6 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

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

That could go both ways and not wanting to judge her it would be just my opinion that it doesn't sound like that in her interview unless I'm missing something.

27 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

That could go both ways and not wanting to judge her it would be just my opinion that it doesn't sound like that in her interview unless I'm missing something.

This situation is somewhat complicated , because of the US child exploitation laws.

US sex trafficking laws , have extraterritorial jurisdiction ( they apply outside the US , in limited circumstances ). Under US law Roberts being under 18 is regarded as a child and thus unable to give consent.

 

Even in the UK current law makes it unlawful to pay for sex from someone under the age 18 or any person forced.

Not Possible for ANY Royal Family member to NOT be covered by some form of “Diplomatic Immunity” when outside UK, for any reason. They would surely carry Diplomatic Passports. 

 

Otherwise the Queen, for example, could be “ arrested” by any tinpot little foreign copper or citizen, for any imagined “crime” or for any reason to gain some publicity or perceived advantage. Brings to mind the Bobby Moore “ shoplifting” incident designed to unsettle the England football team in Mexico in 1970.

 

How naive to imagine they travel overseas as ordinary citizens.

Although thats the case according to UCL UK Law Professor.

( How detached from reality is that guy, imagining everything subject to “the law” ?) 

Royal Family Lining up with the rest of us at (Fast Track) Immi. counters perhaps ? I think not……

 

Now, Andrew could be extended (ultimate resort) “Sovereign Immunity”, higher than DI, by the Queen. Sun article 10 August 2021. Grey Area in intl. law it seems but inconceivable he’s not somehow immune from any and all prosections (at least for incidents outside UK).

16 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

This situation is somewhat complicated , because of the US child exploitation laws.

US sex trafficking laws , have extraterritorial jurisdiction ( they apply outside the US , in limited circumstances ). Under US law Roberts being under 18 is regarded as a child and thus unable to give consent.

 

Even in the UK current law makes it unlawful to pay for sex from someone under the age 18 or any person forced.

Yeah I'm gonna bail out of this thread so to speak and see how things pan out in the news.

 

The next Netflix film I presume. ????

6 hours ago, cmarshall said:

13 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.

It is true.  

Whilst she could have been sexually assaulted once, to put herself in the same position a further two times is quite ludicrous. Could only have happened if she were a prisoner

 

Off Topic but Came To Mind from watching You Tube too  Much :-

Life Rule: NEVER speak to any western Cops beyond minimum narrow range, at the stop, as below, without your Lawyer present, if detained / arrested. Decline Requested Search Requests.They are not your friends. They have conviction quotas to maintain to support their next promotion or to stay employed.

 

On legit traffic stops hand over minimum required ID. Do Not Speak except to say ????

I Do Not Answer Questions.

I do not Consent.

May I have my Docs Back ?  

Am I Detained. ?

I am leaving now.

You Are Dismissed.

 

14 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

 

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations grants diplomats immunity from all civil lawsuits except for those that involve “private immovable property.”

 

Diplomats often use diplomatic immunity to escape civil cases for rent, parking fines etc, but as you rightly say Prince Andrew isn't an accredited diplomat.

 

13 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

 

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations grants diplomats immunity from all civil lawsuits except for those that involve “private immovable property.”

 

Diplomats often use diplomatic immunity to escape civil cases for rent, parking fines etc, but as you rightly say Prince Andrew isn't an accredited diplomat.

 

He was, however, apparently a "trade envoy" at the time of his sexual abuse of the plaintiff, which sounds like it might be a consular post that could be covered by consular immunity:

 

Consular personnel perform a variety of
functions of principal interest to their
respective sending countries (e.g., issuance
of travel documents, attending to the
difculties of their own nationals who are in
the host country, and generally promoting the
commerce of the sending country). Countries
have long recognized the importance of
consular functions to their overall relations,
but consular personnel generally do not have
the principal role of providing communication
between the two countries — that function is
performed by diplomatic agents at embassies
in capitals. The 1963 Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations grants a very limited level
of privileges and immunities to consular
personnel assigned to consulates that are
located outside of capitals.
There is a common misunderstanding that
consular personnel have diplomatic status and
are entitled to diplomatic immunity.

 

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/21-303-UAE-Diplomatic-and-Consular-PI.pdf

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

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

At least she is now being referred to as a ‘minor’ and not a child. So lets just remind people , a child is a biological human between the time of birth and puberty. A minor is a person who is under the age of majority. Minors are considered to be under the care of a parent or guardian. If Ms Roberts had been under the care of a parent or guardian presumably she wouldn’t have been travelling the world unaccompanied.

 

In my view if Prince Andrew did have relations with her he would have known she wasn’t a child and as she was unaccompanied he would have also known she wasn’t a minor. Presumably he believed quite reasonably that she was an adult.

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Someone else who doesn't understand how extradition treaties and requests work! 

I will readily admit I am ‘someone else’ that doesn’t know how extradition treaties work. The post was placed without that knowledge as a throw away to the situation with a US citizen that has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving and has mysteriously been able to avoid facing a criminal court in the UK. The main point of my post was that we supposedly have a treaty with the US, highlighted by the reduction of 1 country from the list.

 

Someone else that knows what others don’t and cant be bothered to let us in on the secret. I’m all ears and willing to listen to your profound knowledge.

18 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

He claimed on the evening he was at home and he specifically remembers this.

A witness has placed Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein in the nightclub.

Being in the nightclub supports Roberts version of events.

 

 

Prince Andrew being in the nightclub supports Ms Roberts stating he was in the nightclub. Absolutely nothing else.  If that is all the support she needs to prove her case then there’s going to be some interesting claims through legal action in the future.

On 9/15/2021 at 6:27 PM, KhaoYai said:

OK, I guess it was naive of me to expect this thread to remain about the legal context and to refrain from passing an opinion so I'll show my colours and throw this into the pot:

 

None of us know the facts on this case and very few, if any, will have had full access to the Epstein case. With that in mind, the best any of us can do is to form an opinion based on what we do know.  However, we should also be aware that the media has an agenda and is therefore more likely to publicise matters that support that agenda - in other words, the news is slanted and biased towards sensationalism so we should be careful with that.

 

I do have an opinion but that opinion is not on the Prince's guilt or innocence because I have no evidence, and as far as I know, neither does the court, of the events that took place between Prince Andrew and the girl.  I do though, have an opinion on the overall concept that has brought about this casse.

 

Realating purely to the girl known at the time as Virginia Roberts. Roberts was stated as being 17 at the time she was photographed standing with Prince Andrew but in all, fairness, if it was stated that she was 21, it would be entirely credible. We are told this girl was 'trafficked' - flown around the world to attend parties and events and have sex with celebrities and other such hi-so's.  . Flown around the world in a private jet by the way.  It would appear that she was not handcuffed at any time or forced to do anything.  By her own admission she had sex with Prince Andrew on 3 occasions, each at different locations yet now she claims it was assault?

 

I'll word this delicately but is it not entirely possible that this girl was actually taking part in the world's oldest profession?  Living the high life, attending the best clubs, restaurants etc. etc. and getting paid for it?  It then takes her 20 years to make her claim that she was sexually assaulted.  If she'd been assaulted, why did she go back for more?  Why did she agree to go back to a house with the Prince after visiting a nightclub of her own volition? Was she kidnapped at the club, bundled into the back of a car and taken to the house? I know what I think.

 

In my opinion there is only one motive behind these charges and that is to make money.

 

During my teen years I had an on/off relationship with a girl who went off, supposedly to work on a cruise ship.  I didn't see her for almost 20 years until I arrived at Changi airport in Singapore one day and someone called my name. To cut a long story short we spent a day together drinking and catching up.  We were close enough from the past for her to talk quite frankly to me - it even seemed as if she was glad to be able to speak freely about what she had been doing.  She had not joined a cruise ship at all, she'd spent a large part of the last 20 years doing exactly what I suspect the girl in this case was doing - nobody forced her, trafficked her etc. etc. When she got older and became 'less in demand' she married one of her clients and moved to Singapore.  It happens and according to me ex gf, there are agencies all over the world that provide such services for those that can afford it.

 

I would state that in no way do I condone sex with monors, sexual assault, rape, sex trafficing or any other such activity but I think there is a very big difference between consensual sex and sexual assault.

 

Would Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) be making the same claims if she'd slept with you or I 3 times?

I think, on the balance of probability, your assumptions are correct.  And I also think these financially motivated, celebrity cases are damaging to the people who are real victims of abuse.

 

Trafficking and abuse is a major global tragedy, but it largely takes place in the shadows, with little chance of escape.  How many opportunities did she have to exit the cycle of abuse?  She made some poor lifestyle choices when she was younger, now she wants to capitalize (further) on those events, and it's this aspect of her case that is not helpful for the real victims.  

 

The 'Me too' movement was not the 'Pay me too' movement.

 

 

2 hours ago, theoldgit said:

 

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations grants diplomats immunity from all civil lawsuits except for those that involve “private immovable property.”

 

Diplomats often use diplomatic immunity to escape civil cases for rent, parking fines etc, but as you rightly say Prince Andrew isn't an accredited diplomat.

 

I’m sure the ability to backdate or create the necessary documents for him exists. A similar method the US had for Anne Sacoolas.

18 hours ago, cmarshall said:

There's no error.  Yes, I believe that Windsor commit the crime of statutory rape against Giuffre.  No, I don't think he can be charged now for that crime in New York State, because the statute of limitations has by now precluded that option.   What is difficult to understand about that?

Nothing for me to not understand, it was you that proposed in the first instance that ‘he is guilty of statutory rape’ and then posted an addendum after presumably consulting the relevant law. Thats ok we all jump to conclusions occasionally.

 

Now how are you so sure he committed the crime of statutory rape? Were you present?

 

If you can’t answer that can you at least let me and others in this thread know why you are so positive he is at fault in this case. I have explained my interest in the matter but would really like to know what incentivises you to have such a grudge against the UK royal family and particularly Prince Andrew. Or is it the UK in general.

 

You are obviously an intelligent person, well versed in US law and proceedings, your posts are accurate and full of information that I was unaware of but you are so biased I have to wonder why. Have you or one of your family been personally affected by a similar case, are you personally involved in this case, are you a lawyer and believe that all the ills of the world can be bought off, did you once visit Windsor castle and one of the guards give you a clip behind the ear for being cheeky and you’ve held a grudge since?

yes kwasaki: that woman was married to a spook so falls under US DI, er… no. so then SHE was a spook too to qualify under DI…. er, no again. she werent no spook, driving wrong side of road  “undercover”  in foreign land !  LikevSpys Like Us comedy !! ! jeez, stds at the Farm must have slipped drastically then….. no freakin way a dope like her would pass the CIA spook tests…..she even had to be told to leave UK by US authorities…… she’s clearly as dumb as a fence post …….

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

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.

I think you will find I said we all have our opinions.  In my opinion, your claims are unfounded, based on what's been in the media and have no regard to the evidence to be used. That evidence and full details of Robert's claim is yet to be released and may never be.

 

On the other hand, I also have no knowledge of either the claim or what went on but what I do have,  from a little research is some of Robert's history - more than enough information to cast a shadow on what she was up to.  She appears to have had an awful young life being firstly abused by a family friend and then getting involved with a sex trafficker.  However, she appears to have got away from all that, gone to live with her father who then got her a job.  There is no mention of any mental retardation yet she seems to have readily got involved in prostitution. She was 17 by this time for god's sake - hardly a child.  Are we supposed to believe that she actually thought she was going to become a masseuse? By her owb admission she was physically free to come and go as she pleased.

 

Yes, I am bisased, biased because given her history I just don't buy her story. I've read both sides of what's available so far.  What we have here is not a naive girl who was forced to have sex with the rich and famous.  She was not under lock and key - she was not even chaperoned. She flew around the world, often alone and even agreed to assist in the recruitment of at least one other girl.  She had every opportunity to get away from what she claims was a terrible situation where she was controlled and manipulated.  She doesn't seem to have had any problem leaving that lifestyle when she met her now husband.  Then there's the fact that by her own admission, she claims to have had sex with Prince Andrew (who you smugly keep referring to as the 'Windsor lad' despite him being 61 years old) on 3 separate occasions.  According to her he was repulsive and sexually assualted her!

 

"I was just like grossed out from it, but I knew I had to keep him happy because that's what Jeffrey and Ghislaine (Maxwell) would have expected from me,"

 

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

 

She was sexually assaulted yet went back for more because she was expected to? Please.....................I live in the countryside and I know the smell of B  S very well.

 

On the other hand, do I believe Prince Andrew's story that he never met her? No, on balance I don't.  However, nor do I believe that he sexually assaulted her or that he knew she was 17 - I very much doubt he ever asked her age.  As with other posters here, I have no love for the Prince whatsoever but I'm sick of reading stories about these gold digggers, ashamed of their former lives and making their claims.  All they do is weaken the case of the hundreds of girls that are genuinely 'trafficked' every year by criminal gangs.  The girl needs to accept her past choices and live with them.

 

Yours is far more than an opinion - its an absolute conviction that the Prince is guilty despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that the girl knew what she was getting into. Let me remind you, the claim here is Sexual Assault and you have provided absolutely no evidence at all as to your claim of guilt.  I don't know what the case is with a US civil court but in a UK criminal court the accused would have to have had reasonable knowledge that the girl was under-age.  Look at her photos - does she look under age?  Have you asked every girl you've slept with to provide their birth certificate?

4 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I think you will find I said we all have our opinions.  In my opinion, your claims are unfounded, based on what's been in the media and have no regard to the evidence to be used. That evidence and full details of Robert's claim is yet to be released and may never be.

 

On the other hand, I also have no knowledge of either the claim or what went on but what I do have,  from a little research is some of Robert's history - more than enough information to cast a shadow on what she was up to.  She appears to have had an awful young life being firstly abused by a family friend and then getting involved with a sex trafficker.  However, she appears to have got away from all that, gone to live with her father who then got her a job.  There is no mention of any mental retardation yet she seems to have readily got involved in prostitution. She was 17 by this time for god's sake - hardly a child.  Are we supposed to believe that she actually thought she was going to become a masseuse? By her owb admission she was physically free to come and go as she pleased.

 

Yes, I am bisased, biased because given her history I just don't buy her story. I've read both sides of what's available so far.  What we have here is not a naive girl who was forced to have sex with the rich and famous.  She was not under lock and key - she was not even chaperoned. She flew around the world, often alone and even agreed to assist in the recruitment of at least one other girl.  She had every opportunity to get away from what she claims was a terrible situation where she was controlled and manipulated.  She doesn't seem to have had any problem leaving that lifestyle when she met her now husband.  Then there's the fact that by her own admission, she claims to have had sex with Prince Andrew (who you smugly keep referring to as the 'Windsor lad' despite him being 61 years old) on 3 separate occasions.  According to her he was repulsive and sexually assualted her!

 

"I was just like grossed out from it, but I knew I had to keep him happy because that's what Jeffrey and Ghislaine (Maxwell) would have expected from me,"

 

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

 

She was sexually assaulted yet went back for more because she was expected to? Please.....................I live in the countryside and I know the smell of B  S very well.

 

On the other hand, do I believe Prince Andrew's story that he never met her? No, on balance I don't.  However, nor do I believe that he sexually assaulted her or that he knew she was 17 - I very much doubt he ever asked her age.  As with other posters here, I have no love for the Prince whatsoever but I'm sick of reading stories about these gold digggers, ashamed of their former lives and making their claims.  All they do is weaken the case of the hundreds of girls that are genuinely 'trafficked' every year by criminal gangs.  The girl needs to accept her past choices and live with them.

 

Yours is far more than an opinion - its an absolute conviction that the Prince is guilty despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that the girl knew what she was getting into. Let me remind you, the claim here is Sexual Assault and you have provided absolutely no evidence at all as to your claim of guilt.  I don't know what the case is with a US civil court but in a UK criminal court the accused would have to have had reasonable knowledge that the girl was under-age.  Look at her photos - does she look under age?  Have you asked every girl you've slept with to provide their birth certificate?

Deleted due to error

David Boies speaks: