A criminal case was probably impossible to prove, and wouldn't garner any money. The sleaze allegation of being introduced by Epstein and Maxwell should prove enough, and it did. He of course denies it to this day. He should have coughed up before it got to court, he may have get a shred of reputation. He's finished now, rightly.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 27 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect
I do find it surprising how quick people jump to Andrew’s defence
Especially when they don't appear to know what they're defending
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
comment by Robb Eriksen (U22716)
posted 37 minutes ago
They don't stand for moral grossness.
——-
ππ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inbreeding is pretty morally gross.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 14 minutes ago
I do find it surprising how quick people jump to Andrew’s defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aren't defending him. We are clarifying the facts here
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
Do you not think it happens all the time wit pop stars, footballers, the casting couch, bosses. Some girls will be more willing than others.
Like the Mendy case today it appears that she claimed rape for money, I hope I'm not doing her a disservice.
Not all girls are innocent.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are for The whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a civil case not criminal. If you don't pay for your car it's civil.
If you steal someone else's it's criminal.
You can't be sentenced to prison in a civil case. It's normally used to get damages paid
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 second ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a civil case not criminal. If you don't pay for your car it's civil.
If you steal someone else's it's criminal.
You can't be sentenced to prison in a civil case. It's normally used to get damages paid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they never denied she was seventeen.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that at all. I've said that his accuser was not under age at the times she claims she slept with him in the 3 different locations. She claims she slept with him aged 17 in the UK - which is perfectly legal. The other 2 times she was 18. Which again is legal.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given she claims she was forced to sleep with him, his position of power, the fact she was groomed and trafficked etc. Its rape.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given she claims she was forced to sleep with him, his position of power, the fact she was groomed and trafficked etc. Its rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced how?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given she claims she was forced to sleep with him, his position of power, the fact she was groomed and trafficked etc. Its rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced how?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus rape is illegal, and why has it taken so long for this to appear?
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that at all. I've said that his accuser was not under age at the times she claims she slept with him in the 3 different locations. She claims she slept with him aged 17 in the UK - which is perfectly legal. The other 2 times she was 18. Which again is legal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not correct, do a quick search on the case. According to her she was 17 on all three occasions.
Even though she was groomed she agreed to have s3x with Andrew, Epstein and others for money. But from a legal point of view someone underage can't consent so it's rape.
Plus rape is illegal, and why has it taken so long for this to appear?
———
Hardly a coincidence it took this long when his mate Epstein only just gets nicked.
He was charged with assault. I don't know if and when sexx took place, as I read it at the time she wasn't under age.
Also, to be clear, I'm no defender of Prince Andrew, they can cut his goolies off for all I care.
I do think he is sleazy, but I do think it got to court so late because her legal team thought there would be money in it, and they were right. She could have called rape long ago.
And on a separate note why aren't her parents in court?
https://news.sky.com/story/confidential-settlement-between-virginia-giuffre-and-jeffrey-epstein-made-public-12508098
As far as I can see, no one has mentioned her previous payoff.
She seems like a serial claimant who struck gold with Andrew.
I heard recently that they are making a movie about his car crash TV interview
Seems like she hasn’t been able to bring two of the richest and most powerful men on the planet to justice, and they’ve paid her off to silence her.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anti royal protestor led away
Page 22 of 28
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
posted on 13/9/22
A criminal case was probably impossible to prove, and wouldn't garner any money. The sleaze allegation of being introduced by Epstein and Maxwell should prove enough, and it did. He of course denies it to this day. He should have coughed up before it got to court, he may have get a shred of reputation. He's finished now, rightly.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 27 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect
posted on 13/9/22
I do find it surprising how quick people jump to Andrew’s defence
posted on 13/9/22
Especially when they don't appear to know what they're defending
posted on 13/9/22
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Robb Eriksen (U22716)
posted 37 minutes ago
They don't stand for moral grossness.
——-
ππ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inbreeding is pretty morally gross.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 14 minutes ago
I do find it surprising how quick people jump to Andrew’s defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aren't defending him. We are clarifying the facts here
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
posted on 13/9/22
Do you not think it happens all the time wit pop stars, footballers, the casting couch, bosses. Some girls will be more willing than others.
Like the Mendy case today it appears that she claimed rape for money, I hope I'm not doing her a disservice.
Not all girls are innocent.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are for The whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a civil case not criminal. If you don't pay for your car it's civil.
If you steal someone else's it's criminal.
You can't be sentenced to prison in a civil case. It's normally used to get damages paid
posted on 13/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 second ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a civil case not criminal. If you don't pay for your car it's civil.
If you steal someone else's it's criminal.
You can't be sentenced to prison in a civil case. It's normally used to get damages paid
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they never denied she was seventeen.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that at all. I've said that his accuser was not under age at the times she claims she slept with him in the 3 different locations. She claims she slept with him aged 17 in the UK - which is perfectly legal. The other 2 times she was 18. Which again is legal.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given she claims she was forced to sleep with him, his position of power, the fact she was groomed and trafficked etc. Its rape.
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given she claims she was forced to sleep with him, his position of power, the fact she was groomed and trafficked etc. Its rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced how?
posted on 13/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
I haven't defended him except against under age sex.
He's sleazy though and now everyone knows it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that taking advantage of someone who has been groomed and trafficked is only 'sleazy'?
Even if you believe that is all he is guilty of (which you have said you do), then surely abusing a position of power to take sexual advantage of someone who is vulnerable is much more than 'sleazy'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put a word to it then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well given she claims she was forced to sleep with him, his position of power, the fact she was groomed and trafficked etc. Its rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced how?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus rape is illegal, and why has it taken so long for this to appear?
posted on 13/9/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
She was under the age of consent on two occasions, if not she wouldn't have had a case and Andrew wouldn't have had to pay her off to settle it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That;s what she said and was reported everywhere... if she was legal age then no laws were broken, what exactly was she going to court for? From what I remember the time period had expired for her to bring criminal charges so a civil case was the only option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't know what you are talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me then. According to you Andrew's been accused of nothing illegal. Wtf do you think courts are forThe whole premise of the case was that she was underage and trafficked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that at all. I've said that his accuser was not under age at the times she claims she slept with him in the 3 different locations. She claims she slept with him aged 17 in the UK - which is perfectly legal. The other 2 times she was 18. Which again is legal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not correct, do a quick search on the case. According to her she was 17 on all three occasions.
posted on 13/9/22
Even though she was groomed she agreed to have s3x with Andrew, Epstein and others for money. But from a legal point of view someone underage can't consent so it's rape.
posted on 13/9/22
Plus rape is illegal, and why has it taken so long for this to appear?
———
Hardly a coincidence it took this long when his mate Epstein only just gets nicked.
posted on 13/9/22
He was charged with assault. I don't know if and when sexx took place, as I read it at the time she wasn't under age.
Also, to be clear, I'm no defender of Prince Andrew, they can cut his goolies off for all I care.
I do think he is sleazy, but I do think it got to court so late because her legal team thought there would be money in it, and they were right. She could have called rape long ago.
And on a separate note why aren't her parents in court?
posted on 13/9/22
https://news.sky.com/story/confidential-settlement-between-virginia-giuffre-and-jeffrey-epstein-made-public-12508098
As far as I can see, no one has mentioned her previous payoff.
She seems like a serial claimant who struck gold with Andrew.
posted on 13/9/22
I heard recently that they are making a movie about his car crash TV interview
posted on 13/9/22
Seems like she hasn’t been able to bring two of the richest and most powerful men on the planet to justice, and they’ve paid her off to silence her.
Page 22 of 28
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27