it doesnt seem like there is much wiggle room left. be a brave judge to throw it out & allow her challenge to continue .
Seems like there's a fair bit to me. She had an agreement with Epstein but the part that extends that to anyone else for anything else at anytime seems to be on very dodgy ground. If constructs like that are allowed to stand then people can just write their own get-out-of-jail cards for all their dodgy mates.
are you talking about the official secrets act ? do try to keep to the subject, she signed an agreement to make her reasonably rich, if she wanted more she should have held out longer or got better legal representation. Make no mistake Andrew is thoroughly entangled , but she has given him a way out. lets see what the judge does later .
I'm not talking about the Official Secrets Act. But if I was I'm sure US courts wouldn't give two hoots about it.
Your spiky 'Do try to keep to the subject' comments would go down better if that was what anyone was actually talking about.
And people wonder why this board is going downhill.
Seems like there's a fair bit to me. She had an agreement with Epstein but the part that extends that to anyone else for anything else at anytime seems to be on very dodgy ground. If constructs like that are allowed to stand then people can just write their own get-out-of-jail cards for all their dodgy mates.
are you talking about the official secrets act ? do try to keep to the subject, she signed an agreement to make her reasonably rich, if she wanted more she should have held out longer or got better legal representation. Make no mistake Andrew is thoroughly entangled , but she has given him a way out. lets see what the judge does later .
I'm not talking about the Official Secrets Act. But if I was I'm sure US courts wouldn't give two hoots about it.
Your spiky 'Do try to keep to the subject' comments would go down better if that was what anyone was actually talking about.
And people wonder why this board is going downhill.
The reason places go downhill is usually because people dont understand stuff. once it is explained they ignore the facts. to summise . a legal deal was signed for financial reward. that leave new legal cases precariously placed . Its not difficult to follow !
It’s almost irrelevant what the document says, tbh. On the face of it, she signed, of her own free will, a legal document that ensured she received a one-off payment of $500k on the condition that she could not bring any further claims against anyone in relation to the original claim. That document was written by Epstein’s legal team, so I’d imagine it would be pretty watertight. Having read over it, it does seem quite definite.
But remember this is a civil case, not a criminal one. It can only result in a financial penalty against Andrew, not a prison sentence. And anyway, there’s no way he’ll ever end up in a US court. Not a chance.
Stowaway wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:27 pm
It’s almost irrelevant what the document says, tbh. On the face of it, she signed, of her own free will, a legal document that ensured she received a one-off payment of $500k on the condition that she could not bring any further claims against anyone in relation to the original claim. That document was written by Epstein’s legal team, so I’d imagine it would be pretty watertight. Having read over it, it does seem quite definite.
But remember this is a civil case, not a criminal one. It can only result in a financial penalty against Andrew, not a prison sentence. And anyway, there’s no way he’ll ever end up in a US court. Not a chance.
It also says if Epstien agreed to it she could make a claim , as he is now dead i doubt an agreement will be forthcoming . still anythings possible !
are you talking about the official secrets act ? do try to keep to the subject, she signed an agreement to make her reasonably rich, if she wanted more she should have held out longer or got better legal representation. Make no mistake Andrew is thoroughly entangled , but she has given him a way out. lets see what the judge does later .
I'm not talking about the Official Secrets Act. But if I was I'm sure US courts wouldn't give two hoots about it.
Your spiky 'Do try to keep to the subject' comments would go down better if that was what anyone was actually talking about.
And people wonder why this board is going downhill.
The reason places go downhill is usually because people dont understand stuff. once it is explained they ignore the facts. to summise . a legal deal was signed for financial reward. that leave new legal cases precariously placed . Its not difficult to follow !
Referencing the Official Secrets Act in the context of an american civil suit indicates to me that you are the one not understanding 'stuff'.
But regardless, the point at issue is whether the clause that extended the immunity beyond Epstein to any and all unnamed future persons of interest is sufficiently watertight legally. It sounds pretty vague and far reaching to me. I think we can all agree that Andrew will not be in any serious peril whatever happens - he might just have to swerve Florida holidays for a while.
soloman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:36 am
Sounds like she sold her sole and her rights !
it doesnt seem like there is much wiggle room left. be a brave judge to throw it out & allow her challenge to continue .
Seems like there's a fair bit to me. She had an agreement with Epstein but the part that extends that to anyone else for anything else at anytime seems to be on very dodgy ground. If constructs like that are allowed to stand then people can just write their own get-out-of-jail cards for all their dodgy mates.
referencing the official secrets act was my response to your last sentance above .
it doesnt seem like there is much wiggle room left. be a brave judge to throw it out & allow her challenge to continue .
Seems like there's a fair bit to me. She had an agreement with Epstein but the part that extends that to anyone else for anything else at anytime seems to be on very dodgy ground. If constructs like that are allowed to stand then people can just write their own get-out-of-jail cards for all their dodgy mates.
are you talking about the official secrets act ? do try to keep to the subject, she signed an agreement to make her reasonably rich, if she wanted more she should have held out longer or got better legal representation. Make no mistake Andrew is thoroughly entangled , but she has given him a way out. lets see what the judge does later .
Wasn't the original case about child trafficking, whereas this is about sexual assault? Don't see how this doesn't progress.
Seems like there's a fair bit to me. She had an agreement with Epstein but the part that extends that to anyone else for anything else at anytime seems to be on very dodgy ground. If constructs like that are allowed to stand then people can just write their own get-out-of-jail cards for all their dodgy mates.
are you talking about the official secrets act ? do try to keep to the subject, she signed an agreement to make her reasonably rich, if she wanted more she should have held out longer or got better legal representation. Make no mistake Andrew is thoroughly entangled , but she has given him a way out. lets see what the judge does later .
Wasn't the original case about child trafficking, whereas this is about sexual assault? Don't see how this doesn't progress.
Andrew didnt traffic , epsien did & her financial settlement makes clear future possible targets were "safe " from her persuing further settlements. The U.S love a lawyer or 2 getting paid , so wont be suprised if the judge says carry on to court case. if its about rape , then why is it not a criminal case ?
The agreement cleary states she would not bring cases against potential abusers. why else would any judge need to think about & then decide ? if its what as you say , then its straight to a criminal trial followed by a new civil case surely . Abuser/defendent just for clarity.
Maxwells Lawyers call for Re-trial over juror was discovered to have lied/misled questionaire screening over his own child abuse experience . He said no when he should have said yes. abuse against himnot by him.
This seems very odd. As far as I can see, the juror has stated since the trial that he told the other jurors, during deliberation, that he'd been a victim of child sexual abuse. He claims he did so during a discussion on whether victims' recollections could be incomplete in some areas yet still be true.
On the face of it, it looks like she'd have grounds for a new trial. There'll need to be some investigation into this though. If, as he's claimed, he told fellow jurors about this, why did none of them pipe up about it at the time? They'd all signed the same questionnaire so they all must have known that being a former victim (or even being a family member of a victim) would preclude them from the trial.
The conspiratorially-minded might wonder if he's been got at since the trial. It'll be very interesting to hear if other jurors remember the conversation.
Not sure if it has come up, but my problem with the trial is that it is a civil lawsuit and all that will happen is Prince Andrew will only be slightly less rich even if he loses.
Couldnt we just save time and have him pay her out now.
SvenO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:33 pm
Not sure if it has come up, but my problem with the trial is that it is a civil lawsuit and all that will happen is Prince Andrew will only be slightly less rich even if he loses.
Couldnt we just save time and have him pay her out now.
It appears that she's not interested in the cash and won't be open to a settlement. That's the point of the action, apparently. Remains to be seen if that's still her position if offered big chunk of change, but she's stated that she's more interested in her day in court rather than compo.
SvenO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:33 pm
Not sure if it has come up, but my problem with the trial is that it is a civil lawsuit and all that will happen is Prince Andrew will only be slightly less rich even if he loses.
Couldnt we just save time and have him pay her out now.
It appears that she's not interested in the cash and won't be open to a settlement. That's the point of the action, apparently. Remains to be seen if that's still her position if offered big chunk of change, but she's stated that she's more interested in her day in court rather than compo.
The cash will come later, you are right.
But the punishment is a payout from someone who can afford it.
