Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • ursus arctos
    replied
    That isn't the relevant standard here (not sure if is anywhere, to be honest)

    Leave a comment:


  • ooh aah
    replied
    If she was employed, then she she can provide pay slips and her income tax record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    I don’t follow the logic of the first sentence at all. What she would have to prove is she was employed, and that any acts she may have committed that resulted in a legal charge stemmed from that employment. She can continue to protest her innocence of her crimes whilst maintaining that position.

    Leave a comment:


  • G-Man
    replied
    Surely she would have to prove that he performed illegal acts under some duress. Which would involve acknowledging that the acts you performed were illegal in the first place. And prove the duress you were under that compelled you to perform these illegal acts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Procurement, that's what she was convicted of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amor de Cosmos
    replied
    Personal Assistant?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sits
    replied
    So as an employee what was her job description/title?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Well yes, and that was the conclusion that the jury reached as well.

    But she is under no obligation to accept that as definitive for purposes of suing the Estate for her defence costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Fair enough, but she seemed to be an equal partner not someone following orders.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Why does that strike you as strange?

    Her position is that she was acting as an employee and that she deserves for her employer to cover the costs of her defence against charges arising from that employment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Wtf? Maxwell suing Epstein's estate?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    When Jeffrey Epstein died, he left behind an estate with an estimated value of $600 million. There were vast financial holdings, a private jet, and palatial properties including an island hideaway, a grand Manhattan mansion and a 7,600-acre New Mexico ranch.

    But taxes, property upkeep and temperature-controlled storage for his art collection — as well as $121 million in settlements to more than 135 women who accused him of sexually abusing them when they were young — have since cut into the size of Mr. Epstein’s estate. It’s now worth about a third of its value when the financier, 66, hanged himself in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges two and a half years ago.

    The biggest continuing expense is legal costs: $30 million so far to law firms brought in to clean up Mr. Epstein’s affairs. Lawyers have helped hand out settlements, liquidate assets and sift through the complicated holdings of a man who once set up his own offshore bank.

    The work won’t be over anytime soon. The estate must still resolve a civil fraud lawsuit, brought by the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, who claims Mr. Epstein used the territory to facilitate a criminal enterprise by bilking it out of more than $70 million in tax revenue. And Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of Mr. Epstein who was convicted of sex-trafficking charges last month, has sued the estate to recoup her legal fees.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Well, it is in court, but I assume you are asking if it will go to trial.

    Something north of 95 percent of civil cases in Federal court settle before trial. I think that the chances that this doesn't make it that far are even higher than that, but those chances are never zero. There is always a set of improbable circumstances that result in the parties actually going to trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Thanks UA for the insight. What do you think will happen next? Is there any chance this will end up in court?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Originally posted by Toby Gymshorts View Post
    Or perhaps a fundamental wish to not understand.
    This is definitely part of it.

    Because of "your" strict sub judice rules, you don't have an experienced press pack that reports on this kind of thing all of the time, understands the context and has deep relationships with sources who have an even better understanding.

    What you do have are editors who know that royal drama drives traffic and sales like little else and are therefore insistent that their charges turn out at least 1500 words every time a new piece of paper hits the docket.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amor de Cosmos
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    This is bog standard criminal procedure.

    He needs to request a jury now so as not to lose his right to one should he ever go to trial.

    It has absolutely zero to do with the likelihood of a trial ever happening,

    As an aside, most of the UK coverage of these proceedings has been shockingly bad, repeatedly demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of US law and procedure.
    And after all those episodes of Law and Order and Perry Mason too. It's hard to believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toby Gymshorts
    replied
    Or perhaps a fundamental wish to not understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    This is bog standard criminal procedure.

    He needs to request a jury now so as not to lose his right to one should he ever go to trial.

    It has absolutely zero to do with the likelihood of a trial ever happening,

    As an aside, most of the UK coverage of these proceedings has been shockingly bad, repeatedly demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of US law and procedure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toby Gymshorts
    replied
    Not that I'm looking at any Prime Ministers in particular.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toby Gymshorts
    replied
    If we've learned anything recently it is that the type of people who would support him anyway, will do so regardless of what he actually does or did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean of the Shed
    replied
    They're not interested in evidence, it'll be an all out campaign of victim blaming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Originally posted by Toby Gymshorts View Post
    Rich, privileged white man believes that a court and jury will favour him.

    I mean, it's not a terrible gambit for an alleged sweaty nonce.
    I agree but surely his lawyers would advise against this. The amount of stuff that could come out will damage him beyond repair even if he gets off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toby Gymshorts
    replied
    Rich, privileged white man believes that a court and jury will favour him.

    I mean, it's not a terrible gambit for an alleged sweaty nonce.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Well Andrew wants a trial. I cannot believe that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenlander
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkF View Post
    They'll need to rethink the nursery rhyme...
    Randy Andy eating pizza pie
    Kissed the girls and ended up in court

    Needs work.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X