PRINCE ANDREW is Off The Hook - He Met Virginia Giuffre's Price For Her to Stay Silent.

Tuesday, February 15, 2022

It looks like the Prince of England has used his money, influence, and status in society, to remain a free man who remains Innocent/Not Guilty in the eyes of the courts.

Prince Andrew has settled a sexual abuse lawsuit brought by accuser Virginia Giuffre in Manhattan federal court, according to newly filed court papers.

"We write jointly with counsel for defendant to advise the Court that the parties reached a settlement," Giuffre's attorney David Boies wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Tuesday.

More: www.foxnews.com...

How many people care, at this point? 🥱

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

It was a Civil Lawsuit. It was never about his going to jail. He just paid her to go away. It was all she wanted anyway.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: carewemust

It was a Civil Lawsuit. It was never about his going to jail. He just paid her to go away. It was all she wanted anyway.

She's probably still young enough to have decades of fun with the money...yes?

a reply to: carewemust

Got her phone number?

She knew what she was doing. I can almost forgive "The Prince" (laffs) for his pedo-ness (gaffs again).

To reward this little gold-digger will hopefully serve as a lesson. Who it's gonna stick to is debatable.

I see a small plane crash in her future.

Clearly Giuffre wasn't badly injured or insulted, she wouldn't take hush money if she was so terribly traumatized.

a reply to: carewemust

I truly don't know if Prince Andrew is guilty as charged by Ms Guiffre... and I'm not sure what to make of this. But it does seem to me that there is more to this than we know.

Prince Andrew certainly isn't innocent. But neither is Ms Guiffre. I don't think it's an accident that Guiffre didn't testify at Ghislaine's trial. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Guiffre decided to settle after she herself was accused of grooming and soliciting underage girls for Epstein by one of the victims who did testify at Ghislaine's trial. Guiffre really can't afford for this to go too far, and I'm sure she was counting on PA to settle, knowing it would cost him far more to defend in court than to settle out of court. If she pushed too much, and crossed the wrong person -- directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly -- she may have found herself facing criminal charges. At the very least, she is open to the same civil lawsuits she's filed against PA, from the underage girls she solicited and groomed for Epstein.

And unless Guiffre has some kind of definitive evidence that is not public, I don't see that she can prove anything against Andrew. But it would cost PA a pretty penny to even get to trial. I assume PA decided it wasn't worth the fight. Perhaps he simply cannot afford the fight. It was costing him everything. Not just legal fees, but his royal status and appointments, his privacy, his social life, and what's left of his tattered reputation in general. It will be interesting to see if he is allowed any prominent role in the upcoming Jubilee celebrations for Queen Elizabeth -- or any public role at all!

I also suspect that U.S. authorities did not want this to go too far, and shining even more light on their own sweetheart deals and incompetence and corruption in all things "Epstein." They may have encouraged the two of them to settle for everyone's best interests...

a reply to: carewemust
I didn't read the link...doubt the amount of money that is to change hands was divulged?
I expect lawyer's fees and document filings ate through the awards settlement?

Duke wasn't inclined to tarnish the image his mother bestowed upon him while living.
I'm assuming this marks the announcement of her passing is forthcoming.

Hush money? It’s hardly hush money when everyone knows about it. The fact that he’s had his military titles revoked and now he’s chosen(been advised) to settle rather than fight the case is very telling don’t you think?

It seems to me that paying someone for their silence or for dropping charges is legal extortion, and shouldn't be allowed.
We taxpayers have donated to a government slush fund that allows upper-tier politicians to buy the silence of people they victimize. Makes no sense.

a reply to: Boadicea

Then there's the real curve ball that isn't being mentioned. SHE WAS OF LEGAL AGE WHEN THEY HAD SEX.

originally posted by: nugget1
It seems to me that paying someone for their silence or for dropping charges is legal extortion, and shouldn't be allowed.
We taxpayers have donated to a government slush fund that allows upper-tier politicians to buy the silence of people they victimize. Makes no sense.

So true, and no one has offered to tell us how our money is being used.

And they become upset when we March into our own capital building.

I think big government and small government alike, have forgotten who is the boss.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Boadicea

Then there's the real curve ball that isn't being mentioned. SHE WAS OF LEGAL AGE WHEN THEY HAD SEX.

Yup!!! And by her own admission.

Although I will add allegedly. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if PA did do the dirty deed but NOT with Guiffre, and Guiffre is exploiting her knowledge/experience to fake a case against PA's deep pockets. Although word is that the Queen refuses to fund PA's defense, so his deep pockets may not be as deep as Guiffre imagined.

originally posted by: carewemust
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

It looks like the Prince of England has used his money

the guy has certainly been up to many a dodgy dealings, not many people would put him out if he was on fire, i certainly would not

but why oh why do you keep proclaiming him to be the Prince of England, i have seen someone correct you/point this out to you before in another thread, I even clicked the dirty faux link to see if it were they that were giving you that title but nope, it is only you that refers to him as the Prince of England, I struggle to understand why, can you explain?

Is this a thing ???

So if you rape someone you can just throw some money at them and avoid jail time ??

wtf.. world is strange.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Boadicea

Then there's the real curve ball that isn't being mentioned. SHE WAS OF LEGAL AGE WHEN THEY HAD SEX.

Yup!!! And by her own admission.

Although I will add allegedly. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if PA did do the dirty deed but NOT with Guiffre, and Guiffre is exploiting her knowledge/experience to fake a case against PA's deep pockets. Although word is that the Queen refuses to fund PA's defense, so his deep pockets may not be as deep as Guiffre imagined.

I don't know.
I met him once. Seemed nice enough. He flew with us for a bit when I was in training. That was after the Falklands War. He was running around with some softcore porn star. Koo Stark was her name I think. My girlfriend at the time thought he was something else. He talked with her for a bit. To think about it Lisa looked quite a bit like Guiffre in that picture of her with him.

a reply to: Boadicea

Not in the US, she wasn't.

So nothing wrong with convicted sex traffickers procuring young girls to rich creepy old men, then?

He sold his Swiss ski chalet for 17 mil and made a pile from "brokering trade deals" (cough!) so pretty sure the deal was not small change.

I always thought she was after the money, especially when she claimed to lose photo of her with Andrew. Time for Andrew to lose his position as Counsellor of State, and taken out of Line of Succession, less mess for Charles to deal with when he becomes monarch this year.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

Not in the US, she wasn't.

Age of consent is determined by state, not by the "US". The age of consent in New York -- the US location where Guiffre claimed abuse occurred -- was either 16 or 17 at the time. It is 17 today.

So nothing wrong with convicted sex traffickers procuring young girls to rich creepy old men, then?

I have no idea where that came from... unless you're making a statement for yourself, and are not really asking a question. I offered no such opinion. I do believe I referred to it as a/the "dirty deed," and that's about the extent of my opining on the matter. I spoke to the law and the circumstances.

He sold his Swiss ski chalet for 17 mil and made a pile from "brokering trade deals" (cough!) so pretty sure the deal was not small change.

I'm sure I wouldn't consider it "small change," but that's relative. I'm also sure a BIG chunk of that settlement is going straight into attorneys' pockets...