Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Andrew formerly known as Prince (was: Jeffrey Epstein thread)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    I don't recall TV interviews with unrepentant child sex traffickers, whose victims number 500+ over 20+ years.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    She's declared 'the photo' a fake, the child raping POS. Hope it paid well for Kyle to give her that additional oxygen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruno
    replied
    Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
    It appears that it is perfectly OK for a TV channel to interview a convicted sex trafficker, as Jeremy Kyle is going to be speaking to Ghislaine Maxwell on TalkTV.
    TV channels interview criminals all the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    It appears that it is perfectly OK for a TV channel to interview a convicted sex trafficker, as Jeremy Kyle is going to be speaking to Ghislaine Maxwell on TalkTV.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimski
    replied
    Ah gotcha. No worries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Yes, apologies.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Yeah, one cannot obtain any kind of "immunity" from settling a civil law suit with a private party.

    I think Satchmo meant settling Giuffre's claims, thus avoiding a trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimski
    replied
    Surely if it's a crime, it's a crime? Can't see how paying money to someone can change that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    My understanding is that he didn't pay that money primarily for the gagging order but to get legal immunity. She can say what she wants but it won't be a police matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    https://twitter.com/lorrainemking/status/1609483284706197505?t=8uBUHPJkgjH0TqpSL16vxg&s=19

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Originally posted by WOM View Post

    Oh, yeah, I can see that now.

    I think I remember reading about a brother (Epstein's now) but never parents. I assume he had some.
    He came from rather mundane surroundings. His dad was a gardener for the Parks Department and I don't think his mom worked outside the home. His father died in the 80s or 90s, his mom soon after the turn of the millennium.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    It is all too early to tell.

    The offshore structures that FTX used aren't something that one gets for 10 USD off the internet.
    The CFTC doesn't think it is too early (from the complaint filed today, emphasis added)

    Contrary to such representations and without disclosure to FTX customers, Alameda and FTX comingled funds and freely used FTX customer funds as if they were their own, including as capital to deploy in their own trading and investment activities. On information and belief, Bankman-Fried, his parents, and other FTX and Alameda employees used FTX customer funds for a variety of personal expenditures, including luxury real estate purchases, private jets, documented and undocumented personal loans, and personal political donations.
    Last edited by ursus arctos; 14-12-2022, 00:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    Financial crimes leave plenty of trails, both paper and people. They sound like otherwise good people who fell into the 'support your child's endeavour' trap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    They are both professors at Stanford Law School.

    His mother has taught ethics and has "written extensively on questions of distributive justice, in the areas of tax policy, property theory and political theory". His father's "writings on tax policy cover topics such as progressivity, consumption tax and the role of tax in the structure of Silicon Valley start-ups."

    I tend to doubt that they will ever open up completely.
    You'd think they'd have covered their arses; left no trails.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    Originally posted by Balderdasha View Post
    I thought you were talking about Epstein's parents for a bit.
    Oh, yeah, I can see that now.

    I think I remember reading about a brother (Epstein's now) but never parents. I assume he had some.

    Leave a comment:


  • Balderdasha
    replied
    I thought you were talking about Epstein's parents for a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/t...smid=share-url

    If anyone is interested.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    They are both professors at Stanford Law School.

    His mother has taught ethics and has "written extensively on questions of distributive justice, in the areas of tax policy, property theory and political theory". His father's "writings on tax policy cover topics such as progressivity, consumption tax and the role of tax in the structure of Silicon Valley start-ups."

    I tend to doubt that they will ever open up completely.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
    Annoyingly, 'Epsteined' is now being used as a verb whenever someone who could implicate others is arrested; Sam Bankman-Fried's arrest being the latest to cause the word to trend on social media.
    Apparently his undoing has precipitated his [widely respected] parents' undoing, the full breadth of which is yet to be explored. He a taxation professor and her a law professor. Should make for a very interesting book one day.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Brain worms are common among those who drive such things

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Annoyingly, 'Epsteined' is now being used as a verb whenever someone who could implicate others is arrested; Sam Bankman-Fried's arrest being the latest to cause the word to trend on social media.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Basically that

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    I'm not a lawyer, obvs, but my honest reading is that, even if it's true, she can't prove a thing, and she knows it and he knows it, and it's in nobody's best interest for this to proceed.
    My uncharitable reading is that he's going to take the win and not crush her like a bug, which, were he 100% innocent, I've no doubt he'd do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    Was always by far the most likely outcome
    I'm very confused, what does it mean?

    Do they both know that too much will come out, she cannot win and he'll be badly damaged so it's legalese for you win some you lose some.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Was always by far the most likely outcome

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X