• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Just catching up here, it seems there is strong evidence that she and Epstein were inseparable. Since he had the money it is logical she would pander to him.
Very clearly guilty of the crimes for which she is indicted in my view.
Should she do jail time? That is one for virtue ethicists, not the village pitchfork wielders.
 
Samson said:
Just catching up here, it seems there is strong evidence that she and Epstein were inseparable. Since he had the money it is logical she would pander to him.
Very clearly guilty of the crimes for which she is indicted in my view.
Should she do jail time? That is one for virtue ethicists, not the village pitchfork wielders.
Click to expand...


Okay, if she is convicted of multiple crimes against minors as part of a long-term international scheme, why shouldn't she go to prison? It doesn't have to be a life sentence, but surely she's as deserving of an extended stay in the GrayBar Motel as the average crook.
 
Bob001 said:
Okay, if she is convicted of multiple crimes against minors as part of a long-term international scheme, why shouldn't she go to prison? It doesn't have to be a life sentence, but surely she's as deserving of an extended stay in the GrayBar Motel as the average crook.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I never know.
 
Bob001 said:
You seem to be under the impression that "trafficking" means physically transporting someone. That's not what the feds say:

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/trafficking.html

If Maxwell induced or persuaded a minor to engage in any sexual activity anytime anyplace with anyone for compensation, she is guilty. And if she engaged in force, fraud or coercion against anyone of any age, she's also guilty.
Click to expand...

I thought it included crossing state lines?

She bought Annie Farmer some boots. Surely there must be stronger evidence of sex trafficking of minors than that?
 
Vixen said:
I thought it included crossing state lines?
Click to expand...

You thought wrong then!

Definition of Trafficking in Persons

22 U.S.C. § 7102

Sex trafficking: the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act, in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; (and)

Labor trafficking: the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.


To be clear, the way this is worded has "or" between all of the conditions, i.e, its "....recruitment, or harboring, or transportation, or provision....." NOT "....recruitment , and harboring, and transportation, and provision..."
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Just catching up here, it seems there is strong evidence that she and Epstein were inseparable. Since he had the money it is logical she would pander to him.
Very clearly guilty of the crimes for which she is indicted in my view.
Should she do jail time? That is one for virtue ethicists, not the village pitchfork wielders.
Click to expand...
So you feel the organised sexual abuse of minors should carry no punishment?
 
Vixen said:
I thought it included crossing state lines?

She bought Annie Farmer some boots. Surely there must be stronger evidence of sex trafficking of minors than that?
Click to expand...

Crossing state lines with a minor is a crime in and of itself.

It's not a prerequisite for trafficking charges.
 
Samson said:
Just catching up here, it seems there is strong evidence that she and Epstein were inseparable. Since he had the money it is logical she would pander to him.Very clearly guilty of the crimes for which she is indicted in my view.
Should she do jail time? That is one for virtue ethicists, not the village pitchfork wielders.
Click to expand...

No, she pandered for him.
 
Vixen said:
I thought it included crossing state lines?

She bought Annie Farmer some boots. Surely there must be stronger evidence of sex trafficking of minors than that?
Click to expand...


LOL you claim to be following this case, and you think that the word "trafficking" literally means "taking a person from one location to another location".

It may be time for you to do some proper research.......
 
In related news, Prince Andrew's defense against Virginia Giuffre's suit: "Yes, she was 17. Old enough."
Prince Andrew says accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s sex assault suit against him should be tossed because she was 17 when she allegedly had sex with him — the legal age of consent in New York, new court papers show.

Giuffre sued Andrew in August claiming she was forced by Jeffrey Epstein and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with the royal at least three times in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands when she was just 17.

But in court papers filed Monday, the Duke of York argues there are constitutional issues with Giuffre’s suit because it was filed under the New York Child Victims’ Act.
Click to expand...
https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/princ...o-toss-virginia-giuffres-sexual-assault-suit/
 
Bob001 said:
In related news, Prince Andrew's defense against Virginia Giuffre's suit: "Yes, she was 17. Old enough."

https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/princ...o-toss-virginia-giuffres-sexual-assault-suit/
Click to expand...

Its not going to fly. The age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18, which is where one of the sex acts took place. That fact that the lawsuit was files in New York is irrelevant in a civil action.

USVIC § 1700a Aggravated rape in the second degree
(a) Whoever perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person who is under eighteen years but thirteen years or older, or by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim is used to accomplish the sexual act, is guilty of aggravated rape in the second degree and shall be imprisoned for life or for any term in years, but not less than 10 years​
 
smartcooky said:
Its not going to fly. The age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18, which is where one of the sex acts took place. That fact that the lawsuit was files in New York is irrelevant in a civil action.

USVIC § 1700a Aggravated rape in the second degree
(a) Whoever perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person who is under eighteen years but thirteen years or older, or by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim is used to accomplish the sexual act, is guilty of aggravated rape in the second degree and shall be imprisoned for life or for any term in years, but not less than 10 years​
Click to expand...

Prince Andrew is not being tried in criminal court, he's being sued.

I'm not a lawyer, but seems they're trying to attack the suit because it was filed in a state (NY) where a 17 year old is above the age of consent.

Seems to me this would be simpler if he were facing criminal charges, because trafficking across state lines allows for federal law (18 is the cutoff) to trump state law.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Prince Andrew is not being tried in criminal court, he's being sued.

I'm not a lawyer, but seems they're trying to attack the suit because it was filed in a state (NY) where a 17 year old is above the age of consent.

Seems to me this would be simpler if he were facing criminal charges, because trafficking across state lines allows for federal law (18 is the cutoff) to trump state law.
Click to expand...


Apparently the basis for her suit is that she was coerced, but he's claiming that the sex was consensual and that 17 was old enough to consent in NY. Seems like that might be a valid defense at trial, but dismissing the suit would require the court to decide on its own that it was consensual, which would short circuit the whole process.
Giuffre sued Andrew in August claiming she was forced by Jeffrey Epstein and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with the royal at least three times in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands when she was just 17.

But in court papers filed Monday, the Duke of York argues there are constitutional issues with Giuffre’s suit because it was filed under the New York Child Victims’ Act.

The law allows victims age 18 and younger to bring claims against their abusers, though New York’s age of consent is 17, according to the filing in Manhattan federal court.

In a case where a 17-year-old alleges abuse, they must prove a lack of explicit consent or lack of consent by “implied threat” — which in Giuffre’s case would depend on unavailable third-party witness testimony, Andrew’s lawyers argue.
Click to expand...
https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/princ...o-toss-virginia-giuffres-sexual-assault-suit/
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Prince Andrew is not being tried in criminal court, he's being sued.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I said, but laws still apply when people are sued for what they do. e.g. murder is illegal, so killing someone is unlawful (hence the lawsuit against OJ Simpson for "unlawful death").

In any case, this is a massive change of tack for Andrew. Up until this point, he has always claimed that it never happened, and that he had never met and did not know Victoria Giuffre (Roberts) at all, but trying to get the lawsuit thrown out on the basis of the age of consent in New York is tantamount to an admission that he has been lying about this all along.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
In any case, this is a massive change of tack for Andrew. Up until this point, he has always claimed that it never happened, and that he had never met and did not know Victoria Giuffre (Roberts) at all, but trying to get the lawsuit thrown out on the basis of the age of consent in New York is tantamount to an admission that he has been lying about this all along.
Click to expand...
Not a bit. It's a fact that the court can establish independently of going to court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom