American woman sues former Prince Andrew for rape - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15205921
Potemkin wrote:If that's the only occasion on which they became intimate (which, according to Prince Andrew, never happened even once), then he's legally in the clear. Though, as I said, the court of public opinion has already arraigned him, found him guilty, and the judge is putting on his black cap even as we speak. Lol.
Potemkin wrote:If that's the only occasion on which they became intimate (which, according to Prince Andrew, never happened even once), then he's legally in the clear. Though, as I said, the court of public opinion has already arraigned him, found him guilty, and the judge is putting on his black cap even as we speak. Lol.


I like how you continue to mention that he continues to deny meeting her. :lol:

Deny deny deny does work though.
#15205991
I am not defending Prince Andrew, but if this photo taken in Ghislaine Maxwell's London house is the only evidence she has that any illicit sexual encounter took place, the case is so flimsy as to be non-existent. If she can provide corroborating evidence, fair enough, hit him - or should I say his mother - with the damages; you won't see me complaining.

This begs the question, though, if she has corroborating evidence, why isn't he up on charges in a criminal court.
Last edited by ingliz on 05 Jan 2022 10:33, edited 2 times in total.
#15205992
ingliz wrote:I am not defending Prince Andrew, but if this photo taken in Ghislaine Maxwell's house is the only evidence she has that any illicit sexual encounter took place, the case is so flimsy as to be nonexistent. If she can provide corroborating evidence to back up her accusations, fair enough, hit him - or should I say his mother - with swingeing damages.

This begs the question, though, if she has corroborating evidence, why isn't he up on charges in a criminal court.


:)

In the case of Prince Andrew, it's all about the optics. The legal case against him is flimsy at best, but the Royal Family is all about appearances and PR - about the optics, in short. And the optics are terrible for Prince Andrew. This is why he's in the doghouse right now, and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future, no matter what the legal outcome of this case. He may have been the Queen's favourite son, but he has never been the British public's favourite. And this current case, combined with that car-crash TV interview he gave to "clear his name", has put the tin fucking lid on it. He's done, he's finished. And it's his own fault.
#15206062
Independent wrote:The latest hearing in the case between Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew was a “horrible day” for the duke, legal and royal experts have said.

The judge overseeing Prince Andrew’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit from Virginia Giuffre promised to hand down a ruling “pretty soon” after a heated hearing on Tuesday.

Mitchell Epner, a US former federal prosecutor said the case would not be dismissed following the court hearing led by Judge Lewis Kaplan and insisted that the Duke must settle, default or go to court.

BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the Duke is in a “difficult situation.”

Lisa Bloom, a US trial lawyer who formerly advised disgraced sex offender, Harvey Weinstein said the hearing was looking “very good” for Ms Giuffre’s case.

“Andrew wants her [Ms Giuffre] case thrown out on technical grounds. Judge Kaplan aggressively questioned defense on this and appeared unwilling to do it. I’m optimistic that Virginia will get her day in court,” Ms Bloom wrote on Twitter.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Prince Andrew’s lawyers argued the 2009 agreement signed by Epstein and Ms Giuffre protects the Duke of York and should be grounds for dismissing her current suit against him.
#15206069
Rancid wrote:@Potemkin, is this the image you are referring to? He has no recollection of this? Amazing.

Image

That's the one. Lol.

Just how stupid does he think we are? :lol:
#15206115
Potemkin wrote:He's done, he's finished. And it's his own fault.

He was done long ago.

'Air Miles' Andrew, who's holidayed with Libyan arms dealers, invited dictators and paedophiles to tea, never had much of a reputation to keep: constitutionally, he's the same irrelevant waste of space he's been since 1982.

(Rich) man fucks prostitute? I don't know what all the fuss is about.

.
#15207004
If it goes to trial, calling Meghan Markle to the stand would be a mistake. She's deeply unlikeable and untrustworthy, and it would be viewed as vindictive. Jury could have feelings about her specifically.

It would turn the British Press more against Giuffre and they'd get their opinion out internationally on social media.

Would be better calling mainly witnesses from the time period.

Of course that rumour could be being delibrately spread by the UK press, given The Independent is British, in an attempt to portray Giuffre as also vindictive and "birds of a feather".
#15207112
ingliz wrote:@noemon

The Express disagrees.

Insiders believe it would be difficult to persuade the Queen, 95, to take away the title of Duke of York as "it was held by her father before he became King, and she bestowed it on her favourite son.



Andrew stripped of all titles, patronages and privileges, Queen announces.

Sorry mate! The Express and all the media were just laying the groundwork for the obvious.

Telegraph wrote:The Duke of York has been stripped of all military titles and patronages and will no longer use his HRH title, Buckingham Palace has said.

He will continue to defend his sexual abuse case as a “private citizen,” declaring it a “marathon not a sprint.”

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen.

“The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”

A royal source said all of the Duke’s roles had been handed back to the Queen with immediate effect for redistribution to other members of the Royal Family. They will not be returned to the Duke.

Prince Andrew, 61, will no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity.

The decision is understood to have been taken following lengthy discussions amongst the wider Royal Family about the Duke’s legal predicament and the wider impact on the monarchy.

An attempt to have the case dismissed on a technicality was thwarted by a New York judge this week, leaving the Duke facing the prospect of a trial by jury.

Judge Lewis Kaplan unequivocally rejected the Duke’s motion, handing down a 46-page ruling on Wednesday that contained a point-by-point rebuttal of his arguments.

A source close to the Duke said: “Given the robustness with which Judge Kaplan greeted our arguments, we are unsurprised by the ruling.

“However, it was not a judgement on the merits of Ms Giuffre’s allegations. This is a marathon not a sprint and the Duke will continue to defend himself against these claims.”

The Duke had until now, clung onto his honorary military titles, including the coveted Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, despite pressure from senior military figures.

With his personal reputation now deemed beyond repair, the focus has shifted to ensuring that the Queen and the wider institution suffers no further humiliation from the scandal, particularly in the run-up to the Platinum Jubilee.

A letter signed by more than 150 Royal Navy, RAF and Army veterans was sent to Her Majesty on Thursday, urging her to strip her second son of all ranks and titles within the Armed Forces.

“Were this any other senior military officer it is inconceivable that he would still be in post,” they wrote, in the letter issued by the pressure group Republic.

“Officers of the British armed forces must adhere to the very highest standards of probity, honesty and honourable conduct.

“These are standards which Prince Andrew has fallen well short of.”
#15207117
noemon wrote:Sorry mate!

But he is still the Duke of York,

It takes an act of parliament to remove their titles.

— Sky News

NB. The Duke of York will no longer use the style 'His Royal Highness' in any official capacity, royal sources have said. It follows the news Prince Andrew will return his military affiliations and royal patronages to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.


:)
#15207194
noemon wrote:Andrew stripped of all titles, patronages and privileges, Queen announces.

Sorry mate! The Express and all the media were just laying the groundwork for the obvious.


The right decision yet again. Harry stripped of his titles and roles for dragging the family's name publically through the mud just for a woman, now Prince Andrew for his possible statutory rape.

100% agree with this decision. Should have happened after his stupid BBC interview.

His main defence was "I didn't sweat at the time!".



If found to be guilty he will have his final title removed.
#15207474
Fake complaints related to "sex crimes" are all the rage these days. It appear that people are so stupid as to believe them, despite zero evidence of crime, zero evidence of harm.

There's no such thing as "statutory rape", these stupid laws must be abolished. There's at most pedophilia if there is sex with prepubescents and that's all about it. The rest is 100% false victimization, what we see these days are criminal acts of extortion that are tolerated by the masses of the stupid.
#15207557
Yet again the Liberals hypocrisy beggars belief. Some of the same people who strove night and day to make it legal for a man of any age to bugger a 16 year old boy are now looking for any ruse to convict his Royal Highness Andrew for having sex with a seventeen year old.

And do we have no national dignity any more? seriously we're going to let America with its marry your rapist laws lecture us on sexual morality. A country where you can you rape a thirteen year old girl and then marry her. A country where a man can rape a thirteen year old girl, get her pregnant, where State governments work night and day to deny her an abortion, so as they can pressure her into keeping the foetus, so she's then faced with the choice with marrying her abuser or spending the rest of her life stigmatised as a welfare parasite scrounger.

You do as you like but I'll not be taking moral lectures from American rapist lovers.
#15207888
Rich wrote:Yet again the Liberals hypocrisy beggars belief. Some of the same people who strove night and day to make it legal for a man of any age to bugger a 16 year old boy are now looking for any ruse to convict his Royal Highness Andrew for having sex with a seventeen year old.


Andrew is a disgrace however one looks at this.

The guy maintained very close contact and friendship with Epstein and Ghislaine after Epstein's conviction as a pedophile trafficker.

The 17 y.o. girl was a victim of coercion by some of the most despicable people on earth.

He totally ridiculed his own self on telly and transitioned everyone from not caring at all to knowing that he's guilty.

He exposed himself knowingly at several instances consequently exposing the Monarchy.

You can whatabout all you like, these facts still remain.
Musk has bought Twitter

Democrats are just getting more and more tyrannic[…]

:lol: This is funny in so many ways. - There is[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Russia's history does not begin in 2014. Russia’s […]

@Unthinking Majority What do you mean? Biden cau[…]