Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or see our HOMEPAGE



Prince Andrew no documents sweat claim & Pizza Express



In 2022, it came to light that what looks to be a legally binding and enforceable court Order, may qualify as legal estoppel, where having already been paid to stay all claims, Ms Robert seeks to avoid the consequences of a previous agreement, by making further claims to damages. Ms Roberts may have set a case precedent valuing her sexual ordeal with Jeffrey Epstein (and/or others) @ $500,000 dollars.


Despite it being hearsay, it is likely that the US courts will admit such evidence, where they frequently do so in the British courts. The Judge will give directions to the jury, to make of it what they will. Of course, the jury will be bound to think the worse of it. Especially, where the BBC interview at Buckingham Palace, does little for the Prince, without corroborating medical evidence as to the claimed inability to sweat, following his tour of duty during the Falklands war.




Carolyn Andriano giving evidence on oath during Ghislaine Maxwell's trial





Virginia Giuffre told a fellow Jeffrey Epstein accuser that she slept with Prince Andrew when she was underage, a report says.

Carolyn Andriano, a key witness in Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, waived her right to anonymity and told The Daily Mail about her conversation with Giuffre.

Giuffre sued Prince Andrew last August, accusing the British royal of sexual assaulting her when she was 17. The prince strenuously denies the charges.

Andriano told the paper that Virginia Giuffre texted her in March 2001 to say she was going for dinner with Prince Andrew, Maxwell, and Epstein in London.

In Florida, Andriano claims Giuffre showed the now-infamous photograph with the prince and said she had sex with him, the paper reports.

"I asked her if she'd been to the palace. And she said, 'I got to sleep with him,'" Andriano told the paper.

"I said, 'What? You're fucking with me,' and she said, 'no, I got to sleep with him.' She didn't seem upset about it. She thought it was pretty cool," Andriano said.

Andriano said that Giuffre seemed to be excited to meet Prince Andrew because he was famous.

"Virginia just couldn't believe it. Maxwell had told her she had a surprise for her, and I guess the surprise was Prince Andrew. She was excited. I guess when you're meeting somebody that famous, I would have been excited too," Andriano told The Daily Mail.

Carolyn Andriano told The Daily Mail that Giuffre recruited her into Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse "pyramid scheme," which she was involved in between the ages of 14 to 17.

She gave testimony at Maxwell's sex trafficking trial last month, and Maxwell was found guilty of five charges.

Andriano, 35, said she had decided to waive her right to anonymity because "I want all young women to know what happened to me when I was a teenager and how it has affected my life."

Andriano's is the first independent account of Giuffre previously discussing her encounter with Prince Andrew. 

The conversation in 2001 would have taken place ten years before Giuffre went public with the allegations.

The Daily Mail said it had not paid Andriano for the interview. Prince Andrew declined to comment on the story when approached by the newspaper.

Prince Andrew's lawyers have been fighting to dismiss Giuffre's lawsuit in court. A decision on whether he will face a full civil trial is expected soon.



“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said [4 Jan 2022], according to Newsweek reporter Jack Royston. “Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”




As anyone who has been in front of a Judge in a courtroom will know, the law may be interpreted one way by one court, and another way on appeal, and so on. Buckingham Palace will be well aware of that. With Queen Elizabeth II footing Andrew's legal bills, we are sure that Her Majesty is following progress of the case with much interest.




Virginia Giuffre    Laughing boy, David Blunkett having extra marital affairs and being allowed to craft sex law despite clear conflict of interests



Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Balmoral, Royal residence in Scotland   Prince Andrew Duke of York with Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell



BALMORAL OR IMMORAL - You would be persuaded by this picture, that Epstein and Ms Maxwell, were good friends of the Duke. On the other hand, Prince Andrew was always entertaining big business, in promoting Great Britain Ltd. Much the same as Queen Elizabeth brokered foreign deals on HMY Britannia.


The Prince may not remember the 17 year old Virginia Roberts, but unless this photograph is a fake (doubtful - it must have been checked out) he did meet the young lady at some point - even if only posing at a drinks party, and Ghislaine Maxwell was at this meeting. One question we would ask is how do we know the age of the claimant from this picture? She could easily be 18 or older. Or she may have claimed to be over 18, for Ghislaine to have allowed Virginia to have been photographed with the Duke. No doubt, testimony from Ms Maxwell will clear that up. And where and when was the picture taken, and by whom? You can imagine that with US State laws varying, and this picture looking for all the world like London, where the age of consent is 16, the precise details relating to the taking of this picture are extremely important. It might be worth checking passports, etc. Not that we are saying anything did or did not happen between the Prince and Ms Roberts. For the sake of argument, if some did take place (that the Duke cannot recall) and it was in London, then no crime had been committed. You can marry a girl in Spain and Tahiti at 13 (we think). Hence, any prosecution would need to be very sure of dates and places to begin mounting an investigation. It would not be fair to even interview the Prince, until the facts had been established, for fear of trying to trick him into something he could not possibly remember.


We know of a case where penetration had been alleged during a police interview, but the evidence told only of natural marks and a hymen that could not be opened [even] with labial traction. During this interview, the police officer told the defendant that she had been penetrated, leaving the defendant believing that was true. When it was not, as we suspect the interviewing officer knew full well. It was an attempt at entrapment. A so-called child specialist gave evidence at trial, that the natural marks could only be explained by penetration. Legal Aid restrictions prevented the defendant in that case from instructing a specialist. Sussex police allowed the jury to hear misleading evidence, and the man was convicted on naturally occurring marks, found in females of all ages. British justice is such that despite other discrepancies being identified, such as a diary being attributed by the trial judge to the defendant, when it belonged to a psychiatric nurse, an appeal has never made it back to the Courts. Europe sent back a claim after 4 years, suggesting the wrongly convicted man had a domestic remedy. On that basis, good luck to anyone facing trial in the UK. At least you have unlimited funds for your legal team in the USA.







NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. Some people advocate abolition of the honours system, where it is alleged that some awards are in connection with preserving the status quo, as in whitewashing statistics and the like, to mask the level of corruption in UK courts.










Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




This website is provided on a free basis as a public information service. copyright © Injustice Alliance 2021