Matthew Cox | Inside True Crime Podcast - The Case for Andrew Tate's Innocence | ACTUAL FACTS

Episode Date: May 28, 2023

The Case for Andrew Tate's Innocence | ACTUAL FACTS

This shows that there was a freedom of movement, they weren't controlled, they weren't locked up, they weren't kidnapped, but they're not including that in the case file. And the second thing they're not including is the WhatsApp messages in terms of the entirety of them. Do these people have an interest in basically going after and rotate? The answer to that is most likely yes, and I'll explain why. Anytime any case goes to trial, even if you're innocent, there's trial risk and a risk is there. Things can go wrong and you could go to Jill. Hey, this is Matt Cox, and I am going to be doing an interview about Andrew Tate with an independent journalist, Salam Ahmed, and he's done probably is one of the most well-educated or informed journalist out there about the Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate case. and we're going to do an interview

and see if we can get some more facts that are more fact-based and less opinion-based. So check out the interview. Okay, so real quick, if you don't mind, you're an independent journalist and you kind of just gave me the overview of what your background is,

but would you mind doing it kind of again a little bit? Yeah, sure, so I've got an academic background and so that's the basis by which I've been looking at this, analysing it based on from an academic point of view. I also have journalistic background, both publicly, in terms of this public case and that I've done a few cases privately as well, and then I write about topical issues wherever they may be. So that's basically my background.

In terms of this specific case, initially when I came into this, I was just completely neutral. I didn't, I don't know the tates, and I've never spoken to the tiths. And even when it comes to his content, it was minimal consumption. So one time I went to my sister's house and she had a video on, and I saw a debate between him and some YouTube, and I was like, oh, he won that debate. And then the second time was when he converted to Islam, I saw the picture, and then I just made a comment. But other than that, there was no other interaction.

There was only when he went to prison, there was a plethora of, of attacks on him and so when that was when that happened i just thought let me look into this what's happening so that as i looked into it initially we started by demonstrating the weakness of the arguments that people are doing as a poster looking at the specificities of the case but then after that i went into the specifics of the case but now you just just for complete disclosure one would say that i'm more pro tip but that's only because that's where the evidence has taken me okay so you've i mean all right here's what i'm one wondering is do you his background for example I had done a video where I I talk about how

initially he was in England where he started the webcam business I could be wrong but I think that's where it kind of started and he had a large house he had a lot of women that were working out of the house and one of the women according to Andrew Tate basically got intoxicated he kind of threw her out of the house she insisted he owed her money he said I'm not going to pay you the money and she eventually filed charges weeks later from my understanding filed some charges against him and then a few months later the police came and they according to him kind of raided his house spoke with all the girls she had said that he uh i guess assaulted her and that the other girls that had been there backed up his story and said that's not what happened at all that was the first

From my understanding, that was the first problem he really had with the law. Am I wrong about that or? That was the second incident. Second is, okay. Yeah, yeah. So that incident specifically, you're quite right. You're accurately portrayed it. In addition to that, that was part of the vice hit piece.

And in that one, what happened was the CPS dropped it. And the main reason for that was because in the United Kingdom at that time, what would happen is whenever there was a rape allegation, the CPS, which is the Crown Prosecution Service in the U.S. that's called the best prosecutor. What he did they do is they look at the evidence both for the case and against the case. So they looked at both aspects of the evidence, but one of the aspects of the evidence that they looked at was that they found voice notes where the two, because it was two women, they were basically colluding to lie about it.

And so because they were colluding, that became a major basis behind which why they dropped the case. All right. So what was the first incident? So the first incident was in 2013 and again same thing the CPS saw the text messages and in the text messages the girl says I consented

so he says because it's obviously basically BDSM and this type of extreme type liberal behaviour that's going on which ethically is one acceptable from a monotheistic framework but within Western liberalism I mean 50 Shades of Grey is one of the most

sold books of all time and specifically from that paradigm and she actually says if I consented you didn't agree with me so that that again because consent was seen both in text messages and so on so forth that wasn't taken forward as well

and that was there was a video of him basically having like rough sex with a girlfriend that was a separate incident so he was never charged for that that's basically his girlfriend and I think from the information that we not think I know he's still friends with her and so that was basically consensual and she's come out at least two or three times and said look that was completely consensual and she's come out since he's been arrested and said that arrest is unfair so she's been a very vocal advocate of him even till this day so what what were the specifics of the first the first case because I've never heard of the first case yeah the first case was 2013 it was part of the vice documentary and again it was him and some girl and what had happened was they'd had a relationship she basically continued the

relationship for six months and six months later she complained that she'd been taken advantage of six months earlier and then what had happened was obviously they looked at her text messages and voice notes and in the text message she provided consent so that's that's what the specifics were about okay and then there then there was a second incident which happened in uh in London. That's right. 2015. Right.

And then that didn't work for more. 2013. Then it was 2015. Okay. And then he went to, he moved to Romania. That's right. And he made a lot of really, you know, just looking back on it, it seems like really just detrimental comments about how Romanian, Romania was corrupt and your money could buy you a long way. And he, I'm sure he said some.

things that definitely did not, would not have set well if I was a Romanian official. I wouldn't have wanted him saying those things about the country and the police. And so. For sure. For sure. For sure. Because obviously he's saying these things to try and popularize himself again and make him famous and well known.

He talks about a lot of things that, you know, like, so look, when I give this example, people always think I'm trying to make excuses. But in reality, it's not, it's not like that. What it is, is, you know, when you people talk in this manner, you know, this kind of like slang, this kind of like ghetto talk, you know, I'm a gangster, I'm this, I'm mafia, I paid this person, so on and so forth, we have this quite, it's quite common in rap culture as well, and you have to remember that he essentially was born,

so he was actually, essentially raised, he was born in Chicago, but he was raised in Luton, and Luton essentially from an American standard, essentially, especially his area, was a councilor stay, which is a ghetto area. So that's his background So that doesn't make an excuse for what comments he said Because obviously the judge isn't going to be considering these factors When he's deciding or getting annoyed about these type of things But that's just a factor to see that when someone talks in this manner

That's some of the basis behind it Obviously if he has committed that That's a different question But what we do know is at this moment In the case file And they've been investigating now for nearly 11 months And we'll get to talk about later later on, but they've held in for like three months.

Nothing, there is nothing in the case file as to regards to fraud, money laundering, or bribery. Okay, I mean, I think, you know, the problem is you see, you know, look, it was basically it's like the TikTok culture, shorts, you know, he's trying to get attention, he says things to get himself attention. I see lots of people that do that.

But the people that do it, You know, obviously they don't think it's going to catch out with them. I remember seeing a video where a kid had placed a gun, like a 9-millimeter, whatever, you know, Barretta or Smith of Weston. I don't know what it was, but it was an automatic weapon on a, on a drone. I don't know if you ever saw this. I haven't seen this. This was probably seven or eight years ago. Like, he had figured out how to place it on the drone.

and how to get it to fire. So he could play with the drone and he was target shooting with the gun on the drone. And, of course, the video goes viral. And I remember watching the video going, I just feel like that's a bad idea. Sure enough, like the ATF comes in and they grab him and they, I don't forget what they charged him with. Like, you know, you've got a flying device that has a lethal weapon on it. Like he did it because he thought it was cute. He thought it would get a lot of views.

He was super proud of himself. He didn't think, he didn't have a criminal mindset. And I think that's the same problem with Tate is that he, he says these things that he's trying to get attention. And he does. He gets attention from young guys, you know, that think he's super cool and he says funny things. And he says things that, you know, some people think and say. Some people think and don't say. but

and so he got a lot of attention I think you know but then he moves to so but then he you know he's also got this webcam which honestly you know in Western culture like it's acceptable but it's like semi frowned upon

like it's okay like that's what you do that's fine but for the most part I'd say 50 60% of of, at least in the U.S., people are like, you know, like, wow. So in a very real sense, it's like being a part of a, you know, of a, how can I say this, like the sex industry.

Well, I mean, the sex industry would be illegal, but what he's doing is it's not illegal. So people are like, it's dicey, but it's legal, but they're not, it's kind of frowned upon. So, so in regards to that, It's just two points. First of all, in terms of online content. So online content, as you said, can be problematic.

But how it works is if your online content correlates with what you've been charged with specifically, then that online content can be used. But if the online content, he says one thing, but then he's not been charged for that specific thing, then it can't be used. So as an example, let's say someone said, I shot Bill, but two is dead. You won't get in trouble, even though you, said I shot him. But if Bill's actually dead, then you could get in trouble, that could be used as evidence. So when you look at what he said online and you look at the case file, they

both don't correlate. That's the first point. In terms of the second point, you're quite right. I mean, I think when it comes to like this entire industry, Cam industry or, for example, and he's not actually in charge for Cam industry, but we know he did it. So Cam industry, only fans, TikTok, Instagram, all of these industries, modeling, all of these industries, which are basically using sexualization as a way of selling, it's completely against the monotheistic paradigm for sure. But it is actually widely accepted a lot more. So, for example, the amount of money women are making on Instagram,

on OnlyFans, on TikTok when it comes, and it's generally speaking, majority of the time, exploitation of men, it is a lot more acceptable than one realizes. Right. Well, I was going to say, it's funny that you say exploitation of men because women think it's exploitation of women. Like, you see what I'm saying?

Like, I get that a lot where it's like, oh, these guys are exploiting these women, women. These women are putting themselves out there to be, to charge men. Like, these men aren't making them do. They're not forcing them to do this. But, you know, it gets twisted. Like, to me, I see what you're saying. I feel like, yeah, they're going after guys that will pay them. They want to do this.

Yeah, yeah, for sure, because if you look at it, a man doesn't have the option and that's because men are more visual so they're willing to pay for these type of things and the type of ridiculous things that people are paid for is watching a women drink watching a woman sleep like this is pure exploitation because it's essentially men

who don't have access to women or don't have a happy marriage or happy situation and then they're looking for comfort elsewhere and then they're just getting completely rinsed and so I mean it is exploitation there is some exploitation of women I'm not saying there's not But it's a significant exploitation of men,

especially in, for example, the United States where 30% of under 30-year-olds are not even having relations, you can see the level of demographic that you basically can appeal to. It's so funny because I'm so, like, I'm 53 years old. Like, that is such a, so vastly different than the error that I grew up in.

Yeah. So, all right, so Tate moves to, he moves to Romania. At this point, he's still running the cam. business or yeah yeah so he's he has the cam business in Romania and it seems like

from the evidence he did do that for a year or two but then he moves to and this is what he charged for is actually TikTok and only fans okay um well so he stops doing the cam business or he I don't it just closes down and he just

ships his yeah yeah so so the so at some point he's not doing the can business anymore. I don't know the specific day from right but there is some point they don't but this case specifically they're being charged from 2021 early to mid 2021 till mid 2020 April 2020 during that period they were not doing cab business so specifically TikTok and only fans right so he's but and he's basically he started this uh the hustler university yeah that's good okay the consulting all of that and so what was the case

What is the case based on that he's actually, you know, incarcerated for or been charged? Yeah, yeah. So I'll just provide a timeline. So he's been charged from April 2021, although they both are. Well, all four of them are. So there's actually four people who've been charged. There's Andrew Tett, his brother Tristan Tate, and then two women associates. One is Georgiana and one is Luthana.

Now, in terms of the specific case, what they've been charged for is from around early 2021 until April 2022 now in April 2020 22 the house was raided and what you've got is the people so the house was raided

but who was actually being charged according to Descartes which is essentially the equivalent to maybe the US FBI or the UK Metropolitan Police so according to their press release there's six women who are alleged victims and two of them

women have already come out and said we're not victims you guys have accused us of being victim we'll talk more in detail about that but basically you guys have accused us of being we're victims but we're not victims two of the women we know nothing about and it's quite possible that they don't exist in the sense of there's no information about them in the case files about opening now what's been released it is possible there's two more but there's nothing about them but two women are the main women that this whole case is based on one is a woman from the United States who went to Romania for five to six days and the second woman is from the United Kingdom of Moldovan background and she was there for about two months so that's what the

entire case is that that's the main basis of the case that's the basis of what the human trafficking part human trafficking and there's two this human trafficking allegations and link to the human trafficking allegations is the criminal enterprise because say that through this criminal enterprise, human trafficking occurred, and the people part of their criminal enterprise is the four people that I mentioned. And then the second thing is that there's two accounts of grape allegations by the United Kingdom women. All right. What, what is that, okay, it's my understanding, I could be completely wrong, is that this all stemmed from an event where there was, one of the women were at, was at his

house for a party or something and she was texting with her boyfriend this is i heard this from tate from an andrew tate video where he said she was at his house her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend was texting her and she said i'm at andrew tate's house i can't leave and then she stopped texting him and then he contacted the u.s embassy us embassy contacted the police the police came and arrested he and his brother and then kept him downtown for a few hours questioned them and then dropped everything let him go

and it's because it turned out she was not being held a captive like the boyfriend was saying hey she's being held captive against her will is that right or so that there's three accounts and I'll tell you all three so that's Andrew Tate's version

right and then you have the the version of the girls which is that The girl claimed that what happened was she was held against her will. She then had no access to any kind of phones or any way of contacting anyone. And allegedly, her brother, who was part of the military, she sent him a code word. And when she sent him a cord word, he contacted the embassy and then let her out. So that's her version of events.

So she didn't contact the boyfriend. She contacted her brother. Well, according to her version, there was no boyfriend. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then from what I've, what I've seen in terms of the information, in terms of the leaks, first of all, the woman's story has a significant holes in it because she's actually an only child. So that's actually, she couldn't have told her brother because she's an only child. And the second thing is it was actually her mother who contacted the embassy. That happened for sure because she was readily texting her mother throughout. So she had. had access to her phone. She had access to communication. And now Tate's story is possible because again, according to my, um, what I've uncovered, she did actually have a boyfriend at that time. And so that is plausible that two people may have contacted the embassy, but for definite, we know the mother contacted. So basically what I'm saying is we know the mother had

contacted. There's a possibility that Andrew Tate's story is right, but it's not right that the woman's version is completely, doesn't meet the evidence. Okay. And was there a thing, was there some kind of a video where they actually saw her go outside the gate and pick up pizza or something and come back? Oh, yeah, sure. So let's specifically talk about the allegations. So basically you have the U.S. woman who claims that she was part of human trafficking. So human trafficking, there's a number of things that need to be met to be trafficked. You know, one of the main things is this, that you were basically controlled, you were coerced and you didn't have freedom of movement. now freedom of movement means that you're basically not allowed to go out anywhere and you know for example that can be done by taking away your passports it can be done by

taking away your phone it can be done by making sure you don't have access to communication to the world it could be done out of fear so if she thinks that just by even if she has a phone but she thinks you know what by communicating i'm going to get in trouble that would that would again fall into that category and so from the leaks that we've had including one of the more you mentioned where the woman was going out and and getting the pizza but there's also been text messages leaks. And in the text message leaks, it clearly says, shows that the women were basically free to phone and she was calling and texting her mom regularly. They had freedom. They had their passports because she actually booked tickets to return to the, sorry, to go to the United Kingdom. So even though she's from the US, the text messages show that she was communicating with her mom and said, I want to move to London. And you can see that's a big psychological basis behind behind why she made this whole story up. because she was trying to convince her mom based on her previous background. And look, let me go to London. Let me go to London.

Anyway, she booked their tickets to go to London. In addition to that, she mentions a number of times that Tristan Tate doesn't care that if I leave. They're not bothered about me. They don't really care. They don't care what I'm doing. They don't care what I do. So all of these demonstrate a lack of, it doesn't meet the standards of human trafficking. The second bit is fraud.

Again, it doesn't mean it because there was no, she didn't actually ever did do. only fans or TikTok or any of these things. So she was only there for six days, five to six days. And during them five or six days, the Tates weren't actually in Romania for that entire period as well. So you just think about the level of minimal interaction there was between this girl and the Tate's. It was quite low.

So that's the basis of her claim. The other girl, she was there for two months. But again, same thing. She had access to all of the same things. She had access to the same situation. And she was able to, again, book her flight to go to the United Kingdom. There's more details about them girls as well in terms of background, but I can go to them when you're new one.

Well, okay, so those are two separate girls than the ones that said where the police came and raided the house and took them and then released them. You're talking about two separate. You're talking about... No, no, so what happened was these girls, the two I mentioned,

as well as two more, when the police raided in April, they took the most recent raid. No, the one in April. Okay. Okay. So this case is the same case. So what happened was they basically raided the house in April. They let the girls, you know, the girls disappeared. They let the tates out after 24 hours. And then eight months later, they brought, they arrested the tates again for the same issue. Okay. Just, okay. Just making, all right. Yeah, I didn't understand that. Um, all right. So what were they doing this whole time? Like, what's, what's been going on? Like, why, why would the investigation take that long? well again that's hugely problematic

and I think I mean it's the reason for that is this that there's actually not much evidence the entirety of the evidence is actually the witness statement of these girls when you look at the actual evidence it doesn't corroborate a human trafficking so you're basically left with just the word of these girls and that's why and sorry you got the word of these girls and you've got a psychological report

so what happened was after the raid happened in April the two girls again the US UK woman women sorry, they went to a psychiatrist to get a to get a report. This wasn't a court appointed one, but they went to them, they went to her and then they got a psych report. Now the problem with the psych report is this.

They're based it solely on what the girls told them, but what's worse than this, and this was shocking for me, is based on this psych report, they've determined that the other girls are brainwashed. So without ever speaking to girl number three, girl number four, girl number five, girl number six, all of the other women who are basically saying none of this is accurate.

They're saying all of them women are brainwashed. But then the basis of that hypothesis or the basis of that deduction is on the two girls who spoke to the psychiatrist. But those two girls haven't changed their story. So we don't know if they've changed the stories. Did you mean from the witness statement? Yes, from the original witness statement.

Well, we don't know because they've not, nothing, nothing's come out, but what we do know is, based on what they've told us in terms of what the example I gave, that didn't corroborate with the WhatsApp leaks that had happened from their side. Okay, so, but then two of the women that the, that the police are saying, our victims have come out and said, we're not victims. They're claiming we're victims, but we're not. Yeah, yeah, they're claiming we're victims and we're not. We see the Tate's family and I actually interviewed one of the women. And without exaggeration, She was like very bubbly, very extrovert, very, you know, enthusiastic.

She was talking about issues that weren't even relevant to the case, showing that, like, you know, sometimes, you know, when you can basically, when you can brain wash someone or make some, or prepare someone for an interview. But then she was talking about issues that were completely unrelated to the case. So it showed me, like, in my view, from interviewing her, she had autonomy, she had strength of character. And it was actually, it's actually shocking for me that basically, they. can say that these women are so weak that they can be brainwashed. And what about the other two women? Are there any witness? Are there any statements from them? Or they're just listed them?

They don't have any listed them. They just said they were six. Andrew Tate's lawyer said there's not six. There's less. So we're kind of in a kind of dark situation that we don't know anything about them. So they may or may not exist. All right. I saw something.

So they've held them. They've extended it twice. That's right. Yeah. So basically how he works in Romania is, which is hugely problematic in my view, even though it does follow their own legal system. You have a scenario where you can basically arrest someone for 180 days without ever charging them or prosecuting them. So what's happened is they basically arrested them for 30 days. And then you're allowed to basically apply for an extension of 30 days each time. So now the extension is up to the upper will be now. 90 days by the end of this next to here as a result on this previous period. So they've been held for 90 days and that's usually problematic because look you can arrest

imagine to arresting someone taking away their liberty, taking away their freedom which is huge without having the evidence to prosecute and convict and the judge actually said look the level of evidence we have is based on reasonable suspicion. So reasonable

suspicion the bar is very low like it's just suspicion this is in Romania and so just think about that it's lower than even in a civil case so in a civil case it'll be a balance of probabilities and for a criminal case it's beyond reasonable doubt so they need to take the level of evidence

from reasonable suspicion all the way up to beyond reasonable doubt and so they've been looking for as you said from April till December so eight months plus these three months that they've held them for 11 months and they've still not been able to find evidence to bridge that gap all they have is these two

the two women and the psychological report that's right thus far thus far yeah obviously they believe that they've got the evidence but when we've seen the evidence from the leaks perspective

they haven't met the standards and so even the judge said the judge said look what you're giving me now isn't enough to prosecute and convict so you need to find me the evidence and then that's another problem so again part of what they're doing

in Romania is when they increase the increments from every 30 days, what's meant to happen is the prosecutor is meant to provide new evidence to show that, look, I've kept him for 30 days, but look, I found something new, so let us keep him for another 30 days. In the two hearings, new evidence wasn't presented, so again, we don't, again, it's highly

problematic in terms of them being held. Even by their own standards, they shouldn't have been able to extend 30 days. For sure, for sure. And then in addition to that, they were just, again, Again, this point I'm going to say is within their standards, but again, it's just showing like underhanded tactics. In the first hearing, they didn't give the Tate's lawyer the case files until 45 minutes before the hearing. And even then they showed them the case file and they took it back off them.

And then in the second hearing, they gave them 17,000 pages of documents one day before the hearing. Now that is allowed within Romania, but it was again just kind of. underhanded tactics. But what has been contravention of Romanian law is the fact that this, and this is another VUG problem I think. So, you know, when we were discussed in the British case, we talked about the CPS, how the CPS looks at the information and looks at both the positive information and the negative information. And then based on that, makes a deduction, look, is this case strong enough to prosecute or convict? And if it is, then they'll take it to trial. And if it's not, they'll drop it. Here, what's happened is they've not included the evidence that

provides, that helps the Tate's case. So as an example, the Tate's want to put in the CCTV footage, because in the Tate's house, there was external CCTV as well as internal CCTV, as well as in the other house where the girls were staying, which is one kilometer away, was external CCTV, and I'm not sure of internal, but there was definitely external CCTV. So they want to include that to demonstrate, look, this shows that there was a freedom of movement, they weren't controlled, they weren't locked up, they weren't kidnapped, but they're not including that in the case file. And the second thing they're not including is the WhatsApp messages in terms of the entirety of them. So they're just examples of certain evidences that have not been included, but should be because it contravenes, for example, Article 5 of Romanian Penal Code and a number of other articles.

So I don't avoid your listeners citing them, but basically. So that's an example of where this problem's occurring. He's been known to cure insecurity just with his laugh. His organ donation card lists his charisma. His smile is so contagious. Vaccines have been created for it. He is the most interesting man in the world. I don't typically commit crime, but when I do, it's bank fraud.

Stay greedy, my friends. Support the channel. join Matthew Cox's Patreon Okay So had they I heard something And I don't know that this is true It's just I just heard it

That they were They were seizing his property Or his vehicles Or something along those lines And I had heard that But I didn't I haven't seen anything And I didn't

I really only heard it from one source So I don't know if that's true or not Yeah that is true They have seized their cars They've seized the land The properties the assets like watches, expensive watches

and so on and so forth, Bitcoin purses. So they have seized a number of assets and again the main argument that the defense has is that it's been completely disproportionate. So based on what this case involves from a financial

perspective, there have been two women who worked for a very minimal period of time and the financial aspect doesn't meet the level of assets that they've taken. So the assets they've taken have been of both or around

three and a half to five million. So, okay, but you're not even what fraud, there's fraud allegations, there's charges,

but what evidence is there that there was fraud at all? And that you, sorry, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, sorry.

No, there's no, there's no allegations of fraud right now. There's no allegations of money laundering. There was a newspaper report

that said, guess what, they investigated, that, but since that newspaper report, there's been two hearings as well as two appeals and no evidence of information or charges or information who's been bought forth by the prosecutor in terms of financial crimes. Now, on what basis are they seizing all of his assets? So the basis is that it's a criminal enterprise.

So the money that they procured from this only fan on TikTok business, they're saying that it meets that requirement. So my, I mean, I agree that you kind of see some assets, but what's being seized is completely disproportionate. There's no way he's making $5 million from TikTok or only fans from with, from two women, or even six women. So what do you think the, what do you think the issue is here? Like, why do you think that they went after them?

I mean, they're holding them. They have, they have very little evidence. So what do you, what, what is your, your opinion? on why this has happened. I mean, you've got two women that have allegations that don't quite hold up. Why put together an entire case and grab these guys? And then they had to know the media attention was going to be outraged. Like, what is their goal?

Why do it? And what is the ultimate goal? Yeah. So in terms of the two women as well, their background is completely problematic. And when, and one thing one should always look at is the credibility of a witness and their credibility is horrendous. Obviously, I'm going to bring that out in the future, but one of the women, we already have that information, she was a stripper in the United Kingdom. So again, she was in the sex industry already from a physical perspective.

She allegedly approached Andrew Tain and said, I want to be a TikTok style, I'd be famous. They went to Romania together. And then allegedly, this is according to Andrew Tain now, so it's important to note that. But according to Andrew Tate that she basically was conducted, she did conduct. conducting prostitution and then hence why he's wanted to display with her. Then she tried to extort him for 200,000 pound and then when 200,000 euros and then when he said no is when she brought the charges both. In terms of the, I'll talk about the grave allegations as well later, but I just want to answer your question. So in terms of your

question, there's two possibilities and I'll explain what I think, but I think the other possibility even, even though it's not my position, does have some kind of merit to it. So my position is that I don't think it's some kind of like international conspiracy. I think it's completely Romania doing it on their own, thinking that they're making a move to allow them to get credit in the international stage. And that's the reason they botched this because I believe that if the United States,

the United Kingdom were involved, they would have made sure they had the evidence that they were in place before they went for such high-profile figures. But that's my opinion on this mile. Others believe that, no, it's actually like an international conspiracy, the United States and the UK are involved, they've pushed it. And we know the United States have strong control over Eastern European and more weaker governments.

And even stronger ones as well. For example, we know the case of Kim.com in New Zealand where the United States put significant pressure on New Zealand to make sure that he's based, and he's been terrorized for like 10 years. Yeah. So, and then Eastern Europe, we know, for example, the United States connections to Albania and the judiciary there. So in terms of Romania specifically, there is that possibility.

I'm not discounting it, but that's not my position. This guy was on TikTok. I mean, what? Yeah. Like, this guy's a TikTok celebrity who irritated some people. And I just can't, I, you know, the whole international, you know, listen, one of the things I loved, by the way, was in the middle of him being arrested, he said

the Matrix is attacking me. Yeah. I thought, wow, like he is really, really, he's all in. Like, you know, he's absolutely, he didn't drop it for a minute. Yeah, yeah, of course. I mean, look, look from the Matrix point of view, like these guys might call it the Matrix. The way I see it is the mainstream media,

the military industry complex and the deep state. Now, do these people have an interest in basically going, after and rotate. The answer to that is most likely yes and I'll explain why. So in the United Kingdom, so I can give the United Kingdom's example and the United States. So for example, in these countries, United Kingdom and United States or in the world, the most important demographic are children. They care about what your children learn. They care about what your children think. They care about what your children's ideology is and they care about their belief. anyone who tries to impact on that

they will go after them because they have an unholy alliance with the music industry with Hollywood where they allow them to impact your children in the way that you want to and hence why they can put pressure on the government as I mentioned the Kim.com case to go after New Zealand

to yield their demands now with Andrew Tate he has had a significant impact on the youth to the extent that in the United Kingdom there is a policy that if someone mentions Andrew Thay, it goes to safeguarding, and if it goes to safeguarding, you can go to prevent, and if it does, you can lose your children. And similarly, there's a number of newspaper reports that in the United States as well, it's banned for teachers to talk about Andrew Teh.

So this is somebody where the governments, where society in schooling have made a considerable amount of effort to make sure that he's banned. This didn't happen for like Donald Trump or or any other kind of like, controversial figures. So there is this fear that he is impacting society, both from a cultural point of view. So for example, his view about the roles of men and women in terms of impact on youngsters. And you see that. So I do think and believe that, I mean, when they call it matrix, it does sound fully. But when you look at it from the media point of view or from a societal point of view, there is a concern. And then you see that with the case as well. So this is not

a conspiracy. So I've been, I've been looking into this in detail. And 100% of all media articles are against it. Like no one allows any kind of pro teat article. I wrote a paper article which was pro tate. It was published by a newspaper and then within two days

due to the onslaught of abuse that the paper got, they removed the paper from it after they got the million or so it's so there is a complete focus on banning this guy and you know before he was cancelled he wasn't just banned a ban from social media. So Instagram, TikTok

talk, these type of things. But he was also at the exact same time, almost in all in conjunction with each other, which I found shocking when I looked into this. He was banned by Uber. He was banned by like, you know, hotel apps. He was banned by

all banking apps, all within a space of like 24, 48 hours so. How does that happen where all of these industries ban him? Not connected within such a short period of time. Yeah, that's it. When I heard that that, like, they were closing his bank accounts and things like that.

I was like, that's insane. Like, I can't imagine that you can, you're saying, I can't have access to banking. Exactly. So when you say Matrix, obviously Matrix sounds funny because we all grew up with the movie. Yeah. What you can say is the deep state or the mainstream media. Which is funny because, you know, when we, when I hear the deep state, right, like, even when I hear Trump say it, you know, it seems very conspiratorial,

like come on there's not some group out there it's like they have meeting they all have meetings in switzerland and get together and decide that but but when you look at something like this it's almost like oh no like there's something's going on these multiple different platforms and companies got together and like you said within 48 hours hammered this guy across the board you know it it reminds me of i've i have a buddy who that I've done some videos with and he and I were locked up together right I was incarcerated with him

he was in there for basically for tax fraud and he used to constantly talk about aliens there's aliens there's UFOs and I used to constantly mock him I'm like stop it why would aliens be interested why would aliens come all the way across the galaxy to come and look at our little planet and you know like he would say well they want water i'm like water's abundant in the universe they don't need our water well they uh oh they they they want

our planet i'm like really because honestly or or they want energy they want i'm like well if they travel the cost of galaxy i'm pretty sure they've got energy taken care of well they want our planet pretty sure they could terraform any world they wanted if they have that kind of technology so it was like stop it there's just ridiculous there's no alien like is there alien like is there Like, sure, I believe that mathematically, it's definitely, it's an absolute. But are they interested in us? Of course not. And then the U.S. Navy releases these tapes that show these little alien ships.

And then there's multiple reports of it now. And now I'm like, I mean, I was mocking this guy for years. And now, like, the government admits, listen, there's UFOs. Like, we don't know what they are. So I'm not too sure about aliens because I have. was I did read a few books on it and Edward and you know Edward Snowden who was working yeah and he had deep access to a lot of uh intelligence and he said he never saw much any any information as regards to that but I guess I that's just some that's my position on

that but in terms of deep state involvement we have significant amount evidence you just saw it now in terms of the Twitter files right it being released that basically they were never mind Andrew Tate they were based in caring about accounts which were even much less impactful making sure that they were ended, making sure that they controlled what you thought, what you believed. We know that deep state involvement, again, with Facebook, with these different organizations, Zuckva basically said that

he was told, told by the basically FBI and CIA not to release the Hunter Biden laptop stories. And then in addition to that, you have a scenario where you've got these exact organizations which are deciding war.

You know, for example, there's an owner-holy alliance between the military, industrial complex the government and so and so forth. So these are like conspiracy theories. These are just known but we just accept it and allow like deep surveillance of ourselves. Listen, up to five or 10 years ago, they definitely sounded like conspiracy theories. That's what I'm trying to say. In the last few years, there have been so many things that have come out that things that I used to take for granted is like, oh, that's like those guys are crackpot. That's not true. Now that's what I'm saying. Now these things are coming out and you're like, this is incredible. And as

as the alien thing it you should look into it it's a may they have these multiple pilots from the uh the navy who they have them on they have them on film where they have these little there's there's all kinds of reports now if you look into it you'll you will really be shocked and the pentagon has come out and said look there are UFOs these we don't know what these things were like they're they've come out over and over again and said look we're yes we don't know what these objects are there are UFOs Do we believe they're from this, from, or from our, from our planet? They're like, Colgate Total is more than just your favorite toothpaste.

It's dedicated to advancing oral health. The new Colgate Total Active Prevention System features a reformulated toothpaste, innovative toothbrush, and a refreshing antibacterial mouthwash, all designed to work together to fight the root cause of common oral health issues, such as gingivitis, plaque, and tartar. Use the full routine twice daily and be dentist ready. Shop the Colgate Total. active prevention system now at walmart.ca we have no idea like we don't we think they're i think they call them otherworldly but we have no idea you should look into it you'll be shocked because i was

shocked and i also had to go back to my buddy and say listen maybe i don't know maybe but it's the same thing like you said with the with the twitter files with all of these things that what i love is all the people that are out there that were saying this wasn't happening that's not happening that's not true it's not happening you're delusional and then they come out and it's like wow you you weren't delusional you were right it's it's it's a frightening world and i can't imagine being in and uh andrew tates you know he's in another country he's in what i'm i can imagine is probably not a great place to be held yeah um how they're seizing his property yeah it it's it's really it's outrageous So what, so what any, uh, what else do you, or anything else you have?

Yeah, yeah. So there's, um, uh, also the issue of the allegations of grape. So with, with one of the women, which is the one from the United Kingdom, she made the allegations three weeks after. So she made an initial report and I didn't have it in there. And then she made another report a few weeks later. And then she made the allegations. And in the allegation of it happening, one of the incidents she says she doesn't remember when it happened. And the first incident it was actually what happened was there was her as well as two other women involved so it was basically an orgy and so everyone's saying that they all consented but then after the fact she's claiming that she didn't consent yeah that's hard yeah that's a hard sell um

i think the problem with in the u.s anyway is i know guys that have been found guilty of rape just by the girl saying he raped me and that's it they get on the stand and And you say that's not what happened. The girl said that is. But typically those are, those are allegations that were made very quickly within the next day, within a few hours, that sort of thing. So I prefer, look, any woman who's been through this, like, my heart goes out of them, they should complain straight away. And that's the best way to go. I have, go about it.

I have a problem with people who basically wait weeks, months, years, to try and complain about someone. I think that's hugely problematic. I accept that look we can't be in a scenario where we don't believe any woman and we can't be in a scenario where we believe all women but unfortunately we're starting to move to a world where we believe all women

and that type of society is problematic because it should not be acceptable now if a woman was to complain very early on the chances of her case being accepted is a lot higher and we accept that because what I don't want is the evidentiary threshold to be reduced because as soon as you do that you cause

the problems in the world you can take any man out I mean just look at this case you've got two women who basically are saying we weren't groomed we weren't brainwashed we love this guy

we care for him as family and yet they're saying you know what we don't care what you've got to say they're guilty so imagine that imagine I'm going to take you out I'll say you know what you raped this woman and you said no no no I didn't do it

and then the woman says you didn't do it and I'm like it doesn't matter she's brainwashed and that's sake you're in prison what is the what are the chances that because at some point there would be a trial in the u.s there's a trial by like a jury do they have a jury trials there yes as far as i know they do have jury trials here as well in Romania as well as they have trials based on on judges doing it as well in the uk side of different uk criminal cases have with a jury whereas civil cases aren't unless you make a special application.

The issue I have with this is you shouldn't go to trial because, I mean, you'll know better than a lot of people because you've experienced it, but in reality, look, we know anytime any case goes to trial, even if you're innocent, there's trial risk and a risk is there.

Things can go wrong and you could go to Jill. It's the reason why the entire fabric of Western culture, except for a few avaritions, which is a problematic, terrorism after the Patriot Act, but other than those, the entire concept of Western culture is this, we are not going to charge you, we are not going to charge you unless we have the evidence to do so. And only then will you have to go to trial and then fight for your innocence or innocent until proven guilty. And that is the entire fabric of United Kingdom and the UK

structure. And that's the way it should be because you can't take someone's liberty away and then look for the evidence and then take something to trial and hope that something comes up. I think that's who you really provide. All right. I mean, I agree. First, I agree because a judge should be able to say, should be able to determine what, you know, what the legal standard is for evidence and if there's enough evidence. Because the problem is that I've said this over and over again.

It's like, listen, if you're guilty, you need to take a plea. And if you're not guilty, you still have about a 50% chance of being found guilty. So I know guys that have taken Pleas even though they were on the fence I really don't think what I did was wrong But I took a plea because the truth is My lawyer was like listen They're going to get five people on the stand

They're going to say this and this and this And there's a good chance you end up getting found guilty And then they're really looking at a sentence Where if you take the plea you're getting a much smaller sentence So I agree And it's terrifying It's a terrifying prospect.

And listen, prosecutors are just amazing at being able to twist the facts just enough. And the truth is, as a matter of fact, I mentioned this on a podcast the other day. Do you know what voir dire is? It's the process of picking a jury. Yeah. So I had a friend that went to trial. They went through like 100 people, 150 people trying to get a jury. And one of the questions they ask, of course, each time they bring jurors in, they ask them,

do you feel you can find this person not guilty if they don't have the evidence? And one guy, they got, they were going around, everybody was like, yeah, I think so, I think so, yes. One guy said, said, well, I'm not sure. And they go, what do you mean? And he said, well, they convicted of, or they indicted him on 45 counts of, of wire fraud. He did something. And that's the problem. If you're sitting in that chair and you've been indicted,

a lot of jurors think he had to do something. 100%. And unfortunately, it's so easy to indict someone. And in this instance, it's easy, apparently, in Romanian, just to throw you into jail and then kind of start looking for the evidence. But you know what you said is so important, and I just really enjoyed what you said, because you really laid out the point I was trying to make.

and made it a lot more accessible to people. What you said is actually a huge problem with trial risk. And even when you look at social media, mainstream media, a lot of people, when you say to them, look, there's no evidence. They say what you said. There has to be smoke. There can't be no smoke without fire. So people, whether subconsciously or consciously have this idea,

and hence why it's not fair to go to trial unless you have strong enough evidence. I just completely agree with what you said. Yeah, listen, I think the other jurors, they all believe that. just didn't say it. They knew what the appropriate thing to say, you know, was that, oh, no, I can find him not guilty. But the truth is, he's sitting there, just sitting there, you look guilty. Yeah. Yeah, I, so you're saying, obviously, you don't think that it should go to trial. And, but if it does, is their system set up in such a way that, that, you know, a jurors are going to be able to look at the evidence and make a logical conclusion? Or do you, like, To me, look, you're saying they can't find any evidence. At least their system isn't so corrupt that they're manufacturing evidence at this point. Yeah, I mean, they've not manufactured any evidence up to now from what I know, so we can't assume that they're going to.

Obviously, there is people who have that fear that basically they've kept them in for three months now without charging them at another three months, that the concern is that they're going to look bad and so therefore they might start doing these type of things. Right. They're going to get frustrated. Yeah, yeah, that's the concern over there. myself, often now, I have to say that they've not manufactured anything, any kind of leak that's happened, has been a legitimate leak. It has been from the evidence, albeit some of the leaks

front of have been snippets as opposed to whole context ones, but they've not manufactured anything. Yeah, listen, I've seen cases in the United States where we're talking about United States, their assistant US attorneys is what they're called, but, you know, United States prosecutors have gotten frustrated in a case and manufactured evidence. yeah yeah this is a high profile case just think about this this is like the biggest case probably in Romania Romania is in the sense of not in terms of within Romania but the fact that the whole world's eyes are now on Romania because of this there's a huge amount of pressure to to do something and that's that should be another point of concern as well yeah I mean it's

too bad you know the problem is a lot of people will that they'll be placing that pressure they will go ahead and start manufacturing stuff something instead of kind of saying hey look we tried it didn't work out like the best bet is to say is to cut bait. You know, they say, you know, you cut bait, like, you cut bait and you walk away, right? Yeah. They're digging in. But who knows? I mean, people who respect the Romanian system, to be honest, if they held the guys now, and then they said, look, we followed our legal procedure, there wasn't enough evidence

and we didn't take it forward. They'll respect them a lot more because what's going to happen is when it goes to trial, they'll be report is that, and they'll be reporting what's happening. And so it's not going to look good for them if they don't have the evidence. Okay. do you have anything else you can you know that you yeah so in terms of all the things that have happened in the case is for example you know Tina Glendian from the United States she became so she's part of Mark Geragos

you had a man the Michael Jackson's lawyer oh okay yeah part of his firm so Tina Glendian is the one who basically was the lawyer for Josie Smolier I can never say his name right because I always have Dave Chappelle's version where he's a hosy-smolier but anyway basically she was representing him

in his case she's done a really good job her main concern is that she's not had access to her clients so even though she's the council they've not allowed her to have access to the Tate's even though she's made multiple applications

so that's a point of concern wait his attorney isn't able to their attorneys aren't able to talk to them so they have Romanian attorney and they've been able to talk to them but Tina Glangian is an attorney from the United States because they're US citizens and she can basically represent them in terms or from a holistic point of view as well as guide the attorney so she can she could do everything except standing from the court essentially and so there is a huge problem why they're not allowed to see her because what's happened is a part of the leaks as you know when they've been talking to

the attorneys, which is privileged, as you know, they've released that to the public as well. I would say those are the main things. Obviously, there's like minutiaeys, which, and like for example, the women, we touched on that basically both have very, very problematic background. The one from USA, I'm not a privilege to say to mention the details, but her background is really, really bad. Like, once that comes out, I think it'll be hard to believe her as a witness or believe anything that she's said in this case. And she was only there for five days and my opinion is that she's the one who influenced all the woman to like make these allegations and in terms of what happened was these women after they made the after the raid

happened in april only a few weeks later they went to like a very expensive luxurious holiday to the french riviera which anybody knows is like very very expensive and so the question then becomes like where did they get the money from if they had the money themselves means they were getting paid quite well and so again it defeats the argument of human trafficking and if they didn't have the money themselves then the question is where do they get the money from so you know what's funny is let's assume that there's there there is some kind of a uh a caval uh behind the the whole thing like this is almost like the worst thing they could possibly do because if he does get released it really is just going to make him more popular oh he's more popular now don't

only think like even since there's a rest like right then you've been the system the system came at you you fought the system you beat the system and now you're back and you're back on your back on all the social platforms guys people will go be going crazy like all you've done

is is legitimize everything you were trying to to tear down I agree I think it'd be a major mistake so I just wonder listen, I'm super curious to know what happened. Unfortunately, my curiosity is based on another person's suffering, but...

I mean, it is interesting. People are finding it's news, isn't it? It is newsworthy. I mean, people are interested in social media as well as mainstream media. There's articles going out every day about the minutiae of things. I think in one of the Twitter posts and whoever's doing his handle was basically saying something about seeing ghosts. And then that was all over mainstream media. so there is a significant amount of interest when it comes to Andrew Tate.

But there is a significant amount of concern as well. Like I mentioned in the United States, in the United Kingdom, there's significant amount of articles coming out which are anti-Tay. There was someone from the New York Post who contacted me. And he said, look, you've been researching the case. Can you answer some questions? So I said, sure. So he gave me a number of questions to answer.

I answered them. But within the question, he said, you know, I've got some questions about the self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tair. And then I said, look, what's your point of reference for this point? And so he sent me the reference and it was to a BBC article and I said look that's not a primary source can he send me a primary source

he then sent me a prior what he thought was the primary scores which was the podcast and I listened to the podcast and that irony was it he actually said the opposite he said you guys call me a misogynist because you guys are sheep, your drones

you listen to what the media says but I'm not a misogynist and I said this literally says the opposite of what your claim is so in the end he changes one article and he made it about Andrew Titt's effects on the youth but that's the level of determination

to take him out. So there is this kind of a significant determination. What you know is when the mainstream media work together to try and basically take a guy out, then there's huge problems. We saw that with the BBC. So with the BBC, they did a documentary about him. I went through the documentary I analysed it. I

presented the flaws in the arguments both on Twitter as well as on a video with Rich Cooper. After I did my Twitter threads, there was meant to be like a debate on Twitter space with the BBC guys. I was going to come and so on and so forth. After my Twitter friends, they dropped out because again, they don't want to be held accountable for the words, which is, again, it shows

the level of what journalism is now. In the past, journalism was that they used to hold the powers to account. And by holding the powers to account, we lived in a just and fair society. They made, those who were in power, the elite made sure that they didn't infringe in our rights because they knew that journalists would hold them to account. And now there's basically an own holy alliance and the problem with that is the people who suffer is the average person oh yeah listen i i i knew that when i used to read uh i would if you read let's say uh let's say the the federal government releases a press release and then when you go to the prep the next day all they've done is taken the u.s government's press release and rewritten it subtly

That's it. You didn't talk to anybody. You didn't make any calls. You didn't go out and see these people. You didn't even, even on my own case, multiple articles were we reached out to Mr. Cox, but, you know, he refused to comment or, but he was unavailable for comment. Like, nobody ever reached out to me. You could find me. I was incarcerated.

It's easy to find me. And I would see that over and over again. But, you know, overall in my own case. case, which was, you know, funny is that it was, you know, it, it was pretty fair, right? Like, I wasn't happy with it. I wasn't, you know, I'm not happy when they describe you as a certain way or say things, but you're like, eh, okay. But they weren't manufacturing things, like the Tate statements. And I've heard people say, he's a, I've heard that statement. He's a self-proclaimed misogynist. And I'm, and I'm like, you know, I've watched a lot of these videos, and I've never

heard him say that. Like, so what you just said makes a lot of sense. because there's a lot of people that will tell me, oh, well, he says this and he does this. And I'm like, I've actually heard him say that that's not true. Yeah. So I'm not, I'm wondering where you, oh, oh, well, you can check the video. And I've had people in my comments section of my videos. And I've asked them, can you please send me a link to the video you're, you know,

you're speaking about? They never do. I never get them. I never get follow up. You know, and listen, and I get a lot of comments. I get. And when people genuinely have, when people genuinely have an argument, they do follow up. They do email you.

They do send you the links. When they don't and they're just spouting off, you know, nonsense, they tend to, they tend to, a lot of times they tend to insult you and then walk away. Yeah, yeah, true. Sure. I was good. Well, I mean, listen, I appreciate you. I mean, unless you feel like you have anything, anything else. Well, that's everything.

I think we covered everything in quite detail, actually. Okay. I really do appreciate, you know, you speaking with me. Where are you located, by the way? I'm from the UK, Yorkshire, but originally from the north. So hence my accent. So I'm from Middlesbrough originally. Have you heard of Newcastle?

Yes. So I'm from neither. Okay. All right. Do you know who Sean Atwood is? Yes. Okay. I was going to say I actually, I've been on his program a few times. And I actually was just, I went to, shoot, the Netherlands.

It was, I went to Amsterdam like last year. And he was irritated because he was like, he's like, well, why, you were right there. You could have come by. We could have done a live interview. And I was like, I didn't think about it. So, but anyway, listen, I really do appreciate you, you know, jumping on this call with me, or this quickly. Thanks for having me. I appreciate the chance to have a conversation

and you came out of such great points that I appreciate the clarification and a lot of points as well. Sure. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for doing this. And what I'll do is I'll... Do you have any links that you want me to...

I can put in the description and YouTube? Yeah, yeah. I'll send you my Twitter link. Oh, correct. Sheikh S-A-Y-K-H-S-U-L-A-M-A-M-N. And my YouTube is a same. name of law. I'm planning to start that next week. But yeah, so they're my two. Oh, you don't have a YouTube or you have a YouTube. Do you have anything?

I've got a YouTube channel, but there's hardly any videos on there. I'm going to do my set up on the weekend. So hopefully I'll start getting some videos out. Oh, yeah, you got to put you got to put some videos out. Yeah. You have to. Like, this is so much fun. Especially, I was going to, especially with journalism, you know, in, in general, just people, they really do eat it up. Like they, they love, especially if they can tell that you're like, look, this is just if you're not super biased, I think people, people are

thirsty for someone that can just tell them the facts as opposed to throwing this spin on everything. Yeah, true. So yeah, you definitely, and look, if you have anything and you want, you know, you want to come back on or once you get your channel up and running, if you want to

do, you know, as a matter of fact, to be honest with you, by the time this comes up, might already have stuff on your channel so send me the link to your channel and i'll put the link to your channel in uh in the description also thank you i won't do yeah um definitely because you got to get monetized as quick as possible yeah yeah no i appreciate that i wouldn't do thank you all right all right i i appreciate it thank you thank you very much appreciate yeah definitely hey so if you guys like the video do me a favor and hit the subscribe button hit the bell so you get notified a video is just like this also like the video and share the video and leave me a comment

if you guys want to or if you guys have a different opinion or you want to yell at me or whatever the whatever the case may be by all means leave me a comment i try and respond the i respond to probably nearly almost all the comments i do have a bad day every once or while and i'll miss some of it also i have patreon by all means join my patreon and also check out my Using forgeries and bogus identities, Matthew B. Cox, one of the most ingenious con men in history, built America's biggest banks out of millions. Despite numerous encounters with bank security, state, and federal authorities, Cox narrowly, and quite luckily, avoided capture for years. Eventually, he topped the U.S. Secret Service's most wanted list and led the U.S. Marshals, F.P.S. and Secret Service on a three-year chase, while jet-setting around the world with his attractive

female accomplices. Cox has been declared one of the most prolific mortgage fraud con artists of all time by CNBC's American Greed. Bloomberg Business Week called him the mortgage industry's worst nightmare, while Dateline NBC described Cox as a gifted forger and silver-tongued liar. Playboy magazine proclaimed, his scam was real estate fraud, and he was the best. Shark in the housing pool is Cox's exhilarating first-person account of his Stranger Than Fiction Story. Available now on Amazon and Audible.

Bent is the story of John J. Boziak's phenomenal life of crime. Inked from head to toe, with an addiction to strippers and fast Cadillacs, Boziac was not your typical computer geek. He was, however, one of the most cunning scammers, counterfeiters, identity thieves, and escape artists alive, and a major thorn in the side of the U.S. Secret Service as they fought a war on cybercrime. With a savant-like ability to circumvent banking security and stay one step ahead of law enforcement, Bozniak made millions of dollars in the international cyber underworld, with the help

of the Chinese and the Russians. leaving nothing but a John Doe warrant and a cleaned out bank account in his wake, he vanished. Boziak's stranger-than-fiction tale of ingenious scams and impossible escapes, of brazen run-ins with the law and secret desires to straighten out and settle down, makes his story a true crime con game that will keep you guessing. Bent. How a Homeless Team became one of the cybercrime industry's most prolific counterfeiters. Available now on Amazon and Audible.

Buried by the U.S. and ignored by the national media, this is the story they don't want you to know. When Frank Amadeo met with President George W. Bush at the White House to discuss NATO operations in Afghanistan, no one knew that he'd already embezzled nearly $200 million from the federal government. Money he intended to use to bankroll his plan to take over the world.

From Amadeo's global headquarters in the shadow of Florida's Disney World, with a nearly inexhaustible supply of the internal Internal Revenue Services funds, Amadeo acquired multiple businesses, amassing a mega conglomerate. Driven by his delusions of world conquest, he negotiated the purchase of a squadron of American fighter jets and the controlling interest in a former Soviet ICBM factory. He began working to build the largest private militia on the planet, over one million African strong. Simultaneously, Amadeo hired an international black ops force to orchestrated. orchestrate a coup in the Congo while plotting to take over several small Eastern European countries.

The most disturbing part of it all is, had the U.S. government not thwarted his plans, he might have just pulled it off. It's insanity. The bizarre, true story of a bipolar megalomaniac's insane plan for total world domination. Available now on Amazon and Audible. Pierre Rossini, in the 1990s, was a 20-something-year-old Los Angeles-based drug trafficker of ecstasy and ice. He and his associates drove luxury European supercars, lived in Beverly Hills penthouses, and dated Playboy models while dodging federal indictments. Then, two FBI officers with the organized crime drug enforcement task force entered the picture. Dirty agents willing to fix cases and identify informants. Suddenly, two of Rossini's associates,

confidential informants working with federal law enforcement or murdered. Everyone pointed to Rassini. As his co-defendants prepared for trial, U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller sat down to debrief Rassini at Leavenworth Penitentiary, and another story emerged. A tale of FBI corruption and complicity in murder. You see, Pierre Rissini knew something that no one else knew. The truth.

And Robert Mueller and the federal government, have been covering it up to this very day. Devil Exposed. A twisted tale of drug trafficking, corruption, and murder in the city of angels. Available on Amazon and Audible. Bailout is a psychological true crime thriller that pits a narcissistic con man

against an egotistical, pathological liar. Marcus Schrenker, the money manager who attempted to fake his own death during the 2008 financial crisis, is about to be released from prison, and he's ready to talk. He's ready to tell you the story no one's heard. Shrinker sits down with true crime writer, Matthew B. Cox, a fellow inmate serving time for bank fraud.

Shrinker lays out the details, the disgruntled clients who persecuted him for unanticipated market losses, the affair that ruined his marriage, and the treachery of his scorned wife, the woman who framed him for securities fraud, leaving him no choice but to make a bogus destruction, call and plunge from his multi-million-dollar private aircraft in the dead of night. The $11.1 million in life insurance, the missing $1.5 million in gold.

The fact is, Shrinker wants you to think he's innocent. The problem is, Cox knows Shrinker's a pathological liar and his stories of fabrication. As Cox subtly coaxes, cajoles, and yes, Kahn's Shrinker into revealing his deceptions, his stranger-than-fiction life of lies slowly unravels. This is the story Shrinker didn't want you to know. Bailout. The Life and Lies of Marcus Shrinker. Available now on Barnes & Noble, Etsy, and Audible. Matthew B. Cox is a conman, incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

for a variety of bank fraud-related scams. Despite not having a drug problem, Cox inexplicably ends up in the prison's residential drug abuse program, known as Ardap. A drug program in name only. ARDAP is an invasive behavior modification therapy, specifically designed to correct the cognitive thinking errors associated with criminal behavior. The program is a non-fiction dark comedy,

which chronicles Cox's side-splitting journey. This first-person account is a fascinating glimpse at the survival-like atmosphere inside of the government-sponsored rehabilitation unit. While navigating the treachery of his backstabbing peer, Cox simultaneously manipulates prison policies and the bumbling staff every step of the way. The program. How Alconman survived the Federal Bureau of Prisons cult of Ardap. Available now on Amazon and Audible.

If you saw anything you like, links to all the books are in the description box.