Tag Archives: Sandringham

The Prince Andrew debacle

It is seen as it is, yet what is to be seen? There were failures all over the board, yet where are they to be found? It is that part that takes the light out as well, even as we do not realise it. To see that we need to take the camera back, we need to do this, because we can see now, we can hear now, but years ago it was different, it was different as the media you see this goes back to 2005, way before 2005. Even then we see: “He served almost 13 months in custody, but with extensive work release” (source: 2009 quote), even then the media and a lot of people were connected to Jeffrey Epstein; a lot of voices were drowning out what was really happening. I was confronted with it in January 2015 ‘As we judge morality‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/), I added a copy of the affidavit, the Palm Beach records at that point. Because of the Daily Mail headlines I added: “When someone is on a case for this long, is this distinguished (80 commendations), you might want to consider being an actual journalist and look into the matter, especially when it is about a member of the Royal family” They also relied on “Prince Andrew’s billionaire paedophile friend given permission to land private jet at RAF base for visit Sandringham” which was an event that happened in 2000, yet in 2000 there was very little on the events in Jeffrey Epstein’s life, the media was (optionally knowingly) unaware of what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, the events did not come to blows until March 2005. We get from sources: “In March 2005, a woman contacted Florida’s Palm Beach Police Department and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein’s mansion by an older girl. There she was allegedly paid $300 (equivalent to $380 in 2018) to strip and massage Epstein.” After that filing it wold take the Police 13 months to get anywhere, that included a search of his home. It would take a long time before the police had anything at all, In 2006 the Smoking Gun had ‘Billionaire In Palm Beach Sex Scandal‘, yet the American Hypocrite media had very little to say, it was bad business to advocate issues, we have seen that, in all this we see Prince Andrew is getting slapped around, yet his media centre, the one that should have been protective of him, where were they? I am not telling, I am asking!

There are very little records available to me. The New York Times gave us (in 2019) ‘How a Ring of Women Allegedly Recruited Girls for Jeffrey Epstein‘, yet what was out in the open in 2005? Well we see the involvement of Haley Robson, the 2006 smoking gun gives us the Police Case which states (as in image) and is basically part of the affidavit that I added later on. “Several of the victims were recruited by and brought to the residence by Haley Robson to perform massages for Epstein” and apart from the New York Post, there is very little we are aware of when the clock moves to August 2006, Even then we see “But a bitter rift between Palm Beach cops and prosecutors over how to handle the case has put Epstein at risk of more serious charges. The FBI is weighing whether to investigate his alleged contacts with underage girls“, I know that this is a media Bonanza, but as we read ‘The FBI is weighing whether to investigate his alleged contacts with underage girls‘ we read levels of non-determination, or even levels of doubt on a paedophile and this is American ‘justice’ the issues is not even European at this point, even as the affidavit gave way to a larger issue going back to September 2004, and the fact that Robson was included for two years in all this was seemingly not taken into account by the glamour news articles, the papers made very little sense either. The Miami Herald (at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article221404845.html) gives “2005 March: A 14-year-old girl and her parents report that Jeffrey Epstein molested her at a mansion in Palm Beach“, yet the affidavit goes back to September 2004 in the mention and this article is from November 2018, so why is the OFFICIAL AFFIDAVIT ignored?

In October 2006 we get (from the Miami Herald in this case: “With the non-prosecution agreement still being debated, Acosta meets with Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz at the West Palm Beach Marriott on Okeechobee Boulevard to discuss finalizing a deal. Among the terms agreed upon: that the victims would not be notified, that the deal would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas would be cancelled“, so that was the stage 12 years ago, There was a legal deal, one that gives him in the end a 13 month in this Alexander Acosta who would later end up being United States Secretary of Labor after he was Dean of the Florida International University College of Law and before that he was United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (when he gave the deal), that is the level of protection that Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed, the Miami Herald gives us at that point: “the non-prosecution agreement “essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes”. At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: “Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims“, so before people go after HRH Prince Andrew, we need to see the real protection that was out there, and the media had a role to play as well, there were no investigative journalists out there in 2005 and 2006 thinking that this might be a larger story that goes all the way to the White House, Epstein was protected, a billionaire optionally flexing his multi-billion dollar wallet. So when we read: “he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was after ​3.5 months allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week” which was in opposition of “The sheriff’s own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours” we see an optional different story, he got to (optionally) tell all around him “I am innocent, they flexed the rules, but a real convicted child molestor doesn’t get these options” and the media would not attack those rules, the freedoms given to a billionaire child molester, why not? The person who was at the centre of this deal (Alexander Acosta) would not be persecuted for his part until 2019, and he stepped down as Secretary of Labor in July 2019. We see that Jeffrey Epstein house manager was arrested in 2010 (for obstructing justice) he had a journal giving rise to additional victims, and material witnesses. The events in France did not come out until August 23, 2019 when the prosecutor’s office in Paris, France opened a preliminary investigation into Epstein. He was already dead then.

So in all this mess it is Prince Andrew who gets to be the next victim, the victim of media that is, after all the debatable amount of exposure (none to say the least) the media now sees stuff for circulation, that is the actual crime isn’t it? Papers need to circulate and finding a famous man with a dead girl or a live boy is the best (a live abused girl is pretty OK too). So when we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/20/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-and-newsnight-anatomy-of-a-pr-disaster), we need to have the right mindset, my initial focal point is not the prince, it is his PR and media group (or person). It is not “Andrew had already lost the services of Jason Stein, the spin doctor hired in September to restore his reputation. Stein had reportedly advised Andrew against the whole thing, preferring a longer-term strategy that included a great deal of charity work and interviews with print outlets to mark his birthday“, where were the clear voices to break off any connection that Prince Andrew had with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007 onwards (we could argue 2006, but American Law can be confusing at best)?

And when we see “The unravelling of the strategy began almost immediately after the interview ended. Andrew appeared pleased with his performance, even giving the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards. But when lines from the interview began reaching journalists’ inboxes early on Friday evening, they were astonished by what they read“, who the hell advised him on proper approach to this tinder fest of sulphur laced journalism? In the article Jo Swinson of the LibDems states it best: “how somebody could be talking about their relationship with [Epstein] without recognising, or understanding, or discussing, how he felt about those victims. And I felt they should have been much more at the centre of that discussion“, even as I have issues with “Andrew was facing calls to speak to the FBI from lawyers representing 10 of the Epstein’s victims“, there is a larger issue and the media was part of it, as it is feeling exposure towards the ‘protection’ of the image of Jeffrey Epstein, they are going after a royal like there is no tomorrow, so as we see ‘without recognising, or understanding, or discussing, how he felt about those victims‘, we need to realise that the media gave very little of that in the days that Jeffrey Epstein was alive, why was that?

the New York Post gave us in 2008 “Jeffrey Herman, who’s representing two other alleged victims, said, “The guilty plea is a very positive development for the civil cases,” and “is some measure of justice for these girls.”” I wonder how much recognising, understanding and discussion is going on in that sentence.

Yes, the Prince’s interview was an absolute horror, yet I wonder where the priorities of those who were supposed to have the back of the prince were, was there anyone on his side before he was thrown to the wolves? Oh and before I forget, When I search ‘“BBC” “Jeffrey Epstein”‘ I get 8 results and they are all on the interview, how much digging did the BBC do in the 2006-2012 era? We see all the attacks on Prince Andrew who knew a man that was indecently not researched by law officials all over the world and especially in America, whilst that man was given non-prosecuting options that most of us dream of when we commit murder. Yes the interview was a Prince Andrew debacle, but let’s face it, the media was part of that debacle long before they interviewed Prince Andrew, that evidence is all over the field and clearly readable, but that is the one part that the media does not want you to do, they do not want you to figure out that they were at the centre of letting a billionaire off the hook, especially as that person is now dead.

There is a larger play in all this, I wonder if you can figure it out.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

As we judge morality

This all started a few days ago, I was unsure what to think, for the most I remain in a state of disbelieve. I was also one of the last to come on board on the train regarded Rolf Harris. I could not believe his guilt, even now there is a sense of surrealism here. You see, when we see this larger than life types, their lives and fame, we see a life that we expect to be glitter and jet set. These people are in positions were we expected that women would throw themselves at them. In that regard we often see those who are beyond normal wealthy. Especially when we see men like that, who look a lot better than the average Joe Worker (like me). Why would they bother with certain acts, when women want these men all the time? You see, as you read this, this is all assumption. It is a view that me, myself and many of my fellow man believe to be the truth.

So when we see accusations against a person like Jeffrey Epstein, until he had been found guilty, we tend to regard them as the fantasies of a woman trying to score it big.

But the Law taught me to look at all sides, to be critical and to remain on the fence.

When we look at the Epstein case, we see that the press is all over the innuendo, but what about the facts? In addition, the circumstantial facts involved should count to some extent too. The smoking gun had the affidavit which would be really nice, but now, I can only get the first page to load, the rest is no longer there. Fortunately, ABC News had the goods (at http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/Palm_Beach_Records_Epstein.pdf). This report is more than just a smoking gun, even if there is one, perhaps more than one event where (as stated in the affidavit) that the girls claimed to be 18, there is at least one that mentioned that she was 16, now we have ourselves a game of balls!

Florida Statutes, § 794.05 (at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0794/Sections/0794.05.html), gives is the issue that it is statutory rape. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older, at least one girl has stated that he was 16, he was very much beyond 24 (almost a quarter of a century), however, the plot thickens by a lot after this, you see, when we look deeper, via for example www.findlaw.com, we see the following: “To prove a rape offense, a prosecutor must establish each of the elements for sexual battery given by state law. As required by the Florida statute on sexual battery, the prosecutor must show that the defendant engaged in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration of the victim with a sexual organ or another object. Alternatively, the prosecutor must prove a union by the defendant’s sexual organ with the victim’s mouth, vagina, or anus“, if you reread the affidavit after knowing this, then the report present itself to be a manifest of what a man can get away with, knowing he is doing something wrong, even though there was penetration at least with one of the women, the document reads (implied as how I read it) as the work of, not as he himself states as a predator, but as a manipulator. I actually cannot conclude what is worse; did these victims consider that they were meeting not with a ‘sugar daddy’ but with a masterful manipulator? When we consider sentencing guidelines (at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sg_annual/0001/intro.html) that a second degree felony gets you a hotel ‘Iron Bars’ stay for up to 15 years, his 18 months seem extremely light under these conditions, even with the top lawyers he was able to afford. However, when we look at the statistics when we continue the Florida DOC pages, we see that his sentence falls within the 45% that were convicted for the same crime severity, 30% got up to 2 years more than that, yet, this all falls into a field where less than 25% went to prison and over 50% got probation, so as I see it that he did not get anything ‘lighter’ then implied by the maximum punishment, through his wealth he could have ended up on the probation group.

All this happened after an investigation of 11 months; now we get to accusation regarding Prince Andrew in the Guardian and several other papers (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/06/palace-prince-andrew-links-jeffrey-epstein). You see, there is something seriously wrong here, which is why I was happy that the internet has so much, including the affidavit in PDF form, which several sources had for some time. The quote “claims made last week in a Florida court by Virginia Roberts, a former masseuse employed by Epstein, that she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York over 10 years ago, as well as the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz“, now becomes central in all of this, especially in light of the affidavit by the Miami Police. The document shows (as I see it) a manipulator, one that never held anyone against their will, and who paid each girl/woman involved. This all looks wrong, a manipulator would not resort to violence, in addition, there is nothing indicating any indecent act EVER by Prince Andrew.

The issue takes on another turn entirely when I read some of the news as portrayed by ‘journalistic’ sources. You see, the headline ‘Virginia Roberts’ new lease on life after escaping from billionaire sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein‘ reads mighty strong in the Sydney Morning Herald on January 6th 2015, as well as some of the headlines as we see the Daily Mail in the UK, yet when we see the quote “Virginia Roberts was allegedly kept as a sex slave by Wall Street financier Jeffrey Epstein and was forced to have sex with the Duke of York” we should look at all the angles. Yet, these so called newspapers are all about the emotion and little about the facts. Is it not weird that it took me less than 15 minutes to find the affidavit, and find that the officer involved Detective Joe Recarey, is now a retired police officer, still working and he is also on LinkedIn. Did anyone talk to this man? When someone is on a case for this long, is this distinguished (80 commendations), you might want to consider being an actual journalist and look into the matter, especially when it is about a member of the Royal family, or am I oversimplifying things again (as I usually tend to do)?

If we consider the ‘allegations’ by the Mayor of London (Boris Johnson), the man with a hairstyle not unlike Donald Trump had the following to state: “Prince Andrew, let us be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country. People go on and on about air miles and so on. But I’ve seen that guy get out there and sell this country, try and help British firms get business around the world“, that is one side of him, we can all agree that his connection to Epstein would be a bad idea, so when we read more Daily Mail junk with the headline ‘Prince Andrew’s billionaire paedophile friend given permission to land private jet at RAF base for visit Sandringham‘, we might all get a little unnerved, yet suddenly the small fact emerges: “The flight log of Epstein’s Gulfstream revealed it touched down at RAF Marham on December 7, 2000, before he was hosted by the Andrew at the Queen’s Norfolk residence“, which was half a decade BEFORE the Epstein case started, so is this just more junk and badly investigated trash, which relies on circulation through innuendo.

It is somewhat sickening to see that the press might be the fuel for falsely alleged trials and claims. Yet, I must also be aware that I need to remain on the fence as fair and as balanced as possible. The question becomes: “How much contract has there been between Jeff Epstein and prince Andrew since the conviction of Jeff Epstein?” there is no answer in any of the articles as I saw it and the allegations are about events more than a decade ago, which would have made it important, for any level of reliability to talk to former detective Joe Recarey, interesting that no one either tried this (and reported on the attempt) and no view from that side was given, it seems to me that someone investigating this for such a time might have interesting sides to show, but that might also immediately show the innocence of Prince Andrew, which calls to question the motivation of the press. Are they just about revenue and the ‘excitement’ factor, or are they about properly informing the readers. I will let you decide, but the fact that I got you some of the facts in less than one hour should also give light to work that these papers produced.

How the case progresses will remain an unknown for some time. I cannot judge on hearsay and all this might not reveal any valid levels of evidence, or they might, time will tell, yet the fact that all this comes to light almost a decade after the conviction of Jeff Epstein is what I personally regard to be a factor too. It is my personal believe that the claim would have had a lot more weight if it had been done either when the trial was on, or soon after the conviction, not a decade later. Yet when we consider the Sydney Morning Herald in the article that does offer something (at http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-prince-andrew-accusations-are-surfacing-now-20150105-12hz27.html), we should consider the following: “the US Attorney who agreed to the plea deal with Epstein now appears to believe it was too lenient“, which cannot be denied, yet the statistics as offered by the DoC showed that 65% of the people in this category got this sentence (if I read this correctly at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sg_annual/0001/desclevels.html), we see that over two years, around 45% got such a verdict (offense severity 6), whilst over 50% ended up with probation. My issue with statement “Prince Andrew’s relationship with Epstein is well known and has been a source of controversy” is that I have found no links to their ‘relationship’ after his trial, there is every indication that their paths might have crossed, but if we accept the statement by Boris Johnson, then there is every chance that the Prince will enter a room filled with billionaires, which (likely) means that less reputable billionaires will be present. If we limit a person by who might be there then we can pretty much end the option of doing any business, so if this is about morality, then try to visit Cannes next year, you will likely meet several dealers in narcotics, weapons, at least one chemical weapon dealer and possibly people who used to supply Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. So will you go to Cannes and shake hands with Bruce Willis, or will you stay at home and watch a DVD?

False morality is a state of delusion and morality often relies on false believes; so when we judge it should be on facts, in this case we see a lot of articles and many of the facts there are absent, misstated or severely out of date, why is that?

Palm_Beach_Records_Epstein

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics