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 would be surprised if he doesn't give evidence at all

Fair enough, prh47bridge - and thank you for answering - but I suppose time will tell

@CaveMum
Wow, are you married to my DH (doubtful, he's old lol). My DH has worked on Ascension, Falklands, (IT for RAF) and we've been to Tristan which was such an experience. How weird is that!

Interesting on the space shuttle runway!

Andrew‘s lawyer actually argued that the NY extended statute of limitations for child abuse is unconsritutional. So in essence, Andrew is fully prepared to throw all NY child sexual abuse victims under the bus, just to evade trial.
Scum doesn‘t even begin to describe this lowlife of a man.

Am I right (probably not ) in saying that this is down to how the judge interprets the agreement and could be argued for or against? That there is no absolute correct decision because the agreement doesn't state 'as per such and such a law' .
Mind you I guess lots of legal documents don't state a 'law' but are still legal- so probably answered my own question 🙄🤣

@Puzzledandpissedoff

judges are human. They don't always get things right or make decisions for the right reasons

That makes perfect sense to me, so while I'm asking questions here's another: If Judge Kaplan does say the case can go ahead, could that decision be appealed?

It's just that I've got visions of this dragging on until hell freezes over ...

I'm afraid I don't know. It could well form part of an appeal against the final verdict if it goes against Andrew. I don't know if there could be a stand-alone appeal against this decision.

By the way, the judge in question (Lewis Kaplan) is no stranger to controversy. If you want to find out about him, read up on Chevron v Donziger.

@deepwatersolo

Andrew‘s lawyer actually argued that the NY extended statute of limitations for child abuse is unconsritutional. So in essence, Andrew is fully prepared to throw all NY child sexual abuse victims under the bus, just to evade trial. Scum doesn‘t even begin to describe this lowlife of a man.

Do you have a link for that? Since no-one is alleging child abuse in this case, I find that surprising.

Sorry - just found it. Reading it now.

By the way, the judge in question (Lewis Kaplan) is no stranger to controversy. If you want to find out about him, read up on Chevron v Donziger.

prh47bridge👍🏻 I’m going to look that up.

The whole thing is a massive fuss about nothing Different times and she was 17 not a child

Ok, having read the relevant submission, Andrew and his lawyers were absolutely not throwing child sex abuse victims under the bus.

Their claim of lack of constitutionality relates to the fact that the law in question (the Child Victims Act) revives claims for complainants who were under 18 at the time of the alleged offence despite the fact that the age of consent in New York is 17. For victims under 17, there is no question about consent. But the CVA allows a complainant who was aged 17 at the time of the alleged offence to pursue a claim years later, based on their contention that they did not consent - a contention which is very difficult to prove one way or the other many years after the event.

So the alleged unconstitutionality relates only to complainants who were 17 at the time of the alleged offence (which includes Giuffre). It does not relate to victims who were under 17.

Wow, it is THAT judge Kaplan? He is in the pocket of Chevron. I would be very surprised, if Andrew couldn‘t bribe him, too.

• bribe him with what money. His cash cow is a dead

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59874170

Just released on BBC website...

Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis on the TV interview that is 'critical' to sexual assault case

prh47 are you arguing that a 17 year old is not a child and therefore not deserving of this statute?

Not sure how many underage sexual abuse victims you know, but the fact of the matter is that it can take them decades to come to terms with what happened. It is hard enough for women who have been victimized as adults.
Andrew has directed his lawyers to attack this law, which protects underage victims of sexual exploitations, in the process throwing them under the bus.
It is extraordinary that you dispute this, because it ‚only throws 17 year olds‘ (still children, according to the law, mind you) under the bus.

@LidlMiddleLover

Are you a heterosexual male?

Do you have children?

Do you think witches should have been burned alive, or homosexual men be imprisoned, because “different times”?

I think you belong back in those different times. The world isn’t yours any more.

Well said @givethatbabyaname

"Leaked footage shows a US TV anchor complaining that editors "quashed" a story about paedophile Jeffrey Epstein due to pressure from the Royal Family.
ABC's Amy Robach is seen in the clip griping that her interview with an alleged victim of Epstein and Prince Andrew never made it to air.
"The Palace found out and threatened us a million different ways," she says."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50296742?

Very interesting reading on Kaplan, he’s presided over some interesting cases but also quite controversial where the Chevron case is concerned. I would be slightly worried if I was PA’s legal team.

@LidlMiddleLover

The whole thing is a massive fuss about nothing Different times and she was 17 not a child

It was not different times at all and Andrew was an Ambassador for the NSPCC

@deepwatersolo

prh47 are you arguing that a 17 year old is not a child and therefore not deserving of this statute?

Not sure how many underage sexual abuse victims you know, but the fact of the matter is that it can take them decades to come to terms with what happened. It is hard enough for women who have been victimized as adults.
Andrew has directed his lawyers to attack this law, which protects underage victims of sexual exploitations, in the process throwing them under the bus.
It is extraordinary that you dispute this, because it ‚only throws 17 year olds‘ (still children, according to the law, mind you) under the bus.

I am not arguing anything. I am telling you what Andrew's lawyers argued.

You initially said that Andrew was willing to throw all New York child sex abuse victims under a bus. I pointed out this was not true. At most he is throwing 17-year old victims under a bus as the only aspect of the CVA that was described as unconstitutional was the fact that it includes 17-year old victims - an age at which most people would not regard any offence as child sex abuse. Yes, 17-year olds can be raped and/or sexually assaulted and yes, they are legally still children, but most people wouldn't call that child sex abuse. You are, of course, at liberty to do so if you want. But your initial statement that he was willing to throw all child sex abuse victims under a bus is clearly wrong.

As an underage sexual abuse victim myself, I don't need lecturing on it.

@Roussette

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59874170

Just released on BBC website...

Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis on the TV interview that is 'critical' to sexual assault case

This sounds an awful lot like "at worst he's a naive and gullible fool for not believing I'm a shark of a journalist. And I was just doing my job".

This is how the establishment's machine stirs into action.

Slight tangent but for anyone interested in Judge Kaplan and wanting to pass 5/10 minutes I found this interesting:

iadllaw.org/2020/09/more-than-200-lawyers-file-judicial-complaint-against-judge-lewis-a-kaplan-over-abusive-targeting-of-human-rights-advocate-steven-donziger/

[quote givethatbabyaname]@LidlMiddleLover

Are you a heterosexual male?

Do you have children?

Do you think witches should have been burned alive, or homosexual men be imprisoned, because “different times”?

I think you belong back in those different times. The world isn’t yours any more.[/quote]
No married heterosexual female
with children
No to witch burning and No problem with homosexuality at all
Different times yes probably

@LidlMiddleLover

It's good of you to admit as much.

In the intervening years, which weren't that many (the plaintiff is only in her 30s), the law in some Western countries, and Western society generally, has moved away from favoring male aggressors as the default. Female victims still, generally speaking, have an uphill struggle to prove and secure convictions for sexual crimes and misdemeanors against them. But it's better than it used to be.

There was never a time when it was ok to rape or sexually abuse anyone. There was only ever a time when men were permitted to think it was ok, and that far from "getting away with it", it was actually an acceptable or normal thing to do. That time is over, or nearing its end, in many cultures. Much the same as burning witches at the stake or imprisoning men (and women) for homosexual activities.

How do cases get assigned to judges, is it just who is 'on duty' that particular day?