Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

I’m glad you understood it , because I’m not sure I do now reading it back

@wheresmymojo

I'm hoping the US lawyers have a good double bluff game...he positions himself as part of the group of people excluded from VG being able to sue them...and then one of the other women sues him and they use it against him.

Wouldn't work. Using this agreement to stop VG's case does not in any way constitute an admission. After all, it covers anyone who "could have been included as a potential defendant". Being a "potential defendant" doesn't mean you have done anything wrong, just that VG could accuse you of having done something wrong. By the way, as far as I am aware the only other allegation we currently know about comes from Johanna Sjoberg, who claims that Andrew placed the hand of his Spitting Image puppet on her breast.

My view, having read the agreement, is that, if this was being determined by the English courts, it would be over, since it seems clear that VG gave up any right to sue anyone over Epstein-related allegations some 12 years ago. It will be interesting to see if the US courts come to the same conclusion.

An ordinary member of the public would find it near impossible to seal their Will.

Agreed. Unless you are famous (and even then it is not guaranteed), your executors probably won't be able to persuade the courts to seal your will.

But that's not exactly true is it prh?

Have you listened to RubyTrees' link from the Eddie Mair news show? The lawyer on that wasn't so definite about it, give page 2 said that it applied to 'current' potential defendants and not, as I understand it, future ones.

Tomorropw will tell won't it?

prh47bridge claims to be a lawyer, and has posted in a way that is entirely consistent with that for years

@prh47bridge have a listen to the Mair recording posted up thread, there’s a page 2 to the agreement which is interesting , PA isn’t out of the woods yet.

We tried to challenge a Will once. It was pretty cut and dried really. But even that was near impossible and we gave up for the sake of our sanity and £££££

@givethatbabyaname 14.15
Probably the best post ive read on here !

PRH47Bridge - you are clearly a Royalist.

I am not.

What you write is not correct. Many Heads of State are not exempt from and above the law. If nothing else, when they step down - as an elected head of state will at some point - the law then applies and applies retrospectively.

Almost all Heads of State are exempt from criminal prosecution whilst they are in office. I agree that many, but not all, can face prosecution when they cease to hold office, so that is different for any monarch.

You are wrong about the Royal Family FOI exemption. They are exempt and it is specifically mentioned.

I am right. They have the same exemption as you and I, no more, no less. If you think it is specifically mentioned, please quote the relevant section. You can find the text of the Act at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36. The nearest you will get is Section 37(1) which exempts certain communications FROM public authorities to the Queen or the Prince of Wales.

You are also wrong about GDPR. They may be dealt with, but not dealt with properly. And appealing to the ICO is hopeless because the Monarch is above the law. They can ignore it.

Again, I am right. Data Protection Act 2018 Section 209(1) states, "This Act binds the Crown". It therefore applies to the Monarch in full.

You are wrong and ill-informed. You can go and stick your tongue back up their collective arses now.

You are the one who is wrong and ill-informed. Slinging insults doesn't help your cause.

@Roussette, @Vapeyvapevape, thanks for commenting. I was trying to write something but I think I confused myself and gave up

I've had a listen to the Eddie Mair broadcast. I can see what is being said, although I don't entirely agree. The problem is that we are all commenting on the basis of UK law. What really matters here is US law.

Talking of Mills and Boon and cringe inducing interviews - is there a link between Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein?

Epstein negotiated £78K of her debt down to £15K which he then paid for her.There were more contact numbers for her in his little black book than even for her ghastly husband.

Got to say I'm depressed and puzzled equally by the agreement given VG and her lawyaers must have been aware of the terms before they launched this case. I think it's the clause that Alan Dershowitz used to refute her case against him?

I'm just hoping the judge chucks it out on the grounds it denies other potential defendants the chance to have their say or something - anything- else.

@Courcheval

I read an interesting piece that ABC in America were going to run the story about JE and an interview with VG back in 2015. Allegedly they were told by William's PR that if they did they would never get an interview with him and Kate. Some journalist at ABC has gone on the record saying this.

As this could (in the broadest sense) reflect badly on PW there have been lots of leaks from the Palace basically saying that PA acted alone, wouldn't take advice etc, possibly to deflect away from PW.

I was also reading today about Lord Mountbatten. A very unsavoury character indeed.

Was a very interesting video, the ABC reporter was caught on a "hot mic" stating that the higher ups had squashed the story for 3 years.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA

@BelleHathor that’s shocking, honestly the whole RF should go.

@DeliriaSkibbly
You are wrong and ill-informed. You can go and stick your tongue back up their collective arses now.
The thread has been so respectful until this - surely we can disagree without being vile?

[quote Roussette]They were 12 year old triplet girls.

nypost.com/2019/08/19/jeffrey-epstein-was-sent-three-12-year-old-french-girls-as-birthday-gift/[/quote]
It's worth noting that PA is also 'wanted' by the French authorities in connection with their enquiries into Epstein's activities. Another place he can never visit again.

Jean Luc Brunel was picked up at a Paris airport attempting to board a plane with a one-way ticket.

A small point in this awful crime spree is Fergie's PA who was paid 21,000 instead of 78,000. I wonder how he feels watching her swan around Verbier?

Guiffre's settlement with Epstein prevents her suing anyone who could be described as 'the defendant'. If this is the basis for Andrew's lawyers arguing for the civil case to be thrown out, surely it is also a tacit admission that Andrew could reasonably be described as 'the defendant' and therefore has a bit of explaining to do.

Yes, that's another country PA can't visit. Brunel is being held on rape charges I think.

What is being said about Lord Mountbatten?

He is linked to the sexual abuse of boys at the Kincora Children’s Home in Belfast.

There was state collusion in the cover up of the abuse.

Always glad to see prh47bridge commenting on the law, though as she says, USA law is a bit of a different beast

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Guiffre's settlement with Epstein prevents her suing anyone who could be described as 'the defendant'. If this is the basis for Andrew's lawyers arguing for the civil case to be thrown out, surely it is also a tacit admission that Andrew could reasonably be described as 'the defendant' and therefore has a bit of explaining to do.

No. Admitting you are a potential defendant in a case does not mean you are admitting any wrongdoing. It simply means the plaintiff could try to take action against you. It does not mean they would actually be able to make out a case.

This is chilling, especially the last paragraph(from the Law and Crime article)

Attorney Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor who led intake on sex-trafficking cases in the District of New Jersey in 2003 and 2004, marveled at the breadth of the agreement.

“This is an extraordinarily broad release that, on its face, releases any claims that Ms. Giuffre Roberts has against anyone that she might have been able to sue as a result of sexual abuse by Epstein,” noted Epner, who is now of counsel with the firm Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC. “It releases all claims she ‘ever had or now ha[s] for, upon, or by reason of any matter … (whether known or unknown) from the beginning of the world to the day of this release.’”

“So, if Prince Andrew had run Virginia Giuffre Roberts over in a hit-and-run, that would be released too,” Epner added.