Connect with us

Politics

Prince Andrew could have avoided sex abuse lawsuit if he had apologized, say sources

Published

on

Prince Andrew could have avoided his on-going sexual assault lawsuit if he had apologised to his accuser Virginia Giuffre Roberts years ago, sources have claimed.

The second son of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth is currently facing the prospect of appearing in a New York court to face the allegations, after Ms Roberts brought a civil lawsuit against him.

Virginia Giuffre Roberts claims the Duke of York slept with her three times when she was 17. Andrew has repeatedly and strenuously denied the allegations over the years.

‘Virginia has always just wanted the prince to acknowledge that he did something he shouldn’t have, she wants him to apologize. She has never made this all about money,’ a source close to Ms Roberts told the New York Post

‘I think she would have dropped this a long, long time ago had the prince said he was guilty of wrongdoing, but he’s embroiled in denial which has brought him down.’  

Pictured: Britain’s Prince Andrew, Duke of York attends the Sunday service at the Royal Chapel of All Saints in Windsor, England, in April 2021. Andrew could have avoided his on-going sexual assault lawsuit if he had apologised to his accuser years ago, sources have claimed

The source’s comments came after a New York Judge Lewis Kaplan said he will decide ‘pretty soon’ whether to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit against Andrew. 

The royal’s lawyers argued Tuesday that he was protected by a settlement that his accuser signed in 2009.

Attorney Andrew Brettler told a court hearing Virginia Giuffre had ‘waived her rights’ to sue other defendants in relation to alleged sex crimes committed by late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Judge Kaplan did not make an immediate ruling but appeared to express skepticism at Andrew’s argument, questioning how a third party could enforce an agreement that it didn’t know about when it was signed. 

The hearing in the civil action filed by Giuffre – also a longtime accuser of Epstein’s companion, the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell – were held via video conference with the public able to listen in by telephone. 

Giuffre alleges Andrew also sexually abused her at the London home of Maxwell, who last week was found guilty of sex trafficking minors for Epstein.

‘You would be hard pressed to find someone who Ghislaine’s guilty conviction affects more than Prince Andrew,’ the source told the New York Post. 

‘This changes everything for how we think about anyone connected to Epstein. Andrew is 61 and he’s about to have a reckoning.’ 

The Duke of York was photographed with his arm around the bare waist of then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts. In the background, Ghislaine Maxwell. Roberts claims she was forced to have sex with the royal three times. Andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations

The Duke of York was photographed with his arm around the bare waist of then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts. In the background, Ghislaine Maxwell. Roberts claims she was forced to have sex with the royal three times. Andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations

Miss Roberts, 38, claims she was 17 when she slept with Andrew three times in 2001 under orders from Epstein. Andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations

Miss Roberts, 38, claims she was 17 when she slept with Andrew three times in 2001 under orders from Epstein. Andrew has repeatedly denied the allegations

Giuffre alleges that Epstein lent her out for sex with his wealthy and powerful associates, including to Andrew. 

The deal made public for the first time Monday by a New York court showed that Giuffre agreed to drop a civil claim against Epstein for $500,000. 

The settlement contained a provision that purports to protect ‘other potential defendants’ from being sued related to alleged sexual abuse committed by Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019.

Brettler described it as ‘unambiguous’ and argued that it protected the prince from litigation.

‘Miss Giuffre intended to release a broad category of individuals, including royalty, including businessmen,’ Brettler said.

‘She waived her rights to sue them when she entered into the 2009 release agreement and accepted the money from Mr. Epstein.’

But the judge said that neither he nor Brettler could ‘find any meaning at all’ in the word ‘potential.’

Giuffre sued the prince for unspecified damages last year, alleging he sexually assaulted her in 2001 when she was 17 and a minor under American law.

She says Andrew assaulted her at Epstein’s home in New York, and on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands. 

Court documents show Prince Andrew has hired celebrity attorney Andrew Brettler to represent him in the sexual assault case brought against him by his accuser and Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre (right)

Attorney Andrew Brettler of powerhouse Los Angeles law firm Lavely & Singer

Prince Andrew has hired Hollywood attorney Andrew Brettler (right) to represent him in the sexual assault case brought against him by his accuser and Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre

Andrew's lawyer was seeking to persuade the court that his accuser, Virginia Roberts, had waived her right to sue him when she signed an earlier £370,000 ($500,000) legal settlement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the duke's friend. The 2009 settlement between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre was unsealed on Monday

Andrew’s lawyer was seeking to persuade the court that his accuser, Virginia Roberts, had waived her right to sue him when she signed an earlier £370,000 ($500,000) legal settlement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the duke’s friend. The 2009 settlement between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre was unsealed on Monday

Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies argued that the Epstein-Giuffre agreement was unrelated to Andrew because it was signed in Florida.

‘Prince Andrew was not subject to jurisdiction,’ he told judge Kaplan.

Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman said he expected Kaplan to reject Andrew’s stance. ‘Are they saying everybody in the world is now free because of the settlement? It’s a tough sell,’ he told AFP news agency. 

Andrew, 61, has not been criminally charged.

Maxwell, who introduced Andrew to Epstein in the early 1990s, faces life behind bars after being convicted by New York jurors on five counts.

Epstein died aged 66 in a Manhattan jail in what New York’s coroner ruled was a suicide, after being charged with child sex trafficking.

Back in 2008 he was convicted of paying young girls for sexual massages in Florida but served just 13 months in jail after striking a deal with the then-state prosecutor.

Andrew has rarely been seen in public since he was forced to quit the royal frontline in 2019 for failing to distance himself from Epstein.

In a disastrous interview with the BBC that year, Andrew denied Giuffre’s claim that they had shared a sweaty dance at a London nightclub, saying that at the time he could not sweat due to a condition related to having fought in the 1982 Falklands War.

Last week, Giuffre’s lawyers demanded Andrew hand over medical records proving that he cannot sweat. Andrew’s legal team has accused Giuffre of seeking to profit from a ‘baseless lawsuit.’

If the case proceeds and Giuffre and Andrew don’t settle then it could go before a jury trial, likely in the latter half of this year.

On Friday, Kaplan rejected attempts by Andrew’s lawyers to halt progression of the suit on the grounds that Giuffre now lives in Australia.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Politics

Hailey Bieber Details Terrifying ‘Life-Altering’ Mini-Stroke She Suffered And Procedure To Close Hole In Her Heart

Published

on

Hailey Bieber has spoken out in her “own words” about the “life-altering,” “scariest moment” of her life she had after suffering what she called a mini-stroke, and later underwent a procedure to close a hole in her heart.

The 25-year-old supermodel and wife of superstar singer Justin Bieber took to her YouTube channel Wednesday and opened up about the terrifying experience of being hospitalized last month after she suffered a blood clot to her brain that traveled through a hole in her heart between 12 and 13 millimeters, reported People magazine.

“I had, like, a very scary incident on March 10, basically,” Bieber shared. “I was sitting at breakfast with my husband, having a normal day … and all of the sudden, I felt this really weird sensation that kind of like traveled down my arm from my shoulder all the way down to my fingertips. And it made my fingertips feel really numb and weird.”

“Justin [her husband] was like, ‘Are you okay?’” she added, as she explained that she tried to respond to him, but she “couldn’t speak.” “The right side of my face started drooping; I couldn’t get a sentence out.”

“Obviously, immediately, I thought I was having a stroke,” the supermodel continued. “He thought I was having a stroke. Right away, he asked for somebody to please call 911 and get a doctor.”

Hailey said that where they were, there happened to be a medic who started asking her lots of questions and testing her arms, calling it definitely the “scariest moment” of her life. The model talked about how the “facial drooping lasted for probably like thirty seconds.” Her speech did came back, but her “anxiety” about what was happening just made “everything worse.”

“By the time I got to the emergency room, I was pretty much back to normal – [I] could talk, [I] wasn’t having any issues with my face or my arm,” Bieber explained.

She said scans revealed she had, in fact, suffered a “small blood clot” to her brain which was labeled a “TIA” [Transient Ischemic Attack]. Hailey told her followers it was basically like having a “mini-stroke.”

Doctors still weren’t sure what caused it, but she said it was widely believed it was a combination of birth-control issues, recently having COVID-19, and having just traveled “to Paris and back in a very short amount of time,” calling it a “perfect storm.”

Further testing at the University of California, Los Angeles, revealed Bieber had a Grade 5 PFO [a small opening in the heart that usually closes after birth]. The outlet said the hold measured between 12 and 13 millimeters. She later underwent a procedure to close the hole, and said it went “very smoothly” and she’s recovering.

“The biggest thing I feel is I just feel really relieved that we were able to figure everything out, that we were able to get it closed, that I will be able to just move on from this really scary situation and just live my life,” Hailey shared.

“If there’s anybody that watches this that has gone through the same thing or something similar, I definitely really empathize with you,” she concluded. “And I understand how life-altering and scary it is.”

Bieber, who’s the daughter of actor Stephen Baldwin and Kennya Baldwin, married her husband Justin in 2018.

Related: Hailey Baldwin Credits Christian Faith For Marriage To Justin Bieber

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies for breaking news, investigative reporting, sports, podcasts, in-depth analysis, books, and entertainment for a reason: because we believe in what we do. We believe in our country, in the value of truth and the freedom to speak it, and in the right to challenge tyranny wherever we see it. Believe the same? Become a member now and join our mission.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias

Published

on

I love Wikipedia. I donated thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias—out of date by the time we bought them.

Then libertarian Jimmy Wales came up with a web-based, crowd-sourced encyclopedia.

Crowd-sourced? A Britannica editor called Wikipedia “a public restroom.” But Wales won the battle. Britannica’s encyclopedias are no longer printed.

Congratulations to Wales.

But recently, I learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia’s political pages have turned into leftist “propaganda.”

That’s upsetting. Leftists took over the editing?

Sadly, yes. I checked it out.

All editing is done by volunteers. Wales hoped there would be enough diverse political persuasions that biases would be countered by others.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Leftists just like to write. Conservatives build things: companies, homes, farms.

You see the pattern comparing political donations from different professions: Surgeons, oil workers, truck drivers, loggers, and pilots lean right; artists, bartenders, librarians, reporters, and teachers lean left.

Conservatives don’t have as much time to tweet or argue on the web. Leftists do. And they love doing it. This helps them take over the media, universities, and now, Wikipedia.

Jonathan Weiss is what Wikipedia calls a “Top 100” Wikipedian because he’s made almost half a million edits. He says he’s noticed new bias: “Wikipedia does a great job on things like science and sports, but you see a lot of political bias come into play when you’re talking current events.”

Weiss is no conservative. In presidential races, he voted for Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Barack Obama. Never for a Republican. “I’ve really never identified strongly with either political party,” he says.

Maybe that’s why he notices the new Wikipedia bias.

“People on the left far outweigh people on the center and the right … a lot [are] openly socialist and Marxist.” Some even post pictures of Che Guevara and Lenin on their own profiles.

These are the people who decide which news sources Wikipedia writers may cite. Wikipedia’s approved “Reliable sources” page rejects political reporting from Fox but calls CNN and MSNBC “reliable.”

Good conservative outlets like The Federalist, the Daily Caller, and The Daily Wire are all deemed “unreliable.” Same with the New York Post (That’s probably why Wikipedia called Hunter Biden’s emails a conspiracy theory even after other liberal media finally acknowledged that they were real).

While it excludes Fox, Wikipedia approves even hard left media like Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin, a socialist publication.

Until recently, Wikipedia’s “socialism” and “communism” pages made no mention of the millions of people killed by socialism and communism. Even now, deaths are “deep in the article,” says Weiss, “treated as an arcane academic debate. But we’re talking about mass murder!”

The communism page even adds that we cannot ignore the “lives saved by communist modernization”! This is nuts.

Look up “concentration and internment camps” and you’ll find, along with the Holocaust, “Mexico-United States border,” and under that, “Trump administration family separation policy.”

What? Former President Donald Trump’s border controls, no matter how harsh, are very different from the Nazi’s mass murder.

Wikipedia does say “anyone can edit.” So, I made a small addition for political balance, mentioning that President Barack Obama built those cages.

My edit was taken down.

I wrote Wikipedia founder Wales to say that if his creation now uses only progressive sources, I would no longer donate.

He replied, “I totally respect the decision not to give us more money. I’m such a fan and have great respect for you and your work.” But then he said it is “just 100% false … that ‘only globalist, progressive mainstream sources’ are permitted.”

He gave examples of left-wing media that Wikipedia rejects, like Raw Story and Occupy Democrats.

I’m glad he rejects them. Those sites are childishly far left.

I then wrote again to ask why “there’s not a single right-leaning media outlet Wiki labels ‘reliable’ about politics, [but] Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC” get approval.

Wales then stopped responding to my emails.

Unless Wikipedia’s bias is fixed, I’ll be skeptical reading anything on the site.

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. 

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com, and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Public Health England to blame for sending patients to care homes without Covid tests

Published

on

Speaking on condition of anonymity, Whitehall officials alleged that Prof Duncan Selbie, the former PHE chief executive, was ultimately responsible for informing Mr Hancock of the risks.

Prof Selbie is working as a senior adviser to the DHSC. Neither he nor the department responded to requests for comment on Wednesday.

Mr Hancock, who was replaced by Sajid Javid last year, claimed the High Court ruling had exonerated him and the had been cleared “of any wrongdoing” because PHE “failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission”.

The High Court judges concluded that care home policies in March and April 2020 were “irrational” because they failed to advise that those discharged from hospitals “should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for up to 14 days”.

“Since there is no evidence that this question was considered by the secretary of state, or that he was asked to consider it, it is not an example of a political judgment on a finely balanced issue,” they said. “Nor is it a point on which any of the expert committees had advised that no guidance was required.”

After the ruling, Boris Johnson said he wanted to “renew my apologies and sympathies” to relatives who lost loved ones, adding: “The thing we didn’t know in particular was that Covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was.”

However, the risks of asymptomatic transmission had been highlighted by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s chief scientific adviser for England, who said it was “quite likely” as early as March 13 2020. Varying levels of risk had been outlined in papers from late January, the ruling said.

The judicial review was brought by Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris, whose fathers, Michael Gibson and Donald Harris, died after testing positive for Covid.

‘Opens the floodgates for potential claims’

Paul Conrathe, a solicitor at Sinclairslaw who was instructed by both women, said: “It’s possible that care home providers and relatives who lost loved ones in the first wave could bring compensation claims. The Government was found to have acted ‘irrationally’ – that’s a very high legal hurdle.”

Nadra Ahmed, who chairs the National Care Association, said the ruling “opens the floodgates for potential claims to be brought against government policy”.

“This will be especially pertinent where the individual was not given a choice,” she said. “There will be a lot of people assimilating to the information as they consider if the loss of their loved one was premature, and holding the Government to account is the only way forward for them.”

Helen Wildbore, the director of the Relatives and Residents Association, said that the ruling proved “the protective ring around care homes was non-existent” and that older people were “abandoned at the outset of the pandemic”.

A government spokesman said it had been a “very difficult decision” to discharge hospital patients into care homes, taken when evidence on asymptomatic transmission was “extremely uncertain”.

The spokesman added: “We acknowledge the judge’s comments on assessing the risks of asymptomatic transmission and our guidance on isolation, and will respond in more detail in due course.”


‘He was in a home and should have been safe’

They stood outside the Royal Courts of Justice, two women unknown to each other before the Covid pandemic but brought together by tragedy, writes Tom Ough.

Cathy Gardner spoke first, delivering a steely reading of a statement. Matt Hancock’s boast of a “protective ring” encircling care homes, Dr Gardner said, was “a despicable lie of which he ought to be ashamed and for which he ought to apologise”.

Fay Harris, more downcast in demeanour but no less forthright, told journalists: “I have lost precious years with my wonderful Dad.”

Both women lost their fathers in early 2020, arguing that they might still be alive were it not for hospital patients having been discharged into care homes without having been tested for Covid.

Michael Gibson, born in 1931, had been a superintendent registrar of births and deaths. “He was in a home and should have been safe,” Dr Gardner told The Independent after his death.

Mr Gibson, who had advanced dementia, had fallen ill a couple of weeks before the first lockdown. Staff at his care home were unable to procure tests for Covid, but the virus is believed to have struck him down.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending