Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Diamond said:
Not sure what you're getting at here. If there's new evidence, then sure, that merits a review depending on how germane it is to the central elements of the case but, if there is no new evidence, then we're dealing with the same set of facts.
Click to expand...
Clear your mind of what you currently think.

There is one set of facts and no new evidence.

He was initially to be charged based on all of the facts they had. That would have resulted in a long custodial sentence.

But a deal was done and he was not charged based on all of the facts. He was charged on some of them. Some were set aside.

So today, there is a set of facts - a subset of the initial group - that he has never been charged on. They have not come to court. He has not been tried on them.

If the deal is found illegal, he could theoretically (if not actually in US law) be tried on those charges which have not yet been brought, as it would be the first time they would be officially brought and heard in court.
 
Mation said:
Clear your mind of what you currently think.

There is one set of facts and no new evidence.

He was initially to be charged based on all of the facts they had. That would have resulted in a long custodial sentence.

But a deal was done and he was not charged based on all of the facts. He was charged on some of them. Some were set aside.

So today, there is a set of facts - a subset of the initial group - that he has never been charged on. They have not come to court. He has not been tried on them.

If the deal is found illegal, he could theoretically (if not actually in US law) be tried on those charges which have not yet been brought, as it would be the first time they would be officially brought and heard in court.
Click to expand...

I think I see your point now and it's not actually in conflict with what I was putting forwards.

Put simply, there was a set of facts, which were evidenced.

From those sprung a number of potential charges.

All of those charges and therefore all of the facts were captured by the plea bargain, so the only way that the case can be re-examined in that same criminal context is if the bargain were to be disturbed, set aside, found to be illegal etc...

I think we're more or less saying the same thing but coming at it from different points of view.

e2a - of course the case might be re-examined if new evidence (i.e. new facts) came to light, but that doesn't seem to be happening here.
 
Diamond said:
I think I see your point now and it's not actually in conflict with what I was putting forwards.

Put simply, there was a set of facts, which were evidenced.

From those sprung a number of potential charges.

All of those charges and therefore all of the facts were captured by the plea bargain, so the only way that the case can be re-examined in that same criminal context is if the bargain were to be disturbed, set aside, found to be illegal etc...

I think we're more or less saying the same thing but coming at it from different points of view.

e2a - of course the case might be re-examined if new evidence (i.e. new facts) came to light, but that doesn't seem to be happening here.
Click to expand...
We're getting somewhere :cool:

Yes - if the plea bargain is found to be illegal, then yes, the case could (again, theoretically) be re-examined. And you are right, I think, that with new evidence it could be re-visited anyway.

You're being a little dishonest here though. Your original argument was that there must be some hidden motive for the current suit on the basis that the charges that were avoided could not be brought (again) and so they must be after something else.

I'd say that whether or not in US law the original charges can be brought, that there would be a straightforward case for the Janes to bring about the fact that no-one seems to have had their best interests at heart, and illegally so.

There may not be any mechanism in US law for them to get true justice, but its a valuable aim in and of itself to make sure people know what and why and how they were denied. And if they can't have any other justice then I won't begrudge them any penny they get instead.

edited for clarity.
 
Mation said:
We're getting somewhere :cool:

Yes - if the plea bargain is found to be illegal, then yes, the case could (again, theoretically) be re-examined. And you are right, I think, that with new evidence it could be re-visited anyway.

You're being a little dishonest here though. Your original argument was that there must be some hidden motive for the current suit on the basis that the charges that were avoided could not be brought (again) and so they must be after something else.

I'd say that whether or not in US law the original charges can be brought, that there would be a straightforward case for the Janes to bring about the fact that no-one seems to have had their best interests at heart, and illegally so.

There may not be any mechanism in US law for them to get true justice, but its a valuable aim in and of itself to make sure people know what and why and how they were denied. And if they can't have any other justice then I won't begrudge them any penny they get instead.

edited for clarity.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recognition of my line of my reasoning (and to be frank I am arguing a point that is not going to generate much sympathy - i.e. when a thing is decided, it is done), but I am not saying that there is categorically an ulterior motive that is at play here but that is my general "feel" or "sense" of the matter.

And the best interests argument is interesting too. That's troubling and my preliminary view is that that would be an access to justice issue.
 
On my understanding of US law, though, this is also massively complicated by the fact that a prosecutor is essentially a democratically elected individual.

As far as I understand, they need to get "results" to make a reputation, which I think is far different from our system and accounts, largely, for the fact that persons get punished extremely severely in general in order to tick the hard on crime on box.

In that manner, US prosecutors are also politicians.
 
Diamond said:
On my understanding of US law, though, this is also massively complicated by the fact that a prosecutor is essentially a democratically elected individual.

As far as I understand, they need to get "results" to make a reputation, which I think is far different from our system and accounts, largely, for the fact that persons get punished extremely severely in general in order to tick the hard on crime on box.

In that manner, US prosecutors are also politicians.
Click to expand...
That makes it even more suspicious that he was given such a light sentence.
Diamond said:
(and to be frank I am arguing a point that is not going to generate much sympathy - i.e. when a thing is decided, it is done)
Click to expand...
Let's pretend that Epstein bribed the prosecutor with £50m for a short stay in an open prison and the worst of his crimes hushed up in a plea bargain, giving him and his accomplice immunity. Even if the bribe became public knowledge, are you saying that the terms of the plea bargain should still stand?
 
Dershovitz ramping it up now with defamation claims and saying he has an alibi. It's hard to see Roberts surviving the onslaught, particularly as other potential witnesses have already been bought off. Same time I can't see windsor taking up Dershovitz's suggestion that he too goes for defamation. He'll be very keen for Dershovitz to do the heavy lifting on this.
 
laptop said:
See also Private Eye (passim ad nauseam) on the hate-filled rivalry between the Mail and Mail on Sunday.

I note that today's Mail (edited by Dacre) isn't very big on Da Prince. Yesterday's paper (edited by Geordie Greig) was.
Click to expand...

Having seen Monday's and Tuesday's print front pages, I take that back.

laptop said:
Today's paper has, however, gone big online on photos of a 14-year-old who's gone into modelling :hmm:
Click to expand...

But not that :mad:[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Wilf said:
Dershovitz ramping it up now with defamation claims and saying he has an alibi. It's hard to see Roberts surviving the onslaught, particularly as other potential witnesses have already been bought off. Same time I can't see windsor taking up Dershovitz's suggestion that he too goes for defamation. He'll be very keen for Dershovitz to do the heavy lifting on this.
Click to expand...

He is now being sued for defaming the lawyers :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30708795

In media interviews, Mr Dershowitz accused Ms Roberts' lawyers, Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, of "unethical" behaviour warranting disbarment.

The pair said their reputations had been damaged by such comments and that they were seeking damages.
Click to expand...
 
gosub said:
They will win that easily.
Click to expand...
Neither of the jane doe lawyers have a blemish on their names and have very good reputations, they are also entitled to believe their client and cannot be reasonably accused of defamation.

Dershowitz' over-reaction seems telling.
 
Jeffrey Epstein scandal: women with new identities run firms from Epstein-linked property

Two of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged accomplices are running businesses from a Manhattan property linked to the wealthy sex offender under new identities, years after appearing to have left his scandal-plagued entourage.

Nada Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen, who were questioned by lawyers about whether Prince Andrew had any involvement in Epstein’s abuse of underage girls, have since reinvented themselves as Nadia Marcinko and Sarah Kensington.

Marcinkova, 29, is now a pilot and the chief executive of Aviloop, a website selling discounted flying lessons and other deals related to aviation. Kellen, 34, states that she is the owner of SLK Designs, a renovations firm.

However according to public records, both businesses have operated from addresses in a building on East 66th Street in Manhattan majority-owned by Epstein’s brother Mark, a wealthy property magnate. Two condominiums in the building sold last year for $2.5m and $1.85m....
Click to expand...
 
danny la rouge said:
Alan Dershowitz's affidavit on accusations in the Jane Doe/Jeffrey Epstein/Prince Andrew lawsuit.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8u567bvdshn9mj3/Alan Dershowitz affidavit.pdf?dl=0
Click to expand...
So he files an affidavit (a legal document) saying...

.. I believe and allege that their bad faith purpose was to have this false charge made public, while denying me any legal recourse..
Click to expand...

recourse=the use of (someone or something) as a source of help in a difficult situation

/massive rolleyes smiley
 
I believe and allege that they deliberately inserted this false and defamatory charge,which they knew or should have known to be false and defamatory, in a legal pleading that does not seek an evidentiary hearing or provide for any other opportunity for me to respond to, rebut or disprove their knowingly false charge. They placed it in a legal proceeding, in a public filing, in bad faith in an effort to have the media report it, while they hide behind claims of litigation and journalistic privilege. I believe and allege that their bad faith purpose was to have this false charge made public, while denying me any legal recourse. There is no realistic possibility that this pre-New Year’s filing would have been picked up by the media had they or some one on their behalf not deliberately allerted the media to its existence.
Click to expand...

American formal language is very odd but I can't see any problem with the use of the word 'recourse' in that passage.


His use of the word 'depose' earlier is very peculiar.

In a statement issued to the press, Jane Doe #3’s lawyers, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, have falsely stated that “they tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects, although he has avoided those deposition requests”.
By using the term “these subjects” in a satement about the sexual abuse charges recently made against me, these lawyers have falsely implied that they sought to depose me on allegations regarding my own conduct. That is a total and categorical lie. Several years ago they wrote, asking to depose me on Jeffrey Epstein’s activities and whether I ever witnessed any of his alleged crimes.
Click to expand...

if "prince" andrew or his mum were to use that word it would have a wholly different meaning :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
155
Views
6K
shambler
shambler
tony.c
Major suspect named in Stephen Lawrence murder by BBC
Replies
23
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Elpenor
Prince William’s many good deeds
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
10K
Petcha
P
BristolEcho
Modern Slavery at TN Trawlers
Replies
5
Views
585
CNT36
C
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
411
Serene
Serene
Back
Top Bottom