Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
gordondaviesmoustache said:
She hardly gave him an easy ride, did she? Thought she dealt with the interview brilliantly, and maybe the relaxed pre-interview period made him drop his guard. Its difficult to imagine a more devastating outcome for him than what transpired and I think she needs to take credit for that.
Click to expand...
It was reported that the Queen and the rest of his family knew nothing about the interview until after it had been recorded. Seemingly Andrew told the Queen that ‘it went very well’ and so here’s further proof (if any was needed) that he really is a thick ****.
 
Please judge do the right thing and let the trial go ahead , obviously he was more than well in with the evil pair , if he didnt know why young girls were at his parties then he is thicker than mince , he has been thrashing about through his legal team from the start , time to reel him in
 
If the Judge does rule in her favour, does that not open the door for other cases against the politicians and journalists she believes may be included in the agreement? And, how many other such agreements did Epstein make? And, if he does rule in her favour, it seems mighty ironic that Epstein alive might have been more useful than Epstein dead.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I would say yes, absolutely. How could he not be, if the alleged act(s) had taken place by the point the contract was formed. ‘Potential defendant’ surely connotes anyone who could be subject to a claim at that point, which is what Guiffre’s case against Andrew is founded upon.it doesn’t require guilt, simply that in the minds of the contracting parties, he was a potential defendant to a claim, which must have been the case, based on Guiffre’s pleadings.

If he wasn’t a potential defendant at that point, then she has no claim, surely.
Click to expand...

Yes logically speaking he could but the document specifically names classes of people as second parties. Andrew isn't in any of those classes.

The document also excludes any legal action. I have read that Prince Andrew's lawyers previously claimed in court filings he was immune from action because he was within the class of royalty, no such reference in the document.

If he was named specifically (even if this was in a supplementary agreement) or fell within a clearly defined class of person then he would have a much stronger case.

amp.theguardian.com

Can the Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein deal protect Prince Andrew?

Lawyers make case for why the 2009 settlement might cover the royal and why it might not
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor, a law firm with clients including a woman who alleges rape and harassment by the Wall Street financier and Epstein associate Leon Black and claimants in civil suits against the disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein, said Andrew was almost certainly not covered by the 2009 agreement.
Imprecise wording suggests the existence of a second agreement with named parties that has never come to light, Christensen said.
“Aside from the fact that it’s horribly worded with over-broad, vague language, it really should not be sustained because it could cover anybody Epstein knows,” she said.
“It doesn’t matter who [Andrew’s] lawyers think falls within that definition. It’s not going to be of help.”

But Christensen said: “I don’t see how any person could fit within that definition without there being a second agreement that specifically names individuals.”
Click to expand...
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, if he ‘wins’ this legal argument it isn’t necessarily the best outcome for him. It’s better than losing, obviously, but far, far worse than a finding in his favour on the balance of probability, following the hearing of evidence.

He’ll be absolutely ruined if he gets this kicked out based on a third party contract where an abused girl was paid off by a convicted paedophile. The stain will never leave him.

His life as he knew it will be over and he’ll most likely never be seen in public again.
Click to expand...

In a right and proper world mate.

I think it’ll be pushed further under the carpet than a Mane elbow and he’ll snide some way round it and still crack on having the life of Riley.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Yes logically speaking he could but the document specifically names classes of people as second parties. Andrew isn't in any of those classes.

The document also excludes any legal action. I have read that Prince Andrew's lawyers previously claimed in court filings he was immune from action because he was within the class of royalty, no such reference in the document.

If he was named specifically (even if this was in a supplementary agreement) or fell within a clearly defined class of person then he would have a much stronger case.
Click to expand...
The settlement is in relation to the original Florida case brought by Giuffre, which states:

“In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy the defendant’s every sexual whim, Plaintiff was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.”

That's where the "royalty" bit comes into it.
 
Dubai Blue said:
The settlement is in relation to the original Florida case brought by Giuffre, which states:

“In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy the defendant’s every sexual whim, Plaintiff was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.”

That's where the "royalty" bit comes into it.
Click to expand...
In theory, if this technical point works then they have convinced a court that the document is true and valid and applies to the Duke of nonce. So a win in this battle but up next would be a criminal case and this document then becomes evidence against him.
 
meltonblue said:
davidallengreen.com

A legal look at the Giuffre settlement agreement on which Prince Andrew is seeking to rely

5th January 2022 A happy new year to all the readers of this law and policy blog, and welcome back. Today’s post is about civil law – that is the law which (broadly) deals with the lega…
davidallengreen.com
Click to expand...
That's a fascinating read, thanks for posting.

One thing still confuses me though. It was touched on in the comments below the article but still doesn't make sense to me.

How did Andrew and his legal team even know this document existed? And if, as one of the replies suggests, they didn't know about it until this current claim, how did they find out about it then? Was Giuffre duty bound to disclose its existence or did someone else tip them off about it?
 
Gaudion M said:
In theory, if this technical point works then they have convinced a court that the document is true and valid and applies to the Duke of nonce. So a win in this battle but up next would be a criminal case and this document then becomes evidence against him.
Click to expand...
A criminal case for what?
 
Dubai Blue said:
The settlement is in relation to the original Florida case brought by Giuffre, which states:

“In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy the defendant’s every sexual whim, Plaintiff was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.”

That's where the "royalty" bit comes into it.
Click to expand...

Yes but it isn't stated in the agreement.

I've linked the full document below.

Maybe Giuffre wanted it in the document and was rebuffed by Epstein's counsel because the precise nature of the term could have have been an acknowledgement that her claims had merit in contrast to him admitting no liability.

www.documentcloud.org

DOCUMENT: In Prince Andrew Case Unsealed Epstein Giuffre Order Shows $500,000 and Purported Protection - Settlement and Release here

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org
 
Dubai Blue said:
That's a fascinating read, thanks for posting.

One thing still confuses me though. It was touched on in the comments below the article but still doesn't make sense to me.

How did Andrew and his legal team even know this document existed? And if, as one of the replies suggests, they didn't know about it until this current claim, how did they find out about it then? Was Giuffre duty bound to disclose its existence or did someone else tip them off about it?
Click to expand...

Epsteins lawyer. Bit more here -

www.farorelaw.co.uk

Prince Andrew Settlement Agreements

Prince Andrew Settlement Agreements
www.farorelaw.co.uk www.farorelaw.co.uk
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
It was reported that the Queen and the rest of his family knew nothing about the interview until after it had been recorded. Seemingly Andrew told the Queen that ‘it went very well’ and so here’s further proof (if any was needed) that he really is a thick ****.
Click to expand...
And what time period .if any. elapsed between recording and airing ?
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Yes but it isn't stated in the agreement.

I've linked the full document below.

Maybe Giuffre wanted it in the document and was rebuffed by Epstein's counsel because the precise nature of the term could have have been an acknowledgement that her claims had merit in contrast to him admitting no liability.

www.documentcloud.org

DOCUMENT: In Prince Andrew Case Unsealed Epstein Giuffre Order Shows $500,000 and Purported Protection - Settlement and Release here

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've read the settlement doc. The argument (by Andrew's lawyers) will have been that it didn't need to be included in the settlement itself since the document starts by stating clearly that it refers directly to the allegations contained within the Florida case.

I don't agree BTW and believe the judge will dismiss this argument. Just answering your question about why Andrew "thinks" the document covered him.
 
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