Always meant to get back to this as it has become Quite relevant in pouring over the information in the unsealed docs, and that already discovered by many researchers out there who have been seeking the truth and justice for years.
Even had people say this article from the Guardian was 4 years old.
Guess what else is old an tiring. . .Children Still being abused because information is stifled and buried.
I had Not seen this particular article from 2015 in the Guardian until recently, but it IS Very relevant and continues to come to mind as the documents from Virginia Roberts Giuffre were just unsealed yesterday and now today on August 10, 2019 we find articles in mainstream media calling it an "Apparent Suicide."
All of this after he had been on suicide watch.
It was this article that got a Great deal of push back.
I Still do not understand why anyone would try to justify someone's actions who was known to be photographed with a child. One which Epstein was charged with molesting and sex trafficking.
Is there any justification for someone that was known to be a buddy of Epstein?
Virginia Roberts’s accusations about Andrew ordered to be struck from the record as judge denied her attempt to join a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein
This plays an integral role in what has been known by many, but will now become open knowledge by the general public.
It all Does go back to. . .There will be some who choose Not to Know.
Allegations that a 17-year-old was forced to have sex with Britain’s Prince Andrew, which prompted a crisis at Buckingham Palace earlier this year, have been removed from a federal court case by a judge in the US.
Judge Kenneth Marra ordered Virginia Roberts’s accusations about Andrew, the Duke of York, to be struck from the record and denied her attempt to join a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, a friend of the prince and a convicted sex offender.
“At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details are unnecessary,” Marra wrote in his order, issued at the US district court in southern Florida on Tuesday morning. “These unnecessary details shall be stricken.”
You know what Reeks. . .an attempt to keep the perversions of the wicked ones against children hidden by attempting to pin the fact that there are lurid details on the child, the victim rather than put the onus squarely on the shoulders of the predatory adult where they belong.
So Kenneth Marra,
- Marra served as an attorney in the United States Department of Justice from 1977 to 1980.
- He went into private practice in Washington, D.C. from 1980 to 1983 and in Florida from 1984 to 1996.
- Marra served as a judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit from 1996 to 2002.
Interesting that his file can't be found here,
A judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors, including Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, violated federal law when they arranged a plea deal for the multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who spent just 13 months in jail despite being accused of trafficking underage girls and personally abusing scores of young victims. According to the judge, the prosecutors violated the rights of Epstein’s victims by arranging the plea deal secretly.
In his opinion, District Judge Kenneth Marra said that Acosta, who was then the U.S. attorney in Miami, should have prosecuted Epstein under federal sex trafficking laws. “Epstein used paid employees to find and bring minor girls to him,” Marra wrote. “Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.”
In an investigation published last fall, the Herald reported that Epstein’s lawyers, a team that included Alan Dershowitz (who has himself denied allegations he had sex with underage girls at Epstein’s “direction”) and Ken Starr, were largely allowed to set the terms of their client’s plea deal.
The Herald identified more than 80 possible victims who said Epstein, a powerful and well-connected man, had molested them when they were teenagers. Many were from low-income or unstable homes, and they said Epstein coerced them into sex acts after paying them for massages, often repeatedly. At least one victim alleged a violent rape. Meanwhile, others accused Epstein of using an international modeling agency to traffic underage girls from Europe, Ecuador, and Brazil.
More outrageous than its leniency was the way the deal quashed other lines of investigation. The plea deal effectively shuttered an ongoing FBI investigation into whether there were other guilty parties—possibly other wealthy and powerful people—and guaranteed Epstein and any co-conspirators immunity from federal prosecution. Acosta has said that Epstein’s legal team intimidated him and the other prosecutors out of taking the case to trial. Emails between Acosta and the lawyers published by the Herald showed that Acosta explicitly allowed Epstein’s lawyers to set the terms of the deal.
And in what Marra found this week to be a violation of the law, the prosecution sealed the deal, preventing Epstein’s victims from being able to protest its terms or speak at Epstein’s sentencing.
Now I find this odd in light of The Guardian's article on Judge Marra sealing up Virginia Roberts Giuffre's testimony. What gives?
From the Guardian,
Marra made no ruling or statement about the veracity of Roberts’s allegations. He said the “factual details regarding with whom and where” she had sex were “immaterial and impertinent” to her argument that she should be allowed to join the lawsuit.
However, Marra noted that Roberts may yet appear as a witness when the long-running case finally goes to trial.
Five court filings in the Florida case, including a document filed on December 30 last year in which Andrew was first accused, were immediately sealed from the public.
The filing at that time placed Andrew under intense pressure, forcing him to return to his home at Windsor from Verbier in Switzerland where he was on a skiing holiday with a party including his daughter Princess Beatrice.
How about the pressure and fall out for the Victims?
Back to Slate,
That decision, Marra found, was in violation of the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which guarantees victims the right to be notified of any court proceedings and to speak with prosecutors about possible plea deals. Two of Epstein’s victims filed a lawsuit in Florida based on those rights in 2008.
After the Herald investigation was published, House Democrats called for the Department of Justice to investigate Acosta. At his confirmation hearing in 2017, Acosta was questioned about the plea deal and defended it, saying, “Based on the evidence, professionals within a prosecutor’s office decided that a plea that guarantees someone goes to jail, that guarantees he register [as a sex offender] generally and guarantees other outcomes, is a good thing.”
Can you say Weakest Excuse Ever?
Now why did they all get away with it?
Crime Florida Jeffrey Epstein Sexual Assault
In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to two prostitution-related charges in state court and was sent to serve 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach, Florida, county jail. During that time, he was allowed to leave six days a week for up to 12 hours at a time to work out of his office. He was also registered as a sex offender and ordered to pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI.
Prince Andrew. . .what is the Real Story here?
From page 25 of the unsealed docs on Virginia Roberts (Giuffre)
Based on the FBI’s Interview of Ms. Giuffre in 2011, they wrote a report reflecting Ms.
Giuffre’s claims concerning her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew:
Additionally, 2011 correspondence with Sharon Churcher shows that Ms. Giuffre
disclosed her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew, but Churcher had to check with the
publisher’s lawyers “on how much can be published,”
See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 34, GIUFFRE003678. Accordingly, there is documentary
evidence that refutes Defendant’s meritless argument that Ms. Giuffre did not allege she had sex
with Prince Andrew until 2014. To the contrary, two sources, including the FBI, show Ms.
Giuffre made these claims in 2011.
Against this backdrop of an avalanche of evidence showing the Defendant sexually
trafficked Ms. Giuffre, summary judgment on any of the issues advanced by Defen dant is
inappropriate. While we discuss the particulars of the individual claims below, the larger picture
is important too. Ms. Giuffre will prove at trial that Epstein and Defendant sexually trafficked
her. And yet, when Ms. Giuffre had the courage to come forward and expose what Defendant
had done to world – in a Court pleading trying to hold Epstein accountable – Defendant
responded by calling her a liar in a press release intended for worldwide publication. Such
heinous conduct is not a mere “opinion,” but rather is defamation executed deliberately and with
actual malice. The jury should hear all of the evidence and then render its verdict on Ms.
This is beyond Sick, but typical of what child abusers, especially if they are of the "elite class" get by with.
Defendant’s lead argument is that, when she issued a press release attacking Ms. Giuffre
to members of the media, she somehow is not responsible when the media quickly published her
attacks. If accepted, this remarkable claim would eviscerate defamation law, as it would permit a
defamer to send defamatory statements to the media and then stand back and watch – immune
from liability – when (as in this case) the defamatory statements are published around the world.
This absurd position is not the law, particularly given that the Defendant released a statement to
media asking them to.
- Under New York Law, Defendant is liable for the media’s publication
of her press release.
Many Responsible here, started With Ghislaine,
Defendant deliberately sent her defamatory statement to major news media publishers for
worldwide circulation because Defendant wanted the public at large to believe that Ms. Giuffre
was lying about her abuse. Defendant even hired a public relations media specialist to ensure the
media would publish her statement. Her efforts succeeded: her public relations agent instructed
dozens of media outlets to publish her “quotable” defamatory statement and they did.
Significantly –this Court should pause here to note that the details of Jane Doe 3’s sexual
exploitation and abuse, as anonymously set forth in her CVRA joinder motion, caused the
Defendant to identify, with certainty, Jane Doe 3 as Ms. Giuffre. Yet, at her deposition,
Defendant claimed to “barely remember her at all.”
47 Defendant’s ability to immediately and
positively identify the anonymous individual making claims of sexual abuse, if anything, shows
that Defendant was intimately aware of Ms. Giuffre’s sexual exploitation.
And, to be sure, Ms. Giuffre never asked to be sexually abused or trafficked by
Defendant or convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein when she was a child – legally, she did not
even have the capacity to consent. Defendant cannot recruit a minor child for sexual exploitation
and then, afterwards, argue that her victim injected herself into the public controversy when
coming forward about the abuse she suffered.
Despite this deliberate campaign to widely publicize her defamatory statement,
Defendant now disclaims any responsibility for the media publishing her press release.
VIII. THE JANUARY 2015 STATEMENT WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE,”
AND MS. GIUFFRE HAS PRODUCED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
OF ITS FALSITY
As a final argument, Defendant argues that her January 2015 statement was “substantially
true.” Given that the statement argues that Ms. Giuffre lied when she said she was sexually
trafficked by Defendant, the reader of Defendant’s motion might reasonably expect to see some
evidence presented showing that Defendant was not a sex trafficker. Instead, the reader is treated
to technical quibbles. For example, the lead argument to show the “substantial” truth of
Defendant’s statement is the argument that Ms. Giuffre was not fifteen years old, but all of
sixteen or seventeen years old when she was trafficked. As the Court knows (and can take
judicial notice of), Florida law makes age eighteen the age of consent. Accordingly, it is no
moment that Ms. Giuffre may have been mistaken about the exact year the sex trafficking
started. Call this the “yes-I’m-a-sex-trafficker-but-only-of-sixteen-year-old-girls” defense. To
even describe the defense is to show how meritless it is.
More broadly, at issue are the statements Ms. Giuffre made regarding Defendant’s
involvement in, and knowledge of, the sexual abuse and sex trafficking of Ms. Giuffre (and other
minor girls) through a recruitment scheme executed by Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. In
response to those various statements, Defendant publicly claimed that, “the allegations made by
(Ms. Giuffre) against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue.”
Contrary to Defendant’s misleading, cherry-picked fragments of information she has
chosen to use to support her point, there is an abundance of evidence clearly linking Defendant
to Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors. As the Court is aware, numerous message pads were
recovered from Epstein’s home indicating Defendant’s involvement in and knowledge of
Epstein’s illegal exploitation.
52 Additionally, numerous employees and others have testified
about Defendant’s high-ranking position in the hierarchal structure of the sexual exploitation
scheme. 53 In fact, multiple individuals, in addition to the Ms. Giuffre, have testified about
Maxwell’s involvement in the exploitation of minors, including Ms. Giuffre.
Defendant also argues that one government investigator, Palm Beach, Florida, Detective
Recarey, may not have been aware of her involvement in the sex trafficking. Defendant fails to
cite another passage in Detective Recarey’s deposition, where he noted that he was aware of
Defendant’s involvement with Epstein and the sexual exploitation of children.
55 But even
assuming Recarey was unaware (which Ms. Giuffre strongly disputes), Defendant would have, at
most, a “yes-I’m-a-sex-trafficker-but-I-successfully-hid-it-from-one-of-the-cops” defense –
again, not a likely claim.
More broadly, Ms. Giuffre’s statement about what the “Government” knew about sex
trafficking was made in pleadings filed in a federal Court case attacking the decision of the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to offer Jeffrey Epstein immunity from
prosecution for federal sex trafficking crimes. Accordingly, to present an even arguable claim for
summary judgment, Defendant would have to show that the U.S. Attorney’s Office (and its investigators from the FBI) did not know about Defendant’s sex trafficking. This proof would
need to include, for example, evidence that the FBI did not learn about Defendant’s sex
trafficking when (among other things) Ms. Giuffre told FBI agents about it when she met with
them in Australia in 2011. Here again, Defendant has no evidence to even begin making such a
Defendant next argues that she accurately disputed Ms. Giuffre’s statement that
Defendant held her as a “sex slave.” Relying on dictionary definitions of “slave” that define the
term to refer to a “confined” person who is the “legal property” of another (MSJ at 59, citing
Merriam-Webster, etc.), Defendant claims Ms. Giuffre was not confined or the property of
Defendant. Call this the “yes-I’m-a-sex-trafficker-but-I-didn’t-use-chains” defense. And, once
again, to even describe the defense is to refute it.
Defendant does not explain why the jury would be required to use the held-in-chains
definition of “slave” in evaluating her statement. Merriam-Webster (11th ed. 2006) also defines
“slave” as “one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence” – a definition that fits
Ms. Giuffre’s circumstances to a tee. As Ms. Giuffre has explained in detail, she was recruited as
a minor child by Defendant, who then dominated her and used for sexual purposes. That
testimony alone creates a genuine issue of fact on this point.
Honestly, What a circus! That's enough for today.
Here is other info I gathered before over the past 2 years on Prince Andrew having to do with this case.
As seen in this Gateway Pundit article from July 13, 2019
Interesting, that was the day Manhattan had a blackout. Same day as it had happened 42 years ago?
Reported here complete with clip,
They have some of the photos I have here in these deep dives,
An excerpt taken from one of these deep dives here,
There Is NO Denying Prince Andrew was photographed with Victoria Roberts and what was filed.
As reported by the New York Daily News in 2015
Roberts filed the affidavit after weeks of being called a liar by Buckingham Palace, Dershowitz, and Maxwell.
In the filing, she stands her ground - and demands they and other unnamed movers and shakers who preyed on her be prosecuted.
"I am telling the truth and will not let these attacks prevent me from exposing the truth of how I was trafficked for sex to many powerful people. These powerful people seem to think that they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That is wrong," she said.
"Epstein's code word for sexual encounters was that it was a 'massage.' At times the interaction between Epstein and the girls would start in a massage room setting, (but) it was always a sexual encounter and never just a massage," Roberts said.
Alessi (former employer of Epstein) said another visitor to the Palm Beach house was Prince Andrew, who once came with his then-wife, Sarah (Fergie) Ferguson.
Roberts said she had her first tryst with the fifth in line to the British throne in the spring of 2001.
"I had sex with him three times, including one orgy. I knew he was a member of the British Royal Family, but I just called him 'Andy,'” Roberts said.
Epstein, she said, had taken her to London, and told her “I was meeting a 'major prince.' Epstein told me ‘to exceed' everything I had been taught. He emphasized that whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got,” she said. She was 17 at the time.
After the tryst, Epstein grilled her about how it went.
“I told Epstein about Andy's sexual interests in feet. Epstein thought it was very funny,” she said. “Epstein appeared to be collecting private information about Andy.”
Epstein paid her $15,000 for her services. They returned to New York, and not long after, Epstein called Roberts to his office, where he, Maxwell, and the prince were, she said.
"I was surprised to see him again. Epstein and Maxwell were making lewd jokes about 'Randy Andy.' I had the impression that he had come there to see Epstein and have sex with me,” she said.
She obliged, in a room she referred to as the ‘dungeon.’”
The next time she saw him was later that year, on Epstein’s 78-acre estate in the Virgin Islands.
A diary was published in the Independent here,
Evidence of the Dungeon
It was an orgy, with the prince, Epstein, and “eight other young girls,” she said.
"The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn't really speak English. Epstein laughed about the fact they couldn't really communicate, saying that they are the 'easiest' girls to get along with,” Roberts said.
She said that wasn’t the only orgy she saw or particpated in while working for the mysterious moneyman.
The suit says many of the girls were supplied by modeling agency head Jean Luc Brunel.
“Epstein, Brunel and Maxwell loved orgies with kids - that is, having sexual interactions with many young teenagers at the same time," Roberts said - sometimes as many as ten.
Roberts parted ways with Epstein in 2002, when he sent her to Thailand to study massage. She met and married a man there.
Please let me know what you think. Thank you to all of those on the Front Lines still spreading this information and trying to show people the world that they live in is Not what they think. Keep #FightingTheGoodFight and protecting the innocents Great #GuardiansOfChildren