The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1601  
Old 09-23-2015, 07:48 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
When I say I look forward to watching Andrew squirm, I mean I am fairly sure that he will be subpoenaed and that if he is he will try to avoid his obligations under the subpoena, and I look forward to seeing him made to comply with it. Especially when they have initially denied any wrongdoing.

I don't revel in watching other people suffer per se, but I do get a thrill when people who think they are special and above the law are cut down to size and made to comply with the obligations the rest of us have no option but to obey because we can't buy our way out of it or call on friends in high places to make it go away.

Because of Maxwell's loose lips incident recently, Roberts has another chance to press her claim in court, and if what she says is true I hope she succeeds. And if Andrew did what she says he did, I want to see him squirm on the hook, and I will revel in watching that happen.

Well said 👏


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1602  
Old 09-23-2015, 10:47 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Virginia Roberts' testimony will indeed be very interesting, if the case gets that far!
Right now we are in the pleading stage. I am assuming Maxwell will serve a motion to dismiss and try and get this knocked out before we get to evidence. If the court denies her motion (a process that could take about 6 months or more here), I think we will see a fast settlement and gag order. JMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
When I say I look forward to watching Andrew squirm, I mean I am fairly sure that he will be subpoenaed and that if he is he will try to avoid his obligations under the subpoena, and I look forward to seeing him made to comply with it. Especially when they have initially denied any wrongdoing.

I don't revel in watching other people suffer per se, but I do get a thrill when people who think they are special and above the law are cut down to size and made to comply with the obligations the rest of us have no option but to obey because we can't buy our way out of it or call on friends in high places to make it go away.

Because of Maxwell's loose lips incident recently, Roberts has another chance to press her claim in court, and if what she says is true I hope she succeeds. And if Andrew did what she says he did, I want to see him squirm on the hook, and I will revel in watching that happen.
I am really wondering if merely calling someone a "liar" constitutes defamation. I would imagine it could. I did a quick search, and I think the answer is "it depends." That will be the first hurdle in this case, as I mentioned to Curryong.

If he didn't do it, I feel sorry for him, I truly do. I completely agree that those in privileged places should not be permitted to evade the legal process because of who their mother is. I'm not sure how international subpoenas work, but if any British citizen would be subject to it, then let him board that plane and get on with it. He certainly IS a key witness here, and if he his submission to a deposition is only voluntary and he declines, it will make him look pretty bad. It won't have any effect on the court's determination, but in the court of public opinion he will look as if he has something to hide, at least to some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The three places where she claimed that she slept with Andrew she was over the legal age of consent at the time remember so that even if he did sleep with her - and unless there was another person in the room to witness that it will be a 'he said and she said' type of situation.


It won't really prove anything - he will deny it, she will continue to push it and there is no evidence either way.
The issues in this defamation is in some ways very different than the motion to intervene in the challenge to Epstein's sentence.

If this case gets to an evidentiary stage, whether or not Virginia Roberts is a liar will be tried in court, which will necessarily involve who was telling the truth back in January. It's no longer about whether he committed a crime or not (although the issue of his involvement in any plan to transport her across state lines might come up), it's whether Virginia was lying or not when she claimed she had sex with Andrew. Now that he's denied it, and had BP deny it, puts him in a bit of a pickle.

But as I mentioned above, I'm not sure we are going to get that far. If we do, it will take several months.
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1603  
Old 09-23-2015, 11:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
The only way to prove whether or not they had sex is for someone else to come forward and give evidence that they saw it happen - otherwise all it it is 'he said and she said' and that isn't enough evidence (or shouldn't be in a court of law). Proving one or the other is lying when there is no corroborating evidence simply isn't possible.


Regardless of how this turns out the vast majority of the public will believe Andrew is guilty of a crime, even though he has never been charged, because they prefer to believe the worst of people rather than the best.
Reply With Quote
  #1604  
Old 09-23-2015, 01:12 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
Sworn testimony is sufficient in American courts to prove whether a sex act did or did not occur. Long ago, sex acts required some sort of corroboration, but this was seen as unfair and victim shaming. As I've seen many a judge point out, sex acts do not tend to take place in public, and we don't require such corroboration for other accusations.

But it's not all a roll of the dice regarding who the jury believes. You can be sure that if Roberts reaches the trial stage where a jury gets to assess who is telling the truth, everybody involved will be questioned under oath (except maybe Andrew), both in videotaped deposition, and on the witness stand, up and down, backwards and forwards. Every little inconsistency will be explored. If a jury credits her, it won't be simply because they read her story in the Daily Mail. They will have seen the good, the bad and the ugly.

But again, this case will NEVER go before a jury. NEVER.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1605  
Old 09-23-2015, 03:03 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,052
Exactly. A simple denial, or two, doesn't mean anything any more, particularly in matters involving sex. It's incredibly easy to ruin a person's reputation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Regardless of how this turns out the vast majority of the public will believe Andrew is guilty of a crime, even though he has never been charged, because they prefer to believe the worst of people rather than the best.
Reply With Quote
  #1606  
Old 09-23-2015, 10:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Sworn testimony is sufficient in American courts to prove whether a sex act did or did not occur.
What happens when she 'swears' that it did happen and then he 'swears' that it didn't. Both have given 'sworn testimony' - so how does any court deal with that and they are the only two people who could possibly know?


Is it the case that the woman's word is believed while the man's is automatically not?

It still comes down to 'he said' 'she said' and with no corroboration it isn't provable one way or the other.

Even if the weight of evidence is that one is a more credible witness than the other that still isn't proof (I have a friend whose son spent nine years in prison having been found guilty of rape, which he didn't commit because the jury believed her 'sworn testimony' and not his - he was eventually cleared when she cried rape a second time and this time the accused had an iron clad alibi but her story was word for word the same as the first so that case was re-opened and he was released with $100,000 compensation and her punishment for lying 'under oath' not once but twice - a find of $500) I have no confidence in any system that says that 'sworn testimony' is enough to prove guilty when 'sworn testimony' can be full of lies.

Sworn testimony is flawed in the modern world because so many people don't believe in any long term consequences of lying.

When people believed that their immortal souls would be lost is they lied 'under oath' it had some validity but now - with so many people believing that this is the only life they are prepared to lie and take the risk of being found out. When the punishment is so minimal as well it is a risk well worth taking when $$$$ are at stake.
Reply With Quote
  #1607  
Old 09-23-2015, 10:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,332
Of course there are terrible cases like the one Iluvbertie describes. Nevertheless, in this case it would also be incredibly unfair for anyone to assume that a man is incapable of lying simply because he is a prince while the woman concerned must inevitably be a liar because she has accused him of certain actions. IF this case gets to court then, as Graciegiraffe says, the jury will be able to make up their own minds.
Reply With Quote
  #1608  
Old 09-24-2015, 03:05 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,104
And, let's not forget, this is yet another civil suit and I am not sure how effective they would be in even getting an international subpoena. The court would be aware that they could be "used" to allow this woman to essentially gain what she lost in her last court action, namely money.

Putting a third party at risk of being essentially libelled in a court of law with no legal recourse. Very murky waters here.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1609  
Old 09-24-2015, 08:51 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
And, let's not forget, this is yet another civil suit and I am not sure how effective they would be in even getting an international subpoena. The court would be aware that they could be "used" to allow this woman to essentially gain what she lost in her last court action, namely money.

Putting a third party at risk of being essentially libelled in a court of law with no legal recourse. Very murky waters here.
Very murky waters for anybody tangentially related to a lawsuit, why should Andrew be treated differently?

If there are procedural grounds to issue a subpoena, the courts will do so, especially as virtually all civil suits filed are for the purposes of gaining money. U.S. courts don't have the powers to issue international subpoenas - you have to do it through the court that has jurisdiction over the person, i.e., Britain. This is for the deposition. Andrew could not be compelled to testify in a trial in the U.S. under the federal rules, but I believe his deposition could be played in court as his testimony as he would be considered "unavailable." Would the BRF attorneys fight the British subpoena tooth and nail to quash it? I would imagine so. Would they succeed? Hopefully not; the same rules that apply to all of us should apply to Andrew.

All third parties are at risk of being libeled in a civil suit. Their recourse is their own libel suit, unless the underlying libel is part of the privileged areas of courts proceedings (very few things in the suit are privileged).

The point is, my hope is that Andrew is treated the same as anybody else, and if he is then the courts, acting together, will act in an unbiased and impartial manner and order his appearance.

Is it fair to be wrongly accused? No, absolutely not. Is it fair for a person wronged to not have her day in court because a prince is involved? No, absolutely not. The point is, I don't know who has been wronged here and neither does anybody else. Let the courts proceed in the impartial and unbiased manner in which they conduct all of their business and let the chips fall where they may.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1610  
Old 09-24-2015, 07:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,977
GracieGiraffe excellent post ..Totally agree all should be treated the same.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1611  
Old 09-24-2015, 10:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
I think we should also mention that sworn testimony is not the only evidence presented. There is often evidence presented about the circumstances of the occasion in question, more circumstantial evidence about the demeanor of the people involved, the chain of events, eye.

So, testimony is crucial but it's not presented in a vacuum
Reply With Quote
  #1612  
Old 09-24-2015, 10:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Very murky waters for anybody tangentially related to a lawsuit, why should Andrew be treated differently?

If there are procedural grounds to issue a subpoena, the courts will do so, especially as virtually all civil suits filed are for the purposes of gaining money. U.S. courts don't have the powers to issue international subpoenas - you have to do it through the court that has jurisdiction over the person, i.e., Britain. This is for the deposition. Andrew could not be compelled to testify in a trial in the U.S. under the federal rules, but I believe his deposition could be played in court as his testimony as he would be considered "unavailable." Would the BRF attorneys fight the British subpoena tooth and nail to quash it? I would imagine so. Would they succeed? Hopefully not; the same rules that apply to all of us should apply to Andrew.

All third parties are at risk of being libeled in a civil suit. Their recourse is their own libel suit, unless the underlying libel is part of the privileged areas of courts proceedings (very few things in the suit are privileged).

The point is, my hope is that Andrew is treated the same as anybody else, and if he is then the courts, acting together, will act in an unbiased and impartial manner and order his appearance.

Is it fair to be wrongly accused? No, absolutely not. Is it fair for a person wronged to not have her day in court because a prince is involved? No, absolutely not. The point is, I don't know who has been wronged here and neither does anybody else. Let the courts proceed in the impartial and unbiased manner in which they conduct all of their business and let the chips fall where they may.
Andrew's lawyers won't have to fight anything as no UK court will subpoena him, ar least not on such a weak case as that one.
Reply With Quote
  #1613  
Old 09-24-2015, 10:55 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,104
Thanks all for your input. We really don't 'Do' that many civil libel suits here so I am not really au fait with the US Federal or State, criminal or civil, legislative procedures.

However, it just seems to me that this woman is coming at the situation again, just using another angle, her case having been dismissed in her first suit.

BTW is the other potential "witness" from the first suit being touted as another "witness" in this second bite of the apple.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1614  
Old 09-25-2015, 09:10 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Andrew's lawyers won't have to fight anything as no UK court will subpoena him, ar least not on such a weak case as that one.
I'm not sure how it works in Britain, but here in the U.S. when we talk about a court "issuing" a subpoena, that's really a misnomer. The attorney gets blank subpoena forms from the clerk of the court and fills them out, serves them and files them back in court. The court is only involved if the person served moves to quash it, and then there has to be good grounds. A "weak" case (nobody knows if she has a strong libel claim or not) is generally not grounds for it, nor is "hey, I'm a prince." But since Britain is the jurisdiction that would have to issue the subpoena,not sure how it works there.

Courts are not supposed to look at the underlying merits of a case when determining these procedural issues. Some do, but this is more likely in a state court, not a federal case. Judges are much more likely to play by the rules there. The rules are, until a case is thrown out on the merits, even the most odious get the same discovery and procedural rights as the next.

If Roberts wants Andrew's deposition, she has to ask the federal court to ask the British court. It's the British court who determines if he gets subpoenaed to appear somewhere in Britain for a deposition. I'd imagine US and British courts do this with some regularity. If Britain grants these requests pro forma, I don't think it fair that Andrew get special treatment. If Britain exercises some discretion in such requests, then we have a different kettle of fish here.

My point is, it does not matter if Roberts has made the whole thing up at this point. If the ordering of his deposition in Britain is a perfunctory matter, he could very well be deposed in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Thanks all for your input. We really don't 'Do' that many civil libel suits here so I am not really au fait with the US Federal or State, criminal or civil, legislative procedures.

However, it just seems to me that this woman is coming at the situation again, just using another angle, her case having been dismissed in her first suit.

BTW is the other potential "witness" from the first suit being touted as another "witness" in this second bite of the apple.
Marg, there are some jurors who will see it as you do too. This is why most cases settle before trial. Juries can be wild cards.

The second witness - complaints almost never detail who the witnesses are, etc. It's just statement of the allegations, such as Maxwell said this and that about me, and it's untrue (lawyers can drag that one out for pages). Evidence and witnesses come later, and generally the discovery process before trial is not something that's part of the public record until much later. Nobody in the media has accessed it from the online federal system and published it, although they can - it's public record.

All of this right now is academic. Likely Maxwell has not yet been served or accepted a waiver of service. Once she has she has time to answer. Most likely this will be in the form of a motion to dismiss, which will entail trading of briefs which take time to prepare. Then possible oral argument. Then the court will take its time to issue an order on it, then possibly appeals, starting the whole process all over. The issue of Andrew's deposition is at least a year away, and I do believe this case will either be dismissed or settle before we get there.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1615  
Old 09-25-2015, 10:22 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
I do not see how the Roberts vs Maxwell lawsuit will have anything to do with Andrew.

Roberts alleges that Maxwell hired her to have sex with Epstein when she was 15. Maxwell said this was lie.

Andrew did not meet Roberts until she was 17.

Andrew would not have any knowledge of what transpired two years before he met Roberts.

This lawsuit is about Roberts and Maxwell. Maxwell will probably counter sue.

If the case goes to trial, the people who would be called to testify would be those that knew Roberts and Maxwell when Roberts was 15. This excludes Andrew.

It will include Roberts' father and the friends Roberts asked to join Epstein for sex. One should not forget that she admitted to recruiting underage girls to join her.

This might come back and bite her as some of these girls may turn around and sue her, especially if she continued recruiting them when Virginia Roberts was 18.

The allege recruitment supposedly occurred when Virginia & her father were working for Donald Trump.

The Donald might be call to testify before Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #1616  
Old 09-26-2015, 10:38 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,104
Thank you, not surprisingly you have given a much clearer picture of the suit and, the 15 versus 17 years of age. That was why I was wondering why people were touting that Andrew would be called as a witness as it appeared to have nothing to do with the suit and was therefore, a de facto attempt to profit from dragging Andrew through the mud it any way that could lead to money, either before or after the case went to court.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1617  
Old 09-27-2015, 10:17 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
My understanding of the allegations in the complaint is that Maxwell defamed Roberts with respect to her claims made in January. That includes Andrew. Maxwell called her a liar. That would seem to include everything out of her mouth this past year. That's based on the Mirror's account.

Even if the allegations relate to what happened when Roberts was 15, Andrew could still be a pertinent witness, even if he only observed the relationship at 17, as to whether she was some captive sex slave for years.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1618  
Old 12-07-2015, 02:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,665
Same old, same old but not a book one would want to be mentioned in.

Quote:
PRINCE ANDREW is facing fresh embarrassment over his friendship with billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

He is to feature in a blockbuster new book about the scandal surrounding under-age “sex slaves” Epstein allegedly introduced to rich and powerful party guests on his private Caribbean island.

The book, due to be published in America before next year’s November presidential election, is the result of a nine-year investigation by former New York Police Department detective John Connolly.

He began his detailed dossier on Epstein, 62, even before the former Wall Street financier was jailed for 18 months in 2008 for soliciting an under-age girl for prostitution.

We can exclusively reveal that Connolly will this week hand his “explosive” manuscript to best-selling writer James Patterson, who has been hired by respected US publisher Little, Brown and Company to co-write the book.

There is no suggestion that Prince Andrew or Epstein’s other prominent friends, who include former US President Bill Clinton, took part in anything illegal or untoward.
Read more: Prince Andrew in sex scandal book | Royal | News | Daily Express
Reply With Quote
  #1619  
Old 12-07-2015, 10:03 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,977
Very interesting I wonder if there will be any comment , he has before


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1620  
Old 12-08-2015, 12:31 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
Very interesting I wonder if there will be any comment , he has before


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
I doubt it but I'll bet his lawyers will be getting their hands on the first copies.
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail elisabeth fashion poll greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king willem-alexander luxembourg national day 2016 member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles prince oscar princess charlotte of cambridge princess marie princess marie curent events princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion prinsjesdag psychopath queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden thailand the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats visit to india and bhutan 2016 world news


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises