British royal family could face its biggest crisis, as civil suit against Prince Andrew looms

Link.

I reckon there is some substance to these allegations, but there is an intervening issue that most people would not bother with.

Was the Prince properly 'served?'

There have been many occasions when Defendants have rightfully questioned whether they had been 'served' according to Law, but the point is pretty moot, as even if service was defective, it is not a silver bullet to end the litigation. All the Plaintiff needs to do is have another go, and get it right.

I reckon it is ineffective service on the Prince to hand the Writ to some lackey at some front door, and Andrew is challenging.

If he wins, it does not bring an end to the suit. The Plaintiff can have another go at proper legit service, and if Andrew is dodging, then she can apply for an order allowing substituted service in some Court sanctioned manner.

 

Good that he's finally getting his comeuppance, but I have a strong dislike for the tactic of going for a civil suit to lower the standard to "is it more likely that he did it than not".

Prince Andrew should be in prison, not using what is arguably public money to bribe away his victims.

 

Are you going to tell me that if you passed this couple on the street you'd even notice them? If Jeffrey Epstein procured 12 or 13 or 15 year-old girls he should be dug up and hanged again but of this girl's parent's let her go on a trip when she was 18 or 2 days before she was 18 and she got to meet the Prince of England, how is he supposed to know when she no doubt lied to him about her age? This is nothing but a cash grab and that's what she deserves: nothing.

 

In the US, the laws around sex with a minor are what's known as a strict liability offense. Did you stick your **** in the minor, knowing or not? You did? Guilty, next case. O she lied to you? Provided ID? Still guilty, next case.

 

The “Royal We” Provision: Newly Released Settlement Favors Prince Andrew as One of Epstein’s “Other Defendants”

​

"The settlement agreement between Giuffre and Epstein contains a provision, in exchange for half a million dollars, the settlement expressly bars Giuffre from suing not just Epstein but “other defendants.” Prince Andrew is arguing that the plural reference includes him."

This is in addition to the inherent conflict under NY state law where under the age of 18 are classed as minors, but the age of consent in New York is 17. She isn't claiming forcible rape, rather that she was too young to give consent, though she was 17 at the time the sex occurred and using a provision that allows underage victims to set aside the expired Statute of Limitations.

But, his primary defense is this agreement:

 

Good Ironclad NDA.

 

I wonder who else that protects?

 

Are you honestly defending Epstein?

 

Let's be realistic. Half a million dollars was handed to her for her agreement to do and not do stuff. If she wants out, (even assuming she is allowed to out) the first thing she can do is return the half million and then we can talk about how fair dinkum she is. No two bites at the cake thanks.

 

Agreed as it is it looks shonky

 

I’m sure the women of the world who were abused as children, thank you for your fulsome support….

 

That's not an option. In an agreement, both sides are bound. One side to supply the money, the other side to abide by the restrictions. In our system one party cannot break a contract without cause, and "I saw an opportunity to sue someone else for more" is not a cause that I've ever seen stand up in the US. With as popular as the boomerang is in your neck of the woods, you might have another set of precedent.

 

You didn't serve me right, but then I brought myself before the court to point that out......

Service in civil cases is most often accomplished by leaving the citation with any person over the age of 18 in the residence. That would include servants. If you duck, I can have an order to nail it to the ****ing door or serve you by publication. I do this all the time, because people think that by not picking up their certified mail or answering the door they somehow cannot be served. Its ****ing hilarious.

 

Paying your child victim for sex and to keep quiet about it, isn't applicable. She can have her cake and eat it too besides.

 

How do you know it's *just* a cash grab? Being exploited and seeking remedy to that exploitation are not mutually exclusive.

Further, there is no difference in very rich and powerful people using that to that benefit and middle or lower class people exploiting people for their own benefit. We just hear about those cases as often.

 

Whether she was 15 or 17 if she jumped in to bed naked with him she knew what she was doing.

 

The age of consent in NY is 17. She was 17.

 

It apparently began sometime before that, and as I recall they traveled to several locales where the age was different.
Additionally: Age of consent refers to the time you can consent to sex with parental consent, not by yourself. Don't have that? Still a child.

 

That's not how that works at all, and if you think it is you're going to end up in prison.

 

The problem here is that you've got this "Royal" Family, the product of years of belief that they're better than you because they just happened to crawl out of the right birth canals, and they act with so much entitlement that you have this grown-*** man-child with ugly yellow teeth who thinks having child-trafficking friends as well as sampling the merchandise is A-OK. I mean, let's look at the lot of 'em: There's Da Queen who might be the only one of the lot worth anything g but she's not long for this world, you've got Prince Charles, Lord of Tampons who cheats on Diana and is involved in some Brit-Cit cash for access shenanigans, you got Prince Dullard who does so little work for the money he gets and is basically a bully, there's Duchess Lazy who did even less - 115 work engagements in 2021? Oh, and you got Prince Nazi Cosplayer, Duchess C-List Cable starlette, and then back to Prince Pedo.

#abolishthemonarchy

 

Not in NY and that's where she is trying to get the SOL set aside to allow her to pursue this claim. In NY, if a 17 year old wants to consent to sex, she can, and she doesn't need a note from Mommy. It's a decent defense against the civil action.

And the separate defense, that in exchange for a $half Million, she agreed to not pursue such claims looks pretty solid too. But here is another potential issue for Virginia Giuffre, she too could be charged with sex crimes. One of the now women in the Maxwell trial testified that Giuffre "brought her to Epstein as an under-age girl for money". Giuffre was well over the age of consent by anyone's definition at this point, and this other girl testified that when she was 14 or 15 years old and she was brought to Jeffrey Epstein for money by the now adult Virginia Giuffre. "Giuffre then, according to the testimony at the trial, got naked, had sex with Jeffrey Epstein in order to facilitate her having sex with Epstein."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Virginia-Giuffre-face-sex-crime-charges.html

​

They all look like they got along quite well. It might be sensible to wait for all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

 

Again: It apparently started some time prior to that age in any case and occurred in multiple jurisdictions. You can't enforce an agreement not to talk about a crime. Even if you paid.

Grooming and turning out another girl should certainly be alleged against her if there is probable cause she did such. That wouldn't stop her suit against Andrew, and its even possible to be excluded from evidence.

 

Many young girls were raped and molested in Epstein's world and so far, the ONLY person punished is another woman? ALL of these bastards need to go down.

 

I agree.

All we need is PROOF, Evidence, Witnesses Willing to Testify, and Criminal Prosecutions Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations.
Bring it on.

 

related thread: American woman sues Prince Andrew for money

Prince Andrew is probably guilty, but not guilty of doing something really bad. And the only evidence against him is the claim of this woman who is trying to get money out of the situation.