) and the type Twati would hire (an old and jaded yet really good also man who fancies her and who she can exploit for mate's rates)
lamelifttwati wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 7:49 amthis guy put all the booty communities drama channels to shame,Peppa Schmint wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 6:36 amThis video does a deep dive on Tati's video exposing her as a liar...Every one outside the beauty community see what a fraud she is. She really thought she was untouchable
As they say, when you try to dig someone else's grave you need to dig one for yourself too. Karma always comes back to bite
he did his home work,
none of those shit channels did.
WORDSALAD wrote:Oh no, two lawyers! My mortal enemies!
And protectors actually
I'd like to see the kind of lawyer JC would hire (I'm picturing a very a tractive bearded hipster type who he will keep on retainer) and the type Twati would hire (an old and jaded yet really good also man who fancies her and who she can exploit for mate's rates)
Lol!! You said before you worked in media right? (Or am I confusing with another user?). If so then I’m a friend! Huge supporter of the 1A (actually the journal I was on in law school was devoted to 1A stuff) and big proponent of the fourth estate! Media good; censorship bad! You know the saying—I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to death you’re right to say it. 
aren't we? so I'm trying to finish a phd I started many years ago and go into teaching (and sell my book. Lolz at the Samantha March Story). It's nice to know more about people! I don't think anyone we know would guess who we were anyway (Altho I think a few former colleagues would make me from my rhymes.... Not that they'd ever be on here anyway. Too busy drinking with corrupt coppers 
)
This guy really did his research. I am so glad to see other youtubers making videos calling her out on her bs. I knew who JC was but have never watched him at all and went from not caring about Twati one way or the other (except for gagging over her love affair with her mirror) to absolutely not being able to stand her now. For her to call herself a role model is sickening.Peppa Schmint wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 6:36 amThis video does a deep dive on Tati's video exposing her as a liar...Every one outside the beauty community see what a fraud she is. She really thought she was untouchable
As they say, when you try to dig someone else's grave you need to dig one for yourself too. Karma always comes back to bite
Lol yeah I think we say just enough to tell more about ourselves without giving anything identifiable away.WORDSALAD wrote:^^ no way we're still on topic discussing the legalities of Twati's existence
Yes I was (kinda still am on the side when I can be bothered. ... Which isn't often) a journo but got sick of the office politics and being backstabbed. And being paid peanuts)
In all seriousness though Tati must have a lawyer on retainer held over from all the potential shady shit with Halo beans. She's dumb enough not to though I suppose. I bet JS has like an actual wing of his house where his legal team live
i like this guy.Peppa Schmint wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 6:36 amThis video does a deep dive on Tati's video exposing her as a liar...Every one outside the beauty community see what a fraud she is. She really thought she was untouchable
As they say, when you try to dig someone else's grave you need to dig one for yourself too. Karma always comes back to bite
she doesn't need to upload anything. look at how much she has raked in thanks to her massive new subscriber count and that monetized "i'm a vindictive piece of shit" video.
YESSSS this queen is spitting facts. Thank God these channels are now being seen. The same 4 piece of shit drama channels refuse to fall out of lock-step with Jeffree.
Her heart is just too heavy.arale wrote:It's past her uploading schedule maybe she's not uploading at all this week
Sent from my ASUS_Z012DB using Tapatalk
Poor dear. 
Green Eyed Gemini wrote:So I’m actually a lawyer who did a lot of criminal prosecution internships in law school lol. I can’t say I can give a definitive answer because (1) it’s definitely a complex issue that would deserve an entire law review article to its analysis (I think), and (2) I’d have to research stuff and refresh my memory. But here are my off the cuff thoughts:TourDeForce wrote:I have a question that may be dumb but I am no law student. If James were to hurt himself over this shitshow, could Tati be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
First, this issue is really similar to the Michelle Carter case, which you may be familiar with. There, Carter repeatedly urged her boyfriend to commit suicide, even after he showed signs of uncertainty. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and her conviction was confirmed on appeal. It may be making its way up to the US Supreme Court, but I haven’t kept up with it so I’m not sure. If it is heard by the Court, then that ruling would serve as authority and guidance if god forbid JC killed himself in response to Tati’s video. The facts are different, but I think the ultimate issue is the same and can be phrased as: Can a person be found criminally responsible for homicide when the (self-inflicted) death of the victim was a result of the person’s words.
A good article discussing the court’s decision in the Carter case can be found here if anyone is interested: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews ... ontext=amp
In the Tati and JC case, an issue I see is causation, which has to be proved in every case. Assuming death, did Tati’s words cause JC to kill him self? ITjis requires actual (but for) as well as proximate (or foreseeable) causation. I think a crafty lawyer could argue causation is met. But for Tati’s video and accusations, JC would not have killed himself. Moreover, it is arguably foreseeable that Tati’s video and cryptic comments would have aided the results they did. Only if one finds that the massive uprising and “cancelling” of JC (to put it simply) is *unforeseeable* will this element not be met. I think it could go both ways.
Another big issue is that the US legal system is BIG on the First Amendment! There are few other fundamental rights that the Supreme Court loves more than the freedom of speech. (This was also an issue in the Carter case). So a defense attorney would argue that convicting Tati of involuntary manslaughter when the only action she did to bring about death was make a video (I.e., exercise her right to speak), then this would infringe upon the First Amendment and chill her right to speak. There are several exceptions to the 1A, of course, but mere falsity is not one of them. A person cannot be punished merely because the speech is false (US v. Alvarez). There has to be some cognizable harm that can be directly traced to the speech. This brings up the causation issue again so there may or may not be an argument there.
Apologies for the long answer lol but I’m a nerd and love legal research and writing so I get carried away. I could go on about this for pages but I won’t
It’s quite interesting. I kind of doubt JC would take any type of legal action but who knows? It’s still early. Depending on this lawyer he’s always talking about (lmao) he may decide to pursue something against Tati, J*, or both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is definitely so crazy how much this has blown up! I wonder if Twati was expecting it to get this big when she dropped that video. One thing I know she wasn’t counting on was all of these outside communities commenting on it!TourDeForce wrote:Green Eyed Gemini wrote:So I’m actually a lawyer who did a lot of criminal prosecution internships in law school lol. I can’t say I can give a definitive answer because (1) it’s definitely a complex issue that would deserve an entire law review article to its analysis (I think), and (2) I’d have to research stuff and refresh my memory. But here are my off the cuff thoughts:TourDeForce wrote:I have a question that may be dumb but I am no law student. If James were to hurt himself over this shitshow, could Tati be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
First, this issue is really similar to the Michelle Carter case, which you may be familiar with. There, Carter repeatedly urged her boyfriend to commit suicide, even after he showed signs of uncertainty. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and her conviction was confirmed on appeal. It may be making its way up to the US Supreme Court, but I haven’t kept up with it so I’m not sure. If it is heard by the Court, then that ruling would serve as authority and guidance if god forbid JC killed himself in response to Tati’s video. The facts are different, but I think the ultimate issue is the same and can be phrased as: Can a person be found criminally responsible for homicide when the (self-inflicted) death of the victim was a result of the person’s words.
A good article discussing the court’s decision in the Carter case can be found here if anyone is interested: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews ... ontext=amp
In the Tati and JC case, an issue I see is causation, which has to be proved in every case. Assuming death, did Tati’s words cause JC to kill him self? ITjis requires actual (but for) as well as proximate (or foreseeable) causation. I think a crafty lawyer could argue causation is met. But for Tati’s video and accusations, JC would not have killed himself. Moreover, it is arguably foreseeable that Tati’s video and cryptic comments would have aided the results they did. Only if one finds that the massive uprising and “cancelling” of JC (to put it simply) is *unforeseeable* will this element not be met. I think it could go both ways.
Another big issue is that the US legal system is BIG on the First Amendment! There are few other fundamental rights that the Supreme Court loves more than the freedom of speech. (This was also an issue in the Carter case). So a defense attorney would argue that convicting Tati of involuntary manslaughter when the only action she did to bring about death was make a video (I.e., exercise her right to speak), then this would infringe upon the First Amendment and chill her right to speak. There are several exceptions to the 1A, of course, but mere falsity is not one of them. A person cannot be punished merely because the speech is false (US v. Alvarez). There has to be some cognizable harm that can be directly traced to the speech. This brings up the causation issue again so there may or may not be an argument there.
Apologies for the long answer lol but I’m a nerd and love legal research and writing so I get carried away. I could go on about this for pages but I won’t
It’s quite interesting. I kind of doubt JC would take any type of legal action but who knows? It’s still early. Depending on this lawyer he’s always talking about (lmao) he may decide to pursue something against Tati, J*, or both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you! I have a pretty good understanding of “law 101” and figured the case might be a stretch, but we’ve seen slightly similar cases. Almost as if her defamation, and the influence of millions of people, encouraged the downfall of his career and therefore his act of suicide. I ask because this whole situation seems to be getting more and more ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
