Glad to see the sentence has been extended.
Most of his fans are jumping to his defence that this is a human right's violation, which is clearly not the case as the court has specified the preventative detention is due to both his flight risk and the risk he poses to his victims and the community. His risk to his victims has recently been evident by his threat to sue a victim as an intimidation method. Some of Tates more powerful supporters are seeking out the victims or family members/ex partners of the victims themselves to complete their own 'journalism'.
They also declare that there is 'no evidence' which is obviously not the case. There is ample evidence for the human trafficking charges, but the case is complicated by money laundering and tax evasion. Therefore, to sentence, they must portray a case for the full illegal activity and not just what they know and currently understand, which is why no official charges have been made, as they do not know the full extent of the illegal activity.
Taken from court hearing documents, they already hold evidence for the following.
"Next, the corroborated analysis of the means of evidence shows, above, the collegial panel of rights and liberties note that ...the defendants sheltered the victims, for the purpose of exploitation by forcing them to perform pornographic exploitations" and described that the "evidence is abundant".
The supporters claim that the girls were not "held captive". But to meet the threshold of trafficking, women do not have to be held against their will unable to leave, though there is evidence that suggests their movements were restricted by withholding passports, giving fines if they did not produce videos and were provided escorts when they went out.
They claim that some of the women have denied being a 'victim', even if they did not feel like one, they were still victims of the illegal activity. Taken from the Romanian statues/guidelines on trafficking and the legal definitions it states, "the consent of an Indvidual who a victim of trafficking does not present a justifying ground". - Therefore, a woman can be enthusiastically involved, yet still by legal definitions be a victim.
Tates defence and his followers also argue that his online 'persona' cannot be used against him, which was addressed yesterday in the hearing with a summary from the courts.
"The defenses of the defendant's lawyers that what the defendant said via the internet no not reflect the reality cannot be accepted. On the contrary, these claims, as shown above, were actually put into practice".