Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, is there a two-tiered standard of justice? What better way to determine that than for the DOJ to make a formal request to the British Government to hand over Prince Andrew for questioning with regards to possible criminal conduct associated with his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The Justice Department has made a formal request that the British government hand over Prince Andrew for questioning over his relationship with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, according to The Sun and confirmed by ABC News.
The request, made on behalf of prosecutors for the Southern District of New York would force the 60-year-old Andrew to help prosecutors investigate Epstein's accomplices - despite his previous empty offer to cooperate. The DOJ filed for "mutual legal assistance" (MLA) directly with Britain's Home Office, bypassing Buckingham Palace.
As The Sun notes, MLA requests are only used in criminal cases under a legal treaty with the UK, which if granted would formally request Andrew's attendance at the London City of Westminster Magistrates' Court for oral or written evidence under oath while DOJ lawyers question him. If he refuses, the Duke could be forced to attend by summons. That said, the evidence session could be held privately "in camera" without the public or press present.
And unlike the Queen Andrew does not enjoy sovereign immunity from prosecution. He could, however, "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination according to the report.
Prince Andrew has publicly said that he will cooperate with the DOJ. Meanwhile, the DOJ is accusing Prince Andrew of refusing to cooperate with them on these matters. As a result, the formal request has been lodged.
While Prince Andrew does not enjoy immunity under the law the way that his mother Queen Elizabeth does, it is hard to see the British government allowing this to be taken very far. Perhaps he is interviewed by the DOJ under oath in London. But could he be extradited to possibly stand trial in the US? I will believe that when I see it.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
So, is there a two-tiered standard of justice? What better way to determine that than for the DOJ to make a formal request to the British Government to hand over Prince Andrew for questioning with regards to possible criminal conduct associated with his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew has publicly said that he will cooperate with the DOJ. Meanwhile, the DOJ is accusing Prince Andrew of refusing to cooperate with them on these matters. As a result, the formal request has been lodged.
While Prince Andrew does not enjoy immunity under the law the way that his mother Queen Elizabeth does, it is hard to see the British government allowing this to be taken very far. Perhaps he is interviewed by the DOJ under oath in London. But could he be extradited to possibly stand trial in the US? I will believe that when I see it.
Lawyers acting for the Prince have accused the US Authorities and more especially Mr Geoffrey S Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York of issuing inaccurate information and the DOJ of seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered. The statement also accuses the US DOJ of breaching its own rules of confidentiality and states that “The Duke of York has on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the DOJ.
In terms of mutual legal assistance. the Home Office will look at the case as will the courts however such cases are generally not under oath, and the lawyers will advise the Duke of York. However I think the Duke would just go over exactly the same story and give the same information and answers as in the television interview last year.
It also should be noted that extradition arrangements and requests are at a low point after the Harry Dunn/Anne Sacoolas case, so I wouldn't expect there will be many in Government who are going to go out of their way for the US Authorities at the moment.
Furthermore it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the US Authorities including Mr Geoffrey S Berman, are made the subject of legal action against them as set out in the allegations made in the statement issued on behalf of the Prince by his lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by – QUOTE FROM DUKE OF YORK’S LAWYERS STATEMENT - ITV News
“As the public record indicates the DOJ has been actively investigating Mr Epstein and other targets for more than 16 years, yet the first time they requested the Duke’s help was on January 2, 2020.
“Importantly, the DOJ advised us that the Duke is not and has never been a ‘target’ of their criminal investigations into Epstein and that they sought his confidential, voluntary cooperation.
“In the course of these discussions, we asked the DOJ to confirm that our co-operation and any interview arrangements would remain confidential, in accordance with the ordinary rules that apply to voluntary co-operation with the DOJ. "We were given an unequivocal assurance that our discussions and the interview process would remain confidential.
“The Duke of York has on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the DOJ. "Unfortunately, the DOJ has reacted to the first two offers by breaching their own confidentiality rules and claiming that the Duke has offered zero co-operation.
"In doing so, they are perhaps seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered.
“On January 27, 2020, Mr Geoffrey S Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, chose to make a public statement about the Duke. "This led to worldwide media reports that there had been “a wall of silence” and that there had been “zero co-operation” by the Duke.
"These statements were inaccurate, and they should not have been made.
"On March 9, 2020, Mr Berman made further public statements saying that the Duke had “completely shut the door” on co-operating with the US investigation and that they are now “considering” further options.
"Again, the first statement was inaccurate and should not have been made.
“It is a matter of regret that the DOJ has seen fit to breach its own rules of confidentiality, not least as they are designed to encourage witness cooperation. "Far from our client acting above the law, as has been implied by press briefings in the US, he is being treated by a lower standard than might reasonably be expected for any other citizen.
"Further, those same breaches of confidentiality by the DOJ have given the global media – and, therefore, the worldwide audience – an entirely misleading account of our discussions with them.
"We do not intend to make any further public statement at this time as we wish to respect the rules of confidentiality under both English law and the US guidelines.”
Lawyers for Prince Andrew have accused US prosecutors of misleading the public and breaching their own confidentiality rules in their handling of the investigation into the disgraced financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In a strongly worded, two-page statement, Blackfords, the London-based criminal law specialists, alleged that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had effectively rejected offers of help volunteered by the prince.
The firm noted that the DoJ had “advised us that the duke is not and has never been a ‘target’ of their criminal investigations into Epstein” and that they had instead sought his confidential, voluntary co-operation.
Lawyers acting for the Prince have accused the US Authorities and more especially Mr Geoffrey S Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York of issuing inaccurate information and the DOJ of seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered. The statement also accuses the US DOJ of breaching its own rules of confidentiality and states that “The Duke of York has on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the DOJ.
In terms of mutual legal assistance. the Home Office will look at the case as will the courts however such cases are generally not under oath, and the lawyers will advise the Duke of York. However I think the Duke would just go over exactly the same story and give the same information and answers as in the television interview last year.
It also should be noted that extradition arrangements and requests are at a low point after the Harry Dunn/Anne Sacoolas case, so I wouldn't expect there will be many in Government who are going to go out of their way for the US Authorities at the moment.
Furthermore it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the US Authorities including Mr Geoffrey S Berman, are made the subject of legal action against them as set out in the allegations made in the statement issued on behalf of the Prince by his lawyers.
The counter charges are all bellicose smoke with no fire. I do not believe anything will happen with that. This is just the Prince acting indignant about it all for the cameras and the press.
However, I think you are right about the extradition. I would be willing to bet all the money that I can get my hands on that the UK will never extradite Prince Andrew to the US for any of this, even if there is a high resolution video of him engaging in clearly criminal activity which is widely publicized and everyone who has any interest worldwide has already seen it. Still not happening.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
The counter charges are all bellicose smoke with no fire. I do not believe anything will happen with that. This is just the Prince acting indignant about it all for the cameras and the press.
However, I think you are right about the extradition. I would be willing to bet all the money that I can get my hands on that the UK will never extradite Prince Andrew to the US for any of this, even if there is a high resolution video of him engaging in clearly criminal activity which is widely publicized and everyone who has any interest worldwide has already seen it. Still not happening.
The lawyers are right they have broken confidentiality in relation to someone who is not even under investigation according to the DOJ themselves and any cooperation is also voluntary, and according to the lawyers he has agreed to cooperate.
"As for Mutual Legal Assistance it may be denied by either country (according to agreement details) for political or security reasons, or if the criminal offence in question is not equally punishable in both countries. Some treaties may encourage assistance with legal aid for nationals in other countries".
The main issue being that the legal age of consent for sex in the UK is 16 years old, and the accuser was 17 years old when she claimed the prince had sex with her, there even if the prince did have consensual sex with her, this would not be equally punishable or even illegal in both countries.
Furthermore the Prince can just have his lawyers answer any questions or simply state he can't remember given the time frame, and he has already given a television interview in which he has already denied the claims and will just do the same again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
