Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

[Craig4]

A lot of this smacks of ethically pure villagers circling with pitchforks.

I'm not sure she cares about how ethical the villagers are, just that they're circling with pitchforks.

 

[Craig4]

I think this may be true. My guess is that she probably does not need the money she probably just got around $1million from the distribution of Epstein's estate. I also think part of her anger is guilt. She was more complicit in e.g. recruiting young girls than others. Accepting that given she was trafficked and as Smartcoocky would say could not be considered responsible for her actions in this situation, it does not mean she does not feel guilty, and angry for having had to participate in the recruitment of young teens and having taken payment for having done so.

ETA If she settles out of court for an undisclosed sum do we conclude it was the money not the vengeance she wanted?

There could be lots of reasons. Going through this court case can't be pleasant. I suppose she might decide she's had her pound of flesh and walk away. The statements in the press indicate she wants to finish the job.

 

[Bob001]

.....
To be clear at age 14 Giuffre was the 'girl friend' of a completely different sex trafficker - one who dealt in the wholesale import of girls for the sex trade.
.....

"To be clear" nothing. At age 14 she was not the "girlfriend" of a sex trafficker. She was a child and a victim. It's appalling that you don't understand this.

 

[smartcooky]

All I asked for was clarity of the law in the relevant jurisdiction. As at least one of the alleged sexual events was in England, so English law is applicable.

As said this is a civil case not a criminal case. It is being heard in a NY court under NY law. I am not sure of the relevance of the "Diversity Jurisdiction'? This applies to the right of the defendant (Windsor) to move the case from a state court to a Federal court.

ETA

Misread - case is being held in the federal court, but as I understand it NY laws apply.

Diversity Jurisdiction

28 USC § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

IOW, a case involving a US Citizen (Giuffre/Robert) and a foreign national (Mr Windsor) cannot be held under the jurisdiction of a State district court, only a Federal court.


(For clarity the law uses the titlecased "State" when it is referring to a state of the USA, and the lowercased "state" when referring to a foreign country)

 

[smartcooky]

"To be clear" nothing. At age 14 she was not the "girlfriend" of a sex trafficker. She was a child and a victim. It's appalling that you don't understand this.

100%. A disgusting misrepresentation of Giuffre's role in her victimhood!

 

[SpitfireIX]

Diversity Jurisdiction

28 USC § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

IOW, a case involving a US Citizen (Giuffre/Robert) and a foreign national (Mr Windsor) cannot be held under the jurisdiction of a State district court, only a Federal court.


(For clarity the law uses the titlecased "State" when it is referring to a state of the USA, and the lowercased "state" when referring to a foreign country)

I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood (2) above. It's actually the first part, "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state" that applies to His Royal Lowness. The rest of the clause makes an exception to this rule for resident aliens who reside in the same state as the other party. "District court" refers to federal court.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood (2) above. It's actually the first part, "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state" that applies to His Royal Lowness. The rest of the clause makes an exception to this rule for resident aliens who reside in the same state as the other party. "District court" refers to federal court.

You're right, I've misread and then highlighted the wrong part

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Planigale]

Diversity Jurisdiction

28 USC § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.

IOW, a case involving a US Citizen (Giuffre/Robert) and a foreign national (Mr Windsor) cannot be held under the jurisdiction of a State district court, only a Federal court.


(For clarity the law uses the titlecased "State" when it is referring to a state of the USA, and the lowercased "state" when referring to a foreign country)

Technically Giuffre as a foreign resident is not a citizen of a state so section 2 is the wrong section. The court case is being held in a Federal district court, but under NY law.

 

[Planigale]

"To be clear" nothing. At age 14 she was not the "girlfriend" of a sex trafficker. She was a child and a victim. It's appalling that you don't understand this.

That is exactly why it was 'girl friend', because obviously living with a 65 yr old sex trafficker at age 14 is being criminally sexually exploited. I am sorry if I have to spell this out for you. A sexual predator exploited a young girl living on the streets. He used his position of running a model agency to lure her into a criminal relationship.

Giuffre ran away from a criminally sexually abusive relationship at home only to be trapped in another criminally sexually abusive relationship.

The point I was making is that the sex trafficker exploiting her at age 14 was not Epstein. Epstein was the sex trafficker who exploited her between the ages of 17 to 19.

 

[catsmate]

"To be clear" nothing. At age 14 she was not the "girlfriend" of a sex trafficker. She was a child and a victim. It's appalling that you don't understand this.

Indeed.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The court case is being held in a Federal district court, but under NY law.

Citation? Why would Federal court use NY law?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Citation? Why would Federal court use NY law?

Because even though the Windsor formerly known as Prince (allegedly) committed torts against Giuffre under New York state law, the case is required to be tried in federal court, due to diversity of citizenship.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Because even though the Windsor formerly known as Prince (allegedly) committed torts against Giuffre under New York state law, the case is required to be tried in federal court, due to diversity of citizenship.

Can you provide a citation that the court will use NY State law?

 

[SpitfireIX]

28 U.S. Code § 1652 - State laws as rules of decision

The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.​

See also here.

 

[smartcooky]

Mr Windsor's sole defence is that he has has no recollection of ever meeting Giuffre/Roberts The problem with that is, how can he deny having sexually assaulted her if he doesn't even remember meeting her. It seems that she can remember

However, the elephant in the room is that there is a photo of him with her. As you would expect, Mr Windsor claims its been faked, but the problem with that is there is an original, physical print in the hands of the FBI. Even worse for him, the photo has a date stamped on on the back from when it was printed by a retail photo procession shop. I don't know for sure whether the original was a digital image or not, but the skin tones, contrast and overall appearance of the image we see on the web looks like it might have been printed from a 35mm film negative and then scanned.

The photographer who first “copied” the image is a New Zealand photojournalist named Michael Thomas. He has described stumbling across the image in a bundle of photographs handed to him by Giuffre. He has said that Giuffre didn't just hand him the photo, it was in amongst the rest of the bundle. "They were just typical teenage snaps. There’s no way that photo is fake" he said.

A number of photogrammetry experts have said there is no evidence the photo was altered or tampered with.

Frankly, I think his denials are not going to stand up to scrutiny, and he is about to be in for a torrid and very uncomfortable time.

https://pagesix.com/2022/01/29/prince-andrew-to-be-quizzed-by-sex-accusers-lawyers/

"Prince Andrew’s going to have a lot of time in the hot seat when legal preparations for the infamous sex abuse lawsuit against him ramp up.

The royal is expected to spend two days in London being questioned by David Boies, the lawyer for accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims pedophile Jeffrey Epstein forced her to have sex with Andrew three times when she was 17.

Andrew, who has repeatedly denied the allegations, will likely find the experience “a little uncomfortable,” Boies told the Mail on Sunday. "

 

[theprestige]

Mr Windsor's sole defence is that he has has no recollection of ever meeting Giuffre/Roberts The problem with that is, how can he deny having sexually assaulted her if he doesn't even remember meeting her.

I don't agree with this "logic", and I don't see the "problem". There's a huge difference between

"Maybe we were introduced in passing, but if so I don't remember it. I get introduced to a lot of people, and very few of them make a memorable impression on me."

and

"Oh, gee, I don't remember if I had sex with her or not."

He's denying that they were ever close enough for him to have noticed her and gone after her in the first place.

And strictly speaking, Windsor's defense is that it's Giuffre's burden of proof, not his, and until she meets it he has nothing to answer for.

 

[zooterkin]

Because even though the Windsor formerly known as Prince

Mountbatten-Windsor, when he needs to use a surname, otherwise York, or nothing at all (as he is still an HRH, even though he's not using the style officially). He is still a Prince.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

28 U.S. Code § 1652 - State laws as rules of decision

The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.​

See also here.

Thank you very much! I'll be a while digesting that.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't agree with this "logic", and I don't see the "problem". There's a huge difference between

"Maybe we were introduced in passing, but if so I don't remember it. I get introduced to a lot of people, and very few of them make a memorable impression on me."

and

"Oh, gee, I don't remember if I had sex with her or not."

He's denying that they were ever close enough for him to have noticed her and gone after her in the first place.

And strictly speaking, Windsor's defense is that it's Giuffre's burden of proof, not his, and until she meets it he has nothing to answer for.

While it is Giuffre's burdon of proof, the bar of that burden is not that high. This not a criminal trial, its a civil trial, and as such, the burden is not "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", its "on the Balance of Probabilities"

• Mr Windsor claims to have no recollection of ever meeting her, but that photo will be like an albatross around his neck... it calls his memory and his honesty into question.

• Mr Windsor claims he was never close to Epstein or Maxwell, but it there are witnesses who will refute that, having seen Andrew and Maxwell together many times, including at Mr Windsor's residence. Maxwell was given special treatment when she came, with officers told to keep her name out of official records. I wonder if he remembers Maxwell's visits to Buck house around 2001 when the photo was taken?

• Mr Windsor claims the photo must be faked because he claims he has never been one to "party or show public displays of affection" , yet there are witnesses and photographs that make him a liar

https://www.the-sun.com/news/68145/...aiming-never-doing-so-in-car-crash-interview/

I wonder if he remembers all the partying he did and all the women he hasn't showed public displays of affection with? If not, it would smack of the "Drunky McRapeface" defence.

• Mr Windsor claims that all these allegations are a recent fabrications by Giuffre, but there are witnesses who she confided in when, or shortly after, the events she claims happened. In law that is known as "contemporaneous evidence".

• Mr Windsor first tried to use a technicality to get out of this by claiming that the Epstein NDA granted him immunity. While that it is not in and of itself evidence, it is sure to come up during the trial. While a jury might be directed not to place undue weight on this in their deliberations, un-ringing the bell is almost impossible.

It seems clear that Mr Windsor has lied a lot about himself and the things he does. Its very much a case of he said v she said. The jury only have to decide who is more likely to be telling the truth.

 

[theprestige]

Mr Windsor claims to have no recollection of ever meeting her, but that photo will be like an albatross around his neck... it calls his memory and his honesty into question.

I don't agree. I'm sure you could find many photos of me at group events clearly interacting with people I don't remember at all.

"Who is that? Brian's girlfriend? Did he even have a girlfriend at the time? I guess he must have, because there she is shaking my hand... What? She says I took her to bed? Dude, I don't even remember getting introduced to her. You'd think I'd remember the other thing, if it really happened. Which it didn't. Sorry, but she's wrong."