News Forum - Prince Andrew asks sexual assault case be dismissed in US court

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

Where is the evidence that Andrew knew she was trafficked, or of forcible rape, or coercion. 

Isn't that what a trial is all about finding out? I said alleged , I have no idea whether the man is guilty or not. 

[yselmike]

I see the chief executive of Barclays is "stepping down" because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein.

 

[Soidog]

3 minutes ago, yselmike said:

I see the chief executive of Barclays is "stepping down" because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein.

There must be some “squeaky bums” dotted around the world at the moment wondering when the knock on the door will come. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch  

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

It seems to me that this is like "Libel Tourism". Though the case has no connection to the state in which it is pursued (Giuffre was a FL resident at the time, and the events took place in the UK), she is going to the state which gives her the best deal legally.

Undoubtedly - she's in it for the money, so obviously she wants the best deal.

If it was anyone but Prince Andrew or someone in the public eye the "summons" from the US would be straight in the bin as it's a civil case with no jurisdiction.

A pity in some ways he didn't just come out and say "shove it", as he wouldn't be any worse off.

[gummy]

50 minutes ago, Soidog said:

There must be some “squeaky bums” dotted around the world at the moment wondering when the knock on the door will come. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch  

"There must be some “squeaky bums” dotted around the world at the moment wondering when the knock on the door will come."

You mean he was also into gay sex ? 

[JohninDublin]

3 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Undoubtedly - she's in it for the money, so obviously she wants the best deal.

If it was anyone but Prince Andrew or someone in the public eye the "summons" from the US would be straight in the bin as it's a civil case with no jurisdiction.

A pity in some ways he didn't just come out and say "shove it", as he wouldn't be any worse off.

You will find that there are usually bilateral agreements between many countries to recognise each others civil judgements.

As for "shove it", I would have modified that to say, "Can anyone identify evidence of a crime that I have committed, even if she is telling the truth"? 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

...he was described in the media as the public favourite among the Queen's children, because of his "laddish" behaviour, He was regarded as the only one who knew how to have "fun". 

I think that would be pushing things a bit, although widely known to be HM's favourite.

I think the public favourite has always been the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, who does more work than all of them put together  (except HM) but whose view of the institution is pretty clear.

[palooka]

Lucky for many involved that he is a English Prince and not Thai.

[gummy]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I think that would be pushing things a bit, although widely known to be HM's favourite.

I think the public favourite has always been the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, who does more work than all of them put together  (except HM) but whose view of the institution is pretty clear.

Spot on there. Princess Anne is clearly head and shoulders above the rest. It appears all over the world where such archaic institutions are still allowed to exist that it is always the female members who appear to shoulder the responsibility for the good of the nation,  well in their priviledged eyes anyway

[Stonker]

9 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

You will find that there are usually bilateral agreements between many countries to recognise each others civil judgements.

Only where the countries have the same laws, for example the same age of consent.

In this case, as no British law has been broken, that doesn't apply.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

The only royal I would go for a pint with is Harry.

I think you'd be disappointed.

[Rookiescot]

24 minutes ago, gummy said:

Spot on there. Princess Anne is clearly head and shoulders above the rest. It appears all over the world where such archaic institutions are still allowed to exist that it is always the female members who appear to shoulder the responsibility for the good of the nation,  well in their priviledged eyes anyway

While she might be better than the rest Princess Anne is no mother Theresa.

She was once inspecting the troops at a regiment. Maximum attendance parade. You had to be dead before you were getting out of this.

As she walks along she comes across a young soldier who is obviously unwell. She asked the soldier if he was OK. The soldier replied he had a heavy cold. Now at this point she should have said to the CO this man needs medical attention. Please see him off the square. But that is not what she did. Instead she said "Well then stand up straight".

The soldier was marched off and charged with being picked up on inspection by Her Royal Highness the Princes Royal. 28 days jail.

She probably does not even remember the event but everyone on the square that day does. 

[Rookiescot]

28 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I think you'd be disappointed.

Nah I think he would be good company. Unlike others in the royal familly he actually earned his medals.

[Soidog]

54 minutes ago, gummy said:

You mean he was also into gay sex ? 

I was referring more to the Alex Ferguson quote of Squeaky bum time.

[gummy]

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

While she might be better than the rest Princess Anne is no mother Theresa.

She was once inspecting the troops at a regiment. Maximum attendance parade. You had to be dead before you were getting out of this.

As she walks along she comes across a young soldier who is obviously unwell. She asked the soldier if he was OK. The soldier replied he had a heavy cold. Now at this point she should have said to the CO this man needs medical attention. Please see him off the square. But that is not what she did. Instead she said "Well then stand up straight".

The soldier was marched off and charged with being picked up on inspection by Her Royal Highness the Princes Royal. 28 days jail.

She probably does not even remember the event but everyone on the square that day does. 

Not surprising

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Not a criticism, but the way you present it does make it look like she is cashing in. I am not too well up on the various claims made by all and sundry in this matter, but if it is as you have portrayed, I certainly hope the question that will be put to her is, "How many NDA settlements have you signed"?

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that she was not an unwilling participant with both Andrew and several others of prominence. It can almost be compared to a legalised blackmail racket. I'd also be inclined to think that her Lawyers are on contingency.

She was selling what those guys wanted. Oldest trade in the world. She has signed NDA's previously. Indeed Andrews lawyers tried to get the case thrown out because she had already signed NDA's with other people. 

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Only where the countries have the same laws, for example the same age of consent.

In this case, as no British law has been broken, that doesn't apply.

I agree that no British Law has been broken, but what we are talking about in this case is bilateral respect for each countries civil judgements. Have you heard of a Mareva Injunction? An applicant in a legal case can apply to the courts where they have obtained a judgement against a party to have their assets frozen worldwide. If that judgement means that a US citizen comes to the UK to seek enforcement of a US judgement, it will be granted by the UK courts. The UK courts cannot overturn the original decision by the foreign courts.

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

I think that would be pushing things a bit, although widely known to be HM's favourite.

I think the public favourite has always been the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, who does more work than all of them put together  (except HM) but whose view of the institution is pretty clear.

I did use the word "was". 

[Bob20]

I heard the Queen already congratulated a teenager in a US court.

Only it was Emma Raducanu...

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

While she might be better than the rest Princess Anne is no mother Theresa.

She was once inspecting the troops at a regiment. Maximum attendance parade. You had to be dead before you were getting out of this.

As she walks along she comes across a young soldier who is obviously unwell. She asked the soldier if he was OK. The soldier replied he had a heavy cold. Now at this point she should have said to the CO this man needs medical attention. Please see him off the square. But that is not what she did. Instead she said "Well then stand up straight".

The soldier was marched off and charged with being picked up on inspection by Her Royal Highness the Princes Royal. 28 days jail.

She probably does not even remember the event but everyone on the square that day does. 

If true, which I find extremely unlikely as nothing about this rings true, he should never have been on the square. 

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, gummy said:

Not surprising

Actually it's astonishing. Had she done as @Rookiescot suggested she may as well have sacked the OC and CO on the spot.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I agree that no British Law has been broken, but what we are talking about in this case is bilateral respect for each countries civil judgements. Have you heard of a Mareva Injunction? An applicant in a legal case can apply to the courts where they have obtained a judgement against a party to have their assets frozen worldwide. If that judgement means that a US citizen comes to the UK to seek enforcement of a US judgement, it will be granted by the UK courts. The UK courts cannot overturn the original decision by the foreign courts.

No, never heard of it, but looking up a Mareva Injunction it's for commercial cases, for example where one company has carried out work for another and hasn't been paid.

Sorry, but courts in one country have no jurisdiction over actions by foreign nationals in their own country when what they've done isn't an offence in their own country!

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 Unlike others in the royal familly he actually earned his medals.

Really?

I don't think any other school cadets got a Golden Jubilee Medal !

... and FWIW while I'm not defending Andrew in any way I think he earnt his too.

[JohninDublin]

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, never heard of it, but looking up a Mareva Injunction it's for commercial cases, for example where one company has carried out work for another and hasn't been paid.

Sorry, but courts in one country have no jurisdiction over actions by foreign nationals in their own country when what they've done isn't an offence in their own country!

It's not only for the type of cases  you describe, though they are the most likely to use. But why do you think that HRH is defending this case if he is fireproof?

Found this: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bclplaw.com%2Fimages%2Fcontent%2F2%2F2%2Fv2%2F2220%2FBulletin-Enforcing-US-Judgments-American-version-August-2014.pdf&clen=135374&chunk=true

Extract: In the absence of a legislative provision, the procedure for enforcing the judgment of a foreign court is to bring a separate claim in the English courts. The English courts will treat the foreign judgment as creating a debt between the parties rather than requiring the matter to be re-litigated on the merits.

That means that the UK court will not rehear the case, so the fact that the law may be different in the UK is not a matter for the courts to consider.

Extract: The English courts generally take a generous view of enforcing foreign court judgments and the procedure is (by the standards of English legal proceedings) quick and cost-effective. Any party with a US court judgment in their favor ought to consider whether their opponent has assets in England and, if it does, to consider enforcing that judgment through the English courts.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

It's not only for the type of cases  you describe, though they are the most likely to use. But why do you think that HRH is defending this case if he is fireproof?

Found this: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bclplaw.com%2Fimages%2Fcontent%2F2%2F2%2Fv2%2F2220%2FBulletin-Enforcing-US-Judgments-American-version-August-2014.pdf&clen=135374&chunk=true

Extract: In the absence of a legislative provision, the procedure for enforcing the judgment of a foreign court is to bring a separate claim in the English courts. The English courts will treat the foreign judgment as creating a debt between the parties rather than requiring the matter to be re-litigated on the merits.

That means that the UK court will not rehear the case, so the fact that the law may be different in the UK is not a matter for the courts to consider.

Extract: The English courts generally take a generous view of enforcing foreign court judgments and the procedure is (by the standards of English legal proceedings) quick and cost-effective. Any party with a US court judgment in their favor ought to consider whether their opponent has assets in England and, if it does, to consider enforcing that judgment through the English courts.

You've missed a small but key part: it's only valid if "the court had jurisdiction under English rules".

They don't.

Why do I think he's defending the case?

My guess would be because he'd sooner wriggle out of it than have his sexual history and preferences discussed in public, but I prefer not to speculate as I don't know.