Prince Andrew 'fails to cooperate' with FBI

[CathyorClaire]

www.thesun.co.uk/news/10832298/prince-andrew-provides-zero-cooperation-after-fbi-ask-to-interview-him-over-epstein-links/

No surprise there, then.

Do we think he'll hold out for the threatened subpoena or will the renewed public spotlight mean he jumps before he's pushed?

Thinking about it, the guy suing her is a very successful and well known (even though I can't remember his name), lawyer so it's not costing him anything anyway.

Sorry - yes incorrect to refer to Andrew as accused, which I clumsily said yesterday he would be defendant as not a criminal case.

How much is she suing for. Does anybody know.

No. I think that's something that is perhaps negotiated? The red tops intimated it could be as much as £14m
All borne by the Duchy of Lancaster AKA the taxpayer as the Duchy is owned by us.

AFAIK any negotiating would be done via an out of court settlement. I think if she's successful the judge would set a figure. Either outcome would sink Andrew's reputation even lower.
We also have to bear in mind anything he says in this case could potentially be used as the basis of a criminal case so the least worse option would be the one he appears to be following - maintaining silence.

This is a US crime, are you telling me the Queen controls the US legal system?

Why would I tell you that when it so obviously isn't true? Of course she doesn't control the US legal system, but she can certainly control access to her own family within the UK

I realise they don't arrest for a civil case, but just to take a ridiculous example let's suppose a whole bunch of Feds rocked up to Balmoral, sirens screaming and Glocks drawn. Does anyone seriously imagine there'd be cooperation, or - having undoubtably been tipped off - isn't it more likely that Andrew would suddenly be "incapacitated"?

And the only awareness I have of the Illuminati is seeing it constantly referred to on here ...

I read the English courts might not enforce a decision in the American courts in a civil case. It was in the Mirror.

As I said, this is serous enough to go to court, so not an empty accusation just thrown out there

If you read the actual claim filed by Virginia Roberts (published in full on the internet) you will be able to see that it is in fact three completely nonspecific allegations in relation to Prince Andrew’s actions - it literally just claims:

“On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in London at Maxwell’s home…On another occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in Epstein’s New York mansion in this District… On another occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Little St. Jamesetc”.

There are no dates, locations, or other particulars pleaded. This is particularly striking in relation to the allegation that he sexually abused her in New York, as that allegation is absolutely key to her ability to file a claim against him in New York.

Leaving aside the international law issues of whether he is able to be validly served in the UK with the claim, and then whether or not he submits to the jurisdiction of the NY State Court (two entirely separate issues, by the way), in a normal case one of the first things a defendant would be doing is requiring the plaintiff to provide further information about these allegations, in order to be able to respond to them.

There are loads of other allegations in the claim where a defendant would immediately be requesting further particulars also, as many of them are very vague and completely unparticularised, like the fact that Prince Andrew knew her age “based on communications from Epstein and Maxwell” etc. It very much reads like a claim filed in order to have something on the record before the case is timebarred - which it was.

@Roussette

No. I think that's something that is perhaps negotiated? The red tops intimated it could be as much as £14m All borne by the Duchy of Lancaster AKA the taxpayer as the Duchy is owned by us.

Her claim sets out that she is looking for:

“compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; costs of suit; attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper”

Which is pretty much standard form legal wording for “we’ll let you know later but we’re hoping for a lot”.

@Viviennemary

I read the English courts might not enforce a decision in the American courts in a civil case. It was in the Mirror.

It entirely depends, but it won’t automatically be enforceable here.

AFAIK any negotiating would be done via an out of court settlement

With an NDA attached for a certainty

And not being a lawyer I still don't know if these are enforceable if someone's living in another country. Doubtless they could try, but could anything actually be done?

Yes, that makes sense. And so she should, she's standing up for all the victims.
Now... whether that is fair on PA is another matter.

Serenster Looking at what you said re the claim, that sounds to me - again with no legal knowledge - like a punt to get closure and a wad of money on the basis that they may simply want to make her go away

Whether she'll get it is anyone's guess (it's not as if we the RF can't afford it) but for Andrew the damage is already done. They can bleat all they want about "insufficient proof" and "never convicted of anything", but at the end of the day he still chose to associate with, and take the money of, a convicted paedophile

Puzzled
Your last para is the crux of the matter. The damage is done whatever the outcome, however unfairly he feels he's been treated.

Bottom line, he made some appalling decisions that have come back to bite him on the arse. He made choices that were wrong. I've said before on here... there is no doubt in my mind there will have been advisors telling him to cut contact with E. Hell... I linked upthread (or on the other thread) where the Queen told him about her concerns!
But he went his own way and ignored it.

Telling someone you can't be friends with them/in contact with them anymore, does not involve staying 4 days in their mansion and having dinner parties.

@Serenster

As I said, this is serous enough to go to court, so not an empty accusation just thrown out there

If you read the actual claim filed by Virginia Roberts (published in full on the internet) you will be able to see that it is in fact three completely nonspecific allegations in relation to Prince Andrew’s actions - it literally just claims:

“On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in London at Maxwell’s home…On another occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in Epstein’s New York mansion in this District… On another occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Little St. Jamesetc”.

There are no dates, locations, or other particulars pleaded. This is particularly striking in relation to the allegation that he sexually abused her in New York, as that allegation is absolutely key to her ability to file a claim against him in New York.

Leaving aside the international law issues of whether he is able to be validly served in the UK with the claim, and then whether or not he submits to the jurisdiction of the NY State Court (two entirely separate issues, by the way), in a normal case one of the first things a defendant would be doing is requiring the plaintiff to provide further information about these allegations, in order to be able to respond to them.

There are loads of other allegations in the claim where a defendant would immediately be requesting further particulars also, as many of them are very vague and completely unparticularised, like the fact that Prince Andrew knew her age “based on communications from Epstein and Maxwell” etc. It very much reads like a claim filed in order to have something on the record before the case is timebarred - which it was.

Great post serenster None of us want to say anything Andrew did is okay, but to understand the process is helpful. Also, to understand implications of what is being claimed and how that might be proved is important. That has been entirely absent on the thread and was getting a bit two plus two equals five because I want that to be true.

I always have lots of faith in U.K. public to see how things are (not necessarily immediately, but in time and maybe after learning more about process). That faith is a little dented by mummy insisting ‘he’s the accused in a court case and that couldn’t happen if it isn’t serious’ etc

Anyone can take anyone to court - steps along the way you will be advised you really have no case and wasting time and will have massive costs to pay for yourself and the other side. But if you have deep pockets you can get quite far along without any chance of winning by presenting an expert or two to speak on your behalf etc. Both sides can have expert witnesses and finding someone to speak on your behalf in no way implies you have the stronger case.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Serenster Looking at what you said re the claim, that sounds to me - again with no legal knowledge - like a punt to get closure and a wad of money on the basis that they may simply want to make her go away

Whether she'll get it is anyone's guess (it's not as if we the RF can't afford it) but for Andrew the damage is already done. They can bleat all they want about "insufficient proof" and "never convicted of anything", but at the end of the day he still chose to associate with, and take the money of, a convicted paedophile

That last sentence is the essence of the issue.

I agree, which I why I think he just needs to accept that (irrespective of what happens in the civil case or the criminal case) he just needs to accept that as a public figure, he needs to “retire” and give up his patronages and any attempt to have a public profile.

Ignore whether he’s done anything for which he can be held legally liable, he’s brought his position and family into disrepute through his close association with Epstein and Maxwell. He is of course not the only one in that position, but he needs to read the room and face up to his own poor decisions and actions.

he’s brought his position and family into disrepute through his close association with Epstein and Maxwell

And the country to be frank.
It's world news.

Agree he needs to do the honourable thing and “retire” completely, but somehow I’ve a feeling he won’t until someone makes him.

I agree he has to withdraw from patronages and public life. And military titles. Even if he personally did nothing illegal his behaviour was totally sleazy

Yes I should imagine legal advice would be it might prejudice any potential case against him if his family treat him as guilty of something.

However, Andrew should voluntarily step away/early retirement to say it is no admission of guilt and his family want him blah/blah (for the sake of legal advice etc).

However, Andrew is clearly far too arrogant and thinks he can ride public opinion and turn it round. He can't/he won't/he shouldn't.

However, Andrew is clearly far too arrogant and thinks he can ride public opinion and turn it round. He can't/he won't/he shouldn't

That's interesting. I wonder when the penny will drop. I wonder if he really does think he can turn it round.
He certainly did when he spoke about PP outside the church, but does he now?
If he does, he is even more deluded than I thought because there's not one piece of positive press out there for him...

I wonder if he really does think he can turn it round.
I think this is entirely possible as he seems to be somewhat lacking in self-awareness to put it mildly.

I wonder if he really does think he can turn it round

I doubt many of us could get inside a head like that, but wonder if at one level he simply doesn't care any more. After all he's got the money, lovely home and titles - at least as long as mummy lives - and is surrounded by flunkeys who'll bend to his every whim, though what they think about him privately is probably unprintable

He's also got his endless golf and of course Sarah who keeps the money rolling in telling us how honourable he is really, plus no doubt keeping his contacts green with dubious oligarchs

It's not a bad gig really, for someone who either doesn't care or just thinks everyone else is so far beneath him as to not be worthy of a moment's thought

Intereting Puzzled

But he is limited even with all those perks. He can't travel to the US to play golf and I think he did that a lot.
He can't put on those uniforms with gold tassels or even be on the balcony.

I don't agree with this necessarily, but he will be hounded quite possibly for the rest of his life by paps. His every move will be scrutinised.

But maybe all the rest is enough for him....