Jump to content

Prince Andrew


Maroon Sailor

Recommended Posts

Seems I'm wrong that Andrew can't be ordered to appear in person, according to Lisa Bloom a lawyer representing 8 Epstein victims, says that Andrew can be subpoenaed to appear to give evidence.

 

Of course, acutally getting him on a plane to the States might prove to be a much more difficult task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jambo-Jimbo

    92

  • A Boy Named Crow

    67

  • Auldbenches

    50

  • Unknown user

    47

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Seems I'm wrong that Andrew can't be ordered to appear in person, according to Lisa Bloom a lawyer representing 8 Epstein victims, says that Andrew can be subpoenaed to appear to give evidence.

 

Of course, acutally getting him on a plane to the States might prove to be a much more difficult task.

Let’s be honest , this is all about scandal and titillation for the public .

Chances of convicting ANYONE accused of having sex with someone over the age of consent decades ago in the UK is zero.

It’s all good fun at Andy s expense , but ther e is probably no evidence at all to prove they slept together, and if they did that it was coerced.

Anyone else this wouldn’t even be going to court .

Anywhere apart from the USA and it’s not going to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Let’s be honest , this is all about scandal and titillation for the public .

Chances of convicting ANYONE accused of having sex with someone over the age of consent decades ago in the UK is zero.

It’s all good fun at Andy s expense , but ther e is probably no evidence at all to prove they slept together, and if they did that it was coerced.

Anyone else this wouldn’t even be going to court .

Anywhere apart from the USA and it’s not going to court.


:facepalm: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Let’s be honest , this is all about scandal and titillation for the public .

Chances of convicting ANYONE accused of having sex with someone over the age of consent decades ago in the UK is zero.

It’s all good fun at Andy s expense , but ther e is probably no evidence at all to prove they slept together, and if they did that it was coerced.

Anyone else this wouldn’t even be going to court .

Anywhere apart from the USA and it’s not going to court.

This isn't about the victims, it's just for public titillation?  

There are people glad to see him go through this due to being anti royal and glad to see that anyone shouldn't be above the law, but most want just want to see justice getting done.

Were people only happy that Epstein and Weinstein got charged or prosecuted only to see headlines?

It's not about that for folk, it's about him just evading the law. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Seems I'm wrong that Andrew can't be ordered to appear in person, according to Lisa Bloom a lawyer representing 8 Epstein victims, says that Andrew can be subpoenaed to appear to give evidence.

 

Of course, acutally getting him on a plane to the States might prove to be a much more difficult task.

I thought the royals had their own plane. Failing that he could get the royal train to the nearest raf base and as he's probably an air marshal or something they could give him a lift. Simple. You're right though. Highly unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mister T said:

I thought the royals had their own plane. Failing that he could get the royal train to the nearest raf base and as he's probably an air marshal or something they could give him a lift. Simple. You're right though. Highly unlikely. 

He's happy to jump into a helicopter so he can quickly get to a golfing event at our expense so sure he can quickly jump on a plane to America. 

In his next interview he'll probably say he has a fear of flying.  Always has but only done it to carry out his duties...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russians might havd had the right idea really . 😎Ok not advocating as extreme measures as that but having a royal family and “Princes “ and “ Princesses “ in this day and age is ludicrous . Only perpetuates elitism , privilege and inequality . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JackLadd said:

 

Now remarrying Sarah Ferguson apparently. Any port in a storm, lol.

 

More like a dry dock I imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How brilliant would it be if he remarried her thinking that'll get everyone back on side. 

I hope he does try that as he will get more ridicule for that than he currently is. 

I wouldn't put it past him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that the judge doesn't believe that the papers have been properly served, because he's given Ms Giuffre's lawyers another week in which to try and find another way to serve the legal papers to Andrew in the UK.

Judge Kaplan told Ms Giuffre's lawyer, David Boise, he had a week to find an alternative method of serving legal documents to the duke in the UK.

 

There was something else which was mentioned in court which I'd heard about last week but hadn't paid much attention to because I couldn't find anything about it, and it was that in 2009 Ms Giuffre had received compensation from Jeffrey Epstein but a clause in the settlement prevented her from suing anybody else in relation to any alleged offences.

Mr Brettler - a Los Angeles-based lawyer promoted as a "media and entertainment litigation" specialist - requested a copy of the 2009 agreement, which is not public.

"There has been a settlement agreement that the plaintiff [Ms Giuffre] has entered into in a prior action that releases the duke and others from any and all potential liability," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58550197

 

I've heard a figure of $5m that Ms Giuffre had allegedly received in compensation.

 

So the next meeting in the case is now 13th October, so it's wait and see what happens then.

 

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/09/2021 at 19:21, SectionDJambo said:

Much as though I dislike the arrogant prick and think he has something to hide, the Americans sneaking around trying to serve him papers, or get him to go to America, is as hypocritical as it gets. They are protecting a U.S.  government employee who is accused of causing death to a British subject by careless driving and then skipping the UK to avoid arrest and trial. 

Her case is far more recent and easier to prove guilt for than his, yet nobody in authority in America has any intention of sending her to the UK for trial.

He pretty much can't go about his daily life, thankfully to many of us, but I would imagine that no such problem exists for the American accused.

Maybe they would get a better result by offering the Maxwell woman a plea bargain by getting her to spill the beans. If they don't bump her off first in case she can also implicate others, who are embroiled in the Epstein case, who they'd rather not be publicly investigating.

 

This isn't a single group of people it the US government playing 2 games at once. The papers served were in relation to a civil case brought about by a US citizen and has nothing to do with the US itself.

 

How is it hypocritical for her to want her papers served and for the agency employed to go ahead and do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Let’s be honest , this is all about scandal and titillation for the public .

Chances of convicting ANYONE accused of having sex with someone over the age of consent decades ago in the UK is zero.

It’s all good fun at Andy s expense , but ther e is probably no evidence at all to prove they slept together, and if they did that it was coerced.

Anyone else this wouldn’t even be going to court .

Anywhere apart from the USA and it’s not going to court.

 

And the new world record for being wrong in one sentence goes to...

 

Her allegation is that they had sex in the US when she was under age.

 

It's a US civil case and absolutely nothing to do with British courts or actions on British soil. No one's talking about criminal trials or convictions.

 

She's taking him to court, a US civil court. It'll go to court if that's what she wants and he doesn't settle, and in civil court there's a far lower burden of proof.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

And the new world record for being wrong in one sentence goes to...

 

Her allegation is that they had sex in the US when she was under age.

 

It's a US civil case and absolutely nothing to do with British courts or actions on British soil. No one's talking about criminal trials or convictions.

 

She's taking him to court, a US civil court. It'll go to court if that's what she wants and he doesn't settle, and in civil court there's a far lower burden of proof.

 

 

 

I'm not so sure it is, as the legal age of consent in New York at the time was 14, she was 17, even now it's 17 having been raised from 14 to 17 in 2017.

 

I think it's more a question of consent and whether he knew that she was being sexually trafficked.

Now if she allegedly didn't give consent and he allegedly still had sex with her then, isn't that something much more serious.

As you quite rightly say though, the burden of proof is much lower in a civil court than it is in a criminal court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I'm not so sure it is, as the legal age of consent in New York at the time was 14, she was 17, even now it's 17 having been raised from 14 to 17 in 2017.

 

I think it's more a question of consent and whether he knew that she was being sexually trafficked.

Now if she allegedly didn't give consent and he allegedly still had sex with her then, isn't that something much more serious.

As you quite rightly say though, the burden of proof is much lower in a civil court than it is in a criminal court.

 

So I read earlier anyway, I forget which site it was on. But either way, it's got nothing to do with British soil except that's where Randy's Andy's in hiding.

I hadn't realised they had a week to serve him though so maybe it won't go ahead right enough, but what does that say if he gets out of it by hiding long enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

So I read earlier anyway, I forget which site it was on. But either way, it's got nothing to do with British soil except that's where Randy's Andy's in hiding.

I hadn't realised they had a week to serve him though so maybe it won't go ahead right enough, but what does that say if he gets out of it by hiding long enough?

 

Oh, he won't be the first person to have refused to accept legal papers, he'll be using the law to his advantage, besides if he stays at Balmoral don't be shocked that the legal papers can't be served in Scotland, different legal system to England.  It is probably no mistake that he's staying in Balmoral rather than in London right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

So I read earlier anyway, I forget which site it was on. But either way, it's got nothing to do with British soil except that's where Randy's Andy's in hiding.

I hadn't realised they had a week to serve him though so maybe it won't go ahead right enough, but what does that say if he gets out of it by hiding long enough?

 

He is done as a public Royal figure - there is no way he can attend any public engagements without suffering a backlash with protests against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

He is done as a public Royal figure - there is no way he can attend any public engagements without suffering a backlash with protests against him.

 

Oh, that's a given, although by all accounts he's so stupid he'll probably not think that, he'll think all he has to do is wait awhile and everything will return back to normal. 

 

No it won't, don't think it ever will for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Auldbenches said:

This isn't about the victims, it's just for public titillation?  

There are people glad to see him go through this due to being anti royal and glad to see that anyone shouldn't be above the law, but most want just want to see justice getting done.

Were people only happy that Epstein and Weinstein got charged or prosecuted only to see headlines?

It's not about that for folk, it's about him just evading the law. 

 

 

Good post, I agree with it wholeheartedly, if Andrew is indeed guilty of that which he is being accused, yes, behead him if thats the sentence. I have seen many cases of ordinary working men be charged with the same offence, worse in some cases, without a note in the papers. Royalty and riches come with privileges and opportunities that most of us would love to have , but with it becomes an exaggerated level of publicity, seeking of justice by the public, and immediate assumption of guilt, no matter how good life can be there is generally a price to pay, and Andrew is there just now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sharpie said:

 

Good post, I agree with it wholeheartedly, if Andrew is indeed guilty of that which he is being accused, yes, behead him if thats the sentence. I have seen many cases of ordinary working men be charged with the same offence, worse in some cases, without a note in the papers. Royalty and riches come with privileges and opportunities that most of us would love to have , but with it becomes an exaggerated level of publicity, seeking of justice by the public, and immediate assumption of guilt, no matter how good life can be there is generally a price to pay, and Andrew is there just now.

It is the modern cliche of you can't use the media to sell and promote things to earn more then moan about any bad publicity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

So I read earlier anyway, I forget which site it was on. But either way, it's got nothing to do with British soil except that's where Randy's Andy's in hiding.

I hadn't realised they had a week to serve him though so maybe it won't go ahead right enough, but what does that say if he gets out of it by hiding long enough?

So the prize for being most wrong is tied.

My comparison with British soil was an example.

I have little faith in litigation courts in the USA.

Im sure he is reluctant to go over there and take part in a spectacle such as that.

for what it’s worth I believe her.

He cannot win.

He pays her off he looks guilty.

He goes he would be wise to “take the 5th” and will look guilty.

Doesnt go looks guilty.

Goes on the stand and talks, nobody will believe him anyway.

Not much “people accused should remain anonymous until found guilty in court” chat either.

If there is evidence go criminal trial.

But there isn’t .

What would you do if it was you accused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

So the prize for being most wrong is tied.

My comparison with British soil was an example.

I have little faith in litigation courts in the USA.

Im sure he is reluctant to go over there and take part in a spectacle such as that.

for what it’s worth I believe her.

He cannot win.

He pays her off he looks guilty.

He goes he would be wise to “take the 5th” and will look guilty.

Doesnt go looks guilty.

Goes on the stand and talks, nobody will believe him anyway.

Not much “people accused should remain anonymous until found guilty in court” chat either.

If there is evidence go criminal trial.

But there isn’t .

What would you do if it was you accused?

 

Oh goodness no, you were all over the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Oh goodness no, you were all over the place.

As opposed to accusing him of something not even VG has?

Alright then.

This headlong rush to class him as a nonce has been quite something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

As opposed to accusing him of something not even VG has?

Alright then.

This headlong rush to class him as a nonce has been quite something.

 

 

She's accused him of sexual abuse, the first time being when she was a minor.

Your defence of the nonce is quite something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Smithee said:

 

She's accused him of sexual abuse, the first time being when she was a minor.

Your defence of the nonce is quite something.

 

I’m not defending him.

I do however believe in evidence, facts, and the right to a fair trial.

not trial by media

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I’m not defending him.

I do however believe in evidence, facts, and the right to a fair trial.

not trial by media

 

Aye sound, well the facts are that he won't be convicted because it's a civil trial and he has indeed been accused of shagging a minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

I’m not defending him.

I do however believe in evidence, facts, and the right to a fair trial.

not trial by media

The best thing he could do is go there and clear his name in an open court.  All this suspicion is because he refused to even talk to the FBI to help Epstein victims before the charge against him was announced last week. 

This all his own fault for avoiding things and going to his house when he knew he had been up to what he had.  It had been all over the media so he knew.

Also didn't clarify anything when he popped in for 5 days to say cheerio. 

This is all about him avoiding things and nothing else.

How won't he get a fair hearing in court?  Itll be all over the media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

He'll never go to trial over this which is fine of itself as he'll have to deal with everyone thinking he's a nonce for the rest of his days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
On 13/09/2021 at 17:00, JackLadd said:

 

Now remarrying Sarah Ferguson apparently. Any port in a storm, lol.

 

Let's be honest she's an old Super Free Port. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Aye sound, well the facts are that he won't be convicted because it's a civil trial and he has indeed been accused of shagging a minor.

Again this lie- he has not been accused of “shagging a minor”

she has stated it was in NY ( she was not a minor in that state)

london( again not a minor ) 

and Epstein island ( not sure but doubt it)

 

She was a minor in Florida , where she was from.

But that is not the same thing.

is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Again this lie- he has not been accused of “shagging a minor”

she has stated it was in NY ( she was not a minor in that state)

london( again not a minor ) 

and Epstein island ( not sure but doubt it)

 

She was a minor in Florida , where she was from.

But that is not the same thing.

is it?

 

Now you could argue that when she crossed into NY things suddenly changed, but we're talking about a minor being trafficked to a different jurisdiction for the purpose of sex. 

 

He shagged a minor.

 

Prince-andrew-is-a-sweaty-nonce.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Let's be honest she's an old Super Free Port. 

Two places they won't be able to go on honeymoon.   The states and Turkey.  There was a warrant for her arrest there because she filmed in either an orphanage or mental health hospital and it's against the law there. Done a good thing but still wanted I think.  Pretty ironic if they get her.  She liked the toes getting sucked and over there they whip your feet.  Midnight Express.  'Villiam Hayes!'  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money

 

This case is about money and what a legal firm thinks they can milk out of other parties

 

Has she run out of money since she settled a case over a decade ago ?

 

Unlike many other public figures who do settle out of court e.g Ronaldo for example there is no way Andrew can do so or be seen to do so

Had she been given money as a settlement this 'case' would have been consigned to the history books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Follow the money

 

This case is about money and what a legal firm thinks they can milk out of other parties

 

Has she run out of money since she settled a case over a decade ago ?

 

Unlike many other public figures who do settle out of court e.g Ronaldo for example there is no way Andrew can do so or be seen to do so

Had she been given money as a settlement this 'case' would have been consigned to the history books

Ronaldo. As I say, no one gies a feck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Ronaldo. As I say, no one gies a feck.

What was the score with Ronaldo? Don't think I heard, read or remember this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Ronaldo. As I say, no one gies a feck.

This weekend, did somebody not hire a plane to fly a banner in support of the woman who accused him over the stadium while he was playing? This will follow Ronaldo the rest of his days, much more so Randy Andy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

This weekend, did somebody not hire a plane to fly a banner in support of the woman who accused him over the stadium while he was playing? This will follow Ronaldo the rest of his days, much more so Randy Andy. 

Why do they say they've done nothing wrong and they pay them off?   

If you've done nothing and doing this then you are just helping people get cornered in the future for nothing more than money. 

Who here would do what Ronaldo done in paying her off if you were innocent?  

No matter what impact you think it would have on your career, you sti wouldn't pay them off to keep things quiet.   I'd rather expose them in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
14 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

Why do they say they've done nothing wrong and they pay them off?   

If you've done nothing and doing this then you are just helping people get cornered in the future for nothing more than money. 

Who here would do what Ronaldo done in paying her off if you were innocent?  

No matter what impact you think it would have on your career, you sti wouldn't pay them off to keep things quiet.   I'd rather expose them in court. 

It's hard to say without being in their shoes. I've got no idea what really went on between Ronaldo at his accuser, or between Andrew and his. 

 

Maybe in a situation where the evidence is unclear and it could go either way it's the smart move to avoid the courts... or maybe a pay-off is the easy way out for a cornered beast...dunno 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, superjack said:

What was the score with Ronaldo? Don't think I heard, read or remember this one.

accused of rape in a vegas hotel, the accuser when reported it initially never named him. then later (a number of years) did and got an out of court settlement to stop the case. 

 

note at old trafford at the weekend a banner was flown over the stadium mentioning it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A Boy Named Crow said:

It's hard to say without being in their shoes. I've got no idea what really went on between Ronaldo at his accuser, or between Andrew and his. 

 

Maybe in a situation where the evidence is unclear and it could go either way it's the smart move to avoid the courts... or maybe a pay-off is the easy way out for a cornered beast...dunno 

You're probably right on both points. 

I think I would just go to court and clear my name and also try and prevent others potentially trying this just to cash in on it. 

Back to Bonnie Prince Ponce...

He's had plenty of time to deal with this openly and it just creates suspicion. 

Who else would've been able to get away from facing this without his backing?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
2 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

You're probably right on both points. 

I think I would just go to court and clear my name and also try and prevent others potentially trying this just to cash in on it. 

Back to Bonnie Prince Ponce...

He's had plenty of time to deal with this openly and it just creates suspicion. 

Who else would've been able to get away from facing this without his backing?  

 

I thought of something else.

 

Nobody lives a spotless life. Going to court opens the door for things people don't know about yet to come out,  so a pay-off could make sense as a damage limitation exercise.

 

In saying that,  you're dead right, Andrew has had ample opportunity to do the right thing here. That's the problem with having a monarchy though,  it is by definition against doing the right thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A Boy Named Crow said:

I thought of something else.

 

Nobody lives a spotless life. Going to court opens the door for things people don't know about yet to come out,  so a pay-off could make sense as a damage limitation exercise.

 

In saying that,  you're dead right, Andrew has had ample opportunity to do the right thing here. That's the problem with having a monarchy though,  it is by definition against doing the right thing!

You are tight on your first point but I think I'd take the risk of my drunken shenanigans getting brought up in court to clear things. 

I think I'd also be angry that it could happen to someone else if money can be got.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I thought of something else.

 

Nobody lives a spotless life. Going to court opens the door for things people don't know about yet to come out,  so a pay-off could make sense as a damage limitation exercise.

 

In saying that,  you're dead right, Andrew has had ample opportunity to do the right thing here. That's the problem with having a monarchy though,  it is by definition against doing the right thing!

 

There's probably a large amount of truth in that.

 

As you say, once in open court it could very well open the door or floodgates to more women/girls/boys coming out and claiming this that and the next thing, most probably just chancing their luck, you only need to look at what happened after Saville died when they mentioned payouts from his estate, thousands came forward, but only about 5% were genuine maybe not even as much as that.

 

For every settlement in public that we hear about, I'd think there are many more done in private which the media never learn anything about, indeed it's only in the last week that we learnt that Ms Guiffre had had a payout from Jeffrey Epstein years ago, so that shows these things can and are kept out of the public eye, so it makes sense to kept things out of court and out of the media if you can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I thought of something else.

 

Nobody lives a spotless life. Going to court opens the door for things people don't know about yet to come out,  so a pay-off could make sense as a damage limitation exercise.

 

In saying that,  you're dead right, Andrew has had ample opportunity to do the right thing here. That's the problem with having a monarchy though,  it is by definition against doing the right thing!

 

Quite possibly, but I think it's more to do with what he's worth. He can make a situation that's a right royal pain in the hole, court cases, lurid accusations, media frenzy etc, go away with an amount of money that isn't that big a deal to him. 

Even innocent, I can see I would probably take that option if I had the money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The high court in London has said the papers can be served to his American lawyers and it looks like he will face the civil trial in the states.

Looks like the trial of the century is going to happen.  

Didn't realise he was in Scotland to hide from English law 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...