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



Prince Andrew documents sweat claim & Pizza Express




Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team have discovered that Scotty David, a Juror, has admitted that he was sexually abused as a child, and that he'd told other Jurors about that during the trial in 2021.


This revelation means that information, could have persuaded the Jury to convict Ms Maxwell, rendering the verdict unsafe.


All Courts have a duty to protect the right of the accused to be treated as innocent, until proven guilty. The exception being in the UK, where David Blunkett's Sexual Offences Act 2003 reverses the burden of proof - such that the accused has to prove innocence, and is assumed to be guilty. But then Britain is held to be the most corrupt country in the world when it comes to the laundering of drug money.


A Jury should convict only on evidence that is produced in Court.






BALMORAL OR IMMORAL - You would be persuaded by this picture, that Jeffrey 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. 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 during the trial, 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. And that is because there in no right of appeal in England, one has to seek permission of a single judge, and the Royal Courts of Justice refused vital transcripts needed to be able t mount an appeal. Europe sent back a human rights claim after 4 years, suggesting the wrongly convicted man had a domestic remedy. Sdaly, there is no effective remedy in the UK. Article 13 not being included in the HRA 1998. On that basis, good luck to anyone facing trial in the UK's 'kangaroo courts' injustice system. At least Prince Andrew has unlimited funds for his legal team in the USA. In the UK, Legal Aid does not extend to seeking independent medical experts. Funding is barely sufficient to mount any kind of defence in complex cases, such as historic sex allegations, whereas the Crown Prosecution Service has virtually unlimited resources. In addition, Sussex police had raided the appellant's home and stolen privileged Rule 39 files, rendering the process null and void, recently brought to light when in another Sussex case in 2021, the CPS included stolen privileged documents in their case against another SLAPP victim (who was beaten unconscious in a police van), Also by virtue of prior involvement as a R v Sussex Justices 1924, infringement, where the victim had reported crimes to Sussex police, but they had failed to investigate the claims of 11 unrelated petitioners as to planning fraud in Wealden. A matter still outstanding, as there is no statute of limitations on such crimes. If the State refuses an audience under the 1689 Bill of Rights, the only recourse is to the International Criminal Court, in the Hague.





Virginia Giuffre v Maxwell (2015)

Details of a civil lawsuit, made public in January 2015, contained a deposition from "Jane Doe 3" that accused Maxwell of recruiting her in 1999, when she was a minor, and grooming her to provide sexual services for Epstein. A 2018 exposé by Julie K. Brown in the Miami Herald revealed Jane Doe 3 to be Virginia Giuffre, who was previously known as Virginia Roberts. Giuffre met Maxwell at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, when Giuffre was a 16-year-old spa attendant. She asserted that Maxwell had introduced her to Epstein, after which she was "groomed by the two [of them] for his pleasure, including lessons in Epstein's preferences during oral sex".

Giuffre asserted that Maxwell and Epstein had trafficked her and other underage girls, often at sex parties hosted by Epstein at his homes in New York, New Mexico, Palm Beach, and the United States Virgin Islands. Maxwell called her a liar. Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in federal court in the Southern District of New York in 2015. While details of the settlement have not been made public, in May 2017 the case was settled in Giuffre's favour, with Maxwell paying Giuffre "millions".

Sarah Ransome v Epstein and Maxwell (2017)

In 2017, Sarah Ransome filed a suit, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Epstein and Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell hired her to give massages to Epstein and later threatened to physically harm her or destroy her career prospects if she did not comply with their sexual demands at his mansion in New York and on his private Caribbean island, Little Saint James. The suit was settled in 2018 under undisclosed terms.

Affidavit filed by Maria Farmer (2019)

On 16 April 2019, Maria Farmer went public and filed a sworn affidavit in federal court in New York, alleging that she and her 15-year-old sister, Annie, had been sexually assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell in separate locations in 1996. Farmer's affidavit was filed in support of a defamation suit by Virginia Giuffre against Alan Dershowitz. According to the affidavit, Farmer had met Maxwell and Epstein at a New York art gallery reception in 1995. The affidavit says that in the summer of the following year, they hired her to work on an art project in billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner's Ohio mansion, where she was then sexually assaulted by both Maxwell and Epstein. Farmer reported the incident to the New York Police Department and the FBI. Her affidavit also stated that during the same summer, Epstein flew her then 15-year-old sister, Annie, to his New Mexico property where he and Maxwell molested her on a massage table.

Farmer was interviewed for CBS This Morning in November 2019 where she detailed the 1996 assault and alleged that Maxwell had repeatedly threatened both her career and her life after the assault.

Jennifer Araoz v Epstein's estate, Maxwell, and Jane Does 1–3 (2019)

On 14 August 2019, Jennifer Araoz filed a lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court against Epstein's estate, Maxwell, and three unnamed members of his staff; the lawsuit was made possible under New York state's new Child Victims Act, which took effect on the same date. Araoz later amended her complaint on 8 October 2019 with the names of the previously unidentified women enablers to include Lesley Groff, Cimberly Espinosa, and the late Rosalyn Fontanilla.

Priscilla Doe v Epstein's estate (2019)

Ghislaine Maxwell was named in one of three lawsuits filed in New York on 20 August 2019 against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The woman filing the suit, identified as "Priscilla Doe", claimed that she was recruited in 2006 and trained by Maxwell with step-by-step instructions on how to provide sexual services for Epstein.

Annie Farmer v Maxwell and Epstein's Estate (2019)

Annie Farmer, represented by David Boies, sued Maxwell and Epstein's estate in Federal District Court in Manhattan in November 2019, accusing them of rape, battery and false imprisonment and seeking unspecified damages.

Jane Doe v Maxwell and Epstein's Estate (2020)

In January 2020, a lawsuit was filed against Maxwell and Epstein alleging that they recruited a 13-year-old music student at the Interlochen Center for the Arts in the summer of 1994 and subjected her to sexual abuse. The suit states that Jane Doe was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Epstein over a four-year period and that Maxwell played a key role both in her recruitment and by participating in the assaults. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe was targeted by Epstein and Maxwell for being fatherless and from a struggling family, in much the same manner as many of the other alleged victims.

Maxwell v Epstein's Estate, Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, and NES LLC (2020)

On 12 March 2020, Maxwell filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in the US Virgin Islands seeking compensation from Epstein's estate for her legal costs. Maxwell claimed she had been a longtime employee of Epstein (from 1998 to 2006) who had served to manage his property holdings in the US Virgin Islands, New York, New Mexico, Florida and Paris while continuing to deny any knowledge or involvement in his criminal activities. According to the lawsuit, Maxwell was seeking damages for the legal fees associated with defending herself against her accusers, expenses that she claims Epstein had promised to cover for her.

Jane Doe v Epstein's estate (2021)

Maxwell was named in a civil suit filed against Epstein's estate in March 2021 by a Broward County woman who accused Epstein and Maxwell of trafficking her after repeatedly raping her in Florida in 2008.







Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News - 4,840,669 views - 17 Nov 2019

In a Newsnight special, Emily Maitlis interviews the Duke of York as he speaks for the first time about his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and allegations which have been made against him over his own conduct.

The Duke of York speaks to Emily Maitlis about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations against him. In a world exclusive interview, Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis speaks to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York at Buckingham Palace

For the first time, the Duke addresses in his own words the details of his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who took his own life while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

In 2015, Prince Andrew was named in court papers as part of a US civil case against Epstein. The Prince, who is the Queen’s third child, also answers questions about the allegations made against him by one of Epstein’s victims, and discusses the impact of the scandal on the Royal family and his work.





10 DECEMBER 2021 - CHARITY WATCHDOG INVESTIGATION PRINCE CHARLES'S SCOTTISH VILLAGE - A charity watchdog has launched an investigation into financial transactions used to bail out the Prince of Wales’s struggling eco-village in Scotland. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) is already examining fundraising practices at the Prince’s Foundation, following allegations that the Prince of Wales' closest former aide co-ordinated with "fixers" over honours nominations for a Saudi billionaire donor.







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. 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 from consultancy fees as part time politicians. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. Under the administration of The Queen, as the Head of State in the at present Constitutional Monarchy, Britain has become known as the drug money laundering capital of the world. In a modern democracy, such criminalities exposes the absurdity of a hereditary system, where those in line to take the reins of the nation, have no administrative or economic qualifications, and have proven time and again that they have appointed the wrong Prime Ministers. To wit, alleged war criminal, Tony Blair, and Boris Johnson - who lied to the Queen. Not to mention the mishandling of Covid, the steep rise in energy prices (energy inflation) and the almost total lack of affordable housing - so perpetuating the renting financial-slave-trade. In addition, the planning system is held to be corrupt to the core, as is the honours system. The icing on the cake is the lack of an effective remedy, befitting the dictatorial likes of Adolf Hitler, in disarming the electorate - based on Henry VIII's statute, making his word law (off with his head 4.5 beheadings a day). It is surely time for a constitutional overhaul - to cut out the cancerous cells - and become an accountable democracy based, not based on award bribery and ranking, but based on ability and competence. In the light of these failings and the lack of suitably experienced royals to continue, especially following the fallout of the ongoing sex scandal. The monarchy may like to consider abdicating their duties and call for a referendum. In 1672, an angry Dutch electorate, killed and ate their ‘Grand Pensionary’ Johan de Witt, in effect, the prime minister of the then failed republic. They wanted strong leadership from the young Prince of Orange: Willem III, later William III of England. Perhaps, now is the time for reversal - a return to a republic based on merit, not political horseshit. We feel sure that Hannibal Lecter, would like to have some old friends for dinner. In the political sense, that is!











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 2022