REAL OR FAKE ?
REAL OR FAKE? - UK law is even more draconian than US, where under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a claimant is to be believed, regardless of the lack of any proof, other than the say so of a claimant. This reverses the Article 6 protections, where a person is to walk into a court innocent, until proven guilty. In the UK, you are guilty until proven innocent. The UK, with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as head of state, is (effectively) guilty of removing the human rights of those accused of sexual offences in the UK. This statute was enacted after development by David Blunkett, himself guilty of extra marital activities that could have influenced him, if as alleged, he was being plied with sexual favours, presumably, by a female with a vested interest, urging him to deprive UK defendants of rights granted under the Universal Declaration and European Convention. In an ironic twist of fate, it now appears that the Queen's 2nd born son, may have fallen foul of rules designed to increase conviction rates, regardless of innocence or guilt - though in the US. This is called noble cause corruption. The Crown does not mind filling prisons with an extra quota of men and women, around 3-5% of which are more than likely innocent - because the State has also deprived them of any effective remedy, by removing Article 13 from the HRA 1998, and cutting Legal Aid to the point where it is impossible to mount a comprehensive defence. They have thus anticipated the effect their rule bending will cause, and cut off any path to justice for those wrongly convicted.
Be wary of casual sex. It's not worth the bother. Men invented washing machines, dishwashers, toasters and microwaves to relieve women of those tasks - but they are equally useful for single men wanting to live independently. It's only natural that women should be replaced with mechanical comforts that don't complain or have headaches. The same of course applies to career women, who would normally have nannies to look after their children, so why not replace unreliable men with a robotic partner. They should perhaps be available on the NHS. Think of the reduction in population growth, if every man and woman had a synthetic partner.
On the face of it, it appears that Prince Andrew was in Ghislaine Maxwell's flat in London, and that Ms Giuffre was present. It does not show that the Prince or Ms Maxwell is coercing the plaintiff. Rather, it is suggestive that Ms Roberts, as she was then known, is enjoying being in the company of the Prince. As appears to have been suggested by Carolyn Andriano.
If that is so, at least one of the claims must be struck, or found in the Prince's favour. Because, in English law, the plaintiff is not under age, even if she is 17 as claimed. For all we know, and if the picture is real, she may be 18, or have said she was over 18.
It is impossible to say, some 20 plus years later, In which case, the Prince might not be able to get a fair trial/hearing. That is the problem with historic sex cases. The law appears unfair on potential defendants.
is the process where each party must reveal evidence in support of their
argument. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said the case should proceed,
when the plaintiff and respondent might see the hand of the other side,
or request further and better particulars.
If the plaintiff's evidence is shown to be unreliable, then on the balance of probabilities, a court/jury might give Prince Andrew the benefit of the doubt. It all depends on the strength of the claims Ms Guiffe is making.
appears to us that the Duke has so far, not taken the matter as
seriously as he might.
“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said,
Prince Andrew has made himself quite an easy target with a colourful lifestyle in the past and the types of people he used to hang out with coming back now to haunt
Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The
Newsnight Interview - BBC News - 4,840,669 views - 17 Nov 2019
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. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) is 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.
LINKS & REFERENCE
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