Prince Andrew Served with Sex Abuse Suit
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Watch my first documentary: Bad Law Words Good! It's hilarious, informative, and pedantic. Only available on Nebula. Get Nebula for free with your CuriosityStream membership (less than $15 per year!) legaleagle.link/extras
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Please make a seperate video about how suing a non-national in the United States works
+
This so much Devin! How the US works with like foreign law, and maybe how diplomatic laws work could make for a great episode. Is there any lawyers (are they called barristers?) on the other side of the pond that you could make a video with?
@@Khronogi a barrister is a type of lawyer (one that actually argues a case in court), for serving papers you are looking more at a solicitor (who basically does everything else). Whilst you _can_ talk to a barrister directly generally you'd be hiring a solicitor who will then, if and when you go to court, seek the services of a barrister.
When the offence allegedly took place in the UK where the age of consent is 16 and the act took place when the alledged victim was 17. Oh and the one photo produced of both of them together shows her smilling and happy which would on the face of it rule out coercion by the Duke of York.
@@jonathanbuzzard6648 A single photo of them smiling and "happy" is way too flimsy to be considered concrete evidence that she wasn't coerced. I'm sorry, but you'll need more evidence than that.
For a guy whose job is 100% public image, literally his entire reason for existing, dodging getting served to avoid a case looks remarkably guilty and like PR suicide.
Well...he is all that by circumstance. He'd just be another rich German-Brit but for who his parents are. He hasn't really done piss-all. Nobody would care but for who his folks are. Sadly, that's the main reason he's going to get off...who his folks are.
@@grievuspwn4g3 I was referring to his BLOODline rather than citizenship. (for some reason I can't access the rest of this, don't know why.)
He has killed his public image in the UK. I don't think anyone here believes he is innocent, and there is wide disapproval of his dodging of the legal process. You will hear many people calling for a straight swap of him for Anne Sacoolas.
Funny how the non-british part of their line gets emphasized when they look bad, and vice versa. :p
@@lucyj8204 Don’t worry, there’s enough Canadian and American boot-lickers cheering him on to make us all barf
this whole practice of serving lawsuits is ridiculously outdated in this day and age. I can't believe it hasn't been modernized.
In Germany, you send the documents to the court and they then either serve or put in his letter box.
@@user-xb9yv2ci4c I'm sure that's how it works in the UK and most of Europe
@@user-xb9yv2ci4c easy to pretend you haven't checked your mail in a bit. No lying you didn't know when it's handed to you
@@teamcybr8375 In Germany, it is assumed, that you read your mail. If you don't read it, it is your problem.
What you mean Willis? Like sending them a text for notification???🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I... can't believe people can actually dodge lawsuits. I didn't realize that thing where little kids close their eyes and ears and yell "LA LA LA!" was a tried and true adult way to get out of court.
Genuinely...
I was under the impression that if a person had lawyers, your lawyers could serve their lawyers, and their lawyers were legally required to take them.
I believe they *did* serve his lawyers, but it didn't count as he had not instructed them to accept that kind of thing on his behalf.
Only in a world made up of common sense would that be a thing.
The papers in this case were actually delivered to his protection detail, who as serving officers of the law were obliged to hand the documents to him.
In Germany, court officials do that for you. And if they don't meet him in person, they just put it into his letter box.
@@mattym8038 OK, but I don't see why attorneys on retainer would be under any less an obligation.
My dad used to work as someone who served lawsuits to people back in the 60s/70s. Apparently, they really do try pretty much everything in order to serve lawsuits face to face.
It was so bizarre, back in 2014 I had to serve papers to someone I was taking to small claims. I was taken back by how the process goes. It was literally incumbent on me to chase down this person and hand them the papers or my suit couldn't happen. I asked, what if this psycho bitch doesn't take them? They said just drop it at their feet then, but make sure they know you're serving them. There's so much that could go wrong with that but that's exactly what I did. Found them when they were walking home, handed them papers, they took a step back out of shock I guess, so I dropped it at their feet and gave them the "I'll see you in court". This was in Ontario, Canada.
@@ComboBreakerHD “you’ve been served” classic
Why is pineapple express movie in my head 😂
For Prince Andrew all you'd need is to dress up like a Pizza Express delivery driver and you'd be fine!
@@ComboBreakerHD Not sure how it works in Canada, but in the US you usually have someone else serve papers.
Watch the interview segment where he says her allegations can't be true because he used to have a medical condition that made him unable to sweat. It's the most unconvincing thing ever.
& while he says that, there exist photos of him sweating profusely
The most insane thing about that interview was how incriminatingly indirect he sometimes got. Instead of just outright denying the accusation ("I did not do/don't recall doing that") he brought out wild excuses like the sweat thing. It just made him look 10x more suspicious, I can't believe his PR team agreed to this strategy.
@@lunaangeleclipse9745 I mean, if he decides to approach things like that, and decides to ignore his PR people, what are they going to do? Report him to the rest of The Family?
“Sometime is hard to personally serve people, especially when they are evading service”
Lemme tell you about the time we made a fake Craigslist hookup just to serve a guy…
ah, catfishing, a classic
Don't just stop there, do carry on...
C'mon you can't just stop there
Still waiting for the story
I’d subscribe to your channel for this story!
I had a restraining order against my ex, which he broke several times, once in a scary way (he trapped me in a hallway at church). No one could find him. He was staying with someone and we didn’t know where. So come the divorce trial, it’s just me and him and my dad testifying that no, we did not owe him twenty five thousand tax free dollars, and I noticed some quiet little man at the back of the courtroom whom I did not recognize. The judge ruled that yes we were divorced and no he didn’t get the cash grab, and the little man came forward, coughed, and said, “Mr. G? You’re under arrest.” Best thing ever. No, he didn’t go to jail or anything. He just had to leave me and my family alone, which he did, mostly, except for that one time when he didn’t.
@@andon9696I asked for it. if you don't care just read something else.
@@andon9696shut up, i found the story interesting
I don't know how common this is but when I was in court listening to the case before mine, the judge made very clear that she was not impressed with the defendant's creative (and temporarily successful) attempts to dodge the process servers and that his actions had seriously damaged the credibility of everything he said when he finally had to respond.
In most countries the judge would cause a mistrial by those comments.
@@donaldpyper4627 .... How is this supposed to cause a mistrial where there isn't a jury?
@@sarahamira5732 because the judge went in with bias. They decided a level of guilt by the person not being available to be served a lawsuit (something that isn't a law, nobody gets to determine your availability. Period.)
@@sarahamira5732 It is contempt of court; allowing actions and opinions formed outside the courtroom to influence decisions made inside the courtroom.
That's so awesome! My friend's dog was attacked by her neighbor's dog. The wife had admitted what had happened was their dog's fault. The husband, who wasn't there, came up with a different Theory and that's what they took to court. Before they came into court, the husband tried to dodge it all together. He had to be served with court papers and the way that gets done was going to be very expensive for the average person. However, the judge said that my friend could have a friend appointed by the judge to serve the summons if someone were willing. I was there and I offered my 69 year-old services. It was Winter and I had to try to catch up with these people and froze my butt off trying to do it. Eventually I was successful and when the guy figured out that he had been served, he spewed at me, " Why don't you get a real job!" I'm retired, so that was hilarious. Anyway, the point is I know how hard it is to do this on your own. Kudos for this lady who did it on her own. Sometimes the little guy wins
Did your friend win the case?
Kind of you!
Few things are more repulsive than guilty people getting angry at innocents over their own misdeeds...
"I'm retired, hon. This my hobby." lol
Ah yes Randy Andy, he's never been caught up in a scandal before, this is a total surprise to everyone involved...
I mean, with a nickname like that, he's clearly innocent...
To be fair some of those scandals were really really minor - Oh, no! he's dating an actress who took her top off in a film once!
He won't sweat it
@@Karajorma, lol, “really minor” …get it?
I mean, this is a bit more than a scandal, isn't it.
Good, I’m glad Justice is FINALLY catching up to these creeps!
Dont hold your breath
It's Only a lawsuit though and he has so much money he will still be wealthy after even if he loses.
@@bobnoneya1267 Yeah, but regardless, this isn’t just about money. This is about a once untouchable family that not so long ago would have been completely above the law now being shown that it isn’t. Regardless of what they do, they’ll now be seen by the public as aiding and harboring a known child molester. The very fact that this lawsuit was served makes a really important statement that even the royal family is no longer above the law. That will remain true no matter what the outcome of the case is. Besides, regardless of that, should she win the lawsuit, she’ll get not only the financial compensation she deserves, but also the emotional healing that comes from knowing she faced her abuser, and brought him to justice. That’s the most important, by far!
@@ravenestrella2310 Members of the British (or English) Royal Family being held accountable and punished would not be anything new. After all, we did sentence and execute a king, quite a bit before the French made it fashionable.
Ah, so young, so naïve, so innocent.
He was really impressive with his dodging skills. But, part of me wonders, after it hit the headlines over here (UK viewer!)... It's not like he could pretend he wasn't aware of the court case.
The ability, and value, of dodging becomes pointless.
He can't be the, figuratively, only person in the world not knowing that this was happening.
Not our the finest Prince we have... Here's hoping that the justice process is able to work effectively.
@@Browne7100 gotta be honest. I don't recall seeing the where, when, and how the papers were served.
More just, one week "he's evading it" and the next "he's gottem"
@Nicholas Harris: If it’s any reconciliation, regardless of Andrew, the UK’s still a pretty damned awesome place, nonetheless! I’m American, but lived there for over a year. I loved it to pieces and miss it like crazy! In many ways it was home to me far more than the States have ever been! I’d be there still if money hadn’t run out! Bear in mind, the international embarrassment we had the misfortune of calling our last president here in the US actually partied with Epstein at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private resort, so it’s not exactly like our hands are clean of this, either! I’d still take the UK over the IS, any day of the week!
He literally sent lawyers to argue that he hadn't been served with the court papers. Seems to be one of those loopholes that rich people get to exploit.
What's he supposed to do? It's a civil lawsuit, meaing he'll somehow have to prove he didn't meet her and sleep with her decades ago. How does anyone prove such a thing?
Impressive dodging skills that involved nothing more than staying at this mothers holiday home in Scotland as the Royals do every summer now for nearly two centuries. There was nothing stopping someone travelling to Balmoral and serving him papers there where it was common knowledge he was staying. Mind you there might be legal complications serving papers in Scotland what with it being a completely different legal system from England, which might explain why they tried to serve papers hundreds of miles away where they knew he was not located. The alternative is that was nothing more that a publicity stunt. Regardless trying to serve papers to someone where you know they are not located is an article of bad faith.
I wonder if he'll try the "I am incapable of sweating" defense in court
I doubt he even shows up himself. Not like a US court can actually compel him.
And I doubt the State Department would allow a court to try to.
Hey, in the UK all they heard about for a good while was Harry and Megan's departure from the Royal family in the news, and that was probably Prince Andrew using his media influence to divert attention from his drama at the time. Glad to see his past might actually catch up, and as a brit am ashamed to share his name.
Did you know that 78% of abuse allegations are actually false?
@@mrfixit3666 Can you provide evidence to back it up?
I know with rape it's 2% to 10% are proven to be true and 2% to 10% are proven to be false, leaving a 80% to 96% window where they don't actually know.
I'm just wondering if it's a similar case with the statistics you're quoting where maybe only 22% are proven to be true and the other 78% you mentioned include cases where it's impossible to tell what happenrd
@@mrfixit3666 source: trust me bro
Not true, everyone knows about this and wants him to be held accountable.
Then change it.
We need to call out the royal family more on this.
Presumed innocent until...
"Grow up" Says the anarchists who likes their own comment, that's the equivalent of patting yourself on the back 🤦🏿♂️btw civilized society has a legal system if you weren't aware
cuz thats what *really* gets your rocks off?
@@Mr.Mister96 Bro 1. You liked YOUR own comment, very revealing 2. They have four likes, can't all be from themself 😂
@@funoff3207what is your point
Rich white guy AND a royal? There is zero chance this guy is going to go down for what he's allegedly done.
It is a civil suit. Obviously he isn't going down in anything other than net value.
And reputation
@@Lexhanson Thanks, Well Akshually dude!
@@lyledal Do you often try to insult someone bringing more facts to the table?
@Graf von Losinj What is wrong with you? Really, I'm curious to know.
Please make a video of how his testimony "I don't sweat" will hold up in court 😂😂
That one comment is a greater scandal than his sex crimes.
There's one thing worse than letting a corrupt dynasty go free - letting a moronic dynasty run a country straight into the ground.
It won’t. I actually have a health issue that cost scarring over like 80% my body so I actually don’t sweat properly and I can still have sex and physically exert myself and I have to be kind of careful about it so I don’t totally overheat but I can do it. So there’s absolutely no way that will hold up in court as an excuse as to why he couldn’t have abused someone (using my wife’s account)
We need details on how she served him now… sneaking into a private club and serving someone who has armed guards seems like it would be a cool story.
She has legal representation, she's not doing it herself
@@ricktyman4709 Then lets hear the story of how her representation did it!
And Rudy would like to reminde everyone, for no particular reason, that he was never alone with him with any young girls, "eeeevvvvaaaaaa".
Except that one time
send us Anne Sacoolas and we might think about sending you Prince Andrew. Funny that you are prepared to protect a woman who killed a teenager in UK, but want us to send you a Royal Prince
Well said.
She PERSONALLY handed him the papers?? Damn, that must have been satisfying.
It may have, or it may have been terrifying.
Personally, I could see it being both, and thus really healing, in its own way. Terrifying, in that she was facing her abuser, but also satisfying, in that she was not only serving him the papers, but proving to herself that she has the courage to face him for the sake of getting the justice she deserves. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve found that sometimes you have to have the courage to face your worst fears in order for true healing to occur.
doubt it very much. Her lawyers might have to his security team...
@@blackcountryme Actually, I just read up on it. According to The Guardian, a UK newspaper, it turns out her lawyers handed the papers to a police officer at The Royal Lodge (presumably the private club Attorney Stone mentioned) and the cop, in turn, handed them to Andrew, who really at that point had no way of dodging it. I mean, when you have a cop standing there, staring you in the eye and demanding you sign, you’re pretty much out of excuses to not sign them! I gotta say, that alone is satisfying as hell! Wish she had been able to see the look on his face when he finally had to sign them!
@@ravenestrella2310 Can't "Demand you sign" FFS. you lot really don't have a clue, anyway she's only after money, the more I hear the more you can hear the begging bowl being shaken
A brief comparison with German Law:
To file a lawsuit in Germany the claimant must submit the statement of claim to the appropriate court in written or electronic form, § 253 V ZPO. The court itself, not the claimant, must serve the statement of claim to the defendant, §§ 253 I, 166 et sqq. ZPO.
To serve the claimant the statement of claim must be handed to either the defendant or his legal representative, §§ 166, 170, 171 ZPO. If the defendant refuses to accept the document without justification, the documents must be left at the residence or at the business premises of the defendant and the documents are deemed as served, § 179 ZPO. Further it is possible to serve the defendant by placement in the letterbox if any other form of serving is not possible, § 180 ZPO. If the placement in the letterbox is not possible, the documents can be served by leaving a note affixed at the door of the defendant and depositing the documents at the local court, § 181 ZPO.
Furthermore, there are specific clauses for the service abroad in § 183 ZPO. In the case that it is not possible to serve the person abroad, the documents may be served by publication, §§ 185 No. 3, 186 ZPO. One month after the notice has been published, the statement of claim is deemed to be served, § 187 ZPO.
Thank you from a fellow countryman.
Yep so you pretty muuch have to be living on the street or in a moving trailer (and not have email?) to dodge service.
As opposed to being part of the most public family in the country.
In the UK, the age of consent is 16, so she cannot claim she is underage in the UK, because she was 17
Even in the US Age on Consent Varies State to State with the Majority of States being 16, you only hear 18 on Yank TV Shows because 18 is the Age of Consent in California and the TV Networks in the US are covering there arses so they dont get sued
@@TOTN17
Yeah, I did not realise that, I thought America was uniform in their stupidity with alcohol age being 21. Don't care about America, it's a country I shall never visit.
It was still rape so the fact she happens to be legal over here shouldn’t make a difference
@@TheDarkVampire666 It will make a difference in that he can now claim it was consensual, which had she been underage would have still be admitting to a crime.
@@TOTN17 the age of consent in New York at the time was 16 too.
In Denmark you just get a “digital letter” through the national encrypted “e-mail” service, lol. There is no snail mail from any government departments at all, unless you are exempt for whatever reason.
As a non-american, the whole concept of "serving papers" always seems archaic at best, but when presented in TV etc. mostly fake
"when presented in TV, it looks fake."
Yep... I thought they did it on TVs for drama... hahaaha
Also, the victim themselves having to instigate a lawsuit against an alleged criminal act seems archaic. Where I live your simply report a crime to Law enforcement, and they start a prosecution if they deem a crime likely have been committed. No need to serve papers to the suspect.
@@54tisfaction i think this is the case in civil courts, when no criminal charges have been started or in addition to criminal prosecution
@@tamhuy10 i think that is correct, but a lot of US civil cases would not be civil elsewhere. they either would not be cases at all or fall under criminal law
@@tamhuy10 Sure, but in my country this kind of crime would be a matter for the Police and Prosecution office, not a civil court matter. Rape and sex-trafficking is considered a crime against society as a whole, thus handled by government.
Luckily for the Royal Family, His Highness is way down in the line of succession.
Yeah, something would have to go stupendously wrong for him to have a shot at the crown. Thank goodness for that.
His Lowly Highness
@@Browne7100 He also was a war hero, in the Falklands war, he flew his helicopter in front of the carrier group towing Anti-Shipping missile jammers.
He's ninth in line, after his older brother Charles, Charles' eldest son William, William's three children, Charles' second son Harry, and Harry's two children.
(He's ahead of his older sister Anne because the gender equality succession enacted in 2011 only applied to those born after it was enacted.)
Strictly according to Burke’s, he’s an HRH and only by virtue of his also being Duke of York. But yeah, 9th in the line of succession ATM and I doubt Parliament would make him King, even if the whole rest of the family snuffed it. I’m actually a descendant of Edward III so my fingers are crossed haha.
Literally every member of the British public: "can we swap him for that bitch who did a hit and run murder and fled the country?"
This kinda highlights a big problem in our legal system. Holy shit.
Never trust anyone who unironically wears a tophat.
That is honestly so amazing to hear! I saw the documentary and it really made me sick and I hope Prince Andrew pays and there is justice for her and her sister
Thanks for covering this. It doesn't get enough attention.
Yeah, it's kinda getting buried under all the scandals with Harry and Meghan. I'd think a sex abuse case would be more important to cover than two fools being fools.
So how far can someone go in order to avoid being served? Is there a point where law enforcement becomes involved? Is there some deadline by which the person seeking to serve papers can seek out other methods than a face to face confrontation?
I have been wondering these questions for quite some time, ever since video was released of Giuliani trying to dodge representatives of Dominion Voting Systems. I would really appreciate it if you could take a little time to explain how this process works in a bit more depth.
Well, as he explained in the video, if traditional service is impossible, alternative means can be used. The Princely Pedo was only delaying the inevitable since there are simply undodgeable services.
@@Metrion77 the age part isn't actually a crime in the UK and isn't in a lot of US states.
There's a reason other than SOL that she isn't going for criminal.
@@scottlemiere2024 That's an amazing planet you live on. I'm sure Andy would love it there. Fortunately for us humans, we live on earth where the US and UK do have laws that protect minors from predators.
The reason why she's not pushing for criminal is because she's trying to expose a prince with enough money to make a lot of evidence disappear. She can't assume she can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".
@@Metrion77 The other reason she's not filing a criminal case is because she literally can't. Only government prosecutors can file criminal cases, private citizens cannot.
@@jon_j__ there might also be a statute of limitations
Except as a member of the uk Royal family has diplomatic immunity. Like the diplomats wife who killed somone in the uk
An innocent man wouldn't be dodging this, he'd take the papers and then prove his innocence. He definitely has a lot to hide for going through these extreme lengths.
And how many innocent men have done exactly that and been layer railroaded into paying a massive fine or jail.
Interesting how she managed to successfully track him down immediately after the ruling made it impossible for him to keep dodging the suit…
Yeah almost like he stopped trying
Careful, the queen might unleash her hounds the corgis if you get too close
I believe the Queen has outlived all of her Corgis, and won’t be breeding anymore, as she doesn’t want them to deal with her dying and being re-homed. She was given her deceased groundskeeper’s older Corgi, but he’s since passed away too.
The queen still has a lot power, don't let the fact that she is old fool you. She can legally reinstall the governments in a lot of the British commonwealth. Which is the majority of the English speaking world.
@@kieragard She can, but speaking as an American who lived in England at the time that we went to war in Iraq here in the US, aided greatly by the UK’s military, as I learned from a lot of Brits there, while England is technically a constitutional monarchy, which gives the Queen power to do a great deal, she won’t ever actually exercise that power, because her doing so would be seen as overriding the will of the democratically elected Parliament, and thus overriding the will of the people. This would cause an enormous uproar, one that could very easily bring the royal family down because they would be seen as being far too dictatorial. Case in point, the Queen was vehemently against the UK going to war in Iraq, and she could have prevented the UK from sending troops there, but she didn’t, for this very reason. So, while, yes, technically the Queen has the power to do a great deal, it’s power she’ll never exercise.
@@ravenestrella2310 Essentially it's a lite beer version of a dictatorship disguised as a democracy.
@@ravenestrella2310 understandably, if I was the queen I would let the government run it's course too. Right now, she gets to live like a queen without any of the responsibility. Why would anyone mess that up? I would just live it up and let other people worry, lol. But technically she does still have considerable power.
Diplomatic status, no trial.
The same when a diplomat from the us, killed one in swiss while driving.
Diplomatic immunity.
I'd love to see that top hat in court
You'll get wigs. 😂
Considering he’s a prince, I sadly don’t see this going anywhere..
Except HOPEFULLY TO PRISON
@Samson Knight yeah I know. Just wishful thinking
@Samson Knight what do you mean why?
@Samson Knight my thought are any person male or female should be held responsible for having sex with a minor... That's sick. I have 4 daughters and GOD help the man who ever would hurt them like that. I would be held accountable for MY actions. So should they
Bro lookin like a mayor in an idle town game 💀
i wonder if his handlers told him not to wear that hat.
He's been served but I doubt we'll see him in court, ever. He'll take the judgements in absentia and trust that the Queen will never extradite him. He'll forfeit assets, maybe (again, his or Crown's assets might be a tricky thing), but that'll be it.
And yes, extent of lawsuits against parties in absentia without hope of extradition is a good topic for a video.
The thing that makes this tricky as well is the US recently refusing to extradite citizens who committed crimes in the UK.
One was a wife of some embassy worker (i think) who claimed diplomatic immunity, that turned out she had no immunity but had run off in a plane by the time they found out. Unfortunately leaving a family with a dead child behind after her road accident without justice.
@@Garfie489 Reminds me of one Mr. Broderick.
@@Garfie489 much as I, as an American, disapproved of that case, I don't think it's parallel. From what I've seen elsewhere, the royal family has made it clear that he wasn't working on family business at the time, which means he is not eligible for royal immunity.
@@Garfie489 speeding down the wrong side of the road isn't an accident
@@jesseberg3271 I'm not defending either person but from what Garfie said the ebassy worker's wife didn't have diplomatic immunity. according to you Andrew doesn't have royal immunity. so neither accused parties have immunity. So how is it not parallel?
So, this thing actually exist? That's not something you see only in TV-shows?
Why don't they just, you know, send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt?
Because, as hard as it is to believe, someone in that position doesn't actually come to the front door to sign the receipt.
Why did I think of the most elaborate way to serve it like it was a damn movie. 🤣
Man's looking like an advisor npc in some city building game.
I'm pretty sure it's easier to serve him than before since his friends have separated themselves from him, I'm sure this lady (girl at the time) wasn't the only victim
The fact that he's avoiding it is making a strong case that he actually did it.
TIME FOR HANDY ANDY TO PAY UP.
I bet he’s SWEATING bullets. 😂🤣😂
yes, dodging lawsuit service, that thing that totally innocent people do
They really do anything. Even lie, I was served 2 years ago for a car incident and the lady who called me told me she had insurance papers for me to sign from the insurance company but it ended up being the the law firm. She even told me "you've been served". I was like what a bitch
The very idea that you need to personaly hand the paper to the guy you're suing is just so ridiculous...
Well, how else do you make absolutely sure that the person you're suing knows you're suing them? Really, the only way is for someone to personally hand them a piece of paper from the court. (Unless they seem to be actively dodging service, in which case there are alternative approaches.)
@@jon_j__ Most civilized countries have a very simple solution: the court sends you a registered letter to show up, if you don't check your mail, that's your problem, not theirs.
@@oenrn So, if the court has the wrong address for any reason, then the first time you hear about the lawsuit is after it's been decided, when you're being arrested or your bank account is zeroised or whatever. Great system!
More seriously, I hope there's a lot more to it than just mailing a letter, because otherwise I can think of a lot of ways it could go wrong (both deliberately and accidentally). The main problem is that (in my experience) the mail carrier NEVER verifies that the recipient is the addressee.
A few examples to get you started:
- If the government or plaintiff has the wrong address in their records, so the letter goes to completely the wrong place;
- If you recently moved house and didn't leave a forwarding address because who uses snail mail these days;
- If it's "helpfully" delivered to your neighbour and they forget about it;
- If you're out of your primary residence for a few months for work/holiday/family illness/etc.
@@jon_j__ It is your responsibility to update your address in the city hall's records if you move. And since everything is online these days, it's automatically updated for all government records without anything else needed.
@@oenrn I suspected you might say that, which is why I gave a number of other examples. How does your country deal with those?
(EDIT: I think there are many problems with the court system assuming that every person in a country will continuously keep government records up to date - especially when the EU makes it possible to move to a different country immediately and without asking anyone's permission. But that's probably beyond the scope of a youtube comment. So let's stick to the simple scenarios of "helpful" neighbour and long absence.)
It looks like, in the UK at least, the police have said that there will be no further investigation. I wonder if that will affect the case in the US?
I mean, he's accused of having sex with a minor, but since it is supposed to have happened in the UK, where the age of concent is 16, and the alleged Victim was 17 at the time, the UK police didn't really have much choice in dropping the case, since even if it's true it wouldn't actually be illegal.
A) Wait, so there are men who wear top hats unironically in 2022? I mean obviously he's a monster. B) Why is your hair so perfect??? Like how??? This is literally the first thought I have every time your videos show up in my feed.
He needs a moustache to twirl as well.
Objection; point of procedure. In most Jurisdictions isn't the preferred method to use a "professional" process server as this avoids additional conflict?
I think it’s fun that we all know which royal family. America oddly fancies the British Monarchy.
It’s not that odd since America is so closely linked to them.
"you can't catch me!"
Isn't it irrelevant since he's not subject to US law? Just as Anna Sacoolas is beyond the reach of British law
And London Police will "take no further action".
I think in the UK she was over the age of consent (16), I guess we'll have to wait and see what jurisdiction any offence was alleged to have taken place in.
Good on her for pushing for justice even though the whole system supports her abuser. I can't imagine what that's like.
A ridiculously wealthy person dodging a lawsuit this definitely sounds like the behavior of an innocent man
“Do you have Prince Andrew in a can?”
“Then please sign this class-action paperwork.”
The queen is gonna ensure that nothing happens to him. Not a single person is man enough to confront the queen to actually get him in a court room.
As a monarch, sheltering an alleged child sex offender is how you create republicans. If she doesn't want public opinion to turn against the monarchy, she should not exploit its power to thwart justice.
Mind you, she has form for misjudging the public mood. Remember when she refused to fly the flag at half mast for Diana until Tony Blair bullied her into it?
@@cshairydude "Mind you, she has form for misjudging the public mood." Interesting that you had to go back 25 years to find an example. That's hardly "having form".
@@cshairydude except in the UK it wasn't statutory, she was over the age of consent. In UK law, what he did wasn't a crime, so they'll probably manage to spin it somehow.
@@RobertGriffith9It's not called "statutory rape" in the UK. Under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which governs offences committed before 2004 in England and Wales, sex with a girl under 13 is just called that, while any prosecution for sex with a girl between 13 and 16 is time barred, according to the CPS; they are not called rape because consent is irrelevant. (Rape itself is not time barred.)
In any case, what he allegedly did would in fact have been a crime, it's just that underage sex isn't the criminal part; she was also being trafficked. Under the 1956 Act he could have been charged with procuring a woman by false pretences, causing a woman to be a prostitute, abduction of an unmarried girl under 18 from her parents or guardians (if that applies), or procuring a girl under 21 (today 18). These acts are still offences today and would be prosecuted under the 1956 Act as historic offences. Moreover these offences apply if done anywhere in the world (I presume they only apply to UK nationals, as the current offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do, and I imagine the courts wouldn't try an offence already convicted abroad).
Prince: **missing**
Woman: I tried my best to serve him the papers but he is so hard to find
Court: ok, we'll serve him regardless
Prince: **miraculously appears**
Thanks mid-50’s “Office Jim”
I swear this man is just the lawyer version of Ryan Reynolds
I hope the plaintiff has a good team of bodyguards.
What a stupid rule. So every victim has to look out for their abuser in their free time. Totally doesn't sound scary, retraumatizing or even dangerous at all. What is there registered mail for?
"Victim" xD
Not only did this guy fail to avoid being served, but now the fact that he avoided service will most certainly be evidence against him in court.
I'm glad to see not all media forgot about the case since dude died
The algorithm does not like these shorts. None of them even appear on my subscriptions page. Maybe spread them out a little instead of releasing them all at once.
They're regularly uploaded to tiktok. I think he just dumps them on youtube every now and then.
They're all in my recommended feed.
Could they have mailed it to him in an attractive envelope that anyone would open without question? By attractive I mean that it is the kind of thing that would say attention grabbing things like you've won, congratulations or open now and with multiple exclamation marks.
Attractive envelope? Yes. Mailed it? No. That's my guess. Further guesswork: couriers would be allowed so the plaintiff doesn't have to do it, and they would not have to be honest about their purpose in approaching the individual person being served.
There'd also be rules on which pretenses are and are not okay. Bet you could bring some high-end perfume/cologne samples to precede the legal papers. Claiming someone's entitled to a contest prize could be going to far, though.
Don't think you can mail them, because you can't prove they were received. The defendant could claim that it was never delivered or they threw it away it was junk mail.
I'd be surprised if he opens his own post, because of the security risk. It'll be handled by an office first.
Let's not forget the video of Andrew coping a feel of his daughter in public at the queen's recent mourning service.
Nice to see maxwell went down, the prince can’t get out of this one!!!
Hes the prince though, the entire legal system was designed to cater to his family's wishes, so what reason does he have to engage?
@@grievuspwn4g3 he is a prince because he is a child of the sovereign.
The Magna Carta though
I hope all of the men involved eventually face consequences for what they’ve done. The women who were abused are worthy of the truth and deserve justice.
I remember Jeffrey seemed to also have powerful female friends too. I wouldn't be surprised if they abused minors too
richer they are they don’t think any rules apply to them . You are truly an amazing young lady! It must have given you some gratification to be able to serve that pervert!! I applaud you for following through. . I hope you make him feel everything you have been feeling.
Should not be a lawsuit this should be a criminal case.
Now can your "serve" someone outside of US soil, and if that is so, does it really have any effect at all?
There is a bilateral agreement on legal process between the UK and US. Once he's been served the US process can continue and then be transferred to the UK courts for enforcement, if that's the result. The complexities of it all, however, are enormous. For a start, she's claiming that she had sex with him in the UK when she was 17. Which is perfectly legal as the age of consent is 16 in the UK. She can't claim trafficking against *him* in a US court because his action, even if it meets the UK trafficking standard, didn't take place in the US. She would have to bring a UK action against him under UK trafficking laws, which she hasn't done. For the same reasons, she can't claim coercion or prostitution either at the US end.
Basically, she's doing it back to front if she really wanted justice or restitution. But it's clear that's not what she's after. It's VERY clear from the way she's doing things that she's after a payday.
@@iatsd Wouldn't it be Epstein who was guilty of "most" of those charges and not necessarily Andrew? I understand that Andrew isn't innocent in all this mind you, but still.
@@naerbo19 UK law criminalises a lot of the actions of the pimp for the john as well, but it relies on "known or should have known". It's very poorly thought out law really, but that's the way it is. I have no idea how case law may have played into it since.
@@iatsd Thank you! I'm a tad more clear on the tendencies of US law than UK law. May or may not have something to do with watching Legal Eagle.
Even though I'm subscribed to you, your videos will NOT show up in my subscription list. Once a week I need to find your channel manually and catch up on your videos.
He is definitely making himself look guilty
Top hat proves his guilt.
Kappy, I hope wherever you are, you're smiling. Hopefully this is the first of many.
Just seeing The Sun is enough conservative reading for me today
And they questioned why people weren't sad at the queens death.
You go girl! We are praying for her justice.
Could you do a video on the arguments that Andrew should have diplomatic or sovereign immunity as a member of the royal family? I'm of the (lay) opinion that he wasn't acting in his diplomatic capacity when visiting Epstein, and sovereign immunity should only apply to Queen Elizabeth (as Andrew isn't sovereign, Elizabeth is, right?), but it's an interesting topic that I'd love to see explained in-depth.
Perhaps it could be a general video on diplomatic/sovereign immunity, with this as one of the topics.
Would be interesting to couple that to the Sacoolas case where she was given extremely dodgy diplomatic immunity by the US for killing a young man by driving her car on the wrong side of the road
@@73North265 Absolutely. That case was a travesty; we should have turned her over to the local authorities IMO.
I'm of the opinion that no one should have sovereign immunity because that runs contrary to the whole idea of justice. Also, the last thing wealthy and powerful people need is a system of laws holding them less accountable than the average citizen.
The royals haven't enjoyed sovereign immunity in US courts since 1776. Diplomatic immunity is more complicated, but probably doesn't apply automatically to Andrew at all times just because he's part of the royal family.
Hope she's being careful.. she's probably going to be in a serious car "accident" soon ;)
Or...it's time for a second "French Revolution"...
@@cutthroat399 Why? England was executing kings way before the French made it fashionable... (Charles 1, for example)
I was named as a co-defendent in a reverse mortgage suit. The sheriff just put the summons in my mailbox, left the mailbox open on a rainy day. No attempt was made to knock on the door.
I've served defendants in three ways none of which involved the defendant in person. 1) Serving at his residence to people who confirmed it was his residence; 2) his sister at her place of work; 3) mailed (regular) to his residence.
Masterclass in "How to ruin your career" and "How to make everyone think you're guilty before the suit even begins"
Queen isn't paying for his lawyers and now he has to sell His SWISS SKI LODGE
So glad he was finally served.
Her attorney racking up fees like: 👁️👄👁️ while she struggles with legal technicalities favoring the accused.
I was scammed once and the bank's lawyers left the papers on the floor in front of my door, without me signing anything, because I wasn't home.
Later I found out that the lawyers forged a signature and they lied to the court that they had my roommate sign. I didn't have a roommate. This was improper serving and the case should have been dismissed.
I went to court with evidence of the case that the bank didn't follow it's own rules and to tell the judge about the improper serving.
The judge didn't let me talk and ruled in the bank's favor.
Can a judge not let talk a party in the court??? Not only that was extremely traumatic for me to experience, but it was also very rude to not let me present evidence in my defence.
What should I have done to hold the judge responsible?
Glendale, California Courthouse. The lamest judges, lawyers and cops.
This is proof that it as long as you have power and money you can get away with just about anything
Everyone talking of extradition is silly: this is a civil case, not criminal. Extradition isn't a factor in civil cases.
Being served simply means that he has been served & made aware of the claim/s against him. He now has to decide whether he wants to show up and answer/defend the claim against himself. He's not *required* to show up, whether in person or through counsel. Being served allows the case to proceed to actual trial. Nothing else.
It would make sense to respond to the actual claim in the US court once he sees it. The first move should be to ask the court to move the case to the UK as the alleged events *he's being sued for* are claimed to have taken place in the UK. As the (a?) defendent, he has the power to make such a motion and the Courts traditionally defer to such motions. The US court, of course, will ignore that habit and deny any such motion because US courts tend to think their jurisdiction extends outside the US. That said, it makes his chances of defending the suit better when it then comes before a UK court for an execution order. He won't get a fair trial in the US, but you can bet the UK court will go over it (essentially, re-try it) in fine detail before throwing it out for the money grab it is.
when u at the club and your ex comes in and is like "hello, you have been served"