Prince Andrew Thread 4

[Roussette]

I'm starting a new one as events seem to be moving again. Sorry I can't do a link to no. 3

[Roussette]

What do I mean... course I can do a link! I just can't link this new thread on no. 3

Here's the old one.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/4449237-Prince-Andrew-Thread-3

[EdithWeston]

Thread 3

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/4449237-Prince-Andrew-Thread-3

Why on earth can't you link? Something jammed?

[Roussette]

No. I meant to say I can't do the link of this thread on to the old one.

[EdithWeston]

Cross post!!!!!

[Roussette]

[HeyGirlHeyBoy]

I don't understand today's 'demand' or subsequent solicitor's comments? What is it saying, in effect? Apart from the fact he shouldn't be demanding anything.

[Roussette]

Andrew demanding anything is really not a good move, I would've thought...

[Vapeyvapevape]

So in a civil case is someone found to be guilty or not guilty like in a normal trial ?

[EdithWeston]

@Vapeyvapevape

So in a civil case is someone found to be guilty or not guilty like in a normal trial ?

No, they are liable or not liable

[Vapeyvapevape]

Thank you @EdithWeston

[NativityDreaming]

I think Andrew has severely overestimated the power/prestige/pull the RF has in the USA; they don’t give a fuck that he’s the son of the queen. I predict this will not go well for him!

[EdithWeston]

I think the least worst option, from his pov, would be a default judgement. Nothing gets played out in court.

But he seems he'll bent on pursuing it fully, and I suspect that's why HMQ has finally distanced herself, and said that all court actions now are his doing

[52andblue]

Thanks for starting a new thread @Rousette.
Andrew is 'demanding' a Jury is he?
He really IS stupid isn't he?
Did he not learn from the Matliss interview? It won't go well for him.

[EdithWeston]

BBC article on demand for a jury

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60149024

[Vapeyvapevape]

Will he give evidence in person/via video link ? I don't fancy his chances under Cross examination.

[OverByYer]

Phew here you all are.
Looks like shit or bust to me.
Was really surprised PA had gone for trial by jury, either arrogance or stupidity.

[prh47bridge]

@HeyGirlHeyBoy

I don't understand today's 'demand' or subsequent solicitor's comments? What is it saying, in effect? Apart from the fact he shouldn't be demanding anything.

In the USA, either party to a civil dispute where there is a right to a jury trial can demand trial by jury. You don't request it - you demand it. That is just the way the law works in the USA. Criticising Andrew over this is misguided.

[teaandchocolate1]

Will he travel to the US then and partake in the trial?

[prh47bridge]

To add to my post above, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party that wants a jury trial must demand it. If they don't, they have waived their right to a trial by jury.

[HeyGirlHeyBoy]

Ah OK. Thank you. And what about the solicitor's comments that people are criticising? Again, completely normal?

[DuncinToffee]

Found you all, thanks Roussette

[DuncinToffee]

Copied Dopenguinsdance explanation of grounds 5 and 6 from the previous thread

DuncinToffee quick translation

1. AW doesn't admit that VRG has suffered any injury, damage, or loss that would result in her being awarded compensation BUT even if the court finds that AW "did have sex with that woman," VRG should not recover compensation from AW because she consented, [consent is a defence to a civil action, subject to various critera]
   
2. VRG is barred from pursuing a claim/recovering compensation where the harm allegedly suffered by her has come about because of her own actions and conduct [litigants are supposed to come to court with 'clean hands' - ie.a claimant should be deprived of all court-based remedies, because of some dishonesty, misrepresentation, illegality or unfairness on their part'
   

It's a Defence, nothing more, and just restates what his lawyers have already said. Wonder what the other 9 grounds are?

[BreadInCaptivity]

I don't think he's got anything left to lose at this point.

He wants his status back and he won't get it if he settles (not even sure he'd get it even if he wins the case, but I'm guessing he thinks he will).

[Roussette]

Yes, I imagine he wants to be exonerated in some way.
Not sure that's happening...

[prh47bridge]

@HeyGirlHeyBoy

Ah OK. Thank you. And what about the solicitor's comments that people are criticising? Again, completely normal?

Pretty much.

Having read the filing, it is a pretty standard acceptance of some minor points that don't really have any bearing on the outcome and denial of other allegations. This is mixed with a lot of "lacks sufficient information to respond", often to allegations that are primarily about other people (Epstein and/or Maxwell) or where the allegation is lacking detail. Classing some allegations as legal conclusions and/or impermissible argument is also standard (and seems to be largely correct on a quick read).

The affirmative defences show the standard American approach of throwing in every defence you can think of and reserving the right to add others later and/or remove or modify the defences already advanced.