|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 10, 2021 7:45:52 GMT
Prince Andrew is SUED by Virginia Roberts in lawsuit claiming he sexually abused her at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan mansion and other locations when she was under 18
Prince Andrew was sued on Monday in a New York City court by his accuser Virginia Roberts.
Roberts accused the Duke of York of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the lawsuit filed in federal court.
The lawsuit - filed on Roberts' 38th birthday - claims that she was forced to have sex with Andrew three times on the orders of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
It was filed under a law in New York that relates to child abuse as Roberts was considered a minor at the time under state law.
It lists Roberts as the plaintiff and the defendant as 'Prince Andrew, Duke of York a/k/a Andrew Albert Christian Edward' as the defendant.
The lawsuit claims that 'Prince Andrew intentionally committed battery by sexually assaulting Plaintiff when she was a minor.
'On multiple occasions Prince Andrew intentionally touched (Roberts) in an offensive and sexual manner without her consent'.
Under the section of the lawsuit that deals with the formal allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the lawsuit is withering about the Duke.
It says: 'Prince Andrew's actions, described above, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience.
'Prince Andrew's sexual abuse of a child who he knew was a sex-trafficking victim, and when he was approximately 40 years old, goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is intolerable in a civilized community'.
The lawsuit claims that Andrew was one of the 'powerful men' who Epstein loaned Roberts out to for sex.
The document accuses the Duke of 'publicly feigning ignorance about the scope of Epstein's sex-trafficking operation and sympathy for Epstein's victims' then refusing to cooperate with the FBI.
The lawsuit notes that 'defendant Prince Andrew is a citizen of the United Kingdom, and is currently residing at the Royal Lodge at Windsor Great Park, Berkshire, United Kingdom, where he is domiciled'.
During each of the alleged incidents with Roberts, Andrew was acting in a 'personal capacity' and not in any role for the Royal family or the UK government, the lawsuit notes.
Andrew has always strongly denied any wrongdoing and claimed he has never even met Roberts, now a mother-of-three living in Australia who goes by her married name, Virginia Giuffre.
In a statement to ABC News, Roberts said: 'I am holding Prince Andrew accountable for what he did to me.
'The powerful and the rich are not exempt from being held responsible for their actions. I hope that other victims will see that it is possible not to live in silence and fear, but one can reclaim her life by speaking out and demanding justice.
'I did not come to this decision lightly. As a mother and a wife, my family comes first. I know that this action will subject me to further attacks by Prince Andrew and his surrogates.
'But I knew that if I did not pursue this action, I would be letting them and victims everywhere down'.
Roberts has made similar allegations before in U.S. court documents but this is the first time she has sued the Duke directly.
She claims that the first time she was forced to have sex with Andrew was at the London townhouse of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's alleged madam.
The second time, in early 2001 was at Epstein's New York mansion.
The lawsuit states: 'During this encounter, Maxwell forced Plaintiff, a child, and another victim to sit on Prince Andrew's lap as Prince Andrew touched her.
'During his visit to New York, Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff to engage in sex acts against her will.
The third incident was on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean.
During each incident, Roberts was 'compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts' with the Duke.
Roberts 'feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority', it is claimed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 10, 2021 7:49:41 GMT
I honestly don't know what to think about this. Part of me thinks she comes across as a gold digger, probably had consensual sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17 (legal in Prince Andrew's country but not in the State they were in) and now is claiming it was non-consensual for a payout.
|
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on Aug 10, 2021 8:00:22 GMT
It'll get tossed. If she had any kind of case she'd have filed long before now.
|
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Aug 10, 2021 8:37:26 GMT
Frankly if Prince Andrew was innocent, he would be helping the FBI out with their investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates - just as he said he would - instead of hiding away in his home country, offering zero help to authorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 10, 2021 9:37:00 GMT
Frankly if Prince Andrew was innocent, he would be helping the FBI out with their investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates - just as he said he would - instead of hiding away in his home country, offering zero help to authorities.
Hmmm, colour me sceptical. She's probably telling the truth about them having sex, but I have a hard time believing he raped her against her will. She's just using the fact that the age of consent in that State is 18 rather than 16 to her advantage so she can claim she was a victim of CSA. Sounds un-pc, but I think she knew exactly what she was doing at 17, and is now cashing in on the whole Epstein scandal by making out like she's so traumatised by having had sex with Prince Andrew. Now if he did indeed have sex with her, then he did commit a crime in that State. But it wouldn't have been a crime in many other States and I don't buy that she's an actual victim of anything. Gold digger, yes, victim no. |
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Aug 10, 2021 9:56:49 GMT
Frankly if Prince Andrew was innocent, he would be helping the FBI out with their investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates - just as he said he would - instead of hiding away in his home country, offering zero help to authorities.
Hmmm, colour me sceptical. She's probably telling the truth about them having sex, but I have a hard time believing he raped her against her will. She's just using the fact that the age of consent in that State is 18 rather than 16 to her advantage so she can claim she was a victim of CSA. Sounds un-pc, but I think she knew exactly what she was doing at 17, and is now cashing in on the whole Epstein scandal by making out like she's so traumatised by having had sex with Prince Andrew. Now if he did indeed have sex with her, then he did commit a crime in that State. But it wouldn't have been a crime in many other States and I don't buy that she's an actual victim of anything. Gold digger, yes, victim no. It's been hard for me to see him as anything except highly suspicious since that disastrous interview in late 2019 where he wouldn't seem to stop digging himself further into a hole.
I'd welcome a trial for this, but I don't see it happening. |
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 10, 2021 10:00:29 GMT
Hmmm, colour me sceptical. She's probably telling the truth about them having sex, but I have a hard time believing he raped her against her will. She's just using the fact that the age of consent in that State is 18 rather than 16 to her advantage so she can claim she was a victim of CSA. Sounds un-pc, but I think she knew exactly what she was doing at 17, and is now cashing in on the whole Epstein scandal by making out like she's so traumatised by having had sex with Prince Andrew. Now if he did indeed have sex with her, then he did commit a crime in that State. But it wouldn't have been a crime in many other States and I don't buy that she's an actual victim of anything. Gold digger, yes, victim no. It's been hard for me to see him as anything except highly suspicious since that disastrous interview in late 2019 where he wouldn't seem to stop digging himself further into a hole. I'd welcome a trial for this, but I don't see it happening. I think he came across as so suspicious, because he can't very well come out and admit that he did have sex with her when she was 17, when the age of consent in that State is 18. So technically he did commit a crime, so it's deny deny deny. But do you really believe she was forced into non-consensual sex with him? Cuz I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Aug 10, 2021 10:36:35 GMT
It's been hard for me to see him as anything except highly suspicious since that disastrous interview in late 2019 where he wouldn't seem to stop digging himself further into a hole. I'd welcome a trial for this, but I don't see it happening. I think he came across as so suspicious, because he can't very well come out and admit that he did have sex with her when she was 17, when the age of consent in that State is 18. So technically he did commit a crime, so it's deny deny deny. But do you really believe she was forced into non-consensual sex with him? Cuz I don't. I mean, no-one forced him to do the interview either. Also I'm not sure if it has been changed since 2001, but the age of consent in New York is 17, not 18. So I believe if she was completely of free will and consented, Prince Andrew wouldn't have been breaking the law.
The issue, however, is that she wasn't of free will. She was being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein at the time and threatened into having sexual intercourse with lots of men at that young age. In that case, even if she is performing the act, she is not consenting because she is being made to do it. Up to here, I do not dispute at all.
Now, if she only had sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew because she was forced to by Jeffrey Epstein, who was trafficking her, then she has not consented and it would be considered sexual abuse.
Whether she was 17 or 27, trafficking and sexual abuse are still illegal at any age. The minor aspect of it comes into play, I believe, because even though the age of consent is 17, and it is legal to have consensual sex at that age, she is still considered a minor under New York state law. So therefore it would still be considered both trafficking of a minor, as well as the sexual abuse of a minor - the second of which is what Prince Andrew is being sued for.
I'm obviously not a lawyer though, this is just what I've gathered from reading bits over time. It's kind of a little bit like child pornography laws - two 17 year olds can legally have sexual intercourse with each other, but if video was taken of the act, then that video is illegal because the people in the video are minors under state law.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 10, 2021 10:56:05 GMT
I think he came across as so suspicious, because he can't very well come out and admit that he did have sex with her when she was 17, when the age of consent in that State is 18. So technically he did commit a crime, so it's deny deny deny. But do you really believe she was forced into non-consensual sex with him? Cuz I don't. I mean, no-one forced him to do the interview either. Also I'm not sure if it has been changed since 2001, but the age of consent in New York is 17, not 18. So I believe if she was completely of free will and consented, Prince Andrew wouldn't have been breaking the law. The issue, however, is that she wasn't of free will. She was being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein at the time and threatened into having sexual intercourse with lots of men at that young age. In that case, even if she is performing the act, she is not consenting because she is being made to do it. Up to here, I do not dispute at all.
Now, if she only had sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew because she was forced to by Jeffrey Epstein, who was trafficking her, then she has not consented and it would be considered sexual abuse. Whether she was 17 or 27, trafficking and sexual abuse are still illegal at any age. The minor aspect of it comes into play, I believe, because even though the age of consent is 17, and it is legal to have consensual sex at that age, she is still considered a minor under New York state law. So therefore it would still be considered both trafficking of a minor, as well as the sexual abuse of a minor - the second of which is what Prince Andrew is being sued for. I'm obviously not a lawyer though, this is just what I've gathered from reading bits over time. It's kind of a little bit like child pornography laws - two 17 year olds can legally have sexual intercourse with each other, but if video was taken of the act, then that video is illegal because the people in the video are minors under state law.
Well then they would need to prove that Prince Andrew knew that Roberts was being sex trafficked. Didn't she actually recruit more girls for Epstein? Or was that someone else? |
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Aug 10, 2021 11:51:19 GMT
Well then they would need to prove that Prince Andrew knew that Roberts was being sex trafficked. Didn't she actually recruit more girls for Epstein? Or was that someone else? Possibly, in a legal context I’m not actually sure. When reading up about New York consensual age laws tonight, I read that the defence that “they said they were older” doesn’t work in the state so I wonder if the “I didn’t know she being trafficked” defence would hold up? When Googling for your second question which I’m about to get to, I did come across an article where Epstein’s victims were talking in depth about how it was hard to not know if you were in Epstein’s inner circles, so they would probably argue that if Prince Andrew went for that defence. I’m sure many knew, though I also imagine Epstein also kept some people at bay. As for your second question, I’m not sure about Virginia specifically, but some of his victims (such as Sarah Ransome) were coaxed into recruiting more girls. She talks about it in the article above. You might also be thinking of Ghislaine Maxwell? She’s basically Epstein’s right hand woman, and the one who’s been repeatedly accused and charged with acquiring and enticing the girls for Epstein’s ring. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 10, 2021 21:46:25 GMT
Andrew has done himself no favours at all with this entire issue and his disastrous interview was him digging a bigger hole.
But this lawsuit has zero jurisdiction over a UK citizen in the same way UK law has no jurisdiction of the US diplomat's wife who caused the death of a young man via driving.
The lawsuit seems more about Virginia trying to up the pressure on Andrew and to see if he'll settle for $$$$. Don't see her getting money from him, but I do see plenty for the media as they'll print the story as long as possible. And it'll continue to pressure him as well anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 11, 2021 6:01:40 GMT
Andrew has done himself no favours at all with this entire issue and his disastrous interview was him digging a bigger hole. But this lawsuit has zero jurisdiction over a UK citizen in the same way UK law has no jurisdiction of the US diplomat's wife who caused the death of a young man via driving. The lawsuit seems more about Virginia trying to up the pressure on Andrew and to see if he'll settle for $$$$. Don't see her getting money from him, but I do see plenty for the media as they'll print the story as long as possible. And it'll continue to pressure him as well anyway. My understanding is that he cannot be forced into testifying, but if it gets as far as a trial, his non attendance could be seen as a sign of hiding behind the crown and wouldn't do him any favours. I would personally be surprised if it ever got that far though. |
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 11, 2021 9:21:08 GMT
I agree with this handsome guy:
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 11, 2021 10:32:26 GMT
Andrew has done himself no favours at all with this entire issue and his disastrous interview was him digging a bigger hole. But this lawsuit has zero jurisdiction over a UK citizen in the same way UK law has no jurisdiction of the US diplomat's wife who caused the death of a young man via driving. The lawsuit seems more about Virginia trying to up the pressure on Andrew and to see if he'll settle for $$$$. Don't see her getting money from him, but I do see plenty for the media as they'll print the story as long as possible. And it'll continue to pressure him as well anyway. My understanding is that he cannot be forced into testifying, but if it gets as far as a trial, his non attendance could be seen as a sign of hiding behind the crown and wouldn't do him any favours. I would personally be surprised if it ever got that far though. It'll be a case of he's not a US national and so the case has no merit. The UK Government will block extradition in much the same way the US blocked extradition of the US Diplomat's wife. Without question, this is a publicity stunt and attempted money grab. Weinstein's victims haven't sued for money, as far as I recall. Gives them a lot of credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 11, 2021 11:02:13 GMT
Forget what I said about extradition. From the BBC:
|
|
