The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew's Finances Now

My question is now that Andrew has been told to step down as a senior member of the royal family, and is no longer allowed to "work" and represent the queen in royal duties, is he still receiving an allowance/salary from The Duchy? If Harry was cut off, shouldn't Andrew as well?
 
MissPeach77 said:
My question is now that Andrew has been told to step down as a senior member of the royal family, and is no longer allowed to "work" and represent the queen in royal duties, is he still receiving an allowance/salary from The Duchy? If Harry was cut off, shouldn't Andrew as well?
Click to expand...

The Duke of Sussex has not been cut off from his allowance, which he will reportedly continue to receive.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/01/19/prince-charles-fund-prince-harry-meghan-year/
 
MissPeach77 said:
Ah, okay. I thought that his father would be giving him money, but I thought he was being cut off from the Duchy fund since he wouldn't be doing official royal business anymore.
Click to expand...

The official statements which have been released do not explicitly address the Duchy fund, but there is no suggestion that funding from the Duchy will be reduced in the short term.
 
Any and all expenses incurred by Andrew when he was "on the job" would have been covered by the Queen through the Sovereign Grant. Now that he's no longer a "working royal", we have no idea what his financial situation is and most likely never will. If HM is subsidizing Andrew with any money, it would be out of her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster and those expenditures are not in the public domain.
 
Osipi said:
:previous: This all is a total no-go zone. There seems to be confusion here between cases filed in SDNY (state crimes) and the federal investigation (federal/international crime).

The federal investigation is being conducted into the criminal activity of sex trafficking minors which is where Andrew would come in *voluntarily* submitting to being interviewed as to "what he knows". There is absolutely *no one* looking to charge Andrew with any sort of a crime at this time. They don't care if he was at Pizza Express or if he was sweating buckets at Tramps or anything of the sort. They're looking for assistance that would aid them to find, arrest and prosecute those that aided and abetted Epstein in his sex trafficking crimes.

SDNY, while being a federal judicial court, only prosecutes crimes within its jurisdiction which include New York (Manhattan), Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan in the state of New York. Unless Andrew committed a crime in their jurisdiction, they would have no reason to be interested in Andrew at all other than as a witness to a crime, information that would lead to the conviction of a crime in their jurisdiction or help them nab people of interest they're looking for that *are* suspected of criminal activity.

Anything Andrew gives to any investigation at this time would be strictly *voluntary*. He did state that he would be willing to assist if asked to and it does seem like he's reneging on his word and not cooperating but that's solely within his rights to do at this time.
Click to expand...
The jurisdiction of State v. Federal courts and the appropriate venue for Federal crimes is pretty complicated stuff. However, since the SDNY Court was where the US Atty filed charges against Epstein, I assume that Federal district Court had jurisdiction & venue to hear the Federal crimes committed by Epstein. Thus, the SDNY Federal district Court would also have jurisdiction and be the appropriate venue to try any Federal crimes committed by others (including Andrew) who are charged as aiders and abettors or co-conspirators.
Courts do not prosecute crimes, they try them. Generally a law enforcement agency investigates a crime, and, based on that investigation, the Prosecutor’s office files a case in the court which has jurisdiction and venue over the crime.
Some crimes fall into Federal jurisdiction (for example the Mann Act,) some crimes fall into State jurisdiction (for example most murder cases) and some crimes may have both Federal and State jurisdiction - Epstein’s plea deal in the Florida state court ending the US Atty’s prosecution of their possible Federal case against him is an example of criminal conduct which violated both state and federal law.
The SDNY is a federal district court. As such, it would not have jurisdiction over purely state crimes. If Epstein had been charged with rapes which only occurred in NY, then the State court of NY would be were the NY state/local prosecutor tried those cases.
The Federal case against Epstein was filed in the SDNY federal district court because he violated Federal law and the SDNY district court was an appropriate venue for filing the case. For a discussion of venue in Federal courts see generally https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33223.pdf
The FBI is investigating potential accomplices of Epsteins, should criminal charges be brought against those accomplices, they will most likely be brought in the SDNY Federal district Court. The acts of the principal - in this case Epstein - furnish jurisdiction and venue of all aiders and abettors and/or the commission of an overt act by any co-conspirator in the SDNY will provide jurisdiction and venue over all co-conspirators in the SDNY. There may also be venue elsewhere, for example the district court in New Mexico, and Florida, but my guess is if the US Atty. files against anyone, it will be in Federal Court in the SDofNY.
Thus, if - and I doubt this is the case - but if there was evidence that Andrew was somehow a co-conspirator of Epstein’s, then Andrew could be charged even though he personally did nothing in NY because his co-conspirator Epstein did something (an overt act) in NY.
BTW, this article provides a nice summary of the Federal statutes that may apply to any potential Epstein aiders/abettors or co-conspirators https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43597.pdf
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that information. It can be a slippery slope when trying to figure out what is tried here and what is not when it comes to this Epstein mess. I think the main point that I was trying to convey (and not too successfully) is that with the ongoing investigation that Andrew has been asked to cooperate with has actually no bearing on any accusations or allegations that have been made against Andrew, himself. The OP was suggesting things that may be done in pursuing a criminal case against Andrew, prove his whereabouts at certain times and perhaps even drag Sarah into it. Those are not even a blip on the radar when it comes to the ongoing investigation into Epstein's affairs and finding his cohorts

The reality is that the only way that Andrew would be dragged into court about his involvement with any of the girls in Epstein's sex trafficking ring would be for the women, themselves, to file a suit in civil courts. This has been made possible in NY by the Child Victim Act. If pursued in NY, it would be a state matter rather than a federal one. Just as the charges against Epstein in Florida were handled through the state court there.

It remains that anything Andrew does or doesn't do as far as cooperating with the federal investigation is strictly voluntary on his part.
 
He has said he will "cooperate" and should any Federal Investigator contact his Solicitor asking for a meeting on a specific topic I believe he will cooperate.

What he will not do is make him self available for US Lawyers retained by private person's who are on a "fishing expedition" for their clients in Civil proceedings.

I get really disgusted with those who say "if he is innocent he has nothing to fear". Andrew is not required to prove anything but is a living example of how gossip and guilt by association can destroy someone's life.

Funny, I never read such speculations about a past and present President, nor the abundance of the top 3% of the great and the good in both politics and commerce named in Epstein's papers. Money talks and everything, and I do believe everything, is for sale in the US.
 
:previous: I believe the FBI has reached out. I think the news is legitimate. It may be that Prince Andrew's attorneys advised him not to speak at that time for whatever reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...spond-to-fbi-likely-political-say-prosecutors

"Earlier this week, US attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman took the extraordinary step of announcing from the steps of Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion in New York, that prosecutors and the FBI had repeatedly contacted the Duke of York’s lawyers to follow up on his previous pledge that he was “willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency”.

“It’s fair for people to know whether Prince Andrew has followed through with that public commitment,” Berman said, adding that to date he had “provided zero cooperation”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew.html

"Two months ago, Britain’s Prince Andrew issued a public statement saying he would be willing to help American law enforcement officials with their investigation into allegations of sex-trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.

F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors in New York took him at his word. They reached out to his lawyers and asked to interview him.

There was no response at all, according to three people familiar with the investigation.

On Monday, in a rare move, the United States attorney in Manhattan publicly called out the prince for breaking his commitment.

To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,” the prosecutor, Geoffrey S. Berman, said in response to a question at a news conference outside Mr. Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...not-responded-fbi-requests-interview-epstein/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...om-prince-andrew-u-s-prosecutor-idUSKBN1ZQ1ZP
 
MARG said:
Funny, I never read such speculations about a past and present President, nor the abundance of the top 3% of the great and the good in both politics and commerce named in Epstein's papers. Money talks and everything, and I do believe everything, is for sale in the US.
Click to expand...

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...", made in a letter to an Anglican bishop. A quote by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer.

With power comes money, often times opposite sides of the same coin. It's not every day we in the US have a sitting President that states "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters". Scary stuff! This and many others that are associated with Epstein are not being called out currently. In comparison to the really bigger fish, Prince Andrew doesn't have power so he's become vulnerable.

I want to hope not every member of the 1% in the US is corrupt, making payouts to cover their misdeeds. But, not every billionaire can be a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.

Prince Andrew chose to hang out with the wrong crowd unfortunately and because he doesn't have power he's paying a price. Hopefully the Epstein situation will eventually find closure, sooner vs later. In the meantime perhaps Prince Andrew can use his down time to take stock of his life. I'm always ever hopeful.
 
Lady Daly said:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...", made in a letter to an Anglican bishop. A quote by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer.

With power comes money, often times opposite sides of the same coin. It's not every day we in the US have a sitting President that states "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters". Scary stuff! This and many others that are associated with Epstein are not being called out currently. In comparison to the really bigger fish, Prince Andrew doesn't have power so he's become vulnerable.

I want to hope not every member of the 1% in the US is corrupt, making payouts to cover their misdeeds. But, not every billionaire can be a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.

Prince Andrew chose to hang out with the wrong crowd unfortunately and because he doesn't have power he's paying a price. Hopefully the Epstein situation will eventually find closure, sooner vs later. In the meantime perhaps Prince Andrew can use his down time to take stock of his life. I'm always ever hopeful.
Click to expand...

Yeah I woudlnt' put any money on Andrew takng stock of his life. He will pretty certainly never feel that he did anything very wrong...
 
SDNY is not the FBI and they would have to go by the book. Andrew is not involved in the current SDNY felony case and the MET announced the subject closed.

Any other proceedings are civil, suing Epstein's estate. The Guardian, having kept the pressure on with its ceaseless breathless blathering is using Andrew as a cash cow.
 
Andrew did this to himself. He hung around disgusting individuals and was unapologetic about it. Then actually went on TV and exposed himself more. You don't say you will cooperate and then avoid it. All Andrew does is make himself look guilty.

It also doesn't help when his own former staff are poking holes in his stories. True or not we now question him more and more. This story is never going away.

I don't feel bad for Andrew being in this situation. This could have been dealt with ages ago. Now it has escalated all on his actions alone.
 
MARG said:
SDNY is not the FBI and they would have to go by the book. Andrew is not involved in the current SDNY felony case and the MET announced the subject closed.

Any other proceedings are civil, suing Epstein's estate. The Guardian, having kept the pressure on with its ceaseless breathless blathering is using Andrew as a cash cow.
Click to expand...
There is no current SDNY felony (eg: criminal) case against anyone because Epstein died and the US Atty. hasn’t filed any cases against potential aiders/abettors/co-conspirators. Presumably if the FBI investigation uncovers enough evidence to prosecute some of Epstein’s associates the US Atty’s office will file a case/cases in the SDNY Federal Court.
While tabloids may be ‘breathlessly blathering’, the US Atty. did publically state that Andrew had refused to co-operate with the criminal investigation which tends to fan the flames.
 
I'm sorry but Andrew is disgusting and is hiding behind his momma.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rey-epstein-us-prosecutors-fbi-seek-interview

If he has nothing to hide then why not talk to US Prosecutors? He's already been pushed out of the royal family in regards to appearances, his poor daughter who is going to get married has to decide how much he will be a part of his wedding. When it comes to sexual misconduct and pedophilia, the US will not stand for it.
 
MissPeach77 said:
I'm sorry but Andrew is disgusting and is hiding behind his momma.
Click to expand...

How is he hiding behind his mother? Currently it looks like he's hiding behind lawyers?

MissPeach77 said:
When it comes to sexual misconduct and pedophilia, the US will not stand for it.
Click to expand...

'The US' have presented no charges against Prince Andrew in any capacity, they are asking him to voluntarily come in for an interview. Which, despite his idiotic claims on national television, he is not obliged to do so nor as your article points out can he be forced to. From the outside it doesn't look like 'The US' is going to do anything....
 
Unless Andrew voluntarily goes to the US and
puts himself in hands of US laws and attorneys what US will or won’t stand for is moot. Unless you propose initiating hostilities with one of our staunched allies over a Figure head with no real power who has was never charged with a thing and is not even part of an ongoing investigation that is.
 
Lumutqueen said:
How is he hiding behind his mother? Currently it looks like he's hiding behind lawyers?



'The US' have presented no charges against Prince Andrew in any capacity, they are asking him to voluntarily come in for an interview. Which, despite his idiotic claims on national television, he is not obliged to do so nor as your article points out can he be forced to. From the outside it doesn't look like 'The US' is going to do anything....
Click to expand...

Because let's be honest. Outside of the UK, America is the biggest buyer of all things royal family. His mother could force him to speak to US law enforcement to end this once and for all if he has nothing to hide. I have heard that at this point he won't even leave the country because other countries want to question him. He is acting petulant and is trying to hide. Does he never plan to leave England again?
 
MissPeach77 said:
Outside of the UK, America is the biggest buyer of all things royal family.
Click to expand...
The Queen is hardly likely to force Andrew to cooperate with the police to not damage the sale of US tabloids.
 
MissPeach77 said:
Because let's be honest. Outside of the UK, America is the biggest buyer of all things royal family. His mother could force him to speak to US law enforcement to end this once and for all if he has nothing to hide. I have heard that at this point he won't even leave the country because other countries want to question him. He is acting petulant and is trying to hide. Does he never plan to leave England again?
Click to expand...

This is not the 15th century. She cannot force another adult to do any such thing. As for leaving did he not get an invitation by the the Chinese president to visit? He is an adult under no travel restrictions and Honestly I doubt most countries have enough a vested interest in his sordid personal life to create a national incident.
 
Last edited:
JR76 said:
The Queen is hardly likely to force Andrew to cooperate with the police to not damage the sale of US tabloids.
Click to expand...

It's not about US tabloids, it's about underage girls that he apparently had relations with. If that is okay in the UK, or by the monarchy, then I apologize and I will back out of this conversation.
 
MissPeach77 said:
It's not about US tabloids, it's about underage girls that he apparently had relations with. If that is okay in the UK, or by the monarchy, then I apologize and I will back out of this conversation.
Click to expand...



But you’ve just answered your own statement, “apparently”. Andrew has not been charged with any crime. Not submitting for voluntary question, is not a crime. Taking part in an idiotic interview is again not a crime.

As has been said previously, and from what I understand the woman who is reportedly accusing Andrew, was not underage in the state in which the act is supposed to have been committed.
 
MissPeach77 said:
I'm sorry but Andrew is disgusting and is hiding behind his momma.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rey-epstein-us-prosecutors-fbi-seek-interview

If he has nothing to hide then why not talk to US Prosecutors? He's already been pushed out of the royal family in regards to appearances, his poor daughter who is going to get married has to decide how much he will be a part of his wedding. When it comes to sexual misconduct and pedophilia, the US will not stand for it.
Click to expand...

Andrew is a very small fish in a scummy ocean. The only reason his name keeps coming up is because he really isn't that important, unlike other names that periodically surface in this sordid mess who can hide behind money or influence.

And I for one am tired of pedophile being tossed around like Andrew has been accused of sex with pre-pubescent girls rather than one 17 year old, (who may have been passing for 18.)

A bit creepy since he was 41 years old (if it happened), but not necessarily criminal. He may very well have assumed the girls were hangers on of a rich man (like groupies for rock stars) rather than trafficked girls.
 
Last edited:
MARG said:
SDNY is not the FBI and they would have to go by the book. Andrew is not involved in the current SDNY felony case and the MET announced the subject closed.

Any other proceedings are civil, suing Epstein's estate. The Guardian, having kept the pressure on with its ceaseless breathless blathering is using Andrew as a cash cow.
Click to expand...

Correct, the SDNY - Southern District of New York is a federal district court. FBI, a federal investigating agency.

1. With Epsteins death the federal case was closed.
2. The FBI continues to investigate. The FBI wants to speak with Andrew and as Osipi states "strictly voluntary on his part".
3. The FBI has not heard back from Prince Andrew after they contacted his attorneys requesting to speak with Andrew.

Andrew's bad press in regard to Epstein has been going on now for decades. So, yeah, Andrew has to some degree become a cash cow for the press.

It is what it is!
 
Actually no. The BRF has turned en masse for this particular service. With fewer family appearances I believe this is the last formal church service attended by more that HM, the PoW and the Duchess of Cornwall.
 
The Telegraph

The Duke of York has hired Britain’s most respected extradition lawyer to fend off an FBI inquiry into his friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the Telegraph can reveal.

Prince Andrew is receiving legal advice from Clare Montgomery QC, the leading expert on extradition law, whose clients have included Augusto Pinochet, Chile’s former dictator and Nirav Modi, wanted for India’s biggest fraud. She has been described as “the most formidable member of the bar.”

more here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...legal-team-revealed-fights-fbi-epstein-probe/
 
I'm going to go with a gut feeling here. Hiring an lawyer specializing in extradition is telling me that perhaps Andrew is nervous about something. If his cooperating with the FBI in its investigation into those that aided and abetted Epstein and providing information where he can was the gist of it all, why would he need a specialized attorney? Why is the word extradition even being floated?

As I understand it, in order for Andrew to be extradited to the US, Andrew would have to have been implicated in a crime that is recognized as such in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least one year in prison.

This might not amount to much but I do get the gut feeling that Andrew is living life looking over his shoulder. Not a good way to live wondering when a brick is about to fall on one's head. He knows this isn't going away anytime soon.
 
"Volunteering" to speak to the FBI is getting kinda expensive :shock:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom