Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

This smacks of desperation to me to say the least. She was born in California so deffo a US citizen, I believe you can renounce US citizenship if you choose but you actively have to do so, it doesn't expire and since both Australia and the US allow dual citizenship then becoming an Aussie one won't affect it.
He Who Cannot Sweat appears to view the trial even taking place as being the same as losing it. Suspect he might be right to, regardless of the actual outcome there will be finger pointing forever on the well established if legally unsound principle of "There's No Smoke Without Fire"
He isn't going to jail and any financial penalty might very well be unenforceable but any outcome beside total absolution is going to hang around him like a bad smell forever, he's just too much in the public eye for it ever to be forgotten.
Even if he is totally exonerated (which is still possible) there are still going to be lots that are far from convinced and a great many of the movers and shakers of the world are going to be unenthusiatic about being seen with him.
 
This is not about US Citizenship but about being a citizen of a specific US state. US citizens living overseas can apparently lose their state citizenship and this may restrict some of their legal rights. Desperate but, presumably, the lawyers think it could work
.....
Citizen of a State
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that American citizens are also citizens "of the state wherein they reside," but U.S. citizenship does not necessitate residence in a particular state.

Persons living abroad, for example, are citizens of the United States but not of any state.

One significant legal disadvantage exists for a person who is not a citizen of a state. The Constitution provides that federal courts can hear "Controversies … between Citizens of different States." The phrase "Citizens of different States" includes citizens of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and Guam. Puerto Rico is in the First Circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the Third Circuit, and Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii are in the Ninth Circuit. A person who is not a resident of a state or designated area, even if he or she is a U.S. citizen, cannot satisfy the diversity of citizenship requirement and therefore cannot bring an action under the Diversity Clause in a federal court.

 
This is not about US Citizenship but about being a citizen of a specific US state. US citizens living overseas can apparently lose their state citizenship and this may restrict some of their legal rights. Desperate but, presumably, the lawyers think it could work
.....
Citizen of a State
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that American citizens are also citizens "of the state wherein they reside," but U.S. citizenship does not necessitate residence in a particular state.

Persons living abroad, for example, are citizens of the United States but not of any state.

One significant legal disadvantage exists for a person who is not a citizen of a state. The Constitution provides that federal courts can hear "Controversies … between Citizens of different States." The phrase "Citizens of different States" includes citizens of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and Guam. Puerto Rico is in the First Circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the Third Circuit, and Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii are in the Ninth Circuit. A person who is not a resident of a state or designated area, even if he or she is a U.S. citizen, cannot satisfy the diversity of citizenship requirement and therefore cannot bring an action under the Diversity Clause in a federal court.

Tbh I think they may have a point. However,this should have been the first argument they laid before the court. Not stuff about some alleged deal. Issues of jurisdiction obviously precede issues around anything else. So by bringing this up now they only look feeble
 
Tbh I think they may have a point. However,this should have been the first argument they laid before the court. Not stuff about some alleged deal. Issues of jurisdiction obviously precede issues around anything else. So by bringing this up now they only look feeble
And just to add, by arguing about other things first they have imo tacitly accepted the court's authority to hear the case
 
But what is the verdict?

while the jury is deliberating, the various reporters, hangers-on, etc. go outside for a smoke or out into the hallway for a chinwag, whetev. the jury sends a note to the judge saying "we're ready to come in." the judge then has to pull the room together so there's a bit of an interval. that's what yahoo was reporting.

source: myself, as i've sat on a criminal jury.
 
Last edited:
So, barring an appeal that is her seen to. But it doesn't go anywhere toward the rich and famous people Epstein entertained, some of which may have also enjoyed the young trafficked girls. And there were a lot of prominent people Epstein entertained.
 
Back
Top Bottom