Prince Andrew - Court

[KhaoYai]

On 9/16/2021 at 4:08 PM, cleopatra2 said:

My understanding the allegation is on 3 occasions in three different locations was at the request of Epstein

What difference would that make - would you put your hand in a fire 3 times if I told you to?

[KhaoYai]

14 hours ago, robblok said:

Maybe you should really read more into abusive relations and power plays. I am sorry that your still so old fashioned that you don't understand what currently is accepted as normal. There are multiple cases like this where men have been convicted so it happens. Does it make sense some males, no it does not. But does it make sense to therapists and others who have actually studied for the anwser is yes. It does make a case harder but certainly not impossible. 

If old fashioned means knowing the difference between right and wrong - guilty as charged.  I'm not trying to pull any punches or in any way appear superior but I've had an awful lot of experience of different versions and conceptions of life - in other words, I've been around more than most. On my travels - not only physical but as a metaphor for the trip of life, I've come across girls who've been terribly abused by males, one who was then taken into care and then abused by one of her carers! I've also come across girls who've chosen to use their sexuality to earn a living but who would also place the blame very firmly on others in some circumstances. 

 

I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that however, it does often give me the advantage of experience. I need no lessons on 'abusive relations or power plays' as you say - I'm fully aware of what can happen.  I'm also fully aware that some girls learn how to manipulate men and use their sexuality at a very young age.  Does that mean that all girls who work for escort agencies, dance in go-go bars or stand on street corners are victims of abuse? No, some are and others make their own choices - just as Virginia Giuffre did.

 

I do know what is currently accepted as normal so you have no need to feel at all 'sorry' for me.  I just don't agree with some of the conceptions. Since when did not agreeing become not understanding? And by what measure do you think that 'current thinking' is correct?

 

I'd guess from your comment on my 'old fashionedness' that you'd also put me in the bracket of people that say girls that wear mini-skirts and revealing clothing when they are out are asking to be raped? I wouldn't but I would say its probably better not to put your hand in the lion's cage because there will always be some lions that bite. I would also state than there's a big difference between appearing 'sexy' and 'overt sexuality' That's life and until we find a way of identifying future rapists, that's the way it is.

Edited September 17, 2021 by KhaoYai

[cmarshall]

16 hours ago, DaLa said:

If you have read my posts you will notice I have not once stated that I believe Prince Andrew is innocent, but there are a few on here that fervently believe he is guilty. So, guilty as you believe, of what? Her lawyers have filed a lawsuit specifying that she was forced to have intercourse with Prince Andrew and the charges include ‘rape in the first degree’.

 

A. Windsor is not currently facing criminal charges.  The Giuffre lawsuit is a civil suit calling for damages for harm he has caused her.  But, if the Giuffre's accusations are true, as I believe they are, then he is guilty of the crime of statutory rape.  The issue of consent will not arise at all in the trial because under the laws of the state of New York, a seventeen year old cannot legally give consent.  The fact of sex with a seventeen year old establishes the crime statutory rape.  No physical coercion is required and nothing the victim says or does can constitute legal consent.

[murrinman]

he's a grub and as guilty as sin  if he wasn't he would front the court another grubby royal burn the lot 

[Radar501]

On 9/16/2021 at 9:53 PM, DaLa said:

Hopefully Prince Andrew is either withdrawing his US assets or placing them in trust so they can’t be touched.

 

[cleopatra2]

10 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

What difference would that make - would you put your hand in a fire 3 times if I told you to?

If true it demonstrates that the relationship was at another persons request , not the alleged victims.

While many people would not put their hand in a fire if requested to do so . History shows that other people will carry out instructions from third parties that are equally irrational.

[DaLa]

11 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Now you are getting to the nub of this matter.  Before going further I will repeat that in no way do I condone rape, sexual assault, genuine sex trafficking or any like matter.

 

However, cases like this are not going to change the real wrongs that go on - those who do such wrongs don't think they will get caught.  There have been a lot of changes in the law and how some matters are to be considered together with the 'Me too' movement in recent years. Some of those changes are good but others? Well, I'm just glad I'm not 18 now.

 

It seems to me that to be a sexually active male these days you need to take your lawyer out with you and get a potential sexual partner to sign a consent form before taking matters to the bedroom. When the law in the UK changed to mean that having sex with a drunk woman could land you in court on rape charges, there was a debate on the matter on UK TV.  One young guy asked a very interesting question - what if he was also drunk?  The legal eagles present and almost all of the female panel agreed that it would still be deemed as rape.  So, its fine for a female to not know what she's doing because she's drunk but the guy is totally responsible for his actions, even if he's blind drunk.

 

If having sex with a drunk partner is a crime then I and I'd guess a great many members of this website should be worried and waiting for the police to knock on the door at any moment if the female decides at any time in the future that she didn't give her consent.

 

In recent months several women's groups in the UK have been demanding more prosecutions and convictions in rape cases.  In most rape cases the attacker is known to the victim and its for that reason that the case often rests on one word against another - therefore extremely difficult to prove. A few years back all sexual assault victims in the UK were granted anonymity for life whereas defendants are always named.  As we know, the brown stuff sticks so, as can be witnessed by reading through this thread, many men will have their lives ruined whether they are guilty or not (most cases are brought against men by women).

 

In my opinion the world has gone crazy and none of the measures that have been introduced will help the plight of genuine victims.  In this particular matter, its my opinion that Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) knew exactly what she was doing - both when she met Prince Andrew and when she went to work for Epstein. For very sad reasons she was no stranger to sexual activity and more importantly had seen how 'groomers' work before. She was a young woman who may have been influence by the rich and famous and dazzled by the 'high-life'.

 

If Prince Andrew did in fact know Giuffre and did have sex with her on 3 occasions in 3 separate locations, in my opinion all he is guilty of is having sex with a hooker but even then it would be difficult to prove he knew she was being paid. At the time of the alleged offences Virginia Guiffre was not a victim of sex trafficking, she knew what she was getting in to. 

 

I believe that whilst there are many cases of genuine sex trafficking around the word, there are also plenty of occasions where its simply either girls feeling bad about their past, trying to have a second bite of the cherry or both.  I personally know of 16 (I think it was 16), young Thai girls who along with a lot of others, were caught working in a brothel in Leeds (UK) when it was raided.  Due to my Thai connections, I had met some of these young girls at birthday parties etc. and I know for sure that they came of their own volition. Some stayed for 6 months coming and going on tourist visas, some over-stayed.  When they were caught, all of them claimed to have been trafficked, said their passports had been confiscated and that they were in debt to the brothel owners.  Rubbish - they were making a fortune and were free to come and go as they pleased.

 

Its interesting to note and I'm not excusing his possible actions, but to the best of my knowledge, Epstein was never successfully prosecuted for trafficking.

I agree with just about every sentence in your post KhaoYai and fail to understand how some of the other (presumably male) commenters in this case don’t see the dangerous implications of what could become a legal precedent.

 

Back to your original post and the question was more about the legal issues. Here’s 3:

 

Firstly he will claim that due to the amount of pre-trial publication and the obvious nationality bias that a fair trial can not be expected under the circumstances. Case dismissed.

 

Next….

Some have speculated that he will be charged with a criminal offence...read this:

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

And

The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.

(Refer to Thomas Jefferson, 1813)

 

Which is presumably why there is no criminal charge being made by the authorities in the US.

 

Now if Ms Money Grabber and team win and she is awarded a financial settlement (careful for what you wish for here) this is how I see it being played out:

Prince Andrew does not hold any assets in the US, thus Bloodsuckers, Grabbers and Hush LLP will make a claim through the UK courts via the Transatlantic Litigation process. Documents will be served with the heading

 

                              Regina v Prince Andrew Windsor

 

Now obviously the Queen never personally attends any case. She is represented by the CPS. Unfortunately no one at the CPS attends on her behalf and Queeni is too busy with the dogs etc. Prince Andrew Windsor turns up in court and the case is thrown out by the judge as the plaintiff didn’t present.

Bye bye Bloodsuckers and whilst you’re travelling back to the US (cattle class I hope) look up the definition of the word ‘child’.

[Chivas]

The only thing Prince Andrew is guilty of is being stupidly in the vicinity of Epsteins entourage, Yes he was an utter berk to be so, but thats as far as it goes

 

If all the snowflakes (across all media) would just engage 1st gear and think for themselves for once they'd realise firstly this guy is a Prince in the biggest Royal Family in the world and as such no matter what his age (then or now) 1000's of females would happily throw themselves at his feet

 

So why on earth would he feel he "needed" to get involved in Trafficked girls !!

 

Not surprisingly should this absolute farce go any further this will be the first line of defence for Andrews briefs.

 

He's guilty of being a total berk in being near Epstein but thats as far as it goes....period

 

 

[cmarshall]

32 minutes ago, DaLa said:

Firstly he will claim that due to the amount of pre-trial publication and the obvious nationality bias that a fair trial can not be expected under the circumstances. Case dismissed.

 

Next….

Some have speculated that he will be charged with a criminal offence...read this:

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

And

The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.

(Refer to Thomas Jefferson, 1813)

 

Which is presumably why there is no criminal charge being made by the authorities in the US.

 

Now if Ms Money Grabber and team win and she is awarded a financial settlement (careful for what you wish for here) this is how I see it being played out:

Prince Andrew does not hold any assets in the US, thus Bloodsuckers, Grabbers and Hush LLP will make a claim through the UK courts via the Transatlantic Litigation process. Documents will be served with the heading

 

                              Regina v Prince Andrew Windsor

 

Now obviously the Queen never personally attends any case. She is represented by the CPS. Unfortunately no one at the CPS attends on her behalf and Queeni is too busy with the dogs etc. Prince Andrew Windsor turns up in court and the case is thrown out by the judge as the plaintiff didn’t present.

Bye bye Bloodsuckers and whilst you’re travelling back to the US (cattle class I hope) look up the definition of the word ‘child’.

1.  I am not aware of any case in any US court that has been dropped on the theory that pre-trial publicity has made it impossible to assemble a fair jury.  He might conceivably apply for a change of venue on that basis, but even that would be very doubtful.  He can, and in my opinion would be well advised to, waive a jury trial altogether and let the judge decide the case.

 

2.  It is very unlikely that Windsor will face criminal charges.  The crime of rape is an offense under the laws of the various states, not federal law.  The Giuffre v. Windsor civil suit has been brought in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, which is a federal court.  The civil suit is governed not by the criminal statutes of either the US or the state of New York, but by the US Civil Code. 

 

3.  You are welcome to cite an inventory of the US assets of A. Windsor and the Windsor family to support your doubtful claim.

 

However, all of this is beside the point.  A. Windsor cannot win the PR contest and indeed, has already lost his "job" while damaging the prestige of his family.  The longer the public case persists, the more damage will done.  To him that is, not to her.  Her case has been taken pro bono by one of the most successful American law firms, Boies Schiller, who do not work for free if the think they will lose.

 

Some good may come of this sordid mess.  Britain could become a republic, for instance.

Edited September 18, 2021 by cmarshall

[cmarshall]

As an addendum to the last post, criminal charges could not be brought in the State of New York, because at the time of the alleged illegal sexual contact in 2001 when Giuffre was seventeen years old, the statute of limitations in New York State for serious sexual crimes was five years commencing from the date the victim reached the age of eighteen if the victim was a minor at the time the crime was committed.  The statute of limitations has since been amended, but I believe that the current limit has also been passed.  

 

Therefore, Giuffre's only available recourse was a civil suit.  

[Kwasaki]

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

As an addendum to the last post, criminal charges could not be brought in the State of New York, because at the time of the alleged illegal sexual contact in 2001 when Giuffre was seventeen years old, the statute of limitations in New York State for serious sexual crimes was five years commencing from the date the victim reached the age of eighteen if the victim was a minor at the time the crime was committed.  The statute of limitations has since been amended, but I believe that the current limit has also been passed.  

 

Therefore, Giuffre's only available recourse was a civil suit.  

What is it with you that drives you to this hate of the Windsor's and England.

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

What is it with you that drives you to this hate of the Windsor's and England.

Are you saying Andrew should be given a free pass and the allegations not be tested in court

[Kwasaki]

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Are you saying Andrew should be given a free pass and the allegations not be tested in court

No not at all but I very much doubt if it will end up in court.

 

He should of known better due to his upbringing and she was obviously influenced and vulnerable and I would of thought he would of known that. 

 

As I kept saying the outcome is still to be known if ever. 

[xylophone]

31 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

What is it with you that drives you to this hate of the Windsor's and England.

I haven't seen cmarshall's posts as portraying a hate towards the Windsors and England, more that they are very informative and I certainly have learnt something from them.

 

I simply see him as stating his case as he sees it, and with his knowledge, thereby trying to lay out both sides of the story for all to see.

[Kwasaki]

8 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I haven't seen cmarshall's posts as portraying a hate towards the Windsors and England, more that they are very informative and I certainly have learnt something from them.

 

I simply see him as stating his case as he sees it, and with his knowledge, thereby trying to lay out both sides of the story for all to see.

Both sides that's funny.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

Hearsay Only and from Claimant. No Witnesses. No Hard Evidence. Reasonable Doubt Everywhere.

Impossible to secure Criminal Conviction. Diplomatic Immunity in any case. End Of.

 

Queen is Head of State of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Realistically, Her Son Simply Cannot be Dragged through any Court and Face Criminal Conviction. Would be Permanent Major International Damage of all sorts, for US & its Closest Allies. Epstein Estate to settle without Andrew Involvement.US “Royal Family” is similarly immune from prosection; Clintons, Obama, CIA road killers., Wall Street Banks, etc. Lets get serious now, shall we ?

 

 

 

 

[Kwasaki]

30 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Hearsay Only and from Claimant. No Witnesses. No Hard Evidence. Reasonable Doubt Everywhere.

Impossible to secure Criminal Conviction. Diplomatic Immunity in any case. End Of.

 

Queen is Head of State of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Realistically, Her Son Simply Cannot be Dragged through any Court and Face Criminal Conviction. Would be Permanent Major International Damage of all sorts, for US & its Closest Allies. Epstein Estate to settle without Andrew Involvement.US “Royal Family” is similarly immune from prosection; Clintons, Obama, CIA road killers., Wall Street Banks, etc. Lets get serious now, shall we ?

 

Serious seriously !!!

Something I mentioned before while there gunning for Andrew while as you mentioned diplomatic immunity is OK for US as in the diplomat that killed a UK young man won't be sent back to UK to face charges but they want Andrew to go USA.

America No. 1 as always.

God bless America. ????

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Hearsay Only and from Claimant. No Witnesses. No Hard Evidence. Reasonable Doubt Everywhere.

Impossible to secure Criminal Conviction. Diplomatic Immunity in any case. End Of.

 

Queen is Head of State of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Realistically, Her Son Simply Cannot be Dragged through any Court and Face Criminal Conviction. Would be Permanent Major International Damage of all sorts, for US & its Closest Allies. Epstein Estate to settle without Andrew Involvement.US “Royal Family” is similarly immune from prosection; Clintons, Obama, CIA road killers., Wall Street Banks, etc. Lets get serious now, shall we ?

 

 

 

 

Sovereign immunity would not extend to Andrew.

Trade envoy diplomatic immunity,  maybe , it would have to be demonstrated that he was doing official business whilst visiting Epstein properties.

[cmarshall]

6 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Sovereign immunity would not extend to Andrew.

Trade envoy diplomatic immunity,  maybe , it would have to be demonstrated that he was doing official business whilst visiting Epstein properties.

In February, 2021 Judge Harry Ellis of the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, decided to allow a civil suit brought by the parents of Harry Dunn against Anne Sacoolas for the wrongful death of their son despite the assertion of the US State Department that she is protected by diplomatic immunity.

 

So, even if diplomatic immunity did apply to A. Windsor, which it certainly doesn't since he was never a diplomat and hasn't been a trade envoy since 2011, Judge Kaplan in the Giuffre v. Windsor case may apparently decide not to recognize it.  

 

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/judge-lets-civil-suit-in-diplomatic-immunity-case-move-ahead/2575877/

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

In February, 2021 Judge Harry Ellis of the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, decided to allow a civil suit brought by the parents of Harry Dunn against Anne Sacoolas for the wrongful death of their son despite the assertion of the US State Department that she is protected by diplomatic immunity.

 

So, even if diplomatic immunity did apply to A. Windsor, which it certainly doesn't since he was never a diplomat and hasn't been a trade envoy since 2011, Judge Kaplan in the Giuffre v. Windsor case may apparently decide not to recognize it.  

 

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/judge-lets-civil-suit-in-diplomatic-immunity-case-move-ahead/2575877/

Talking about a case in America has no bearing on an American Judge or whatever on a British royal subject. 

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

2.  It is very unlikely that Windsor will face criminal charges.  The crime of rape is an offense under the laws of the various states, not federal law.  The Giuffre v. Windsor civil suit has been brought in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, which is a federal court.  The civil suit is governed not by the criminal statutes of either the US or the state of New York, but by the US Civil Code. 

Yes, and why is that?  Because the standard of evidence required is much higher and they know criminal charges would probably fail.

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

Yes, and why is that?  Because the standard of evidence required is much higher and they know criminal charges would probably fail.

The plaintiff in the current case, Virginia Giuffre, has no power to bring a criminal case.  Only a District Attorney can do that.  But as I explained the statute of limitations has apparently run out on the 2001 offense.  As often happens in rape cases particularly with women who do not know their rights, she probably did not report the case at the time.  That is why some jurisdictions in the US have now removed all statutes of limitations on rape cases, but that's not the case in New York State.

 

The only legal action that a victim can initiate on her own is a civil case, which is what she has done.

[KhaoYai]

Just now, cmarshall said:

The plaintiff in the current case, Virginia Giuffre, has no power to bring a criminal case.  Only a District Attorney can do that.

I'm fully aware of that, perhaps in your version of English you don't understand that in this context, the word 'they' is used when referring to the establishment.  In any case, you're splitting hairs - Giuffre would be the one to report the issue - the DA would decide on the merit of the evidence and its potential to achieve a conviction.

[KhaoYai]

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

That is why some jurisdictions in the US have now removed all statutes of limitations on rape cases, but that's not the case in New York State.

I believe she is claiming that one of the THREE occasions where she was 'assualted'  was the US Virgin islands.

Edited September 18, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Jai Dee]

An off-topic grammar police post and some replies have been removed.

[KhaoYai]

Reading Virginia Roberts's (Giuffre) details on Wikipedia, I noticed what I believe to be an important point. Roberts claims that she was tricked by Esptein who told her she would travel around the world as a massuese when in fact he trafficked her for the sexual gratification of his friends and clients. That would imply that she didn't know what was really going on.  In most cases of sex trafficking the victims are held against their will or their passports removed until they've 'repaid their debt' etc. etc.

 

Its claimed that Epstein sent her to Thailand to learn the art of massage and to bring back a young Thai girl who he also intended 'trafficking'. It was there that she met her (now) husband and told Epstein that she would not in fact be returning.

 

This took place after she had been 'trafficked' around the world having sex with various clients and friends of Epstein including as she claims, Prince Andrew.

 

Trafficking implies control - indeed it cannot take place without some form of control. If she was under Eptein's control, how was it that she could simply decide that she no longer wanted to be a part of it and travel to Australia with her husband to be?  Whatever part she played in Epstein's business it would appear totally voluntary to me - indeed she was assisting in the recruitment of the Thai girl by agreeing to pick her up.

 

Flying around the world, going on training courses, sleeping with customers etc. and doing all this alone, free from any chaperone, does not seem to fit with any notion of control - either physical or mental. She appears to have had plenty of time between clients to consider what she was doing.

 

Could it be that her claims are an attempt to avoid any charges of assisting Epstein in her own right whilst also having a second bite of the cherry by taking Prince Andrew to court where the 'punishment' if her case is found, will be a large financial settlement?

 

This girl knew exactly what she was doing at all times, she's just trying to excuse herself for her former life by claiming that she was a victim. Yeah right! You fly around on private jets, attend parties and events for the rich and famous - ulitmately sleeping with them.  One of your 'customers' sexually assaults you but you agree to visit him on 2 further occasions when he 'assaults you again and again - and you're a victim?  Get real!

 

I'll await the next lesson on modern thinking on the issues of control, coercion and abuse.

Edited September 18, 2021 by KhaoYai

[DaLa]

Thank you for admitting your error on that point ;  perhaps you'll also admit that you are disappointed to learn that he can't be charged with a criminal offence.

 

I will admit I do not know of the financial position of any assets Prince Andrew holds in the US, and I presume you do not know either.  Either way we have it covered , it's amazing how a backdated or fake diplomatic title can resolve important issues such as this. The US government have proved this. Probably easier than a fake rape allegation, which as we appear to be taking sides here  as well as discussing the legal issues, I submit is the case.

 

I don't know either party and I don't know the true facts in this case, but for sure I know  the reason for the claim is purely a potential financial gain for both Ms Roberts and her legal team.  My only interest in this is to ensure that there remains a clear demarcation between true rape allegations and ‘you humped me 3 times and didn’t marry me’ type of claim.  That and saving the planet from lawyers who are acting totally in self interest and creating a world where it's impossible to  conduct business or personal relationships without the fear that someone is going to be after your wealth 20 years down the road.

[Rookiescot]

Oh good grief. Years ago he was known as "Randy Andy". Everyone used to laugh about it.

His list of girlfriends was long and all of them were gorgeous. 

The guy would have done a barbers floor.

Now. Was he enjoying girls provided by Epstein and Murdoch? Probably.

Was she making money out of this arrangement and happy with it? Probably. Otherwise she would not have stuck around.

Was Andrew stupid to continue to hang around with Epstein when times and attitudes changed? Aye. He was.

Did anyone believe his "I dont sweat" interview? No.

Does anyone believe Virginia Roberts claims that all this was non consensual? No.

 

Judge should just throw it out and tell everyone "You all knew what you were doing now get on with it".

[DaLa]

36 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Oh good grief. Years ago he was known as "Randy Andy". Everyone used to laugh about it.

His list of girlfriends was long and all of them were gorgeous. 

The guy would have done a barbers floor.

Now. Was he enjoying girls provided by Epstein and Murdoch? Probably.

Was she making money out of this arrangement and happy with it? Probably. Otherwise she would not have stuck around.

Was Andrew stupid to continue to hang around with Epstein when times and attitudes changed? Aye. He was.

Did anyone believe his "I dont sweat" interview? No.

Does anyone believe Virginia Roberts claims that all this was non consensual? No.

 

Judge should just throw it out and tell everyone "You all knew what you were doing now get on with it".

I believe (and would hope) that would be the case in the UK, but the US is the most litigious country in the world. One of the great aspects of running a business in los is that if someone comes in our shop and trips over something I don’t have to worry that a letter from Bloodsuckers, Grabbers and Hush LLP is going to land on my doorstep sometime in the next 20 years. Or even worse I don’t have a sticker on a chair leg advising customers ‘DO NOT BEAT YOURSELF OVER THE HEAD WITH THIS CHAIR LEG’ and they sue me because I didn’t warn them.

I know a lot of these anecdotes are false, worryingly however is that many are not and the legal profession would love to see an expansion of their workloads.

 

Now about Randy Andy, the case should be thrown out if this label ever enters into the proceedings. It shows complete prior bias alone and is nothing more than a headline grabber, journalists would have never used the label Randy Frederick or Randy Theodore, it just suited their schoolboy level of humour.

 

One sad aspect of this, having being involved in a prolonged legal case involving the death of a family member is that the legal process is going to be more stressful and painful than the pain of the claim she is making. Don’t worry the lawyers won’t be losing any sleep if they lose the case, I presume they have discussed their get out clause; that is they ‘believe’ she has a 51% chance of winning.

[cleopatra2]

40 minutes ago, DaLa said:

I believe (and would hope) that would be the case in the UK, but the US is the most litigious country in the world. One of the great aspects of running a business in los is that if someone comes in our shop and trips over something I don’t have to worry that a letter from Bloodsuckers, Grabbers and Hush LLP is going to land on my doorstep sometime in the next 20 years. Or even worse I don’t have a sticker on a chair leg advising customers ‘DO NOT BEAT YOURSELF OVER THE HEAD WITH THIS CHAIR LEG’ and they sue me because I didn’t warn them.

I know a lot of these anecdotes are false, worryingly however is that many are not and the legal profession would love to see an expansion of their workloads.

 

Now about Randy Andy, the case should be thrown out if this label ever enters into the proceedings. It shows complete prior bias alone and is nothing more than a headline grabber, journalists would have never used the label Randy Frederick or Randy Theodore, it just suited their schoolboy level of humour.

 

One sad aspect of this, having being involved in a prolonged legal case involving the death of a family member is that the legal process is going to be more stressful and painful than the pain of the claim she is making. Don’t worry the lawyers won’t be losing any sleep if they lose the case, I presume they have discussed their get out clause; that is they ‘believe’ she has a 51% chance of winning.

I understand Andrew could have avoided the litigation if he had chosen to co-operate with the FBI requests.

It is difficult to believe Andrew based on the Newsnight Interview, and is lack of co operation suggests that there are still issues not publicly known. It is curious as to why Maxwell e-mailed Andrew stating that she had info about Roberts the day after Roberts made her accusations .

Along with Andrew response that he had specific questions about Roberts .

 

The Roberts v Andrew is now so much embedded into the public discourse that my own view is that it should be examined in court where all the evidence can be put forth and finally resolved. Do I think this will happen , no.