Last week, Qatar’s Sheik Khalid bin Hamad Al-Thani first took a dangerous high-speed race through the streets of Beverly Hills and then allegedly told a reporter that he could kill him given his diplomatic immunity (which he didn’t have) . . . . and then fled the country in contempt of U.S. laws. Now, a Saudi prince has been arrested at a hillside compound near Beverly Hills after allegedly trying to force a worker to perform a sex act on him. Saudi prince Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud was arrested on suspicion of forced oral copulation of an adult. The arrest followed the reported sighting of a woman covered in blood trying to escape the compound by climbing an eight-foot wall. He is now accused of sexually abusing and beating at least three women during a three-day party in his $37 million Beverly Hills home.
Al-Saud was booked and freed on $300,000 bail Thursday afternoon. He does not have diplomatic immunity.
Some fear that like his Qatar prince counterpart, Al-Saud will flee the country. One neighbor said that after his bail, there were a large number of cars coming in and out of the property as if he were fleeing. There are no cars left in the driveway and the compound appears abandoned.
In addition to the sex crime charge, Al-Saud is also facing one count of battery and one count of false imprisonment.
There can also be tort liability for battery, assault, and false imprisonment. Neither tort nor criminal liability however will mean anything if this prince also simply flees in defiance of U.S. law. Saudis on the criminal docket is nothing new (and here and here) in this country or other country, particularly with regard to the abuse of servants or failing to pay bills.
106 thoughts on “Another Arab Prince Faces Criminal Charges In Beverly Hills”
SWM rarely comments here because of a certain male commenter who comments multiple times a day, every single day.
JustaGirl is another infrequent liberal female commenter who we need here more often. I think being in Sweden and time zones away just has her out of sync w/ us. She’s a fascinating woman.
Blouise won’t comment here anymore because of a certain male commenter who comments multiple times a day, every day.
Inga – you are the last person who should comment on people commenting too many times during the day. You must not have a drop of irony in your blood.
bam the ballerina! I caught that ballet metaphor a few days ago.
Blouise is another liberal woman who you could have an adult conversation w/. It would be nice if she would return.
Another mature, smart woman KarenS hasn’t been around lately. This blog is diminished when we don’t have good women commenting here regularly. I also miss SWM. We disagree on much but it’s always civil and college level discussions w/ SWM.
I’m so happy we have intelligent men who comment here, such a nice change from…the usual males who comment daily multiple times a day, every single day.
bam, Always good to have a sharp, witty, woman commenting. We need you here more often.
Either he’s bowing down or someone dropped a quarter.
Olly, no matter how hard you try there are always going to be people who don’t buy into your Natural Rights Theory. Paul Schulte is one of them, why don’t you hound him for a while?
Inga – you’ve fallen to picking out opponents for people?
I suppose Bush put Obama up to this?
So says the woman that believes all rights come from government. Self reflection indeed.
Self reflection is a good thing.
“Grow up, dude”? Nicely done! I wasn’t aware we had Spicoli following this blog.
Anyways, back to the story, even if this Saudi “prince” of thieves has immunity, I’ll wager it doesn’t extend to a federal RICO asset forfeiture of that house, and we know the feds can cobble one of those up for anything, indicting the proverbial ham sandwich. The clown princes would dislike that far more than a meaningless accusation in the county courts.
but, dont hold your breath waiting for the feds to protect america from criminally inclined saudis. they didnt do it on 9-11, why would they do any different?
Grow up dude, neither party respects the constitution. At this point the bigger question is a) who is going to get us fried in ww3 or not. Seems to me, that for all his faults, Trump is probably the only one with Stones big enough to oppose the war pigs and neocons.
That’s where Obama was weak: he lacked a powerful base to begin with, too beholden to his contributors and backers and promoters. He talked a good line on peace and failed to deliver.
Bernie Sanders: please, zero chance he wins. ditto that rand paul. Hillary= total neocon warmonger. Bush & all other republican pro israeli sycophants, same thing.
a close second question, assuming we dont get nuked, for any native born american who doesnt want to be displaced by millions of scab workers from the third world, is who will restrict immigration. nobody but Trump is talking that up, none of them.
Our corrupted “rule of law” leaves no administration blameless; nor their constituents. If you find yourself among the group promoting a candidate unwilling to be constrained by our constitution in order to achieve some ideological vision then consider yourself a co-conspirator of every violation ever committed. The choice is simple; either you want a government that honors our constitution, which means you vote for the candidate that is committed to that end OR you vote for the candidate that is certain to find a way around their constitutional limits. Hint: If you believe ALL rights come from government then the latter candidate is for you.
Comments are closed.