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.

My reading of that settlement document, with the benefit of today's hindsight, is that it was drawn up ostensibly to protect only Epstein from future Giuffre claims - but that one of the co-authors, his attorney Alan Dershowitz, rather deviously used it as a way to attempt to insert himself as a protected person alongside his pal Jeffrey. That's their circus, especially with Epstein dead and Maxwell convicted and her perjury charges relating to the Giuffre deal still in the air.

Andrew's lawyers are trying to cling onto the shitty tail of this Trojan Horse of a settlement.

Anyone else following @houseinhabit on Instagram? Sorry if that’s been said, haven’t read fully through both threads. Her stories are interesting

Was it the Queen that sackedmade PA stand down from public duties? I wonder if she made the decision off her own bat or whether she was advised to , I can't see him suggesting it.

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.

Definitely not true. It clearly applies to civil cases given the reference to demands for damages.

You can read the full text of the deal at s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21172662/giuffre-epstein-prince-andrew.pdf

I can't say I understand the legalities of it all but this agreement does show how the rich and powerful get away with murder.
We hear and read about this stuff but it is quite something to see it there in black and white.

@SpindleSpangle

My reading of that settlement document, with the benefit of today's hindsight, is that it was drawn up ostensibly to protect only Epstein from future Giuffre claims - but that one of the co-authors, his attorney Alan Dershowitz, rather deviously used it as a way to attempt to insert himself as a protected person alongside his pal Jeffrey. That's their circus, especially with Epstein dead and Maxwell convicted and her perjury charges relating to the Giuffre deal still in the air.

Andrew's lawyers are trying to cling onto the shitty tail of this Trojan Horse of a settlement.

Dershowitz was involved in defending Epstein in the 2008 criminal case and drawing up the non-prosecution agreement that came out of that case. I may be wrong but as far as I can see Dershowitz had no involvement in the civil case at all (Jane Doe No. 102 vs Jeffrey Epstein), and therefore was not involved in drawing up this agreement.

It reads to me as if it was clearly intended to throw the net as wide as possible - note the reference to "from the beginning of the world to the day of this release", for example.

@SpindleSpangle The case against Dershowitz was dropped because "FBI chief Louis J. Freeh, who launched an investigation with several former agents and concluded that Dershowitz could not have been at the locations where the civil suit alleges he had sex with “Jane Doe No. 3.”
www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/11/lawyers-drop-dershowitz-case/

Surely if you phrase a clause very broadly and generally, at some point it becomes meaningless and unenforceable?

You can't sue me or my mates ever for anything we did to you at my house- whatever that may be?

Can that be legally binding?

@LizzieW1969

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.

I didn't watch the interview apart from brief clips, but the arrogance is quite breathtaking. He mentions the word 'unbecoming' in relation to Epstein. Emily Maitlis gives him a flat eyed stare and states 'he was a sex offender'. He replies 'I was trying to be polite'. Puke. Why any need to be polite about scum. Scum that he was happy to be scum with.

Oh gawd I got my Dershowitz deals mixed up, apols. I'm only starting to untangle this, like many lay-people. I was confusing that deal with this deal

Despite sworn accounts from more than a dozen women, Dershowitz and his team secured a deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to minor charges and served only a brief sentence.

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/alan-dershowitz-devils-advocate

And thanks to @howdiditcometothis666 and @prh47bridge btw for their info.

I know it's not how the legal system works but it seems so wrong that just because an agreement has been signed promising not to sue, PA can get away with crimes like this.

It's one thing to receive a payout to keep quiet for something that's not so damaging or serious but this is truly disgusting and (in my world) agreements like this would be able to be over ruled .

Who would have thought that PA was so thick to knowingly get himself into this? A Royal, like he did not have much to loose right?

@Maskedsingerispants

Anyone else following *@houseinhabit* on Instagram? Sorry if that’s been said, haven’t read fully through both threads. Her stories are interesting

I am now. Thanks for that link.

Watching.

@Vapeyvapevape

I know it's not how the legal system works but it seems so wrong that just because an agreement has been signed promising not to sue, PA can get away with crimes like this. It's one thing to receive a payout to keep quiet for something that's not so damaging or serious but this is truly disgusting and (in my world) agreements like this would be able to be over ruled .

I would have thought the agreement could not prevent the US authorities from investigating Prince Andrew and, if they found sufficient evidence of a crime, prosecuting him. That would always have been in their remit.

rosamacrose

I don't do IG but do Twitter, do you know if she is on there?

Good to see the BBC aren't brushing this under the carpet this morning, and today's rulings are first news up.

This article.... not what it seems... sums it up really

This morning this...

"Giuffre's attorney David Boies said contents of the settlement are "irrelevant" to his client's claim and expressed confidence that her lawsuit would be allowed to proceed. "The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it," he 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."

@Roussette that sounds promising

I would have thought the agreement could not prevent the US authorities from investigating Prince Andrew and, if they found sufficient evidence of a crime, prosecuting him.

Like the UK authorities tried to prosecute Anne Sacoolas, you mean? So far, they have failed.

@Vapeyvapevape

I know it's not how the legal system works but it seems so wrong that just because an agreement has been signed promising not to sue, PA can get away with crimes like this. It's one thing to receive a payout to keep quiet for something that's not so damaging or serious but this is truly disgusting and (in my world) agreements like this would be able to be over ruled .

The agreement cannot take away criminal liability. If Andrew was subject to criminal prosecution this document would not offer any protection. If it protects him at all, which is in dispute, it only protects him against civil action by VG.

@Florianus

I would have thought the agreement could not prevent the US authorities from investigating Prince Andrew and, if they found sufficient evidence of a crime, prosecuting him.

Like the UK authorities tried to prosecute Anne Sacoolas, you mean? So far, they have failed.

Very different situation. Diplomatic immunity is intended to protect people from criminal prosecution. An agreement like this one between VG and Epstein cannot do so.

@Roussette

This morning this...

"Giuffre's attorney David Boies said contents of the settlement are "irrelevant" to his client's claim and expressed confidence that her lawsuit would be allowed to proceed. "The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it," he 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."

I don't understand why Giuffre's attorney argues Andrew was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida. He clearly is subject to jurisdiction in New York. I don't see why the same would not apply to Florida. I also don't see the relevance of the Florida case including claims of which he was not a part. The agreement doesn't appear to limit protection in the way being suggested here.

The final sentence is disingenuous. The actual parties to the release were VG and Epstein. Epstein is dead and did not, as far as I can tell, express any view on the matter prior to his death. So really, it appears VG's attorney is saying that VG has made it clear that Andrew is not covered by the release. That is very much in the "she would, wouldn't she" category.

Extradition is a complex and often unsuccessful business. It was the UK High Court which determined that Anne Sacerloos has diplomatic immunity, and that immunity includes the civil case that the Dunn family has tried to mount against Mrs Sacerloos.

US lawyer on R4 now saying PA will have an uphill battle getting a judge to throw out the case due to the fact that PA would have to admit he thought he was a defendent which isn't where he wants to be.