Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[anjulibai]

I read elsewhere that he will likely never leave the UK again, for fear of extradition. Apparently, he hasn't left since 2019.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

I read elsewhere that he will likely never leave the UK again, for fear of extradition. Apparently, he hasn't left since 2019.

To be fair, lots of people who normally travel internationally have not done so since 2019. But yeah, Air Miles Andy’s jet-set days are over.

[tabitha2]

The Chinese ambassador invited him over last year to spend lunar new year. But he has everything in Britain he needs anyway. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by tabitha2

[MamaJunebug]

On 6/4/2021 at 4:17 PM, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Apparently there's also a part 2.

ETA--I found part 1 very interesting. Thanks, @HerNameIsBuffy!

Yes, @HerNameIsBuffy and @WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?, thank you both for posting!

Fascinating insights into reading a person  

I’m especially impressed with Emily Maples (?), the interviewer! What coolness under pressure! 

 

[Jigsaw3]

23 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

How can Andrew be sued for having sex with a 17-year-old in England where, at the time, 17 was above the age of consent?

...

What I wonder about is how the case can also include incidents that didn’t take place in the USA.  Perhaps on of the lawyers in the group can explain?

Reasonable questions. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that one of the issues she is suing him for is human trafficking.

Once a person is taken across state/international borders for the purposes of sex-for-money it becomes human trafficking, and human trafficking is a crime irrespective of the age of the victim. While Andrew did not himself facilitate the travel, he benefited from it.

Since she is alleging that she was trafficked, I believe she is also alleging that it would be impossible for her to consent: that is, any sexual activities done in that context were coerced. (It's rape. It's absolutely rape.)

Obviously trafficking a minor is a more serious crime: even though he raped her in the UK where she was not a minor, she was a minor in the jurisdiction she was trafficked from for this purpose.

Again, not a lawyer, so I would be happy to be corrected on any of this if I'm wrong.

Note that Rep. Matt Gaetz (Florida scumbag Republican Congressweasel) is also in trouble for human trafficking: it's alleged that he brought a 17-year-old across state lines for sex.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Jigsaw3
Accidentally double-posted

[EmCatlyn]

1 minute ago, Jigsaw3 said:

Reasonable questions. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that one of the issues she is suing him for is human trafficking.

Once a person is taken across state/international borders for the purposes of sex-for-money it becomes human trafficking, and human trafficking is a crime irrespective of the age of the victim. While Andrew did not himself facilitate the travel, he benefited from it.

Since she is alleging that she was trafficked, I believe she is also alleging that it would be impossible for her to consent: that is, any sexual activities done in that context were coerced. (It's rape. It's absolutely rape.)

Obviously trafficking a minor is a more serious crime: even though he raped her in the UK where she was not a minor, she was a minor in the jurisdiction she was trafficked from for this purpose.

Again, not a lawyer, so I would be happy to be corrected on any of this if I'm wrong.

Thanks.  I know how it would work if it were a criminal case, but I am surprised that you can sue for things that happened elsewhere than in the place where you are suing.

[WiseGirl]

So Andrew went to the Queen's..."behind palace walls"

Spoiler

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sorry-prince-andrew-t-stay-102226126.html?guce_referrer=ahr0chm6ly93d3cuz29vz2xllmnvbs8&guce_referrer_sig=aqaaaffblobiwvecbdm5rlcy75zimkjdlvfshfmhpsn3sbmwm-ik316_ki7atmc2qnfbzvsprsfnmxiizeao9ljchr1nxexjamanai7m5tjqhd-ukwoplg8cjp3-5h6vqhdpiqjcm1rlft7bubia6vn2a_mxmu3m69rjgyz7o5yh8ey6

A CNN primer on who Andrew is, from the article (bolding mine),

"Alex McCready, the head of Reputation & Privacy at Vardags, a law firm specializing in handling cases of high-profile clients, said the Prince isn't facing the risk of being extradited, because the lawsuit is a civil matter.

"If he fails to cooperate he will face a default judgment, significant damages and a reputation further in tatters. Another option, often preferred in these high profile cases, is an out of court settlement," she said." My thought is how much worse can his reputation get? (Universe, that is not a challenge).

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/uk/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-intl/index.html

I think someone wrote about The Windsors show. It's Andrew's turn for the heat. "A new play based on Channel 4’s hit sitcomThe Windsors does not pull any punches when it comes to jokes about Prince Andrew."

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/prince-andrew-the-windsors-virginia-giuffre-b1900638.html

[WiseGirl]

Update; https://people.com/royals/prince-charles-source-says-prince-andrew-wont-return-to-royal-life-as-british-police-undertake-third-review-sexual-abuse-claims/

Charles evidently finally "realizing his brother Prince Andrew's position as a royal is unrecoverable as the Duke of York faces escalating scrutiny over allegations of sexual abuse."

Seriously did he think the public would accept Andrew?

[viii]

I think it’s likely a BS article. I don’t think Charles ever had any intentions of bringing Andrew back into the fold. 

[EmCatlyn]

An article from USA Today (8/11/21) clarified some of the questions I had.

Quote

Giuffre, now a mother of three, a former Floridian and now a resident of Australia, is one of Epstein's many accusers, dating from her teen years in Florida. She claims Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to Andrew three times, in New York, London and the U.S. Virgin Islands, when she was 17, which is the age of consent in New York. 

She is suing Andrew in federal court, even though she is invoking New York state laws on sexual abuse, because that's where cases involving mixed citizenship are heard, Boies says.

Although she had reached the age of consent at the time of her alleged encounters with Andrew, Boies says she was subject to the "inherent coercion" of sex-trafficking, which trumps the issue of consent, real or alleged. 

In addition to sexual abuse laws, she is invoking the new Child Victims Act of New York, which extended the statute of limitations for civil suits by adults alleging sexual abuse when they were under the age of 21. That law will expire Aug. 14 so her lawsuit had to be filed by then, Boies said. 

Specifically, it clarifies for me that the “age of consent” issue is irrelevant to the case because she was at the age of consent in NYC as well as the other places where the encounters happened.  The case is about being trafficked.  However, the fact that she was a minor (under 21) when all this took place means that she got to extend the statute of limitations.  So her age matters, but it is not part of the case.

Further, I was glad to have it explained that the lawsuit follows NY laws but was filed in Federal Court.  I had been puzzled how you could sue someone in NY courts for things that happened outside the country.

Citing different experts, the article goes on to explain that at this point Andrew’s choices include

Quote

… trying to get it dismissed (before deposition) or a motion for summary judgment (after deposition), settling the case out of court, or defending himself at a trial…  

[In addition] Andrew's legal team could seek to delay as long as possible by citing the Maxwell criminal case (criminal matters take precedence over civil matters)…

 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Words left out.

[tabitha2]

Has it been explained anywhere why she is specifically going after Andrew?  Because you know he was not the only very wealthy man she would have been trafficked too. I would think a rich American perv would be easier to sue than a British Prince Plus the chances of success would be greater. 

[Anna Bolinas]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Has it been explained anywhere why she is specifically going after Andrew?  Because you know he was not the only very wealthy man she would have been trafficked too. I would think a rich American perv would be easier to sue than a British Prince Plus the chances of success would be greater. 

Probably because Prince Andrew is one of the most high-profile Epstein accomplices. And that disastrous interview he gave after Epstein's arrest just made him come off as even more of a smug asshole who thinks he'll never get any kind of consequences because everyone will believe bullshit about "malfunctioning sweat glands" if they're coming from the ~suave and charming~ mouth of the Duke of York. I don't think Giuffre necessarily expects Andrew to suddenly declare his guilt and throw himself at the mercy of the law, but filing this case makes a point. In a court of law, Andrew's name will be inextricably linked to human trafficking and rape.

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Probably because Prince Andrew is one of the most high-profile Epstein accomplices. And that disastrous interview he gave after Epstein's arrest just made him come off as even more of a smug asshole who thinks he'll never get any kind of consequences because everyone will believe bullshit about "malfunctioning sweat glands" if they're coming from the ~suave and charming~ mouth of the Duke of York. I don't think Giuffre necessarily expects Andrew to suddenly declare his guilt and throw himself at the mercy of the law, but filing this case makes a point. In a court of law, Andrew's name will be inextricably linked to human trafficking and rape.

Andrew is definitely an entitled creep.  (And his failure to repudiate Epstein in the interview was both stupid and arrogant.)  However, the question remains why Andrew is the only man she is suing.

Perhaps her lawyers approached others behind the scenes, as they claim they approached Andrew, and the others were willing to negotiate before it became a lawsuit?  🤷‍♀️

This raises the question of why Andrew’s lawyers didn’t come to a settlement.  

 

[anjulibai]

Maybe there's more evidence of wha Andrew did than others.

[nokidsmom]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Andrew is definitely an entitled creep.  (And his failure to repudiate Epstein in the interview was both stupid and arrogant.)

I will never understand why he did that train wreck of an interview if he wasn't going to disavow Epstein.  It seemed rather obvious that if he was going to go on record to explain his involvement with his former friend, that he should have repudiated him.   If he wasn't going to do that, it was only going to make him look worse.   Just a very, very bad idea. 

[EmCatlyn]

According to The Sunday Times - Aug 15

Quote

A source close to the royal household said: “No one at the palace knows what to believe about what Prince Andrew is telling them. Some of it doesn’t stack up. The basic problem is that he’s a massive embarrassment, but you can’t sack him.

I thought the bolded put the issue very concisely.  😉

The article also says that Andrew’s defense is being paid for by the Queen and suggests that Andrew’s lawyers made a mistake when they refused to respond to Giuffre‘s lawyers before they brought the lawsuit.

[WiseGirl]

FWIW Andrew was served papers. 

"Court filings on Friday revealed that Andrew was served at 9:30 a.m. on August 27 at his Royal Lodge residence in Windsor. Just before news of Andrew being served broke, Giuffre's lawyer accused the Duke of York, 61, of dodging servers."

https://people.com/royals/prince-andrew-served-papers-in-virginia-roberts-giuffre-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

[viii]

Great - but what does this actually mean?

[tabitha2]

He is foreign citizen on foreign soil who has never been formally charged or even investigated .  The American Court system has no power unless either The British government and British Law enforcement intervene. Or he goes to states and turns himself turns himself . This is all pretty  pointless. 

[hoipolloi]

On 9/10/2021 at 11:46 AM, tabitha2 said:

This is all pretty  pointless. 

Not so fast. Today's hearing did not go well for the Prince or his US attorney:

Quote

 

“Regardless of whether your client has been served effectively to date, you have a pretty high degree of certainty that he can be served sooner than later,” U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan told the prince’s lawyer during a telephone conference.

“Let’s cut out all the technicalities and get to the substance,” he added.

With that remark, the judge made clear that ducking service is not likely to be a successful gambit to avoid a lawsuit by Virginia Giuffre, one of the most outspoken victims of the now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

 

The Pedo Prince will probably not get off this hook.

[viii]

Good. 

[EmCatlyn]

I am curious about the agreement that Virginia Giuffre (“the plaintiff”) is supposed to have entered in according to this statement by Prince Andrew’s lawyers.  Does anybody know about it?

Quote

"We believe, however, that this is a baseless, non-viable and potentially unlawful lawsuit that plaintiff has filed against the Duke. There has been a settlement agreement that the plaintiff has entered into in a prior action that releases the Duke and others from any and all potential liability," Brettler said.

CNN, 9/14/21
 

[hoipolloi]

The heat on Andrew is cranking up.

Hereʻs a quick explainer of "letters rogatory."

[tabitha2]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prince-andrew-review-2009-jeffrey-213048369.html
 

A Judge has granted The Dukes Lawyers access to the 2009 Epstein settlement. 

[Jigsaw3]

Ghislaine Maxwell is GUILTY on five out of six charges of sexual trafficking of minors.

Possible sentence of up to 65 years. She condemned children to years of hell as victims of abuse, so I feel this is justice.

Apparently Prince Andrew was barely mentioned in the trial, but I do hope he feels the heat.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Jigsaw3
Riffles...