Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Fode N The Hole said:
Didn't he say he wasn't a close friend of Epstein's... now he is relying on deal struck by his friend?

The courts should throw this agreement out because it concealed criminality and should never have been binding.

Sweaty nonce.
Click to expand...
It also mention activity in eh USA whereas no mention of the UK we could get the Murkyside Plod to investigate
 
Fode N The Hole said:
St Helena would be a good place to put him. Although cut his cock off before he dies.

Absolutely dreadful family.

If it was a member of the general public whose child was accused of repeated sex crimes and hanging out with nonces they would be getting absolute dog's abuse?

Why is the Queen immune from scrutiny about how she raised her children?
Click to expand...
Because she did'n't fucking raise them
 
DrBlueBob said:
I think that you seem to have decided upon his guilt. Further to that, you have probably decided his guilt prior to any charges being levelled.

The sort of abuse that is being said happened and did happen is heinous but I would rather due process be followed than some random Royal hater on the internet deciding anyone's fate.
Click to expand...
Fuck me.
For someone who proclaims innocence he sure is doing a lot of wriggling
 
He tried to distance himself from Epstein when that looked the best thing to do, claiming he knew of him but we're not close friends . Now it's not looking so good for him. Epstein has suddenly become his best best buddy in the whole wide world just cos he has a possible get out clause for randy Andy from beyond the grave! I can see a shotgun accident happening soon .
 
lonestay said:
He tried to distance himself from Epstein when that looked the best thing to do, claiming he knew of him but we're not close friends . Now it's not looking so good for him. Epstein has suddenly become his best best buddy in the whole wide world just cos he has a possible get out clause for randy Andy from beyond the grave! I can see a shotgun accident happening soon .
Click to expand...

In his TV interview it was 'Epstein who" as though he would barely recognise him. Bet he has raided his piggy bank to pay for these lawyers.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
It wasn't specifically tobacco that I had in mind, I was thinking of food or toiletry products.

Substitute it with opiates products where patients may have been treated and become addicted to more than one product. Settling one claim shouldn't preclude a claim against one corporation. Not when the damages awarded are only for part of the damage caused.

This agreement was only made because of the unequal power between the parties. If she had greater means she could have afforded lawyers who would have ripped Epstein to shreds and maybe come away with millions. But as I alluded to earlier that still would have been the wrong thing to do.

I'm naturally sceptical of laws that unfairly protect the powerful, (see also libel laws that Jimmy Savile used to protect himself from public scrutiny) so if NDAs and out of court settlements for sexual crimes become uncertain and unenforceable then I wouldn't be too fussed.

Powerful people commiting such heinous crimes deserve to go before a court and if that isn't possible, bankruptcy, public shaming and suicide are better remedies than paltry out of court settlements.
Click to expand...
Sorry about the delay in responding to this, the madness started at work first thing this morning and hasn’t stopped all day.

i would say most contracts are entered into where the two parties have unequal power - and $500,000 is hardly a paltry sum.

Libel laws are not analogous to a contract freely entered into.

Anyway, the Judge appeared to be leaning towards the claimant today, although that’s far from conclusive proof about what they are thinking of course.

I still stand by what my own view is fwiw, but accept that's based on limited knowledge of the facts. I would say that it’s impossible to conceive that both parties didn’t contemplate Prince Andrew as a second party when the contract was formed, which has a certain delicious irony, of course.
 
Why is it OK to talk about this case, calling Prince Andrew a nonce, with no intervention from the mods but we can't talk about the Benjamin mendy case. It doesn't make sense @Ric
 
Courtneyneild said:
Why is it OK to talk about this case, calling Prince Andrew a nonce, with no intervention from the mods but we can't talk about the Benjamin mendy case. It doesn't make sense @Ric
Click to expand...
One is a case in the UK courts, the other in the US. One case involves a Manchester City footballer, the other doesn’t. They’re not exactly like for like situations.
 
Barcon said:
Because Mendy being a rapist doesn't look good for us (City), whereas a nonce prince has nothing to do with us (City).
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with how it looks tbf, more to do with the risk of prejudicing the trial.
 
Courtneyneild said:
Why is it OK to talk about this case, calling Prince Andrew a nonce, with no intervention from the mods but we can't talk about the Benjamin mendy case. It doesn't make sense @Ric
Click to expand...

I doubt the CPS could press charges against someone in America for contempt of court. And it will be the case the other way round.

Contempt of court is also based on the risk of prejudicing the proceedings/jury and being in another country reduces that risk greatly. Hence newspapers can publish pretty much what they want after someone has been found guilty but yet to be sentenced because, unlike a jury, a judge (theoretically) won’t be prejudiced.

Plus Prince Andrew is clearly guilty as hell.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Sorry about the delay in responding to this, the madness started at work first thing this morning and hasn’t stopped all day.

i would say most contracts are entered into where the two parties have unequal power - and $500,000 is hardly a paltry sum.

Libel laws are not analogous to a contract freely entered into.

Anyway, the Judge appeared to be leaning towards the claimant today, although that’s far from conclusive proof about what they are thinking of course.

I still stand by what my own view is fwiw, but accept that's based on limited knowledge of the facts. I would say that it’s impossible to conceive that both parties didn’t contemplate Prince Andrew as a second party when the contract was formed, which has a certain delicious irony, of course.
Click to expand...

No need for any apology or explanation for any delayed response.

Not a paltry sum for normal people, but this represents less than 0.1 percent of Epstein's estate at the time of his death.

Yes most contracts involve unequal bargaining, but given the subject the gross disparity is of critical Importance of such agreements should never have legal effect in my opinion.

As you can see this is the most broadest of contracts. I don't like overly broad documents as a rule.

"from the beginning of the world to the day of this release"

rozenberg.substack.com

Is Andrew covered by Giuffre deal?

From the beginning of the world to the day of this release
rozenberg.substack.com rozenberg.substack.com

Is any "potential defendant" a relevant class of person to describe Prince Andrew when she hadn't made any public allegations about him at that point.

Contracts accompanied by NDAs and binding agreement not to pursue further litigation serve a purpose in commercial transactions and sexual harassment suits where the wrongful action didn't meet a criminal threshold but I would strongly pushback against the valid existence of these kind of deals that deliberately shield criminality.

Sometimes you just have to say fuck 'em, because whilst the deals may explicitly say it doesn't prevent disclosure for criminal investigation, that's the subtext behind it. The telephone calls to VG from Maxwell and to other girls from his staff at the time Epstein was arrested.

Keep schtum and we will help you pay off your debts, and give you something to tide you over.

Particularly concerning when someone like Epstein could have easy access to private investigators to dig up dirt and find out the financial situation of his accusers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top