eazybee, VG is a multi millionairess. She won’t end up poor and her lawyers wouldn’t be acting for her if they thought there was any danger of not being paid.
Hemiarthroplasty partial hip replacement
What a difference a day makes 😢😢
Gransnet forums
Chat
Prince Andrew Can't Sweat
(1001 Posts)Doing wrong is not black and white even in law.
My own father who of course had never heard of Prince Andrew, could not sweat. My mother , who had never heard of Prince Andrew, told me this when I was was girl . My mother did not explain about the adrenaline thing as she had no medical knowledge, but after Andrew's admission about not sweating . I can understand how hormones are affected by some severe life events. My father was at the Eastern Front during the Great War.
Also in support of Prince Andrew, he probably did not even know that it was illegal or even immoral to shag an unknown and poor seventeen year old girl. Very rich people have odd childhoods, and it takes special efforts by parents and teachers to teach them what real life is.
Did she not signed it to have the money?
The agreement states that it is a "final resolution" of a disputed claim filed in Florida and is intended to avoid litigation but "shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party." The agreement states that it is not to be used in civil or criminal proceedings against Epstein. It was signed by Giuffre and Epstein on different dates in November 2009.
Was it signed under duress? Was she threatened or frightened in any way?
That is only protecting them from Giuffre claiming damages. It does not protect them from the law and being charged with having sex with a minor.
No, it doesn't protect them from the law.
Everyone can access their medical records.
Everyone keeps receipts from Pizza Express
"I believe Epstein’s plane had the name “Lolita Express”
Says it all."
Not quite all. Private aeroplanes are unethical per se, and only very rich people have these toys.
I believe Epstein’s plane had the name “Lolita Express”
Says it all.
In the court document filed last week, Giuffre's attorneys asked for any documents relating to anyone Andrew met at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking, England, or at Club Tramp nightclub in London, and to his travel to and from those places.
Prince Andrew was also asked to provide documents proving his "alleged medical inability to sweat" in the court filing.
His legal team responded that the "defendant is unable to comply" with the request "because no such documents exist in his possession, custody or control."
"A diligent search and a reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand," it said.
Giuffre's attorneys have also demanded any documents concerning Andrew's travel to or from, or presence in, Epstein's planes, Florida, New York, New Mexico and the United States Virgin Islands, according to their filing, as well as documents relating to "all gifts or other things of value" received by Andrew from Epstein or Maxwell "including but not limited to puppets."
VG's lawyers , because it is they who are driving the case, will persist and the judiciary will concede because they all want their enormous legal fees. VG, I think, will end up poor and shamed, once again the victim of powerful people.
I believe the Queen is paying PA's legal fees out of her private (i.e. not taxpayers') money.
Apparently VG tried to sue Epstein's former lawyer, now a professor, in the same way that she is now suing PA, but he successfully argued that this agreement covered him and she had to drop the action.
The agreement is very widely worded and appears on the face of it to be intended to stop VG taking action against any of Epstein's associates who might be a potential defendant. It was executed in Florida and of course US law varies from state to state so I have no idea how it might be construed in an action commenced in New York. It can obviously only cover civil actions or private prosecutions.
I don't understand why VG has been permitted to commence her action in New York when she isn't a US resident, and if PA had sex with her in New York as she claims, at 17 she wasn't then underage under NY law. And of course PA's lawyers are arguing that.
Is he not ‘standing back’ different to saying ‘I want out’, if the Queen was to take all titles away now she would be saying-
he is guilty.
Who is paying Windsor’s legal fees?
The other question I have is.
The Queen has stated that as a non-working royal, you can’t retain your military titles, so why does A Windsor continue to do so?
Anniebach
No one here had sex at 17 ?
Here we go again. No, not with a deeply creepy man 23 years my senior after I had been trafficked. But maybe I had a very unadventurous childhood.
The trouble is if you read it, it is so vague that one wonders if Giuffre could sue anyone for anything.
I don’t think that the judge will allow it to stand, but we will see today I guess.
From the wording I would say that it was Epstien's intention to protect everyone with the one off payment. That is only protecting them from Giuffre claiming damages. It does not protect them from the law and being charged with having sex with a minor.
Whitewavemark2
Sorry about the two lots. This site is b…y useless.
Been thinking about the above agreement and am wondering how on Earth an agreement could possibly hold which states that Giuffre cannot pursue legal action against persons who have done her any harm.
It seems to go against all that common sense tells me should be the case.
That no one who has perpetrated a crime should be able to hide behind a let out clause.
No idea either, but I’ve never understood the US law system, e.g. plea bargaining,
or ‘ if an American woman kills a boy in England, she can’t be made to return to England for trial’.
On the other hand, there is a type of ‘hiding behind a let out clause’ being allowed over here, so we’re no better.
The other thing is that Windsor was not specifically mentioned so how can we know that Epstein’s intention was to protect him?
Sorry about the two lots. This site is b…y useless.
Been thinking about the above agreement and am wondering how on Earth an agreement could possibly hold which states that Giuffre cannot pursue legal action against persons who have done her any harm.
It seems to go against all that common sense tells me should be the case.
That no one who has perpetrated a crime should be able to hide behind a let out clause.
Bugger!
4
Lastly, the reason we sought to have the release made public was to refute the claims being made about it by Prince Andrew's PR campaign."
3
The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it," Boies said. "He could not have been a 'potential defendant' in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part. The actual parties to the release have made clear that Prince Andrew was not covered by it.
2
Giuffre's attorney David Boies issued a statement saying the settlement is "irrelevant" to her claim against the prince.
Because of this useless site I’m copying this stuff in small amounts.
“The agreement states that it is a "final resolution" of a disputed claim filed in Florida and is intended to avoid litigation but "shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party." The agreement states that it is not to be used in civil or criminal proceedings against Epstein. It was signed by Giuffre and Epstein on different dates in November 2009.”
“The settlement between Epstein and Giuffre
The agreement states that it is a "final resolution" of a disputed claim filed in Florida and is intended to avoid litigation but "shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party." The agreement states that it is not to be used in civil or criminal proceedings against Epstein. It was signed by Giuffre and Epstein on different dates in November 2009.
Giuffre's attorney David Boies issued a statement saying the settlement is "irrelevant" to her claim against the prince.
The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it," Boies said. "He could not have been a 'potential defendant' in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part. The actual parties to the release have made clear that Prince Andrew was not covered by it.
Lastly, the reason we sought to have the release made public was to refute the claims being made about it by Prince Andrew's PR campaign."
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
