Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

I don't think he or his lawyers know what's in the previous agreement which is why I think they want to see it in private. It's a bit of a Schrodinger's Cat agreement at the moment since it might both incriminate and indemify him at the moment.

Some not very reliable googling suggests he (or his brief) has until either 3pm or 5pm (hard to tell which) to do it. They might have done so for all we know, I can't imagine the court is going to make it public and his briefs probably won't want it to be.
Is that uk time or one of the usa time zones?
 
Is that uk time or one of the usa time zones?
EDT New York Time so either 2000 or 2200 BST
The article I found said 3pm if handed in or 5pm if put in a dispatch box and stamped with the time and I'm not sure how something can be stamped with time unless it gets handed to someone to do the stamping
 
Presumably this case is being held in the US because one of the crimes took place there. And that is Andrew's out because he can't be forced to be there.

One of the crimes happened in London though, what about if a case was brought here, could Andrew still escape being at the trial?
 
I am pretty sure the EU have an extradition agreement with the US and would quite happily ship a Royal nonce off to the US so I suspect there will not be many places he can visit on our doorstep
 
Presumably this case is being held in the US because one of the crimes took place there. And that is Andrew's out because he can't be forced to be there.

One of the crimes happened in London though, what about if a case was brought here, could Andrew still escape being at the trial?
Yes. He can escape any legal difficulties by the simple means of doing away with himself
 
Can someone please explain to me why his legal team wanted the agreement unsealed and now they don’t?
 
Rendered into penguin feed? A nutritious supplement to help them through the cold. Just add sweat
I was thinking of being kidnapped and delivered into the hands of more repressive regimes
why-not-both-why-not.gif
 
Can someone please explain to me why his legal team wanted the agreement unsealed and now they don’t?
Because it's subject to a protective order in other proceedings, which means Andrew can only file it in these proceedings - which he wants to because he claims it bars her from claiming against him - if the judge allows it to be kept under seal. The judge has done so, but strongly advised the parties to to apply to the judge in the other proceedings to allow it to be made public (which both parties say they have no issue with).
 
Last edited:
EDT New York Time so either 2000 or 2200 BST
The article I found said 3pm if handed in or 5pm if put in a dispatch box and stamped with the time and I'm not sure how something can be stamped with time unless it gets handed to someone to do the stamping
So we are past 10pm :hmm: any developments? :hmm:
 
I've only read that one article linked, but it sounds like Andrew's new argument is "So she alleges I sexually abused her multiple times when she was a trafficked minor? Is that it?!? Where's the beef?"
 
I've only read that one article linked, but it sounds like Andrew's new argument is "So she alleges I sexually abused her multiple times when she was a trafficked minor? Is that it?!? Where's the beef?"
If that's his argument I feel it rather wafer thin on substance.
 
I've only read that one article linked, but it sounds like Andrew's new argument is "So she alleges I sexually abused her multiple times when she was a trafficked minor? Is that it?!? Where's the beef?"
Without seeing it, it's hard to know exactly what he's saying, but this gives you some idea of the possibilities.


Given he's asked for more details, I'm guessing he's saying she's not provided enough facts to make out a prima facie case against him. Probably a tactic to get her to commit to more detail, in the hope that some of it is likely to be provably inaccurate (because of the passage of time), which he'll exploit to undermine her.
 
Last edited:
Without seeing it, it's hard to know exactly what he's saying, but this gives you some idea of the possibilities.


Given he's asked for more details, I'm guessing he's saying she's not provided enough facts to make out a prima facie case against him. Probably a tactic to get her to commit to more detail, in the hope that some of it is likely to be provably inaccurate (because of the passage of time), which he'll exploit to undermine her.
This would be his stumbling block.

Practically speaking, the judge would usually give the plaintiff leave to amend if a legal cause of action was apparent from the facts

Because its apparent to any fule that he's a sweaty nonce.
 
Back
Top Bottom