On what grounds would it be deemed the right thing to do to remove his HRH? Because he behaved badly, immorally, brought disgrace to himself and the rest of the British Royal Family?
Removal of a HRH sets a precedence. We saw that with Diana's divorce from Charles, the Queen removed her HRH *but* it was deemed that *all* divorced wives of a HRH had their HRH removed and therefore Sarah lost hers too. It involved letters patent. There has to be a solid reason to remove a HRH.
So, lets say the Queen decides that because of bad behavior, immoral activities etc, its grounds to remove Andrew's HRH. With that being the precedent set that certain behaviors deem the removal of a HRH, then it would also stand to reason that she would also then remove Charles' HRH for *his* not so upright behavior in the past. Its just logic.
That makes sense. However, I think a reasonable standard would be to strip the HRH from someone who commits a violent felony - murder, rape, child sexual assault, etc. That would enable the monarch to truly distance himself or herself from a truly despicable person.
This is a point of view that I've seen mentioned by many British commenting on different forums. Why should the UK hand over someone to the USA who has denied doing the same.
Just so you know, statutory rape laws differ depending on the state and aren’t relevant to the federal crimes at issue in the Epstein/Maxwell case. Here’s an overview of the relevant statutes & the elements that must be proved to convict.That example was actually just me making a sarcastic example of a petition in the US that would go absolutely nowhere and be considered on the ridiculous side.
Throw the book at him for exactly what? What crime has he committed that he would even lie about? Consensual sex with a woman in London he spent a few hours with out dancing? Yes... the SDNY would love to interview Andrew and ask him questions and have him answer them but those questions would be in relation to getting information about someone else that they're going to try to prosecute for totally different crimes that don't involve Andrew whatsoever.
If I'm not mistaken, the SDNY isn't looking into indicting or prosecuting *any* of the men that "participated" in events that involves the young girls that were procured and groomed and controlled by Epstein along with his main cohort, Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is their main concern and the charges of sex trafficking are levied against her and *no* one else at this time.
Any victim that comes forward and names Andrew as one they were forced by Epstein/Maxwell to have sex with Andrew could file their own claims in civil court but it would have no relation whatsoever with what the federal investigation and case filed in SDNY are pursuing now. Virginia Guiffre filed a claim with the Metropolitan Police in London. They investigated her claim and found no reason to pursue the investigation any further as it was deemed that Andrew did *not* commit a crime.
For Andrew to be prosecuted by US federal law in regards to Andrew in relation to Maxwell's crimes, they would have to have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew *knew* about the sex trafficking. Its my opinion that Andrew wasn't that big of a fish in the Epstein pond to be part of that "inner circle". Epstein and Maxwell were very, very painfully careful to cover the inner workings and kept evidence to guarantee people kept their mouths shut.
So tell me, Harald, what heinous and despicable crime did Andrew commit that the SDNY would consider digging deeper and deeper into Andrew? What do they hope to "trap him into perjury" about? Do you feel that Andrew perhaps was one of the ringleaders in this sex trafficking operation? Do you think Andrew benefited financially from all this? Do you believe that Andrew is even smart enough to recognize that something was very wrong with what was going on in Epstein's circle just because Andrew spent some time associating with the "rich and famous" lifestyle Epstein had?
Me? I'm not going to hold my breath that Andrew will ever be accused, indicted and prosecuted for a federal crime in the US. Sleeping with an underage girl in the US is called statutory rape and is deemed as:
"Statutory rape refers to sexual relations involving someone below the "age of consent." People who are underage cannot legally consent to having sex, so any form of sexual activity with them violates the law. ... Most laws on this subject are state rather than federal ones."
For Andrew to be prosecuted *federally*, there would have to be evidence without a reasonable doubt that he was involved with *sex trafficking" rather than "statutory rape".
That example was actually just me making a sarcastic example of a petition in the US that would go absolutely nowhere and be considered on the ridiculous side.
Throw the book at him for exactly what? What crime has he committed that he would even lie about? Consensual sex with a woman in London he spent a few hours with out dancing? Yes... the SDNY would love to interview Andrew and ask him questions and have him answer them but those questions would be in relation to getting information about someone else that they're going to try to prosecute for totally different crimes that don't involve Andrew whatsoever.
If I'm not mistaken, the SDNY isn't looking into indicting or prosecuting *any* of the men that "participated" in events that involves the young girls that were procured and groomed and controlled by Epstein along with his main cohort, Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is their main concern and the charges of sex trafficking are levied against her and *no* one else at this time.
Any victim that comes forward and names Andrew as one they were forced by Epstein/Maxwell to have sex with Andrew could file their own claims in civil court but it would have no relation whatsoever with what the federal investigation and case filed in SDNY are pursuing now. Virginia Guiffre filed a claim with the Metropolitan Police in London. They investigated her claim and found no reason to pursue the investigation any further as it was deemed that Andrew did *not* commit a crime.
For Andrew to be prosecuted by US federal law in regards to Andrew in relation to Maxwell's crimes, they would have to have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew *knew* about the sex trafficking. Its my opinion that Andrew wasn't that big of a fish in the Epstein pond to be part of that "inner circle". Epstein and Maxwell were very, very painfully careful to cover the inner workings and kept evidence to guarantee people kept their mouths shut.
So tell me, Harald, what heinous and despicable crime did Andrew commit that the SDNY would consider digging deeper and deeper into Andrew? What do they hope to "trap him into perjury" about? Do you feel that Andrew perhaps was one of the ringleaders in this sex trafficking operation? Do you think Andrew benefited financially from all this? Do you believe that Andrew is even smart enough to recognize that something was very wrong with what was going on in Epstein's circle just because Andrew spent some time associating with the "rich and famous" lifestyle Epstein had?
Me? I'm not going to hold my breath that Andrew will ever be accused, indicted and prosecuted for a federal crime in the US. Sleeping with an underage girl in the US is called statutory rape and is deemed as:
"Statutory rape refers to sexual relations involving someone below the "age of consent." People who are underage cannot legally consent to having sex, so any form of sexual activity with them violates the law. ... Most laws on this subject are state rather than federal ones."
For Andrew to be prosecuted *federally*, there would have to be evidence without a reasonable doubt that he was involved with *sex trafficking" rather than "statutory rape".
Gawain, thank you for the Cornell Law School Document.
Section C. states "the Government need not prove the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the fact the person had not attained 18 years of age."
Section D., points out obstruction, or attempted obstruction, is subject to prosecution.
Section E., covers "abuse of law", "coercion", "commercial sex act" among other things.
The notes section, explains that Congress changed some of the language of the law to make it clear who can be charged.
I'm not saying Andrew is guilty, just wondering why SDNY still wants to talk to him.
