The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[cepe]

At the present time, these are allegations. PA is not being prosecuted and the civil case in US makes it impossible for him to defend himself in a court of law or, apparently, bring a case for libel (see post#556).

As in every case of he said/she said - both parties motivations and actions will be questioned. That isn't taking sides, that's the process in order to get to the truth.

My view is I dont have a view. I dont have all the facts.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by cepe

This is an interesting article. Emphatic about not taking sides when it comes to allegations (cos that is all they are) - but not happy about how the law is being manipulated to allow "libellous" statements that cannot be challenged, when if the allegations were true, then they would be prosecuting directly.

I struggled with some of the american idiom, but it definitely raises questions

Jackleg lawyering, (im)pure and simple

Interesting, but he gets a lot of things wrong. From what I have read, part of this motion is an offer of proof in order to access government documents shedding light on how Esptein got such a favorable deal. These victims are entitled to do so. Nothing shady about it. Let's assume that Robert's allegations are true - there's nothing wrong with making them no matter how unsavory they are.

There is no direct criminal prosecution because Epstein's plea agreement included immunity for co-conspirators. That's why there's no direct criminal prosecution. Before there can be a civil prosecution, the claimants probably need the documents allegedly in possession of the government. To get those docs, they had to make an offer of proof in the motion. In any event, the statute of limitations is likely already passed for a direct civil prosecution.

He's claiming that none of the allegations of criminal wrongdoing against Andrew could survive a motion to dismiss if brought directly.
It's true that even if Robert's claims are true Andrew is not a "rapist" - she was above the age of consent in every spot where the acts took place. However, I'll bet there are trafficking charges - can you bring someone across state lines just to make them legal so you can have sex with them? I doubt it. That would be the crime here. I suggest this blogger read up on RICO.

He's also suggesting that the lawyers who brought this claim can be subject to sanctions. True, but highly unlikely. You have to have a "good faith basis" for bringing a claim. In almost every situation, you are entitled to believe your client, unless it's patently unbelievable. I don't see any sanctionable or conduct which would subject them to disbarment.

While this author purports to remain neutral on the allegations, he's seems to be saying one thing and writing another.

[GracieGiraffe]

While I'm on the subject, I think it's laughable the notion that Andrew cannot defend himself against these allegations. When Roberts gave her story to the DM two days ago, separate and apart from allegations in court documents, he is now free to see her for libel. She threw down the gauntlet.

Let's see if he does so.

[sthreats]

I'd like to get back to the poor judgement issue. Epstein was prosecuted in 2007 and went to jail in 2008. I give Prince Andrew the benefit of the doubt that whatever contact he had with this girl, he did not exactly know her age or Epstein's coercion. However, Epstein's shady doings were evident to everyone in 2008. Why did Andrew continue to associate with such a man till 2011? Why did Sarah Ferguson take money from this man in 2010? Especially when this couple has two daughters around the same age of these girls. Andrew is a grown - a**man. He knows better. Was he being blackmailed? Was it a money thing?

My son just joined a fraternity. My husband and I are having constant discussions with him about not participating in excess drinking and sexual abuse of girls at parties. When you see things jumping off wrong -- leave. And also just because the girl is drunk this is no excuse to participate in running a ' train' (gang rape). An adult man presented with a barely adult girl for a massage should have sense enough to say no thanks and leave.

I do agree P. Andrew was set up but he put himself in this position.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

[USAPolitics]

Originally Posted by sthreats

I'd like to get back to the poor judgement issue. Epstein was prosecuted in 2007 and went to jail in 2008. I give Prince Andrew the benefit of the doubt that whatever contact he had with this girl, he did not exactly know her age or Epstein's coercion. However, Epstein's shady doings were evident to everyone in 2008. Why did Andrew continue to associate with such a man till 2011? Why did Sarah Ferguson take money from this man in 2010? Especially when this couple has two daughters around the same age of these girls. Andrew is a grown - a**man. He knows better. Was he being blackmailed? Was it a money thing?

My son just joined a fraternity. My husband and I are having constant discussions with him about not participating in excess drinking and sexual abuse of girls at parties. When you see things jumping off wrong -- leave. And also just because the girl is drunk this is no excuse to participate in running a ' train' (gang rape). An adult man presented with a barely adult girl for a massage should have sense enough to say no thanks and leave.

I do agree P. Andrew was set up but he put himself in this position.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

Don't think we should equate PA befriending a criminal to PA having sex with a minor. They are miles apart IMO.

[amaryllus]

You are right, it doesn't add up. My understanding is that most trafficking victims are cut off from their families and friends because they are runaways. I'm not saying the girl wasn't victimized--it's possible. But she is alleging she was forced to do it. If that is true, what hold did Epstein have over her? She was at least communicating with her parents. Had she moved out? How close to 18 was she? Was she out of school?




Likely He promised her glamour, easy money, meeting celebrities or wealthy men, enticed her with ideas of being a famous model or singer. People who prey on young or naïve persons know all the right things to say. Her being almost of age they might not have had that much hold on her... she was going to go anyway if Epstein had gotten his hold on her.

[sthreats]

Originally Posted by USAPolitics

Don't think we should equate PA befriending a criminal to PA having sex with a minor. They are miles apart IMO.

I said whatever contact he had with this girl - it was poor judgement


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by USAPolitics

Don't think we should equate PA befriending a criminal to PA having sex with a minor. They are miles apart IMO.

Given the age of consent in the jurisdictions where she alleged that she slept with Andrew - NY, London and the Caribbean - and that in those places at that time the age of consent was 16 or 17 and she was 17 he didn't actually have 'sex with a minor' as legally for the purpose of having sex she wasn't a minor.

That is why the case had to be heard in Florida as in the other jurisdictions the case would have been thrown out from the get-go as it wasn't illegal.

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Given the age of consent in the jurisdictions where she alleged that she slept with Andrew - NY, London and the Caribbean - and that in those places at that time the age of consent was 16 or 17 and she was 17 he didn't actually have 'sex with a minor' as legally for the purpose of having sex she wasn't a minor.

That is why the case had to be heard in Florida as in the other jurisdictions the case would have been thrown out from the get-go as it wasn't illegal.

Which case? I believe the incident Epstein pled guilty to was in state court in Florida and involved a 14 year old girl - not Ms. Roberts. Moreover I believe Ms. Roberts stated she was 15 when she was first paid to perform sexual acts w/ Epstein.
In exchange for that plea in Florida state court the Federal prosecutors agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his unnamed co-conspirators for breaking Federal law for incidents involving a potential additional 40 victims. Ms. Roberts was presumably one of that group of victims.
Note it is a bit odd for Federal prosecutors to plea bargain dropping their charges for pleading to a state crime. Usually it works the other way, state prosecutors drop their case if the Feds go after someone for the same conduct because the Feds tend to get harsher sentences.
I suspect Federal prosecutors were considering bringing charges under the Mann act which makes it a Federal crime to transport minors across state or international boundaries for sexual/molest purposes. For Federal prosecution a minor is defined as anyone under the age of 18.
So, for example, if the age of consent in London is 17 then you can legally have sex with a 17 year old in London. But if you take a 17 year old from anywhere in the United States (including even from a state which also has an age of consent of 17) to London intending to have sex with them (or delivering them to someone else so that person can have sex with or molest them) then you have committed a Federal crime. Anyone involved in the scheme could also be guilty as a co-conspirator.

[yvr girl]

When parents can be charged for neglect for leaving their children in a car unattended for 5 minutes I don't see how anyone can think these parents are not neglectful. These incidents happened in multiple countries. She would have needed a passport to access the country. Report her as abducted. Easy way to get her home.

[Queen Camilla]

Virginia Roberts was not a sexual slave. She was a high paid prostitute. She said Epstein paid her $15,000 after she had sex with Andrew. She also states Andrew was not aware of Epstein paying her. She states her normal fee was $300 for sex in the U.S but higher if she flew outside of the U.S.. She was not a slave. She was not held captive. She was not living under Epstein roof. She was a prostitute who was on call.

The age of consent was 16/17, by her own admission she was 17. Even if the story is true, Andrew did not have sex with an under aged girl. An under aged girl would have been 15 or younger she was 2 years over the age limit.

Her father's story conflicts with her story. He claims she not a runaway but grew up in a loving home.

The headline should read a woman claims she had sex with Andrew when she was a 17 year prostitute.

[Princess of Durham]

It is interesting to me that now it appears that she is writing her memoirs ... Quite a run up to the publishing of her book! Or is it merely a coincidence?



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

[Queen Penelope]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

It is interesting to me that now it appears that she is writing her memoirs ... Quite a run up to the publishing of her book! Or is it merely a coincidence?



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

Quite the lead up to publication indeed!

[Zonk]

Human trafficking, the victimization of children, and rape are such serious issues that I would hope she isn't just trying to get publicity for a book. Nor do I think that these aren't just accusations that should be thrown around for fun. There are true victims of these crimes who because of the fear of coming forward don't come forward for this to be some sort of joke, or a way to get money.

Right now, I am with those who believe Andrew is guilty of poor judgement. Also, there is so much information that is coming out that sounds just crazy. Alan D. is not going to go down quietly if he is innocent...and that makes you question everything else. Now she has met the Queen...I don't know if that is true..and that makes me question her credibility. You really can't go off the Daily Mail or Mirror...cause let's face it...they are not really known for their investigative journalism. More sensationalism if nothing else.

I don't know about anyone else but if I have been friends who someone for a bit, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Heck, there are people who have been married to serial killers who had no idea what their husbands did when they left the house. I am a firm believer of sometimes people act the way they think you want them to act. Likewise some people see what they want to see. Let's face it, you always see older rich gentlemen with young ladies. So I am not sure Andrew would question why these young ladies were there. And if you look you are of age.....I am not sure what you or could do.

Unfortunately for Andrew, the accusations are enough for some to believe he is guilty as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread and the comments in the Daily Mail. I am sorry but some of this just doesn't add up. Why would the feds not pick this up...why not charge Epstein for more crimes....

[Roslyn]

For those who are interested, here is the Notice of Motion seeking to join Jane Does #3 and #4 to the original proceedings commenced by Jane Does #1 and #2: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fil...oe-2-v-u-s.pdf

Here is the judgment of 26 September 2011 which contains a lot more background information: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/JaneDoes..._9-26-2011.pdf

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Given the age of consent in the jurisdictions where she alleged that she slept with Andrew - NY, London and the Caribbean - and that in those places at that time the age of consent was 16 or 17 and she was 17 he didn't actually have 'sex with a minor' as legally for the purpose of having sex she wasn't a minor.

That is why the case had to be heard in Florida as in the other jurisdictions the case would have been thrown out from the get-go as it wasn't illegal.

She was still a minor, even though she was over the age of consent. It is not alleged that she was under age at the time, just that she was a minor. The fact she was a minor is relevant to the Federal sex trafficking charges against Epstein, or, rather, the charges that were not proceeded with against Epstein though they could be because the girls were minors, i.e. under 18. The plea bargain agreement only required him to plead guilty to the State felony charges, hence the relatively short sentence. That is the reason for the complaint made by Jane Does #1, #2, and now #3 and #4: this handy plea bargain was done in secret and without notice to them.

[Meadow]

The age thing is confusing it wasn't illegal in the places she was but it is in Florida I'm confused about how Florida can act against something that happened in another country. As for the sex slave story she says she was a runaway and groomed for what she did, she wanted to please Epstein. There are many women forced into prostitution they aren't always beaten there is emotional and verbal abuse. Most of the girls Epstein employed were underage so he had a taste for young girls who are very at risk by a man who knows how to get his own way. I don't buy her fathers story for starters who let's their 14 or 15 year old daughter travel around and stay with such an older man. If other women come forward then that could help her case. A gardener also stated underoath that he saw Andrew in a pool with naked young girls and he said that Andrew got daily massages. There are a lot of questions that will probably never get answered. I don't think this case will go away and Andrew who is guilty of poor judgement will have some mud stick to him no matter what. He will need to be careful in the future. There are also other high powered men involved but of course the press will focus on Andrew and it is claimed Andrew may off lobbied to help get him a lighter sentence which wouldn't have gone down well with the victims if true. So far we are getting lot's of headlines if this goes to court we may get more but I don't see Andrew being able to truly defend himself from this without going to court of some kind. He said she said is very messy.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Given the age of consent in the jurisdictions where she alleged that she slept with Andrew - NY, London and the Caribbean - and that in those places at that time the age of consent was 16 or 17 and she was 17 he didn't actually have 'sex with a minor' as legally for the purpose of having sex she wasn't a minor.

That is why the case had to be heard in Florida as in the other jurisdictions the case would have been thrown out from the get-go as it wasn't illegal.

Reading the judgment & motion for joinder posted by Roslyn, it seems Roberts has filed the motion in Florida because that's where the claim filed by Jane Does #1 & #2 is filed.

The original claim was filed in Florida because that's where the U.S. Attorney who accepted the claim against Epstein was based. It was that office which accepted the plea bargain & therefore allegedly breached the victim's civil rights. It looks to have nothing to do with Roberts' age and the age of consent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

[Rudolph]

Boris Johnson has 'sympathy' for Prince Andrew | Daily Mail Online

Boris Johnson today revealed his 'sympathy' for Prince Andrew over US court claims he had sex with an under-age girl.

The London Mayor hailed the Duke of York for doing a 'huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country'.

It follows four days of torrid headlines for the prince after the allegations emerged in court papers on Friday.

[GracieGiraffe]

Re: the statement that Virginia Roberts met the Queen. We don't know if that actually came from her or was fabricated by her father. But I'll bet those lawyers are going to shut Daddy up pretty quickly, whatever the case.