advertisement


Andy's not sweating.

I imagine you could use clever wording such as ‘anyone met in my house’ or ‘anyone I introduced you to’ - not saying that these would apply in this case btw, just examples - but one thing’s for sure there will be a huge amount of argument about it.
How about 'anyone who happened to take advantage of my personal supply of underaged sex-trafficked women on or about my properties'.

Too wordy?
 
We do not know what restrictions the lady in question has agreed to as part of the settlement agreement. Since her current lawyers presumably have not seen it either (it is sealed) they might be in the dark too.

I am curious as to why it seems that only Andrew is being pursued by this woman and her lawyers. If what she says is right, there must be a slew of easier to get hold of targets in the US that could or should be sued in the same way. Why are they not? Something smells. Or is that the agreement means that she knows she cannot pursue Americans and figured she could have a go at someone in another jurisdiction - but then why bring the case in the US (money??, of course!!!!)

I think Alan Dershowitz name has been mentioned, the one that vigorously defended Epstein in the first place, that guy is going to be one tough nut to crack he is as slippery as a Teflon coated eel.
 
I think Alan Dershowitz name has been mentioned, the one that vigorously defended Epstein in the first place, that guy is going to be one tough nut to crack he is as slippery as a Teflon coated eel.
And 'disgusting', according to Larry David.
 
There are various influences that we can guess at that may have made the Met take no further action but a big one must be that 17 isn't underage in the UK. What might have been looked at? Possibly something to do with coercing said female into having sex. Tough to prove if there are no witnesses or some form of proof.
 
There are various influences that we can guess at that may have made the Met take no further action but a big one must be that 17 isn't underage in the UK. What might have been looked at? Possibly something to do with coercing said female into having sex. Tough to prove if there are no witnesses or some form of proof.

So far the only evidence seems to be that photo. If Dershowitz is on $2500 per hour plus disbursements and a success bonus Andy had an expensive evening whether legal or not.
 
Nope.
The Queen is immune from prosecution,that's why
she's abdicating in favour of Andy,who best represents the traditions and values of the monarchy.
You can't have Regina v Regina ,well maybe for Charles 1.
Your Latin is poor.
 
There are various influences that we can guess at that may have made the Met take no further action but a big one must be that 17 isn't underage in the UK. What might have been looked at? Possibly something to do with coercing said female into having sex. Tough to prove if there are no witnesses or some form of proof.

Others factors are that Epstein is dead and Maxwell about to stand trial in the USA.
 
We do not know what restrictions the lady in question has agreed to as part of the settlement agreement. Since her current lawyers presumably have not seen it either (it is sealed) they might be in the dark too.

I am curious as to why it seems that only Andrew is being pursued by this woman and her lawyers. If what she says is right, there must be a slew of easier to get hold of targets in the US that could or should be sued in the same way. Why are they not? Something smells. Or is that the agreement means that she knows she cannot pursue Americans and figured she could have a go at someone in another jurisdiction - but then why bring the case in the US (money??, of course!!!!)

Perhaps she considers our gun laws mean she's less likely to wind up dead? Also perhaps what's left of "the special relationship" might make that naive.
 
There are various influences that we can guess at that may have made the Met take no further action but a big one must be that 17 isn't underage in the UK. What might have been looked at? Possibly something to do with coercing said female into having sex. Tough to prove if there are no witnesses or some form of proof.
it's not an underage complaint, it's that she says that she was coerced into it and so didn't consent of her own free will.
 
There are various influences that we can guess at that may have made the Met take no further action but a big one must be that 17 isn't underage in the UK. What might have been looked at? Possibly something to do with coercing said female into having sex. Tough to prove if there are no witnesses or some form of proof.
In September, Guffre's legal team issued Andrew with a writ ahead of his pre-trial in New York. The ensuing summons notified the Duke that he had 21 days from a set date to respond or face a default judgment on the charges. Anything that the London Met does or doesn't do seems immaterial at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
There are various influences that we can guess at that may have made the Met take no further action but a big one must be that 17 isn't underage in the UK. What might have been looked at? Possibly something to do with coercing said female into having sex. Tough to prove if there are no witnesses or some form of proof.
Wouldn't the fact that the alleged offence - which from what you say isn't an offence in the United Kingdom - took place in another jurisdiction also have a bearing? Were the UK authorities asked to carry out any sort of investigation by the appropriate authorities in the USA? If not what would the Met Police be investigating? How does this work in a civil case I wonder?
 
Wouldn't the fact that the alleged offence - which from what you say isn't an offence in the United Kingdom - took place in another jurisdiction also have a bearing? Were the UK authorities asked to carry out any sort of investigation by the appropriate authorities in the USA? If not what would the Met Police be investigating? How does this work in a civil case I wonder?
I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about the law but I’d have thought that potential offences committed by Britons abroad are not particularly of interest to the U.K. police as the legal system in the US should cover the situation. Yes the police here should be interested if there is evidence of illegal behaviour abroad and this is carried over to illegal behaviour the U.K. This being a civil, not criminal case, as you suggest must have a bearing too.

It’s an unholy mess involving unsavoury and arrogant individuals, at least one of whom who is very much a relic from what most of us hope is a long gone era.
 
With so many US security people in Glasgow and Edinburgh for COP, I assume he’ll not be accompanying mum in case he ends up on a rendition flight in black-out goggles, ear defenders, wearing an orange jump suit
 
They are not letting go of this....I think Andrew's starting to sweat a little now...

No doubt the Americans will be persuaded to "not pursue" the matter eventually by someone in the government
 


advertisement


Back
Top