Chomper Higgot

The burden of proof bar in a civil case is a lot lower than in a criminal case, the presumption of innocence is not applicable in the civil trial procedure. https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary-standards-and-burdens-of-proof/

You clearly have no idea how any of this works. Prince Andrew’s legal team (which before the Court is Prince Andrew), have already engaged in the ‘Disclosure Process’ which is continuing. Prince Andrew (his legal team) have made statements to the court an in public, all of which the Court has jurisdiction to examine. The ‘Disclosure Process’ will be used to examine those claims. Prince Andrew claims he was elsewhere, his schedule records are subject to ‘Disclosure’. Prince Andrew says he can’t sweat, his medical records are subject to ‘Disclosure’. He needs to do the smart thing and settle out of court. And once again, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with this ‘woke’ thing of yourself you have on a hair trigger.

The court has jurisdiction. This is a civil case, not a criminal case therefore (for this case) extradition is not an option. However, the risks of criminal cases coming out of civil cases are not to be dismissed. There are two issues that are almost certainly of immediate concern to the Prince: 1. The disclosure process. 2. This coming Tuesday the court will open the settlement file between Virginia Guiffre and Epstein. The Prince would be well advised to settle out of court before this goes any further.

More news on that front: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/01/prince-andrew-lawsuit-virginia-giuffre-effort-block-rejected

There’s another issue. Those without health insurance avoiding going to the doctor/hospital for minor health conditions that progress to major health issues, perhaps life threatening.

‘Let’s go Darwin’.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but then it is New Years Day.

How can anyone determine your rights to pension increases without knowing where you reside? A retiree’s entitlement to pensions is governed by the attached. https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad/rates-of-state-pension

It wise to commit fraud against a Government from which you Ned a passport:

The UK Medicines Regulator has approved Pfizer’s Paxlovid for treatment of COVID. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/31/uk-medicines-regulator-approves-pfizers-life-saving-covid-pill-paxlovid

Don’t worry about the life certificate, it’s a formality that all pension providers apply. Focus on your retirement income and does it meet your needs. First check you have sufficient qualifying years of NI contributions to get the full state pension, if not consider paying up missing years. Secondly, understand you will not receive annual cost of living increases to your state pension when you move to Thailand factor this into your income planning.

Just as we should not expect 13 patients to be a representative sample of all people, we should not judge all of science by one shoddy study. Science has done a first rate job in the fight against COVID.

Yawning itself is infectious. If you are not careful to conceal your yawing while in public you could ignite superspreader yawning and ‘gleeking’ fest.

During the arrest of Epstein the FBI made the very unusual move of inviting NY prosecutors to attend the search of his premises and shared with them documents and evidence recovered. It was suggested at the time this might have been to provide a backup against political interference in the case. It is very likely prosecutors have all the evidence they need.

Child neglect might be a crime. But it has no bearing on the seriousness of the crimes committed by Maxwell, or indeed others who prey on vulnerable minors.

Irrelevant, Maxwell’s victims were all under 18, some as young as 14.

A minor cannot agree to sex with an adult, giving a minor cash for sex does not change that fact. Do try to grasp that fact.

She was an enabler and participant in heinous crimes. Throw away the key.

I’ve cut out all ‘enclosed indoor dining’, essentially restaurants within air conditioned buildings, but I’m also skipping two local restaurants that attract large numbers of Thai tourists from all over the country. One of these restaurants has already had a closure enforced due to COVID infections amongst customers. I’m still occasionally eating at many of my favourite ‘covered’ restaurants that have a natural breeze blowing through. However, this time of the year we have an abundance of fresh homegrown fruit and vegetables coming out of our gardens so we are cooking and eating most of our meals at home. Something we’ve done throughout the pandemic is order ‘take away’ food and drinks from our favorite local restaurants, this to provide some support to their businesses. As for those keen to ignore the risks, well, ‘Let’s go Darwin’.

I don’t portray these minors as anything, I’ve merely stated the facts regarding they cannot give consent to any sexual act with an adult and that adult sexual acts with a minor is a crime, very serious crimes. This, for some reason, triggers some people into arguing the victims are culpable, the parents of the victims are culpable or into irrelevant observations on the age of consent in other jurisdictions. The facts are clear, Maxwell is convicted of very serious sex related crimes committed by her against minors. Tge law is clear, and she’s been found guilty of breaking it.

I’m not sure what the age of consent in Thailand has to do with Maxwell’s trial in a U.S. Federal court. You can stick to your point as long as you like, the fact remains a minor cannot consent to sex acts with an adult. Maxwell’s jury found her guilty of breaking numerous, non arbitrary, laws. She’s going to spend the rest of her life behind bars.

It’s as simple as this. Maxwell is guilty.

Because the parents did not ‘pimp their children’.

Post trial cometary by Informed commentators (ie those who have real experience of prosecuting serious crimes) suggests that the prosecution deliberately limited the prosecution case in order to make a clear and simple case before the jury. Prince Andrew’s civil case brought by Virginia Giuffre is currently before the court. Immediately after the Maxwell verdict the judge in the Giuffe v Windsor case ordered that the Giuffe/Epstein settlement shall be unsealed on January 4th. So now Maxwell can hear the clock ticking, she has to calculate if she wants to cut a deal and give up information in exchange for leniency against the possibility that January 4th will reveal information that undermines her own value to prosecutors. There are other possibilities: Prosecutors might already have all of Maxwell’s information, or prosecutors might not willing to do a deal with her. The least likely scenario (imho) is prosecutors shutting down an investigation into such a high profile case with such widespread public interest.

‘The age of consent is not a ‘red herring argument’. As a general rule, if you come across a report or claim regarding a conspiracy check the validity before passing it on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fact-focus-misinformation-persists-after-maxwell-trial-ends/2021/12/31/78db7f86-69f8-11ec-9390-eae241f4c8b1_story.html