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.

So is it today when the Judge decides whether the case goes ahead or not?

@Courcheval I think so

The only way Prince Andrew can be covered by it, is to show to a court that it was explicitly framed to include him as a named person. "All and any" sounds far to vague for a serious legal document.

The document clearly covers anyone who could have been included as a potential defendant in VG's case against Epstein. Therefore, if Andrew was a potential defendant in that case, it covers him.

@Florianus

I would have thought the agreement could not prevent the US authorities from investigating Prince Andrew and, if they found sufficient evidence of a crime, prosecuting him.

Like the UK authorities tried to prosecute Anne Sacoolas, you mean? So far, they have failed.

She is due to face criminal proceedings in the UK,

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/13/harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-to-face-criminal-trial-in-the-uk-over-teenagers-death

@prh47bridge

The only way Prince Andrew can be covered by it, is to show to a court that it was explicitly framed to include him as a named person. "All and any" sounds far to vague for a serious legal document.

The document clearly covers anyone who could have been included as a potential defendant in VG's case against Epstein. Therefore, if Andrew was a potential defendant in that case, it covers him.

So all he has to do is show that he was a potential defendant then ?

Not quite sure that helps him to be honest.

Let's see what the US courts rule ...

@Bluntness100

Personally I think it looks like he is guilty as hell, they are doing everything they can to get this thrown out of court, he’s trying to avoid it so hard, from hiding from being served, to jurisdiction, refusing questioning, arguing he’s covered by the agreement etc. and how the queen has effectively cancelled him. An innocent person would have stood up told their story, submitted to questioning and supported immediately. The more he tries to squirm his way out of it, the worse it looks for him.

And don’t get me started on his ludicrous pizza express claim, I don’t believe for one moment if prince Andrew was at pizza express not one person would remember it.

Absolutely this.

The more he tries to get out of answering VG's claims, the worse he looks.

Guilty as fuck imo. He should fuck off overseas and live quietly in exile like his great-uncle did.

He should fuck off overseas and live quietly in exile like his great-uncle did.

Are there any fascist regimes around he could praise on the way ?

I think yes, later today is when the process of deciding takes place. (Whether the case goes ahead, or not).
But the judge goes off to deliberate, so might not be till tomorrow? That's what they said on Sky today anyway

She is due to face criminal proceedings in the UK,
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/13/harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-to-face-criminal-trial-in-the-uk-over-teenagers-death

The day after that article appeared, lawyers for Anne Sacerloos announced that she would not be appearing in any UK court.

As I said, extradition is incredibly difficult to arrange.

He should fuck off overseas and live quietly in exile like his great-uncle did

Are there any fascist regimes around he could praise on the way?

Looking at some of his more dubious connections I'd say he already is doing

It's not going to change, you know; if and when he walks away from this he'll be straight back into the hands of the dodgy oligarchs and so on - maybe even more so if fewer decent types want anything to do with him

And just as with current circumstances, there won't be a damned thing we little people can do about it

So all he has to do is show that he was a potential defendant then ?

Not quite sure that helps him to be honest.

Being a potential defendant simply means VG could have included him as a defendant when taking action against Epstein. It does not mean he is guilty of any wrongdoing. It does not mean she could make out a case. It simply means she could, potentially, make allegations against him regardless of whether those allegations are true or false.

Maybe this is too simplistic but since PA denies even meeting her or can't recall meeting her then why would Royalty even need to be included in the document in the first place? If he's had no intimate contact with VG it wouldn't be necessary for JE's lawyer to include it. Surely he would be questioning why that's included and making it clear it must refer to another RF. He appears to accept the implication it is him. If you see what I mean. As far as the pizza express is concerned I'm pretty sure he said he waited outside in the car,therefore covering his arse as even being the dimbo he is he must have realised people would remember him being inside sharing a fully loaded 15inch with his protection officer. What a lying scumbag he is.

Being a potential defendant simply means VG could have included him as a defendant when taking action against Epstein.

That's how I read it. However, you would need a reason to believe you are a "potential defendant", otherwise that clause also applies to me, you and in fact anyone else alive in 2009.

So how does Prince Andrew demonstrate that this clause does indeed apply to him. And not me ?

One thing we know about the US legal system is (much like the UK one, at least when it comes to regular joes) that it really doesn't like the idea of a "get out of jail free" card. The debate over the possibility of Trump pardoning himself (albeit in criminal matters) seemed to make that clear.

My interest in this whole sorry tale is that it bring us imperceptibly closer to losing the entire medieval notion of a Monarch. Bearing in mind the Monarch gets a sneak preview at proposed legislation and a chance to make sure they are happy with it before the riff-raff in parliament have a look.

Didn't PA's lawyers say beforehand that they expected that 'royalty' was included in the agreement?

Given the Wayne Couzens situation, there really isn't much use looking for any truth or integrity from Andrews protection team anyway.

In fact I can easily believe - seeing what has been revealed these past months - that royal protection officers are made to be complicit in their charges peccadilloes precisely to discourage them from blabbing.

Now there's a series waiting to be made. We could call it "Line of Duty II Succession"

Has anyone listened to the original wondery podcast the mysterious mr Epstein? It’s subscription only but there is a 7 day free trial. What comes across is that we really owe it to journalists for exposing the whole sordid mess. Without their digging I don’t believe any of them would have been bought to justice. The whole thing is so sickening. Wasn’t it supposed to be a conspiracy theory that the worlds most rich and powerful ran a paedophile ring?

Some more legal views on the agreement
www.insider.com/virginia-giuffres-epstein-settlement-good-for-prince-andrew-experts-say-2022-1

Thanks, @DuncinToffee. Good to have some American legal perspectives.

[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]
The level of depravity is beyond comprehension.

Those girls- any chance they're still alive?

@SpankyPankhurst

Those girls- any chance they're still alive?

I read somewhere else that 3 women have made complaints to French police but is not clear if they are the same 3 if that makes sense. I would think they will still be alive, I'm sure 3 murdered triplets would make international news.

@SerendipityJane

Being a potential defendant simply means VG could have included him as a defendant when taking action against Epstein.

That's how I read it. However, you would need a reason to believe you are a "potential defendant", otherwise that clause also applies to me, you and in fact anyone else alive in 2009.

So how does Prince Andrew demonstrate that this clause does indeed apply to him. And not me ?

One thing we know about the US legal system is (much like the UK one, at least when it comes to regular joes) that it really doesn't like the idea of a "get out of jail free" card. The debate over the possibility of Trump pardoning himself (albeit in criminal matters) seemed to make that clear.

My interest in this whole sorry tale is that it bring us imperceptibly closer to losing the entire medieval notion of a Monarch. Bearing in mind the Monarch gets a sneak preview at proposed legislation and a chance to make sure they are happy with it before the riff-raff in parliament have a look.

I would suggest that the fact VG is taking action against him for alleged Epstein-related abuse demonstrates that the clause applies to him. If she were to take action against you for Epstein-related abuse, I think it would apply to you too.

On your last paragraph, note that the information published in the Guardian about Queen's Consent, some of which has been picked up by other publications, is littered with errors. For what it is worth, Queen's Consent, when required (which it isn't for a lot of legislation), comes before the third reading of a proposed bill, by which time we have all been able to take a look at it and, indeed, parliament has already voted on it a few times. However, that is getting off topic for this thread.

@prh47bridge
“On your last paragraph, note that the information published in the Guardian about Queen's Consent, some of which has been picked up by other publications, is littered with errors. For what it is worth, Queen's Consent, when required (which it isn't for a lot of legislation), comes before the third reading of a proposed bill, by which time we have all been able to take a look at it and, indeed, parliament has already voted on it a few times. However, that is getting off topic for this thread.”

Interesting - does this mean she really has no say in proposed bills? That she can’t adapt any wording to suit her narrative?

That should probably say request any adaptation to suit her narrative - not rewrite it personally.

Interesting - does this mean she really has no say in proposed bills? That she can’t adapt any wording to suit her narrative?

A good start is :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Consent

which touches on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

It's axiomatic that if the Monarch was able to informally affect the course of legislation no one would know about it. That's what "informal" means. "Informal" as an an unminuted conversation between the Queen and her Prime Minister. Every week.