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 - What a strange world we live in. It is illegal for a teenager to get herself pregnant in the UK. Yet there are no prosecutions of either of those party to the offence. 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. A girl under 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 SUN 21 NOVEMBER 2019 - HIS ROYAL RUDENESS - PRINCE ANDREW'S DECADES OF UNPLEASANTNESS REVEALED - FROM HIS HUGE EGO TO THE DIVA LIKE MELTDOWNS

FAR from being Prince Charming, the Duke of York is renowned for being breathtakingly arrogant, self-serving and boorish.

It came as no surprise to royal watchers, then, that so few have leapt to Prince Andrew's defence during the worst week of his royal life — and so many have seized the opportunity to stick the knife in.

Decades of unpleasantness have left the 59-year-old isolated, with only his perpetual ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, left to fight his ­corner.

A source said last night: “Prince Andrew has very few friends. And most of his older friends have dropped him as too pompous. His days are rather empty.”

It was his signature arrogance, baffled insiders say, that convinced Andrew — against advice — to go through with the BBC ­interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

He must have believed he would be charming enough to see off, once and for all, the allegations that he slept with teenager Virginia Roberts — something he strenuously denies.

In reality, that plan has spectacularly backfired. Charm has never been the prince’s strong suit.

Today Prince Andrew cuts a lonely figure, with sponsors and charities rushing to disassociate themselves from the increasingly toxic prince’s projects and new allegations of racist remarks on top of everything else.

For a man who prides himself so much on his loyalty to his friends — telling the Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis in his interview his fatal flaw is that he is simply “too honourable” — Prince Andrew has found loyalty to himself in short ­supply.

Here we look at all the ways he’s driven people away . . .

PRINCE Andrew is notoriously rude to staff. One former royal aide confided: “I’ve seen him treat his staff in a shocking, appalling way.

“He’s been incredibly rude to his personal protection officers, literally throwing things on the ground and demanding that they ‘f***ing pick them up’. No social graces at all.”

Other flunkies are apparently expected to tend to his ego.

Private Eye has reported that during his Dragons’ Den-style Pitch@Palace events, his staff know to make copious notes and hold up recording devices while he holds forth — so he knows they are giving them the adoration he is confident he deserves.

IN September of this year it was reported that Andrew flew into such a rage at a top palace aide that Prince Charles had to step in to insist he apologise.

The fuming Duke of York got “very cross” in the heated exchange, said to be about a work-related issue.

It was reported that the row almost came to blows, with Andrew squaring up to the aide, although the Palace refused to confirm this.

Mortified Charles demanded his brother apologise — something a royal insider said the Duke failed to do.

IN 2010, Wikileaks revealed a secret cable from a US ambassador who described how Prince Andrew, then a UK special representative on trade, had spoken “cockily” during an official engagement, leading to a discussion that “verged on rude”.

In the cable, written in 2008, Tatianna Gfoeller, Washington’s ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, wrote of “rude language à la British” and described how Andrew had railed against the Senior Fraud Office and journalists who “poke their noses everywhere” and made disparaging comments about France.

It seems that Andrew had a peculiar knack of offending the very people it was his job to court on behalf of British business during his dubious tenure as a trade envoy.

SIR Ivor Roberts, an ambassador to Rome between 2003 and 2006, described how Andrew “rubbed people up the wrong way.”

When one head of a major fashion house introduced herself, he rudely responded: “Never heard of you.”

Sir Ivor said it was down to his team to clear up the mess Andrew had made.

Britain’s former deputy head of mission in Bahrain, Simon Wilson, has also described how officials gave Andrew the nickname “His Buffoon Highness”, because of how he would childishly do the opposite of whatever had been agreed ahead of a visit with staff.

Mr Wilson added waspishly: “Colleagues put this behaviour down to an inferiority complex about being mentally challenged.”

THIS is a prince who likes to get his own way, even if it means abusing those meant to protect him and his gilded family.

Paul Page, a former royal protection officer, told how Andrew had screamed at security when they rushed to investigate an intruder lurking in the corridor near the Queen’s bedroom — only to find it was actually the prince.

Faced with officers simply doing their job, Andrew yelled: “This is my f***ing home, I can go where I want, now f*** off.”

FAMOUSLY dubbed “Air Miles Andy” for his incessant jet-setting, the Prince’s overseas visits not always ran smoothly.

He had a meltdown at Melbourne airport in Australia, in 2005, refusing to go through the normal security procedures like the rest of the riff raff.

But indignant Australian officials refused to indulge him. One later told local Press: “Who does he think he is? What a pompous prat.

“Everyone has to go through security screening. He should be happy to do so and set an example.”

MANY have given in to his outrageous demands over the years — including the Foreign Office.

During a trip to India in 2012, when Andrew refused to stay at the British High Commissioner’s luxury Delhi residence, as his brother and heir to the throne Charles had done on a previous visit, he instead stayed at the eye-wateringly expensive Maharaja Suite at the Leela Palace — at UK taxpayers’ expense.

PERHAPS it is little wonder that this petulant prince has few real friends.

A source who has known him for many years said Prince Andrew was “incompetent” when it came to his social life.

The source went on: “He surrounds himself with these incredibly dodgy people.

“He travels so much, when he comes back he is either playing golf, if he can find any friends to play with, or he is leading quite a lonely life. It’s not like he goes to parties all the time.

“He has got these so-called friends who drop by when he is in this country, and there is usually a stream of transient girls.”

ANDREW'S biggest problem, many believe, is that he is a classic spoiled younger son.

For years the Queen — who is said to view him as her “favourite” — has ignored his foibles and indulged his every whim, breeding in a stubborn streak.

One former friend confided: “Andrew does stupid things out of hubris, to show that he can do them . . . He thinks he can power his way through everything.”

ANDREW often acts like a childish yob, such as when he rammed gates near his home with his Range Rover.

He was travelling to Royal Lodge in March 2016 when he arrived at Windsor Great Park to find the gates’ sensors broken.

He could have taken a one-mile detour. But no.

He threw a tantrum and tried to ram the gates open, causing thousands of pounds of damage to them – which the taxpayer ultimately paid for.

GUESTS who have been to parties with Andrew say he is only really comfortable if he has women fawning all over him.

He is said to struggle when the conversation is about anything other than himself.

An acquaintance said: “One minute you’re having your bum pinched, the next he is reminding you he is Your Royal Highness.”

Another said the prince was, “boorish”, and added that he, “interrupts you and laughs at his own jokes”.

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."

STRIPPED OF HONOURS & MEDALS

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.

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 

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10389728/prince-andrew-unpleasantness-ego-meltdowns/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10389728/prince-andrew-unpleasantness-ego-meltdowns/

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site