Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

He will get away with it because he is in a position of great power. That's what it always comes down to - who has the most power.

The problem is that we are all commenting on the basis of UK law. What really matters here is US law.

There isn't any US law though, each state has it's own law. This settlement agreement was brought under Florida state. What I'm unclear about is whether this still stands in the current case which I believe is being brought under New York law. The NY lawyers seem to be arguing the agreement doesn't apply on that basis.

This makes for fairly interesting reading:

lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwell-claims-its-clear-explicit-and-unambiguous-that-jeffrey-epsteins-2007-plea-deal-protects-her-to-this-day/

Seems Epstein's 2007 'sweetheart deal' was deemed to apply only to the named beneficiaries and was too broad in scope to protect Maxwell. We all know how that ended.

As we know with law if something has the right key to unlock something that's all that matters. Nothing precludes anything and if I was vg legal team before I touched her case I'd be pretty sure of what was in that document and how it would affect us before making a song and dance about pa proving he cant sweat.

Ph4 has been a wonderful legal advisor on here for years

Caveat : it's an open forum who knows what people are BUT over the years I've never ever seen anything less than what strikes me as basic legal advice from some one who knows the law.
I have often sounded things out on here before instructing solicitors on various matters and have found legal people here extremely helpful and useful so please, let's be kind to pH 4.

Duncin, interesting.

There will be arguments over this. At the time I think vg was a lone voice or one of a few lone voices agaisnt an extremely powerful man who had people drawing up how to devide the west bank in his house!!
All kinds of unexplained visits from government people?

At that time there wasn't the strength of momentum swing we see now with Harvey weinstein etc all being taken down.

The UK solicitor said because its too broad it can't be taken seriously.

@wheresmymojo

I'm hoping the US lawyers have a good double bluff game...he positions himself as part of the group of people excluded from VG being able to sue them...and then one of the other women sues him and they use it against him.

Good shout.

And/or that it isn't tactical or permitted for VG to unseal that ridiculous agreement, so Andrew did it for her.

And/or it's better tactics / optics for Andrew to do it, for reasons discussed upthread.

He will get away with it because he is in a position of great power. That's what it always comes down to - who has the most power.

I’m not sure in this instance PA is in a position of great power (he likes to think he is) but, if he gets away with it then it will be down to the judges interpretation of the document and which side the judge feels legally is the best to land it. It’s the Judge’s call and PA (or the RF) have no influence over that in the US. Getting a top legal team is the best he can do. I expect PA is feeling a bit sweaty now.

If the document was sealed, how did Prince Andrew's lawyers know that there was something in there that might apply to him (PA)?

Thanks to everyone posting links. I've enjoyed the Body Language experts one !

[quote Vapeyvapevape]@BelleHathor that’s shocking, honestly the whole RF should go.[/quote]
Fully agree and all the people that were complicit in facilitating it. The forgotten people are all the women and children that were harmed by people turning a blind eye. Even that reporter seemed more upset by being scooped than the abuse that had occurred.

Yes, the body language experts were good.
I'd forgotten how cringe that interview was.

There isn't any US law though, each state has it's own law. This settlement agreement was brought under Florida state. What I'm unclear about is whether this still stands in the current case which I believe is being brought under New York law. The NY lawyers seem to be arguing the agreement doesn't apply on that basis.

There is some federal law but yes, this is about state law.

I don't see that the argument about it not having standing in New York will fly. If it did, VG would have been able to take Epstein's money then sue him again in a different state. My understanding is that their argument is actually slightly different. I think they are arguing that Andrew was not a potential defendant in the Florida case and therefore is not covered. Given the wording of the agreement, I'm not convinced that argument flies either.

I've given the wording on page 2 some thought. My view is that interpreting it in the way suggested on the Eddie Mair show means it contradicts the previous paragraphs. I therefore suspect that is not the correct interpretation. I think it is intended to stop Epstein using the agreement as a defence against cases brought by other complainants, and to stop such complainants using the agreement as evidence against Epstein. However, the courts in New York may take a different view.

@prh47bridge

IANAL. However, if Epstein's lawyer has already successfully relied on this agreement to avoid litigation, then that has set a precedent in one court. Will that have any bearing in the NY court?

@SpaceshiptoMars - Not sure if Epstein's lawyer has used this, nor am I entirely sure how precedent works in the US. My understanding is that a precedent is only binding if it is made by a court that would hear appeals from this court. So, a finding in the courts of one state is persuasive but not binding on the courts of another state. However, I believe that, in practice, judges in one state tend to follow relevant precedents set elsewhere.

If there is a relevant precedent relating to this agreement, it may establish the validity of the agreement. Whether it would go beyond that and establish its applicability in this case depends on the details.

So the short answer to your question is "maybe"!

@Curlygirl06

If the document was sealed, how did Prince Andrew's lawyers know that there was something in there that might apply to him (PA)?

Apparently, the document has been available to all parties in both this case and VG's case against Alan Dershowitz for some time. I don't know how this came about.

For those asking about Lord(🤮)Mountbatten

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/book-links-mountbatten-to-sex-abuse-at-kincora-boys-home-vm39680bn

Thanks @prh47bridge for the informative posts. Good to see you on the thread.

I would have thought Prince Andrew could only be protected by the agreement if Virginia Guiffre could allege some concrete facts against him. Otherwise the agreement could apply to anyone on earth, and that doesn't reflect how its worded.

Law aside, it does seem to me that the agreement still causes Prince Andrew an enormous PR problem: in the eyes of the public he admits wrongdoing by claiming the protection of the agreement.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Kensington Palace or Clarence House tonight.

@TomPinch

Thanks *@prh47bridge* for the informative posts. Good to see you on the thread.

I would have thought Prince Andrew could only be protected by the agreement if Virginia Guiffre could allege some concrete facts against him. Otherwise the agreement could apply to anyone on earth, and that doesn't reflect how its worded.

Law aside, it does seem to me that the agreement still causes Prince Andrew an enormous PR problem: in the eyes of the public he admits wrongdoing by claiming the protection of the agreement.

My view is that she needs to be able to allege some facts against him, but she doesn't need to be able to prove them, so it tells us nothing about whether the facts are true or not.

I agree that, from a PR perspective, it would be better for Andrew if this went to trial, his lawyers exposed a load of contradictions in VG's account and he won (note that I am not saying that is what would happen), although even then there would be people who would continue to believe her. However, his legal team's priority is winning. From that perspective, stopping her bringing the case at all, if they can, is better than going to trial with all the risks that involves.

Reading the US lawyer Lisa Bloom, she seems to think that this agreement won't stop the case continuing. I do hope she's correct.

I'd imagine that PA is just concerned about the actual trial right now, and not PR. He does not believe he has done anything wrong. In his mind, once it has been thrown out/a court ruling goes in his favour later down the line, it will 'prove' his innocence, and he will be vindicated. Therefore, the PR problem will naturally resolve itself, as he would have proven he was right all along.

I do not believe people will be this stupid/let it go, however I wouldn't be surprised if he did think along these lines - he is arrogant enough.

I am reading that the 'agreement' only applies to a criminal case, and not a civil case, which this is. No idea if that's correct.

The fact that the Queen's son and a Prince is relying on a 'deal' put together by a sex trafficker over 12 years ago is pretty shocking

What I just don't get is... he could have spun this to his advantage. Say he slept with her, he could've put his hands up and said yes, and he didn't realise the circumstances, and then he could've volunteered all the information he knew to help the hundreds of victims. I think he still would be unpopular, and he would have to be pretty low profile but maybe there would have been an element of sympathy for him from the general public. It would have still been bad... very bad... for him but not like this.

IF the case goes ahead it's September and expected to go on until December.

I think Andrew has already lost the PR battle, he lost it from the moment he so obviously lied about knowing VG, despite the evidence of the photo. The public were rightly sickened by his continued friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and also by his lack of compassion for VG and the other victims.

There really is no way back for him now.

IF the case goes ahead it's September and expected to go on until December.

So will overshadow the Platinum Jubilee celebrations ...