|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 12, 2021 17:52:56 GMT
Fuck Prince Andrew for his absolute arrogance towards the charges aimed at him, and fuck the institution of the Royal Family for standing behind him and his lavish tax payer funded lifestyle.
Parasites……
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Sept 12, 2021 18:05:53 GMT
Fuck Prince Andrew for his absolute arrogance towards the charges aimed at him, and fuck the institution of the Royal Family for standing behind him and his lavish tax payer funded lifestyle. Parasites…… If you don’t like the royal family then move abroad you’re an embarrassment…………. Fella …….. now move on ……
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 12, 2021 18:10:24 GMT
Fuck Prince Andrew for his absolute arrogance towards the charges aimed at him, and fuck the institution of the Royal Family for standing behind him and his lavish tax payer funded lifestyle. Parasites…… If you don’t like the royal family then move abroad you’re an embarrassment…………. Fella …….. now move on …… Why would I move abroad because I don’t like to see an alleged nonce arrogantly defy the law whilst being supported by his family? Still I suppose when there’s a mixed race member of the family to ostracise life must be busy busy busy…..
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Sept 12, 2021 18:18:01 GMT
If you don’t like the royal family then move abroad you’re an embarrassment…………. Fella …….. now move on …… Why would I move abroad because I don’t like to see an alleged nonce arrogantly defy the law whilst being supported by his family? Still I suppose when there’s a mixed race member of the family to ostracise life must be busy busy busy….. Oooh saw how you threw the race card in there , an you used the word alleged , don’t know if you know how the U.K. court system works but you’re innocent until proven guilty
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 12, 2021 18:22:28 GMT
Why would I move abroad because I don’t like to see an alleged nonce arrogantly defy the law whilst being supported by his family? Still I suppose when there’s a mixed race member of the family to ostracise life must be busy busy busy….. Oooh saw how you threw the race card in there , an you used the word alleged , don’t know if you know how the U.K. court system works but you’re innocent until proven guilty Yes I used the word alleged exactly because I understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Keep up for fucks sake. Hiding away at Balmoral like the cowardly bastard that he is without fully answering to the authorities in question doesn’t allow justice to be done either way, he’s still happy to keep leeching of the state in the mean time though. Oh well a benefit cheat you once knew had Sky and a smartphone so let’s focus on him instead. The establishment are pissing on you and telling you it’s raining chief……
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Sept 12, 2021 18:27:40 GMT
Oooh saw how you threw the race card in there , an you used the word alleged , don’t know if you know how the U.K. court system works but you’re innocent until proven guilty Yes I used the word alleged exactly because I understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Keep up for fucks sake. Hiding away at Balmoral like the cowardly bastard that he is without fully answering to the authorities in question doesn’t allow justice to be done either way, he’s still happy to keep leeching of the state in the mean time though. Oh well a benefit cheat you once knew had Sky and a smartphone so let’s focus on him instead. The establishment are pissing on you and telling you it’s raining chief…… He’s a member of the Royal Family and gets his allowance as well as a Naval Pension , you will be bashing ppl on benefits soon saying they are leeching to , do yourself a favour and quit while you’re ahead or you will be stirring up a hornets nest on the benefit system as well
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Sept 13, 2021 2:44:19 GMT
It does not paint him in a good light to be hiding from this. I assume he is being advised by his lawyers and PR people. These lawyers, aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by employees of the Royal family and the government, appear to be making it as difficult as possible for the papers to be served. It is clear that their strategy is to make the US attorneys fight for every inch of ground in order to drag this affair out. So much for their claim last year that they have been, and continue to be, cooperative. I am not sure what they hope to gain from this strategy. Do they think the plaintiff will run out of money, or that she will get fed up and drop the case? If he is innocent then he should not be behaving like this. Face up to the requests for information. Answer the questions as best you can and let the case progress. I am sure his support team of legal experts can ensure that he says nothing to incriminate himself. I don't think he should go to USA. I don't trust their justice system and wouldn't go myself so I don't expect him to go either. TBH I would never voluntarily go to any overseas jurisdiction to answer any charges. I understand the strategy but I think this is bad PR. However, since when has Prince Andrew cared about what the plebs think? He has given the Queen and Charles a headache they could do without. Regardless of innocent or guilty he should never be allowed to represent Queen and Country ever again. The bloke is a liability.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 13, 2021 6:05:43 GMT
It does not paint him in a good light to be hiding from this. I assume he is being advised by his lawyers and PR people. These lawyers, aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by employees of the Royal family and the government, appear to be making it as difficult as possible for the papers to be served. It is clear that their strategy is to make the US attorneys fight for every inch of ground in order to drag this affair out. So much for their claim last year that they have been, and continue to be, cooperative. I am not sure what they hope to gain from this strategy. Do they think the plaintiff will run out of money, or that she will get fed up and drop the case? If he is innocent then he should not be behaving like this. Face up to the requests for information. Answer the questions as best you can and let the case progress. I am sure his support team of legal experts can ensure that he says nothing to incriminate himself. I don't think he should go to USA. I don't trust their justice system and wouldn't go myself so I don't expect him to go either. TBH I would never voluntarily go to any overseas jurisdiction to answer any charges. I understand the strategy but I think this is bad PR. However, since when has Prince Andrew cared about what the plebs think? He has given the Queen and Charles a headache they could do without. Regardless of innocent or guilty he should never be allowed to represent Queen and Country ever again. The bloke is a liability. Arrogance and entitlement……
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 13, 2021 8:25:19 GMT
It does not paint him in a good light to be hiding from this. I assume he is being advised by his lawyers and PR people. These lawyers, aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by employees of the Royal family and the government, appear to be making it as difficult as possible for the papers to be served. It is clear that their strategy is to make the US attorneys fight for every inch of ground in order to drag this affair out. So much for their claim last year that they have been, and continue to be, cooperative. I am not sure what they hope to gain from this strategy. Do they think the plaintiff will run out of money, or that she will get fed up and drop the case? If he is innocent then he should not be behaving like this. Face up to the requests for information. Answer the questions as best you can and let the case progress. I am sure his support team of legal experts can ensure that he says nothing to incriminate himself. I don't think he should go to USA. I don't trust their justice system and wouldn't go myself so I don't expect him to go either. TBH I would never voluntarily go to any overseas jurisdiction to answer any charges. I understand the strategy but I think this is bad PR. However, since when has Prince Andrew cared about what the plebs think? He has given the Queen and Charles a headache they could do without. Regardless of innocent or guilty he should never be allowed to represent Queen and Country ever again. The bloke is a liability. He’s an embaressment to the Royal family. It’s been an awful couple of years for our wonderful queen who’s never put a step wrong in her years on the throne.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 13, 2021 10:36:35 GMT
It does not paint him in a good light to be hiding from this. I assume he is being advised by his lawyers and PR people. These lawyers, aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by employees of the Royal family and the government, appear to be making it as difficult as possible for the papers to be served. It is clear that their strategy is to make the US attorneys fight for every inch of ground in order to drag this affair out. So much for their claim last year that they have been, and continue to be, cooperative. I am not sure what they hope to gain from this strategy. Do they think the plaintiff will run out of money, or that she will get fed up and drop the case? If he is innocent then he should not be behaving like this. Face up to the requests for information. Answer the questions as best you can and let the case progress. I am sure his support team of legal experts can ensure that he says nothing to incriminate himself. I don't think he should go to USA. I don't trust their justice system and wouldn't go myself so I don't expect him to go either. TBH I would never voluntarily go to any overseas jurisdiction to answer any charges. I understand the strategy but I think this is bad PR. However, since when has Prince Andrew cared about what the plebs think? He has given the Queen and Charles a headache they could do without. Regardless of innocent or guilty he should never be allowed to represent Queen and Country ever again. The bloke is a liability. He’s an embaressment to the Royal family. It’s been an awful couple of years for our wonderful queen who’s never put a step wrong in her years on the throne. The Nazi salute wasn't a good look to be fair, but we'll let Brenda off for that one, she was only about six so would have had no idea what she was doing and was obviously not on the throne at that point. US judge not happy about the royal nonce dodging legal processes apparently. He's not doing himself any favours if he thinks this will all blow over and he can go back to being a 'proper' royal again. I think if he did ever re-appear into public life a few people might follow him around and remind him of how much of a cunt he's been about it all, not that that would ever get reported, of course...you can't undermine the royal image in any way in this country...
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 13, 2021 10:58:51 GMT
It does not paint him in a good light to be hiding from this. I assume he is being advised by his lawyers and PR people. These lawyers, aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by employees of the Royal family and the government, appear to be making it as difficult as possible for the papers to be served. It is clear that their strategy is to make the US attorneys fight for every inch of ground in order to drag this affair out. So much for their claim last year that they have been, and continue to be, cooperative. I am not sure what they hope to gain from this strategy. Do they think the plaintiff will run out of money, or that she will get fed up and drop the case? If he is innocent then he should not be behaving like this. Face up to the requests for information. Answer the questions as best you can and let the case progress. I am sure his support team of legal experts can ensure that he says nothing to incriminate himself. I don't think he should go to USA. I don't trust their justice system and wouldn't go myself so I don't expect him to go either. TBH I would never voluntarily go to any overseas jurisdiction to answer any charges. I understand the strategy but I think this is bad PR. However, since when has Prince Andrew cared about what the plebs think? He has given the Queen and Charles a headache they could do without. Regardless of innocent or guilty he should never be allowed to represent Queen and Country ever again. The bloke is a liability. I'm sure I read somewhere that Roberts only had so long left to effectively action the case as the alleged offences took place 20 years ago - and the time she has is now weeks. Presumably therefore what Andrews legal team hope to achieve by dodging the writ is running thd clock down and getting it dismissed on a technicality.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 14, 2021 8:15:14 GMT
It does not paint him in a good light to be hiding from this. I assume he is being advised by his lawyers and PR people. These lawyers, aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by employees of the Royal family and the government, appear to be making it as difficult as possible for the papers to be served. It is clear that their strategy is to make the US attorneys fight for every inch of ground in order to drag this affair out. So much for their claim last year that they have been, and continue to be, cooperative. I am not sure what they hope to gain from this strategy. Do they think the plaintiff will run out of money, or that she will get fed up and drop the case? If he is innocent then he should not be behaving like this. Face up to the requests for information. Answer the questions as best you can and let the case progress. I am sure his support team of legal experts can ensure that he says nothing to incriminate himself. I don't think he should go to USA. I don't trust their justice system and wouldn't go myself so I don't expect him to go either. TBH I would never voluntarily go to any overseas jurisdiction to answer any charges. I understand the strategy but I think this is bad PR. However, since when has Prince Andrew cared about what the plebs think? He has given the Queen and Charles a headache they could do without. Regardless of innocent or guilty he should never be allowed to represent Queen and Country ever again. The bloke is a liability. I'm sure I read somewhere that Roberts only had so long left to effectively action the case as the alleged offences took place 20 years ago - and the time she has is now weeks. Presumably therefore what Andrews legal team hope to achieve by dodging the writ is running thd clock down and getting it dismissed on a technicality. 17 September is apparently the cut off point for taking action. The alleged nonce has now instructed his legal team to respond to the allegations on Mon 20 Sept...no doubt hoping for a ruling in his favour and off he trots....says it all really...
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 14, 2021 8:42:36 GMT
I'm sure I read somewhere that Roberts only had so long left to effectively action the case as the alleged offences took place 20 years ago - and the time she has is now weeks. Presumably therefore what Andrews legal team hope to achieve by dodging the writ is running thd clock down and getting it dismissed on a technicality. 17 September is apparently the cut off point for taking action. The alleged nonce has now instructed his legal team to respond to the allegations on Mon 20 Sept...no doubt hoping for a ruling in his favour and off he trots....says it all really... Innocent until proven guilty. But if that happens it'll be neither. If anything the suspicion would increase. Why doesn't he want to clear his name?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 9:44:49 GMT
17 September is apparently the cut off point for taking action. The alleged nonce has now instructed his legal team to respond to the allegations on Mon 20 Sept...no doubt hoping for a ruling in his favour and off he trots....says it all really... Innocent until proven guilty. But if that happens it'll be neither. If anything the suspicion would increase. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdriction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 14, 2021 9:48:39 GMT
Innocent until proven guilty. But if that happens it'll be neither. If anything the suspicion would increase. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdiction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement. So he's innocent until proven liable. Why doesn't he want to clear his name?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 10:01:13 GMT
As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdiction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement. So he's innocent until proven liable. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? That can only be speculation - but one scenario would be that even if not liable to Ms Roberts the process of establishing that would require a graphic public airing of the extent of Andrews participation in Epstein's/Maxwell's parties. If the case goes ahead - and depending on Roberts motives - you might see the offer of an out of court settlement with no acceptance of any liability or further statements to be made by either party. To paraphrase another saying - better to kerp your mouth shut and have people think you're a sex pest than start talking and remkve all doubt. Problem is that approach will only have any validity until Maxwell's case get's to court when the whole shebang will come out (barring any unfortunate in-cell mishaps with pyjama cords or electric appliances).
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 14, 2021 10:04:28 GMT
So he's innocent until proven liable. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? That can only be speculation - but one scenario would be that even if not liable to Ms Roberts the process of establishing that would require a graphic public airing of the extent of Andrews participation in Epstein's/Maxwell's parties. If the case goes ahead - and depending on Roberts motives - you might see the offer of an out of court settlement with no acceptance of any liability or further statements to be made by either party. To paraphrase another saying - better to kerp your mouth shut and have people think you're a sex pest than start talking and remkve all doubt. Problem is that approach will only have any validity until Maxwell's case get's to court when the whole shebang will come out (barring any unfortunate in-cell mishaps with pyjama cords or electric appliances). Ghislaine has been overlooked since the papers were served on Princey. Could she bleat for a reduced sentence? Could she even tell the lot in exchange for a form of immunity?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 10:16:22 GMT
That can only be speculation - but one scenario would be that even if not liable to Ms Roberts the process of establishing that would require a graphic public airing of the extent of Andrews participation in Epstein's/Maxwell's parties. If the case goes ahead - and depending on Roberts motives - you might see the offer of an out of court settlement with no acceptance of any liability or further statements to be made by either party. To paraphrase another saying - better to kerp your mouth shut and have people think you're a sex pest than start talking and remkve all doubt. Problem is that approach will only have any validity until Maxwell's case get's to court when the whole shebang will come out (barring any unfortunate in-cell mishaps with pyjama cords or electric appliances). Ghislaine has been overlooked since the papers were served on Princey. Could she bleat for a reduced sentence? Could she even tell the lot in exchange for a form of immunity? If found guilty Ms Maxwell faces a long sentence - which given that she's now around 60 will mean much of the rest of her active life. I'm sure her lawyers will be exploring all form of mitigation if they consider the prosection case to be tight. There is another school of thought however - that she may be 'pursuaded' that she is actually safer 'inside'.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 14, 2021 10:49:26 GMT
Ghislaine has been overlooked since the papers were served on Princey. Could she bleat for a reduced sentence? Could she even tell the lot in exchange for a form of immunity? If found guilty Ms Maxwell faces a long sentence - which given that she's now around 60 will mean much of the rest of her active life. I'm sure her lawyers will be exploring all form of mitigation if they consider the prosection case to be tight. There is another school of thought however - that she may be 'pursuaded' that she is actually safer 'inside'. It’s in maxwells interest to say as little as possible Reminds me of years ago when lester piggot was up in court on tax charges kept his mouth shut did his time And was well looked after when he came out He could easily of dropped very important people in the shit Maxwell if she spills the beans will pretty much of signed her death warrant
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 14, 2021 10:58:41 GMT
Regardless of conjecture and rumours all the prosecution has is a photo which proves he met her. He says he doesn’t remember which could well be the truth.
There will be no payoff from Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 14, 2021 11:01:11 GMT
As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdiction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement. So he's innocent until proven liable. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? OJ Simpson was not guilty but liable
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 14, 2021 11:16:03 GMT
So he's innocent until proven liable. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? OJ Simpson was not guilty but liable 😁 Maybe Andrew’s got a glove hidden up just In case
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 11:34:14 GMT
If found guilty Ms Maxwell faces a long sentence - which given that she's now around 60 will mean much of the rest of her active life. I'm sure her lawyers will be exploring all form of mitigation if they consider the prosection case to be tight. There is another school of thought however - that she may be 'pursuaded' that she is actually safer 'inside'. It’s in maxwells interest to say as little as possible Reminds me of years ago when lester piggot was up in court on tax charges kept his mouth shut did his time And was well looked after when he came out He could easily of dropped very important people in the shit Maxwell if she spills the beans will pretty much of signed her death warrant Piggot only served 12 months. If Weinstein is anything to go by Maxwell could be looking at 30 years. There will be no 'after' to be 'well looked after' in. She may well therefore take her chances.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 11:40:50 GMT
Regardless of conjecture and rumours all the prosecution has is a photo which proves he met her. He says he doesn’t remember which could well be the truth. There will be no payoff from Andrew. But that's the point - even if she can't prove there was anything directly between him and her there will be a long drawn out process of describing the world of sex, drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll that Andrew inhabited which has the potential to be equally as damaging to his reputation as a senior Royal as the specific allegation - so he'd rather the case never came to court - as such there would be a value in paying her to shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 14, 2021 11:55:12 GMT
Innocent until proven guilty. But if that happens it'll be neither. If anything the suspicion would increase. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdriction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement.True, but he's banking on having to do neither. His approach is clearly to play legal games by refusing to make himself available to receive papers, no doubt fully aware that 17 September is the cut-off date, have someone else accept them on your behalf so that those doing the serving then stop trying to do so, then once the cut-off date has passed, claim that they were never legally served because the correct legal entity wasn't properly served them! It's pretty obvious, and pretty shitty, behaviour on his part, but given he continued to enjoy the friendship of a convicted paedophile for some time, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 14, 2021 11:56:49 GMT
So he's innocent until proven liable. Why doesn't he want to clear his name? OJ Simpson was not guilty but liable Not the best comparison, if you want to appear innocent... Perhaps Andy will release a book called If I Was A Royal Nonce
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 12:18:22 GMT
As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdriction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement.True, but he's banking on having to do neither. His approach is clearly to play legal games by refusing to make himself available to receive papers, no doubt fully aware that 17 September is the cut-off date, have someone else accept them on your behalf so that those doing the serving then stop trying to do so, then once the cut-off date has passed, claim that they were never legally served because the correct legal entity wasn't properly served them! It's pretty obvious, and pretty shitty, behaviour on his part, but given he continued to enjoy the friendship of a convicted paedophile for some time, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Ok - perhaps 'needs to do' was the wrong choice of words. Replace with 'ought to do if he has any moral compass'. I don't know - and nor do you - whether Andrew and Giuffre/Roberts had a sexual or other improper relationship at Maxwell's place in London (mindful that having sex with a 17 year old in the UK in itself is not illegal - so be wary of use of the term 'nonce'). What is pretty clear though is that the life that Andrew led and the company he kept as he trotted around the globe was at best incompatible with the positions held and is damaging not only to himself but the institution of the monarchy he seems keen to continue to represent - for which the Roberts case has now become a focus. He can hide all he wants but he can't truly address one without dealing directly with the other.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 14, 2021 13:37:30 GMT
As it is a civil case he would never be 'guilty' only 'liable'. I'm sure I also read that (if the court were to find him liable) he would only be liable within the jurisdriction of that court - so unless he has assets in NY or sets foot there again he could not be forced to pay anything - and that's before any appeals process. One of the things royalists most often say in defence of the monarchy is that they have a willingness to 'do their duty' - and that's what Andrew needs to do now. Turn up in court and with the benefit of his expensive lawyers dismantle the evidence against him as the fabrication he claims it to be - or - accept responsibility for his actions face the consequences and seek some means of atonement.True, but he's banking on having to do neither. His approach is clearly to play legal games by refusing to make himself available to receive papers, no doubt fully aware that 17 September is the cut-off date, have someone else accept them on your behalf so that those doing the serving then stop trying to do so, then once the cut-off date has passed, claim that they were never legally served because the correct legal entity wasn't properly served them! It's pretty obvious, and pretty shitty, behaviour on his part, but given he continued to enjoy the friendship of a convicted paedophile for some time, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. NY judge has taken dim view of Andrew dodging the writ and given Roberts an extension beyond 17/9 to serve it.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 14, 2021 15:29:51 GMT
True, but he's banking on having to do neither. His approach is clearly to play legal games by refusing to make himself available to receive papers, no doubt fully aware that 17 September is the cut-off date, have someone else accept them on your behalf so that those doing the serving then stop trying to do so, then once the cut-off date has passed, claim that they were never legally served because the correct legal entity wasn't properly served them! It's pretty obvious, and pretty shitty, behaviour on his part, but given he continued to enjoy the friendship of a convicted paedophile for some time, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. NY judge has taken dim view of Andrew dodging the writ and given Roberts an extension beyond 17/9 to serve it. Mmmm, we'll see. Must be nice to be able to hide from potential justice when you feel like it...wonder how many ordinary folk would be able to get away this...?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 14, 2021 15:42:19 GMT
Maybe there is a deal to be done…
We’ll ship over Prince Andrew to the US and in return you’ll send Anne Sacoolas to the UK.
|
|