You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Interesting Maxwells brother is insisting she's not a suicide risk. Setting a background story in case anything happens, maybe?
^ I would suspect that is clarifying if anything happens, then it is not self induced. Certainly makes it harder to gloss over by US authorities.
They have also made it clear that she isn't going to rat up the bigwigs - which means that a hit inside prison is less likely to happen.
So Andy's secrets are safe with her. Depending on what she is asking for in return.
A wonderful quote by John Sweeney in the Guardian
For the moment, Andrew Windsor denies all, as convincingly as a gimp photographed in a gimp suit denying he’s a gimp.
I recommend Sweeneys podcast, Hunting Gislaine. It makes you realise just how awful she (band they all) are.
It'll be interesting to see how the royal family handle it if the court case is successful, whether they will close ranks and condemn the verdict as unjust and try to paint Andrew in as best a light as possible or deny all knowledge of everything, blame it all on Andrew and freeze him out
If all attempted legal wriggles fail and the court date is confirmed for Sept/Oct, what options are left to andrew?
Appear in court, commit suicide, make an offer to settle out of court without accepting responsibility/liability?
If the latter, accompanying weasel words...to avoid hurt to the queen and damage to the monarchy; if an offer was made, would Giuffre decline in order to force the issue in court?
Wouldn't be surprised if he just didn't turn up? He's incredibly arrogant, plus would we actually extradite him? Honestly wouldn't be surprised (if he was found guilty) if he just disappeared from public life and continued living a life of luxury without any punishment as we refuse to hand him over.
Frank, I reckon if an offer is made to settle out of court then Giuffre would receive advice to accept.
I*think* royals have some immunity from extradition etc though my memory might well be incorrect. It's also a civil case so it might not be relevant anyway?
I suspect an out of court settlement with him living a life of luxury (obviously) but in relative seclusion from public life.
"No-one is above the law."
Yeah, right.
Much as I detest the CIA, I really want them to step up to the plate here.
I suspect an out of court settlement with him living a life of luxury (obviously) but in relative seclusion from public life.
I'm not convinced he has the funds, he'll need to sell another crappy property for millions to one of his friends from the Middle East.
The bank of mum is another option, obviously.
I hope the stress doesn't finish the queen off. We've got an extra bank holiday in June at stake here.
Wouldn’t be surprised if he just didn’t turn up? He’s incredibly arrogant, plus would we actually extradite him?
Not sure that you can be extradited for civil case.
We’ve got an extra bank holiday in June at stake here.
For the self-employed it's an unpaid day so not wanted.
For the self-employed it’s an unpaid day so not wanted.
If you're (actually) self-employed then just work it?
Yep bank holidays are rubbish - all the low paid workers and those in the gig economy generally have to work even harder on a BH or don’t get paid. Bankers have enough holidays already, as do most people who benefit. Many private sector workers just have to work harder the other 4 days to catch up - the work doesn’t just go away
Typical nonsense that sounds like we are being given something when we are not.
Not sure why things like extradition are being mentioned, it's a civil case, he doesn't have to turn up either to defend, reality is that it'll be a pay day more than anything else, Andrew hasn't been charged with anything criminal, it's more down to trafficking, which would fall with those who trafficked her.
I just see this case as a way of embarrassing Andrew to get money, the fact that he is so arrogant has caused this whole debacle, that TV interview and the laughing stock it made him is key to this, i honestly doubt this case will make it any further than out of court settlement just before day 1 of the case.
I'm sure no matter what, he'll be out of the public eye now, he has his fortune, he has the lifestyle, all he has to do is just fade away quietly, but for someone like Andrew, that might be the biggest challenge for the royal family!
I reckon if an offer is made to settle out of court then Giuffre would receive advice to accept.
At this stage it's quite possible that this ship has already sailed, I would imagine that an out of court settlement would have been offered long before Maxwell was tried and convicted.
I just see this case as a way of embarrassing Andrew to get money
No, it's the victims of sexual abuse getting the closest thing to justice they can given the statute of limitations for a criminal case has passed.
If you’re (actually) self-employed then just work it
I'm actually self-employed; verified through HMRC IR35 test and scrupulously honest client assessing the project role I'm doing.
Working on a bank holiday is not an option for me and many others.
Returning to the topic...I doubt andrew has a fortune - he has wealthy 'friends' who may be inclined to help him; as for his lifestyle that's now nothing more than skulking around on his mother's estates.
When the queen dies it's unlikely charles will show him much support.
As for an out of court settlement possibly being offered previously, I would doubt that very much based on his colossal arrogance - dismissive of the 'little people', believing that the case against him wouldn't proceed, that maxwell wouldn't be convicted, that he was safe because he is a son of the queen.
Well hasn't this just turned into a gigantic sh**storm for the royals.
.
What's sad is though is although the victim receives a form of justice, the perpetrator can cut a deal of the kind only the rich are allowed to make. The whole hypocrisy of the double standard is being laid bare by this scandal.
How will the law handle this ? 😕
When they say Maxwell is a suicide risk I think they mean she's at risk of being suicided by some of the many names she has on her list. Although I'm certain that's not what happened to Epstein. No, definitely not.
I bet he's starting to sweat...
How will the law handle this ?
The law is handling this. American civil law.
It's shown that Andrew is a morally reprehensible imbecile, who didn't care or think how his friend was able to arrange for young and obliging women were on hand.
I'd hope this is a chance for a victim to get justice. The deal she supposedly cut with Epstein may reveal if that is her main motive, or if she's wants money - and she's quite entitled to money as compensation of course as part of her justice.
Andrew is finished, whether he wins or loses the case. His reputation is trashed regardless. If he "wins", I can't see a way back into public life. If he loses, he'll effectively be exiled somewhere to a cottage on an estate. The Royals aren't stupid any more
He's lived his life, was the favourite child who got all he wanted, basically being patron for all his hobbies and jet setting stuff, he's made his money in the sidelines, be it sales like his mansion, funding through the royal pot, or estate payments, he's got enough to survive, and support to do what he wants in the UK and abroad for however long.
But, his days have been numbered for a while, the whole scandal about favours from him for money, the lack of charities/people/etc wanting him as a patron or representing them has limited his usefulness, but again, as favourite child he was allowed to just do what he wanted.
Reality is he's always been the way he is, and was allowed to be, he was sold on being 'randy andy', playboy royal, i remember seeing the pic of him with virginia and ghislaine in Private Eye over a decade ago, and they were clear it was not a good thing, but nothing really happened, it was all just rumour and conjecture, with lawyers being fielded whenever required.
i remember seeing the pic of him with virginia and ghislaine in Private Eye over a decade ago, and they were clear it was not a good thing,
Oh, that photo. The photo of the sex abuse victim, standing next to the accused abuser, with a convicted sex trafficker in the background, the photo taken by a convicted paedophile. Nice
The Royals aren’t stupid any more
I disagree, they've never made the transition to a world where anyone with dirt has the means to make it public without dying a gruesom death. Would an intelligent Queen abuse her royal privilege to veto points of law knowing someone would publish sooner or later? No. Would an intelligent heir to the throne marry a woman he had little love for and then make her life misery? No. Would you shag anyone under the age of 18? I wouldn't, it's stupid and has been for a long time. Would you wear a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party, No. Would you make light of a pandemic? No.
That makes them horrendously out of touch with reality, but not necessarily actually stupid though surely?
From what I read of the released agreement it looks like Andrew has some cover from it...
Details of settlement released so far are extremely broad and
all-encompassing.
I think there's a strong legal argument to be made that as the settlement attempts to excuse anyone and everyone epstein knew from any liability they may have for anything they may have done it is unenforceable.
There may also be questions about the balance of power between the parties to the agreement at the time it was signed and whether Giuffre signed under duress.
There's still enough there to embarrass them, having to admit to being within the scope of this clause is in part committing himself to knowingly being a potential defendant, the way things are going, could that open the door to criminal charges?!
There’s still enough there to embarrass them, having to admit to being within the scope of this clause is in part committing himself to knowingly being a potential defendant, the way things are going, could that open the door to criminal charges?!
The embarrassment is already done. Lots of legal arguments to come but seems the agreement was intended to protect him and others from civil actions.
Criminal is more interesting. Presumably so far they've struggled to get enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to make charges worth trying - plus it might be tricky finding an impartial jury now.
Maxwell was found guilty of trafficking girls for sex, yes? No confidentiality/settlement agreement with Epstein can stop anyone from acknowledging Maxwell’s crime, or identifying anyone connected to it, can it?
The collective conscience is that Andrew is guilty, whatever happens legally is not important, and that Guiffre is quite right to go for every penny she can out of this half-witted, arrogant, sweaty, abusive wastrel. She's been done over as a kid, let her have a nice house and a few dollars for her family in Australia.
Can't we just trade him for that wife of a CIA agent who killed somebody by driving on the wrong side of the road? I know it has been said that their is no extradition in a civil case, but how about just this once?
Just remember that Andrew only has to top 8 people to sit his arse on the throne.
And keep and free Assange and send over the Prince Nonce. Times likes these, sadly, alert you to notions of power and justice.
Must be time for the press to round on Harry and Meghan over something, they need to wheel out Pier Morgan on to TV again!
The collective conscience is that Andrew is guilty, whatever happens legally is not important,
+1
I reckon Charles would quite happily throw him under the bus - any bus - once HM is gone and he’s in charge.
Is that Charles with the crowded marriage perchance?
I think there’s a strong legal argument to be made that as the settlement attempts to excuse anyone and everyone epstein knew from any liability they may have for anything they may have done it is unenforceable.
My (loose) understanding of US contract law is that for a third party such as Mountbatten-Windsor to have the benefit of a contract, they must be intended by the parties to benefit, and be "identified" (even if not expressly). The very broad wording clearly doesn't meet that test, but M-B's lawyers appear to be arguing that when you put that in the context of the content of Roberts' complaint (which mentions "royalty") it does amount to an implicit identification of M-B (and presumably others as well). This line of argument is stated in the BBC report. It's a runner, after all the agreement is to settle the complaint, so clearly that is mutually understood matter that didn't need stating expressly. But not a slam-dunk.
The agreement is the type of verbose caricature of lawyer-speak that USAian lawyers still seem to love, full of long lists of things that would be perfectly adequately covered by a general description. So it is ironic that other material needs to be drawn in by implication in order to make sense of it. But let's not be too hard on the draftsperson, they had a tough job. How to protect third parties without actually naming them and thereby sending the message "Jeffrey thinks you had sex with Roberts (and he should know)"? So they came up with "potential defendants", not naming them, but giving them a shot at an argument that it meant them should they end up getting accused and need it. Probably the best that could be done in the circumstances.
^^ Very interesting post there greyspoke.
I'm wondering...
This argument put forward is likely the most robust technicality to get the perv off the hook...
So why wasn't ot the first thing his lawyers tried? Odd?
Thoughts anyone?
I guess it's because, in order for it to work, he has to admit that he was part of it. It's actually a bit of a bind if you think about it
This argument put forward is likely the most robust technicality to get the perv off the hook…
So why wasn’t ot the first thing his lawyers tried? Odd?
Thoughts anyone?
As a lay person the wrong (but definitely my prefered) side of the pond, I'd say it's because the other attempts appear to make the case null and void by a casting her as a charlatan out for cash with a dubious case. This one feels grubby as. "He's covered by the wording because he's so obviously part of the gang - the gang that have already coughed up half a million to a wronged party, he clearly doesn't need to pay out again. Epstein covered the tab". It might get him off having to spunk (word chosen with care) his hard earned cash but he'll crawl back into the shelter of the royal (virtual) dungeon with the entire world thinking he's just admitted to being guilty.
So why wasn’t ot the first thing his lawyers tried?
Because they have only just got sight of the letter of the agreement?
“Any potential defendants” goes no where, doesn’t it? Especially now someone has been found guilty of trafficking. Surely you can’t protect her clients from those she trafficked in this way? Using an agreement/settlement with a third party?
Very good points, thanks.
Because they have only just got sight of the letter of the agreement?
I assumed they could have compelled the release of these papers earlier in the process?
Nothing quite says "guilty" like seeking to get out of a court case on a technicality eh! 🤬
Innocent men want to go to court to clear their name...
I assumed they could have compelled the release of these papers earlier in the process?
And being bezzy mates with Epstein I'd image his lawyers were able to have a quiet word with Dershowitz, what with him being in hot water too and will have had a copy of their own months and months ago. Today was just about making the wording public and useable.
I assumed they could have compelled the release of these papers earlier in the process?
They have been through the process to get the document released, it's just finally happened.
Whatever the reasons, this must be getting near the end as far as using desperate technicalities surely?
You would think he must have been advised long ago to simply pay up, as being constantly in the news for all the wrong reasons just magnifies what type of a "man" he is?
That said, he's so arrogant I suspect he is just ignoring advice given and ordering the process to continue.
He learnt nothing from that interview did he...
There was an American legal type on the radio earlier who was of the opinion that the agreement wouldn't stand up in court if challenged as it is too vague and too broad and courts don't like that sort of thing.
I don’t trust either side in this case. Both are grubby. She wants a pay day and he is a good target. He is an arogant fool
There was an American legal type on the radio earlier who was of the opinion that the agreement wouldn’t stand up in court if challenged as it is too vague and too broad and courts don’t like that sort of thing.
IIRC thats what that American Apprentice argued successfully about a Trump 'contract'. Basically you can't just say 'you can't say anything about anyone anytime' and have to more specific.
I’d say she deserves a pay out. She was trafficked, prostituted out to people in power. This is a form of abuse, it’s vile and repulsive.
Her age may make consensual sex legal in this country, but there’s so much more to what happened than just the sex. Andrew appears to have been a person who appears to have facilitated with the abuse to these girls.
John Sweeney podcast is excellent by the way. Well worth a listen for those who haven’t.
Judicial arguments on Tuesday are key; if judge rejects arguments to dismiss the case and says...see you in court later this year it's game on.
If he offers - and she accepts - an out of court settlement that will be seen by all as an admission of guilt on his part.
Let's hope she rejects any such offer.
If this goes to court the process of 'discovery' is likely to prove difficult for andrew; the court case will finish him and severely damage the monarchy. Charles will disown and never forgive him.
As for her looking for a payday, why not?
If her allegations are anywhere near correct she should pursue this as far as possible; that's not being grubby.
andrew is grubby, pointless, entitled, ignorant, exposed, increasingly rejected and reviled, isolated - all of which he's brought onto himself.
As for him being thick and incompetent - he has, without any help, severely damaged the monarchy and shredded his reputation globally; what a clever little boy and all because he couldn't keep his dick in his trousers.
Innocent men want to go to court to clear their name…
Innocent men get told by their lawyers to stay out of courtrooms because sometimes they get the wrong verdict. See The Secret Barrister et al.
If her allegations are anywhere near correct she should pursue this as far as possible
Her allegations are just that. There hasn’t been a civil or criminal case to test them. I’m not convinced she can afford to goto court and I don’t think he can afford not to unless a judge says he doesn’t have to. I don’t really believe either of them
^^ I suspect a go fund me appeal would be very well received if she couldn't afford a court case. It would just damage him even further If she did so.
Not saying its a likely scenario but as her funds were brought up...
I can't say as I can find anything glaringly false in her account of events.
To believe Andy seems just ridiculous in my view. He destroyed any semblance of that in the interview *he* insisted upon.
<ahref="https://youtu.be/ylF53eJZniw">The room next door
Deserves a replay
Innocent men get told by their lawyers to stay out of courtrooms because sometimes they get the wrong verdict. See The Secret Barrister et al.
I don't believe Andrew is innocent, but I had no idea innocent people frequently go bankrupt in the UK after reform of the legal aid rules until I read his books.
Access to justice is not equal any more. And we haven’t noticed because "it couldn't happen to us".
(Admittedly more likely to be criminal cases than civil)
We also have a misplaced idea that the justice system is perfect.
We also have a misplaced idea that the justice system is perfect.
Having worked with it in different forms for pretty much all my working life, I know it isn't perfect. The question to balance is how many guilty people do you want get off on technicalities in order to stop one innocent person being wrongly convicted?
and I don’t think he can afford not to unless a judge says he doesn’t have to
Not sure how that works with his repeated attempts to avoid court on technicalities then. I would have thought if your scenario was right he would be demanding to go to court. Since whilst innocent until proven guilty is good as a general approach I think a lot of people will judge that avoiding the chance of being proven using an agreement signed with a convicted sex offender is pushing it a bit.
Wouldn't Guiffre's case be a good one for a no-win-no-fee or a pro bono? Surely a decent law firm could find a way of getting their money back as well as nailing this odious prick?
Having worked with it in different forms for pretty much all my working life, I know it isn’t perfect. The question to balance is how many guilty people do you want get off on technicalities in order to stop one innocent person being wrongly convicted?
I'm not even talking about that, I'm thinking more of people not being protected from themselves either because they are stupid or because they can't afford professional representation.
I am left wondering how this vague clause in Epstein's settlement with Victoria Giuffre is supposed to apply to a man who says he never met her?
Wouldn’t Guiffre’s case be a good one for a no-win-no-fee or a pro bono? Surely a decent law firm could find a way of getting their money back as well as nailing this odious prick?
Given that it's a civil action being brought in America, I'm assuming that's what's happening.
I am left wondering how this vague clause in Epstein’s settlement with Victoria Giuffre is supposed to apply to a man who says he never met her?
Like I said above, according to the BBC his lawyers will point out that Roberts mentioned "royalty" in her complaint, the one which the agreement settled. So they can dodge the "so you are admitting to being involved with Roberts by claiming this applies to you" point by saying "no, she had accused us (and as we continue to say she is an unreliable accuser and it is a baseless accusation), that is what makes us a potential defendant". This depends on there being no/few other royalty at Epstein parties of course.
I am left wondering how this vague clause in Epstein’s settlement with Victoria Giuffre is supposed to apply to a man who says he never met her?
The converse is that the agreement cover's the people she claims were part of the abuse so therefore excludes further civil claims for damages from the people she claims to have been abused by.
I imagine the lawyers will say that she in effect can't seek further damages from anyone based on the settlement. Whether Prince Andrew is one of them is irrelevant for the court. Whether that is legally correct is one thing, moral another question.
From Twitter
Lisa Bloom
@LisaBloom
Virginia Giuffre's settlement agreement with Jeffrey Epstein was released today. Prince Andrew argues that her settlement with Epstein releases him as well, and therefore her case against him should be dismissed. I've done hundreds of these over 35 years Here's why he is wrong
Virginia's settlement agreement includes truly unusual and bizarre language that I would never allow in a settlement agreement: that claims against "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is also released. WHAT???
Contracts must be clear and specific. This is incomprehensibly vague. Virginia can never sue any others who wronged her, because she settled with Epstein? This makes no sense, and flies in the face of NY law which grants sexual abuse survivors more time to sue.
Why? Because we want perpetrators to be brought to justice. Dismissing Virginia's case against Prince Andrew would undermine that important goal. Also . . .
Contracts are strictly construed against the drafter. I'm sure that Epstein's fleet of lawyers drafted her settlement agreement. Ambiguities are construed in her favor. I just can't get over that she releases any other possible person, now or forever, who wronged her. No.
I imagine the lawyers will say that she in effect can’t seek further damages from anyone based on the settlement.
No, that would be doomed to failure, they have to find an angle which allows them to say it relates to him (and possibly a few others) in particular. Which they have, although all that does is give them a rather weak-looking argument.
I think i read somewhere that Dershowitz recently used this agreement to successfully throw out the claim against himself.
What we haven’t seen yet is any corroborating evidence by either party.( I thought it odd that Roberts was not called to testify against Maxwell, )
I'd predict that a defense of "You can't sue me because my nonce mate paid you not to sue all his other nonce mates" isn't go to be a successful as Andrew would like it to be frankly
Could the Daily Mail* pull the same stunt it did over Stephen Lawrence? By stepping in and openly accusing him so that he's forced to take it to court in a liable case?
*an unlikely ally.
I'll be honest and say that I don't understand why this case is going to court.
I can't beleive that there is any REAL proof for either side to use in their case.
If you are her how do you prove that you were coerced into having sex with Prince Andrew?
If you are him how do you prove that you didn't have sex with Ms Giuffre?
I totally understand why he wants to avoid court - the case is unwinnable for him and she is likely to win simply because Epstein was involved and he's been convicted! Andrew will be guilty by association and that is not right/fair or good use of the justice system.
He may well have done the deed but he shouldn't be convicted as it cannot be proven.
He may well be totally guilty. He could be innocent as well. Not sure if this should be played out in public, considering its not a criminal case, no one has been found guilty yet and the claimant is seeking monetary damages, and not a criminal investigation by the police.
no one has been found guilty yet
Well, two people have been found guilty, and gone to prison. Andrew can't go to prison... so he's being chased for money.
Yes, that, in an ideal world, justice would be blind and all that.
However. Thing is, the odious royal turd already chose to torch himself on Newsnight. The lid was never going back on the box after that.
Andrew can’t go to prison
Whilst, he can't be arrested in a Royal Palace, or in the presence of The Queen, he can be arrested anywhere else... so maybe we'll yet see him stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure.