The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023 - Page 168

Denville · #**3341** 12-02-2019, 06:06 AM

but that's what Andy seems to have been doing. And there have been rumours and questions flyng around for some time about his expensive lifestyle and Fergie's and people askng how it is funded? So the queen and other royals must be aware of the talk.. and IMO they should have kept an eye on Andrew and asked a few hard questions some years ago...

Osipi · #**3342** 12-02-2019, 06:12 AM

I agree. its also probably why, until the interview happened that Andrew was actually the member of the "Firm" with the third highest number of duties and engagements listed in the court circular. Makes one wonder just what the priorities were for Andrew to do those? Was the "duty" put on the calendar to be a cover up for something else that Andrew had in mind or somewhere he wanted to go? Did he actually see his roles and duties and engagements as the means to an end which would benefit himself? All this absolutely goes against the grain of what the BRF stands for and what their "Firm" does which is service to others.

No matter how the loaf is sliced, Andrew is toast. He's not coming back from this. Ever.

texankitcat · #**3343** 12-02-2019, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

I'm willing to bet my last leftover cold turkey sandwich that *all* the members of the BRF have their own investment portfolios and financial advisers whose job it is to "manage" the investments made. Its all above board to do with their personal wealth as they see fit. For instance, the Queen invests, I believe in horse breeding and such and its even been reported that the Queen, herself, has money in offshore tax havens. What they do with their own wealth is their own business. No problem there. I don't believe that the Queen or anyone within the "Firm" would even think of demanding to see everything financial and that would ring true with Andrew.

When it becomes known that Andrew is alleged to be using and abusing his roles in relations to his work for the "Firm" or for his official charities and patronages, which the Queen funds out of the Sovereign Grant, that's where she can step in as the "Boss" and demand to see every penny that Andrew has spent from that funding and what he did with it. If he used his roles for squeaking in personal business for personal profit, this is where any CEO of any business would hit the roof and sack the guy. The company pays for employees to do business for the company and not for their own personal business.

In other words, Andrew could very well be funded by the Sovereign Grant to fly to and promote "Goofy Golf" with the Sultan of Pluto as part of his role in "Golf For Children With Special Needs" and that's working for a campaign sponsored and approved by the Queen. Now, if Andrew was to meet with the Sultan of Pluto and schmooze him into investing into Mr. Pahrump's new resort that will have the *best* golf course ever and Andrew stands to make a profit from bringing in investors, that's not what he's there for and would be in deep doo-doo for misusing the Queen's funding for personal gain.

So its not what Andrew is actually doing with his own money that's the problem, he can privately invest in a genesis project to make Mars habitable if he wanted to. Its how he's trying make personal deals through using his royal status and events funded by the Sovereign Grant that is the problem.

Perhaps this financial information was presented to the Queen before it hit the media. It could explain why Andrew's office was given the boot out of Buckingham Palace. The Sovereign Grant and its funding has been totally cut off from Andrew at this point. Andrew is on his own. His mother may still privately allot him an allowance out of her personal income and Andrew has his own money, I presume in investments so he's not going to be hurting. Just no more free rides as a "prince" and "senior working royal for the British monarchy".

Excellent synopsis Osipi and good point about the Queen perhaps being made aware of Andrew’s financial dealings which prompted the decision to remove his office from BP. I thought it had to do with the Epstein scandal but it makes more sense if it was a proactive move with the forthcoming media report of his financial dealings under the guise of work for TRF. At least I hope that is the case.

Denville · #**3344** 12-02-2019, 06:26 AM

It is to do with the Epstein scandal. Epstein was an unsuitable friend for Andrew on 2 counts, one is the sexual aspects of his life and his being convicted of a sex crime..and the other is that he clearly was involved iwht Andrew's financial life.. and Fergie's.
But this stuff isn't new. Its been round for several years.. esp the talk about how Andrew and Fergie live such an extravagant life .. and the queen IMo should have been onto it sooner...

Osipi · #**3345** 12-02-2019, 07:16 AM

The fly in the ointment here is that for the Queen to step in as far as Andrew's finances, it would only be in relation to his finances and funds provided by the "Firm". This is like an all inclusive expense account. Air travel, lodging and dining and transportation not to mention the taxpayer funding of security around the clock no matter where he goes. That adds up to a hefty sum. She would interfere as the Queen and CEO of the "Firm" and it would have to do with the Sovereign Grant.

Being Andrew's mother, she would no more interfere with her son's personal finances and affairs than I would of my children (all in their 40s). He's a grown adult and his money is his own. If he did shady and not so smart wheeling and dealing under the advice of Epstein and put Epstein on a pedestal like a Master Guru, that's Andrew's problem. Not mummy's.

First the charities and patronages started dropping Andrew because of his interview and don't want to be associated with him. Now, with the information coming out about the use and abuse of "Firm" funding for personal gain, this is where the Queen *has* to step in and do something. This is where the "Firm" aka the monarchy is affected by Andrew's misdeeds. I believe in companies with employees, it would be termed as expense account abuse.

Madame Verseau · #**3346** 12-02-2019, 07:32 AM

There is a suggestion from a lawyer that Andrew should not talk to the Feds unless the prosecution offers immunity

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...e-epstein/amp/

This may be a practical legal stragety in a court of law but there is a risk of perception a non prosecution agreement is an admission of guilt. Is such deals offered in British criminal proceedings?

MsJulie · #**3347** 12-02-2019, 09:11 AM

Does Andrew fall under “diplomatic immunity”?

I doubt Andrew would come to the USA to be questioned. He would be afraid he would be arrested and not make it back home. In fact is it possible, if he went anywhere outside of England, thay possibly there is an international warrant for him?

Maybe the FBI would question him in GB, but with a loose tongue as his, his lawyers would say no to all questions.

He is sure in a pickle of a mess.this time. IMO too many times he has been given a pass. These two parents, A and S, don’t think before they act.

The ones hurting are his daughters.....jus5 all MOOO

Osipi · #**3348** 12-02-2019, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsJulie

Does Andrew fall under “diplomatic immunity”?

According to the Times, "Ben Keith, an extradition law expert at Five St Andrew's Hill chambers in London, said that diplomatic immunity was attached to the Duke of York's role when he was a trade envoy but not to him as an individual. “The Queen is the only member of the royal family who has sovereign immunity,” Mr Keith said."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...nity-mrw0lmw8z

Lumutqueen · #**3349** 12-02-2019, 10:32 AM

News just coming in that Princess Mette-Marit of Norway met Epstein twice including at his home, being discussed in the appropriate thread.

WillVictoria · #**3350** 12-02-2019, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

According to the Times, "Ben Keith, an extradition law expert at Five St Andrew's Hill chambers in London, said that diplomatic immunity was attached to the Duke of York's role when he was a trade envoy but not to him as an individual. “The Queen is the only member of the royal family who has sovereign immunity,” Mr Keith said."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...nity-mrw0lmw8z

I don't believe he officially has sovereign immunity, but some commentators said that most countries will extend immunity to a head of state's children as a courtesy.

Dman · #**3351** 12-02-2019, 11:04 AM

Tonight
Panorama: The Prince and the Epstein Scandal: BBC One 9pm
The Virginia Roberts Giuffre Interview -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000cd4h

Osipi · #**3352** 12-02-2019, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillVictoria

I don't believe he officially has sovereign immunity, but some commentators said that most countries will extend immunity to a head of state's children as a courtesy.

VIP treatment and "courtesy" is a far cry from legal immunity. I'll stick with what Mr. Keith, an expert in extradition law says over commentators any day.

Gawin · #**3353** 12-02-2019, 11:29 AM

This is from the November 24 issue of The Sunday Times:

"The FBI wants to interview Prince Andrew over his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, The Sunday Times can reveal."

"Detectives leading the investigation into the Epstein sex-trafficking scandal are understood to be examining ways to interview the prince in Britain through the US justice department, which oversees the FBI."

"US justice officials would be required to provide the duke’s lawyers with a detailed outline of what they hoped to achieve from the interview. It could be conducted only if he agreed to it."

"However, FBI detectives are hopeful Prince Andrew would grant them an interview about his friendship with Epstein after he revealed in a public statement last week that he was “willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations if required”.

ACO · #**3354** 12-02-2019, 11:34 AM

Well today is the day. We shall see what this interview brings.

And the clips are starting to come out.

https://twitter.com/BBCPanorama/stat...46574070861825

texankitcat · #**3355** 12-02-2019, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman

Tonight
Panorama: The Prince and the Epstein Scandal: BBC One 9pm
The Virginia Roberts Giuffre Interview -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000cd4h

Are we able to watch it live on this link in the US?

ACO · #**3356** 12-02-2019, 05:12 PM

Well that was pretty uncomfortable to watch. Will be interesting if BP responses to this interview as she revealed some pretty appalling details. This clearly not going away and I will imagine we will hear a new slew of patronages cutting ties tomorrow.

This is particularly interesting.

https://twitter.com/jnoahmorgan/stat...20317694779392

If this is verified then Andrew has been caught in yet another lie.

Zaira · #**3357** 12-02-2019, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

Well that was pretty uncomfortable to watch. Will be interesting if BP responses to this interview as she revealed some pretty appalling details. This clearly not going away and I will imagine we will hear a new slew of patronages cutting ties tomorrow.

This is particularly interesting.

https://twitter.com/jnoahmorgan/stat...20317694779392

If this is verified then Andrew has been caught in yet another lie.

I think this was after her allegations were made public though?

Nonetheless, it is yet another nail in the coffin.

Dman · #**3358** 12-02-2019, 05:57 PM

After watching this program, Virginia’s interviews, other victims interviews, watching other programs and reading the various reports— the only conclusion you can come to is that the sex trafficking world is deep, dark, nasty and very mysterious. It’s damn near impossible to get rid of that world.

I just hope and pray the victims get their justice by getting their voices heard and bringing those involved down whenever and however possible.

Somebody · #**3359** 12-02-2019, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaira

I think this was after her allegations were made public though?

Nonetheless, it is yet another nail in the coffin.

That was my thought as well. This email just confirms that by 2015 he wanted more information because he had been accused. He didn't randomly start sending an email enquiring information about a teenager he met about 10 years earlier.

WillVictoria · #**3360** 12-02-2019, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

That was my thought as well. This email just confirms that by 2015 he wanted more information because he had been accused. He didn't randomly start sending an email enquiring information about a teenager he met about 10 years earlier.

The issue in question appears to be timing. Andrew sent out the email at 5:50 am on 1/3/15, although we don't know for what timezone.

While I can't get an exact timeline, some cursory examination shows that while Roberts gave her affidavit on 1/2/15, her name was not known to the public until the next day. This is why the timestamp is important: if Andrew sent that message before Virginia Roberts Giuffre was confirmed as Jane Doe 3 then (unless he can prove someone in the palace was tipped off to her name before the press) his "I don't know her" alibi goes up in smoke.