UK - Prince Andrew accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999 - 2002

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

I like how this article you posted lays out the next steps.

"As for Prince Andrew’s testimony…
“I think it would be a serious mistake for Prince Andrew not to testify – he’s a party and if he doesn’t testify it’s an elephant in a room,” Garabedian said. “If he choses just not to testify, then a jury’s going to be wondering why he hasn’t.”

If Prince Andrew were called to testify but didn’t show up, his deposition could be used in lieu of live testimony.”
 
I’m so impressed by Virginia Giuffre’s determination to hold these abusers accountable for their actions.

Epstein - check!

Maxwell - check!

I bet somebody is sweating now!

You took the words right out of my mouth! In her deposition related to GM, Virginia is asked about her health challenges as a result of the abuse, and she testified to having struggled through so much! It must take tremendous courage and strength to stand up and take action against all these perpetrators like she’s been doing, especially to be constantly portrayed as a liar by the likes of AD, GM, JE, PA, and others.
 
Members of the the immediate royal household are considered immune - but Andrew is not believed to be included in this bracket, especially after he stepped back from his duties.

Bob Morris, a constitutional law professor at UCL, told The Sun Online in December 2019: "[Sovereign immunity] is a concept devised to protect the position of heads of state, but heads of state only, not the members of their family in their function as head of state. And you can't have more than one head of the state.

"So it doesn't apply to the members of people's families, there is no logic in doing so.

"Andrew is in the same position as any other UK citizen.

"He has no particular personal immunity, although he will be better advised than many private members in this country of course... he has access to very good legal advice and I'm sure he will now be in mind to take account of it."

His older brother Charles was sued in 1978 after a visit to a college in Ohio - and was granted immunity by the US as it was during an official visit which was deemed a "special diplomatic mission".

However, Andrew's alleged visits to Epstein's house in Manhattan and his private island in the Caribbean are unlikely to be considered official business.

Andrew does NOT have diplomatic immunity over abuse lawsuit by Epstein victim
 
I’m so impressed by Virginia Giuffre’s determination to hold these abusers accountable for their actions.

Epstein - check!

Maxwell - check!

I bet somebody is sweating now!

Epstein and VRG settled under seal

Maxwell and VRG settled under seal

How does that hold either of them accountable?

Neither had to admit to any wrongdoing and neither did.

And the decision VRG made to agree to settle under seal meant that it didn't help any other alleged victims.
 
Epstein and VRG settled under seal

Maxwell and VRG settled under seal

How does that hold either of them accountable?

Neither had to admit to any wrongdoing and neither did.

And the decision VRG made to agree to settle under seal meant that it didn't help any other alleged victims.

which is something I find weird.

They have been saying today on Uk tv he should settle out of court but they dont believe she will want that that she wants her day in court. So...why does she want her day in court against Andrew but not against GM OR JE?
 
Respectfully Snipped By Me
eta: So the judge is allowing the lawsuit to go to trial? It involves 3 alleged incidents, 1 in London, UK, 1 in NYC, USA, and 1 in the VI, USA, all when VRG was 17. Under American federal sexual trafficking law, 17 is considered a minor in America. Onus is on VRG to prove her version?

I would suggest so. I keep asking about it and not getting an answer, and as far as I can tell; it has not been legally established that VRG was trafficked. Which surely would mean the federal trafficking law and it's 18 year old consent wouldn't apply to VRG unless she can prove that she was?
 
An appeal is on the table
Andrew could file for a motion of reconsideration or he could take his appeal straight to the second circuit court of appeals.

In that instance, a panel of judges would hear the case. If that didn’t go in Andrew’s favor, he could ask the full second circuit to hear the case or he could immediately ask the US supreme court to hear it. The supreme court would decide if it did.

Any appeal would delay proceedings.

I didn't realise he could appeal this decision before the lawsuit moves on.

Do we think he will?
 
Respectfully Snipped By Me


I would suggest so. I keep asking about it and not getting an answer, and as far as I can tell; it has not been legally established that VRG was trafficked. Which surely would mean the federal trafficking law and it's 18 year old consent wouldn't apply to VRG unless she can prove that she was?

Officially, I honestly don't know? All the settlements from JE and then later, his estate, indicate that multiple girls and minors were trafficked. How often is there transparency when it involves powerful people and mountains of money?

All I can say for certainty is that the judge has decided to let the lawsuit proceed and that VRG has the burden of proof.

eta

I didn't realise he could appeal this decision before the lawsuit moves on.

Do we think he will?

MOO: Of course, why not.
 
Regarding Andrew being on official duty during the time of Virginia's allegations. According to the court circular during that timeframe, Andrew was visiting the US as "UK Trade Envoy" or "UK Trade and Investments Ambassador" or " Britain's 'special representative' for Trade and Investments" (difference in titles depending on media pubilcations) It is not clear if Andrew's role as Trade Envoy was on behalf on the Queen or for the government but his travels and events as Trade Envoy are listed in the Court Circular so am leaning towards his role was considered to be on behalf of the Queen. IIRC, Andrew had to step down as Trade Envoy because while on trips as Trade Envoy he was playing golf, etc. on the taxpayer's dime.
If I understand the Court Circular correctly, Andrew is only on "official business" for the monarchy during the events recorded in the Court Circular - after the event is personal time - but I could be wrong about this.

According to comparisons of the flight records and the Court Circular, Andrew did take personal time prior to, during and after his official trade envoy trip. Normally when leaving/arriving the UK or visiting country, that activity is listed in the Court Circular. On one occasion, Andrew's departure from the UK is not listed and if I am not mistaken the court circular shows him arriving in Miami/New York and the flight records show Andrew on Epstein's plane prior to his arriving in Miami or New York.

I remember reading a newspaper article about Andrew taking personal time during a trip, I will see if I can find it.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is about the lawsuit against Prince Andrew. It is not about Charles or Diana, Camilla or Fergie, or any other member of the Royal Family. Leave their names out of this discussion unless it is DIRECTLY related to this lawsuit.

All members agree to abide by our Terms of Service (The Rules) when they join. Part of those rules is that if you state information as fact, you must support it with a link to an approved source or your post will be removed.

If what you state is only your opinion, you must make that clear (IMO, JMO, MOO, I think, I believe).

Posts based on “I read somewhere” or “I heard” etc are rumor or hearsay and are not allowed.

When a post is removed, ALL responses to it (and responses to those responses, etc) get removed.

If you see a TOS violation, please use the Report feature to let us know immediately so that Moderators don’t end up having to go through ten or fifteen pages to find and remove all the responses that have occurred. Do not reply to it or your post will be removed along with all subsequent responses by other members.

Read Websleuths rules. If you do not understand them, Report or private message a Moderator for clarification. Do not post it on the public thread so as not to derail the public discussion.

If members violate Websleuths Terms of Service they may experience a temporary or permanent loss of posting privileges. Post accordingly.

Thank you.

ETA: hellofaread is not MSM and is not an approved source.
 
Regarding whether Andrew was on official business for the Queen or for the UK government as Trade Envoy:

Prince Andrew: Envoy career plagued with controversy

He worked for - but did not receive a salary from - the government body UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), which reports jointly to the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
---
Number 10 Press Briefing - Morning From 7 March 2011
Asked who appointed Prince Andrew as Trade Envoy, the PMS said that he took up the role in 2001 with the agreement of the then Foreign Secretary and the Trade and Industry Secretary.
Asked who paid for Prince Andrew’s expenses in his role as Trade Envoy, the PMS said that his understanding was that the Government met Prince Andrew’s expenses.
------
Regarding Andrew taking personal time in New York.

Prince Andrew's three hours of private time in New York just as Virginia Roberts flew in to the city | Daily Mail Online
-----
Prince Andrew Had Possible Gaps in Schedule on U.S. Visit When Virginia Roberts Giuffre Alleges Sex: Report
According to flight records, the Prince’s aides flew back to London directly from Boston on April 11, whereas the Prince flew to New York first. Giuffre had flown to New York from Epstein’s Caribbean island in New York on April 9, according to Epstein’s flight logs that were released this summer.
 
Members of the the immediate royal household are considered immune - but Andrew is not believed to be included in this bracket, especially after he stepped back from his duties.

Bob Morris, a constitutional law professor at UCL, told The Sun Online in December 2019: "[Sovereign immunity] is a concept devised to protect the position of heads of state, but heads of state only, not the members of their family in their function as head of state. And you can't have more than one head of the state.

"So it doesn't apply to the members of people's families, there is no logic in doing so.

"Andrew is in the same position as any other UK citizen.

"He has no particular personal immunity, although he will be better advised than many private members in this country of course... he has access to very good legal advice and I'm sure he will now be in mind to take account of it."

His older brother Charles was sued in 1978 after a visit to a college in Ohio - and was granted immunity by the US as it was during an official visit which was deemed a "special diplomatic mission".

However, Andrew's alleged visits to Epstein's house in Manhattan and his private island in the Caribbean are unlikely to be considered official business.

Andrew does NOT have diplomatic immunity over abuse lawsuit by Epstein victim
There you have it …
Seems his feet will indeed be held to this FIRE!

MOO
 
Due to the continuing questions regarding the issues in this case here is some relevant information regarding what is sex trafficking and age of consent. It is important to keep in mind that in a Civil case the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt Andrew had sex with Virginia or knew she was being sex trafficked but that it is more likely than not that Andrew had sex with Virginia and knew she was trafficked. IMO if flight records, Court Circular records, the picture and video of Andrew in New York after Epstein's conviction, the picture of Epstein, Maxwell and Weinstein at Beatrice's 18th bday party - days after Epstein knew there was a Florida arrest warrant and Andrew's disastrous interview are admitted as evidence then the prosecutors would easily have met the Civil case standard of guilt.

Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Child Sex Trafficking

Child Sex Trafficking is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1591. This statute makes it a federal offense to knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a minor (defined as someone under 18 years of age) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. “Commercial sex act” is defined very broadly to include “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” In other words, it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child, and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors, or some other kind of benefit. Section 1591 also makes it a crime for individuals to participate in a business venture that obtains minors and causes them to engage in commercial sex acts.

Myths & Facts

U.S. law defines human trafficking as the use of force, fraud, or coercion to compel a person into commercial sex acts or labor or services against his or her will. The one exception involves minors and commercial sex. Inducing a minor into commercial sex is considered human trafficking regardless of the presence of force, fraud or coercion.

How do traffickers control victims?

Traffickers employ a variety of control tactics, the most common include physical and emotional abuse and threats, isolation from friends and family, and economic abuse. They make promises aimed at addressing the needs of their target in order to impose control. As a result, victims become trapped and fear leaving for myriad reasons, including psychological trauma, shame, emotional attachment, or physical threats to themselves or their family.

Myth: It’s always or usually a violent crime

Reality: By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor.

Myth: Human trafficking involves moving, traveling or transporting a person across state or national borders
Reality: Human trafficking is often confused with human smuggling, which involves illegal border crossings. In fact, the crime of human trafficking does not require any movement whatsoever. Survivors can be recruited and trafficked in their own home towns, even their own homes.

Myth: If the trafficked person consented to be in their initial situation, then it cannot be human trafficking or against their will because they “knew better”
Reality: Initial consent to commercial sex or a labor setting prior to acts of force, fraud, or coercion (or if the victim is a minor in a sex trafficking situation) is not relevant to the crime, nor is payment.

Myth: People being trafficked are physically unable to leave their situations/locked in/held against their will

Reality: That is sometimes the case. More often, however, people in trafficking situations stay for reasons that are more complicated. Some lack the basic necessities to physically get out - such as transportation or a safe place to live. Some are afraid for their safety. Some have been so effectively manipulated that they do not identify at that point as being under the control of another person.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/new-york-statutory-rape-laws.htm

Mistake of age


Defendants accused of statutory rape often claim that they had no reason to know that their partner was underage. They may argue that the child said that he or she was of age, and that a reasonable person would have believed it. But even if this is true, a defendant cannot rely on a mistake of age—even a reasonable one—to avoid conviction. Mistake of age is not a defense in New York.

https://sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Importance-of-Using-CST-Laws-over-Stat-Rape-Laws.pdf

While age disparity is a factor in sex trafficking, this is not the only way in which sex trafficking offenders prey upon children. Instead, sex trafficking laws address the exploitation inherent in the commodification of child sex trafficking victims, including the purchase of commercial sex with minors, not just the sale of children for commercial sex.

(purchase/sale is not defined by exchanging money but any means that provides a benefit to either party)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
2,147
Total visitors
2,252

Forum statistics

Threads
600,478
Messages
18,109,194
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top