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

[Antepli Ejderha]

https://archive.vanityfair.com/artic...FEALw_wcB&s=09

11 years old but still relevant, an article in Vanity Fair on Andrew.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Yeah I have a recollection that Andrew had a hissy fit a couple of years back when Charles proposed scaling back the Royal family, meaning Andy's kids would become "commoners." Least of his worries now.

Hence the largish weddings for his daughter at the taxpayers expense.

[WOM]

Any Epstein 'contract' that seems dodgy needs to be looked at in light of his other treatment in the Sunshine State. When he was actually convicted of child-sex, his entire trial and sentencing were basically held in-camera. His sentence itself involved spending nights in jail and his days doing whatever the hell he wanted on the outside. This sweetheart deal was cut by Trump-buddy Alexander Acosta, who secured a plum job as AG to Trump until everyone found out about this and he was sunk.

[ursus arctos]

It's a reference to Clinton and his attempt to distance a blowjob from sex.

Especially salty given that Judge Kaplan was nominated to the bench by none other than Willam Jefferson Clinton

[ooh aah]

The Charles/Andrew relationship has ranged from non-existent to dire if the (few) reports I've read are to be believed. It seems the only time they talk is to 'hold crisis talks'. In contrast, it's also always been said that Andrew is the Queen's favourite child, and that she had a more 'hands-on' role in his growing-up than had been the case with Charles or Anne.

Yeah I have a recollection that Andrew had a hissy fit a couple of years back when Charles proposed scaling back the Royal family, meaning Andy's kids would become "commoners." Least of his worries now.

[Ginger Yellow]

G-man, I think the answer to your question is that the precise scope and mechanisms of privity of contract vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from time to time as legislators amend the rules. Not my area really, but by way of comparison, I think that in England there is legislation which allows a third party to enforce a term of a contract where the contract makes it clear that the creation of such a third party right was the intention of the contracting parties.

At least in England, settlements aren't just private contracts, though. They're subject to consent orders, so a breach of the settlement is also a breach of a court order. Though given the rules on binding non-parties to court orders, I'd be somewhat surprised if they created third party rights re: the order, especially given that the terms of the settlements are usually confidential.

[Lang Spoon]

It's a reference to Clinton and his attempt to distance a blowjob from sex.

[Janik]

Yes. But which former resident is he referring to? I can think of at least two recent or relatively recent ones who could be being invoked here. And that is quite a statement in itself.

[Tony C]

“Mr Brettler went on to say the prince’s alleged misconduct had not been laid out in the complaint.

Judge Kaplan responded emphatically with a reference to an unnamed former US president: “Involuntary
sexual intercourse. There’s no doubt what that means, at least since someone else was in the White House.”

Quite a statement.

[jameswba]

The Charles/Andrew relationship has ranged from non-existent to dire if the (few) reports I've read are to be believed. It seems the only time they talk is to 'hold crisis talks'. In contrast, it's also always been said that Andrew is the Queen's favourite child, and that she had a more 'hands-on' role in his growing-up than had been the case with Charles or Anne.

[Sits]

isn't it widely thought that the protective apparatus around Andrew will crumble once his mom dies? Continuing to protect him strikes me as an ill advised use of resources for an institution fighting for relevance.

That’s fascinating and I’d not considered it before. And do we know the relationship between Charles and Andrew? Obviously this is only relative but Charles is probably fractionally more aware than his mum. His heir is, for sure. Whatever else he might be.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

G-man, I think the answer to your question is that the precise scope and mechanisms of privity of contract vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from time to time as legislators amend the rules. Not my area really, but by way of comparison, I think that in England there is legislation which allows a third party to enforce a term of a contract where the contract makes it clear that the creation of such a third party right was the intention of the contracting parties.

[Janik]

Her settlement agreement seems to have been between herself and Epstein and any associates of Epstein for what happened to her at Epstein et al’s hands. From reports not even her lawyers are debating that part - they are focused on jurisdiction.

What has really changed of course is circumstances. 15 years or so ago a lawyer would tell a woman to take the settlement because it was as good as she could hope for in the situation, and they were probably right. Post Me Too that is no longer true. But the courts are also post Me Too and are not exactly well disposed to those who appear to be sheltering from it behind bits of paper agreed in different climates. My guess is the case will proceed as the judge will want it heard.

[G-Man]

Her settlement was with Epstein, as I understand it. And he is dead. Why is the agreement she made with Epstein binding in a court? The court should be a disinterested party. Wouldn't legal recourse be for Epstein or his estate to sue Guiffre for breach of contract?

[Janik]

Did Giuffre actually release all "potential defendants" and how is that legal if so?

Remember this is a civil rather than criminal case. At most she agrees that a settlement be considered full and final applying to her in the civil arena. She can't release all potential defendants from criminal prosecution for their actions - she wouldn't have that power.

Even if the judge finds Giuffre can't sue, he can still be prosecuted for sexual offences. Baring other statue of limitations restrictions.

[sw2borshch]

In a slightly weird confluence of thread strands, when the bit about you'd remember being in the same place as someone famous came up, I thought of the time I had a slash in a Middlesbrough suburban pub toilet next to Vic Reeves/Jim/Rod Moir almost thirty years ago.

[ursus arctos]

You can write anything down and often get the other side to agree with it if the associated incentives work for them.

Having it enforced by the courts is the tricky part.

Bloom has screenshotted a couple of the relevant passages of the agreement in her thread (as well as outlining Boies' argument for why they should be read narrowly).

[WOM]

Standard "poets, priests, princes, presidents and politicians" indemnification clause. It's in all the best contracts.

[caja-dglh]

I am not sure anyone has read the specific unsealed document rather than much of the reporting on it.

Given the Sackler's have looked to release thousands of associated enterprises in their initial Oxy settlement, it is rather remarkable what you can legally put to paper.

[Satchmo Distel]

Did Giuffre actually release all "potential defendants" and how is that legal if so?

[ursus arctos]

Bloom is far from an impartial observer, but that did not go well for Andrew's counsel.

It is quite common in high stakes litigation for defence counsel to make all kinds of outrageous arguments in the hope of finding one that lands, but it is rare for those arguments to get this level of public attention.

[Furtho]

https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1478386650438844431

[Antepli Ejderha]

Can this agreement be torn up and declared null and void?

I'm not sure on what grounds but duress or subsequent evidence coming to light that wasn't available at the time.

[ursus arctos]

I have t read the release, but it seems to me that are a number of grounds on which they can attack it, with jurisdiction being likely the most fruitful, though I would expect that they would also seek to attack the manner in which it was obtained.

All of the parties and the court have been aware of its terms for months, and the fact that the case continues (or was even brought in the first place) evidences the fact that it isn't as open and shut a case as Andrew's counsel claims.

As to ad hoc's point, isn't it widely thought that the protective apparatus around Andrew will crumble once his mom dies? Continuing to protect him strikes me as an ill advised use of resources for an institution fighting for relevance.

[WOM]

Yeah, I think 'jurisdiction' could be a legal loophole, but I don't know the fine details. Clearly it was drawn up pretty cleanly and with specific language so that someone down the road couldn't argue that it was being interpreted 'over-broadly'. It was written broadly but very specifically. And she agreed to it.