Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[giddyup]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Of course Andrew had no idea that Epstein paid minors for sex. He claimed he went to the US personally to end his friendship with Epstein.

Guesswork.

[ebice]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She set off to get $5million and wound up getting over £12million + a formal apology.

 

Well done!

She don't get the money, the charity will. She potentially stands to be awarded damages only IF she prevails during a civil trial.

[ebice]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

if it had gone to court.

If this went to trial there would likely be some big names dropped thru-out the trial, and the potential for some revealing details.

[Liverpool Lou]

24 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I imagine her legal team urged her to accept because of what was in it for them, ie a huge percentage of her payout.

That also!

[Liverpool Lou]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

51 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Replete with evidence!...

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/prince-andrews-sex-accuser-wanted-5m-but-wants-trial-report/

"Sources told The Telegraph that she initially sought a settlement of $5 million from Andrew ...

But now that the case looks set to go to trial later this year, the longtime accuser is no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message,” the UK paper said.

She set off to get $5million and wound up getting over £12million + a formal apology.

Yes, but that wasn't my point, her hypocrisy (or real fear of the trial) was my point...

"...no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message...”

[Liverpool Lou]

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

29 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I imagine her legal team urged her to accept because of what was in it for them, ie a huge percentage of her payout.

They would have received that either way.

No, they wouldn't, they were working pro bono!

[Liverpool Lou]

17 minutes ago, ebice said:

52 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She set off to get $5million and wound up getting over £12million + a formal apology.

 

Well done!

She don't get the money, the charity will. She potentially stands to be awarded damages only IF she prevails during a civil trial.

"She don't get the money, the charity will".

What?  Where did you get that gem from?   

 

"She potentially stands to be awarded damages only IF she prevails during a civil trial".

Another gem!  How can she "prevail" in a trial that isn't going ahead?

[Liverpool Lou]

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Anyway, I'm done with arguing with apologists for ex prince silver spoon.

At last...thank God.

[cmarshall]

On 2/16/2022 at 2:09 PM, seedy said:

From the link in the OP -

sparing him the humiliation of giving evidence in a trial and protecting the royal family from further reputational damage.

 

Why is this allowed ? Courts should put a stop to this behind the scenes bargaining so a scumbag can remain hidden for the measly sum - to him - of a few million.

 

There is no "Justice" in the criminal justice system. Only $$$

The legal process in this case is a civil law suit in which the plaintiff seeks damagers from the defendant.  It therefore would hardly be justified to deny the plaintiff the opportunity to reach a settlement with the defendant out of court.  

 

This was not a criminal legal case.  The statute of limitations on any crime that may been committed has long since passed.  

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, but that wasn't my point, her hypocrisy (or real fear of the trial) was my point...

"...no longer willing to settle out of court, the paper’s sources said.

Giuffre — a founder of the nonprofit Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (SOAR) helping sex-trafficking victims — wants to instead show the legal consequences for those preying on young girls, the paper said.

She believes that accepting a payout from the scandal-scarred son of Queen Elizabeth II would not “advance that message...”

Once again, she’s a smart cookie.

 

Prince Andrew demanded take this before a jury, that didn’t happen either.

 

Prince Andrew is not a smart cookies.

 

He’s done.

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again, she’s a smart cookie.

 

Prince Andrew demanded take this before a jury, that didn’t happen either.

 

Prince Andrew is not a smart cookies.

 

He’s done.

Evidently the choice between a jury trial and a bench trial in a New York state court civil case rests with the plaintiff, not the defendant.

[cmarshall]

I am always amazed at people on here springing to Windsor's defense.  I could understand their defending him if their own self-interest were involved, but none them are themselves princes.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, cmarshall said:

I am always amazed at people on here springing to Windsor's defense.  I could understand their defending him if their own self-interest were involved, but none them are themselves princes.

 It his defenders here are all men.

[FritsSikkink]

On 2/16/2022 at 2:52 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

What was illegal about what he had been alleged to have done but was never proven?    Was he charged with anything criminal?  

She was underage.

[whoppee]

Seems Mommy is coming to the rescue.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/

[Liverpool Lou]

8 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

On 2/16/2022 at 2:52 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

What was illegal about what he had been alleged to have done but was never proven?    Was he charged with anything criminal?  

She was underage.

So funny.  She was 17, she was not underage for consent for sex.   

 

If she had been under the age of consent he, obviously, would have been criminally charged, he wasn't.   It would also have been reported in the media, they would have run with it and loved it!  It wasn't, and the media didn't.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She was 17, she was not underage for consent for sex.   If she had been under the age of consent he, obviously, would have been criminally charged, he wasn't.   It would also have been reported in the media, they would have loved that!  It wasn't,

It’s been explained to you many times, she 17 and trafficked across a state line for the purposes of paid sex.

 

1. Trafficked across a state line.

2. not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

 

You cannot conclude that because an individual is not charged that they did not commit a crime.

 

Nor can you conclude anything from something not being reported in the media.

[giddyup]

34 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

She was underage.

Not in the UK.

[KhaoNiaw]

2 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Not in the UK.

How about if it was paid for?

[giddyup]

Just now, KhaoNiaw said:

How about if it was paid for?

Who paid her? There's been no evidence it was Andrew.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Guesswork.

His statement when photgraps of him Epstein published after Epsteins conviction in USA.

His reason given in a statement

The Duke said that he met Epstein for the sole purpose of breaking off any future relationship with him, saying that it was "the honourable and right thing to do", adding that one of his flaws was that he was "too honourable" a person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_the_Epstein_Scandal#:~:text=The Duke said that he met Epstein for the sole,"too honourable" a person.

[RJRS1301]

17 minutes ago, ebice said:

Exactly, she sued for "damages" and agreed to an out of court settlement so no jury award (I think PA chose jury trial) and instead both parties agreed as follows:

“The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms Giuffre’s receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed).

“Prince Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights.

 

If the case went to a trial jury, they must award plaintiff damages as per the civil filing. Got it?

AFAIK the specifics of the terms of the out of court settlement are indicating the Prince will pay some monetary sum to a charity, NOT the plaintiff.

This is charity:

About Us | Soar - Speak Out, Act, Reclaim

https://www.speakoutactreclaim.org › about-us

 

 

 

Building on Giuffre's work, SOAR provides a safe and empowering space for survivors of sex trafficking to reclaim their stories and stand up for themselves .

[VocalNeal]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

so why the incandescent rage from his male supporters

Why the incandescent rage from his accusers? he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The last time I checked the Interweb does not count as a court of law.

 

Oh by the way he is not "done" he is still alive and has quite a bit of money. 

[BritManToo]

3 hours ago, ebice said:

She don't get the money, the charity will. She potentially stands to be awarded damages only IF she prevails during a civil trial.

Didn't Johnny Depp's ex say that as well, then kept all the money herself.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

I am always amazed at people on here springing to Windsor's defense.  I could understand their defending him if their own self-interest were involved, but none them are themselves princes.

It's the principle. Is a sleazebag a#$# guilty only because he is an entitled sleazebag a#$#?

No! 

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. But as far as I know there is no evidence that he had sex with her. But she ruined his life. And "the public" is happy about that. 

[BritManToo]

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It's the principle. Is a sleazebag a#$# guilty only because he is an entitled sleazebag a#$#?

No! 

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. But as far as I know there is no evidence that he had sex with her. But she ruined his life. And "the public" is happy about that. 

I always thought he was gay ......... even the accusation of sex with a 17yo woman has raised my opinion of him.

I'd be happy to show him around Pattaya, he pays the bills obviously.

He sounds like someone I could be friends with!

 

I'm sure he could meet someone (female or shemale) that was a much more reasonable price.

(Andy if you're reading this thread, PM me)

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She was 17, she was not underage for consent for sex.   If she had been under the age of consent he, obviously, would have been criminally charged, he wasn't.   It would also have been reported in the media, they would have loved that!  It wasn't,

It’s been explained to you many times, she 17 and trafficked across a state line for the purposes of paid sex.

 

1. Trafficked across a state line.

2. not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

 

You cannot conclude that because an individual is not charged that they did not commit a crime.

 

Nor can you conclude anything from something not being reported in the media.

The facts of the case relating to Prince Andrew's involvement and accusation in the civil suit have been explained to you many times also.

 

She was 18, i.e. over the age of sexual consent, when she was with Andrew in the US (New York), not 17 (but 17 is not underage, either, in NY).

 

Prince Andrew did not traffic her.   

 

It can be concluded that if a person was not charged with a crime, it is safe to assume that he has not been found guilty of it.   That you choose to assume that he is guilty of something he was not charged with is your choice, nothing more.

 

That the media didn't report that he was involved in underaged sex is a big ducking indication that he wasn't ever accused of it...apart from people revelling in their own misguided and unevidenced speculation.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, ebice said:

 

AFAIK the specifics of the terms of the out of court settlement are indicating the Prince will pay some monetary sum to a charity, NOT the plaintiff.

AFAIK, you are not privy to any of the specific details of the settlement so your assessment of media speculation is just that, a speculative opinion.  Got it?  

[Bkk Brian]

In the infamous interview with Emily Maitlis on the BBC, Prince Andrew denied ever meeting her despite the photo of him with his arm round her, that interview said it all, total liar.

 

Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60407806

[CharlieH]

It would seem that many are adopting "guilty until proven innocent".

Everyone is entitled to opinion naturally. But the man has NOT been charged with any crime and therefore NOT be found guilty of anything, except poor choices.

 

It was/is an allegation nothing more than that.

The fact that he chose not to undergo the stress and potential harmful exposure of a court trial is not an admission of guilt. We dont know the reasons but many have assumed them.

 

Personally, I think he hung himself with that BBC interview and made himself to be a liar destroying any credibility he had.

He, if in indeed it was his actual decision, I suspect it came from the Palace, decided to shut it down and do whatever was required to end it.

Whilst I understand "some" money will go to the woman, the majority as I understand it will go to her designated charity.