Prince Andrew............. Again.

[Alikado]

Yea well like I say you have never anything good to say or comment on what I comment on it’s always a fight with a stubborn jacka5s that likes looooosing I refer you to my quote that you used and for you to read it again properly if you can. I don’t know if she can prove any of what she is saying and he is not a nonce until convicted and you are not the judge and the circumstances if true are dubious but if you did read you will see I agree technically he is at least in one part of the world guilty IF PROVEN, and if so he should be reprimanded if he forced himself on her the 3rd time with 15 grand but It’s not as crystal clear as drug testing a delivery driver it’s more difficult to prove and just saying stuff doesn’t make it so. And crossing borders won’t make him innocent they made him guilty if you read properly but only on a technicality unless he was violent and proven to be but you would think she wouldn’t have slept with him a 3rd time if that was the case, she was 17 within the age of consent in the Uk and at the time in New York a masseuse and a prostitute and that’s quite the opposite of being trafficked she knew what she was doing and this will be relevant to the case do get your facts right if you can focus .

Anyway let’s see what the judge says, you have already decide his fate with no proof, if there is proof of him being a violent monster then yea fair enough whatever age she was But as it stands IF there is proof he is only guilty in the Virgin Islands of sex with suddenly now a minor who was a masseuse and a 15 grand prostitute and she wouldn’t be a minor in the Uk or at that time New York so technically guilty like I said .
I am not a nonce protector but this is not so clear cut with no evidence and everything about it is dubious and stinks of manipulation for leverage and now 20 yrs later for financial gain.
But I am not like you a stubborn burro estupido I have the ability to be wrong and if I am and there is evidence then he should be reprimanded and if found innocent he should get all his patronages back. Lucky you are not the judge you wouldn’t need evidence you are so high .. and mighty .

You still don't get it' he is not on trial for underage sex, this is a Civil case, she is suing for damages. He will not be convicted.

The age of consent for sex is irrelevant, this is about trafficking and the age is about the age of majority under that it is deemed that she is unable to consent.

An assault does not have to be violent, an act on a person who does not or who cannot consent is an assault.

[MICK/GILLY]

You still don't get it' he is not on trial for underage sex, this is a Civil case, she is suing for damages. He will not be convicted.

The age of consent for sex is irrelevant, this is about trafficking and the age is about the age of majority under that it is deemed that she is unable to consent.

An assault does not have to be violent, an act on a person who does not or who cannot consent is an assault.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/what-...ed-of-12508979


In August 2021, Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew accusing him of "committing sexual assault and battery" when she was a teenager. Only in the Virgin Islands she was not able to consent so only there after the 3rd time he had sex with her was a crime technically committed and only on that basis she may win her case, even if the judge sees it for what it was he has to rule assault. only If any of this is proven .

The next paragraph explains that Epstein trafficked her after the age of 16 and on 3 occasions it is alleged that the prince sexually assaulted her as a minor. But she wasn’t a minor in London or New York only in the Virgin Islands, she was working as a prostitute but now she says she is a victim of sexual assault and battery.. don’t you think if she was legally having it off with him for money that after the first time in London or even the second time in New York and he actually was assaulting and battering and sexually assaulting this legal age highly paid teen she might not have gone for a second or third go at it . Epstein was a trafficker and he may have trafficked other girls below the age of consent but can you traffic someone of legal age with their consent and for a massive fee?, is that a definition of trafficking or Sharing .

“In this new lawsuit she claims the Duke of York sexually assaulted her on three occasions AFTER she was first sex-trafficked by Epstein at the age of 16”, this statement although true at a glance misleads the reader to think she was 16 when she had sex with the prince but she was 17. It makes no legal difference but it demonises him a bit more .

I think the judge will see it as she was a legal age prostitute who had sex with a prince 3 times voluntarily, the 3rd time was in territories where the legal age was months later ( so technically he is guilty of that ) and now 20 yrs later on the Epstein Maxwell bandwagon she is coming forward claiming she was sexually assaulted ( charge is assault and battery ) 3 times , the last time in territories where she was technically a minor.

Will the judge think well if he assaulted her the first time OR second time why did she keep going back for more she was 17 and could have walked away, she wasn’t handcuffed and in chains.

Sexual assault and battery is the charge a prostitute is claiming from a prince 20 years later and 3 times no less . Say it out loud it sounds as ridiculous as it reads .
If there is any more to it that can be proven then fair enough but I think she will have trouble proving this as it is, just saying it and crying in front of a judge is not evidence, if she has evidence and can prove it then fair enough he deserves all he gets, but if not then it is as it sounds.
I think given all the facts it will be seen for what it is, but as she was not of an age in the Virgin islands to consent the judge will have no option than to award her damages as it stands now technically there and there only IF PROVEN that he had sex there with her at the age of 17 in the Virgin Islands was technically sexual assault and battery as alleged but she has to prove it so I think unless she can the prince will have it thrown out .

[Alikado]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/what-...ed-of-12508979


In August 2021, Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew accusing him of "committing sexual assault and battery" when she was a teenager. Only in the Virgin Islands she was not able to consent so only there after the 3rd time he had sex with her was a crime technically committed and only on that basis she may win her case, even if the judge sees it for what it was he has to rule assault. only If any of this is proven .

The next paragraph explains that Epstein trafficked her after the age of 16 and on 3 occasions it is alleged that the prince sexually assaulted her as a minor. But she wasn’t a minor in London or New York only in the Virgin Islands, she was working as a prostitute but now she says she is a victim of sexual assault and battery.. don’t you think if she was legally having it off with him for money that after the first time in London or even the second time in New York and he actually was assaulting and battering and sexually assaulting this legal age highly paid teen she might not have gone for a second or third go at it . Epstein was a trafficker and he may have trafficked other girls below the age of consent but can you traffic someone of legal age with their consent and for a massive fee?, is that a definition of trafficking or Sharing .

“In this new lawsuit she claims the Duke of York sexually assaulted her on three occasions AFTER she was first sex-trafficked by Epstein at the age of 16”, this statement although true at a glance misleads the reader to think she was 16 when she had sex with the prince but she was 17. It makes no legal difference but it demonises him a bit more .

I think the judge will see it as she was a legal age prostitute who had sex with a prince 3 times voluntarily, the 3rd time was in territories where the legal age was months later ( so technically he is guilty of that ) and now 20 yrs later on the Epstein Maxwell bandwagon she is coming forward claiming she was sexually assaulted ( charge is assault and battery ) 3 times , the last time in territories where she was technically a minor.

Will the judge think well if he assaulted her the first time OR second time why did she keep going back for more she was 17 and could have walked away, she wasn’t handcuffed and in chains.

Sexual assault and battery is the charge a prostitute is claiming from a prince 20 years later and 3 times no less . Say it out loud it sounds as ridiculous as it reads .
If there is any more to it that can be proven then fair enough but I think she will have trouble proving this as it is, just saying it and crying in front of a judge is not evidence, if she has evidence and can prove it then fair enough he deserves all he gets, but if not then it is as it sounds.
I think given all the facts it will be seen for what it is, but as she was not of an age in the Virgin islands to consent the judge will have no option than to award her damages as it stands now technically there and there only IF PROVEN that he had sex there with her at the age of 17 in the Virgin Islands was technically sexual assault and battery as alleged but she has to prove it so I think unless she can the prince will have it thrown out .

It is illegal in the UK to have sex with a 17 year old prostitute.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/20/what-...he-uk-6521597/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...hildprotection

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-fair-tha...n-the-UK-is-16

[MICK/GILLY]

Well for the purpose of legality she would have been branded a friend, a girlfriend, if they had got questioned on the day. I am sure they then (if she can prove it happened) and him now (if he actually says it happened) would have got around that .
This law only came in to force in 2002 and the dirty deeds of the prince occurred in 2001 so these laws were not applicable at that time .