Forum menu
I would love to know where an unemployed bloke ever got the money to buy a chalet in the first place. I don’t think a navy pension stretches that far
He'll get the money where the rest of the monarchy get it from, the public purse, we live in a world where folk who are descendants of people who robbed/killed/favoured their way into land and fortune still have that land and fortune, and even more benefits over the years.
Noooice!
He apparently flogged his Verbier chalet too which was a nest egg for his kids, so hopefully they’ll hate him even more too.
I get that this moves things on to deposition and discovery, but how do they actually compel him to get involved (being a civil case)? Don't get me wrong, if he doesn't get involved now he just continues to look even worse but I'm just not sure of the mechanisms
So I presume Andrew doesn’t have to attend the court hearing and can be tried without being there? He can just say he believes he won’t get an unfair case so not go?
The worst that will happen is he will get a fine that the tax payers will be paying for anyway?
Apologies if this has already been covered?
Civil case, he doesn't have to turn up, just his lawyer.
Andrew, meet the real world.
If he fails to respond to requests for discovery, depositions and so on the sanction would be either that he is not allowed to give evidence at trial or that judgment is entered against him (depends on the nature of what he didn't do).
Accident in either the Dartford or Rotherhithe tunnel in 3,2,1. . .
Can anyone tell me what redress she's actually after? Is it a confession of rape, or is there a stated figure (which is also presumably the cost of her dropping the case)?
I think she wants to ruin him. Thats my guess. she got half a million off Epstein. I don't think its money although if he offers enough as a settlement she is pretty much obliged to take it
But she wants to see him ruined both financially and reputation wise
Can anyone tell me what redress she’s actually after? Is it a confession of rape, or is there a stated figure (which is also presumably the cost of her dropping the case)?
I know in the US system if it's not in the criminal court you can only win by getting a pay day (and the bigger the pay day the more your case was seen to have been won) but I really really hope it doesn't spiral into making her looking like it's all about the cash. I'm guessing his team will be trying to paint her that way.
It's my ignorance, but I've no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You'd have thought most parent's alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Her back story is covered a bit in the Netflix programme, Filthy Rich, I seem to recall. It been a while since I watched it but it was pretty sordid stuff. Money, power, corruption, seediness.
What happens if he doesn't turn up in any form - himself, his lawyers.... just ignores it.
It’s my ignorance, but I’ve no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You’d have thought most parent’s alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Not really ignorance in that sense but not unusual for kids to go walkabout or live via friends outwith their parents, and the family lifestyle can play no part.
I was off on my own aged 16, hitchhiking around the country, living here, there and everywhere from the far north to the south coast, wales etc etc. It was about 3 years before i came back to the home city. I didn't leave the social work system till about 21. In that time i was still technically homeless.
Has been reported in US media and on 5live recently that Giuffre has said she will not accept an out of court settlement and is determined this goes to court.
Also reported in US that she rejected a proposed $5 million settlement.
How long before the queen finally cuts him out?
Now it's going ahead i can't see how Andrew's side can win, maybe i'm missing something, but that interview is going to sink him, all the opposition need to provide is reasonable doubt, they have a photograph to show time and opportunity, all they need is to do a bit of a song and dance in court and throw doubt on all the claims in that interview, and that's not even seeing if there's other evidence?
Can't see Andrew being allowed anywhere near the court, this is a civil case, but perjury is still a criminal act!
all the opposition need to provide is reasonable doubt
It's a civil case so "Preponderance of the evidence" in US speak i.e. a lower standard than for a criminal case
How long before the queen finally cuts him out?
Isn't that what the chalet sale is all about too, liquidising the assets so the money can be stashed and he can claim no assets to pay the anticipated massive compo claim.
Chalet sold for £17 mill, reportedly; £6 mill to clear o/s debt to previous owner; any mortgage to clear?
Reported that his legal and PR fees are running at c£3 mill.
If mummy says...you're on your own, he's stuffed.
In truth, he's stuffed whatever happens.
Edit: money trail should be easy to follow so attempts to hide cash or other assets will probably be futile.
Murray
Full Member
all the opposition need to provide is reasonable doubtIt’s a civil case so “Preponderance of the evidence” in US speak i.e. a lower standard than for a criminal case
Yeah, i put up the wrong one to try and show it's a lesser requirement for the evidence, luckily i'm not in court giving evidence with that ability out of a 50/50 choice!
Whats incredible is they are claiming the deal that was struck between the victim and Epstein where compensation was paid, means Andrew is covered, even though he wasn't there, has never met,nor had sex with the girl.
I know in the US system if it’s not in the criminal court you can only win by getting a pay day (and the bigger the pay day the more your case was seen to have been won) but I really really hope it doesn’t spiral into making her looking like it’s all about the cash.
Whatever she gets (assuming the case goes her way) a big slice of the pay out will go to, yes you guess right, the lawyers. For the lawyers this is a case that they can make millions! Millions! Why do you think she can afford their fees?
It’s my ignorance, but I’ve no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You’d have thought most parent’s alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Does she look like she was forced? Did anyone put a weapon to her head to "perform" the favour? She was 17 at that time and of legal age so yes it does not look good for Andrew but look at Courtney Stodden aged 16 at that time married then 51-year-old actor Doug Hutchison in 2011. Now that is weird. If you search online of celebrities/stars that behaved like Andrew there are plenty about and many of them are still alive today. I reckon they should all go to court no matter how popular they are now or then.
His only option might be to tap-up some of his wealthy mates, like his Kazakh friend he sold his Sunninghill House for well over asking. The problem is the Kazakhs might be busy dealing with something else.
Regardless of what Guiffre’s motives were/are, she was trafficked and there’s still statutory rape.
Regardless of what Guiffre’s motives were/are, she was trafficked and there’s still statutory rape.
Trafficked? I don't understand how that could happen unless she was forced or kidnapped. If it happened once, yes, I think she might be trafficked etc but it happened more than once so I don't understand why she was there again alone with those people.
Does she look like she was forced? Did anyone put a weapon to her head to “perform” the favour?
Did you have to attend a special training camp to become this offensive, or are you just naturally talented?
Trafficking as in the type that Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of this month.
I don’t understand
No one is surprised.
Did you have to attend a special training camp to become this offensive, or are you just naturally talented?
I am just trying to establish what's the difference between those celebrities/rock stars etc who in past behaved with similar manner towards their fans? Shouldn't they be prosecuted too? Consensual? How can they be consensual? For example, in the cast of courtney stodden she was 16 and consensual but what if she was too young to consider what's right/wrong?
Trafficking as in the type that Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of this month.
Yes, Maxwell is found guilty but is he involved?
You're not trying to establish anything @ chewkw
You're just attention seeking/trolling as per usual.
The other little nugget is that Guiffre was ‘recruited’ when she was 15 and working at Mar A Largo. Now that the judge has excluded anyone not specifically mentioned on the Epstein agreement from ‘protection’ maybe she’s lining-up a suit against the orange sleazeball, maybe after she’s been paid-out by HRH? Then again, Drump might be in Rykers wearing an orange jumpsuit if the NY DA gets his way.
Chewkw, it's beyond a joke now. Please educate yourself...start by reading this thread then go and read some stuff. I didn't think you could sink any lower in my estimation, but we'll done you.
Chewkw - you're either a troll or a ****. Either way, your comments about a victim of sexual abuse are out of order. Please stop.
you’re either a troll or a ****.
Can be both
If I understand correctly, she has to show that the Royal Lying Git
a) knew that she was being trafficked
b) that she was under the legal age for sex in the country where the sex happened
But because this is not a criminal case she only has to show that it is more than likely rather than definitely. The the jury needs gets to set the award - which may or may not be challenged later. If the RLG legal costs are currently £3m plus then hers are probably a similar amount, so her legal team are going to need $10m plus to cover all their costs before she gets a cent.
The RLG is not being 'tried' for actions of Maxwell and Epstein, just for his own actions. And in fact he is not being tried, just sued. The US have already decided that there was insufficient information for a reasonable chance of a prosecution and it was already too late. This case was only filed when NY State (not the US Government) changed the rules. Even if the jury make an award against him, it does not technically make him guilty - just the balance of doubt is more in her favour than his.
I suspect that this has got a long way to go - no doubt the RLG legal team will challenge to name others who she had sex with and ask her why there are not being sued among other aspects. It is not going to be pretty.
And even then if she does 'win' and get an award then I suspect the RLG has no assets in the US, so she will need to try to get a civil award in the UK.
I suspect that she expected the RLG to pay out quietly when she first sued him, but it has now snowballed out of control. No one will win - it will drag on and no doubt more salacious detail will keep the media happy and be dripped out.
So many years (and many more pages of comments) to go!
Reported that his legal and PR fees are running at c£3 mill.
I'd be looking for a refund! His PR people can't possibly have run up any meaningful bill given the mess he/they have made of it, and so far a bunch of expensive layers have appeared in court a few times (for a day max) and done some not very amazing prep work. Even by US standards that's not £3M. Now it might be £3M before the trial starts, but I can't see how you could get to those numbers today.
t’s my ignorance, but I’ve no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You’d have thought most parent’s alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Yes - reportedly abused before she was a teenager, living on the streets by the time she's 13 then foster care before going back to her dad who happened to work for Trump!
And even then if she does ‘win’ and get an award then I suspect the RLG has no assets in the US, so she will need to try to get a civil award in the UK.
That will be a piece of cake. As Mountbatten-Windsor has taken part in the US proceedings, the UK courts will "recognise" the US judgment and grant a UK judgment to enforce it over here.
Had he not responded to the UK case, as I advised him (via this forum) up-thread, then the US judgment would not have been enforceable.
I think she wants to ruin him. Thats my guess. she got half a million off Epstein. I don’t think its money although if he offers enough as a settlement she is pretty much obliged to take it
But she wants to see him ruined both financially and reputation wise
she's probably already achieved one! I'm not sure that he'll make an offer that would be acceptable - not from a financial sense but because he'll not want to admit fault. Now I don't know how she's bankrolling her legal fees so it may be an offer is made that her advisors say to take - but whilst she might have settled for six figures and a no-fault apology for any upset caused a year ago, I'm sure she'll be looking for a complete admission! I might be wrong but I can't see Her Majesty bankrolling an admission.
I think the queen would be very ill advised to bankroll him. If she is seen using what is effectively public money to pa his legal debts that would be a very big nail in the coffin of the monarchy. I do feel a little sorry for her in one way - although of course it his dysfunctional upbringing that led him to here but for the queen there is nothing she can do to limit the damage now and a choice between cut her son off and watch him sink deeper of bankroll him and badly damage the monarchy is not much of a choice. His corrupt "friends" with money and power will cut him off as he is no longer much use to them
If she is seen using what is effectively public money
I think the royal family would disagree about the public money bit. According to them (and I think this has been agreed with the government at times) some of their stuff is actually theirs.
Some of it but not much of it. There was a deal a while ago over this IIRC. Most of the property is " held in trust for the nation" is it not?
it would certainly be seen as "public money"