Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

[bakerdave76]

I'm no law expert but
"My paedo pal has already paid her to shut the fuck up" doesn't sound like a great defence

 

[mat]

I'm no law expert but
"My paedo pal has already paid her to shut the fuck up" doesn't sound like a great defence

Indeed.

Shows his arrogance and sense of entitlement.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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

Thank you for posting that, which has given me a far wider understanding of the wording of the agreement than I had previously. I have to say I’m less clear on the intention of the material clause than I was previously and fwiw therefore now feel the application to dismiss will almost certainly fail, as any benefit of doubt in relation to a clause will be given to the party not seeking to rely upon it.

So I’ve come round to your way of thinking (although via a slightly different route) @Fode N The Hole

A reminder (not that I really needed it) that you can’t form a worthwhile opinion based on part information. City and FFP being another case in point.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

A reminder (not that I really needed it) that you can’t form a worthwhile opinion based on part information.

Complete and utter bullshit.


How do you think the overwhelming majority on here form theirs :)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Complete and utter bullshit.


How do you think the overwhelming majority on here form theirs :)

tbf, we can all be guilty of it from time to time :-)

 

[meltonblue]

Thank you for posting that, which has given me a far wider understanding of the wording of the agreement than I had previously. I have to say I’m less clear on the intention of the material clause than I was previously and fwiw therefore now feel the application to dismiss will almost certainly fail, as any benefit of doubt in relation to a clause will be given to the party not seeking to rely upon it.

So I’ve come round to your way of thinking (although via a slightly different route) @Fode N The Hole

A reminder (not that I really needed it) that you can’t form a worthwhile opinion based on part information. City and FFP being another case in point.

Even with a lot of information, it can be difficult depending on the level of emotional investment with certain topics, city and ffp occasionally being an example of that too!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Even with a lot of information, it can be difficult depending on the level of emotional investment with certain topics, city and ffp occasionally being an example of that too!

And how much time and the inclination you have to read it!

 

[bluemoon32]

Maxwell may have grounds for a mis-trial as one of the juros spoke to mail online and said that they were a victim of child abuse.
Sorry if already posted or if it's bullshit

 

[Norbert D]

If the beak decides this civil case can go ahead, I reckon Liz will give Randy Andy the wedge to pay her off.

 

[meltonblue]

Maxwell may have grounds for a mis-trial as one of the juros spoke to mail online and said that they were a victim of child abuse.
Sorry if already posted or if it's bullshit

Was just reading about that. Depends if he declared it or not (and then further questions if not), they were directly asked the question as part of the selection process.

 

[domalino]

Maxwell may have grounds for a mis-trial as one of the juros spoke to mail online and said that they were a victim of child abuse.
Sorry if already posted or if it's bullshit

Was just reading about that. Depends if he declared it or not (and then further questions if not), they were directly asked the question as part of the selection process.

Lying during Voir Dire is both perjury and obstruction of justice and a pretty serious offence - which is made clear to all potential jurors.

So it seems unlikely that someone would knowingly do that and tell the mail online, so the fact the juror spoke to the press would suggest they weren't asked.

 

[meltonblue]

Lying during Voir Dire is both perjury and obstruction of justice and a pretty serious offence - which is made clear to all potential jurors.

So it seems unlikely that someone would knowingly do that and tell the mail online, so the fact the juror spoke to the press would suggest they weren't asked.

Not sure that they weren’t asked, all have said it’s a direct question that was asked of all potential jurors and it’s the prosecution that have asked the court to investigate.

 

[When The Levee Breaks]

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Could be two jurors who had been victims of sexual abuse.

The first one (Scotty David) claims to have guided other jurors by saying he didn't tell anyone until he was in high school and that is why the witnesses didn't come forward until years later.

The second one spoke to the New York Times also saying they guided other jury members.

 

[Bill Walker]

Lying during Voir Dire is both perjury and obstruction of justice and a pretty serious offence - which is made clear to all potential jurors.

So it seems unlikely that someone would knowingly do that and tell the mail online, so the fact the juror spoke to the press would suggest they weren't asked.

The juror also discussed it with other jurors during deliberation so seems unlikely he would lie on the form.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Timing seems very convenient...

 

[Don Karleone]

 

[bluejon]

he'll handle it fine, no sweat at all

 

[BlueHammer85]

Does this mean he goes to an actual court in front of a jury etc?

 

[kaz7]

Get in !