Prince Andy moves to strike Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit based on fraudulent claim of US residence

[mandrill]

Yes, they shagged (she was most likely a willing participant)
No, nothing will come of it

Side trivia: she was legal age under UK law. In Canada Harper raised the age of consent; ironically his justice ministry Toews banged and impregnated the babysitter.

Age of consent in Europe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of consent in Europe. Only Ireland (Roman Catholic) and Turkey (Muslim) have an a of c over 16 years.

This the UK legislation:


The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, became law in January 2001 throughout the UK, and thus equalized, regardless of gender, the age of consent at 16 for both heterosexual and homosexual acts (including, for the first time, lesbian acts), except those taking place between a 16–17-year-old and someone "in a position of trust" (e.g. a teacher), where the age of consent was raised to 18.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 officially ended the concept of buggery in British law, as technically, heterosexual anal intercourse had still been illegal until the passing of this law. The passing of this law meant that there was no legal difference made between vaginal and anal intercourse, as well as sexual touching and newly added oral penetration and penetration by other body parts than penis or anything else. The Act also raised the legal age for pornography and prostitution from 16 to 18.

There have been various suggestions to lower the age of consent to 14 – in 1998 the New Labour government proposed this, but despite some Left wing and Youth support this had been dropped by early 2003 as lacking support, a decade later in early 2013 the suggestion by civil servants to lower the age of consent to 14 was rejected by the Conservative led coalition as offensive (at least under some circumstances) and attention was drawn to the impact of recent scandals on the reception to any proposals.

 

[mandrill]

These are the ages of consent in North America.

Canada is 16 years of age. The USA varies with individual states choosing 16, 17 and 18. Most states choose 16 years.

Age of consent in North America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of consent in North America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If I understand the Maxwell and Epstein prosecutions correctly, they were based on the acts taking place in FL, which is one of the minority of states which uses 18 years as the age of consent.

 

[danmand]

Do you really think that Canada actually HAS a relationship with the British monarchy. We keep them around because the Brits are dumb enough to pay for them and give us a free titular head of state. If we had to foot the bill, they'd be gone tomorrow and Justin would appoint a transsexual native Canadian as the new head of state.

The Brits love all that shit about being given meaningless bullshit titles of nobility and being invited to the palace for 10 minutes to formally bow to the Queen. No Canuck would put up with that shit for a second!

Methink you are wrong. Most Canadians love to bow to the Queen, and believe in hereditary privilege.

PS: I have never understood, why people stop with the head of state. Why not make all government positions hereditary?

 

[Insidious Von]

Here here well spoken Dane.

And Biebs should be allowed to drop turds into Tim's coffee grounds.

 

[poker]

Here here well spoken Dane.

And Biebs should be allowed to drop turds into Tim's coffee grounds.

Some say… he already does.

 

[mandrill]

Methink you are wrong. Most Canadians love to bow to the Queen, and believe in hereditary privilege.

PS: I have never understood, why people stop with the head of state. Why not make all government positions hereditary?

Too old fashioned. It hasn't been done since the 1700's.

 

[poker]

If Virginia was a US resident at the time of her abuse… then she gets to use that court. I believed she met Epstein while she was employed at…. Wait for it…. Mar-a-lago

 

[mandrill]

If Virginia was a US resident at the time of her abuse… then she gets to use that court. I believed she met Epstein while she was employed at…. Wait for it…. Mar-a-lago

If that's the case, she would have to sue in FL and not CO.

It's a state jurisdiction issue.

 

[Perry Mason]

It is an interesting question about jurisdiction... which in this case means... some nexus... some "real connection"... to the state... in which she is bringing her action... usually as the place... where the events took place... [wasn't New York one of the places???].. or where one of the parties... usually the defendant... resides...

It will get very interesting ... if she can't establish jurisdiction... in any state in the USA... which is a distinct possibility... [I did not say probability... I don't know all the facts]... she will then have to sue him... in the country in which he resides... Britain...

What is likely... in my opinion... is that there will be... either... an early settlement... or a war of attrition... to determine... what court... is the proper Court... and it is not a trivial issue... in private international law... this is about a Court in one nation... accepting jurisdiction... over Royalty... of another nation... wars have been fought... people have died... over lesser issues!

Perry

 

[mandrill]

Prince Andrew asked to prove his inability to sweat by Virginia Giuffre’s lawyers

https://twitter.com/i/events/1476843916162789377

 

[danmand]

Prince Andrew asked to prove his inability to sweat by Virginia Giuffre’s lawyers

https://twitter.com/i/events/1476843916162789377

He looks like he can use a good workout.

 

[mandrill]

So Epstein's payoff deal is made public and it's confusing as fuck. The issue is whether the term "and any other potential defendants" in the Release was just a standard clause meaning fuck-all except that Giuffre couldn't sue (for instance) Epstein's private holding company for making his house available for illicit sex? Or whether it was meant to insulate Epstein from any further public exposure that might stem from Giuffre suing his buddies - like Derkowitz, Andy or Trump and the press then covering those trials.

Hopefully those law firms still kept their negotiating notes from 13 years ago.....

Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers file for retrial over juror’s revelations

Lawyers submit documents under seal requesting new trial after juror revealed he was victim of sexual abuse

www.independent.co.uk

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-1.6302479

Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre's 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein released

A 2009 settlement agreement between sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Roberts Giuffre -- the woman who accused him of sexual abuse and of trafficking her to Prince Andrew and other men -- was unsealed Monday.

www.cnn.com

Prince Andrew accuser's secret £371,000 deal with Epstein released

PRINCE ANDREW's accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre's secret deal with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has been released by a judge.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Darts]

The lady accepted $500,000 in 2009. The optics doesn't look good.

Why didn't Epstein flee to France where he and Roman Polanski could hang out together?

 

[mandrill]

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Virginia Giuffre's claims against the Duke of York can continue to be heard, a US court says.

www.bbc.com

Giuffre's Prince Andrew suit goes ahead despite Epstein deal

A judge has — for now — refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Britain’s Prince Andrew by Virginia Giuffre, who says he sexually abused her when she was 17.

apnews.com

Federal Judge Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuit Accusing Prince Andrew of Sexually Abusing a 17-Year-Old

Rejecting arguments that a 2009 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein absolutely shielded the royal at this stage of the litigation, a federal judge refused on Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit accusing Prince Andrew of sexually abusing a 17-year-old girl.

lawandcrime.com

The prince’s legal team argued that the terms of the deal meant the lawsuit could not even proceed to discovery, but the judge ruled that determinations as to the significance of the deal were premature.

“Given the Court’s limited task of ruling on this motion, nothing in this opinion or previously in these proceedings properly may be construed as indicating a view with respect to the truth of the charges or countercharges or as to the intention of the parties in entering into the 2009 Agreement,” Kaplan added.

During recent oral arguments, the prince’s lawyer Andrew Brettler had argued that the expansive release clause protecting “other potential defendants” insulated Andrew, but the judge appeared to find that phrase inscrutable during oral arguments on Jan. 4.

“What is a ‘potential defendant’ as distinguished from a ‘defendant’?” Judge Kaplan asked Brettler at the time.

Brettler defined the phrase as “someone who could have been named as a defendant but was not.”

Appearing skeptical of that interpretation, Judge Kaplan said: “It is a word that neither you or I can find any meaning at all.”

In his ruling, Kaplan noted that he has not seen a case where the words have been interpreted as broadly as the prince hoped.

“Prince Andrew’s view of ‘Other Potential Defendants,’ on the other hand, seeks to confer rights on unnamed third parties that would be orders of magnitude broader than those contemplated in any of the Florida cases that have been brought to this Court’s attention,” he wrote.

“Not a Dog That’s Going to Hunt”

The judge also appeared to agree with arguments by Giuffre’s attorney David Boies that the 2009 agreement was Epstein’s to enforce, and it apparently did not contain a mechanism for third parties to enforce it because it was intended to be secret.

The Duke of York’s legal team advanced several other arguments in an effort to dismiss the case, claiming that the allegations of the complaint were too vague and that the New York statute under which it was filed was unconstitutional.

During oral arguments, the judge flatly told the prince’s lawyer that vagueness arguments were “not a dog that’s going to hunt.” Federal complaints do not require detailed specificity, the judge said, adding that at least one of the allegations was quite specific.

“On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in London at Maxwell’s home,” one paragraph of the complaint against Andrew alleges. “During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will.”

 

[Perry Mason]

There is no doubt... about the jurisdiction... of the New York courts... if this... winds up in a trial... in New York... it has all the makings... of a huge scandal... a scandal of scandals...

I am buying shares... of popcorn manufacturers... around the world!!!

Perry

 

[danmand]

If this... winds up in a trial... in New York... it has all the makings... of a huge scandal... a scandal of scandals...

Will sell tons... and tons... of popcorn... all around the world!!!

Perry

We hope.

 

[mandrill]

It is an interesting question about jurisdiction... which in this case means... some nexus... some "real connection"... to the state... in which she is bringing her action... usually as the place... where the events took place... [wasn't New York one of the places???].. or where one of the parties... usually the defendant... resides...

It will get very interesting ... if she can't establish jurisdiction... in any state in the USA... which is a distinct possibility... [I did not say probability... I don't know all the facts]... she will then have to sue him... in the country in which he resides... Britain...

What is likely... in my opinion... is that there will be... either... an early settlement... or a war of attrition... to determine... what court... is the proper Court... and it is not a trivial issue... in private international law... this is about a Court in one nation... accepting jurisdiction... over Royalty... of another nation... wars have been fought... people have died... over lesser issues!

Perry

NY has an age of consent of 17 years. So I'm not sure that she can prove her case there.

As well, she has to forum shop for a forum with no statute of limitations for statutory sexual assault.

 

[The Fox]

There’s no crime here. Even if he did shag her, which her probably did, still no crime.

PA is a slimy, prevy, plonker, oaf and proper privileged prick. However, he’s not a willing rapist.

Giuffres is just double dipping or trying to.

 

[danmand]

There’s no crime here. Even if he did shag her, which her probably did, still no crime.

PA is a slimy, prevy, plonker, oaf and proper privileged prick. However, he’s not a willing rapist.

Giuffres is just double dipping or trying to.

Maybe rape is not the right word, but taking advantage of a trafficked 17 year old girl is something he should be punished for.

And how many trafficked girls did he abuse.

 

[The Fox]

Maybe rape is not the right word, but taking advantage of a trafficked 17 year old girl is something he should be punished for.

And how many trafficked girls did he abuse.

Using his status to take advantage of any 17 years old is wrong as fuck but I still don’t see a crime. I still find it hard to believe she was trafficked. I think she willingly went along for some first class fun and milked a few old Pervy fools for their money along the way

I was traveling the world at 17. It’s not like she was an 8 year old. She knew exactly what we was doing then and she’s knows now.

Just curious, what punishment would you like to see.