The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023 - Page 194

Durham · #**3861** 06-03-2020, 02:15 PM

That all makes sense thanks.

I agree with your sentiments in the last paragraph.

Elenath · #**3862** 06-03-2020, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

According to UK law (I read about this months ago) her age is not the issue in this situation. A trafficked person cannot give consent even if she was 20. Ignorance of the law is not always going to save you either. Many a man has found this out.

LaRae

A bit late, but I believe the minimum age for prostitution is 18. So even if she wasn't trafficked, someone underaged cannot consent to prostitution.

Osipi · #**3863** 06-03-2020, 03:05 PM

There are a few reasons I'd like to add to the discussion of just why Andrew will not be arrested for sleeping with Ms. Guiffre (three times supposedly).

#1. First of all, the charge would have to be filed by Ms. Guiffre with the court of law in the state in which the "crime" took place. With Ms. Giuffre, I believe that would be London, New York, Palm Beach, Florida or Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. The only real accusation that has come to light was the incident in London. As Ms. Guiffre was of the age of consent, the Met Police found no basis to pursue the allegations issued by Ms. Guiffre further.

#2. The ongoing investigation right now into sex trafficking by Epstein and his cohorts by the FBI will not prosecute sole claims filed by the victims of Epstein such as Ms. Giuffre is. Those will have to be filed in civil court as per #1.

#3. Should charges be actually filed against Andrew in the US as to his crime of sleeping with an underage girl, then Andrew would have to be extradited to stand trial. In order for Andrew to be extradited, the crime he's accused of committing must be a crime in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least a year in prison. So it stands that if Ms. Guiffre was 17 and not of the age of consent in New York or wherever she files charges, those charges are not a crime in London and extradition goes out the window. I do not know what the sentence would be for this particular crime. Remember, Epstein got 18 months in Florida but that was a "sweetheart" deal since ruled to be invalid.

What the FBI want Andrew for is to talk to him and find out from him what he knew of Epstein and Maxwell's activities over the years. This does not mean that they're looking to prosecute Andrew at all. From Andrew's actions and demeanor after all hell broke loose, it does make Andrew look like he's "hiding something" but being guilty of an actual crime is certainly not one of them at this time. Who knows what incontrovertible evidence is still to be found in all this mess?

Just my thoughts.

suztav · #**3864** 06-03-2020, 03:37 PM

While we could all discuss the finer points of age of consent, the biggest crime committed by Andrew is very, very, very poor judgement. He is now paying the greatest sentence -- social ostracization from his royal duties.

Osipi · #**3865** 06-03-2020, 03:47 PM

So very true Suztav. Andrew gives credence to the statement "Give a man enough rope and eventually he'll hang himself with it." Epstein did it literally. Andrew has done it figuratively. Both can be deemed suicide. One of the body and one of reputation.

KellyAtLast · #**3866** 06-03-2020, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

There are a few reasons I'd like to add to the discussion of just why Andrew will not be arrested for sleeping with Ms. Guiffre (three times supposedly).

#1. First of all, the charge would have to be filed by Ms. Guiffre with the court of law in the state in which the "crime" took place. With Ms. Giuffre, I believe that would be London, New York, Palm Beach, Florida or Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. The only real accusation that has come to light was the incident in London. As Ms. Guiffre was of the age of consent, the Met Police found no basis to pursue the allegations issued by Ms. Guiffre further.

#2. The ongoing investigation right now into sex trafficking by Epstein and his cohorts by the FBI will not prosecute sole claims filed by the victims of Epstein such as Ms. Giuffre is. Those will have to be filed in civil court as per #1.

#3. Should charges be actually filed against Andrew in the US as to his crime of sleeping with an underage girl, then Andrew would have to be extradited to stand trial. In order for Andrew to be extradited, the crime he's accused of committing must be a crime in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least a year in prison. So it stands that if Ms. Guiffre was 17 and not of the age of consent in New York or wherever she files charges, those charges are not a crime in London and extradition goes out the window. I do not know what the sentence would be for this particular crime. Remember, Epstein got 18 months in Florida but that was a "sweetheart" deal since ruled to be invalid.

What the FBI want Andrew for is to talk to him and find out from him what he knew of Epstein and Maxwell's activities over the years. This does not mean that they're looking to prosecute Andrew at all. From Andrew's actions and demeanor after all hell broke loose, it does make Andrew look like he's "hiding something" but being guilty of an actual crime is certainly not one of them at this time. Who knows what incontrovertible evidence is still to be found in all this mess?

Just my thoughts.

Wouldn't this be like obstruction of justice or something?

Osipi · #**3867** 06-03-2020, 04:20 PM

No. Andrew is not obligated to cooperate with the FBI if he doesn't want to. The fact that he hasn't though is reflective on his character and adds to the speculation that he's "hiding something" and won't cooperate.

Especially after stating publicly in that disastrous interview that he was willing to cooperate.

Somebody · #**3868** 06-03-2020, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KellyAtLast

Wouldn't this be like obstruction of justice or something?

No, I don't think so. For obstruction of justice (see legal dictionary) to take place, it seems the bar is much higher than not cooperating with an investigation.

theroyalfly · #**3869** 06-07-2020, 06:39 PM

Many articles have appeared in last hours about US either 'requesting' or 'demanding' Prince Andrew to appear in court over Jeffrey Epstein links.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-over-22153995

https://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...85106a874d77b6

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/07/usa-d...tein-12818677/

Pranter · #**3870** 06-07-2020, 06:56 PM

So...can the UK government compel Andrew to cooperate?

LaRae

Osipi · #**3871** 06-07-2020, 07:08 PM

In one word. No. That would mean extradition to the US and the UK will not extradite Andrew to the US unless he's been accused of a crime that is a crime in both the US and the UK and punishable by at least a year in prison.

However, they can goad, plead, advise and urge Andrew to cooperate. In the end though, its up to Andrew to cooperate.

Pranter · #**3872** 06-07-2020, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

In one word. No. That would mean extradition to the US and the UK will not extradite Andrew to the US unless he's been accused of a crime that is a crime in both the US and the UK and punishable by at least a year in prison.

However, they can goad, plead, advise and urge Andrew to cooperate. In the end though, its up to Andrew to cooperate.

Ok so unless he comes to the U.S. or agrees to meet with officials in the U.K. he will never answer any questions.

LaRae

Osipi · #**3873** 06-07-2020, 07:34 PM

That's my understanding but then again I'm so far away from being any kind of an expert at this stuff that a dandelion probably knows more than I do.

I think maybe a lot of stuff is hitting the media lately because of the recent airing of "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich" on Netflix recently. I am, however, hopeful that this investigation is still going strong and hasn't been pushed into a "cold case" folder.

Curryong · #**3874** 06-07-2020, 07:43 PM

I definitely believe Andrew should answer questions but the main question in my mind in all this mess is where is Ghislaine Maxwell? That woman undoubtedly has many of the answers to the prosecution's questions yet nothing has happened to her and she's certainly not been charged with anything. If she went on trial and told the truth (ha) then the Andrew involvement (as well as everything else) would become a whole lot clearer IMO.

Osipi · #**3875** 06-07-2020, 07:54 PM

What's floated through my mind is that as, according to the articles, they've stated that Andrew is now part of the criminal investigation, the big question is in what regards is he part of it? My thought is that they're maybe of a mind that Andrew could have/may have/is aiding and abetting Ghislaine Maxwell evade prosecution. However, they do *not* imply that Andrew is suspected or or is alleged to have committed a crime.

The longer Andrew plays this out, the more it looks like he really does have something to hide or is protecting someone or..or.. or...

sndral · #**3876** 06-07-2020, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

There are a few reasons I'd like to add to the discussion of just why Andrew will not be arrested for sleeping with Ms. Guiffre (three times supposedly).

#1. First of all, the charge would have to be filed by Ms. Guiffre with the court of law in the state in which the "crime" took place. With Ms. Giuffre, I believe that would be London, New York, Palm Beach, Florida or Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. The only real accusation that has come to light was the incident in London. As Ms. Guiffre was of the age of consent, the Met Police found no basis to pursue the allegations issued by Ms. Guiffre further.

#2. The ongoing investigation right now into sex trafficking by Epstein and his cohorts by the FBI will not prosecute sole claims filed by the victims of Epstein such as Ms. Giuffre is. Those will have to be filed in civil court as per #1.

#3. Should charges be actually filed against Andrew in the US as to his crime of sleeping with an underage girl, then Andrew would have to be extradited to stand trial. In order for Andrew to be extradited, the crime he's accused of committing must be a crime in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least a year in prison. So it stands that if Ms. Guiffre was 17 and not of the age of consent in New York or wherever she files charges, those charges are not a crime in London and extradition goes out the window. I do not know what the sentence would be for this particular crime. Remember, Epstein got 18 months in Florida but that was a "sweetheart" deal since ruled to be invalid.

What the FBI want Andrew for is to talk to him and find out from him what he knew of Epstein and Maxwell's activities over the years. This does not mean that they're looking to prosecute Andrew at all. From Andrew's actions and demeanor after all hell broke loose, it does make Andrew look like he's "hiding something" but being guilty of an actual crime is certainly not one of them at this time. Who knows what incontrovertible evidence is still to be found in all this mess?

Just my thoughts.

A couple of corrections - regarding the first point, for state criminal charges, yes they would be filed in the state where they occurred, as happened in Florida w/ Epstein. Ms. Guffrie does not file criminal charges, the prosecutor for the relevant jurisdiction files charges in a criminal case, never the victim.
As you note, a victim can file a civil suit, however there are statute of limitation issues which may bar a victim doing so.
However, federal crimes are also possible and do not have to be filed in a specific state, as happened w/ Epstein where charges were filed in Florida & later in NY.
I can’t even guess what evidence the FBI is seeking or what crimes they are contemplating filing, but my brief survey of possible federal charges awhile ago revealed several conspiracy/trafficking type possibilities. The Feds can be relentless - remember they went after members of the mob for tax crimes because that was all they could prove. So the question is not as simple as did Andrew sleep w/ one 17 year old in London.
Regarding extradition, I see that what has triggered a resurgence of articles is that DOJ has officially filed a Mutual legal assistance request pursuant to the existing treaty between the USA and the U.K., so at this point extradition isn’t really the issue. It will take several months, but it is possible Andrew could be forced to answer questions pursuant to the treaty. The criteria for an MLA are different than the criteria for extradition. The questioning might occur in the U.K., & of course Andrew can assert his 5th amendment right to not incriminate himself and refuse to answer some questions on that basis. Interesting side point, if the prosecutor gives the person asserting the 5th amendment immunity, the person must then answer.

Curryong · #**3877** 06-07-2020, 08:58 PM

Question. Can a British subject being questioned (in England) in a US official inquiry involving possible criminal matters, evoke Fifth Amendment rights, given that such rights don't exist under English law? (Britain of course has no written Constitution, just statute and Common Law.)

sndral · #**3878** 06-07-2020, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

Question. Can a British subject being questioned (in England) in a US official inquiry involving possible criminal matters, evoke Fifth Amendement rights, given that such rights don't exist under English law? (Britain of course has no written Constitution, just statute and Common Law.)

I’m no expert in U.K. law, but I believe the U.K. recognizes a right to not incriminate yourself based on the US supreme court’s analysis of British law in this case https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/97-873
I’m not sure whether the Supreme Court has specifically addressed a nonresident alien’s right to invoke the 5th to avoid prosecution by the US - maybe I’ll find the answer w/ further digging :)

Curryong · #**3879** 06-07-2020, 10:05 PM

Thanks sndral.
I live in Australia and our laws, like those of many Commonwealth countries, are based on the British model. (Though we do have a written Constitution it doesn't address those issues.)

However, I have read of cases here in the last few years, at Inquests, where a witness has stated 'I prefer not to answer that question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself'. That is similar I suppose, though it doesn't necessarily save them later on!

Madame Verseau · #**3880** 06-07-2020, 10:46 PM

Diplomatic leverage can come into play. The wife of a US diplomat killed the British teen (sorry I forgot names) was officially charged in the UK. The UK doesn't get her unless Andrew talks to the Feds. The current occupant in the White House will not have the State Department take that tact; but if there is a new administration in January 2021 things could change.