[Closed] Prince Andrew named in US sex lawsuit

Given latest allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had hidden cameras to film any potentially compromising activity:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...filmed-4915421

What strikes me is that [b]like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeffrey Epstein was a member of both the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.[/b]

Given well documented espionage/blackmail techniques, if there was any truth in this:

[img] [/img]

and/or this:

[img] [/img]

[b]given the power and influence of people involved, if you had footage of them in compromising positions, it would be a handy means of coercion to encourage pursuit of any agendas which the Trilateral Commission or Council on Foreign Relations had devised...[/b]

http://www.****/news/arti...ice-probe.html

'Documents claim the prince tried to use his influence to help Epstein during the police probe and demands the American government be ordered by the court to hand over correspondence.

The women’s lawyers say it will show Prince Andrew and Harvard Law School expert Alan Dershowitz lobbied against Epstein being prosecuted.'

'From his 97-page ‘black book’ of phone numbers and email addresses, it is clear Epstein had an impressive array of contacts.

When its contents were disclosed three years ago, the book was shown to include contact details for former US President Bill Clinton, ex-secretary of state Henry Kissinger, and Barbara Walters, then one of America’s most influential broadcasters.

Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson’s details are there, along with entrepreneur Donald Trump, members of the Kennedy family and former prime minister Tony Blair. There is also an entry for Mr Blair’s former spin doctor Alastair Campbell – but with a Downing Street number, not his personal mobile phone.

Formula One’s Bernie Ecclestone, Eddie Irvine, Jacques Villeneuve and Flavio Briatore are listed – by numbers relating to their ‘boat/plane’.

It has previously been reported that at varying times President Clinton, Prince Andrew, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, New Mexico’s ex-governor Bill Richardson and the former US treasury secretary Larry Summers had all been passengers on Epstein’s fleet of private jets.'

A flaw in the conspiracy stuff is the fact that this news gets out. Under the systems/structures highlighted above that would be impossible. Figures in power are more accountable now not less. And look at the trouble many if the companies highlighted are in. Given their supposed immense power over the rest of us (sic), odd that they can't manage their own businesses very well!

So anyway. Not just related to this case but more of a general question; if you had a really good friend, who you absolutely trusted, and they were convicted of something [b]but kept re-assuring you they were innocent[/b] would you drop them completely or would your friendship/trust trump that? If thinking of all those court cases where the verdict ends up in some doubt. We're probably more aware of the celebrity ones like OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius but there must be hundreds/thousands of others.

I would point out that the bit where he confessed meant he could no longer profess his innocence.
As for the the rest it would all depend
Some mistakes/errors of judgement/ crimes I could,possibly, forgive;being a convicted sex offender is not amongst them

[quote=Junkyard ]I would point out that the bit where he confessed meant he could no longer profess his innocence.In this particular case that's true (although plea bargaining does perhaps play a part in someones readiness to confess).

As for the the rest it would all depend
Some mistakes/errors of judgement/ crimes I could,possibly, forgive;being a convicted sex offender is not amongst them

A flaw in the conspiracy stuff is the fact that this news gets out. Under the systems/structures highlighted above that would be impossible. Figures in power are more accountable now not less. And look at the trouble many if the companies highlighted are in. Given their supposed immense power over the rest of us (sic), odd that they can't manage their own businesses very well!

That is an entirely fair point; however; there will always be leaks;

a possible explanation could be that rigid censorship of such stories would only cause further suspicion, especially now we have the internet to fill in the gaps that TV, newspapers and the news providers fail to highlight...

for example; have any of the Mainstream News outlets mentioned Epstein's membership of Trilateral Commission or CFR?

Or made the possible link between that and Prince Andrew's heavy involvement in the Arms trade?

Or indeed the fact that Alan Dershowitz, who also stands accused, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30664060 ]was basically the driving force behind the BBC's coverage[/url], [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#O.J._Simpson_.281995.29 ]despite having defended Epstein (and OJ Simpson)?[/url]

In this particular case that's true (although plea bargaining does perhaps play a part in someones readiness to confess).

to plea bargain you need to be guilty otherwise you demand your day in court where you will be set free

You've possibly missed the question

Yes - innocent until proven otherwise, although a friendship would not survive acquittal on a technicality for me, it would have to be substantial proof of innocence as opposed to the other way round.

And of course - if a friend absolutely protested innocence to me and then was shown to no only be guilty, but also to have blatantly lied to me as well - then I'd burn them twice over for that, because that's no basis to maintain a friendship.

I am not sure what you are trying to do their Jive you seem to have shown a lawyer defended someone for money....this is not news to me even if surprises you.

I am not sure what you are trying to do their Jive you seem to have shown a lawyer defended someone for money....this is not news to me even if surprises you.

Would it surprise you if a professional manipulator of the truth told a fib to cover their own ass?

No it has not surprised me that you have done it but tbh I consider you rather amateurish 😛

Said with affection and not malice

it would not surprise me but i would require proof,have you any?

As the OJ Simpson case proves, proof can be a very malleable commodity... 😉

Given Dershowitz is now implicated in the scandal himself, this (from the wikipedia entry linked in my previous post mentioning Dershowitz) would appear to be a vast conflict of interest:

Dershowitz provided legal assistance to friend and reported billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors. Dershowitz investigated some of Epstein's accusers and provided both the police and the State attorney’s office with a dossier containing information about their personal behavior, which had been obtained from their personal MySpace pages, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Eventually, in 2008, Epstein pled guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence.[28]

Bit of further expansion on above point:

[img] [/img]

from:

http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/index3.html

As the OJ Simpson case proves, proof can be a very malleable commodity

Their is mud being flung and certainly, after the conviction the Princes loyalty raises concerns re his judgement but we dont quite have a smoking gun

it is suspicious though

From The Sunday Times today
"PRINCE ANDREW may have immunity from prosecution for his alleged involvement in crimes committed by his billionaire sex offender friend Jeffrey Epstein under a deal struck with the United States government.

The secret plea agreement with American prosecutors in 2007 protects Epstein, an investment banker convicted of soliciting sex from underage girls, along with any of his “potential co-conspirators” from a number of criminal charges relating to an alleged international sex trafficking ring established to serve the rich and famous.

Details of the “non-prosecution agreement” emerged after Andrew was forced to deny sensational allegations made in US court papers that he had “sexual relations” with a 17-year-old girl, who claims she was used as a “sex slave” by Epstein.

Last night Buckingham Palace was on the defensive as it emerged that:

•Documents filed at court in Florida and obtained by The Sunday Times allege that Epstein obtained his secret deal through his “significant social and political connections”. They claim Andrew and Bill Clinton, the former US president, made “efforts” on behalf of Epstein to secure him a “more favourable” deal.

•The senior American prosecutor who negotiated the deal now believes it should have been “tougher”.

•Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s high-profile lawyer, was again forced to deny that he had sexual relations with the alleged victim or any underage person “ever in my life”."

Wonder who negotiated that?

[img] [/img]

JHJ - you may well be on to something, but your sources are pretty weak. Step it up if you want to be taken more seriously.

Any recommendations for sources providing rock solid concrete proof to incarcerate an extremely powerful global cartel of deviants, arms dealers and racketeers gofasterstripes? 😆

gov.uk do it for ya? 😉

Aim higher and get a proper big hitter
[img] [/img]

😀 Still working on big hitter status; need someone like this guy:

[img] [/img]

Check tha neck!!

if you had a really good friend, who you absolutely trusted, and they were convicted of something but kept re-assuring you they were innocent would you drop them completely or would your friendship/trust trump that?

I have a very close family member whose partner's in law relative (father of one with one one the way) has been convicted of intercourse etc with a13 year old. My family member isn't that close to the perp ,but certainly won't be going to socialise with him in the future..very awkward .:-(
But back to the op..crikey,I was just saying to the family , there's this thread on single track and this bloke keeps on mentioning global conspiracy stuff and it's keeps on coming out ....better than x files.
Keep it up jhj.
Obviously he'll get away with it.........
Edit-I phone messed up quotation thingy -sorry

 

[img] [/img]

Epstein, Maxwell, Dersherwitz, Rothschild: had they all been muslamic and abusing gentile girls then that would have become a big part of the story. What's the odds Hollywood will make a film about this lot?

Looks like it's the beginning of the end ...

We shall see the first UK President in two generations time.

🙂

@chew the Monarchy is stronger than ever, popularity has never been higher

If these women thought a crime had been committed they can make a report to the police in the US or UK or wherever the alleged offense took place. They haven't done so as they have chosen a path of "trial by media"

jambalaya - Member

@chew the Monarchy is stronger than ever, popularity has never been higher

Depressing, isn't it?

Life is very black and white to you isnt it.

I've only been half following this so apologies if it's a dull question, but is he basically being accused of sleeping with a 17 year old?

Ie, he's allegedly broken a local state law, and everyone's playing the Noncegate card again? If it'd happened here, the national reaction would probably have been "good on ya, son."

I think it's more that the 17 year old wasn't entirely willing.

If it'd happened here, the national reaction would probably have been "good on ya, son."

I doubt it, unless "here" is Berlusconi's Italy.

I doubt it, unless "here" is Berlusconi's Italy

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, age of consent here is 16, in Italy it's 18. But whatever...

reference to Bunga bunga parties

Pretty sure they weren't a public hit either.

I think the wording of the palace statement may tell a story. 'Underage minor' is a strange way to describe someone but this statement was not written by an illiterate and so I an only presume the words have been very carefully selected.

Lifer - Member

jambalaya - Member

@chew the Monarchy is stronger than ever, popularity has never been higher

Depressing, isn't it?

In two generations time you see the last King and first UK President (the King becomes the first president) but that's it. No more monarchy here.

@Cougar, the odd thing is he hasn't really been accused formally. There is a reference to the under age girls being forced to sleep with him and others but it's not a formal complaint / lawsuit against him. He has been named as part of a case against the US Federal Prosecutors who the girls allege shouldn't have signed a plea-bargain/agreement with Epstein.

@Lifer, not depressing to me at all, exactly how I would wish things to be.

exactly how I would wish things to be.

Why?

Its one of those things I genuinely cannot grasp. Why would anyone think that the concept of royalty is anything other than abhorrent?

'Underage minor' is a strange way to describe someone

It is. As opposed to what, an overage minor? An underage major?

@Cougar, the odd thing is he hasn't really been accused formally. There is a reference to the under age girls being forced to sleep with him and others but it's not a formal complaint / lawsuit against him. He has been named as part of a case against the US Federal Prosecutors who the girls allege shouldn't have signed a plea-bargain/agreement with Epstein.

Gotcha, cheers.

All a bit of a non-story so far, then. Interesting to see it's not just the British media who make up sensationalist shite in order to shift newspapers.

@Cougar - it's not the media who are making it up as such, it's a tactic from the girls lawyers to generate publicity/pressure.

It's our history and the very foundation of our nation

Was this info known by US prosecutors before the plea bargaining?

Edit, Jambo you could say the same about slavery

Its not just the media or this womans lawyers that have made it into a story
prince andrew's frirendship with and publicly stated support of a notorious paedophile, before and after his conviction has given it legs

against a background of a series of very high profile sexual abuse scandals and Theresa Mays disastrously handled investigation into historic child abuse, public interest is justifiably high

@aa, it's not clear what the Federal prosecutors knew before they agreed the plea bargain.

It's our history

So is genocide, slavery and imperialism, to a name a few things.

Do you want those back as well?

"....the very foundation of our nation."

More like a national embarrassment.

it's not clear what the Federal prosecutors knew before they agreed the plea bargain.

If they knew this and let it get covered up I reckon releasing all the info is a valid response.

@kimbers, I am not sure I would say Epstein was "notorious", there are others who've done far worse. Prince Andrew apologised for his contact and severed all ties with him. You are quite right to point out the "backdrop" I have no doubt the US lawyers want to create maximum publicity. Theresa May has put forward a number of very credible senior figures to chair the enquiry.

Well we can move on from the Monarchy as it's clear there won't be a sensible discussion

It's our history and the very foundation of our nation

What does that actually mean?

Should there ever be any chance that Teflon Andrew will get into any kind of legal proceedings you can be quite sure that anyone giving evidence will either be paid off or suffer a nasty car accident.
When the royals want rid of you they are very good at "car accidents". Look at that one in Paris as an example.

22K a week ski chalet? Wonder what extras were included...

Its one of those things I genuinely cannot grasp. Why would anyone think that the concept of royalty is anything other than abhorrent?

Because having a doddery old girl who means well and doesn’t have to worry about pandering to the voters in charge (technically) is slightly less dangerous than some of the alternatives?

Theresa May has put forward a number of very credible senior figures to chair the enquiry.

The victims groups certainly don't share that opinion. They think the whole thing is a shambolic farce. Thats what it looks like from where I'm sitting too.

What Theresa May has repeatedly demonstrated is that she doesn't get it at all. And that her idea of 'independent and impartial' differs quite considerably from that of the victims, who seem to be being treated as a nuisance, rather than what they are: people who've been forced to endure horrific sexual abuse

It is. As opposed to what, an overage minor? An underage major?

Underage minor. That would imply to be someone who has reached neither the age of consent (16) nor the age of majority (18). Since anyone under the age of majority is classed as a minor then yes, it is possible to be an overage minor.

As said, interesting choice of words. He did.

Because having a doddery old girl who means well and doesn’t have to worry about pandering to the voters in charge (technically) is slightly less dangerous than some of the alternatives?

That would a valid line if she did anything other than just agree with the gov of the day.

Its not just the media or this womans lawyers that have made it into a story
prince andrew's friendship with and publicly stated support of a notorious paedophile, before and after his conviction has given it legs

Kimbers has it: Epstein was running an international racket, with girls as young as 12, hidden cameras n all.

Add to the mix that Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer and this is far more of a story than is being generally revealed...

Ive read a few times lately that andrew's dodgy assossciates might make him unsuitable as a [s]uk trade envoy[/s] arms dealer

wtf? this makes him the perfect person to do business with suadi princes,other amoral scumbags like the governments of bahrain, israel, sri lanka, sudan, egypt etc turns out he has the contacts to throw in a few sex slaves as sweeteners

Its just a shame that prince andrew, eppstein etc wont be a receiving a phone call from this guy at some point
[img] [/img]

Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer

As I understand it, He worked for a Government department that promotes UK business abroad.

The UK has an arms industry, which obviously sells stuff abroad, and he did his job by promoting it.

I'm not sure that makes him a "heavy duty arms dealer" does it ?

Perhaps you should do some research neal 😉

Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

theres plenty out there on andys dodgy dealings

http://www.channel4.com/news/prince-andrew-cheerleader-in-chief-for-the-arms-industry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12663378

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrews-trip-to-yemen-was-followed-by-arms-deal-2237614.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables

Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

Your assumptions are wrong... 😀

#Team JHJ all day !

Always intrigued by the "monarchy is abhorrent" view. Someone else on here recently made a comment about "being a subject".

Historically our royals have done horrendous things and abused their powers, stuff that makes this story about Prince Andrew look really tame. But given her current mainly symbolic role, I'm fairly "royalist" in my views. I haven't been persuaded that they do more harm than good - Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.

But I certainly don't feel like I'm anyone's subject. It's just a part of our national quirkiness.

Just realised I'm babbling and this should probably be another thread.

Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.

Possibly, but she makes a good deal less coffee.

So if they do nothing why have one family born to inherited privilege? The idea is just wrong imo.

Wonder how many of the weapons that led to (and continue to fuel) the worlds current tragedies Prince Andrew/The Royal Family sold and/or profited from?

Sometimes it almost seems as if it's a game to deal with whoever has the dodgiest human rights:

Bahrain:
[img] [/img]

Saudi Arabia:
[img] [/img]

and candidate for 'hate week' Assad (who was nearly knighted)
[img] [/img]

We are as a country well dodgy just look at the Genocidal nutters we supported under the Thatcher government and the torturers we assisted under Blair.

The Royal family are just an imported figure head and have no real Historic right to rule we could always pick an arbitory date and trace a more authentic bunch personally I'd go for 1059.

@kimbers, I am not sure I would say Epstein was "notorious", there are others who've done far worse. Prince Andrew apologised for his contact and severed all ties with him. Y

Oh right, so because paedophilia and sexual slavery isn't quite as bad as genocide we should just give him a free ride. 😕

Also, I believe Andrew was pictured with Epstein immediately after his release from prison.

As I understand it, He worked for a Government department that promotes UK business abroad.

The UK has an arms industry, which obviously sells stuff abroad, and he did his job by promoting it.

I'm not sure that makes him a "heavy duty arms dealer" does it ?

Yet again - rather than dealing with the actual issues you choose to pick up on an irrelevant and pedantic point. I really don't get it.

MoreCashThanDash - Member

Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.

[i]I[/i] pay more tax than Starbucks.

Paying tax on what? Land and property they've never had to work for. The Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall being one of the poorest counties, soaks up money locally and then provides scholarships at Gordounston for the kids of the privileged. How people defend the monarchy leaves me dumbfounded. Are we not grown up enough to be citizens? These people are ripping the p out of everyone else and are so arrogant and blase about it they think they can use and abuse and get away with it. Going by some of the comments on here, I'm sure they will, and be applauded for it.

Yet again - rather than dealing with the actual issues you choose to pick up on an irrelevant and pedantic point. I really don't get it.

How is it irrelevant ?

It was brought up, as if to illustrate a point. And I questioned it.

Add to the mix that Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer and this is far more of a story than is being generally revealed...

The insinuation being, he must be guilty of everything else because JHJ says he's an arms dealer.

He had a job to promote UK business abroad, we are the 5th largest arms exporter in the world, and he promoted it.

It doesn't relate to the recent accusations, and is a pointless thing to bring up.
Despite what JHJ claims above.

If he's guilty then he deserves prosecution and whatever punishment fit the crime.

But bringing up pointless exaggerations as a way to "prove" he's guilty doesn't help anyone.

Back under your bridge neal 😉

Nothing in the least pointless or exaggerated in what I'm trying to explain:

like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeffrey Epstein was a member of both the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.

Quick example, here is good old Zbigniew, doing what him and his chums do best (under CIAs [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone ]Operation Cyclone[/url]):

Could be argued that the Afghanistan war and indeed the recent ****stani School massacre were a result of the legacy of this... some even suggest it had a contributory factor in 9/11

Hope I'm not getting too exaggerated for you...

Back under your bridge neal

Is it trolling to disagree with you ?

I agree that if he's guilty he needs punishment, same as anyone else.

Trying to make out that he's guilty because you think he's an arms dealer doesn't help.

Prince Andrew representing British Industry including the arms trade isn't news. He should be congratulated for doing so. He served in the Falklands war so I would imagine he is quite a compelling sales person when it comes to arms deals. There is nothing remotely dodgy about that at all. I would say quite different things about Mark Thatcher in that regard FWIW.

There is nothing remotely dodgy about that at all

Really, nothing at all?

Another one for Jive's photos of Andrew with despots collection

[url= http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/prince-andrew-attacked-for-opening-door-to-arms-dealers/story-e6frg6so-1226037031887?nk=cf7fbf482e405c0a7e684aa9a1f1af1f ]Andrew brokers jets to Indonesia[/url] (whose leaders used the last arms we supplied against civilians)

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/feb/24/arms-gulf-prince-charles ]His brother too.[/url]

22K a week ski chalet? Wonder what extras were included..

@grum, Ian Watkins got 35 years - I was making the comparison that someone who gets 18 months probably hasn't committed a "notorious" crime. A serious crime yes but not a "notorious one"

@aa - not there is nothing remotely dodgy in assisting in promoting British business including weapons.