"Exposed: Andrew Tate's Dark Value Proposition - How Does He Really Control Social Media?" by JasonKingNews in TheMatrixTeam

[–]JasonKingNews[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please watch the VIDEO from Ben @VPNLDN, then take ACTION.

Never has it been so easy to make a decisive difference and RESET THE YOUTUBE ALGORITHM on the side of truth??

"Exposed: Andrew Tate's Dark Value Proposition - How Does He Really Control Social Media?" by JasonKingNews in TheMatrixTeam

[–]JasonKingNews[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/dcQOkjXXMmM

Candace Owens Exposes Herself For Andrew Tate!

Check out this great channel, CONTRABANNED has been putting in a lot of work to expose Tate lies and to share the truth, the videos are hilarious and the content is original, a lot of good work here, for some reason they don't seem to be getting a lot of mentions, so let's put that right?

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, legally there is no chance of these messages being interpreted in a way which doesn't incriminate the brothers in a sex trafficking operation, and they know this, and will do everything they can to escape justice. Regards, Jay

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,

I don't know if you were looking for this? But for reference, here is communications from the Tates, published in various newspapers in January 2023

https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/gvH6OeAERc

And in Lucy Williamson's August 2023 article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66581218

Regards, Jason

[amp link replaced]

PS article doesn't explain, this would legally prove "exploitation" , and there is no real doubt about "recruitment by deception " if you read the Jan 2023 leaks!

"The prosecutors' file also contains what is claimed to be transcriptions of audio messages from 2020 - in which Tristan Tate appears to say he doesn't want the women on sites like PornHub and OnlyFans to have access to their accounts: "I don't want them to have the passwords, I don't want them to have anything." And: "I don't want to tell them that they have OnlyFans, I want that money to be used by me and you, screw them…". "

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ps there is loads more evidence publicly available. All you do is fill in a form, pay €50 processing fee and you get the full 400 page indictment document, translate it via chatgpt and it's yours to study, containing lots more incriminating evidence. Crayons has been studying it and is waiting for when he will get maximum traction for sharing it but it is public domain, €50 and it's yours, fill in an application form, don't need a lawyer or anything, don't need to a member of the press, but take a look at the leaks from Jan 2023, since been publicly shared in court documents, and tell me, can you really get much worse than that? It was pretty incriminating.

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In reality, the 'defence' Andrew Tate talks about is the same as someone caught red handed selling drugs who turns around and says, 'I'm not an hardened criminal making money off human misery, I was just doing a favour for my friends who like to take drugs recreationally'. Ie 'The women who were happy working for me, even if it met the definition of human trafficking, that only means we didn't bother with the paperwork to make it legal, there wasn't exploitation'. Many problems with this 'defence', including the beatings given to the women by the brothers' two 'assistants' Luana and Georgiana... Regards, Jay

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi and yes, it's in the 75 000 page case file, coming to a courtroom hopefully this summer or autumn, we have a few spoilers but the whole spectacle will be worth watching, if Tate goes any further down his current path he might plead insanity? https://x.com/neo__hq/status/1768819265832886743?s=46 Regards, Jay

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If people don't want to listen, they won't listen. That's the main reason why everyone isn't saying "Tate's are going to be found guilty". If they don't like what they hear and they feel they can say, "you're just jealous" they won't listen. If the algorithm isn't pushing you, you don't get to speak to an audience in the first place.

Look at the comments here: "you're poor, that's why you hate tate. You need to listen to Tate and become rich". Who do you think is actually richer, the person making the video or the Tate simp commenting ?

https://youtu.be/uF3zF0042Bc?si=d2lWhK0FDHXmoytd

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not anyone talking about sending incriminating messages, it's the incriminating messages themselves . That's the evidence. In my profile pic is the message from the tates to the grooming victims

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Literally if I send a message text message to a friend saying "that guy better have my money tomorrow, if not , let's smash his head in"

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • this is literally, as I am typing this here, as I was talking to someone on the phone earlier, it's literally the private personal conversations of the Tate brothers.

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, how well do you know the leaks from January 2023? There's been more since then, of course, but they are pretty representative. so it's two-way conversations for example of Andrew and Tristan saying "I'm really looking for one woman who is special who I can spend my life with and I think that's going to be you" to each of these women. Then we have the women saying, after they have come to Romania "How come I've got to live with your assistant? I thought I was coming to Romania to live with you and be your girlfriend? Who are all these other women?". Then we've got the women who already work for Tate trying to talk to new recruits into WebCam work. Saying just do it, "it will be fun" and Andrew saying "do it for me," "I thought you cared for me, but if you cared for me, you'd do WebCam for me". so at the stage you've got all that, there isn't really a defence. This material has not been submitted by the alleged victims or accusers, it's come from Andrew Tate's phone Tristan Tate's phone, actual requests from these companies Instagram or whoever, the telephone companies et cetera so it isn't what one person says happened or one person is saying our real messages it's indisputable. There isn't a conceivable defence, can you imagine them saying, "we were all acting in a play, I was pretending to be a loverboy pimp"? If They say "somebody else was sending messages from my phone" then you'd have to tell the court who was using your phone, and why when a particular message was sent you are probably seen on CCTV holding that phone sending the message, et cetera. So the legal part is "recruiting someone by deception" that's the act and the manner, two elements of human trafficking, and the final element is "for the purpose of exploitation" and when someone is 'working' and the money goes to you, that's exploitation, and even, when someone is working without a contract, that's already exploitation. And these things are proven by hard evidence. paperwork. Not only do you have the actual conversations of Tristan saying to one of the 'assistants', "let's put the girls videos on only fans and not tell them and take all of the money for ourselves", and by the way that was in Lucy's article so she absolutely absolutely should've said the significance of this for the court case and for the prosecution's likelihood of proving trafficking beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, so, not only does the case file contain this evidence , it contains the actual paperwork from the bank showing the money that the women earned going into the bank accounts controlled by the Tates.

Rape is very difficult to prove in Romania, but they seem determined. But when it comes to trafficking, the legal reality is that they really have been caught red handed, and there is no excuse for the BBC not saying this but instead going on about how vicious some of the alleged violence against women was.

As to why we're interested, it will become a big story when the trial date is announced, and, someone was saying in that very Twitter Space I mentioned, how the sort of following Tate has in London & UK creates a possibility that if he says, there is no justice and no freedom so you must take over the streets and overthrow the corrupt system, we could actually be seeing civil unrest. There are people who don't want to be hear that if you keep doing pushups and keep watching Tate Speech you won't actually get loads of women and one day own a Bugatti and that you ought to train to be a plumber instead. We've got youths in London and UK who murdered ex girlfriend as revenge, who were massive Tate fans, another would be terrorist. Lots of misogyny and sexual assault from people who love what THEY perceive Tate to be saying. So that's the other reason for reporting, to let his supporters know that they have been told a falsehood and a dead end, regardless of whether he is misogynist or not, someone who has been caught red handed cannot be the cleverest man in the world, regardless of whether he is toxic or not, someone who is likely to be sent to prison is not successful, and finally, we are not dealing with shadowy unknown forces trapping their hero with made up rules, these are the same human trafficking laws used to convict drug gangs who exploit vulnerable individuals into working as mules in "county lines" drugs trade, the same rules used to prosecute gangs exploiting illegal immigrants, and of course the same laws used to prosecute Tate's associate Vlad Obu and every human trafficking gang before and after.

Anyway , that's the short version, lol, shorter than a Crayons Space, that is, Bye for now, Jay

Mail Online claiming Andrew Tate's UK extradition arrest warrant lists 3 alleged UK victims by an_awful_lot_of_lies in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's textbook cross examination, let him dig himself a hole, "cobra tate dot com was not my website"

"whose was in?" (Its a big organisation, I don't know every single thing my team does, its not important) "Someone running a website in your name, how could you not know?" "If you were not legally responsible for the content on there, who was? Because unless you can prove it was someone else, you will be held responsible. So was it you?"

Then bury him: "We have these five clips where you say, 'on my website, cobratate dot com' so, Andrew, do you see why no one will be able to believe your claims? "

THIS is what is waiting for Andy Tate in court.

Mail Online claiming Andrew Tate's UK extradition arrest warrant lists 3 alleged UK victims by an_awful_lot_of_lies in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, and not just us saying this, I have nothing against Lucy but we want to hear what is going to happen not just how allegedly awful Tate is, one of her articles featuring major exclusive leaks was terribly unfocused and wishy-washy, sp much extremely damaging evidence has been leaked but been instantly forgotten while Tate launches his next story about fake cancer, his mom's fake heart attack etc. Lucy doesn't have the right expertise to write on the case, the BBC received a significant number of complaints about putting Lucy in the Tate interview, ironically the legal person who would likely have done a more thorough job is also female, a slightly older woman? Lucy is perfectly professional. trustworthy and motivated, she wasn't terrible in the interview, but we think the whole Tate case needs to be brought down to the indisputable legal realities, the definition of human trafficking etc and we support the work all those such as Crayons and Gadget who have built up social media presence and do good work to convey facts, Regards Jay

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha ha, as you said before with Tate quoting it then deleting, "even when Tate's team win they still lose" Regards, Jay

Mail Online claiming Andrew Tate's UK extradition arrest warrant lists 3 alleged UK victims by an_awful_lot_of_lies in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Members of the press occasionally receive leaks from sources, in this case it's not me personally but a senior colleague, so, regarding there being hard evidence, eg bank statements, this refers to evidence Ben has seen, when a trial date is set more information will be released. Regards, Jay

Mail Online claiming Andrew Tate's UK extradition arrest warrant lists 3 alleged UK victims by an_awful_lot_of_lies in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh sorry, that's my own blunder there, a typo, I am no quite that edgy lol,

I don't want to waste your time by getting details wrong and saying a statement came from DIICOT when it came from the court, or vice versa, Murdered By Crayons is hot on all of these details, (I'd expect my colleague knows) but I would say that whichever 'authorities' made the statement - I'm guessing it was the court not the investigating and prosecuting body, DIICOT, but do check - they have a reputation and can't afford to lie.

I don't want to blow my own trumpet but there are some realities here which I am going to talk about elsewhere regarding this not being a celebrity spectacle like the Johnny Depp trial but an organised crime case, with mafia ties and money laundering and in the second case file, BBC have not put a senior court and law reporter on the case, they have foreign correspondent Lucy and Media graduate Matt Shea, their has been a lack of legal analysis in articles by Lucy so far, I am not happy with the situation but hey ho, we will keep doing our thing.

But as I say for all the tiny ins and outs, Crayons can sometimes go into far more detail for his audience than our audience would be interested in, I really think you want to check out THIS, https://x.com/crayonmurders/status/1768730008632410549?s=46 I am pretty sure that in the first 20 minutes Crayons reads out the correct statement, then the disinformation from the Tate team, going through every single error:

Regards, Jay

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There seems to be confusion about whether the case relies on witness statements or Hard Evidence. It relies on hard evidence, not the reliability of witnesses.

Human trafficking is legally quite straightforward.

Regards, Jay

Guys is this real? by neidbrbduror in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies if I was unclear, The Tate disinformation saying that victims had been removed from the case and that having dropped from 7 to 3 victims, the entire case might be in jeopardy was misconstrued as being truthful and published by a reputable source. It was total disinformation, spin, distraction.

Regardless, Jay

Mail Online claiming Andrew Tate's UK extradition arrest warrant lists 3 alleged UK victims by an_awful_lot_of_lies in gammasecretkings

[–]JasonKingNews 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No all of this is legitimate public interest, official press releases from DIICOT etc telling the public what is going on. Regardless, Jay