Andrew & Epstein

Started by DaFluffs, December 01, 2019, 05:02:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 12 13 14 15
User actions

Curryong

#300
October 31, 2021, 08:18:40 PM Last Edit: October 31, 2021, 08:22:13 PM by Curryong
Quote from: wannable on October 31, 2021, 08:05:38 PM
I think he only wants to win the case. So he can vacation and travel his early retirement/rest of his life.

Everything else Royal related, he knows he will never serve. Charles Edward Anne and William already told him no.



Regardless, Andrew will remain deep in disgrace, and getting Guiffre?s suit dismissed will not change that one iota, in spite of his lawyers, or Lady C leaping to his defence. In her book on the Sussexes I myself believe that ?the Royal Prince? she asserted had told her this and that about the couple was probably Andrew plus  the socialite circle he once cultivated around him.

Curryong

#301
October 31, 2021, 08:28:31 PM Last Edit: October 31, 2021, 08:37:26 PM by Curryong
Quote from: wannable on October 31, 2021, 08:15:08 PM
So what are you saying?

It's a civil lawsuit. That he hasn't traveled to let's say Spain to play his annual golf is a precaution.

My post on Civil vs Common law jurisdictions in English law divisions was in response to your first post today on this law suit in which you seem to infer that Andrew?s rebuttal to Guiffre may enter the law books as a precedent.

I was merely pointing out that Civil Law rarely operates on Precedent unlike Criminal Law. Civil Law in most English speaking countries is instead mainly codified. IMO that is more like the Continental system of law which has no Common Law elements in it.

And IMO the two main reasons he hasn?t travelled overseas is (a) Covid restrictions and (b) there is really not much point. The oligarchs and others in Eastern Europe who used to cultivate him for his supposed contacts within the RF and London banking circles are almost certainly no longer interested. Andrew did not want to travel within the US over the past two years for quite obvious reasons.

wannable

#302
October 31, 2021, 08:40:21 PM
If the case is similar to a past lawsuit, a judge can and has certainly used precedent.

Curryong

#303
October 31, 2021, 08:45:27 PM Last Edit: October 31, 2021, 08:53:44 PM by Curryong
It is extremely unusual to do so and if past law suits in the US have been referred to in Civil Court disputes that is not strictly precedent as is used in criminal cases. As I stated Civil Law has quite different parameters.

The different roles of case law in civil law and common law traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often an exegesis of the wider legal principles. These are called ratio decidendi and constitute a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called obiter dicta, which have persuasive authority but are not technically binding.

By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short referring only to statutes and are fact-based. The reason for this difference is that these civil law jurisdictions apply legislative positivism ? a form of legal positivism ? which holds that legislation is the only valid source of law because it has been voted on democratically; thus, it is not the judiciary's role to create law, but rather to interpret and apply statute, and therefore their decisions must reflect that.

wannable

#304
October 31, 2021, 09:04:16 PM
It's not absolute. There's no factual legal yes or no. Some as in Similar lawsuit cases have been used.

Lawsuits in America have shaped law in the land.

2 employees 100 years ago did a lawsuit, employer said the used peyote drug, fired. This set a precedent in drug use when working. Fired and compensation not.

I have 4 more of the most famous civil lawsuit in the USA that are precedent if anyone wants more examples.

wannable

#305
October 31, 2021, 09:18:31 PM
All lawsuit decisions can be downloaded in the USA digitally to use for reference, curiosity  or whatever floats ones boat. Just have to register real name, drivers license, bar # if a lawyer, journalist, independent or in behalf of...

Curryong

#306
October 31, 2021, 09:33:21 PM Last Edit: October 31, 2021, 09:39:46 PM by Curryong
I would suggest that the judges in Civil cases following that particular decision were looking at Statute Law enacted in response to it. Statute law  rather than Common Law precedents are a very different thing. Once the law is changed in a particular State all judges in whatever jurisdiction have to obey it.

And what complicates cases in certain States is that there are still codified laws on the Statute books, ie Louisiana, as below.

The alternative to the common law system is called a civil law system. In a civil law country, the legislatures pass very specific statutes, and these are applied by the courts. Each judge who decides a case looks to the statute, rather than the previous cases, for guidance.

In theory, in ambiguous cases each judge is free to reinterpret the statute as necessary to fit the facts of the specific case. Although this interpretation need not draw on previous decisions by other judges, civil law judges do try to ensure some consistency in the application of the law by taking into consideration previous court decisions. Louisiana retains some of the civil law procedures that were in force before it joined the United States.

In other words it is consistency of previous cases in response to Statute law that governs the decisions in Civil Courts.

The Supreme Court of Oregon, which is not a Civil Court, ruled on this particular case.

EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF OREGON, et al., Petitioners v. Alfred L. SMITH et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal

Curryong

#307
October 31, 2021, 10:02:36 PM
An explanation of the difference between the two jurisdictions.

Judicial precedent therefore works on the basis of the principle of stare decisis, a Latin phrase which means ?let the decision stand?. The common law now has certain rules. For example, only certain parts of a judgment becoming binding precedent, and only if handed down by a superior court.

By contrast, civil law can be traced back to Roman law. The use of a codified system here allows for primary sources of law to be recorded in legal codes, which are intended to cover the law in a particular area.

The legal system of the United Kingdom is classified as a common law system, similar to the U.S., although there are many codified laws in the form of statutes. This is in contrast to our European neighbours such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, where the legal systems are entirely codified and therefore operate on a civil law basis.

Anyway, we are getting very very far from the Andrew/Guiffre law suit which has not yet begun, if it does. So I suggest we leave this discussion where it is for now until something occurs which may be relevant.

wannable

#308
November 01, 2021, 02:04:12 AM
That's all very good, my short none fancy  version is Lawyers can and very well refer precedent lawsuits, download them tweak it here and there and up the winning percentage.

wannable

#309
November 03, 2021, 03:25:45 PM
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter

So the judge hearing Virginia Giuffre?s civil case against Prince Andrew has set a target of holding the trial between September and December next year.

Curryong

#310
November 03, 2021, 08:57:54 PM
If the Andrew/Guiffre trial is to be held between Sept and Dec 2022 that means the whole first half of the year will have this scandal hanging over the preparations and events of Jubilee Year and into the autumn and winter the public may well be reading all the graphic details in the newspapers for weeks at a time. Well done, Andrew!

I know he is going to be hidden away as much as possible, but, like ?the ghost at the feast? this thing won?t be going away any time soon, and the stench of it will probably not disappear for years.

Curryong

#312
November 06, 2021, 12:36:12 AM
The Sun
TODAY, 19:15
Fergie could be called to give evidence in Prince Andrew sexual assault lawsuit

PRINCE Andrew?s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could be called to give evidence in a US lawsuit accusing him of raping a teen sex slave, reports claim.

Lawyers for Virginia Roberts Giuffre say they are seeking formal interviews with two ?witnesses? in the UK in the coming weeks.

The Duke of York also faces attempts to force him to give a deposition ? recorded questioning by lawyers that forms part of a civil lawsuit.

Details emerged in a brief hearing in New York yesterday when District Judge Lewis Kaplan set a provisional date for a court showdown next September.

The blockbuster trial would overshadow the Queen?s Platinum Jubilee in June, palace aides fear.

TLLK

#313
November 23, 2021, 01:57:49 PM
Prince Andrew accusations left out of Epstein-Maxwell case ? Daily Breeze

QuoteNEW YORK (AP) ? When Jeffrey Epstein?s longtime companion Ghislaine Maxwell goes on trial next week, the accuser who captivated the public most, with claims she was trafficked to Britain?s Prince Andrew and other prominent men, won?t be part of the case.

U.S. prosecutors chose not to bring charges in connection with Virginia Giuffre, who says Epstein and Maxwell flew her around the world when she was 17 and 18 for sexual encounters with billionaires, politicians, royals and heads of state.

She isn?t expected to be called as a witness in Maxwell?s trial, either.

Prosecutors will focus instead on four other women who say they were recruited by Maxwell as teenagers to be abused by Epstein. None has alleged the type of abuse by powerful international figures that Giuffre has detailed in interviews and court filings.

Bypassing Giuffre?s allegations about Andrew will keep the most explosive allegations against Maxwell out of the trial, but it will also allow prosecutors to avoid a big risk.

Records, witnesses and photos back up many parts of Giuffre?s account of her time with Epstein, the financier who died by suicide in 2019 while jailed ahead of his own sex trafficking trial. But Giuffre has acknowledged getting key details wrong in her story over the years, including initially falsely saying in a lawsuit that she had been 15 when Epstein began to abuse her.

The men she?s accused have spent years attacking her credibility. Maxwell?s lawyers might have tried to have some of them testify.

Besides Andrew, Giuffre has said she was sexually trafficked to former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, the noted lawyer Alan Dershowitz, the French modeling scout Jean Luc Brunel and the billionaire Glenn Dubin, among others.

All have said her accounts are fabricated.

Macrobug67

#316
December 14, 2021, 09:26:02 PM
As much as it pains me to say, they have a point.   Now I need to go bathe in bleach. 

TLLK

#317
December 14, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
Yes it pains me too @Macrobug67 and I'd have the same concerns as I would for any young person who was groomed by an older more sophisticated adult. However she was old enough to consent.

TLLK

#318
December 22, 2021, 04:44:41 PM Last Edit: December 22, 2021, 04:49:56 PM by TLLK
I'm not sure why Mr. Boies believes that the Duchess of Sussex would be an appropriate witness to testify against the Duke of York. She had not met Prince Harry during the time period that  refers to Ms. Giuffre's suit. Does he plan to call Sarah, Duchess of York or Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie? Or is this simply because Meghan resides in the U.S.? If that's the case, why not call his nephew Prince Harry?   :unsure: This makes no sense at all!

Virginia Roberts Giuffre?s lawyer suggests calling Meghan Markle to testify in Prince Andrew case | The Independent

QuoteMs Markle could have some ?important knowledge,? David Boies, the attorney representing Ms Giuffre, told The Daily Beast on Tuesday.

Mr Boies said he might seek to depose Ms Markle as part of the civil suit slapped against the prince by Ms Giuffre and said he believed Ms Markle could be expected to ?tell the truth.?

?She is somebody we can count on to tell the truth,? Mr Boies said. He also believed that she might have picked up some ?important knowledge? about the royal?s behaviour.

He said Ms Markle was a ?close companion to Prince Andrew and therefore probably saw what he did.?

He also cited three reasons for Ms Markle to be a potential deposition subject.

?One; she is in the US so we have jurisdiction over her. Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.?

?Three; she is somebody who we can count on, to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes,? the lawyer added

Ms Giuffre is suing the prince over claims she was forced to have sex with him when she was 17 years old. The prince, however, has denied all allegations.

Mr Boies confirmed ?we would likely take one or two depositions of people close to Andrew who would have knowledge of his actions. That might include his ex-wife. It could possibly be his brother.?

However, the star attorney said no firm decision has been taken regarding Ms Markle?s deposition yet.

Mr Boies ruled out asking Prince Andrew?s mother to depose.

?I don?t think, out of respect and deference, and her age, we would seek to depose the Queen. I don?t think she is going to have any knowledge that other people don?t have. I think that he is unlikely to have spoken as freely to his mother about some of this stuff as he might have to his contemporaries or his ex-wife.?

Macrobug67

#319
December 22, 2021, 05:55:29 PM
That?s insane. 

Curryong

#320
December 23, 2021, 08:37:56 AM
Why would Meghan have any knowledge of Andrew?s behaviour prior to 2017 when she settled in England. She knew Fergie, Eugenie and Beatrice through Harry but it?s doubtful Andrew was ever on her radar. I recall some snide remarks Andrew made about the Sussexes at the time of Eugenie?s wedding but I doubt that he was a favourite dinner guest of the couple even before that.

The only people in the RF who would know anything about Andrew?s activities re Ghislaine and Epstein are likely to be Fergie and Bea (if she can remember about the night Daddy was supposed to be with her at the pizza joint.) And this lawyer has a strange idea if she believes that Charles and Andrew have regular chats about Andrew?s love life. Wonder if she knows that senior royals can often go weeks without even seeing each other.

Macrobug67

#321
December 29, 2021, 10:17:45 PM Last Edit: December 29, 2021, 10:19:47 PM by Macrobug67
Maxwell has been found guilty of 5/6 charges


Facing up to 60 years

sara8150

#322
December 29, 2021, 10:22:56 PM Last Edit: December 29, 2021, 10:37:58 PM by sara8150
Underage orgies and a possible pregnancy - the key moments of Ghislaine Maxwell's sensational trial | Daily Mail Online

Ghislaine Maxwell Found Guilty of Sex Trafficking | PEOPLE.com

Ghislaine Maxwell convicted of grooming girls for Jeffrey Epstein - BBC News

Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty of recruiting underage girls to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein | US News | Sky News

Ghislaine Maxwell: How girls were lured to be abused by Jeffrey Epstein | US News | Sky News

Ghislaine Maxwell: Two men, one woman, and a journey which ended in a New York courtroom | US News | Sky News

Ghislaine Maxwell: Jury in sex trafficking trial told to work every day amid COVID spike | US News | Sky News

Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in sex-trafficking trial | Ghislaine Maxwell | The Guardian

Prince Andrew lawyer seeks to halt US case as accuser ?lives in Australia? | Prince Andrew | The Guardian

Ghislaine Maxwell found GUILTY - jury reaches verdict in sex trafficking trial | World | News | Express.co.uk

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry face scorn from British public in vox pop interviews | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Prince Andrew bids for sex abuse case to be thrown out - Duke takes on Giuffre | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Andrew claims Virginia Giuffre has no right to sue in US | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in sex trafficking trial | ITV News

Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty of child sex trafficking charges - Mirror Online

Ghislaine Maxwell: 5 bombshells from child sex trial - including 'little black book' - Mirror Online

Prince Andrew challenges rape accuser?s right to sue in US 'as she lives in Australia' - Mirror Online

Ghislaine Maxwell GUILTY of grooming girls for paedo Jeffrey Epstein to abuse in sex-trafficking trial

Ghislaine Maxwell trial verdict LIVE - Epstein 'Madam' convicted of sex trafficking and could spend rest of life in jail

Prince Andrew wants sex assault accuser Virginia Roberts's lawsuit tossed out because she 'lives in Australia'

TLLK

#323
December 29, 2021, 10:26:50 PM
Quote from: Macrobug67 on December 29, 2021, 10:17:45 PM
Maxwell has been found guilty of 5/6 charges


Facing up to 60 years

Thank you for sharing this news and I hope that she receives the full sentence.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 12 13 14 15
User actions