Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, DaLa said:

How can ‘allegations constitute rape’?

 

I’m pretty sure many women are raped, and I don’t for a minute believe that any of us on the ‘Pro PA’ side think that rape is trivial. However speaking for myself and I’m sure most of the others there are certain features of this case that are not representative of those aforementioned rape cases.

 

That is, Giuffre didn’t report rape at the time. The case only saw the light of day when US lawyers saw a few dollar signs. The case would have never seen light of day if the defendant had no means of paying her off. The case piggybacks on the character and actions of Epstein. I doubt there’s anyone here that would support PA if he was to have kept her locked in a room for several years and physically harmed and then raped her….rape as in against her will. Ultimately the criminal legal system would have sprung into action..it didn’t.

 

She professes to have started the legal action in order to help trafficked / sexually abused individuals. Good for her, bets are on for it helping truly abused women in really dangerous situations where they are held captive and abused by thugs, pimps and gangland undesirables. I’m sure there are many women in the darkest areas of the world, held against their will, abused and treated terribly, they may even read about this and thought Giuffre’s experience and lifestyle sounded quite exciting. Royalty, private islands, international flights, after all. Anyone been in band? Its interesting how some women react to fame and fortune.

 

Only Giuffre knows the true reason she followed the course and lifestyle she took. None of us know for sure how abhorrent or pleasurable her life at the time nor how much pressure was in place to ensure her ‘captivity’ and no one knows other than PA himself what he knew of the ‘arrangements’ if indeed anything.

 

She’s got some cash, her lawyers can add another notch to their chamber’s door, PA has a bad reputation (with some), it will be mostly forgotten when another world shattering event occurs. It doesn’t affect me or any of the other PA supporters (I don’t support PA, just dislike the gutter press and kangaroo court) , or does it? Careful for what you wish.

' How does the allegarions cinstitute rape '

 

Giuffre alleges that Andrew had non consensual  sex . 

The allegation is rape .

In the court filing document 1st and 3rd degree rape under NY penal code 130.25 and 130.35.

 

 

[cmarshall]

11 minutes ago, DaLa said:

That is, Giuffre didn’t report rape at the time.

You guys are just never able to process the legal concept of the age of consent which means that seventeen-year-old Giuffre had exactly as much authority under the law to give consent as a two-year-old.  Her legal incompetence to consent to sexual activity does not depend on anything she says or does or how she dresses.  She is under no obligation to protest, fight back, scream for help, kick him in the nuts, or call the cops then or later.  None of that matters, because in the eyes of the law she is a child just exactly in the same legal sense that a two-year-old is a child.  Children are not obliged to protect themselves.  The law protects them.

 

I am delighted that Giuffre and her lawyer David Boies were able to squeeze the old parasite for the 12 million pounds.  He deserves prison, of course, but we can at least be satisfied that he won't be able to dress up in his little admiral suit in public anymore.

 

[ozimoron]

37 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You guys are just never able to process the legal concept of the age of consent which means that seventeen-year-old Giuffre had exactly as much authority under the law to give consent as a two-year-old.  Her legal incompetence to consent to sexual activity does not depend on anything she says or does or how she dresses.  She is under no obligation to protest, fight back, scream for help, kick him in the nuts, or call the cops then or later.  None of that matters, because in the eyes of the law she is a child just exactly in the same legal sense that a two-year-old is a child.  Children are not obliged to protect themselves.  The law protects them.

 

I am delighted that Giuffre and her lawyer David Boies were able to squeeze the old parasite for the 12 million pounds.  He deserves prison, of course, but we can at least be satisfied that he won't be able to dress up in his little admiral suit in public anymore.

 

Added to that is that the phenomenon of women not reporting rape and abuse for decades is now well documented and understood. But apparently not by everybody.

[watthong]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

I am delighted that Giuffre and her lawyer David Boies were able to squeeze the old parasite for the 12 million pounds. 

Also it appears that the 12 millions for the (still) young lady doesn't include the legal fees for Boies that the settlement will have to foot the bill for...(another few millions perhaps?)

[Liverpool Lou]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

On 2/19/2022 at 1:50 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Was there a court case that proved that she was raped?    Didn't think so, she decided against taking the stand in a trial and took much less risky route of accepting money.

Are you sure it was she who decided not to go to court or he?

She claimed all along that she was suing him "for justice", or words to that effect, that she was never in it for the money.  If that really was the case she'd have refused any amount of cash and gone to trial "for justice", surely?   

 

For someone to be as "honourable" as her and not to be purely mercenary and after the money there would never be an offer she couldn't refuse.   

[cleopatra2]

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She claimed all along that she was suing him "for justice", or words to that effect, that she was never in it for the money.  If that really was the case she'd have refused any amount of cash and gone to trial "for justice", surely?   

 

For someone to be as "honourable" as her and not to be purely mercenary and after the money there would never be an offer she couldn't refuse.   

Why continue the case when it has already been won.

The case was about liability, seeking unspecified damages. A tolling agreement to reach a settlement was offered before the case filing. The case was filed due to Prince Andrew's team declining the tolling agreement.

The optics of Andrew agreeing to a settlement rather then tesing the case before a jury speaks louder than any jury verdict finding of liability .

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The optics of Andrew agreeing to a settlement rather then tesing the case before a jury speaks louder than any jury verdict finding of liability .

"The optics of Andrew agreeing to a settlement..."

It wasn't unilaterally just Prince Andrew agreeing.  There were two parties involved, Giuffe agreed to settle instead of going to trial also, something she said that she'd never do!   

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"The optics of Andrew agreeing to a settlement..."

It wasn't unilaterally just Prince Andrew agreeing.  There were two parties involved, Giuffe agreed to settle instead of going to trial also, something she said that she'd never do!   

There is no advantage to continue when the case has been won.

To refuse the settlement ( if the amounts quoted are correct) would be seen as vindictive and the plaintiff seeking revenge not justice.

A jury verdict in Giuffre favour would not have yielded any better result.

[ozimoron]

58 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She claimed all along that she was suing him "for justice", or words to that effect, that she was never in it for the money.  If that really was the case she'd have refused any amount of cash and gone to trial "for justice", surely?   

 

For someone to be as "honourable" as her and not to be purely mercenary and after the money there would never be an offer she couldn't refuse.   

The same could be said for him going to court to protect and prove his innocence.

[FritsSikkink]

On 2/19/2022 at 1:16 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, obviously, she was in the country when it happened.  And she was over the age of consent for sex. that's seventeen, in the UK and New York.

Not for prostitution which was the case here.

You can be sad about it but doesn't help your case.

Edited February 20, 2022 by FritsSikkink

[Liverpool Lou]

12 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

On 2/19/2022 at 1:16 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, obviously, she was in the country when it happened.  And she was over the age of consent for sex. that's seventeen, in the UK and New York.

Not for prostitution which was the case here.

That was not the case.    There were no allegations that Prince Andrew was involved in prostitution, neither from the stance of the civil suit's plaintiff, nor any criminal investigations that didn't proceed for lack of evidence.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[FritsSikkink]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

That was not the case.    There were no allegations that Prince Andrew was involved in prostitution, neither from the stance of the civil suit plaintiff, nor any criminal investigations that didn't proceed for lack of evidence.

There were , read my earlier post. she got paid 15K to have sex with people including Andrew.

[Liverpool Lou]

13 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

On 2/19/2022 at 1:16 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, obviously, she was in the country when it happened.  And she was over the age of consent for sex. that's seventeen, in the UK and New York.

Not for prostitution which was the case here.

You can be sad about it but doesn't help your case.

"You can be sad about it but doesn't help your case".

I don't have a "case" and I'm not sad about it...that emoj from me is to suggest that you/your comment was sad!    Your making up your own "facts" doesn't help your case!

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That was not the case.    There were no allegations that Prince Andrew was involved in prostitution, neither from the stance of the civil suit plaintiff, nor any criminal investigations that didn't proceed for lack of evidence.

There were , read my earlier post. she got paid 15K to have sex with people including Andrew.

 I don't need to read your earlier post.   There were no allegations of involvement in prostitution leveled at Prince Andrew.  He did not pay her for sex.

[Liverpool Lou]

52 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

A jury verdict in Giuffre favour would not have yielded any better result.

You're assuming that there would have been a decision in her favour!   She eliminated the risk of that potential loss by agreeing to end the case.

[cmarshall]

9 hours ago, watthong said:

Also it appears that the 12 millions for the (still) young lady doesn't include the legal fees for Boies that the settlement will have to foot the bill for...(another few millions perhaps?)

Normally, an American lawyer would take a case like this under contingency, which means that his only compensation would be a cut of any settlement.  The cut is typically a third, but for a lawyer of Boies's calibre could be a lot more.  In this case, Boies has earned it.  I wonder whether the donqtion to charity would also be subject to contingency fees.

[FritsSikkink]

8 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 I don't need to read your earlier post.   There were no allegations of involvement in prostitution leveled at Prince Andrew.  He did not pay her for sex.

Epstein paid for him

[FritsSikkink]

8 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"You can be sad about it but doesn't help your case".

I don't have a "case" and I'm not sad about it...that emoj from me is to suggest that you/your comment was sad!    Your making up your own "facts" doesn't help your case!

I don't make up facts, i quote them, learn to read.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, DaLa said:

How can ‘allegations constitute rape’?

 

I’m pretty sure many women are raped, and I don’t for a minute believe that any of us on the ‘Pro PA’ side think that rape is trivial. However speaking for myself and I’m sure most of the others there are certain features of this case that are not representative of those aforementioned rape cases.

 

That is, Giuffre didn’t report rape at the time. The case only saw the light of day when US lawyers saw a few dollar signs. The case would have never seen light of day if the defendant had no means of paying her off. The case piggybacks on the character and actions of Epstein. I doubt there’s anyone here that would support PA if he was to have kept her locked in a room for several years and physically harmed and then raped her….rape as in against her will. Ultimately the criminal legal system would have sprung into action..it didn’t.

 

She professes to have started the legal action in order to help trafficked / sexually abused individuals. Good for her, bets are on for it helping truly abused women in really dangerous situations where they are held captive and abused by thugs, pimps and gangland undesirables. I’m sure there are many women in the darkest areas of the world, held against their will, abused and treated terribly, they may even read about this and thought Giuffre’s experience and lifestyle sounded quite exciting. Royalty, private islands, international flights, after all. Anyone been in band? Its interesting how some women react to fame and fortune.

 

Only Giuffre knows the true reason she followed the course and lifestyle she took. None of us know for sure how abhorrent or pleasurable her life at the time nor how much pressure was in place to ensure her ‘captivity’ and no one knows other than PA himself what he knew of the ‘arrangements’ if indeed anything.

 

She’s got some cash, her lawyers can add another notch to their chamber’s door, PA has a bad reputation (with some), it will be mostly forgotten when another world shattering event occurs. It doesn’t affect me or any of the other PA supporters (I don’t support PA, just dislike the gutter press and kangaroo court) , or does it? Careful for what you wish.

You could have just cut to your last sentence.

[ozimoron]

8 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 I don't need to read your earlier post.   There were no allegations of involvement in prostitution leveled at Prince Andrew.  He did not pay her for sex.

You seem so certain. Wishful thinking perhaps? Not many people are going to believe that.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

She claimed all along that she was suing him "for justice", or words to that effect, that she was never in it for the money.  If that really was the case she'd have refused any amount of cash and gone to trial "for justice", surely?   

 

For someone to be as "honourable" as her and not to be purely mercenary and after the money there would never be an offer she couldn't refuse.   

There are many kinds of justice.

 

She got a lot more than £12millian out of Prince Andrew, he humiliated himself to the point he’s been stripped of his royal titles, honors,  public offices and place on the boards of scores of charities.

 

He didn’t simply meet his match, he was destroyed, and all by the choices he made.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"The optics of Andrew agreeing to a settlement..."

It wasn't unilaterally just Prince Andrew agreeing.  There were two parties involved, Giuffe agreed to settle instead of going to trial also, something she said that she'd never do!   

Civil cases are all about monitory compensation.

 

She went in looking for $5million and came out with £12million++

 

She thrashed him hollow.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That was not the case.    There were no allegations that Prince Andrew was involved in prostitution, neither from the stance of the civil suit's plaintiff, nor any criminal investigations that didn't proceed for lack of evidence.

You need to read the docket.

 

If only to acquaint yourself with the sex crimes against a minor that your are obfuscating.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 I don't need to read your earlier post.   There were no allegations of involvement in prostitution leveled at Prince Andrew.  He did not pay her for sex.

It doesn’t matter who paid for the sex, he had sex with a minor who had been trafficked and paid by others for the purposes of sex.

 

Try dealing with these facts.

[cleopatra2]

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You're assuming that there would have been a decision in her favour!   She eliminated the risk of that potential loss by agreeing to end the case.

I am not assuming anything. Just relying on known facts.

Andrew' s team offered a settlement for Giuffre to end the case. 

What further could be gained by refusing and continiung . At the point of settlement the case is won.

[watthong]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She got a lot more than £12millian out of Prince Andrew, he humiliated himself to the point he’s been stripped of his royal titles, honors,  public offices and place on the boards of scores of charities.

 

He didn’t simply meet his match, he was destroyed, and all by the choices he made.

Credit should also goes to this take no prisoner Brit reporter. She opened the floodgate. I don't think any American colleagues of hers would possess such cojones.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 I don't need to read your earlier post.   There were no allegations of involvement in prostitution leveled at Prince Andrew.  He did not pay her for sex.

Epstein paid for him

So, as I said, no allegations anywhere, from anyone, that Prince Andrew was engaging in prostitution with Giuffre.   

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So, as I said, no allegations anywhere, from anyone, that Prince Andrew was engaging in prostitution with Giuffre.   

Again, go read the docket.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"You can be sad about it but doesn't help your case".

I don't have a "case" and I'm not sad about it...that emoj from me is to suggest that you/your comment was sad!    Your making up your own "facts" doesn't help your case!

I don't make up facts, i quote them, learn to read.

Yes you did.   

 

She was not underage for sexual consent when she was with Prince Andrew in the UK (17) or New York (17).   You're dragging prostitution charges into it, of which there were none involving Prince Andrew, either criminally or in the civil suit.  That is "making up your own facts" in the context of allegations made of Prince Andrew, simply to fit your incorrect narrative of her being underage for sexual consent at the time of the meetings between him and her.

[cleopatra2]

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So, as I said, no allegations anywhere, from anyone, that Prince Andrew was engaging in prostitution with Giuffre.   

it is inferred from para. 43 of the lawsuit.

 At the invitation of Epstein  and Maxwell Andrew engaged in the acts knowing the plaintiff was trafficked and abused.