonrecord #law #lawyer

[@mekbebtamrat817]

This exposes the unfair system really well.

[@tomjackson4374]

The purpose of a trial is a search for the truth. Any law or legal precedent that makes that search more difficult or even impossible reduces a trial to a show trial. From what you have said, since I am not a Canadian, Trudeau is determined to make trials for sexual assault an extension of a radical feminist anti-male agenda. The basic principles of third wave feminism seem to be all men are potential rapists, believe all women, so few rape accusations are untrue so that a trial is revictimizing the victim, and the accusation should be sufficient for the conviction. The women who espouse these tenants I consider to be fanatics whose hatred for men has made them unbalanced. How can anybody base a trial on these principles and call it anything but a show trial? But Trudeau is a politician and I think he is overusing his authority in some dictatorial way to strip away rights in many areas, such as what he did to the truckers and the banning of even hunting guns and pistols, but Judges are, or should be, honor bound to seek the truth and guarantee a fair trial and that justice is done. If judges decide that convictions are more important than rights then any facade of freedom disappears.

[@superionmaximus9900]

You mentioned the truckers, and Justin Trudeau. You're lucky you are not Canadian, but you're right, Justin Trudeau does love himself a good show trial. He exploited multiple loopholes in the Emergencies Act, but perhaps the biggest flaw in the legislation was that it allow HIM to appoint the person to head up the commission investigating the use of the Emergencies Act. Needless to say, the highly transparent Mr Trudeau appointed a judge with deep ties going back decades to the Liberal Party of Canada (Justin Trudeau's party). So we got our show trial last November, and just last week we got the Commissions findings, completely in favor of everything the government did to the truckers and supporters of the protests. Canada is very close to no longer being a free country.

[@josephneuberger6851]

Well said. This has harmed the truth seeking process.

[@jamesboswell9324]

Talisker. Good choice. Bit off topic but I actually visited the distillery in Skye many years ago. A beautiful place.

[@josephneuberger6851]

That must have been fun James. Thanks for watching.

[@plmor1487]

Best episode yet!!

[@josephneuberger6851]

Very kind. Thank you for viewing.

[@royhandy8365]

Bye, Canada. It was nice to know you.

[@devenwithtwoes5856]

False Allagations have destroyed my life, the local court staff don't allow me to file responses, and the judge doesn't care that I don't know the opposing attorneys service address. I am a civil punching bag and I haven't seen my kids in two years

[@superionmaximus9900]

With all these new rules in place when it comes to SA allegations, and as you outlined, the slippery slope towards accused men potentially not even retaining the right to a trial at all, let alone a fair trial, are you not worried that there will be a rise in false SA allegations? I mean even if the accuser doesn't initially claim SA, she has the cops, the Crown Attorney, her own lawyer, victims services advocates, etc. All it takes is one of them along the way to put the idea in her head that there was one time she felt a a bit of regret for a sexual act that took place, and bang, SA gets added to the list of charges so that all these insane rules suddenly apply and the odds of conviction increase. The rights of the accused exist not to protect the guilty, they exist to try and balance the power and protect the innocent. No one person can match the power of the State, and the State isn't seeking truth, they are seeking convictions. The whole reason you don't talk to the cops is by the time they want to talk to you, they've already made up their mind that you're guilty. The Crown takes the case because they believe there is a reasonable chance of conviction. That's why the presumption of innocence, and the right to a trial by judge and/or Jury, to face your accuser, etc. exist. Because if they didn't, it would be tyrannical, dystopian, hell world. But given that an entire industry has been built up over the last 30 or so years around Victims Services (how long now have they had that surcharge on tickets for now?), and with all these insane new rules with SA allegations, it would seem to me that there is a system in place that is primed for abuse. How many people's livelihoods are dependent on each allegation of SA? Each accuser gets a small army of people to assist her from specialized cops, to multiple attorneys, to social workers, mental health professionals, and on it goes, all suckling at the government tit of tax dollars. Can't keep a system like that going without a little fear mongering and a few false allegations here and there if you ask me.

[@EmbraceTerror]

I am fascinated (probably more worried) about legal and legislative systems that have a hard time keeping truth from winning. Systems are only as good as each individual member who is part of the voting majority passing legislation promoting truth, and is not diverted by truth squashers. (Truth squashers prefer laws that squash truth, even while they say they're passing laws for our own good -- regardless of political party affiliation.)

[@EmbraceTerror]

Final comment, and thank you for bringing up this topic. Are there laws against lies, smear campaigns, false allegations? In the US (as seen in the Heard/Depp case), it seems that lies (defamation) are 'acceptable' unless someone was provably damaged financially by the defamation (which can be difficult to prove). Depp's team did a horrible job of proving damage, not because the team generated poor evidence, but because it's hard to prove something that didn't happen (movie contracts did not materialize in Depp's case, a pregnant woman didn't get a job because she's pregnant despite laws enacted to prevent that type of discrimination).

[@almightyhydra]

My view - which I admit may be somewhat controversial: embarrassment and the like are just an unfortunate byproduct of the trial process, and should have no relevance in being able to determine which evidence can or cannot be used (provided said evidence is relevant to the case at hand, of course, and actually pertinent to fact-finding rather than just an attack on character or deliberate attempt to intimidate or the like). Criminal trials are _very_ serious business; you're talking about something that has life-changing consequences for both parties involved, with one of them being at risk of losing their freedom. It's crucial that the correct outcome of the trial is reached and that means bringing all relevant evidence so that the picture becomes as clear as possible. If it means having to relive an unfortunate or painful moment, that's regrettable, but entirely necessary. In any event, it's not like these kinds of things become broadcast for the world to see anyway, or that after the trial any judge or jury member is going to be bullying or mocking the complainant or defendant.

[@neetscholar4149]

As far as i am concerned, no need to cut back on the swearing. You don't even need to worry about the beeping. But i guess i'm not the main type of demographic you wish to cater to.

[@josephneuberger6851]

I 👍

[@EmbraceTerror]

Stereotypes are diversionary lies. All people with a similar feature do not all do a particular thing -- SA in this case. Liars come in all different or similar features as liars and truth tellers.

[@EmbraceTerror]

You say narrative. I say lies.

[@EmbraceTerror]

So complainant's "interpretation" negates what she actually said??? Even accounting for misspeaking, what you wrote / said is what you wrote /said. Correcting a misspeaking is one thing. The "interpretation" is just another diversionary tactic (lie) to silence the truth -- evidence that you're trying to present that your client is the one telling the truth. Fawning is a legitimate survival mechanism ('I was saying "I love you' as a way to keep him from being abusive,,' or whatever she said). However, lying to someone by saying you love them is a tactic to lure them back so they don't leave (as they have been, at least emotionally) you and your lies.

[@EmbraceTerror]

To be clear, the last part should have said: However, a liar who tells their partner that they love the non-liar is using a manipulation tactic to lure the non-liar back into the relationship so the non-liar doesn't leave (as they have been, at least emotionally leaving the liar and their lies).

[@EmbraceTerror]

AHAHAHA!! Credibility is NOT an issue in a truth seeking/ presenting process? Where do they come up with this stuff??? Too funny!!!

[@samchandler2527]

Believe women...

[@devenwithtwoes5856]

False Allagations create a lower credibility of all women. Your cohesive attempt to control the way I think is ABUSE. now I'm a survivor too....