Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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.

She was trafficked for sex at age 17 when she was not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

 

Quit obfuscating.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, ozimoron 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.

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

You know why I'm so certain?   Because there were no such allegations or charges from Giuffre or the police.  If you're saying that there were, quote them, with evidence, and I'll gladly get the humble pie in the microwave.    What people want to believe does not make it factual.  

[cleopatra2]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

You know why I'm so certain?   Because there were no such allegations or charges from Giuffre or the police.  If you're saying that there were, quote them, with evidence, and I'll gladly get the humble pie in the microwave.    What people want to believe does not make it factual.  

Here is the actual wording

 

' Prince Andrew engaged in each of the aforementioned sexual acts with Plaintiff at Epstein and Maxwell’s invitation, knowing that she was a sex-trafficking victim being forced to engage in sexual acts with him. '

[Bkk Brian]

37 minutes ago, watthong said:

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.

One of the most powerful interviews I seen for a very long time, great work by her and the team behind her

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

13 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.

Yes, I agree with that but she did it by (wisely) wriggling out of what would have been torturous cross examination in court for her by Prince Andrew's legal team and took the money that she swore she would never do. 

 

Something made her reverse that decision and go for the easy cash that Prince Andrew was, allegedly, under pressure too offer for royal family reasons this year specifically.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You know why I'm so certain?   Because there were no such allegations or charges from Giuffre or the police.  If you're saying that there were, quote them, with evidence, and I'll gladly get the humble pie in the microwave.    What people want to believe does not make it factual.  

It was a civil matter. The only reason there were no criminal charges (by the police) was because the statute of limitations had run out, not because no crimes were committed.

 

Giuffre has long said the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his then girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, herself recently convicted of sex trafficking, forced her into sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/12/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-case-court-trial-testimony-what-happens-next

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, I agree with that but she did it by (wisely) wriggling out of what would have been torturous cross examination in court for her by Prince Andrew's legal team and took the money that she swore she would never do. 

 

Something made her reverse that decision and go for the easy cash that Prince Andrew was, allegedly, under pressure too offer for royal family reasons this year specifically.

And trebled her winnings at the same time.

 

Your argument doesn’t add up.

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, I agree with that but she did it by (wisely) wriggling out of what would have been torturous cross examination in court for her by Prince Andrew's legal team and took the money that she swore she would never do. 

 

Something made her reverse that decision and go for the easy cash that Prince Andrew was, allegedly, under pressure too offer for royal family reasons this year specifically.

It was open to P Andrew to go to court. He chose not to. You are mischaracterising this as a decision by Guiffre alone.

 

"Giuffre asserted that she met Andrew while she traveled frequently with Epstein between 2000 and 2002, when her lawyers maintain she was “on call for Epstein for sexual purposes” and was “lent out to other powerful men,” including Andrew. Her lawsuit said she still suffers significant emotional and psychological distress and harm.

Andrew repeatedly denied Giuffre’s allegations and has said he can’t recall ever meeting her."

 

https://time.com/6148328/prince-andrew-giuffre-lawsuit-settlement/

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by ozimoron

[FritsSikkink]

31 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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

Look at my link and google to find many more, don't spread lies

[FritsSikkink]

23 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

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.

I put a link in the quote, which you ignore. If you weren't so determent to make a false narrative you could google and find many more links. 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

12 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.

What are you talking about?  It is not a "known fact" that she would have won had she let it go to trial, you are making a big assumption.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What are you talking about?  It is not a "known fact" that she would have won had she let it go to trial, you are making a big assumption.

If she went to trial she might have lost her $5million claim, she didn’t (for whatever reason) go to trial and trebled what she was seeking.

 

If you can’t work that out stay away from the poker table.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[ozimoron]

A source who is familiar with the case said: 'Andrew moved so far, so fast from his position of deny, deny, deny. There were a lot of things looming for him.

'Things were starting to come out and Andrew knew what the case was against him.

 

Another well-placed royal insider said that 'no one had much sympathy for Andrew'.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10515637/Prince-Andrew-reached-settlement-principle-Virginia-Giuffre.html

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You need to read the docket.

 

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

Which "docket"?  How about showing that "docket" that alleges in the suit brought by Giuffre "sex crimes by Prince Andrew against a minor".   

 

I'm commenting about the specifics of the case against Prince Andrew brought by Giuffre, I'm obfuscating nothing as opposed to you who is going off topic to arguments about criminal actions that there were never even charges for, never mind a court case.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Which "docket"?  How about showing that "docket" that alleges in the suit brought by Giuffre "sex crimes by Prince Andrew against a minor".   

 

I'm commenting about the specifics of the case against Prince Andrew brought by Giuffre, I'm obfuscating nothing as opposed to you who is going off topic to arguments about criminal actions that there were never even charges for, never mind a court case.

The suit alleged Prince Andrew sexually abused Ms Giuffre as a teenager on multiple occasions in London, Manhattan, and the US Virgin Islands in 2001 - allegations that he denies.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prince-andrew-abuse-allegations-virginia-giuffre-b2017340.html

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

13 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.

Try dealing with these facts, he, allegedly. had consensual sex with a 17-year old in London and a 17, maybe 18-year old, in New York.   Those ages are over the age of consent for sex.   He was not charged, nor sued, for trafficking.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Try dealing with these facts, he, allegedly. had consensual sex with a 17-year old in London and a 17, maybe 18-year old, in New York.   Those ages are over the age of consent for sex.   He was not charged, nor sued, for trafficking.

She alleges that he abused her. Who alleges that the acts were consensual? P Andrew didn't even remember the meeting lol

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Try dealing with these facts, he, allegedly. had consensual sex with a 17-year old in London and a 17, maybe 18-year old, in New York.   Those ages are over the age of consent for sex.   He was not charged, nor sued, for trafficking.

He cannot have had consensual sex with a minor trafficked for sex.

She was not legally competent to give consent.

 

FACT!

[Liverpool Lou]

55 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Here is the actual wording

 

' Prince Andrew engaged in each of the aforementioned sexual acts with Plaintiff at Epstein and Maxwell’s invitation, knowing that she was a sex-trafficking victim being forced to engage in sexual acts with him. '

And that it was accepted by both sides as never proven.   She went for the money!

[cleopatra2]

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Try dealing with these facts, he, allegedly. had consensual sex with a 17-year old in London and a 17, maybe 18-year old, in New York.   Those ages are over the age of consent for sex.   He was not charged, nor sued, for trafficking.

Incorrect.

The filed lawsuit alleges sexuall asualt with battery . includuing 1st and 3rd degree rape.

paragraphs 42 oneards of the lawsuit specify that the sex was non consensual

[Liverpool Lou]

45 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It was a civil matter. The only reason there were no criminal charges (by the police) was because the statute of limitations had run out, not because no crimes were committed.

That is not correct, the UK police dropped the criminal case for lack of evidence, nothing to do with statutes of limitation in the UK.

[cleopatra2]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

And that it was accepted by both sides as never proven.   She went for the money!

combined with para 42

 

' During each of the aforementioned incidents, Prince Andrew acted with intent to compel Plaintiff’s submission ' 

 

along with the prev. paragraph  constitute the allegation of engaging in prostitution.

[cleopatra2]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

That is not correct, the UK police dropped the criminal case for lack of evidence, nothing to do with statutes of limitation in the UK.

imcorrect 

They decided other law enforcement was more equipped to deal with it

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And that it was accepted by both sides as never proven.   She went for the money!

No 

It was agreed by both parties that Andrew would pay a settlement to settle the case.

[Liverpool Lou]

46 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It was open to P Andrew to go to court. He chose not to. You are mischaracterising this as a decision by Guiffre alone.

And you are mischaracterising it as a decision solely by Prince Andrew.  It was open to Giuffre to demand a court trial, Andrew did not have the luxury of being in charge of that decision.  She agreed to not proceed with the court trial and to take the money.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And you are mischaracterising it as a decision solely by Prince Andrew.  It was open to Giuffre to demand a court trial, Andrew did not have the luxury of being in charge of that decision.  She agreed to not proceed with the court trial and to take the money.

I never said that, I said that you claimed the decision was hers alone, nothing more.

[Liverpool Lou]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The suit alleged Prince Andrew sexually abused Ms Giuffre as a teenager on multiple occasions in London, Manhattan, and the US Virgin Islands in 2001 - allegations that he denies.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prince-andrew-abuse-allegations-virginia-giuffre-b2017340.html

No point in linking to something that cannot be accessed without being registered!   As far as the case against him was concerned, yes, she was a teenager, a 17-year old and over the age of consent for sex.

[ozimoron]

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No point in linking to something that cannot be accessed without being registered!   As far as the case against him was concerned, yes, she was a teenager, a 17-year old and over the age of consent for sex.

There is no age of consent for rape

 

Andrew was accused of rape

Edited February 21, 2022 by cleopatra2

[Liverpool Lou]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He cannot have had consensual sex with a minor trafficked for sex.

She was not legally competent to give consent.

 

FACT!

There was no conviction, nor conclusion to the civil case that proved that he "had non-consensual sex with a minor trafficked for sex", nor that "she was not legally competent to give consent".   FACT!   Remember, she agreed to take the money and end the case before it was tried.   That's FACT also.