The Royals

1…3031333536…54

Comments

  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    I am not even sure how this works anymore. Can you have sex with a 17 year old American in Britain and then that 17 year old go and live in Australia then sue you in America. With the aim of trying to then get you extradited to face charges in America for an act that was carried out in the UK and whilst morally questionable would be legal in the UK. Surely the age of consent is based on where you are at the time.

    If her case is that she was trafficked then she needs to prove that Prince Andrew knew. If she is claiming she raped then we will have a messy court case where she goes from someone who looks like she is quite happy in the photo to being forced into having sex by a predator. She has already alluded to giving massages and sex to wealthy clients on multiple other occasions as she was handed out by Epstein. Is it so hard for a jury to be made to think that the person that she goes into the room with believes that it is consensual sex.

    Don't get me wrong Andrew can mess this right up by sweating in the court as lets be frank he is a bit dodgy.
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    Must admit that I’m not clear where the jurisdiction of a US call starts and stops in this case.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,642
    edited January 2022
    kingstonian said:

    Must admit that I’m not clear where the jurisdiction of a US call starts and stops in this case.

    So if he doesn't turn up to trial so is found 'guilty' by default they can seize any US assets he has up to the value of whatever he owes as a result. (lawyer people seem to think this is the likeliest scenario)

    There's a suggestion that the reason the queen cut him off is that, as he doesn't have that many US assets, the royal family's assets would be within the scope for seizures, as they're an extension of his wealth. So by cutting him adrift their assets in the US are not exposed to it all, and just his personal assets.

    Or something like that - I'm not a lawyer.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,525
    kingstonian said:

    Must admit that I’m not clear where the jurisdiction of a US call starts and stops in this case.

    He is alleged to have slept with her in New York when she was under the age of consent in New York, so a New York court has jurisdiction.
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    I understand the general point around seizure of assets If he were found guilty. Not sure whether the wider royal family’s assets are seen as an extension of his own - my limited understanding is that Royal Family assets are very much ringfenced to individuals based upon their role e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall Is ringfenced to Charles.

    I’m more thinking about how his interactions with her all occurred in the UK. I would have thought that if someone alleged they were forced to have sex with a man whilst in England, and that the person was in England because they had been trafficked there, it would be an English court hearing the case. But I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s an angle I’m missing here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    kingstonian said:

    I understand the general point around seizure of assets If he were found guilty. Not sure whether the wider royal family’s assets are seen as an extension of his own - my limited understanding is that Royal Family assets are very much ringfenced to individuals based upon their role e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall Is ringfenced to Charles.

    I’m more thinking about how his interactions with her all occurred in the UK. I would have thought that if someone alleged they were forced to have sex with a man whilst in England, and that the person was in England because they had been trafficked there, it would be an English court hearing the case. But I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s an angle I’m missing here.

    I have a vague memory that we change the law (post Gary Glitter) so you could be prosecuted for noncing in poor countries.

    As I understand it the big allegation is sex trafficking and Andrew is being done as a beneficiary of that activity. I imagine the london thing is easy to prove as there is a photo.
    Also if it ends up as a criminal case then he is in far more trouble for trafficking across state lines so imagie worse still for being part of an international sex trafficking gang
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,153
    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstonian said:

    I understand the general point around seizure of assets If he were found guilty. Not sure whether the wider royal family’s assets are seen as an extension of his own - my limited understanding is that Royal Family assets are very much ringfenced to individuals based upon their role e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall Is ringfenced to Charles.

    I’m more thinking about how his interactions with her all occurred in the UK. I would have thought that if someone alleged they were forced to have sex with a man whilst in England, and that the person was in England because they had been trafficked there, it would be an English court hearing the case. But I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s an angle I’m missing here.

    I have a vague memory that we change the law (post Gary Glitter) so you could be prosecuted for noncing in poor countries.

    As I understand it the big allegation is sex trafficking and Andrew is being done as a beneficiary of that activity. I imagine the london thing is easy to prove as there is a photo.
    Also if it ends up as a criminal case then he is in far more trouble for trafficking across state lines so imagie worse still for being part of an international sex trafficking gang
    That would be slightly different though as it would be a British citizen being prosecuted through British Courts for something they did abroad where laws may be more lax. I suppose the equivalent in this case would be Epstein having sex with someone under the US age of consent while in the UK and being prosecuted in the US.

    The point I've never quite understood in this case is that if the events were in the UK (which someone said above wasn't the case in all instances) and the alleged offender is British how can the US courts be the ones trying the case? In the case of the underage issue then no crime would have been committed (obviously with a caveat that it was concensual) and if it was not concensual / there was people trafficking then shouldn't that be something pursude in the British courts? That all becomes academic if some of the events were in the US though.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstonian said:

    I understand the general point around seizure of assets If he were found guilty. Not sure whether the wider royal family’s assets are seen as an extension of his own - my limited understanding is that Royal Family assets are very much ringfenced to individuals based upon their role e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall Is ringfenced to Charles.

    I’m more thinking about how his interactions with her all occurred in the UK. I would have thought that if someone alleged they were forced to have sex with a man whilst in England, and that the person was in England because they had been trafficked there, it would be an English court hearing the case. But I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s an angle I’m missing here.

    I have a vague memory that we change the law (post Gary Glitter) so you could be prosecuted for noncing in poor countries.

    As I understand it the big allegation is sex trafficking and Andrew is being done as a beneficiary of that activity. I imagine the london thing is easy to prove as there is a photo.
    Also if it ends up as a criminal case then he is in far more trouble for trafficking across state lines so imagie worse still for being part of an international sex trafficking gang
    That would be slightly different though as it would be a British citizen being prosecuted through British Courts for something they did abroad where laws may be more lax. I suppose the equivalent in this case would be Epstein having sex with someone under the US age of consent while in the UK and being prosecuted in the US.

    The point I've never quite understood in this case is that if the events were in the UK (which someone said above wasn't the case in all instances) and the alleged offender is British how can the US courts be the ones trying the case? In the case of the underage issue then no crime would have been committed (obviously with a caveat that it was concensual) and if it was not concensual / there was people trafficking then shouldn't that be something pursude in the British courts? That all becomes academic if some of the events were in the US though.
    I am pretty sure his lawyers argued (unsuccessfully) that a NY Court did not have juridiction.
    The only way he would find out if their was a warrant out for his arrest would be if he stepped foot on US soil or in a country with the necessary agreement
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,196

  • mully79
    mully79 Posts: 904
    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstonian said:

    I understand the general point around seizure of assets If he were found guilty. Not sure whether the wider royal family’s assets are seen as an extension of his own - my limited understanding is that Royal Family assets are very much ringfenced to individuals based upon their role e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall Is ringfenced to Charles.

    I’m more thinking about how his interactions with her all occurred in the UK. I would have thought that if someone alleged they were forced to have sex with a man whilst in England, and that the person was in England because they had been trafficked there, it would be an English court hearing the case. But I’m not a lawyer, so maybe there’s an angle I’m missing here.

    I have a vague memory that we change the law (post Gary Glitter) so you could be prosecuted for noncing in poor countries.

    As I understand it the big allegation is sex trafficking and Andrew is being done as a beneficiary of that activity. I imagine the london thing is easy to prove as there is a photo.
    Also if it ends up as a criminal case then he is in far more trouble for trafficking across state lines so imagie worse still for being part of an international sex trafficking gang
    That would be slightly different though as it would be a British citizen being prosecuted through British Courts for something they did abroad where laws may be more lax. I suppose the equivalent in this case would be Epstein having sex with someone under the US age of consent while in the UK and being prosecuted in the US.

    The point I've never quite understood in this case is that if the events were in the UK (which someone said above wasn't the case in all instances) and the alleged offender is British how can the US courts be the ones trying the case? In the case of the underage issue then no crime would have been committed (obviously with a caveat that it was concensual) and if it was not concensual / there was people trafficking then shouldn't that be something pursude in the British courts? That all becomes academic if some of the events were in the US though.
    I am pretty sure his lawyers argued (unsuccessfully) that a NY Court did not have juridiction.
    The only way he would find out if their was a warrant out for his arrest would be if he stepped foot on US soil or in a country with the necessary agreement
    I assume that the special floor of the Lolita express is a big part of evading local jurisdiction ?
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195

  • dabber
    dabber Posts: 1,973
    So DOY is going for trial by jury. Interesting twist.
    “You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”

    Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,660
    edited January 2022
    Step 2...


    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,666
    So you get idiots, then you get right Royal idiots....
    WTF is he thinking? His name is mud if he loses and mud if he wins. Twit.


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,525
    photonic69 said:

    So you get idiots, then you get right Royal idiots....
    WTF is he thinking? His name is mud if he loses and mud if he wins. Twit.

    I presume he is thinking winning can only improve things and losing won't make it any worse than it is now.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,031
    According to newsnight last night he was going to have to accept a jury trial anyway - so he may as well pretend it was his idea and he's happy to let his case be judged in front of ordinary people.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,153
    photonic69 said:

    So you get idiots, then you get right Royal idiots....
    WTF is he thinking? His name is mud if he loses and mud if he wins. Twit.

    What else can he do? If he makes a settlement without any admission and people still assume he's guilty (the majority of people are already assuming this to be the case) so by going to trial he at least gets two sides aired in public and the upshot is no different. If I were in his shoes and was innocent (or at least thought I could cast more doubt on my guilt) I suspect I'd do the same.
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,666
    Pross said:

    photonic69 said:

    So you get idiots, then you get right Royal idiots....
    WTF is he thinking? His name is mud if he loses and mud if he wins. Twit.

    What else can he do? If he makes a settlement without any admission and people still assume he's guilty (the majority of people are already assuming this to be the case) so by going to trial he at least gets two sides aired in public and the upshot is no different. If I were in his shoes and was innocent (or at least thought I could cast more doubt on my guilt) I suspect I'd do the same.
    I guess it all comes down to who has the deepest pockets/best lawyers. I agree - it's probably his best call right now. It kinda puts him on the back foot a bit when back in the 80's his nickname was "Randy Andy" and I'm sure that was not just out of thin air.

    I hate to think what sort of stress this is putting on his poor mum. I suspect we might even get 10 days of mourning this year.

    I wonder just how much the legal bills for both sides combined would be? Surely this vulgar amount money could be better used to help vulnerable and trafficked girls and not to line the pockets of FatLawyersForU.inc


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • mrb123
    mrb123 Posts: 4,787
    I'm hearing that Randy has settled the case, details will not be disclosed.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Forever to be considered as guilty then.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • masjer
    masjer Posts: 2,613
    pblakeney said:

    Forever to be considered as guilty then.

    At least he doesn't have to sweat it out in court--if he can actually sweat.
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,666
    Cheque Book Justice wins again!


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,660
    Surprised! I thought she wanted him to face the music...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    ddraver said:

    Surprised! I thought she wanted him to face the music...

    In a civil case was the music not always going to be damages?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,660
    Indeed... apparently...

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    pblakeney said:

    Forever to be considered as guilty then.

    Usually the case. Wacko Jacko springs to mind.
    Mind you Ronaldo seems to have remained unscathed following his pay off to his alleged rape victim in Las Vegas.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930

    Didn't realise until today that the famous pic of Randy Andy with Giselle and his alleged victim is a picture of a picture. And as such, isn't really worth a w@nk evidentially. Andy's lawyers asked to see the original so that it could be substantiated whether it had been doctored.
    Apparently she has forgotten where she put it after getting it back from the FBI.

    Quite surprised such a valuable document wasn't secured safely in a vault somewhere.

  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    ballysmate said:


    Didn't realise until today that the famous pic of Randy Andy with Giselle and his alleged victim is a picture of a picture. And as such, isn't really worth a w@nk evidentially. Andy's lawyers asked to see the original so that it could be substantiated whether it had been doctored.
    Apparently she has forgotten where she put it after getting it back from the FBI.

    Quite surprised such a valuable document wasn't secured safely in a vault somewhere.

    ballysmate said:


    Didn't realise until today that the famous pic of Randy Andy with Giselle and his alleged victim is a picture of a picture. And as such, isn't really worth a w@nk evidentially. Andy's lawyers asked to see the original so that it could be substantiated whether it had been doctored.
    Apparently she has forgotten where she put it after getting it back from the FBI.

    Quite surprised such a valuable document wasn't secured safely in a vault somewhere.

    Does he really want to perjure himself by claiming the image is doctored and the girl was not there. Seems a risky strategy to me.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    edited February 2022




    Wouldn't be perjury if the photo could not be entered as evidence as it could not be shown to be original because he wouldn't have to face questions concerning it would he?

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    john80 said:



    Does he really want to perjure himself by claiming the image is doctored and the girl was not there. Seems a risky strategy to me.

    Clearly not.
    Apparently happy to be guilty in the court of public opinion and out quite a few sovs.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.

Categories