PRINCE ANDREW FINALLY SERVED WITH COURT PAPERS! - Page 7

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

Some of these posts are making no sense at all.

What happens to Andrew remains to be seen. Everyone can have an opinion as to whether he is guilty or innocent but the fact remains he has only been served........for now.

Whether one believes his accuser or not.........the issue remains to be developed and presented in court.

Nothing more, nothing less.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Venezia wrote:
Amazing that those who have already found him guilty, based on supposition and no concrete evidence, are demanding that those of us who don't believe the story as she tells it, provide justification for our views.

And that's all I have to say to anyone questioning my opinion. We all have one; you are entitled to yours as am I and I don't need to provide any further comment.

@Venezia

You are missing a key point here ..... if Andrew is totally innocent, WHY is he hiding? He isn't behaving like an innocent person. The FBI merely wanted to question him, not charge him with anything. He has repeatedly refused to answer even a few questions.

JMO, but I would think if he was innocent, he would want to clear his name ... yes? Instead, he is in hiding and no longer performing royal duties. An innocent man wouldn't behave this way. He is making himself look even more guilty with his behavior.

Sushismom · ‎03-09-2010

I've said it before, but Royals are NOT everyday people. Things we may do are not always the same as they would. To assume he's guilty because he's ignoring the FBI is just that: ASSUMING. He may be doing what he's been taught to do for many, many years.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Porcelain wrote:
@decaf wrote:
He's even taken off his jacket and made himself quite at home. His fingers are on the girl's bare skin. And with how young the victim looks and with Maxwell and Epstein's reputation for procuring underage girls, Andrew knew what he was purchasing here. A normal man would stay the heck away from the lot of them.

For those who are extremely upset about people considering him guilty before a trial, why are you not upset about exonerating him before a trial? He hasn't been proven guilty, but he certainly has done nothing to prove himself innocent either. Yet you are so certain he is. To the point that you are severely emotionally triggered. That's a bias as well and you might as well admit it if you are going to flip out on other posters for taking in what we know so far and deciding, based on that, he's culpable and a complete creep at the very minimum and likely much more.

A picture like this is classic blackmail material. Which is how Epstein and his employees made most of their money and amassed their power. Julie K Brown's Pulitzer prize winning Perversion of Justice series for the Miami Herald covers the entire sordid story. The victim was an important component of a blackmail and child traffiking ring.

So many excuses for men like Andrew. And so few considerations given to girls like Virginia. And the procuress lurking in the background. Or do you folks think Maxwell is innocent as the driven snow as well? Or does only Andrew get this special treatment and consideration from you? If he's innocent, so is she, and I guess Epstein as well since she was his employee.

@Porcelain @Venezia

Very well stated. Based on some comments here, people just don't want to believe he is guilty, so they maintain he must be innocent, although the incomplete facts suggest otherwise. They don't care about facts. But ..... as the saying goes .... where there's smoke, there's fire ...

This attitude reminds me of a neighbor of mine several years ago .... she was adamant that OJ must be innocent of the murders because he was such a good football player! Huh?

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@Venezia wrote:
Amazing that those who have already found him guilty, based on supposition and no concrete evidence, are demanding that those of us who don't believe the story as she tells it, provide justification for our views.

And that's all I have to say to anyone questioning my opinion. We all have one; you are entitled to yours as am I and I don't need to provide any further comment.

@Venezia You do not have to justify your views. This whole situation is highlighted because it is Andrew. There are other well-known names to investigate but those will remain in the shadows, for now.

Besides, I was once told that nobody was obligated to provide comment to me so there's that.

Be well.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Sushismom wrote:
I've said it before, but Royals are NOT everyday people. Things we may do are not always the same as they would. To assume he's guilty because he's ignoring the FBI is just that: ASSUMING. He may be doing what he's been taught to do for many, many years.

@Sushismom

Of course the royals aren't every day people. However, do you think that Andy is doing this all by himself, without legal counsel to advise him?

What he is doing is exactly what an attorney would advise a guilty client to do: lie low and avoid being served with legal documents.

I seriously question the wisdom of just ignoring the FBI, but we shall see how this plays out. He can't hide forever.

mom2four0418 · ‎04-23-2010

NEW YORK, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Andrew plans to challenge a U.S. court's jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit by a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her two decades ago, when she was 17.

In a Monday filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for Queen Elizabeth's second son said Andrew also plans to contest whether he was properly served with Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit.

The rest of the article is on Reuters.

“The soul is healed by being with children.”
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@mom2four0418 wrote:

NEW YORK, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Andrew plans to challenge a U.S. court's jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit by a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her two decades ago, when she was 17.
In a Monday filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for Queen Elizabeth's second son said Andrew also plans to contest whether he was properly served with Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit.

The rest of the article is on Reuters.

@mom2four0418

Thanks for posting this.

I've read the whole Reuters article, and it seems no one on Andrew's side is concerned with dealing with the question of guilt or innocence ... it's whether or not he was served "properly". Find some loophole seems to be the new strategy. That, in itself, is very telling.

decaf · ‎05-13-2021

@mom2four0418 wrote:

NEW YORK, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Andrew plans to challenge a U.S. court's jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit by a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her two decades ago, when she was 17.
In a Monday filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for Queen Elizabeth's second son said Andrew also plans to contest whether he was properly served with Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit.

The rest of the article is on Reuters.

That's exactly what I said would happen in post #7. His lawyers are going to deny and delay, so typical. It sure looks like he's going to have to face this. It will be interesting to see what comes out in this civil case.

ETA- I have not heard anyone offer an explanation for his association, business or personal, with Epstein and Maxwell, other than his involvement with teen girls.

febe1 · ‎01-22-2012

@decaf wrote:
@mom2four0418 wrote:

NEW YORK, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Andrew plans to challenge a U.S. court's jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit by a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her two decades ago, when she was 17.
In a Monday filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for Queen Elizabeth's second son said Andrew also plans to contest whether he was properly served with Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit.

The rest of the article is on Reuters.
That's exactly what I said would happen in post #7. His lawyers are going to deny and delay, so typical. It sure looks like he's going to have to face this. It will be interesting to see what comes out in this civil case.

ETA- I have not heard anyone offer an explanation for his association, business or personal, with Epstein and Maxwell, other than his involvement with teen girls.