The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Osipi]

There also could be a petition with 4,243,032 signatures on it to put Prince Andrew on the ballot for President of the United States too.

A Federal US indictment for a crime has to meet certain criteria also for the UK to extradite Andrew to the US for a federal crime committed in the US. The crime would have to be a crime in both the US and the UK with a sentence of no less than a year in prison.

As things stand now. Andrew is not being accused, indicted or even being looked at having him committed a crime in any sense of the word. The Metropolitan Police investigated into Virginia Guiffre's claim that Andrew had sex with her in London. As the age of consent for sex in London is 16, the Met Police saw no reason to investigate further. Mind you, there were no hints or allegations surrounding sex trafficking. It was a case of Guiffre against Prince Andrew solely on the fact they had sex (which actually has never been deemed factual as Andrew still proclaims his innocence).

US indictments may remain sealed for 20 years in the US but as Andrew isn't a US citizen, there'd be a lot of other hoops to go through before the UK would "hand him over" to the US for federal prosecution. #1 would be to actually *accuse* him of committing a crime which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened.

[Lord_Royal]

So far, what's been disclosed about Andrew in the Ghislaine Maxwell court documents is are all the same allegations, and I make the point they're allegations, and no hard documentary evidence whatsoever.



Now, that doesn't mean that Andrew hasn't acted disgracefully. However, there is, so far, no evidence of a crime.

[Harald]

Originally Posted by Osipi

There also could be a petition with 4,243,032 signatures on it to put Prince Andrew on the ballot for President of the United States too.

That would be one pointless petition since any voter casting his or her vote in the U.S. Presidential election can already put Prince Andrew on the ballot by simply writing him in. (Naturally would Prince Andrew be constitutionally barred from taking up the U.S. Presidency in the event that he would the election.)

Originally Posted by Osipi

A Federal US indictment for a crime has to meet certain criteria also for the UK to extradite Andrew to the US for a federal crime committed in the US. The crime would have to be a crime in both the US and the UK with a sentence of no less than a year in prison.

The way for the SDNY to get their hands on Prince Andrew is to interview him in order to lure him into the Perjury Trap. Hence why the Feds are so eager to interview him and why the members of Prince Andrew's legal team are going out of their way to keep him away from the FBI. And in England and Wales perjury carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment and under federal law perjury carries the punishment of up to five years in prison. Perjury therefore is an extraditable offence. And then time has come to really throw the book at him.

Originally Posted by Osipi

As things stand now. Andrew is not being accused, indicted or even being looked at having him committed a crime in any sense of the word. The Metropolitan Police investigated into Virginia Guiffre's claim that Andrew had sex with her in London. As the age of consent for sex in London is 16, the Met Police saw no reason to investigate further. Mind you, there were no hints or allegations surrounding sex trafficking. It was a case of Guiffre against Prince Andrew solely on the fact they had sex (which actually has never been deemed factual as Andrew still proclaims his innocence).

Very unfortunately for Prince Andrew the SDNY will dig much deeper, while smartly keeping their cards close to their chests. That is, until it is unsealing time.

Originally Posted by Osipi

US indictments may remain sealed for 20 years in the US but as Andrew isn't a US citizen, there'd be a lot of other hoops to go through before the UK would "hand him over" to the US for federal prosecution. #1 would be to actually *accuse* him of committing a crime which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened.

The SDNY plays the long game, slowly but surely working towards their goals.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Harald

That would be one pointless petition since any voter casting his or her vote in the U.S. Presidential election can already put Prince Andrew on the ballot by simply writing him in. (Naturally would Prince Andrew be constitutionally barred from taking up the U.S. Presidency in the event that he would the election.)



The way for the SDNY to get their hands on Prince Andrew is to interview him in order to lure him into the Perjury Trap. Hence why the Feds are so eager to interview him and why the members of Prince Andrew's legal team are going out of their way to keep him away from the FBI. And in England and Wales perjury carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment and under federal law perjury carries the punishment of up to five years in prison. Perjury therefore is an extraditable offence. And then time has come to really throw the book at him.



Very unfortunately for Prince Andrew the SDNY will dig much deeper, while smartly keeping their cards close to their chests. That is, until it is unsealing time.



The SDNY plays the long game, slowly but surely working towards their goals.

The SDNY is also smart. They are not going to risk US-UK relations unless they can prove that Andrew is a much bigger fish (he helped with the trafficking and financially benefited from it etc.). If all they have is what he’s been “accused” of so far it not worth the hassle

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Harald

That would be one pointless petition since any voter casting his or her vote in the U.S. Presidential election can already put Prince Andrew on the ballot by simply writing him in. (Naturally would Prince Andrew be constitutionally barred from taking up the U.S. Presidency in the event that he would the election.)

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.

Originally Posted by Harald

The way for the SDNY to get their hands on Prince Andrew is to interview him in order to lure him into the Perjury Trap. Hence why the Feds are so eager to interview him and why the members of Prince Andrew's legal team are going out of their way to keep him away from the FBI. And in England and Wales perjury carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment and under federal law perjury carries the punishment of up to five years in prison. Perjury therefore is an extraditable offence. And then time has come to really throw the book at him.

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.

Originally Posted by Harald

Very unfortunately for Prince Andrew the SDNY will dig much deeper, while smartly keeping their cards close to their chests. That is, until it is unsealing time.

The SDNY plays the long game, slowly but surely working towards their goals.

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".

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Osipi

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".

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.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43597.pdf
With what is public knowledge at the moment I don’t see a prosecutable case against Andrew, but I don’t know what evidence the Fed has and whether that relates to Andrew.
The Feds are currently prosecuting Maxwell, they’ll want to know details of all communication Maxwell had with Andrew particularly relating to herself, Andrew, Epstein traveling or meeting at various places. Let’s say Andrew claims there are none & declines to provide the requested emails, or whatever. The Feds get the records pursuant to search warrants from cell companies or data providers, or pursuant to data (including forensic recovery of ‘deleted’ info.) from seized computers, etc., and discover Andrew lied, assuming he was under oath, that may be perjury, and yes the Feds do occasionally prosecute for perjury.
If the intent was to forget about Andrew the Feds wouldn’t have sought the MLA pursuant to the treaty. I don’t know why they’re still interested in him when there’s no evidence they’re as eager to talk w/ other prominent men associated with Epstein/Maxwell, but they are interested in talking to him for whatever reason.

[Waika]

Originally Posted by Osipi

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".

SDNY does not have to prove that Andrew knew. I don't know if The Duke of York did more than look at those teenagers, but the Feds want something from him. This is part of the Federal law concerning child sex trafficking; the link to this Justice Department page is in post #4195.


"Child Sex Trafficking is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1591. This statute makes it a federal offense to knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a minor (defined as someone under 18 years of age) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. “Commercial sex act” is defined very broadly to include “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” In other words, it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child, and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors, or some other kind of benefit. Section 1591 also makes it a crime for individuals to participate in a business venture that obtains minors and causes them to engage in commercial sex acts."


Let's just hope and pray, that there are no emails, or phone calls requesting a teenager, or expressing how much he liked one of them.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Waika

SDNY does not have to prove that Andrew knew.

I'm not certain that's necessarily the case, not so much if Andrew knew the girls were underage, but whether he knew they were being sexually trafficked.

The statute itself begins with the phrase: "Whoever knowingly-" while Section a(2) states: "knowing...in regardless disregard of the fact."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591

See also the discussion in a document from the Congressional Research Service (pages 5-6, "Knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact"):

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43597.pdf

The author makes the following statements:

"this element of the offense requires proof that the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded, either (A) the fact that an (1) underage child (ii) would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act..."

"the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded, the fact that the victim would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act..."

But the document also points out that the defendant's ignorance cannot be "deliberate, a matter of conscious avoidance or willful blindness."

[Waika]

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.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Waika

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.

Yes, as you point out, the government doesn't need to prove the defendant knew the victim was under 18.

But it does need to prove the defendant knew the girl was a victim of sexual trafficking.

However, as the document I linked to points out, the defendant's ignorance cannot be willful (for example, s/he chose to ignore the evidence and not pursue it to its logical conclusion). So there's still a lot of gray area.

[MARG]

The only way Prince Andrew is remotely forced to go to the US is with a Warrant not a fishing expedition.

And, just because they want to know what he knows doesn't cut it and, when a diplomat's wife does a bunk after killing a schoolboy on a cycle, to avoid standing trial for manslaughter for her da groups driving g causing death I think the chances are zero to none.

That is not to say be wont continue to suffer death by a thousand cuts courtesy of the media.

[Lady Daly]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/us/gh...ion/index.html

"Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell said in a court filing Monday (Aug 10) that they've learned of 'critical new information' that impacts her criminal case and a civil case where dozens of documents are expected to be unsealed. Her attorneys have asked that the documents, including depositions, remain sealed for three weeks as they work with prosecutors to see if they can share information with the court."

In watching the attached video it's unclear if Prince Andrew is included in this new information as the documents continue to be sealed, however his name and Bill Clinton's name were both mentioned.

[REAL COUNTESS]

So far there are over 4ooo posts about Andrew and Epstein. We all know he Andrew is arrogant self serving and has an ego to match, he feels he has a special entitlement because of who he is a Prince by birth. He is accused tried found guilty and all of this in a Court Of Public Opinions, not in a Court Of LAW, that is what counts at the end of the day. I really hope he was as ignorant about Epstein's dirty business as he say's. [........]

[Ista]

Several posts have been edited or deleted as either off topic, or in response to an off topic post.

According to forum rules, any question regarding moderation should be directed via PM to one of the thread moderators:

--It is mandatory to comply with instructions posted by the moderators and administrators. Complaints about moderator actions should not be made in the threads; instead, send a private message to the moderator concerned or an administrator. If a moderator deletes or edits one of your posts and you disagree with the action, contact the moderator concerned or an administrator; do not repost deleted material or interfere with moderator edits.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Durham

The system relies on the goodwill of members of the royal family. Once someone breaks ranks it’s near impossible to get that geni back in the bottle.

What the long term implications on attitudes towards the royal family as an institution will be I’m not sure. I suspect there will be an increasing cynicism from the British public.

Hopefully the duke (& the other duke) will do the honest & honourable thing & unilaterally abjure his noble & princely status. Preferably without rancour or point scoring. That would go some way to salvaging something from this sorry situation. Lessons need to be learnt for the next generation. Maybe that is a discussion for another thread.

A big difference in Andrew's case is that he is currently flying low - and in that way doing what he should be doing right now - unlike his nephew. So, if he would be seeking a prominent role outside of the structures of the BRF because he was ousted, I might agree that 'steps need to be taken'. However, in this case, I understand that some would like him (or the family) to take this symbolic action but I don't think submitting to outside pressure is the way to go for the BRF, especially since he isn't convicted (nor persecuted) for any crimes.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Lady Daly

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/us/gh...ion/index.html

"Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell said in a court filing Monday (Aug 10) that they've learned of 'critical new information' that impacts her criminal case and a civil case where dozens of documents are expected to be unsealed. Her attorneys have asked that the documents, including depositions, remain sealed for three weeks as they work with prosecutors to see if they can share information with the court."

In watching the attached video it's unclear if Prince Andrew is included in this new information as the documents continue to be sealed, however his name and Bill Clinton's name were both mentioned.

Wonder if Trump and a lot of other well know Americans are also mentioned?

[REAL COUNTESS]

President Trump was never accused by Ms Roberts or even spoken off. She Viginia worked at Mara Lago so did her father I believe. So everyone who was at Epstein;s parties,was somehow involved in the sex trade? really. Read the book by Alan Dershowitz Guilt by Accusation?, it was an eye opener for me.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS

President Trump was never accused by Ms Roberts or even spoken off. She Viginia worked at Mara Lago so did her father I believe. So everyone who was at Epstein;s parties,was somehow involved in the sex trade? really. Read the book by Alan Dershowitz Guilt by Accusation?, it was an eye opener for me.

Unlike Prince Andrew/The Duke of York, Donald Trump was officially charged (together with Epstein) for sexual abusing a 13-year old girl (Epstein had many victims, not just the one associated with the prince).

However, as this is topic is not about Trump, I'll leave it at that.

[Lady Daly]

I've now decided I'm done with this thread, the subject has become so destructive, disgusting and salacious. I'm sorry for ever taking interest in the matter. Jeffrey Epstein is dead, Ghislaine Maxwell is currently in jail awaiting a court date anticipated to take place sometime next summer. Two US presidents, a legal scholar, the former CEO of Victoria's Secret, the son of Queen Elizabeth and many more well known names have been associated with Epstein and Maxwell over the years. Many of the victims have spoken out about their tragic experiences. Those with no power abused by those with power and money. I had to shut the Netflix series off it was so disturbing. I don't think we will ever know the truth unless we hear it from Maxwell and that is unlikely.

[AC21091968]

Camilla Tominey has written an article on the Telegraph breaking some allegations/findings of Virginia Roberts Giuffre in court papers.

Exclusive: Prince Andrew's accuser was a prostitute paid off by Jeffrey Epstein, court papers allege
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, 37, claims to have had sex with the prince three times when she was 17

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ffrey-epstein/