Soldato
Who is alleging paedophilia?
Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
Who is alleging paedophilia?
Soldato
For an innocent man, he looks very guilty
There’s a back and forth going on in a thread in a U.S. forum about the rights and wrongs
of Andrew being served or not, below is an excerpt from a post in the thread.
“As the BBC article notes, a US judge will decide on Monday whether process has been served.”
Worth looking at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 Summons, (f) 3.
Quote:
(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country.
Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;
(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.
of Andrew being served or not, below is an excerpt from a post in the thread.
“As the BBC article notes, a US judge will decide on Monday whether process has been served.”
Worth looking at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 Summons, (f) 3.
Quote:
(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country.
Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;
(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.
Yeh, it's not paedophilia, that's girls, or boys, under 13, more like under 11-12, according to wiki.
Has Andrew actually committed a criminal offence?
What if they are conspiring to get a paycheck, or political, fame, ambition motives?
It's legal to have sexual relations with a consenting 16 year old, one side will argue they consented the other side will say they didn't etc.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2015
- Posts
- 1,044
Is this an american thing or just a law , that you need to be given papers in person?
Iirc there are conditions attached, and it's only 100% legal in all scenarios at 18+. And in all cases must be sufficiently sound of mind for consent to be meaningful. e: And no pressure or coercion involved. I.e. both parties must believe they have a choice, and that there are no consequences of saying "no".
In fact there's quite a lot of situations where consent is deemed invalid, as far as I can tell/read.
Last edited:
Not in the US it isnt.
Caporegime
@BaZ87 where you at mate?
Soldato
And there we have it folks. If he held his hands up and said "I banged a consenting 17 year old" there wouldn't have been all this mess. Technically illegal there, bragging rights here. I'm sure he'd have settled out of court for less already and be done with this.
If you read the BBC article see is bringing a civil case against Andrew for when she had sex with him in the uk aged 17. She wants a paycheck, it's not adding up.
Proof?
Associate
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.
Soldato
He didn't boff her in the US though, did he? And besides, it's not that cut and dried as each state in the US sets it's own age of consent ranging from 16-21 and there are a myriad caveats involved too. All Andrew had to say, rather than trying to wriggle out of it, is "Yes, I had sex with this person. We'd been out partying at a club in London and one thing led to another. I'm not proud of it, but it is what it is. More importantly, we are both of legal age and the sex was consensual." Then keep quiet and let his lawyers sort it out.
Soldato
Laws only apply to the little people and the establishment protects its own.
It is 16 in all but 18 U.S. states, in Florida, where I think the alleged Andrew incident occurred, AOC is 18.
If someone from the UK has sex with someone in another country where the consent age is lower, that person has still committed a crime in the UK.
Not sure these days if it matters what country you're in, all parties have to abide by the laws of their own country, as well as the laws of the foreign country, whilst abroad.
But Andrew wasn't abroad, she was. So... is he bound by US law? Would have thought, no? It's pretty confusing. What grounds does she have for filing a suit against him?
Man of Honour
Maybe he didn't have sex with her. Maybe he did and doesn't remember. In other words, maybe he's telling the truth.
Personally, I don't care either way. She was 17. Not a child at all.
Soldato
I believe she considers herself trafficked which may be the basis of her claim... I may be wrong.
So do we have an American court seeking to put him in front of court and if found guilty put him in jail in the US?
I can't see a situation where that would play out, no matter how odious he is or detached he may be, a member of the royal household being expedited to the US no way.
I can't see a situation where that would play out, no matter how odious he is or detached he may be, a member of the royal household being expedited to the US no way.
Commissario
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.
Last edited:
Commissario
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.