Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:33 am
How Gene Wilder kept himself under control with the delicious Terry Carr, I'll never know.
Ops-Normal.org
A Convivial Aviation Discussion Forum for Aviators, Aviatrices and for those who think Flying Machines are Magic.
https://ops-normal.org/
Andrew to the Tower?
Page 13 of 26
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:02 am
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:45 am
Delicious is not the word for that gorgeous girl, as she was. Sigh!
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:30 pm
Are we talking geographically "various locations" or something else? Just curious.
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2021 7:55 am
Ambidextrous?
AK, apart from the picture of her cuddling up to a Spitting Image of PA, maybe she saw him with GM and thought it a good idea for a shake down?
Or did her husband see it as either an income stream or a lottery prize?
AK, apart from the picture of her cuddling up to a Spitting Image of PA, maybe she saw him with GM and thought it a good idea for a shake down?
Or did her husband see it as either an income stream or a lottery prize?
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:17 pm
Almost predictable but I don't know what those bastions of integrity the Met Police were doing anyway. Isn't it a civil case in the States - so were they supposed to be investigating on behalf of the US lawyers? Or maybe trying to show that there's nothing on the British side of the pond that's suspicious - just an arrogant twerp exercising what he probably thought was his droit de seigneur. If they are investigating rape then an offence may have been committed, if only sex then no offence as she was over 16 at the time, obnoxious as that may be.
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:10 am
I think that they were asked to investigate so that they could say no case found. Weakens the case in the USA. Does she look really unhappy in that famous photograph of them together?
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:52 am
No offence committed here (or anywhere, but Mrs OFSO doesn't agree.)
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:23 am
Do the Metropolitan Police investigate sex crimes?
Just asking for a friend squire.
Just asking for a friend squire.
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:04 am
Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:23 amDo the Metropolitan Police investigate sex crimes?
Just asking for a friend squire.
Depends who the sex criminal is.
If it's the favourite son of she who dispenses knighthoods, not so much.
In Scotland, when it was she who nominates people for such awards who was organising a sex crime slur against a personal and political foe, Polizei Schottland set up what they themselves called "the Salmond squad". A crew of 40 detectives carried out over 700 interviews in an attempt to increase the number of recruits beyond the original 10 who had been put together by the organisers of the plot. They failed miserably. Not one extra recruit materialised, despite millions being spent on police resources in the attempt.
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:17 am
Prince Andrew's lawyers claim sex abuse allegations vague, judge disagrees
"It was sexual intercourse, involuntary sexual intercourse," Judge Lewis Kaplan said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr ... -rcna10937
Prince Andrew's lawyers tried again Tuesday to scuttle a lawsuit by a woman who says he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 by telling a New York City federal judge that she failed to "articulate what happened to her at the hands" of the prince.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan forcefully disagreed.
"It was sexual intercourse, involuntary sexual intercourse," Kaplan told defense attorney Andrew Brettler. "There isn’t any doubt about what that means."
Kaplan also brushed aside Brettler's request that the woman, Virginia Giuffre, provide more details about where and when the alleged assaults happened before the lawsuit is allowed to proceed any further.
"With all due respect, Mr. Brettler, that is not a dog that’s going to hunt here," Kaplan said. "I’ll tell you that straight out, right now. It’s not going to happen."
Kaplan closed the virtual hearing by saying he would decide "pretty soon" whether the lawsuit will proceed.
Giuffre, who is seeking unspecified damages, claims she was a teenager when convicted sex offender and powerful financier Jeffrey Epstein and his confidante, Ghislaine Maxwell, forced her in the 1990s to have sex with Andrew, Queen Elizabeth II’s son — an allegation Andrew has repeatedly denied.
Epstein was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges in 2019 when he died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell. Maxwell was convicted last week of recruiting and grooming four teenage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse.
Giuffre was not one of the four women in the case against Maxwell, and there were no allegations against Andrew as part of that case.
Brettler, who tried and failed to block the lawsuit by arguing that Giuffre no longer lives in the United States and by insisting that a $500,000 settlement she reached in 2009 with Epstein immunized Andrew against further legal action, took a different tack Tuesday during opening arguments.
Before the case went any further, Brettler said he wanted Giuffre to “lock herself into a story now, not in the future” and provide further and more precise details of her allegations.
Kaplan said that wasn't necessary at this stage of the process and added, "It just isn’t the law."
Andrew's lawyers can scrutinize Giuffre’s claims when they start sharing evidence, said Kaplan, who dismissed any suggestion that the accuser was being vague about what allegedly happened by reading directly from her lawsuit.
"On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused plaintiff in London at Maxwell’s home," Kaplan read. "During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew forced plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will."
Earlier, Kaplan turned aside the defense argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the past 19 years and is raising three children in the city of Perth with her Australian husband.
Andrew's lawyers have also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Giuffre, then using her maiden name, Roberts, agreed in the Epstein settlement to “remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge the said second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant ... from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action.”
Andrews’ lawyers have contended that the prince is a “third-party beneficiary of the release agreement” even though he is not mentioned by name in the settlement.
A representative for Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies released a statement Monday saying “the release is irrelevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew.”
“He did not even know about it,” the representative said of the settlement. “He could not have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part.”
But Section 21 of Giuffre’s complaint against Epstein says the powerful Epstein friends who “sexually exploited” her included “royalty.”
PP
"It was sexual intercourse, involuntary sexual intercourse," Judge Lewis Kaplan said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr ... -rcna10937
Prince Andrew's lawyers tried again Tuesday to scuttle a lawsuit by a woman who says he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 by telling a New York City federal judge that she failed to "articulate what happened to her at the hands" of the prince.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan forcefully disagreed.
"It was sexual intercourse, involuntary sexual intercourse," Kaplan told defense attorney Andrew Brettler. "There isn’t any doubt about what that means."
Kaplan also brushed aside Brettler's request that the woman, Virginia Giuffre, provide more details about where and when the alleged assaults happened before the lawsuit is allowed to proceed any further.
"With all due respect, Mr. Brettler, that is not a dog that’s going to hunt here," Kaplan said. "I’ll tell you that straight out, right now. It’s not going to happen."
Kaplan closed the virtual hearing by saying he would decide "pretty soon" whether the lawsuit will proceed.
Giuffre, who is seeking unspecified damages, claims she was a teenager when convicted sex offender and powerful financier Jeffrey Epstein and his confidante, Ghislaine Maxwell, forced her in the 1990s to have sex with Andrew, Queen Elizabeth II’s son — an allegation Andrew has repeatedly denied.
Epstein was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges in 2019 when he died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell. Maxwell was convicted last week of recruiting and grooming four teenage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse.
Giuffre was not one of the four women in the case against Maxwell, and there were no allegations against Andrew as part of that case.
Brettler, who tried and failed to block the lawsuit by arguing that Giuffre no longer lives in the United States and by insisting that a $500,000 settlement she reached in 2009 with Epstein immunized Andrew against further legal action, took a different tack Tuesday during opening arguments.
Before the case went any further, Brettler said he wanted Giuffre to “lock herself into a story now, not in the future” and provide further and more precise details of her allegations.
Kaplan said that wasn't necessary at this stage of the process and added, "It just isn’t the law."
Andrew's lawyers can scrutinize Giuffre’s claims when they start sharing evidence, said Kaplan, who dismissed any suggestion that the accuser was being vague about what allegedly happened by reading directly from her lawsuit.
"On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused plaintiff in London at Maxwell’s home," Kaplan read. "During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew forced plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will."
Earlier, Kaplan turned aside the defense argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the past 19 years and is raising three children in the city of Perth with her Australian husband.
Andrew's lawyers have also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Giuffre, then using her maiden name, Roberts, agreed in the Epstein settlement to “remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge the said second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant ... from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action.”
Andrews’ lawyers have contended that the prince is a “third-party beneficiary of the release agreement” even though he is not mentioned by name in the settlement.
A representative for Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies released a statement Monday saying “the release is irrelevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew.”
“He did not even know about it,” the representative said of the settlement. “He could not have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part.”
But Section 21 of Giuffre’s complaint against Epstein says the powerful Epstein friends who “sexually exploited” her included “royalty.”
PP
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:35 am
His defence is very much:He did not even know about it,” the representative said of the settlement. “He could not have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part.”
But Section 21 of Giuffre’s complaint against Epstein says the powerful Epstein friends who “sexually exploited” her included “royalty
I wasn't there.
But if I was there, I never met her.
But if I did meet her I didn't have sex with her.
But if I did have sex with her it was consensual.
Now if he had come straight out and said I had sex with her, it would have been done and dusted years ago.
As for Royalty, there's more than one Royal isn't there?
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:15 am
There's scads of 'em.
Problem is: he's his mummy's favourite son. He knows that and he has an extraordinarily strong feeling of entitlement.
I suspect that he's still puzzled by the widespread public reaction to 'that' interview. He'd be an absolute disaster on the witness stand in a jury trial. Playing the Falklands War Hero card just won't work with a New York jury and his dodgy alibi of attending an afternoon children's party in a pizza parlour 'instead of' gojng to a late night club like Tramp's wouldn't last a New York minute.
It seems to me that his only hope is to get off on a technicality. Hiding from the writ-serving law officers by lying low behind the security screen at Balmoral or Birkhall didn't work. Hiding behind the NDA doesn't seem to be working either. Claiming that Giuffre, who is still an American citizen, shouldn't be allowed to lay a claim in a US Federal Court didn't work either. The photo interpretation crew he hired to discredit that photo of him with her (both hers, actually) came up with zilch.
He's wriggling and squirming on the hook. The honourable thing for him to do would be to relinquish all his many titles and pseudo-military ranks.
Problem is: he's his mummy's favourite son. He knows that and he has an extraordinarily strong feeling of entitlement.
I suspect that he's still puzzled by the widespread public reaction to 'that' interview. He'd be an absolute disaster on the witness stand in a jury trial. Playing the Falklands War Hero card just won't work with a New York jury and his dodgy alibi of attending an afternoon children's party in a pizza parlour 'instead of' gojng to a late night club like Tramp's wouldn't last a New York minute.
It seems to me that his only hope is to get off on a technicality. Hiding from the writ-serving law officers by lying low behind the security screen at Balmoral or Birkhall didn't work. Hiding behind the NDA doesn't seem to be working either. Claiming that Giuffre, who is still an American citizen, shouldn't be allowed to lay a claim in a US Federal Court didn't work either. The photo interpretation crew he hired to discredit that photo of him with her (both hers, actually) came up with zilch.
He's wriggling and squirming on the hook. The honourable thing for him to do would be to relinquish all his many titles and pseudo-military ranks.
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:53 am
He's wriggling and squirming on the hook. The honourable thing for him to do would be to relinquish all his many titles and pseudo-military ranks.
And........
And........
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:04 pm
and don his pink kimono, put on a clean pair of scants and cleanse himself ritually, using salt (as opposed to sexual assault) and then commit seppuku, using a blunt Swiss Army knife, while God Save the Queen plays, on a rickety wind up 98 rpm Gramophone Record Player, as his flunkies salute him!Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:53 amHe's wriggling and squirming on the hook. The honourable thing for him to do would be to relinquish all his many titles and pseudo-military ranks.
And........
Well it is one thing he could do! Beats the Mess Webley, but does leave an awful mess!
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:15 pm
78 not 98
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:17 pm
No this Gramophone goes to 98 for comedic effect, in the same way as this amp goes to 11....
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:19 pm
Lol..
With a blunt needle then
With a blunt needle then
Re: Andrew to the Tower?
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:21 pm
Weren't the 78 needles always blunt? Our 78 records used to develop grooves like the grand canyon after a while. Didn't do Mario Lanza's voice a power of good, but still!
