Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jeffrey Epstein thread

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

  • WOM
    replied
    Peter Nygard to be charged in Canada, and will be extradited to the US to face his charges there. Ah well.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...o-begin-today/

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    The New York court hasn't ruled on the validity of the service already effected,

    This is just preserving options and short-circuiting objections.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Though presumably, as they are pursuing this now, the New York has indicated that giving them papers to a police officer wasn't actually sufficient and they are, as yet, unserved. Or are they simply doubling their options here and the that may yet count as serving them?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Is it?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58574350

    It was only a matter of time before Giuffre's counsel were able to overcome their persnickety approach to the Hague Convention Rules.

    He was never going to avoid this suit on procedural grounds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    The High Court ruling against Andrew today seems like huge news.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evariste Euler Gauss
    replied
    from the most recent of the many Tripadvisor reviews of Pizza Express Woking:

    No problems getting served - unlike my posh pal Andy who has a peculiar knack of disappearing every time someone attempts to serve him, not that it ever causes him to break a sweat.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    As it is a defence, the burden is on the defendants to establish the relevant elements.

    The plaintiffs can (and will, should it go forward) claim in response that the agreement is void and thst even if it isn't, it isn't specific enough to cover the defendants.

    I haven't seen the agreement (I'm not sure it has ever been made public), but it has always struck me as an absolute miscarriage of justice as described. I would also not be surprised if Dershowitz is in a better position than the prince, as he reportedly participated in its negotiation.

    Leave a comment:


  • NHH
    replied
    Would the plaintiffs have to establish the agreement didn't apply to Dershowitz/Andrew, or do they have to establish it does? And if the former, would that take the form of establishing it was a pile of bullshit that violated Federal Law and had no validity, or would they try to establish that regardless of the wider validity, it didn't apply to Dershowitz or Andrew as they weren't associates in the enterprise?

    That latter argument is an intriguing one isn't it though - you can't sue us, because Epstein got a blanket exemption which covers everyone involved in this shit, which includes us.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    They have been arguing this for a while, it being essentially the same defence that Dershowitz has been using.

    It relies on the godawful settlement agreement that Epstein got in Florida, which reportedly release all of his associates from related claims (neither Andrew nor Dershowitz claim that they are specifically named, only that they are covered).

    The issue has never been fully litigated and lots of observers think that it isn't the Get Out of Jail Free card they think that it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    "We have never met and I have this signed agreement between us to prove it."

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    What's the difference between Emma Raducano and Prince Andrew?

    Emma's not afraid of American courts.

    (As seen on Facebook)

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    He's not a big man for considering other people's opinions. I suspect at this stage he is actively hostile to the idea. I wonder how a New York judge is going to look on the claim that giving the court papers to someone's police detail, who is preventing you from giving it to the person himself doesn't count.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evariste Euler Gauss
    replied
    Prince Andrew's lawyer says NY case is baseless and non-viable - BBC News

    Hmm, I can't help thinking that Andrew's lawyer saying the case against Andrew is baseless "because a 2009 legal agreement between Epstein and Virginia Giuffre released him from all liability" might, in Andrew's interest, have usefully been run past the PR people first. Not a great look, really. Or have they stopped giving a toss, on the basis that they realise 99% of the UK population already believe that he did what she is accusing him of?

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1426688637945647105?s=19

    No surprise that we're paying the legal fees for this alleged paedophile.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    I expect that she insisted that they try

    I would be shocked if it worked

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...droidApp_Other

    Maxwell's lawyers try the same tactic as Cosby.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    What a shitbag.

    Castor’s starring role in Cosby’s release marked the second time this year that the firebrand former DA found the glare of the national spotlight he is known to love.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    I believe that there aren't any pending, but am not at all sure.

    One question I had is whether there were other states in which the statute of limitations for criminal cases has yet to run. I don't believe that his crimes were limited to Pennsylvania.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    What is the status(es) of the civil cases against him? Can he still be sued back to the Stone Age?

    Leave a comment:


  • Evariste Euler Gauss
    replied
    Did Bill Cosby not get his own thread on here?

    Anyway, red faces at BBC TV News, where Michelle Fleury, in her report from Pennsylvania, said "Bill Clinton" instead of "Bill Cosby", without even realising she'd done it. Huw had to apologise for it when they finally cut back to the studio.

    Leave a comment:


  • S. aureus
    replied
    I can't help sympathizing with this reply:
    https://twitter.com/BlyssLioness/status/1410282359988031491

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    The courts reached in a different conclusion

    Different agreement, different law, different jurisdictions

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Why would Epstein kill himself when he perhaps had the same get out of jail card that Cosby has played?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Not a dumb question at all, but I don't know enough of the background to give a solid answer.

    The victim's civil lawyers may have asked the prosecutor if something could have been done about Crosby's taking the fifth, or s/he could have done it on her/his own motion. There might also have been some state party to the civil action, but that is much less common in the US than it is in civil law countries.

    There are echoes of the Epstein deal here, and I'm rather surprised that this got all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without it being discussed more in the media.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger Yellow
    replied
    Dumb question, why is a prosecutor involved in a civil suit?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X