|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jan 9, 2022 3:57:16 GMT
Sole sexual misconduct charge against disgraced N.Y. gov. Andrew Cuomo is dismissed. Because a white, rich, powerful man with endless connections and people who owe him favors, was ever going to be put on trial, anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jan 9, 2022 4:52:05 GMT
Sole sexual misconduct charge against disgraced N.Y. gov. Andrew Cuomo is dismissed. Because a white, rich, powerful man with endless connections and people who owe him favors, was ever going to be put on trial, anyhow. That's terrible! I thought there were multiple women who had come forward.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jan 12, 2022 16:58:21 GMT
It appears as though the lawsuit against Andrew will be moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by Bearcata on Jan 12, 2022 22:02:55 GMT
It appears as though the lawsuit against Andrew will be moving forward. Is this lawsuit in the US? If so Andrew will never show up in court; there is no way they can force him to appear. Also age of consent in UK is 16 while in the US it ranges from 16 to 18 depending on the state. Depending on where the "rape" occurred I wonder if his lawyer can claim that she was old enough to consent. US Virgin Islands:
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jan 12, 2022 22:51:13 GMT
I'm not sure why you are talking about age of consent. Sex trafficking has nothing to do with consent.
Anyone else here please correct me if I am wrong, or missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Jan 12, 2022 23:24:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jan 13, 2022 0:00:26 GMT
He's a creep, and should be held accountable. It's a shame the rest aren't being tried.
|
|
|
Post by Bearcata on Jan 13, 2022 13:35:19 GMT
He's a creep, and should be held accountable. It's a shame the rest aren't being tried. First, Prince Andrew is a client and just used the service provided, he did not traffic the girls. Let's be honest females have been presented to him since he hit puberty. He is probably totally confused as to why all this is happening. Where are the girl's parents in all of this? Who took the girls to meet Epstein? Why are the parents not been charged for child endangerment? I am just waiting for the defense lawyers to claim the girls were prostitutes as they were paid for their services. Does anyone even think there is going to be a trial? The USA does not have extradition over UK citizens much less a member of the Royal Family. Outside of facing a lot of embarrassment is Prince Andrews life even going to be affected by this lawsuit? Even if the judge charges him with contempt unless Prince Andrew is traveling in the US or US territories he cannot be arrested. If by some chance Prince Andrew is arrested and put in the US prison system, can you imagine the diplomatic situation this would cause? The courts time would be better spent going after people they can actually take to court and potentially convict. Regardless of the nastiness of the case the ladies behind the lawsuit will not get any kind of justice except for embarrassing the Royal Family. In that case there is a lot of embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Jan 13, 2022 14:44:13 GMT
It doesn't matter if he just used the service; I believe what they are arguing is that he knew the girls were trafficked, and in the end it doesn't matter because trafficking is treated very differently here (if you have sex with someone who is trafficked you are just as complicit). Either way, I'm not keen on giving people a pass just because they are royalty and would be "embarrassed." Personally, I think he knew and didn't care where the girls were coming from, just as long as they were young.
Also FYI: trafficked girls are either coerced, kidnapped, or told one thing will be happening until they get to the venue and find out that it's something else entirely and are forced to perform; it's a different animal than say, girls signing up for OnlyFans or an escort service (and even then you have to be 18). It's a rare parent that will hand their child over to a trafficker but it has happened, and usually it involves drugs.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Jan 13, 2022 18:33:27 GMT
Whoops, there it is. Reading between the lines of this announcement on the BRF's twitter today it sounds like the Queen is done and the BRF are leaving him out here to twist: Any "protections" that he might have had as a member of the BRF are not going to apply in this case. Good.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jan 13, 2022 18:59:38 GMT
Whoops, there it is. Reading between the lines of this announcement on the BRF's twitter today it sounds like the Queen is done and the BRF are leaving him out here to twist: Any "protections" that he might have had as a member of the BRF are not going to apply in this case. Good.
It's a telling and deliberate choice to include "With the Queens approval and agreement" in that statement. No room for spin at all that this is a Charles thing.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jan 13, 2022 22:12:26 GMT
Whoops, there it is. Reading between the lines of this announcement on the BRF's twitter today it sounds like the Queen is done and the BRF are leaving him out here to twist: Any "protections" that he might have had as a member of the BRF are not going to apply in this case. Good.
In turn, does this protect the Queen/Royal Estate from civil litigation? In other words, does this keep his problem from hurting her pocketbook? Or was that never a possibility?
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jan 13, 2022 23:12:05 GMT
He's a creep, and should be held accountable. It's a shame the rest aren't being tried. First, Prince Andrew is a client and just used the service provided, he did not traffic the girls. Let's be honest females have been presented to him since he hit puberty. He is probably totally confused as to why all this is happening. Where are the girl's parents in all of this? Who took the girls to meet Epstein? Why are the parents not been charged for child endangerment? I am just waiting for the defense lawyers to claim the girls were prostitutes as they were paid for their services. Does anyone even think there is going to be a trial? The USA does not have extradition over UK citizens much less a member of the Royal Family. Outside of facing a lot of embarrassment is Prince Andrews life even going to be affected by this lawsuit? Even if the judge charges him with contempt unless Prince Andrew is traveling in the US or US territories he cannot be arrested. If by some chance Prince Andrew is arrested and put in the US prison system, can you imagine the diplomatic situation this would cause? The courts time would be better spent going after people they can actually take to court and potentially convict. Regardless of the nastiness of the case the ladies behind the lawsuit will not get any kind of justice except for embarrassing the Royal Family. In that case there is a lot of embarrassment. He's also charged with battery.
|
|
|
Post by Bearcata on Jan 14, 2022 0:57:10 GMT
First, Prince Andrew is a client and just used the service provided, he did not traffic the girls. Let's be honest females have been presented to him since he hit puberty. He is probably totally confused as to why all this is happening. Where are the girl's parents in all of this? Who took the girls to meet Epstein? Why are the parents not been charged for child endangerment? I am just waiting for the defense lawyers to claim the girls were prostitutes as they were paid for their services. Does anyone even think there is going to be a trial? The USA does not have extradition over UK citizens much less a member of the Royal Family. Outside of facing a lot of embarrassment is Prince Andrews life even going to be affected by this lawsuit? Even if the judge charges him with contempt unless Prince Andrew is traveling in the US or US territories he cannot be arrested. If by some chance Prince Andrew is arrested and put in the US prison system, can you imagine the diplomatic situation this would cause? The courts time would be better spent going after people they can actually take to court and potentially convict. Regardless of the nastiness of the case the ladies behind the lawsuit will not get any kind of justice except for embarrassing the Royal Family. In that case there is a lot of embarrassment. He's also charged with battery. I just watched David Muir on the evening news and they had a segment announcing that Prince Andrew had been stripped of all of his military titles and patronages and is no longer to be addressed as as "your Royal Highness". He will be facing the lawsuit as a private citizen. The commentary was that the British Royal Family was trying to distance themselves as far as possible from the scandal. Does Andrew have money of his own? assets of his own? Or was all tied to him being a Prince. So does this mean he is no longer a prince? What about his children, Eugenia and Beatrice? Do they publicly ignore him "the cut direct"?
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Jan 14, 2022 1:45:13 GMT
First, Prince Andrew is a client and just used the service provided, he did not traffic the girls. Let's be honest females have been presented to him since he hit puberty. He is probably totally confused as to why all this is happening. Where are the girl's parents in all of this? Who took the girls to meet Epstein? Why are the parents not been charged for child endangerment? I am just waiting for the defense lawyers to claim the girls were prostitutes as they were paid for their services. Does anyone even think there is going to be a trial? The USA does not have extradition over UK citizens much less a member of the Royal Family. Outside of facing a lot of embarrassment is Prince Andrews life even going to be affected by this lawsuit? Even if the judge charges him with contempt unless Prince Andrew is traveling in the US or US territories he cannot be arrested. If by some chance Prince Andrew is arrested and put in the US prison system, can you imagine the diplomatic situation this would cause? The courts time would be better spent going after people they can actually take to court and potentially convict. Regardless of the nastiness of the case the ladies behind the lawsuit will not get any kind of justice except for embarrassing the Royal Family. In that case there is a lot of embarrassment. He's also charged with battery. Just exactly what is this "battery" that he's charged with? Is it an automatic charge because of the other charge? Or is it as drastic & violent as the name of the charge suggests? Does it mean that because the girl was underage, anything sexual done to her is considered violence? Does it mean that Andrew actually beat her, either once or repeatedly? This does make a difference to me at least, and how I see his actions. Both ways are wrong & illegal, but to me they have different connotations. If he actually violently beat her, this is a huge difference from having sex with a willing, although underage, minor, whether he knew her age or not. Age of consent may be a year older than she was in at least 1 instance, but who does that consent fall with? Her parents? If so, why on earth aren't they being charged in this? It's stated that there were at least 3 instances of the crime. Why on earth did the girl keep going back? Where were the parents during all of this? I'd want to know just exactly what they were being told as to where their daughter was going, what she was doing, and with whom. She was gone for days each time. Where they totally unaware of the whole who, what, where, & with whom? Each & every time? There has to be some accountablity in all of this for the young woman who somehow thought she was profitting from this. Or for the parents who allowed it. Whatever legal consent age is, this "girl" was clearly old enough to know right from wrong. The fact that she kept going back is what's nagging at me. I have a feeling that she was getting paid quite well, nomatter how illegal it was, plus the supposed excitement & adventure being offered someone her age. Legal or not, this girl was very much a willing victim. Don't get me wrong, Andrew has always been scummy. We just didn't know how scummy he really was. He knew exactly what he was getting into, but chose to take that risk, on the assumption that being a part of the Royal Family would make him immune from consequences. But the "girl" wasn't exactly without any guilty actions either.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jan 14, 2022 2:10:03 GMT
I believe the tendency to blame young teens plays right into the hands of a trafficker.
These are victims who are lured and traumatized.
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Jan 14, 2022 2:20:42 GMT
I wonder if extradition is now on the table as well.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jan 14, 2022 2:36:56 GMT
MissScarlet , battery doesn't just refer to a violent attack. It also includes unwanted touching. For example, if someone grabs your ass without permission, you can charge them with battery. Here's a link to a page that includes the following description (and a lot more info on the topic): legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery"The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will."
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jan 14, 2022 2:52:22 GMT
MissScarlet , battery doesn't just refer to a violent attack. It also includes unwanted touching. For example, if someone grabs your ass without permission, you can charge them with battery. Here's a link to a page that includes the following description (and a lot more into on the topic): legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery"The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will." Thankyou. I just read what he was charged with. The vets in the UK have voiced their displeasure with Andrew, and I think the queen, took that to heart. No more HRH for Andrew!
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Jan 15, 2022 5:38:01 GMT
MissScarlet , battery doesn't just refer to a violent attack. It also includes unwanted touching. For example, if someone grabs your ass without permission, you can charge them with battery. Here's a link to a page that includes the following description (and a lot more info on the topic): legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery"The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will." Thank you for the explanation. To me that seems like it should be sexual assault rather than battery, but that's just my opinion. Battery seems more like the victim got a violent beating. However, I do understand the term now.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jan 15, 2022 6:43:37 GMT
I believe the tendency to blame young teens plays right into the hands of a trafficker. These are victims who are lured and traumatized. I agree. I would add sexual assault victims regardless of age are held responsible for the patterns of abuse they repeatedly suffer. There are rape victims who go back to their rapists, sexual assault victims who truly believe they do not deserve better, so they return. The questions about sex crimes don't seem to hold the abusers responsible. Why did she keep going back? my response: Why did he keep taking her back? It's wrong to sexually assault someone. End of story. There's no 'but' or "well she ...' sexual assault is always wrong. Indefensible. It is never, ever the victims fault. Because sexual assault is always wrong. And the way sexual assault survivors react is extraordinarily complex and at times, counterintuitive.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jan 15, 2022 6:50:56 GMT
Thus, Prince Edward remains, as always, the dependable, stable, scandal free Royal on whom the queen can depend upon, as she has, for many, many years now. Along with the equally reliable, levelheaded Sophie.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jan 15, 2022 19:34:26 GMT
IMore clarity: Andrew is facing a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Thus, he won't face jail time. The burden of Proof is much lower in civil court. Many people, both guilty and innocent, choose to settle out of court rather than have their private lives picked apart for public consumption.
If both sides agree to a settlement, which would bring the civil lawsuit to an end, Prince Andrew would likely not have to admit any liability or wrongdoing, but he could face sizable financial costs. Under an agreed-upon scheduling order in the lawsuit, lawyers for Ms. Giuffre and Andrew must complete legal discovery — the exchange of documents and the taking of depositions of experts — by July 14. If the case goes to trial before a jury, it could lead to the public airing of tawdry and damaging details about the prince that could further undermine the monarchy.
In rejecting Andrew’s argument that he was released from lawsuits via a settlement reached between Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court, did not address the merits of Ms. Giuffre’s claims.
These two lines are important because the judge4s ruling has nothing to do with Andrew's guilt or innocence, but rather whether a lawsuit can proceed. The judge doesn't rule that Giufree is truthful or not. Because it isn't connected to the suit brought by Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by Bearcata on Jan 16, 2022 4:31:13 GMT
Thus, Prince Edward remains, as always, the dependable, stable, scandal free Royal on whom the queen can depend upon, as she has, for many, many years now. Along with the equally reliable, levelheaded Sophie. Weren't the gossips trying to say for years that Edward was gay and that Sophie was his beard?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jan 16, 2022 4:59:37 GMT
Thus, Prince Edward remains, as always, the dependable, stable, scandal free Royal on whom the queen can depend upon, as she has, for many, many years now. Along with the equally reliable, levelheaded Sophie. Weren't the gossips trying to say for years that Edward was gay and that Sophie was his beard? I don't know. Whatever the truth, it hasn't caused any problems for Edward, Sophie, their children or The Queen. The public doesn't care. She certainly trusts and depends on Edward and Sophie. Their children, as well. Edward and Sophie were with Philip almost continually during his last illness. And the only two people sanctioned by The Queen to speak on her behalf regarding Phillip. It was through Sophie the Queen released to the public her treasured photo of her and Phillip relaxing on the ground in the highlands of Balmoral. The Wessexes have had their “sticky moments”, such as when Sophie, then running her own PR company, was caught in a tabloid sting making unflattering remarks about politicians, and when Edward was criticised over his TV production company. But that was 20 years ago. “They made mistakes. Anyone can fall into bear traps,” said the royal author Penny Junor, “but they just kept on, carrying on doing the work and making no song and dance about it.” Sophie is close to the Queen, as she was to Philip. It is understood Lady Louise, the Wessexes’ daughter, will inherit the duke’s driving carriage, having been taught carriage driving by her grandfather. Sophie’s PR background makes her a natural communicator, and she is at ease around cameras. “She also has the longevity, has been part of the royal scene since the mid-90s, so is more experienced than Kate,” said Little. Junor said Sophie had been “an asset for some time”, working hard over the years but not garnering as much attention as younger royals. Edward has been busy with the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme he took over from his father. He will one day have his father’s title, too, when Charles becomes king. Edward is the only one of the Queen’s children not divorced. As he sat together with his wife and their two children in the quire of St George’s Chapel, they looked the part. “Right back to the Queen Mother, and the two little princesses, the whole idea was that the monarchy was a model family,” said Junor. It is now the Wessexes and the Cambridges who most appear to exemplify that model. “Edward and Sophie are a very unroyal royal couple,” said Junor. “They have no airs and graces. They are very low key. And they don’t have a sense of entitlement. "So, maybe we will see more of them. The public, I think, like them.” www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/countess-wessex-sophie-prince-edward-death-prince-philip
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jan 16, 2022 5:39:49 GMT
IIn 2019 alone, according to The Sunday Times, Sophie attended 236 official engagements (more than Prince William). Sophie has also taken on serious causes and embarked on high-profile solo trips, including a 2013 trip to India to highlight the plight of the blind (she returned in 2018 with Edward) and a much-lauded trip last year to South Sudan to bring attention to sexual violence against women and girls.
In the past two years Edward and Sophie have also increasingly become the human face of the monarchy, with a tear-stained Sophie recounting Prince Philip’s gentle death, and Prince Edward publicly speaking of his sadness over Prince Harry leaving the royal family. But perhaps their real secret to success is this—after years of drama, they’ve learned that sometimes simple and straightforward is the biggest star turn of all. “I stay way out of it,” Prince Edward recently said of his extended family’s turmoil. “It’s much the safest place to be.”
Sophie’s closeness to the queen was evident in 2003, when a placental abruption during her pregnancy with her first child, Lady Louise, forced an emergency C-section. The queen visited Sophie in the hospital, which was highly unusual.
This is where rumors of homosexuality first sprang: according to Seward in Prince Philip Revealed, Edward soon found work with Andrew Lloyd Webber’s the Really Useful Group as a production assistant. Perhaps because of his choice of career, rumors about his sexuality began to follow him, with Christopher Hitchens {a petty troglodyte) claiming his nickname was “Dishcloth Doris,” as Kitty Kelley (unreliable sourcing in her books) writes in The Royals.
According to Smith and Gibbs, at a premier party after the Broadway debut of Lloyd Webber’s Aspects of Love, Prince Edward blew up when a reporter asked if he was gay. “It’s just outrageous to suggest this sort of thing,” he said, per Smith and Gibbs. “It’s so unfair to me and my family...I am not gay, but what can I do about it? I can only repeat—it’s very unfair. The press has to be a lot more responsible. I wish I could be left to enjoy the theatre. I love it.” From an early age, the young prince’s real passion was for the theater. “I love the razzmatazz of show business,” Edward once said. “It’s a wonderful world of fantasy and make-believe.” The most academically gifted of his siblings, he starred in and produced theatrical productions in school. After his graduation from Cambridge in 1986, he did a brief stint in the Royal Marines before leaving, and the New York Post reportedly taunted him as the “weeping wimp of Windsor.”
|
|
|
Post by Bearcata on Jan 16, 2022 5:49:04 GMT
IIn 2019 alone, according to The Sunday Times, Sophie attended 236 official engagements (more than Prince William). Sophie has also taken on serious causes and embarked on high-profile solo trips, including a 2013 trip to India to highlight the plight of the blind (she returned in 2018 with Edward) and a much-lauded trip last year to South Sudan to bring attention to sexual violence against women and girls. In the past two years Edward and Sophie have also increasingly become the human face of the monarchy, with a tear-stained Sophie recounting Prince Philip’s gentle death, and Prince Edward publicly speaking of his sadness over Prince Harry leaving the royal family. But perhaps their real secret to success is this—after years of drama, they’ve learned that sometimes simple and straightforward is the biggest star turn of all. “I stay way out of it,” Prince Edward recently said of his extended family’s turmoil. “It’s much the safest place to be.” Sophie’s closeness to the queen was evident in 2003, when a placental abruption during her pregnancy with her first child, Lady Louise, forced an emergency C-section. The queen visited Sophie in the hospital, which was highly unusual. This is where rumors of homosexuality first sprang: according to Seward in Prince Philip Revealed, Edward soon found work with Andrew Lloyd Webber’s the Really Useful Group as a production assistant. Perhaps because of his choice of career, rumors about his sexuality began to follow him, with Christopher Hitchens {a petty troglodyte) claiming his nickname was “Dishcloth Doris,” as Kitty Kelley (unreliable sourcing in her books) writes in The Royals. According to Smith and Gibbs, at a premier party after the Broadway debut of Lloyd Webber’s Aspects of Love, Prince Edward blew up when a reporter asked if he was gay. “It’s just outrageous to suggest this sort of thing,” he said, per Smith and Gibbs. “It’s so unfair to me and my family...I am not gay, but what can I do about it? I can only repeat—it’s very unfair. The press has to be a lot more responsible. I wish I could be left to enjoy the theatre. I love it.” From an early age, the young prince’s real passion was for the theater. “I love the razzmatazz of show business,” Edward once said. “It’s a wonderful world of fantasy and make-believe.” The most academically gifted of his siblings, he starred in and produced theatrical productions in school. After his graduation from Cambridge in 1986, he did a brief stint in the Royal Marines before leaving, and the New York Post reportedly taunted him as the “weeping wimp of Windsor.” Of all the Queen's four children, he has stayed out of the drama an is now the role model. Regarding the tabloids, they will always find a way to twist events and will make up stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Arielflies on Jan 16, 2022 6:47:52 GMT
The rumors about Edward being gay came about when he remained single and followed an artistic pursuit until a later age when he married Sophie. All the mongers were then so happy. He's a regular lad....hip.hip. hooray
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Jan 16, 2022 16:22:09 GMT
Mess. Out of all the Royals Edward and Sophie are the the ones that stay in their lane, do their royal engagements, and mind their own business.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jan 16, 2022 18:39:33 GMT
The rumors about Edward being gay came about when he remained single and followed an artistic pursuit until a later age when he married Sophie. All the mongers were then so happy. He's a regular lad....hip.hip. hooray The public never saw him much as a child. I never thought he was gay, just ill.
|
|