ADOLF HITLER'S EUGENICS NAZI GERMANY AGENDA IS SIMILAR TO THE SEXUAL OFFENCES WITCH HUNTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

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. Though, District Judge Lewis Kaplan has a difficult decision to make, the extant agreement may only be enforced by Jeffrey Epstein while he is alive. It may thus be that the terms of such deal and null and void concerning a third party newly released from the Agreement. Clearly, the sum accepted previously, does not take into account the additional mental distress of the victim, arising from the media coverage and refusal of the royal to accept even partial responsibility.

TWO TIER SYSTEM - Teenage pregnancies in the UK are (of course) all illegal. Yet there are no prosecutions. The law as it stands is quite clear, and applies to all ages across the board. A child under 13 is incapable of giving consent. Thus, when a girl under 13 becomes pregnant, she must have been raped. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The age of consent in the UK is 16, meaning that Prince Andrew would not have committed a crime, unless he paid for sex and it was against Ms Giuffe's will.

The eugenics movement was not invented by Adolf Hitler, being an American Way theme, with societies in Europe and the England. But it was the Führer (the title to define his role of absolute authority in Germany's Third Reich from 1933 to 1945) who grasped the concept with both hands, and industrialized the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women and children in his ethnic cleansing programmes.

“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.”

Selective breeding is acceptable when it comes to dogs, cattle and fruit (the loganberry for example), but is not tolerable when it comes to humans. Evolution had advanced by natural selection, then men and women who wanted to meddle with nature, decided to weed out the weaker members of society, those with deformities and mental illness, to make a stronger human race. In Germany that was "the master race." Those deemed to have undesirable characteristics, where measured and catalogued, and experimented on, then put to death (euthanasia).

It is held by many to be a civil servant thing in particular, based on the agendas of many local authorities to eliminate caravans and alternative lifestyles. That was until the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted in 2000, and began to bite. Human rights are still evolving, with councils and prisons still trying to get around their moral obligations. Indeed, the lack of affordable housing may be seen as part of a unsettling Conservative agenda to disadvantage and take advantage of those in society who need help most. The government need only enact new statute, or introduce revisions to the National Planning Policy guidance document, to make it law that affordable/sustainable housing must be built before new executive housing. But, they will not do it. Confirming the suspicions of many.

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 Roberts 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, 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 Prince Andrew (with help from the Queen) has unlimited funds for his legal team in the USA.

Adolf Hitler

German Chancellor

Herman Goring

Reichsmarschall Luftwaffe

Heinrich Himmler

Reichsführer Schutzstaffel

Joseph Goebbels

Reich Minister Propaganda

Philipp Bouhler SS

NSDAP Aktion T4

Dr Josef Mengele

Physician Auschwitz

Martin Borman

Schutzstaffel

Adolph Eichmann

Holocaust Architect

Erwin Rommel

The Desert Fox

Rudolf Hess

Auschwitz Commandant

Karl Donitz

Submarine Commander

Albert Speer

Nazi Architect

In the State of New York the age of consent is 18. If it were that Virginia Giuffre was being forced to have sex with Prince Andrew at the age of seventeen, that would be 'Involuntary Sexual Intercourse.' At the very least, "Sexual Activity With A Minor." It seems that the more civilised a country, and the quicker children are educated, the more repressive the laws relating to sexual activity. If those nations are not careful, the age of consent could rise to 35 years, when a woman's eggs are practically fried in terms of evolutionary success, for a healthy birth. We might also see a limit imposed at the other end of the age spectrum, to make intercourse illegal after the age of 50.

Should the case go to trial, and if the case were to be decided in favour of the Plaintiff, then significant damages would follow. It may also mean that the Royal may stand trial in the US, or in the UK, for rape, since he is seen in the apartment of Ghislaine Maxwell, with his arm around Virginia Roberts. Even if he can't "remember" her, that does not mean the events claimed did not take place.

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. But certainly, war criminals who invade another country based on

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/judge-in-prince-andrew-case-takes-jab-at-former-us-president/ar-AASqwbU