Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[OneMoreFarang]

22 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Virginia Giuffre claims Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her at Jeffrey Epstein's home at 17.

...

"Andrew reached a settlement with Giuffre on Tuesday, according to court documents obtained by Insider.

 

The prince intends to make a "substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre's charity in support of victims' right," the sum of which was not disclosed, according to a joint statement made in the court filing. 

 

The statement added: "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years."

 

https://www.insider.com/virginia-roberts-sexual-assault-claims-prince-andrew-timeline-2021-8#february-2022-andrew-reached-an-out-of-court-settlement-with-giuffre-16

And obviously we all believe statements which people sign after lots of lawyers made up that text and probably "optimized" it for days. Yeah, sure.

[Thunglom]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That's your version, I have a different version.

that's what I just said - QED!

 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think it is interesting that you describe a woman who deliberately destroys the life of a legally innocent person as smart.

Words like nasty come to my mind. Nobody forced her to have sex with Andrew - if it ever happened. 

Oh, come on. "Legally innocent" is quibbling. He destroyed his own life when he associated with a convicted sex offender, then doubled down with the 2019 interview, where his BS was exposed for what it was.

The damage was done well before the current settlement.

 

[BritManToo]

8 hours ago, ozimoron said:

A lot of people don't seem get that she was a minor and therefore easily influenced and not able to make a mature, informed decision of her own volition.

She wasn't a minor in the UK or Europe at that time.

She could get a driving license, live on her own, get married, have kids but not vote or drink in a bar.

Edited February 17, 2022 by BritManToo

[seedy]

16 hours ago, Pravda said:

Too funny cuz UK taxpayer paid 

Being a former member of the "Colonies" I can not wrap my head around why the UK taxpayer keeps funding the richest woman in the world and her incestuous family tree ?

Those sad, tired old cliches about 'Tradition' ?

Where I come from what they do is not traditional it is illegal

[ozimoron]

29 minutes ago, seedy said:

Being a former member of the "Colonies" I can not wrap my head around why the UK taxpayer keeps funding the richest woman in the world and her incestuous family tree ?

Those sad, tired old cliches about 'Tradition' ?

Where I come from what they do is not traditional it is illegal

Supposedly they actually earn revenue for the country but I would wonder if the total cost was tallied up. Worse, these blood suckers don't even have to clean up their own mess.

 

Andrew and Giuffre have agreed for the amount of the settlement to remain confidential, but it has been reported to be £12 million pounds ($22.6 million).

The question of how Andrew can afford this needs an answer. Reports suggest that he has sold his ski chalet, apparently worth £18 million, after settling a debt. The remaining proceeds will go some of the way to fund the settlement, but the rest will reportedly come from the Queen.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/where-will-prince-andrews-settlement-money-come-from/100838738

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The question of how Andrew can afford this needs an answer.

The answer is his mom owns half of England/Scotland.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

She was a 17 yr old runaway, living on her own, far from a naive, ignorant teen some like to portray.   IMHO, she probably knew exactly what she was doing.  Along with being untrustworthy, a proven liar.

 

Any wonder why prosecutors didn't take the case, if there was one.

 

The law does not take much notice of your opinion, it draws the line at age, and at 17 under US Federal Law,  regardless of your opinion, a person is not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

 

It’s a point you and others seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

 

Prince Andrew suffered a similar delusion.

[ozimoron]

50 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

She wasn't a minor in the UK or Europe at that time.

She could get a driving license, live on her own, get married, have kids but not vote or drink in a bar.

You are wrong. The hapless prince had access to some of the finest intelligence and security services in the world and the liklihood that he truly believed she was over 18 is ludicrous.

 

Although the age of consent is 16 throughout the United Kingdom, it is illegal to buy sex from a person under 18 where the perpetrator does not reasonably believe they are 18 or over.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The answer is his mom owns half of England/Scotland.

Neither of us is American lol. ????

[BritManToo]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Although the age of consent is 16 throughout the United Kingdom, it is illegal to buy sex from a person under 18 where the perpetrator does not reasonably believe they are 18 or over.

Back then, it was illegal in the UK to buy sex from anyone.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Back then, it was illegal in the UK to buy sex from anyone.

And nobody believes that she had sex with the prince without compensation, right? How old was he when she was 17?

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And obviously we all believe statements which people sign after lots of lawyers made up that text and probably "optimized" it for days. Yeah, sure.

Who cares what you believe, the settlement is agreed before a court of law and is legally binding.

[RJRS1301]

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Just because something is filed in civil court doesn't mean it's not a crime.  Civil is more about compensation.  It's always about the money.

 

Success for 2 opportunist; he got his jollies off, she got compensated for it.  Only negative I see, is people think it's news-worthy.  Well, just the news / distraction creating folks do, and  ....  hook line & sinker.

 

Win win wins all around.

I did not even vaguely indicate his behaviour was not allegedly criminal, however he was never even remotely mooted to be charge under that jurisdiction, therefore ipso facto it is not a criminal case,never was,  it  remains in perpetuaity a civil matter only.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Back then, it was illegal in the UK to buy sex from anyone.

What the UK law said at the time is irrelevant, Giuffre is a US citizen who was trafficked across a State line at the age of 17 for paid sex, IS courts and US law had jurisdiction.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

I did not even vaguely indicate his behaviour was not allegedly criminal, however he was never even remotely mooted to be charge under that jurisdiction, therefore ipso facto it is not a criminal case,never was,  it  remains in perpetuaity a civil matter only.

Yes it was a civil case, but the allegations were of criminal sexual activity.

 

Prince Andrew was very well advised to settle out of court before being called to the stand.

 

He should have settled this immediately it arose.

[watthong]

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 

She's American. Under American laws, 17 is under-age. Prostitution doesn't apply to minors because they haven't reached the age of consent. Get your record straight - or get educated if not too late (rhyme unintended.)  And while you're at it look up "human sex trafficking," minors or otherwise.

[Bohemianfish]

Mom bailed him out. Spoiled, rotten brat from what people say and it's consistent.

[ebice]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

IS courts and US law had jurisdiction.

They did not have jurisdiction for sex crimes committed outside US soil until some time in 2003 or 2004 and the congress enacted laws applied to US citizens committing sex crimes and therefore US had zero jurisdiction to prosecute Andrews. The MET police declined to prosecute prince Andrews at the time of the complaint.

 

US did not prosecute criminally for obvious reasons and resorted to the Gov Cuomo created CVA to pursue a case which otherwise would have been barred due to statute of limitations.

Edited February 17, 2022 by ebice

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, ebice said:

They did not have jurisdiction for sex crimes committed outside US soil until some time in 2003 or 2004 and the congress enacted laws applied to US citizens committing sex crimes and therefore US had zero jurisdiction to prosecute Andrews. The MET police declined to prosecute prince Andrews at the time of the complaint.

 

US did not prosecute criminally for obvious reasons and resorted to the Gov Cuomo created CVA to pursue a case which otherwise would have been barred due to statute of limitations.

And yet the US court did have jurisdiction and attempts by Andrew’s legal team to prove others failed.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Oh, come on. "Legally innocent" is quibbling. He destroyed his own life when he associated with a convicted sex offender, then doubled down with the 2019 interview, where his BS was exposed for what it was.

The damage was done well before the current settlement.

 

He is not a nice person and maybe an idiot. But does this make him guilty? 

[sammieuk1]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

He is not a nice person and maybe an idiot. But does this make him guilty? 

No sweat 100% with 12 million reasons why ????

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The law does not take much notice of your opinion, it draws the line at age, and at 17 under US Federal Law,  regardless of your opinion, a person is not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

 

It’s a point you and others seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

 

Prince Andrew suffered a similar delusion.

I think we can see both points.

There is the law and there is reality.

I.e. officially prostitution is illegal in Thailand. But people told me it exist.

Lots of people disagree with certain laws. That obviously does not mean these laws don't exist. They do exist and people get into trouble for not following these laws. And at the same time: Are these laws just and up to date?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

You are wrong. The hapless prince had access to some of the finest intelligence and security services in the world and the liklihood that he truly believed she was over 18 is ludicrous.

 

Although the age of consent is 16 throughout the United Kingdom, it is illegal to buy sex from a person under 18 where the perpetrator does not reasonably believe they are 18 or over.

Do you really think Andrew used those intelligence and security service to get details about every girl he possibly shagged? 

[ebice]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

did have jurisdiction

No, not in any criminal proceedings, it was purely civil.

At no time was Andrew at risk criminally since the complaint was filed. (child sex trafficking, rape, etc)

[OneMoreFarang]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

And nobody believes that she had sex with the prince without compensation, right? How old was he when she was 17?

Really, does nobody believe lots of girls would line up to have sex with a prince, regardless of his age?

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who cares what you believe, the settlement is agreed before a court of law and is legally binding.

Yes, and he doesn't admit anything.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, ebice said:

No, not in any criminal proceedings, it was purely civil.

At no time was Andrew at risk criminally since the complaint was filed. (child sex trafficking, rape, etc)

I have repeatedly stated this was a civil, not a criminal case. At no time have I stated this is a criminal case or that Andrew was at risk of criminal prosecution.

 

However, the ‘Civil’ case relates to allegations of criminal sexual activity with a minor.

 

The court had jurisdiction and as I have said from the start Andrew had two choices, take the stand and completely distort himself or settle out of court.

 

He was well advised to do the latter, though he would have been very much better advised to settle immediately.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He should have settled this immediately it arose.

Why?

If he is innocent why should he settle?

Personally I think his family didn't want to see him anywhere in court because of their reputation.

The settlement is no prof that he is guilt. It is only a prove that he and/or his family didn't want more publicity.

And maybe he is guilty, and maybe not.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, and he doesn't admit anything.

He does actually, he admits the attacks on Giuffre by his legal team were unfounded and unacceptable.

 

All those millions to make nothing go away.

 

A strange thing.