Prince Andrew - Court

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/16/2021 at 7:11 PM, cmarshall said:

 

Boies is probably researching assets belonging to the Windsors in the US right now...

The assets of the Windsors in the US are irrelevant, it's the assets of only one Windsor that would be of any interest.  

[cleopatra2]

13 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I have no idea if the man is lying or not but given that he's a member of the Royal Family, do you think he's going to admit to sleeping with a hooker?

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/17/2021 at 9:46 AM, robblok said:

Just look at how Andrew avoided to get the court papers. Having his sercurity refuse and hiding. If normal people do it they get punished for it and it looks bad. Seems for royals its ok to play dirty.

He wasn't hiding, it was known that he was at Balmoral with the Queen at the time.    Not being available to receive court papers is not an offence and no one gets punished for that!

[cleopatra2]

22 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Andrew's lawyers will simply claim that his recollection of events is different and that it is unreasonable to expect someone to be clear on events 20 years ago. It still doesn't prove rape - that's an entirely different matter.  That would be fairly easy to establish in a UK court - but god knows what could happen in the US where court cases sometimes seem to be like soap operas.

in what way is Andrew recollection different.

[bangkokbonecollector]

A truly ridiculous case. The legal age of consent is 16 in the UK. Whatever apparently happened happened in the UK so as far as Andrew is concerned he should tell the pathetic legal system which is the US, to kindly go insert their pointed ones into their rectums forthwith! The parents are the ones who should be in court for allowing these people to abuse her when she should have still been under their watchful eye and caring attention!

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Diplomatic Immunity in any case. End Of.

Andrew does not have Diplomatic Immunity but, even if he did have it, it does not extend to civil cases.  Diplomatic immunity also does not apply in a person's home country and there is no chance that he will be visiting the US any time soon.

[KhaoYai]

6 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

in what way is Andrew recollection different.

He says he's never met her - this has been discussed several times.

 

To be fair, just about every aspect of this matter has been debated here, repeatedly. We all have different opinions but none of us is a court.  I doubt the Prince's lawyers will let this get to court which means that Roberts (Guiffre) will get her second bite of the cherry without ever having proven any of her allegations - and I think she knows that.  This is and always has been about milking a rich man out of as much money as possible.

 

Personally I'd like to see the Prince prosecuted for rape in a British court - then we'd see how strong Robert's evidence is and whether or not to Prince's version of whether he met Roberts or not has any bearing at all on the rape allegation.

 

Unless there's anything new on this matter, I've nothing further to say, I see no sense in going round in circles and I thank everyone for their input.

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

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 ?

Yes, get serious, please.   There is not going to be any criminal conviction because there are no criminal charges or criminal cases as far as Prince Andrew's issues are concerned.

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours 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.  

Diplomatic immunity does not apply in civil cases even if he did qualify for it, which he doesn't.

[Why Me]

What Andrew should be terrified of is Ghislaine Maxwell singing for the purpose a plea deal. She knew all that was going on, not to mention the fact that she was the one who introduced Andrew to Epstein so would have had a particular interest in his recreational outlets in Epstein's company.

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

He says he's never met her - this has been discussed several times.

 

To be fair, just about every aspect of this matter has been debated here, repeatedly. We all have different opinions but none of us is a court.  I doubt the Prince's lawyers will let this get to court which means that Roberts (Guiffre) will get her second bite of the cherry without ever having proven any of her allegations - and I think she knows that.  This is and always has been about milking a rich man out of as much money as possible.

 

Personally I'd like to see the Prince prosecuted for rape in a British court - then we'd see how strong Robert's evidence is and whether or not to Prince's version of whether he met Roberts or not has any bearing at all on the rape allegation.

 

Unless there's anything new on this matter, I've nothing further to say, I see no sense in going round in circles and I thank everyone for their input.

There is an independent witness stating Andrew was in the nightclub .

There is a photograph of Andrew and Roberts together 

There is deposition stating Andrew and Roberts had met

There is deposition statement that Epstein applying pressure for Roberts to sleep with Andrew

There is the e-mail between Andrew and Maxwell discussing Roberts.

[Liverpool Lou]

54 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Uñtimate Sanction : Diplomatic Immunity. No Case to Answer.

Nonsense.  He doesn't qualify for Diplomatic immunity but that immunity doesn't extend to civil cases anyway.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

Check Definition of Diplomatic Immunity. No mention of civil / criminal just “ personal activities” .protection. If UK Govt. says he has it he has it.. Anyway I said thats an “Ultimate” Sanction. Case probably wont come to Court but if it does he wont appear (DI). He cant settle out of court as that’s a virtual guilt admission. Monarchy can’t take that hit. Maxwell has Zero Credibility as Hostile Witness. Even If he ( ultimately, see below) loses on “ balance of probability” criteria , in civil case,in absentia, we come back to….. DI.

 

Someones picking up a hefty legal bill for zero return unless Epstein estate intervenes to settle……..some people ARE effectively untouchably above the law and he’s certainly one of them ( Clintons too). …even though he has to pretend he’s not…..he can spend millions on the very best lawyers and take years dragging this out endlessly in the courts…..this woman and her backers can’t possibly match his resources……

[cmarshall]

7 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Diplomatic immunity does not apply in civil cases even if he did qualify for it, which he doesn't.

Not true.

 

In the United States, the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. § 254a et seq.) follows the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions. The United States tends to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats, because a large number of US diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, US representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment. If a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime or faces a civil lawsuit, the State Department asks the home country to waive immunity of the alleged offender so that the complaint can be moved to the courts. If immunity is not waived, prosecution cannot be undertaken.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_United_States

[KhaoYai]

7 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

There is an independent witness stating Andrew was in the nightclub .

There is a photograph of Andrew and Roberts together 

There is deposition stating Andrew and Roberts had met

There is deposition statement that Epstein applying pressure for Roberts to sleep with Andrew

There is the e-mail between Andrew and Maxwell discussing Roberts.

As I said before - this is just repetition and for the final time I will also repeat - none of the above in any way establishes that the Prince sexually assaulted the girl. If the day has come where we say sexual assault took place simply because a girl says it has - we're all doomed.

 

I would further note that with regard to the witnesses you refer to above - they relate to the London meeting.  The age of consent is 16 in the UK, there is no way Roberts can claim statutory rape in London. On that basis, I presume the girl is using the other 2 times she claims he assaulted her which puts the witnesses out of the frame. Is the detail of her claim known yet? Is she claiming straight sexual assault or is she claiming it was assault because she was a minor?

 

What e-mail and when was it dated?  If you are refering to the e-mail in the reports below. Where does he admit to having met her?

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-asked-jeffrey-epstein-s-exgirlfriend-for-help-over-virginia-guiffre-claims-leaked-email-appears-to-show-a4302756.html

 

Again, you are trying him here - none of us know what went on and very little detail has been released.

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

As I said before - this is just repetition and for the final time I will also repeat - none of the above in any way establishes that the Prince sexually assaulted the girl. If the day has come where we say sexual assault took place simply because a girl says it has - we're all doomed.

 

I would further note that with regard to the witnesses you refer to above - they relate to the London meeting.  The age of consent is 16 in the UK, there is no way Roberts can claim statutory rape in London. On that basis, I presume the girl is using the other 2 times she claims he assaulted her which puts the witnesses out of the frame. Is the detail of her claim known yet? Is she claiming straight sexual assault or is she claiming it was assault because she was a minor?

 

What e-mail and when was it dated?  If you are refering to the e-mail in the reports below. Where does he admit to having met her?

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-asked-jeffrey-epstein-s-exgirlfriend-for-help-over-virginia-guiffre-claims-leaked-email-appears-to-show-a4302756.html

 

Again, you are trying him here - none of us know what went on and very little detail has been released.

More misconceptions.  

 

In a civil suit the plaintiff claims that the defendant has committed a tortious act, i.e. an action that has harmed her and for which he has failed to exercise due caution.  It is not a requirement that the act also violates the law.  For instance, perhaps you backed up your car and ran over the neighbor's cat.  It's not a crime to back up your car.  However if you ran over the cat because you failed to look in the rear-facing video then you have committed a tort and the cat's owner is entitled to compensation, even though you didn't break the law and cannot be charged with a crime.

 

Giuffre's age could still be a factor in the current case.  Since she was under age at the time of the sexual activity in New York City the defense cannot claim that the activity was consensual since a minor cannot give legal consent.  However, even if the sexual activity took place in a jurisdiction where the victim was of legal age to give consent, that does not relieve the defendant of his obligation to exercise due care, for instance, to verify that she was not being trafficked for his benefit or subject to pressure and manipulation.  If Windsor conspired in the trafficking of Giuffre then he commit a crime under New York law even if she was of age in London.

 

Where did you get the odd idea that we are not entitled to our opinion of his guilt or innocence?  No one other than the jury and officers of the court has any obligation to regard any accused as innocent until proven guilty.

[cleopatra2]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

As I said before - this is just repetition and for the final time I will also repeat - none of the above in any way establishes that the Prince sexually assaulted the girl. If the day has come where we say sexual assault took place simply because a girl says it has - we're all doomed.

 

I would further note that with regard to the witnesses you refer to above - they relate to the London meeting.  The age of consent is 16 in the UK, there is no way Roberts can claim statutory rape in London. On that basis, I presume the girl is using the other 2 times she claims he assaulted her which puts the witnesses out of the frame. Is the detail of her claim known yet? Is she claiming straight sexual assault or is she claiming it was assault because she was a minor?

 

What e-mail and when was it dated?  If you are refering to the e-mail in the reports below. Where does he admit to having met her?

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-asked-jeffrey-epstein-s-exgirlfriend-for-help-over-virginia-guiffre-claims-leaked-email-appears-to-show-a4302756.html

 

Again, you are trying him here - none of us know what went on and very little detail has been released.

The case will be judged on balance of probabilities.

There is at present more compelling evidence to support her version than Andrew's. 

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

As I said before - this is just repetition and for the final time I will also repeat - none of the above in any way establishes that the Prince sexually assaulted the girl. If the day has come where we say sexual assault took place simply because a girl says it has - we're all doomed.

 

I would further note that with regard to the witnesses you refer to above - they relate to the London meeting.  The age of consent is 16 in the UK, there is no way Roberts can claim statutory rape in London. On that basis, I presume the girl is using the other 2 times she claims he assaulted her which puts the witnesses out of the frame. Is the detail of her claim known yet? Is she claiming straight sexual assault or is she claiming it was assault because she was a minor?

 

What e-mail and when was it dated?  If you are refering to the e-mail in the reports below. Where does he admit to having met her?

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-asked-jeffrey-epstein-s-exgirlfriend-for-help-over-virginia-guiffre-claims-leaked-email-appears-to-show-a4302756.html

 

Again, you are trying him here - none of us know what went on and very little detail has been released.

Her interview description of what happened sounds like she still consented at the time and now regrets it,  would that be fair.? 

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The case will be judged on balance of probabilities.

There is at present more compelling evidence to support her version than Andrew's. 

Could you accept that if Prince Andrew just came out and just admitted having sex with her and said he thought it was consensual would that solve the case. 

I guess it would about the time in UK but the problem is the US side of it. 

 

[cmarshall]

18 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Her interview description of what happened sounds like she still consented at the time and now regrets it,  would that be fair.? 

Let me explain it once again.  A MINOR CANNOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT.  No matter what she said or did at the time.  Had she sat down and written out a document explicitly authorizing the Windsor boy to have intercourse with her, signed it, and had it witnessed, IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CASE.  INDEED, IT WOULD NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, SINCE A MINOR CANNOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT.  

 

Get it?

[cleopatra2]

21 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Could you accept that if Prince Andrew just came out and just admitted having sex with her and said he thought it was consensual would that solve the case. 

I guess it would about the time in UK but the problem is the US side of it. 

 

This would be problematic . Andrew 's relationship with Epstein and Maxwell would come under extreme scrutiny as to what the prince knew.

 

[MRToMRT]

According to an Alan Dershowitz interview I watched last night on the TV, she received 5,000,000 USD payout from Epstein already to settle all cases related. Is this true.

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, MRToMRT said:

According to an Alan Dershowitz interview I watched last night on the TV, she received 5,000,000 USD payout from Epstein already to settle all cases related. Is this true.

She did sign an agreement with Epstein in 2009 which Alan "I Kept My Underpants On" Dershowitz negotiated on behalf of his friend Epstein.  The agreement was sealed, so no one other than the participants knows what the terms are.  Bettler, the lawyer for the Windsor lad, has request Judge Kaplan who is presiding over the current Giuffre case to unseal the 2009 agreement from which we can conclude that Bettler and the other attorneys do not know the contents either.

 

It is alleged that per the agreement Giuffre signed away her right to sue any one among the Epstein's circle.  If that is true, the question remains whether that right can be enforced by someone not a party to the agreement.  David Boies, Giuffre's lawyer presumably would have been apprised of the contents of the agreement by his client before he agreed to take the case pro bono.

[Kwasaki]

43 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Let me explain it once again.  A MINOR CANNOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT.  No matter what she said or did at the time.  Had she sat down and written out a document explicitly authorizing the Windsor boy to have intercourse with her, signed it, and had it witnessed, IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CASE.  INDEED, IT WOULD NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, SINCE A MINOR CANNOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT.  

 

Get it?

No because a 17 year old is not a minor in UK. 

[cmarshall]

5 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

No because a 17 year old is not a minor in UK. 

And what bearing does that have upon the case before the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, which has been independent of the UK since 1781?

[Kwasaki]

47 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

This would be problematic . Andrew 's relationship with Epstein and Maxwell would come under extreme scrutiny as to what the prince knew.

 

Yeah a fair call. 

[cleopatra2]

19 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

No because a 17 year old is not a minor in UK. 

it would be argued that any consent was not given freely, but made under pressure of intimidation or threat.

[Kwasaki]

17 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

And what bearing does that have upon the case before the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, which has been independent of the UK since 1781?

Well there lays the problem. 

[cmarshall]

If the case does come to trial and the defense is just that it was a he said, she said situation then defense will be hard-pressed to make that case unless Windsor himself takes the stand.  That means that he would have to attend the trial unless the judge permits zoom testimony.  However, Windsor has been identified by the FBI as a "person of interest" in the ongoing Epstein/Maxwell investigation.  As such, the FBI could grab him as soon as he lands on US soil for questioning.  Lying to the FBI is a felony in the US whether or not the witness is under oath.  Since Windsor cannot refrain from lying, he would expose himself to serious legal jeopardy.

 

All the more reason that the family will pay whatever Giuffre demands to make the case go away.  They could have done so quietly during the months when Giuffre's attorneys attempted to negotiate a settlement out of public scrutiny, but Windsor just blew them off.  Too bad for him.

[cmarshall]

14 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

it would be argued that any consent was not given freely, but made under pressure of intimidation or threat.

No it can't be argued that she gave legal consent under any circumstances.  If the defense attempts to raise the issue of consent the plaintiff's counsel will object and the judge will not permit it to be discussed.