The Lemon Fool

According to today's Times ‘[Andrew’s] UK lawyers oppose participating on the grounds that doing so would amount to accepting US jurisdiction in the case’.

The alleged offence took place in the UK, when Randy Andy was at Pizza Express apparently.

scrumpyjack wrote:According to today's Times ‘[Andrew’s] UK lawyers oppose participating on the grounds that doing so would amount to accepting US jurisdiction in the case’.

The alleged offence took place in the UK, when Randy Andy was at Pizza Express apparently.

The US takes an extra-territorial view of its laws, meaning that a crime does not have to happen on US territory for it to be deemed illegal under US law.

You may recall as part of the Enron debacle, the case of "The NatWest Three" whose actions were all in London but who were extradited to Texas for trial and imprisonment. They were eventually allowed to serve the rest of their sentence in the UK, but that serves as a reminder that there may be no immunity from US law just because you are elsewhere. And the US can project power overseas like nobody else.

Of course this is not a criminal case and extradition is not an issue. Although Andrew's lawyers are officially taking the "ignore it" route, it would not surprise me if there were some behind-the-scenes negotiations going on to try and make this go away. A couple of million will probably settle this and, as part of that, there could be a non-disclosure provision and no admission of wrongdoing.

Lootman wrote:The US takes an extra-territorial view of its laws,

Where federal law - absent state laws to the contrary - permits girls to get married from age 12?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Lootman wrote:The US takes an extra-territorial view of its laws,

Where federal law - absent state laws to the contrary - permits girls to get married from age 12?

It is moot since every State has a minimum age of consent, which varies between 16 and 18 years old.

Below that age a woman cannot legally give consent for sex, and the man or boy may be charged with statutory rape or sexual assault. In New York the age of consent is 17.

Lootman wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Lootman wrote:The US takes an extra-territorial view of its laws,

Where federal law - absent state laws to the contrary - permits girls to get married from age 12?

It is moot since every State has a minimum age of consent, which varies between 16 and 18 years old.

Below that age a woman cannot legally give consent for sex, and the man or boy may be charged with statutory rape or sexual assault. In New York the age of consent is 17.

But was not the lady 17 at the time of the alleged events so not a minor? Plus as the events happened in the UK wouldn't the UK age of consent in the UK apply? If not what happens if a person has sex when under the age of consent in their state, but over the age of consent in the state of their partner which is where the sex takes place?

Regarding extra-territorially: I think you will find that the 'case' alleges the prince sexually abused Ms Giuffre at the London home of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and the US Virgin Islands.

T7

'Service is the formal delivery of litigation documents to give the opposing litigant notice of the suit against them. "

In England (UK) (and Wales presumably) whether the recipient is authorised to accept service is an important factor. Serving on the person or entity concerned is one thing, quite another if on someone else on behalf of that person.

With business tenancies, under CPR, a tenant can issue court claim to protect renewal rights without needing to simultaneously serve on the landlord. provided the service is within 4 months after issued. The landlord can however require service before the 4 months is up. The advantage to the tenant is that if the tenant changes its mind about renewing it can discontinue proceedings without having to pay the landlord's costs.

---

Some years i made the mistake of trying to serve notice by hand on a bank. the lease dod not provide for notice to be served on the bank's registered office so I thought I'd save time and deliver it by hand to a local branch and ask for a receipt, which merely involved the recipient signing and dating a simple acknowledgement and handing it back to me. Save time, no way! As the contents of the notice I considered were nothing to do with the bank manager or branch counter-staff, i had put the notice inside an envelope itself inside another envelope which contained a covering letter and the receipt form addressed to the branch manager asking for the inner envelope and its content to be forwarded to the appropriate department.

As well as being kept waiting for about 20 minutes whilst the counter-staff took the letter to the manager, the manager came out of of their office to ask me what it was about. I explained and the manager said they weren't allowed to accept notices. In the hour or so i wasted i could've walked across the road to the post office, despatched it by recorded delivery and driver home to get on with my work.

Clitheroekid wrote:Ironically, all this might well have been avoided simply by serving the papers through the post, which, perhaps surprisingly, would appear to be a valid method of service.

The plaintiff's lawyers claim the summons and complaint was also sent by first class mail, thereby meeting that criterion:

"A copy of the summons and the complaint were also reportedly emailed to Andrew’s royal household office email address, and to his lawyers by email and FedEx, as well as being sent to his home by first class post."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ia-giuffre

daveh wrote:

Lootman wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:Where federal law - absent state laws to the contrary - permits girls to get married from age 12?

It is moot since every State has a minimum age of consent, which varies between 16 and 18 years old.

Below that age a woman cannot legally give consent for sex, and the man or boy may be charged with statutory rape or sexual assault. In New York the age of consent is 17.

But was not the lady 17 at the time of the alleged events so not a minor? Plus as the events happened in the UK wouldn't the UK age of consent in the UK apply?

The plaintiff is alleging there were multiple incidents in multiple locations, both in the UK and elsewhere, when she was aged 16 and 17.

I would guess that if coercion was involved, as is alleged, then even the incidents when not under-age would still be offences.

Lootman wrote:And in a sense here isn't the point of the case more than just money? It will also place on official record that a judge or jury found Andrew liable for a seriously illegal act, on a preponderance of the evidence? Even a default judgement against Andrew carries the stench of guilt with it, since Andrew will probably not formally contest the claim in court.

If a default judgment is obtained it won't be as a result of a judicial decision - it's just an administrative act, and doesn't mean that she has proved her case.

Although we all know Andrew has historically been questionable in his ethics towards such matters since the days of Koo Stark and Randy Andy, I do not believe it was well known until now that he may have had sex with a minor. I certainly did not know that before this case. And that is an act that will usually get you prison time in the US and an entry on the register of sex offenders. Especially if the underage victim may have been groomed or coerced, as is claimed here.

But as I understand it, the only allegation that he had sex with Giuffre was when she was in London. And under English law she was not a minor, so it would have been perfectly legal. Whilst the US likes to throw its weight about on the world stage I don't see why any English person should submit to a claim for compensation for an act that was not illegal in England.

And the allegations made by his lawyers are incredibly vague. For example, it says:

"On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in London at Maxwell's home. During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Plaintiff, against her will.

On another occasion Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in Epstein's New York mansion""

Again, this seems designed to capture media attention more than follow the rules of pleading a civil case. She was not a "child" in the normal sense of the word, so there's no justification for using that term in a formal statement of claim other than to grab a headline.

But what really amazed me is that in this formal statement of her claim it doesn't even give an approximate date when these incidents were supposed to have taken place, thereby failing on a fundamental level to establish that she was actually a minor at the time.

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:Ironically, all this might well have been avoided simply by serving the papers through the post, which, perhaps surprisingly, would appear to be a valid method of service.

The plaintiff's lawyers claim the summons and complaint was also sent by first class mail, thereby meeting that criterion:

"A copy of the summons and the complaint were also reportedly emailed to Andrew’s royal household office email address, and to his lawyers by email and FedEx, as well as being sent to his home by first class post."

Sending the papers by email was definitely not valid service, so I don't know why they even bothered doing it. Neither is sending documents by FedEx valid service. And from the term `first class post' it sounds like the documents were posted to his house from England, rather than New York. Again, that would not amount to good service, either.

Frankly, they appear to have made a complete mess of it, and I can't understand why they didn't just use a London solicitor to deal with it. They may get away with it, but they frankly don't deserve to.

Lootman wrote:I have to say that I am surprised at the amount of sympathy and support that appears to exist here for someone who is using their personal position of power and privilege to evade the discovery of truth via the legal process.

Discussing how the powerful and privileged evade discovery of the truth is not the same as believing that they should do so.

The legal systems of both the US and UK are stacked in favo(u)r of the rich and powerful. People trying to hold them to account need to take particular care to go exactly by the book.

9873210 wrote:

Lootman wrote:I have to say that I am surprised at the amount of sympathy and support that appears to exist here for someone who is using their personal position of power and privilege to evade the discovery of truth via the legal process.

Discussing how the powerful and privileged evade discovery of the truth is not the same as believing that they should do so.

The legal systems of both the US and UK are stacked in favo(u)r of the rich and powerful. People trying to hold them to account need to take particular care to go exactly by the book.

The rich and powerful have the resources to play the system. But I suspect being dragged into it is a nightmare even for them. And that's before we factor in the media attention that comes with celebrity.

How much was, for example, the rich and powerful Cliff Richard awarded in compensation for having been dragged through the system?

I see the High Court has said it will step in to arrange service if the parties can't sort it out themselves, per Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=mwlrlP7l

scrumpyjack wrote:I see the High Court has said it will step in to arrange service if the parties can't sort it out themselves, per Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=mwlrlP7l

Which tends to reinforce my view that service was not compliant with the Court rules.

Some spammer's noticed this one.

Today's spam: "From" clerk@high-court.com, attaching a summons to appear before them. Anyone frightened enough to open the attached summons?

Clitheroekid wrote:Frankly, they appear to have made a complete mess of it, and I can't understand why they didn't just use a London solicitor to deal with it. They may get away with it, but they frankly don't deserve to.

Neither Andrew's nor the plaintiff's legal bods are likely to be idiots, so they must have thought this through in proper detail before embarking on this bungled service, and therefore must have known they were bungling it up royally whilst doing so.

I find myself wondering therefore if bungling up the service is all part of a prepared plan to make it all go away. Andrew gets to swerve being dragged through the US court claiming bungled service of papers, in return for a very fat brown envelope secretly passed under the table. Suitcase, even.

That would seem to be both the dough and the circus that will keep everyone happy

terminal7 wrote:Regarding extra-territorially: I think you will find that the 'case' alleges the prince sexually abused Ms Giuffre at the London home of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and the US Virgin Islands.

Residents of England and Wales (not sure about Scotland) can be prosecuted for sexually abusing children outside the UK's jurisdiction (Section 72, Sexual Offences Act 2003). I would sentence the worst of them to the method reputedly employed for Edward II's demise, so it is a good job I am not on the bench to deal with these utterly vile and contemptible perverts.