NY Court Refuses To Throw Out Sex Abuse Case Against Andrew

Bye Bye, Guv!

Bye Bye, Happiness.

Will King Charles be able to remove him from the Royal Lodge? Doesn't seem right for pedo to have a palatial pad on Windsor grounds. He has a 99 year lease, but the King can still banish people from royal property or tear up a contract since there is no constitution.

If tearing up the contract doesn't work, he can threaten to cut off all the money unless Andrew vacates the property and leaves the UK. Give the home to his girls. They are harmless good eggs that could be useful to the monarchy.

Does this mean he has to show up in a NY court?

I'd bet you'd have to dynamite him out of Royal Lodge, he's such a dickhead, although his finances may be such that he might hold it hostage and negotiate his way out in exchange for recovery of whatever paid to refurbish it, which was 7.5 M. Assuming nothing changes, it's not a criminal offence, just a social one. If the monarchy can bear it he will become an awkward footnote after the case is settled and live on at royal lodge, seldom seen. If he keeps his head down, he'll be out of sight, out of mind. Even the Californians get little notice unless they lob a bomb. He will probably resign his military associations. The pressure on him to disappear will be immense, to free up the jubilee with as few references to him as possible.

Off to Dubai for him, he can hang out with that Spanish animal-killer/lech.

[quote]Does this mean he has to show up in a NY court?

No, just his lawyers.

r5 has the King of Spain been banished to Dubai? What an embarrassing end to the man that symbolized Spains return to democracy.

Should I call him the former King or just the King? I already call The King of Spain, daddy!!!

Does that means there's space on the balcony at Buck House for the Platinum Jube? Asking for a couple of ex-Royal (who still shove their titles in our faces) friends (I'm a thousand miles north of them and I can hear the merch gears grinding).

I love the idea of a “sweat test” or whatever method the prosecution uses to debunk that claim.

Remember please that this is a civil case. There is no "prosecution" per se, Giuffre is a plaintiff suing for $$$. Andrew never needs to appear in court. If he loses, there will be litigation revealing his financial resources and assets. This is all very bad for the Royal Family and I am sure they are furious with him. The long term ramifications of this scandal may be dire indeed.

[quote] A judge in New York has rejected Prince Andrew’s attempt

I tried to ‘Duke’ it out, and failed. I worry I’ll soon be seen as the Dook of New York.

Wasn't Gloria Allred representing her?

What happened to GA?

R7 Yes, he was "asked" by his son to depart Spain and UAE has been laundering money for him for decades (it seems to be a family tradition to engage in tax fraud) so he soft landed among "friends" who also share his passion for killing endangered animals.

Apparently he is miserable and has requested to return home, but that will probably never happen.

He should take Andrew under his wing.

r13 he shouldn't have ever left. He's the king. But being the last Bourbon House, it's smart to preserve the legacy by letting his hot son take over and leave town. Surprised he didn't move to the South of France.

I'm confused how they can even banish a king. Who could stop him from coming back?

[quote] I'm confused how they can even banish a king. Who could stop him from coming back?

The police will be waiting his return.

I can not believe a whore who did the same crap as ghislane did and entice young girls to work for ebstein has the audacity to sue a client. This bitch was a hustler

Hmmm. I'd appeal it.

^ I was wondering about that. What level of court is this and is there grounds for appeal?

Stop with the pedo shit. She was 17, not a child, defined as someone 12 or under, and the age of consent in NY.

That said, he and his mother are getting what they deserve from this. He's an amoral self-entitled dirty old man, ansdbshe looked the orhercwaycrather than use her rank to force him to cut the connection off 15 years ago.

If the monarchy doesn't realise that it can't do its Evasive Action maneuver any longer, and fails to deal out finally some prairie justice (and that includes Harry - neither man should be carrying a gifted ducal title any longer), and get that wet mess Charles out of the way . . .

It will be gone within 25 years.

It occurs to me that this would be quite a good scam - an barely underage prostitute has sex with a famous man (must be wealthy) and then sues him for raping a minor.

This latest news on Andrew brought on one thread and twenty comments thus far.

Meghan Markle wearing the "wrong" outfit receives more negative coverage than this in the DL.

"She was 17" ... "a good scam" ... "a whore" ...

The guy raped a minor. You can reconfigure however the way you want in your mind. But, it's all in your mind.

Can't wait for "Prince" Andrew to burn in Hell and the monarchy to collapse upon itself.

She wasn’t a minor. She was a trafficked sex slave.

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!

17 is a child, R19. You're fucking gross if you think otherwise.

It’s actually a federal court in NY.

Why are these cunty old fraus so determined to paint VG as the villain? They are fucking everywhere and they are just lucky there is a screen between them and me. Vile old bitches.

Can't the Royal Family have him knocked off like they did to Diana?

R21 "Meghan Markle wearing the "wrong" outfit receives more negative coverage than this in the DL."

Meghan Markle has gained more fans and supporters as a royal victim than the woman suing a prince for raping her as a minor.

Funny how it works both ways, innit?

Look, it's the fucking LEGAL AND PYSCHOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF A PAEDOPHILE

Someone with a sexual interest in people 12 YEARS OLD OR UNDER.

And in this day and age particularly, with menarche setting in increasingly earlier and teenagers becoming sexually active in secondary school, calling a 17 year old in a state WHETE THE AGE OF CONSENT IS 17, is simply wrong.

And, it is a disservice to actual sexually abused children.

She is being referred to as a child as part of PR. That she was a minor, that is, under 18, and/or that Andrew knew she was having sex with him against her will, and knew just who his pal Epstein was and didn't care, is not something I dispute and he should pay for it to the nth degree.

But a 17 year old and a 6 year old are different entities.

Paedophilia is real disease.

Andrew suffers from shameful indulgence on his mother's part, low to no morals or inhibition controls, and a really common predilection of older wealthy high status males for pretty young flesh if they can get it. Bill Clinton is likely on the list of Einstein's stable - is he a paedophile, too?

I advocate for accurate use of langauge on behalf of children hurt by men who really ARE paedophiles.

It's you, poster upthread, who is gross for forgetting that a 6 year old whose father started sexually using her at that age, or who was sold by her parents in Thailand into the notorious child sex rings to cater to the tastes of men from Europe and points elsewhere IS A DIFFERENT CASE.

Think about it.

And as I stated elsewhere, this is the much lauded Queen's fault. She had the power to force him to give Epstein up years ago. It will turn out to be the opening in the dike through which the tidal wave will pour that will wash the British monarchy away.

And it will have been her cowardice that finished it off.

A long time coming, but these things do take time.

The military write a letter to the Queen requesting that she strip him of all his titles.

I admit I haven't followed this whole case, but my Bullshit meter went into the red zone to read that the "victim" wanted a photo with Andrew so she could send it to her mother. That put the whole "against her will" story in question for me.

If it is true that she was under 17 at the time, then the legality of the situation should be examined.

But she was not a child and the continued use of the term "pedophile" is deliberately inflammatory and used to deflect attention onto PA and away from other more powerful guilty parties.. And, if she was someone who procured other females for that life, her own "victimhood" is more questionable.

There are claims that the focus on Andrew is being used to deflect focus from Bill Clinton and other prominent US politicians. This would not surprise me, but it doesn't excuse Andrew. And if this is true, the whole lot of them should be exposed. Bill Clinton and anyone else, regardless of political party, because it would be impossible to believe that this kind of activity would not cross party lines.

R30 You don't understand how trafficking works, do you? Trafficking doesn't mean that the woman is chained and physically forced. It means that they have identified a vulnerable young woman without family support/money and coerced her into doing this. People in their 40s are trafficked all the time. It happens if they are desperate and don't have support behind them. Illegal immigrants and children from shitty homes are particularly vulnerable.

R31, perhaps you should look up more of V's background and her history.

They’re not prosecuting anything else, so…

Was she dressed provocatively, r32?

The thing is.. if we assume that what VG says did happen, what on earth did Andrew think was going on? Maxwell and Epstein were taking this nobody kid around with them and offering her up for sex, gratis? Did he never think for a minute a) that it could be a honeytrap by spies to entrap him b) that it's creepy that a middle aged man with daughters similar to her age was having sex with her?

R35, that’s what I wondered. I think the answer is that the wealthy and powerful really get off on the notion (not without justification) that they can get away with anything.

R31, she was texting her mother and grandmother from London, telling them that she was with Prince Andrew, and they texted her back with "well get a photo with him for us sweetie, but take care!" She and her family were fully complicit. That's not trafficking.

R37 Illegal immigrants who have been trafficked into modern slavery (very low, illegal wages and working conditions) also contact their family pretending that everything's fine. You just really don't understand how humans behave in reality at all.

I wonder if the constant recent message of "she doesn't want to settle" is a tactic to get a good deal or she's gone Hollywood and it savouring the media attention.

Her high visibility strategy makes me think of Patsy Stone: "In my day, there was a sense of style about the whole thing, you know. Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies... Gorgeous little women who kept their mouths shut and just looked gorgeous, and gave the whole thing an air of dignity. You know, that's the way I should play it, Eddie. Not like these penny tarts of recent times. Kiss and tell, blurt it all out, for the promise of a quick buck and instant fame."

I think she's probably telling more truth than lies and yet I find her unsympathetic, somehow. Maybe it's just a generational thing... she wants her check and praise too.

She was not under 17. She WAS 17. The age of sexual consent in the State of New York where the case was filed.

Sexual consent is not given to "children".

R40 Is the case about that though? No, it is not. It's best if you address the actual claims.

The "victim" was shacked up with a guy before she "met" prince andrew. A druggie street whore. And yet they continue to reference her as a child ??? Whats wrong with people , get a clue !

He was stripped of HRH and military titles.

R42 Only just goes to confirm that she was vulnerable and from a terrible background that they could exploit.

RIP R42

R41 you are way off the mark

R46 How? The case isn't about that, so how about you actually address what it's about.

The Queen did the right thing.

It was interesting that Giuffre's lawyer was saying he might call Meghan Markle as a witness. Given the fact she only lived in the UK for a year and a half and she probably had next to no contact with Andrew there, makes you wonder if he is hinting that she knew Andrew before marrying Harry. Those yacht girl rumors?

R49 I always found that really, really weird too. Why would she call him? You may be right.

*Sorry, *her*, not him.

R31 R30 is typical of those who see VG as simply wanting money. They think that she should and could have just upped and walked away and many of them blame parents. In fact, that is such a common thread, that it seems as though there is a script out there.

Andrew has also lost the HRH. That is a major loss. Was it worth it, Andy?

Why do you tbink Markle had next to no contact with Randy Andy, Harry"s godfather? No matter, David Bois seems to.

R52 Giuffre got a mention in the Maxwell case. One of the women who had been abused by Epstein told the court she hadn't been pimped by Maxwell but by Giuffre. Giuffre - if you saw her in the Epstein documentary on Netflix - came across as an operator. A couple of Epstein's former victims appeared to have been willingly victimized others. They were hooking before they met Epstein and appear to have continued hooking after Epstein.

R55 You mean Carolyn? She herself admits that she recruited new girls for Epstein and got extra money for it. That was part of the whole pyramid scheme.

What surprised me in the documentary is how ordinary looking most of Epstein's "girls" were. Like Giuffre, there wasn't a beauty among them. They were all white trash trailer park trollops.

[quote] Andrew has also lost the HRH.

No. Not true.

He will no longer use the HRH in an official capacity.

R57 Says a gay guy.. what would you know what straight men like, to be honest?

R59 I assume they would prefer gorgeous girls over ones that look like Giuffre.

Most people are average-looking and most people are partnered up. Except for R57, forever ugly and forever alone.

ABC article about Carolyn recruiting girls herself too. So when posters here try to use Carolyn's anger at Giuffre for recruiting girls against Giuffre, you have to understand that Carolyn also did it. This is all part of the trafficking scheme Epstein had.

"Carolyn said she would go back to the house two or three times per week for years, over a hundred times in all.

She said that she remembered bringing three different friends around her same age with her over the years. On those occasions she'd receive $600 in cash as an incentive for bringing them, and her friends would receive $300."

R60 You're gay, you don't have a clue what straight men find attractive.

These girls weren't prisoners. They could have left at any time. Not buying the narrative at all. Epstein and Maxwell were creeps but without them these girls would still have been hooking.

Andrew STRIPPED of his patronages. STRIPPED!

I refuse to participate until this is settled into a single thread.

You people going around posting in multiple threads on the same topic are truly ruining the experience here. Nothing you need to say is that important that you need to repeat it.

Just focus on one thread and post there. It’s like a bunch of toddlers.

I tell ya!

R58 Semantics really. He no longer has any official capacity that I can think of.

About half a dozen Andrew/Meghan threads that appear when you search for Andrew have been nuked by Muriel. Anyone got a link to the latest active thread?

Semantics are absolutely what titles like HRH are about, r68.

You know, even though Lady Colin Campbell is is a dotty old windbag, she makes a good point - that Virginia Giuffre could be prosecuted and receive a life sentence for her role in recruiting underage girls for Epstein, just as Maxwell did. I think LCC's claim that the whole case against PA is to protect Clinton and aid Hillary in a presidential 2024 bid is far-fetched, but her view that VG has been offered immunity if she comes to the US and testifies against PA might be valid.