Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

Man of Honour
Joined
21 Feb 2006
Posts
29,316
I don't think it's criminal proceedings they're going for, but civil, could just mean any assets he personally has in US jurisdiction may be seized if he doesn't pay out any compensation etc.
It would be incredibly embarrassing and damaging for the royal family to have him found to be at fault in any way which is part of the reason I'm surprised he appears to be playing the sort of silly games with the court that idiots who don't have legal representation play, especially as all he is likely to end up doing is making himself look more like he's done wrong, and increasing how long it's very much in the public eye.
I tend not to keep close to stuff like this. Holds no interest and is just depressing. If he is guilty he should get his comeuppance, no question.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,784
Location
Wales
There is a very good chance she was under US law, IIRC you can be classed as trafficked for just getting a ride over state lines if the intent is for you to have sex or other "immoral" purposes, she was also a minor in US law and I think they've got some rules that basically say anything sex related that is a federal crime in the US can also be applied if you as an American citizen do it in another country (I think we've got similar laws) specifically to deal with sex tourism/child exploitation and trafficking.
I think one of the things Epstein was facing was the charge that he'd been organising sex with people under the US age of consent and been doing outside of the US.

If for example the claim is that Epstein facilitated her travel to meet Prince Andrew then that would likely under US law be classed as sex trafficking/immoral purposes and make Andrey an accessary or conspirator depending on how much he knew and when.


^This is about right

Her case claims Prince Andrew, 61, engaged in sexual acts without Ms Giuffre's consent, including when she was 17, knowing how old she was, and "that she was a sex-trafficking victim".


Also her age is relevant as it means he can't defend it as claiming she was a hired sex worker provided for entertainment by Epstein.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2006
Posts
758
I’m presuming there is no extradition agreement between USA and UK following on from that thing a while back when a US ambassadors wife fled the county after a road traffic accident that resulted in the death of someone. (Am I remembering that correctly?)

That said, if I were innocent and didn’t have to go to America to stand trial, I simply would not risk it and probably not bother. So whilst I see it as wrong (laws in other countries should not be broken) I can’t exactly blame him…
 
Last edited:
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,018
Location
Panting like a fiend
Oh there are treaties, at least for normal people and it's tended to be in the US's favour for a long time.

However they're never likely to agree to extradite Andrew.

This is a civil case so even if found in her favour the worst that could happen to Andrew is likely that he gets told to pay compensation and costs.
Instead he and his legal team are basically ensuring that this is going to remain headline news for as long as he keeps refusing to contact the court.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,339
im no lover of Andrew or any other royal for that matter, but he isnt being accused of being a nonce. he is being accused of having sex with a 17 year old woman.

He's still a nonce in my books. You're still a child at 17 even if the legal age of consent is 16.

Why the hell the guy didn't just wait a year, or find an 18 year old, none of this would even be news-worthy.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,339
This is a civil case so even if found in her favour the worst that could happen to Andrew is likely that he gets told to pay compensation and costs.
Instead he and his legal team are basically ensuring that this is going to remain headline news for as long as he keeps refusing to contact the court.

I bought this up earlier, but if he has no assets in the US then the US court can't compel him to pay the compensation due. Essentially she'd have a "win for the front of the papers" but with no money to follow suit.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
21,843
Location
Rollergirl
im no lover of Andrew or any other royal for that matter, but he isnt being accused of being a nonce. he is being accused of having sex with a 17 year old woman.

There are circumstances when sex with any woman is illegal, regardless of age. He is not being accused of having sex with a 17 year old woman; he is being accused of having sex with an individual without consent.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,761
Location
Lincs
Remember at the start of this he also publicly said he'd cooperate in full with the authorities in the investigation.....and then has proceeded to not cooperate in the slightest and use his status to legally fight tooth and nail to avoid it.

Like people keep saying, it's hardly the actions of an innocent man.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
10,048
Location
Europe
Is this an american thing or just a law , that you need to be given papers in person?

It's some daft US thing you see a lot in US shows, but you don't actually have to be given them in person they can be delivered to an address more like in the UK, and proceedings can start whether of not the person has actually accepts/receives the papers. Just like in the UK.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
8,845
Only a fool would willingly put themselves in the hands of the US justice system. Whilst I generally have a positive view of the checks and balance of the US judicial system from a theoretical point of view as a practical matter it sucks. Not that it would apply in this case if it is a civil case but pre-trial arraignment can be very long in many US states and is actively used as a mechanism to coerce plea bargaining.

In the case of Prince Andrew the crime he is alleged to have committed is a pretty major hot potato at the moment and I wouldn't want to trust myself to the impartiality of the system.

Finally on the US UK extradition treaty it is a travesty of justice and should have been consigned to the bin a decade or more ago. Likewise the EU Arrest Warrant (I can't remember if we've signed up to a replacement) an awful process that undermines the notion of justice.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,804
Location
block 16, cell 12
I've not really seen any evidence that she was forced to do these acts.

I mean, was she forced to go get a passport, go to the airport where at any point if she was screaming hell I'm pretty sure airport security would have helped her.

She wasn't people smuggled in the back of a van cross border at gun point etc by a group of Albanians threatening to kill her (less than inquisitive) parents. (Did they not think it was weird their 17 year old daughter flying to London, getting gifts etc, (remember most Americans do NOT have a passport or travel to Europe).

To me it seems that at the time she went along with it all, mutiple times, then many years later retconned the events to extort/clear her own mind and decided that what she did was inappropriate.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
21,843
Location
Rollergirl
To me it seems that at the time she went along with it all, mutiple times, then many years later retconned the events to extort/clear her own mind and decided that what she did was inappropriate.

It's probably just as well we have courts to work these things out, because let's be honest none of us here have the facts at hand. All we know for sure is what he is accused of and how he has reacted to the accusation.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Aug 2007
Posts
28,597
Location
Auckland
I've not really seen any evidence that she was forced to do these acts.

I mean, was she forced to go get a passport, go to the airport where at any point if she was screaming hell I'm pretty sure airport security would have helped her.

She wasn't people smuggled in the back of a van cross border at gun point etc by a group of Albanians threatening to kill her (less than inquisitive) parents. (Did they not think it was weird their 17 year old daughter flying to London, getting gifts etc, (remember most Americans do NOT have a passport or travel to Europe).

To me it seems that at the time she went along with it all, mutiple times, then many years later retconned the events to extort/clear her own mind and decided that what she did was inappropriate.

TRM: Welp.
TRM's brain: Is anyone in this story white?
TRM: Argghh, yes. Annoying.
TRM's brain: Can we blame a non-white person anyway and post a DM link or better yet a picture of a DM article because I don't know how to crop pictures or present an argument?
TRM: Yes but how could I do that without looking more like an absolute fu -
TRM's brain: Oh wait. Is one of them better than the other one - in only your eyes, because you are broken - like, maybe a man not a woman or in a position of authority (and also a man over a woman)?
TRM: YES!
TRM's brain: I present your answer.
TRM: "I've not really seen any evidence that she was forced to do these acts ..."
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,804
Location
block 16, cell 12
It's probably just as well we have courts to work these things out, because let's be honest none of us here have the facts at hand. All we know for sure is what he is accused of and how he has reacted to the accusation.

What I am saying is I haven't seen evidence that she was forcibly put in this position.

For example in the UK cases of gang rape/grooming they were often drugged and when they tried to get away they were taken out to the moors, doused in petrol and threatened to be burnt alive if they told anyone.

Don't really see evidence of this type of activity. I think the whole case rests on whether at 17 in the US she couldn't have consented etc, which is slightly different.
 
Back
Top Bottom