Again, lol at how you can’t understand very basic things.
Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
Again, lol at how you can’t understand very basic things.
Prince Andrew's attorney is arguing the NY law extending the statute of limitations to give victims of child sexual abuse more time to sue is unconstitutional.
He doesn't just want to block Virginia's access to justice. He wants to block ALL child sexual abuse victims' access. A pathetic and evil move, Andrew is evil for allowing him to make such a defence, and only the guilty would stoop so low.
He doesn't just want to block Virginia's access to justice. He wants to block ALL child sexual abuse victims' access. A pathetic and evil move, Andrew is evil for allowing him to make such a defence, and only the guilty would stoop so low.
What would you do hurfy.
There is no jail or any criminal sentence being suggested here. A woman is suing for maybe 8 figures because America and people will do very bad things for much less. Her lawyer is looking at every possible advantage to stack in her favour including making the case almost entirely about Epstein and hoping public sentiment about Epstein and a biased jury trial will overcome issues in lack of evidence they have. After all there isn't enough for a criminal case.
Would you instruct your lawyer to counter the case by all possible means or would you be ok with the defence that the innocent have nothing to fear and walk into the courtroom to get your cheeks spread.
I think it would cause you psychological distress to consider a defence strategy for Prince Andrew.
Soldato
Also the not inconsequential issue that it's a state level agreement for Florida and none of the offences with HRH occurred in Florida. The sweetheart deal that Azar cut Epstein in Florida didn't stop the NY authorities from arresting him in 2019 for crimes committed in NY.
HRH isn't doing himself any favours by trying to hide behind the settlement agreement for a convicted paedophile on a technicality.
even the press suggesting Andrew incriminates himself by supposedly attributing himself as the mentioned potential defendant in the agreement is flawed -
she is raising the sexual allegations claim - andrew is just remarking the agreement would release him if he were guilty, not that he is guilty;
is someone underwriting the Giuffres legal costs ?
BBC seems definitely out for blood they are doubling down on their Maitless interview, emma barnett on newsnight's partisan.
she is raising the sexual allegations claim - andrew is just remarking the agreement would release him if he were guilty, not that he is guilty;
is someone underwriting the Giuffres legal costs ?
BBC seems definitely out for blood they are doubling down on their Maitless interview, emma barnett on newsnight's partisan.
Caporegime
Interesting that Maxwell never implicated Prince Andrew during her trial, despite the fact that this could have been a vital bargaining chip for her. Surely that would have been a slam dunk for her, so why has she never confirmed any allegations about him?
Anyway, looks like a decision about the viability of the civil case could be coming soon.
Anyway, looks like a decision about the viability of the civil case could be coming soon.
Commissario
If she'd implicated him she would have also almost certainly have shown she knew exactly what was going on, which would have utterly sunk her own defence strategy.
If she'd thought she was likely to be found guilty she may have tried it in exchange for a plea deal.
Caporegime
Yes, but there must have been a point at which her lawyer suggested a plea bargain. And now she's been convicted she has little to lose by pointing the finger at PA, so if she doesn't do it now, that's very useful to his defence.
Are you simple? Once again, it’s not black and white, one can defend oneself without having to try and use every possible defence. I would very much not go down that route, not only is it almost guaranteed to fail (as it has done, the Supreme Court has ruled the precedent constitutional), the optics and PR disaster from attempting to use it as a defence rather than defend the facts and case itself, but instead attack the idea of justice for rape victims, is far from worth it.
Psychological distress? I think it’s safe to say I could handle anything you could ever and more considering you can only think in terms of all or nothing.
Associate
I'm wondering if Maxwell will do a deal for a reduced conviction and drop a ton of abusers into the mix including PA.
Soldato
That would depend if she wants to be Epsteined or not.
Associate
Associate
She no doubt, knows a lot, but she just spent the whole trial denying everything, so I don't know how she can pivot to making a deal at this point. Normally you would dish the dirt as part of a plea deal before trial.
Commissario
If she does it now it doesn't help her legally at all as I understand it, and it would utterly burn her bridges with anyone she even hinted at which if she's hoping/expecting to get out of jail whilst still breathing might be something she considers a negative.
It would also destroy any chance she has of ever launching any sort of appeal.
It's also worth noting that whilst her lawyer may well have very strongly suggested a plea bargain, there is a certain type of personality that will refuse to ever publicly acknowledge any wrong doing, or may not consider they've actually ever done wrong regardless of the law.
Permabanned
How close are her ties with Israel? Robert Maxwell maintained very very close ties, and I would assume his daughter will have contacts in "high places". Given probable pressure from Israel and the British Royal family and government I suspect hurfdurf may well be left wanting at the end results 
Miss Guiffre's <SP?> "rides" with high society, private jets, and holidaying on private islands but a distant memory as she contemplates her next move as the biological clock ticks on relentlessly...
Miss Guiffre's <SP?> "rides" with high society, private jets, and holidaying on private islands but a distant memory as she contemplates her next move as the biological clock ticks on relentlessly...
Permabanned
I think Trump preferred to "grab" the more mature women, isn't it "Creepy Joe" that seems to have a penchant for caressing and sniffing very young girls? He's probably relieved to have lost the Creepy Joe moniker and accepted Sleepy Joe, if his declining faculties still allow comprehension of that sort of thing. But YouTube retains visual evidence of his suspect behaviour to young girls and women...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H5NJZMDumY
Seeing as it was the incredulity that you consider association with a sex offender as being a sex offender that got me posting in here I have doubts about your ability to think rationally about this.
Where was your critical thinking defence while nonce labelling.