Epstein / Prince Andrew / Maxwell

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:
Fode N The Hole said:
Not a paltry sum for normal people, but this represents less than half a percent of Epstein's estate at the time of his death.
Click to expand...
Not really important in the scheme of things, but surely Epstein’s estate was worth a lot more than $100m when he died?
 
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 civil claim for damages and the other is criminal trial.

I haven't bothered to look up the relevant laws for the USA but in the UK civil contempt of court isn't a crime. As far as I know there aren't any reporting restrictions on the Prince Andrew case whereas the are for REDACTED.

Only thing to keep in mind is that It’s possible that Prince Andrew could sue for libel, but highly unlikely considering the circumstances.
 
Do we think this woman is the only one he's touched up or didn't know etc?

Wonder if that's what's really worrying him? He's been all over the place with the dead one and Maxwell and sex pests rarely just do one then call it a day.
 
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 can't see why any discussion on here about this would impact the outcome of a civil case in America whereas discussing an extremely serious criminal case before trial in the UK clearly could and certainly @Ric would be the one on the hook if action was taken.

On a similar theme, I thought there was no way whatsoever that Maxwell could ever get a fair hearing as both before and during the trial multiple people claiming to be victims were giving high profile interviews stating she was guilty of loads of things she wasn't even charged with (Roberts/Giuffre in particular).

I can't imagine a situation in the UK where a person on trial for multiple rapes for example had women not involved in the trial saying he raped them before and during it.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.