The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4721  
Old 01-07-2022, 01:08 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,669
The judges in this case have ruled against every single motion presented by Andrew's lawyers.

Maybe I am mistaken about it being anti-Royalty sentiment as much as it is anti accused powerful male in the #MeToo era.

I think there is an overall "guilty even before proven guilty" feeling in the air in all these cases....and that is unfortunate.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
Reply With Quote
  #4722  
Old 01-07-2022, 04:54 AM
Lady Daly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sherwood, United States
Posts: 842
This thread began in 12/06/2010. It's easy to lose track of the details.

The "controversy" had it's start back in 2000 when 17 y/o Virginia Giuffre(Roberts) was working as a spa attendant at Donald Trump's private Mar-a-Lago club. Maxwell approached Giuffre, noting she was reading a book about massage and offered her a job working for Epstein as a traveling masseuse with the assurance that no experience was necessary. Giuffre has stated that after Maxwell introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, the two quickly began grooming her to provide sexual services under the guise that she was to be trained as a professional massage therapist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre

60 Minutes of Australia produced this insightful piece last year before Maxwell's trial. "Inside the wicked saga of Jeffrey Epstein". 60 Minutes Australia "Who is Ghislaine Maxwell" https://youtu.be/P-9hO4wF_xw

How bad was Jeffrey Epstein?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

More:
Netflix did a series "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich".

NBC Peacock "Epstein's Shadow: Ghislaine Maxwell" Official Trailer
https://youtu.be/M6jcVR6COKM

Prince Andrew got caught up with Maxwell and Epstein and now may pay the price, literally. Epstein is dead. Maxwell's guilty and not talking in prison. Virginia Giuffre, while tragic, seems to have landed on somewhat solid ground married with children in Australia. It seems that she would move on with her life. Yet after all she witnessed she may want a piece out of anyone involved. I don't think we are ever going to know the truth about what actually happened between she and Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #4723  
Old 01-07-2022, 05:14 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Browsing through my pictures I see people standing next to me and I honestly can not remember who they ever were. But I can not deny I have met them as the picture shows they very me standing there indeed, in Málaga, in Budapest, in Porto, in Wroclaw, in London, during my 5 or 6 weekend trips per year pre-corona.

The number of people I meet and am pictured with is dwarfed by the number of people the Duke sees and is pictured with. But he can not say he has never met them: "Look at this picture Sir, here we shook hands at a Garden Party at Buckingham!" The Duke: "Uh oh, eh... How nice to see you, eh... again."
Yes im not sure wat your point is. He says he doesn't remember meeting her but he clearly did.
Reply With Quote
  #4724  
Old 01-07-2022, 06:46 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes im not sure wat your point is. He says he doesn't remember meeting her but he clearly did.
By saying he doesn't recall meeting her, he isn't actually denying it , he is covering his back. He cannot be accused of lying he is just saying he cannot remember the meeting.
Reply With Quote
  #4725  
Old 01-07-2022, 07:02 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
By saying he doesn't recall meeting her, he isn't actually denying it , he is covering his back. He cannot be accused of lying he is just saying he cannot remember the meeting.
I think it is possibly true. She was of no importance to him, he met her, perhaps he slept with her but he has no real recollection of it.
Reply With Quote
  #4726  
Old 01-07-2022, 09:44 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The judges in this case have ruled against every single motion presented by Andrew's lawyers.



Maybe I am mistaken about it being anti-Royalty sentiment as much as it is anti accused powerful male in the #MeToo era.



I think there is an overall "guilty even before proven guilty" feeling in the air in all these cases....and that is unfortunate.


Not being a lawyer, I really can’t assess how “fair” - or not- the court’s rulings have been. Maybe that’s what he deserved based on the arguments. Or maybe it’s a sign of the times, as you said, regarding cases like this. Which IA isn’t a good thing.

But I haven’t seen anything so far that suggests American courts are just anti royal.
Reply With Quote
  #4727  
Old 01-07-2022, 10:39 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think it is possibly true. She was of no importance to him, he met her, perhaps he slept with her but he has no real recollection of it.

No, Prince Andrew denies he slept with her and has no recollection of ever meeting her even. The picture shows that the Duke posed with Ms Roberts so must have "met" her.

But like we all experience: we meet lots of people and when we are asked to describe this or that person we possibly are not even able to recall how someone looks, or that there really was an encounter at all.
Reply With Quote
  #4728  
Old 01-07-2022, 10:51 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
Yes I know that he said this... but it does not mean that it is true. He may be lying. he may have sletp with her.. and remembers it clearly enough. Or he may have slept with her and does not remember it.
Reply With Quote
  #4729  
Old 01-07-2022, 10:53 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,157
Someone came up to me in a restaurant recently, and started talking to me about how we did some work together once. It was years ago. When she told me the name of the company she worked for, I remembered, but I didn't recognise her and have no idea how come she recognised me. As for being photographed together, if I met a member of the Royal Family then I would certainly want my photo taken with them. It wouldn't mean that we had any more than a brief conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #4730  
Old 01-07-2022, 01:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Epstein was scum but he, sadly, was not one of the most prolific pedophiles of the modern age. I work for an international relief agency and have seen tragedies that dwarfs this one. Unfortunately, sex trafficking is a very, very common crime all over the world. There are cases involving pedophiles who buy and sell children as young as 2 years old.

Epstein has received so much attention because he was extremely wealthy and well-connected. He was not only friends with Andrew but he hobnobbed with TV personalities like Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos. I am not sure if they have ever figured out how he made his money but he was apparently involved in gun smuggling.

He's a horrible person and the world is better off now that he is gone, but he is by no means even close to the worst sex offender today. Societies all over the world need to devote more resources into protecting children.
I'll rephrase that then, he was a notorious and prolific sex abuser of underage girls. Not sure it makes much difference to my point that it's beyond belief that Andrew still dosn't regret choosing him as a close friend.
Reply With Quote
  #4731  
Old 01-07-2022, 02:34 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
It's been stated that Andrew's motions have been tossed out. I can only think of the motion made that the case against Andrew should be thrown out because the law or act that brought the case to court was unconstitutional as it was not in force when the event happened (or something to that effect... low on caffeine here).

Personally, when I read that, I thought it was grasping at straws. If the motion to dismiss was thrown out, it wasn't because of Andrew or who Andrew is or who his momma is, it's because the judge ruled that the law (act) stands valid.

Just like proving Andrew can sweat or not. Another wild grab out in left field that, to me, if proven only shows that Andrew's statement that he couldn't sweat was a total fabrication. To quote Hugh Laurie in "House", "Everybody lies."

I don't think the American judicial system is going to base any judgements or dismissals in this case on anything other than the *legal* reasons for doing so. To my eyes, it still looks too much like a "he said/she said" case where there's no real credible evidence that points to wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4732  
Old 01-07-2022, 08:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,858
This is a civil suit so she doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just that it is more likely than not. Civil courts make decisions without absolute proof all the time, but there is usually something more than one person's word against another's.

I tend to think that something happened between Andrew and Ms. Giuffre because that would be consistent with Epstein's modus operandi. Andrew is an important guy who has a lot of contacts and opened a lot of doors for Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein would want to do favors for Andrew and keep him as happy as possible.

That could explain why he arranged for Ms. Giuffre to travel to London, New York and the Virgin Islands. It's possible that Epstein really liked her himself but I tend to think that it is more likely that he was putting her in Andrew's path. At the same time, I fully admit it is possible that Andrew didn't take the bait. Ms. Giuffre at one point said that Andrew was very nice to her, she may even have said he was a gentleman - and perhaps he was.

Despite my personal opinion that Ms. Giuffre is likely telling something close to the truth, I would have a hard time voting to award money to Ms. Giuffre due to the passage of time and the uncertainity of determining what happened between two people 20 years ago.

I think I would be in the minority though because I think Andrew will lose. The allegations are too explosive. There are a lot people who believe that it is inappropriate to even question Ms. Giuffre's version of events. I am afraid that there will be members of the jury who will worry how they will be perceived even if they believe Andrew. Even if he were to win, these allegations will never go away. He is in a no win situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4733  
Old 01-07-2022, 09:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 811
Question for the US Lawyers on the forum - Are civil matters in New York State heard by juries? I ask because here in Queensland, while Defendants can request a jury almost all civil matters (if not all) are heard by a Judge sitting alone (different for criminal matters where we still have jury trials).

If I were in the position of Andrew’s Lawyers and had a choice, a Judge sitting alone would be my very strong recommendation.
Reply With Quote
  #4734  
Old 01-07-2022, 10:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Question for the US Lawyers on the forum - Are civil matters in New York State heard by juries? I ask because here in Queensland, while Defendants can request a jury almost all civil matters (if not all) are heard by a Judge sitting alone (different for criminal matters where we still have jury trials).

If I were in the position of Andrew’s Lawyers and had a choice, a Judge sitting alone would be my very strong recommendation.
Both parties have to agree to waive a jury trial and I doubt Ms. Giuffre's lawyers would agree.
Reply With Quote
  #4735  
Old 01-07-2022, 10:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Both parties have to agree to waive a jury trial and I doubt Ms. Giuffre's lawyers would agree.
Thank you. I agree. If I were her lawyer I would be advising her to take a jury trial.
Reply With Quote
  #4736  
Old 01-08-2022, 03:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
Adding to Lady Daly's links, here is the original 2019 Miami Herald report that brought the sexual abuses and abuses of power committed by Jeffrey Epstein into the public eye.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...238237729.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The judges in this case have ruled against every single motion presented by Andrew's lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It's been stated that Andrew's motions have been tossed out. I can only think of the motion made that the case against Andrew should be thrown out because the law or act that brought the case to court was unconstitutional as it was not in force when the event happened (or something to that effect... low on caffeine here).

A federal district judge, Lewis Kaplan, is presiding over the case. I cannot remember the earlier procedural history, but the judge recently acceded to the request of Andrew's lawyers to unseal and hear arguments regarding Virginia Giuffre's settlement agreement, which her lawyers initially contended was not a necessity at that stage. He also refused Prince Andrew's motions to question Virginia Giuffre on domicile and to temporarily halt the collection of evidence while determining whether the lawsuit should proceed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
Considering that Andrew enjoyed the company of one of the most prolific peodophiles of the modern age ( a friendship he's happy to say he still doesn't regret) I'm amazed you find it so hard to believe that he enjoyed the sexual company of one of the youngsters being procured by that said friend.
The post you replied to was unrelated to the topic of sexual activities/abuse.
Reply With Quote
  #4737  
Old 01-08-2022, 07:58 PM
Lady Daly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sherwood, United States
Posts: 842
"Royals await anxiously the fallout from Prince Andrew’s disgrace"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...drews-disgrace

Excellent, well written article in The Guardian today. "The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client..." court summons not properly served, case thrown out as Giuffre doesn't live in the US.

"Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence."

"Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."

"And that’s the best-case scenario for the prince. If, instead, Kaplan gives the go-ahead for the case to be heard, then the prince would be obliged to make a deposition and then, in the autumn, appear in court. He could in theory refuse to do either, but again the optics would be disastrous. However, if he did go to court, the world’s media would be offered a daily diet of sordid details. And if he were to lose the case, courtiers suggest he may no longer be able to travel internationally, for fear of criminal extradition."

This article is lengthy and covers a lot of historical detail. Another powerful excerpt: "among a catalogue of evasions and failing memories, his one line of consistent defence is that he was not aware of anything untoward going on in any of the Epstein or Maxwell households at which he stayed."

“He consorted for 10 years with a couple whose lifestyle revolved around the sexual exploitation by Epstein of vulnerable women and underage girls, a number of them trafficked by Maxwell. The overtness of this predatory way of life was apparently inescapable. What do you imagine when you travel in a private plane nicknamed the ‘Lolita Express’? And then you invite these degenerates to stay at Balmoral?”

And finally, "“I am looking forward to vindicating my rights as an innocent victim and pursuing all available recourse,” Giuffre said seven years ago. “I’m not going to be bullied back into silence.”
Reply With Quote
  #4738  
Old 01-08-2022, 08:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 864
Has the Queen enough?

"With legal bills mounting over his legal battle with Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew is in a race against time to raise funds to pay them."

"And the Duke is now trying to force through the sale of his £17million Swiss chalet, as it emerged the Queen will not pay his spiralling costs."

"The Mirror can reveal the Queen “would not assist” in any further financial settlement to Ms Giuffre over the sex allegations."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...swiss-25876715
Reply With Quote
  #4739  
Old 01-09-2022, 09:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
I wonder what source was relied on for the Mirror's report. There seems to be a trend recently of royal household members talking on anonymity to the press about the Duke of York.

Another such report quotes an anonymous courtier who claims that Queen Elizabeth has never questioned her son's innocence with regards to Virginia Giuffre's charges.



Carolyn Andriano, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein who testified under her first name as a witness for the prosecution at Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial, has given an interview to the Daily Mail. She did not receive a fee for the interview.

Part of the interview discusses Virginia Giuffre, who recruited Ms. Andriano for Jeffrey Epstein (the article quotes extensively from her courtroom testimony about those events), something for which Ms. Andriano thinks Ms. Giuffre should be prosecuted. Ms. Andriano says that in 2001, when they were teenagers, her then-friend Virginia told her she had had dinner and sex with Prince Andrew in London and showed her (Carolyn) the now-infamous photograph of Virginia, Andrew, and Ghislaine Maxwell.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rk-London.html
Reply With Quote
  #4740  
Old 01-09-2022, 10:41 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,669
The "I am going to dinner with Prince Andrew...I got to have sex with him"! gloat jibes perfectly with the grinning young woman I saw in the photo of Virginia Giuffre with Andrew.

She seems to have seen it as a quite glamorous assignment .

IHMO and nothing more, her recent decision to decline a settlement in favor of a full trial in order to "send a message" in her fight for justice could be her reaction to statements like that of her former friend and could be her way of refuting speculation that she is pursuing these lawsuits for money...keeping herself firmly in victim camp from a PR standpoint.

But the fact that I have trouble summoning sympathy for VRG doesn't mean I have any whatsoever for Andrew.

If he knew he was part of a sex trafficking ring being run Epstein he should have headed for the hills no matter how eager and willing she appeared to be. That is where I see him as 100% liable , not that he forced VRG or she felt pressure to sleep with him because I don't believe that was ever the case.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
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
abdullah ii all tags america arcadie austria braganza british royal family brythonic assoc. non-reigning houses +- camilla caribbean caroline castile charles iii congo current events death de la cerda denmark duarte pio dubai expo duchess of kent duke of cambridge elizabeth ii emperor naruhito espana garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly guzman hamdan bin ahmed history identifying india introduction ivrea jordan royal family king charles king edward iii king henry iii king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence orleans-braganza portugal prince charles princess of orange queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland uae visit wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises