Prince Andrew Sued Under Childs Victim Act

[Batard]

The story that won't go away, the fallout from Epstein. Giuffre is taking Prince Andrew to court for being sex trafficked and abused. 

[Mel81x+]

I hope it doesn't go away because honestly it needs to be addressed and even if it takes time in courts the truth should come out about everything. Epstein was involved with so many folks in high up places that I think we haven't even seen all that could really come to light. 

[Honey Honey]

If he is guilty of child sex abuse he should be going to jail, not paying compensation. US legal system is fucked up.

I'd be shocked if he would actually turn up for or entertain a New York court case like this. He'll just not go there ever again as he is doing to avoid FBI questioning. To get extradition probably won't be easy, especially if even the FBI don't have what they need to make an arrest.

[DeadLinesman]

12 minutes ago, The Premier Steve's said:

If he is guilty of child sex abuse he should be going to jail, not paying compensation. US legal system is fucked up.

I'd be shocked if he would actually turn up for or entertain a New York court case like this. He'll just not go there ever again as he is doing to avoid FBI questioning. To get extradition probably won't be easy, especially if even the FBI don't have what they need to make an arrest.

The US have made their bed over the Harry Dunne case. If they think they can whisk a diplomats wife away and hide her, what chance have they got for extraditing a royal? Absolute fucking zero.

[Stan]

Yep but Meghan Markle has done some bad stuff too right? 

[Honey Honey]

34 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

The US have made their bed over the Harry Dunne case. If they think they can whisk a diplomats wife away and hide her, what chance have they got for extraditing a royal? Absolute fucking zero.

He's a 2nd rate royal so probably doesn't have diplomatic immunity. It would be hard to extradite someone to be sued for being a nonce rather than arrested for being one.

[MUFC]

Epstein killed because he knew too much? May have grassed on people?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Stan said:

Yep but Meghan Markle has done some bad stuff too right? 

Yeah she once ate avocado 

[Waylander]

It is an unusual situation. 

The Prince is being sued yet the question is, is there just one victim the alleged victim or others. 

In terms of others close to Epstein, Bill Clinton has been mentioned and so has Bill Gates who allegedly thought Epstein could get him a Nobel prize. Doubt any cases will touch them.

The Princes form seems to suggest escort women rather than teenagers yet who really knows.

 

[Batard]

7 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

The US have made their bed over the Harry Dunne case. If they think they can whisk a diplomats wife away and hide her, what chance have they got for extraditing a royal? Absolute fucking zero.

That situation is an absolute disgrace, they don't want Sacoolas prosecuted as she's likely the wife of a spook. She should never have been allowed to return to the States. 

[RandoEFC+]

Two wrongs don't make a right. They should both be prosecuted. It's laughable that Andrew is still referred to as "Prince" where, as others have mentioned, Harry and Meghan have been dealt with a lot more harshly by the same institution because they dared to leave the family business and said a few naughty things on a US chat show.

It's mad how little fuss there is in the UK media and general public that Andrew has without doubt, at best, been party to child sex offences and most evidence seems to suggest he's partaken in them. Perhaps I just won't ever understand the psyche we're dealing with in the UK.

[Waylander]

A lot of things get covered up it's all about protecting the reputation of UK plc. 

It doesn't apply to just Royals yet anyone that is held up as an icon.

The Maxwell woman would probably know yet is being held under strict supervision over fears she might commit suicide yet the conditions of detention are allegedly very severe.

If she really knows for example someone like Bill Clinton could be prosecuted, do you think that would be allowed during a Biden presidency?

I was looking into some of the stories of the Capitol Hill protestors who have been arrested and they are allegedly being beaten by prison officers, one has lost an eye. Yes they trespassed yet don't recall many actually attacking people. This is beginning to have echoes of pre-revolutionary France and La Bastille.

[Rucksackfranzose]

12 hours ago, Waylander said:

 This is beginning to have echoes of pre-revolutionary France and La Bastille.

Except that the French stormed La Bastille to free prisoners, an unelected regime held capture under inhuman condition, not to keep the loser of a democratic election unlawful at the power.

[DeadLinesman]

12 hours ago, Waylander said:

I was looking into some of the stories of the Capitol Hill protestors who have been arrested and they are allegedly being beaten by prison officers, one has lost an eye. Yes they trespassed yet don't recall many actually attacking people. This is beginning to have echoes of pre-revolutionary France and La Bastille.

I’m going to hazard a guess that they didn’t get to attack anyone because the secret service barricaded several doors and shot one of them dead when they tried.

[Honey Honey]

15 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

It's mad how little fuss there is in the UK media and general public that Andrew has without doubt, at best, been party to child sex offences and most evidence seems to suggest he's partaken in them. Perhaps I just won't ever understand the psyche we're dealing with in the UK.

To be fair every development is front page news and number one story for days. He's been locked up away from the public and will likely have to be for years. 

[Dave]

I suspect the can of worms that could be opened if Ghislaine Maxwell decides to speak goes far beyond Prince Andrew or any leading conspiracy. Especially when you consider the way the original Jeffrey Epstein case was swept under the carpet by the FBI in with what must be considered one of the worst plea bargains in history alongside the amount of cameras he had on each of his estates.

Unfortunately given the family she was born in to and the life experiences that have come with that I don't think she will speak. I imagine she's still naive enough that she holds hope her wealth and class status will work in her favour. So I just hope I'm still alive in 50+ years when somebody finds the 3rd backup of the evidential footage off some remote island burried 20 feet under a new build.

[Waylander]

34 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I suspect the can of worms that could be opened if Ghislaine Maxwell decides to speak goes far beyond Prince Andrew or any leading conspiracy. Especially when you consider the way the original Jeffrey Epstein case was swept under the carpet by the FBI in with what must be considered one of the worst plea bargains in history alongside the amount of cameras he had on each of his estates.

Unfortunately given the family she was born in to and the life experiences that have come with that I don't think she will speak. I imagine she's still naive enough that she holds hope her wealth and class status will work in her favour. So I just hope I'm still alive in 50+ years when somebody finds the 3rd backup of the evidential footage off some remote island burried 20 feet under a new build.

Yes she is in a dodgy situation being watched and woken regularly to ensure no foul play or suicide. Apart from being kept in isolation she does not appear to be getting any favours. Her family were upset they could not get decent food to her.

Then there is the question of what she knows and then what she thinks she can reveal without repercussion if she ever gets free.

Then by revealing anything will it doom her to a long prison sentence.

It would appear she recruited young women 16yrs upwards. 16yrs in some states was the lower limit for sexual activity.

The suspicion is she recruited women to provide sexual favours for rich people or people of influence.

I'm not aware of any more serious charges against her of assisting rape or sexual molestation.

Her best hope is to make a plea bargain yet her notoriety may damage that chance.

It will be fascinating to see how this turns out, it is not a just a fallen socialite on trial yet one that might damage a lot of others on both sides of the political divide. Will that be allowed?

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 10/08/2021 at 00:09, The Premier Steve's said:

He's a 2nd rate royal so probably doesn't have diplomatic immunity. It would be hard to extradite someone to be sued for being a nonce rather than arrested for being one.

I don't think you can extradite over non-criminal matters, can you? He could be sued, not turn up and have a default judgment against him, which could then lead to assets he might have in the US being seized/sold to pay for the compensation to the victims.

Which is what I imagine will happen, tbh.

[Honey Honey]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think you can extradite over non-criminal matters, can you? He could be sued, not turn up and have a default judgment against him, which could then lead to assets he might have in the US being seized/sold to pay for the compensation to the victims.

Which is what I imagine will happen, tbh.

This is what I find weird about American law. To have a civil case against a nonce and not a criminal one. There's surely no grey area that can be entertained. How can you have a situation where there's no criminal prosecution for sexual assault but compensation can be awarded. 

If there's a ruling against him here then what are we saying, the FBI are too dogshit to catch a nonce?

[Dr. Gonzo]

45 minutes ago, The Premier Steve's said:

This is what I find weird about American law. To have a civil case against a nonce and not a criminal one. There's surely no grey area that can be entertained. How can you have a situation where there's no criminal prosecution for sexual assault but compensation can be awarded. 

If there's a ruling against him here then what are we saying, the FBI are too dogshit to catch a nonce?

I also think US law is weird as fuck, but I think it's something about the burden of proof - like with OJ Simpson getting away with killing people in his criminal trial, but being found guilty of wrongful deaths of his victims in a civil case. I asked a lawyer I met randomly at a bar how OJ got away with murder, but still was found responsible for the deaths and he explained... that "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard) is when you get a jury to agree there was virtually no doubt it happened - whereas the civil standard (idk the name of that standard, I'm not a lawyer, definitely not a US lawyer otherwise... I'd probably sue you for asking me a question or try to bill you for my answer) is way fucking lower.

So I think to convict him in the US, they'd need some pretty ironclad evidence that he's a nonce beyond just the accusation. Whereas the civil standard for finding him guilty (idk if guilty is the right word for non-criminal matters, but whatever) a jury would just need to find that he's "probably" a nonce before extracting money out of him.

I have no idea if things are similar in the UK - @Inverted would probably know, as he's our legal expert. And @Cicero knows a shitload about US law - or at least a shitload more than me (which isn't saying much).

[Inverted]

The main thing is the overall burden of proof. English, Scottish and US law all tend to use the "balance of probabilities" standard for civil cases and "beyond reasonable" doubt standard for criminal cases. So essentially if you want damages, you only need to prove >50% likelihood that it happened. If you want to put them in jail, that number is more like >90%, if not higher. 

There are also different rules about evidence for civil and criminal law in most countries. In Scotland for example, in criminal cases we have corroboration, meaning that every single essential fact of the case needs to proven by two independent sources. 

So if you're a sexual assault victim, then in Scots criminal law your testimony, taken alone, is by definition insufficient. If there's no other witness, or DNA evidence, or video evidence that puts you and your attacker together at the time of the attack, then by law you cannot even go to trial. 

In a civil case the rules are normally more relaxed. In Scotland get to a civil "trial" you often only need to show a prima facie case. Meaning that you have a decent enough case to not make a trial a complete waste of time and resources. No corroboration required. If you have one really convincing piece of evidence, it can be heard.

So when you consider all the elements, to get a civil case into court you've got to show "a decent chance of proving it's more than 50% likely". 

For a criminal case it's "you have two pieces of evidence for every single fact you would need to prove to give yourself a chance at showing its close to 100% certain". 

I know America is much more prosecution-friendly but it's just to illustrate how different the rules can be. 

 

[MUFC]

[Stan]

 

[Dave]

On 11/08/2021 at 22:50, Dr. Gonzo said:

I also think US law is weird as fuck, but I think it's something about the burden of proof - like with OJ Simpson getting away with killing people in his criminal trial, but being found guilty of wrongful deaths of his victims in a civil case. I asked a lawyer I met randomly at a bar how OJ got away with murder, but still was found responsible for the deaths and he explained... that "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard) is when you get a jury to agree there was virtually no doubt it happened - whereas the civil standard (idk the name of that standard, I'm not a lawyer, definitely not a US lawyer otherwise... I'd probably sue you for asking me a question or try to bill you for my answer) is way fucking lower.

So I think to convict him in the US, they'd need some pretty ironclad evidence that he's a nonce beyond just the accusation. Whereas the civil standard for finding him guilty (idk if guilty is the right word for non-criminal matters, but whatever) a jury would just need to find that he's "probably" a nonce before extracting money out of him.

In England and Wales we still have 'balance of probabilities' in civil courts but that's only used for very minor issues such as landlord/tenant disputes.

The UK press are generally pretty good with supporting high profile court cases in the sense that they will not divulge too heavy in to a suspects past until after conviction because they're aware that a suspect of the most henious crimes could claim he will never get a fair trial if too much of his background is in the public domain. So the likelihood of an OJ debacle is minimal.

[Stan]

He seems to have agreed a settlement to pay Guiffre off even though he claims he is innocent...