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





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 Roberts seeks to avoid the consequences of a previous agreement, by making further claims to damages. Ms Roberts, now Ms Giuffre, 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 are null and void concerning a third party newly released from the Agreement. This was the decision by Judge Kaplan, the case can proceed. 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.



Since Prince Andrew, The Duke of York was stripped of his titles and military medals, in view of the fluid situation, it may be safer to refer to former Prince/Duke as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.


Though, when it comes to the name, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl (Viscount) of Burma, he has been accused of being a paedophile with a preference for young boys.




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



LAUGHING BOY - You can laugh David, but we wonder if his Gestapo like approach to justice might be linked in some way with his affair in office. Blunkett overhauled 'Victorian' sex offences legislation in 2002, which modernised the sex offences laws dramatically in relation to same-sex and related issues by sweeping away the archaic laws governing homosexuality criminality, while tightening protections against rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders. The act closed a loophole that had allowed those accused of child rape to escape punishment by arguing the act was consensual and a new offence of adult sexual activity with a child, which covers any sex act that takes place between an adult and a child under 16, was introduced. It was supported by all major political parties in the UK. Hence, they all advocated denying human rights protections, in recognising buggery as being legal. Interesting offset, don't you think! Meaning, it is okay to have anal sex, but you will be fu*_-d in law up the ass in losing your right to a fair trial. Should the ass you are fu*-ing turn out to be incapable of giving consent, or you are being set up for a nice damages claim!!!


In making such changes, the 'legal' butcher eliminated a defendant's right to a fair hearing under Article 6, in an obsession bordering on a national eugenics programme, with a Hitler like fervour, dressed up as a vote catching appeasement of women's rights activists who want no sex in the workplace and to emasculate the opposite sex as to the point where they are Under the Thumb, in that there is no evidence required to obtain a conviction, the mere say so of a woman who might be lying through her teeth in the dock, is sufficient to send a good man down for a very long time for a crime that he may not have committed. In the UK a man accused of a sex crime is guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty. Police officers investigating crime scenes will then not gather inconvenient evidence to any allegation, further distancing any person so accused from having any possible remedy, or from being able to defend themselves. Why? Because in England, the police control the crime scene. So make the running, and they have conviction targets, so cut corners. Hence, it is vitally important that there is no conflict of interest, as per Rex v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924.


You may be better off with an artificial companion. Sex robots and humanoid companions are now quite popular. They are a whole lot safer. A robot cannot accuse you of rape or sodomy. Though, one might imagine, the civil servants then trying to charge a sex tax. Especially the female civvies, who no doubt will hate the idea of losing control over men. Indeed, such expressions have already been aired by the media. Robots could undermine the flesh trades, in the process, making a whole lot of people happier. So, why not prescribe them on the National Health? Replace marriage, with a different kind of agreement, should a couple decide to procreate. In order for this to work, robots would have to be very appealing to the end users. It's all down to the curves and bumps in the right places - emulating evolution of course. The birth rate may fall dramatically among advanced thinkers, while those less able to afford automaton lovers, would no doubt continue like rabbits as before. Thus to reduce populating growth, we need to make mechanized companions cheaper. And then there is AI.


Where most people in the street will be legally aided when it comes to defending a charge of rape the level playing field that the State is supposed to ensure as "equality of arms" is suddenly sent to the wall for a firing squad execution of any person accused - but mainly men of course because in Britain nobody would believe that a woman could rape a man. Thus, any trial becomes a witch hunt. if you are innocent you float and guilty you drown. Either way you die, by way of a public crucifixion - as character assassination and reputational damage. No matter if you are a war hero, inventor, climate crusader, royal, or whatever. The fallout is likely to mar the Queen's Platinum Jubilee celebrations in 2022.







According to the media, the former 'Prince Andrew' was not  a saint when it came to physical relations with women; he was 17 and spending two terms at a Canadian school when he acquired a nickname that stuck for life: Randy Andy. 

“He’s about as subtle as a hand grenade,” one girl at Lakefield College in Ontario said. “His favourite trick is to rub your knee under the table."




Queen takes back royal patornages and military honours





Having led a charmed life, and getting away with a whole lot more than the ordinary man in the street, it must have come as something of a shock to Prince Andrew, as he was summoned to Windsor Castle and told by his mother, that the Firm was demoting him to civvy street status, to distance the institution as far as possible from any fallout.


That said, it is not possible to cut off your right arm and then say that is not my right arm. The Duke of York will always be the Queens second born son. Prince Charles, even when King, will always be his brother. And he'll always be the uncle of Harry and William.




Virginia Giuffre



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. 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.

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." In the UK, the age of consent is 16. The penalty for underage 'paid' sex is harsh under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced as statute by Lord David Blunkett, with the Queen's approval and endorsement of the Lords Spiritual & Temporal. Despite the fact that Blunkett was, allegedly, getting blow jobs or other sexual favours from his then secretary, Kimberly Quinn, as a clear conflict of interest.


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. But even if they did not, the Duke may want to consider apologizing to his accuser, for it may be that he hurt her more in not remembering. For the sake of the royal family as a British institution - that may oversee the most corrupt country in the world - when it come to laundering drug money, Andrew may also want to set Ms Guiffe up with as much compensation as he can reasonably afford. We feel sure that even if there is some latent bunny boiler in the situation, that the mother of three will want to be seen to doing the right thing. She has already completely annihilated the former Prince.








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 faulty and misleading intelligence. Britain is held to be the most corrupt country in the world when it comes to laundering of drug money.










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