Відео

Thank you Did you ever have a video on dealing with the Crown offering to drop 7 of the 8 charges and writing a confession on one of the charges for signature. They are calling this “resolution” sound like a new version of “organised crime” and hiding the laziness of police who charged before investigating then filled the gaps with made up stuff of their own

This is a sincere question that I can't recall hearing an answer to: If two people have sex while too intoxicated to consent, could they both be convicted?

I don't understand how the crown and someone bring a false charge can collude to destroy an innocent persons life and then walk away leaving the person like a fish out of water and nothing happens to them. Thats disturbing.

Disclosure. I had to go to court over 30 times to get my full disclosure. I had to go to College Park almost every week before my trial. The 30 different copies of my disclosure might have a paragraph added, or removed. The crown knew I was representing myself, so I would have to take a day off work (for 11 months), to get the weekly disclosure, this of course affected my employment. So the crown was intentionally playing games with me, to get me fired from my job.

The biggest concern is that, regardless of whether I’m found Innocent or Guilty, I will be paupered by the mere defence of such a charge.

We need to bring back sec 181, the law against Speeading False News. Striking it down was not a win for free speech / democracy b/c democeacy - like rule of law - is truth-dependent (communism is lie dependent). Hun? What lies?!?!? Ohhh, global warming, Rez schools, tyranny / Nazi's / fascism are on the right, having an education means you're smart - to name a few. If you write policies and legislation based on lies you'll demolish society as is happening, as is intended by the fascistic left.

Best Criminal Defence firm in Canada.

All these videos point to the fact that women mostly lie when it comes to S.A allegations. False S.A allegations are as old as the Bible

This video is short but I wonder if she was leading towards going over the topic of ‘Trauma’ next. Not to mention…. I wonder if she ever covers ‘Memory’ in regards to someone that for example had damage to their olfactory nerve in the temporal lobe of their Brain. because u resad that when cant smell (nor taste) that it actuallu affect empathy & how they store & process memaories.

This is one of the best episodes so far. Why? It highlights 3 critical issues: 1) the value of cross-examination by the defence. 2) but guess what all the sexual assault "reforms" are mostly aimed it? Cross-examination by the defence. 3) how ironic that the reforms (S276, etc) are backfiring on the so-called victims. If confronted with defence evidence, they change (“cater”) their story - then their credibility comes into question. Love it! Diana said the client was "lucky". Excellent point. So without luck he could have been imprisoned and his life ruined. Is this the best the legal system can do? The ice is so thin....

She believes she is a victim and this is example of virtue signaling. Her memories have change to fit the narrative, it is called confabulation. ua-cam.com/video/o5A6xzkIyzc/v-deo.html

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.

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...

... 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)

After writing that long comment above, I read it to ensure it made sense and have concluded that I agree with me 😊

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.

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.

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 Kristen 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.

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?

19 YEARS???

Quickly get tired of the two interrupting each other, especially the woman. A logical discussion would have been nice.

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?

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.

Compelling does not equal credible.

Thats not what the advocates at the womens shelter said.

Why Female Bullying Is So Hard to Recognize /watch?v=DL5qDFDttps

haven’t seen this video but I don’t get why you have made it. I am very angry.

Only unambiguously affirmative consent is valid consent: "Yes, please do have sex with me in such and such way." That doesn't solve every issue, I know; but it properly places the burden on the party who acts in a sexually dominant manner. If there exists ambiguity, then consent does not exist; it's a binary.

hate to say it, but if youre an acting member of a political party, any action or affilliation of yours that can affect the image/values of the party and its eligibility is something the party has a right to address within reasonable discretion. the world isnt a court room and shouldnt be navigated like one! why be part of an electoral board if your proffession obligates you to nonpolitical duty of representation that explicitly compromises the messaging of the party? its impractical.

The more i hear about what is legal or not, or what the crown states as reason for or against, makes me wonder about other cases that are not to do with SA. In one video i watched recently, it was said that you can not use prior consent as evidence, and that made me wonder how then, prior consent to day rob a place or kill a person is used to help convict someone. Why is someone saying that they will do something classed as evidence to convict a person in one case but not the other? And here, they said that the law states that you can not give prior, even through contract, consent while unconscious. But isnt that what happens in surgeries and the like? Yeah, i can here ppl say “but that doesnt involve SA”, but it does involve consent, and if it is perfectly legal to give consent for someone to do something to you, why is it suddenly illegal? In both cases you are making an informed agreement to specific things being allowed to happen. In fact, you have less rights in surgery since the doctors must make decisions that you may not agree with if given the choice.

Nope

I don't think a majority of Not on Record listeners support what Christopher Hitchens aptly called "human sacrifice"

Like the time Creistine Blasey Ford suddenly remembered being assaulted by a justice nominee. What timing!

Amen !

Is there compensation for a person for the damages done by both the accuser and the Crown to an innocent person? If not, Seems like one type of abuse is O.K. and another is not. "Both are Wrong" I just want to be clear on that.....

8:09 - I can't think of a better argument then that for introducing a Statute of Limitations law for serious offenses in Canada. If assessing credibility of according the court of appeal more of an art then a science, that should TERRIFY any reasonable human being. Would you go to an alchemist or a witch doctor treat your your heart condition or cancer? Probably not right? Well, if some totally out of touch with reality judge's best guess is all that stands between you and conviction based on old memories that can scientifically be proven to be unreliable, would you rather roll the dice and hope for the best outcome? Or would it be more fair to everyone, including the alleged victim to not involve the criminal justice system at all? I mean sure, victims should be treated with understanding and given access to mental health resources to help them, but after years have passed, NO ONE recalls things exactly as they happened. Memories and feelings change. An example of this happened just last night to me. I was at a concert and before the band took the stage they had a DJ playing tracks to entertain the audience. They played a song at one point that gave me a really nostalgic feeling but at the same time I was thinking I remember hating that song when it was new because it was so heavily over played. The song didn't change, but how I feel about it did. If you'd asked me years ago I'd tell you I hated that song. Last night I would have told you that I really enjoyed it. Memories are ALWAYS unreliable over time.

Why on earth would you wait 30 years to make criminal charges against someone.

Another thing: There really needs to be much stronger evidence that so-called "rape myths" are not themselves myths. The whole academic field of "rape myth theory" rests on very shaky foundations, with a severe lack of solid scientific evidence.

This was a great podcast. I'm very happy to see Diana back, and in top form. Just awesome!

In 2019, actress Evan Rachel Wood addressed a Senate Public Safety Committee in CA, calling for Statute of Limitations on DV-related cases to be increased. The committee broadly agreed with ERW's pitch and the S of L was increased. In light of the clear evidence which has since emerged that ERW has been, shall we say, less than truthful in numerous of her public statements, should CA now be reviewing the legislation change ERW's testimony prompted?

Maybe we should start using the term retroactive allegations, rather than "historical" allegations? Or maybe there is another phrase that is better? Maybe use the phrase "retrospective allegations"? Yeah, I think "retrospective allegation" is a good phrase. The phrase "(long) delayed allegations" may also have some uses.

The statute of limitations, criminally, for rape in California is 10 years, generally, and Double Jeopardy is of course the Fifth Amendment. The reasoning should be clear. How do you defend yourself for something years in the past when memories fade and alibi witnesses might be hard to find? Even the carveout in New York was so some lunatic could accuse Trump and it was civil, not criminal. In Canada no statute of limitations and this weird double jeopardy that keeps charges going on forever. How is that fair? And what happens to someone who clearly makes a false accusation? Anything? And people wonder why men are not dating as much. It makes that old saying about prostitutes truer than ever.

Timing is crucial to more than litigation. Which hasn't heard someone beat an joke one to many times , or that guy constantly late for work. Here in Old Dixie , we say she's ripe for the picken.

14:43 Based. 10/10 recommendation. The cherry-picking needs to stop.

Two weeks later, 69 views... Nobody cares what you idiot rape-lovers have to say.

Wow you guys should have your own Broadway Show🎉

There are huge benefits to the ongoing trend of more and better communication occurring in the moment. But using the criminal justice system to drive this trend forward risks having a harsh and disproportionate impact on a relatively small number of unlucky individuals that the criminal justice system makes examples of. And it's also important for the criminal justice system to recognize that real human communication is slow with frequent errors/misunderstandings, and it can also be a bit distracting when concentration on other activities is required. A more or less continuous baseline of some sort of basic communication to make sure everything's going OK as the moment progresses is essential. But real human communication does require some level of assumptions and guesses based on patterns of previous statements and behaviors. If the criminal justice system is to avoid holding people to an impossible ideal of instant perfect effortless communication, then previous statements and patterns of behavior do need to be considered in some form.

I keep everything. 😂

Everything you say also applies to the US, especially Minnesota!

Sherburne County, Minnesota prosecutors office, does this. The family court is corrupt and doesn't care about evidence.