Maxwell Guilty

[Insane_Homer]

I suspect this is the BBC’s editors (and lawyers) being careful to distinguish between the four women involved in the trial, who can be called victims because their allegations have now been proved in the courts, and the other 100 or so women whose accusations about Epstein haven’t been tested in the courts, and so are still referred to as ‘accusers’.

Look at the screenshot, now tell me what the word "testimony" is reffering to?

[Biffer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59736227
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0bdnctb



BBC Narrative continues, "accuser(s)" should read "victim(s)"

Spectator is full fluff piece.

I suspect this is the BBC’s editors (and lawyers) being careful to distinguish between the four women involved in the trial, who can be called victims because their allegations have now been proved in the courts, and the other 100 or so women whose accusations about Epstein haven’t been tested in the courts, and so are still referred to as ‘accusers’.

If that’s their reasoning it’s nonsense. It’s her victims testimony in court that meant she was found guilty. They are, by law, victims.

[Hugo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59736227
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0bdnctb



BBC Narrative continues, "accuser(s)" should read "victim(s)"

Spectator is full fluff piece.

I suspect this is the BBC’s editors (and lawyers) being careful to distinguish between the four women involved in the trial, who can be called victims because their allegations have now been proved in the courts, and the other 100 or so women whose accusations about Epstein haven’t been tested in the courts, and so are still referred to as ‘accusers’.

Not True !

People focus on the NY charges; that were never ultimately satisfied; but forget that they only reason Epstein wasn't already in Prison; was he got a sweetheart deal from a Republican DA in Florida; which allowed him to plead guilty to dozens of these exact same charges, & walked away scot free !

https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epst ... 9a586aa291

Bingo.

In the case of the Florida charges - lets not forget that Investigators on the case have said that it is unheard of for someone to get a deal like Epstein's without prosecutors consulting the victims or their families.

It was a deliberate, orchestrated effort to ensure he did not face justice.

[frankstero]

Love is finishing each other's sentences

[fishfoodie]

The mental gymnastics the Paedo Prince is going thru to try & wriggle out of responsibility are ridiculous.

The latest gambit is to; again; try & claim that the payoff Epstein made to Giuffre; means she can't sue him.

A crunch week in Prince Andrew’s fight to avoid a public trial over claims he sexually assaulted a 17-year-old trafficked by the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein begins on Monday, when a New York court unseals a confidential 2009 deal between Epstein and the alleged victim.

Lawyers for the Duke of York, who “unequivocally denies” the claims made by Virginia Giuffre, believe her agreement with Epstein could shield him from her civil lawsuit accusing him of sexual abuse in 2001.

...

After the unsealing of the deal, lawyers for Prince Andrew will argue to Judge Lewis A Kaplan, sitting at the US district court in the southern district of New York in lower Manhattan, that the agreement between Giuffre and Epstein means she cannot take action against their client.

Now first of all; note who the parties to the deal were !

So I find it really hard to understand how he's any standing in the deal ?

Was he named as a client in the deal ?; I highly doubt it; as if he was, he could & should have been pursued separately, by both the victims, & the Police. So let's assume that he wasn't named. Maybe the deal uses some broad language, about how the victims can't pursue their abusers; but that can't be relevant either because ...

The Duke told the BBC in 2019 that he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever”.

But his lawyers are a little more circumspect in their denials; it's almost as if his own lawyers don't buy the Pizza hut in Woking alibi.

Prince Andrew’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, has told the court that Giuffre’s agreement with Epstein provided “a general release of all claims against him and numerous other individuals and entities” and that Prince Andrew is “axiomatically among the releasees”.

So according to them; Giuffre basically renounced her rights to sue anyone, & everyone; for all time; regardless of her actual rights, & that conveniently lets the client off the hook even though he never met her ?

[Ymx]

Love is finishing each other's sentences

[GogLais]

The mental gymnastics the Paedo Prince is going thru to try & wriggle out of responsibility are ridiculous.

The latest gambit is to; again; try & claim that the payoff Epstein made to Giuffre; means she can't sue him.

A crunch week in Prince Andrew’s fight to avoid a public trial over claims he sexually assaulted a 17-year-old trafficked by the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein begins on Monday, when a New York court unseals a confidential 2009 deal between Epstein and the alleged victim.

Lawyers for the Duke of York, who “unequivocally denies” the claims made by Virginia Giuffre, believe her agreement with Epstein could shield him from her civil lawsuit accusing him of sexual abuse in 2001.

...

After the unsealing of the deal, lawyers for Prince Andrew will argue to Judge Lewis A Kaplan, sitting at the US district court in the southern district of New York in lower Manhattan, that the agreement between Giuffre and Epstein means she cannot take action against their client.

Now first of all; note who the parties to the deal were !

So I find it really hard to understand how he's any standing in the deal ?

Was he named as a client in the deal ?; I highly doubt it; as if he was, he could & should have been pursued separately, by both the victims, & the Police. So let's assume that he wasn't named. Maybe the deal uses some broad language, about how the victims can't pursue their abusers; but that can't be relevant either because ...

The Duke told the BBC in 2019 that he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever”.

But his lawyers are a little more circumspect in their denials; it's almost as if his own lawyers don't buy the Pizza hut in Woking alibi.

Prince Andrew’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, has told the court that Giuffre’s agreement with Epstein provided “a general release of all claims against him and numerous other individuals and entities” and that Prince Andrew is “axiomatically among the releasees”.

So according to them; Giuffre basically renounced her rights to sue anyone, & everyone; for all time; regardless of her actual rights, & that conveniently lets the client off the hook even though he never met her ?

Deep legal waters for me but I think it's a strange idea that two people can prevent the courts from investigating the relationship between one of them and a third party.

[Uncle fester]

But he totally never met the girl. That's why he's so desperate to keep it out of court.

[Lobby]

The mental gymnastics the Paedo Prince is going thru to try & wriggle out of responsibility are ridiculous.

The latest gambit is to; again; try & claim that the payoff Epstein made to Giuffre; means she can't sue him.

A crunch week in Prince Andrew’s fight to avoid a public trial over claims he sexually assaulted a 17-year-old trafficked by the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein begins on Monday, when a New York court unseals a confidential 2009 deal between Epstein and the alleged victim.

Lawyers for the Duke of York, who “unequivocally denies” the claims made by Virginia Giuffre, believe her agreement with Epstein could shield him from her civil lawsuit accusing him of sexual abuse in 2001.

...

After the unsealing of the deal, lawyers for Prince Andrew will argue to Judge Lewis A Kaplan, sitting at the US district court in the southern district of New York in lower Manhattan, that the agreement between Giuffre and Epstein means she cannot take action against their client.

Now first of all; note who the parties to the deal were !

So I find it really hard to understand how he's any standing in the deal ?

Was he named as a client in the deal ?; I highly doubt it; as if he was, he could & should have been pursued separately, by both the victims, & the Police. So let's assume that he wasn't named. Maybe the deal uses some broad language, about how the victims can't pursue their abusers; but that can't be relevant either because ...

The Duke told the BBC in 2019 that he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever”.

But his lawyers are a little more circumspect in their denials; it's almost as if his own lawyers don't buy the Pizza hut in Woking alibi.

Prince Andrew’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, has told the court that Giuffre’s agreement with Epstein provided “a general release of all claims against him and numerous other individuals and entities” and that Prince Andrew is “axiomatically among the releasees”.

So according to them; Giuffre basically renounced her rights to sue anyone, & everyone; for all time; regardless of her actual rights, & that conveniently lets the client off the hook even though he never met her ?

Deep legal waters for me but I think it's a strange idea that two people can prevent the courts from investigating the relationship between one of them and a third party.

Well the agreement she signed with Epstein's lawyers does look pretty broad, as she agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" and she also agreed to discharge the potential defendants from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world".

As I recall, the potential defendants mentioned in that case included unspecified members of 'royalty', so Prince Andrew's lawyers think they have a good case that this agreement prevents her from taking out an action against him.

I think it is likely that the question for the US Judge will not hinge on whether or not Andrew is covered by this general indemnity, but rather whether it is drawn so widely as to make it unenforceable. If the Judge decides it is unenforceable, then the case will go ahead.

[fishfoodie]

The mental gymnastics the Paedo Prince is going thru to try & wriggle out of responsibility are ridiculous.

The latest gambit is to; again; try & claim that the payoff Epstein made to Giuffre; means she can't sue him.



Now first of all; note who the parties to the deal were !

So I find it really hard to understand how he's any standing in the deal ?

Was he named as a client in the deal ?; I highly doubt it; as if he was, he could & should have been pursued separately, by both the victims, & the Police. So let's assume that he wasn't named. Maybe the deal uses some broad language, about how the victims can't pursue their abusers; but that can't be relevant either because ...



But his lawyers are a little more circumspect in their denials; it's almost as if his own lawyers don't buy the Pizza hut in Woking alibi.



So according to them; Giuffre basically renounced her rights to sue anyone, & everyone; for all time; regardless of her actual rights, & that conveniently lets the client off the hook even though he never met her ?

Deep legal waters for me but I think it's a strange idea that two people can prevent the courts from investigating the relationship between one of them and a third party.

Well the agreement she signed with Epstein's lawyers does look pretty broad, as she agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" and she also agreed to discharge the potential defendants from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world".

As I recall, the potential defendants mentioned in that case included unspecified members of 'royalty', so Prince Andrew's lawyers think they have a good case that this agreement prevents her from taking out an action against him.

I think it is likely that the question for the US Judge will not hinge on whether or not Andrew is covered by this general indemnity, but rather whether it is drawn so widely as to make it unenforceable. If the Judge decides it is unenforceable, then the case will go ahead.

This kind of NDA, to me, should be unenforceable; because it fundamentally goes against the public interest.

How can any Legal system support a contract; that enables an unknown number of sex predators, to evade Justice for their crimes; & to presumably continue with their sexual abuse of minors ?

[Lobby]

Deep legal waters for me but I think it's a strange idea that two people can prevent the courts from investigating the relationship between one of them and a third party.

Well the agreement she signed with Epstein's lawyers does look pretty broad, as she agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" and she also agreed to discharge the potential defendants from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world".

As I recall, the potential defendants mentioned in that case included unspecified members of 'royalty', so Prince Andrew's lawyers think they have a good case that this agreement prevents her from taking out an action against him.

I think it is likely that the question for the US Judge will not hinge on whether or not Andrew is covered by this general indemnity, but rather whether it is drawn so widely as to make it unenforceable. If the Judge decides it is unenforceable, then the case will go ahead.

This kind of NDA, to me, should be unenforceable; because it fundamentally goes against the public interest.

How can any Legal system support a contract; that enables an unknown number of sex predators, to evade Justice for their crimes; & to presumably continue with their sexual abuse of minors ?

I don’t think the agreement would prevent a criminal prosecution by the State. What it was intended to prevent was her taking out further private cases seeking damages from other alleged perpetrators, such as the current case she has taken out against Prince Andrew.

However, I agree that the terms of this agreement seem to be so bizarre that they might well be considered unenforceable.

The thing that interests me is that, although Andy wasn’t a party to this private agreement, he and his lawyers were so confident that it included specific terms which would prevent her from taking action against anyone else. It’s almost as if he had been given assurances about these terms by Epstein. I wonder why that might be?

[troglodiet]

So Prince Andrew was simultaneously in New York and Virginia?

There's his alibi right there...

[GogLais]

Of course you don't get the full story on tv news but the judge seems to have said that only Epstein and Guiffre can enforce the agreement, which might cause some people to have sleepless nights. Although he hasn't issued his judgement yet.

[Enzedder]

New York: The judge in Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial asked prosecutors and defence lawyers to brief her on whether a new trial is needed over press comments made by a juror.

US District Judge Alison Nathan issued an order on Wednesday (Thursday AEDT) after Maxwell’s lawyers told her earlier that they would seek a new trial because the juror failed to disclose a possible bias against her.

The developments could endanger a verdict that was widely hailed as offering long-delayed justice to victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell, 60, was convicted on December 29 of luring and grooming underage girls for sexual abuse by Epstein and participating in some of the abuse herself. She faces up to 40 years in prison for sex-trafficking, the most serious of the five counts on which she was found guilty.

Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, killed himself in August 2019 in a Manhattan jail while awaiting his own sex trafficking trial.

The judge late on Wednesday set a schedule for the defence to ask for a new trial, saying it should make the request by January 19, with prosecutors replying by February 2.

“The juror told reporters that he disclosed to the other members of the jury during deliberations that he was a victim of sexual abuse and further described his memory of those events,” Maxwell lawyer Christian Everdell wrote in a letter to the judge. “According to the juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell.”

Prosecutors had earlier asked Nathan to investigate the juror’s comments, and Nathan in her order also asked both sides to provide written arguments on “whether an inquiry of some kind is permitted and/or required, and, if so, the nature of such an inquiry.” The judge granted the government’s request to offer a court-appointed lawyer to the juror.

As the lawyers battled over the one juror’s remarks, the New York Times reported that it had interviewed another juror who said they had been a victim of sexual abuse and discussed it during the deliberations that led to Maxwell’s conviction.

One juror, who asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David, told Reuters he “flew through” the juror questionnaire used before trial to determine whether prospective jurors could judge Maxwell fairly.

Scotty David said he also did not recall being asked about his experiences with sexual abuse. He said he would have answered honestly.

In a letter to US District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan on Wednesday (Thursday AEDT), prosecutors led by US Attorney Damian Williams said the juror’s statements to the media “merit attention” by the court, and asked that a hearing be scheduled about one month from now.

They also said court staff should ask the juror whether he wants a lawyer. Media cited by prosecutors include Reuters, the Daily Mail and The Independent.

Moira Penza, a partner at the Wilkinson Stekloff law firm and a former federal prosecutor, said any inquiry would likely focus on whether the juror made a mistake or omission in answering questions on an initial screening questionnaire for prospective jurors or follow-up questions from the judge.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-a ... 59m8z.html

[Blackmac]

New York: The judge in Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial asked prosecutors and defence lawyers to brief her on whether a new trial is needed over press comments made by a juror.

US District Judge Alison Nathan issued an order on Wednesday (Thursday AEDT) after Maxwell’s lawyers told her earlier that they would seek a new trial because the juror failed to disclose a possible bias against her.

The developments could endanger a verdict that was widely hailed as offering long-delayed justice to victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell, 60, was convicted on December 29 of luring and grooming underage girls for sexual abuse by Epstein and participating in some of the abuse herself. She faces up to 40 years in prison for sex-trafficking, the most serious of the five counts on which she was found guilty.

Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, killed himself in August 2019 in a Manhattan jail while awaiting his own sex trafficking trial.

The judge late on Wednesday set a schedule for the defence to ask for a new trial, saying it should make the request by January 19, with prosecutors replying by February 2.

“The juror told reporters that he disclosed to the other members of the jury during deliberations that he was a victim of sexual abuse and further described his memory of those events,” Maxwell lawyer Christian Everdell wrote in a letter to the judge. “According to the juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell.”

Prosecutors had earlier asked Nathan to investigate the juror’s comments, and Nathan in her order also asked both sides to provide written arguments on “whether an inquiry of some kind is permitted and/or required, and, if so, the nature of such an inquiry.” The judge granted the government’s request to offer a court-appointed lawyer to the juror.

As the lawyers battled over the one juror’s remarks, the New York Times reported that it had interviewed another juror who said they had been a victim of sexual abuse and discussed it during the deliberations that led to Maxwell’s conviction.

One juror, who asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David, told Reuters he “flew through” the juror questionnaire used before trial to determine whether prospective jurors could judge Maxwell fairly.

Scotty David said he also did not recall being asked about his experiences with sexual abuse. He said he would have answered honestly.

In a letter to US District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan on Wednesday (Thursday AEDT), prosecutors led by US Attorney Damian Williams said the juror’s statements to the media “merit attention” by the court, and asked that a hearing be scheduled about one month from now.

They also said court staff should ask the juror whether he wants a lawyer. Media cited by prosecutors include Reuters, the Daily Mail and The Independent.

Moira Penza, a partner at the Wilkinson Stekloff law firm and a former federal prosecutor, said any inquiry would likely focus on whether the juror made a mistake or omission in answering questions on an initial screening questionnaire for prospective jurors or follow-up questions from the judge.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-a ... 59m8z.html

Could be huge. Any suggestion that a juror was using his own personal bias to influence other jurors on anything but the evidence presented would be very problematic.

As soon as I saw the clown on TV it was WTF??

[Torquemada 1420]

I hope that she rots in jail.

Entire family of scumbags.

[Kiwias]

I hope that she rots in jail.

Entire family of scumbags.

This x 1,000

[fishfoodie]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her in 2001.

His lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled that the claim could be heard.

He has consistently denied the claims. Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It means the case against the Duke of York, 61, could be heard later this year.

Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

[Biffer]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her in 2001.

His lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled that the claim could be heard.

He has consistently denied the claims. Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It means the case against the Duke of York, 61, could be heard later this year.

Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

[Dogbert]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her in 2001.

His lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled that the claim could be heard.

He has consistently denied the claims. Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It means the case against the Duke of York, 61, could be heard later this year.

Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

It allows the Daily Express a different Headline to the Boris story - If I were Betty Windsor , I would be worried about my health - that would really remove Boris from the front pages

[Lobby]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her in 2001.

His lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled that the claim could be heard.

He has consistently denied the claims. Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It means the case against the Duke of York, 61, could be heard later this year.

Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

[fishfoodie]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.



Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

He'll just have to suck up to ME Royals, & Russian crooks to get his money from here on out.

[SaintK]

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

He'll just have to suck up to ME Royals, & Russian crooks to get his money from here on out.

Helpful headline for Johnson tomorrow morning

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.
Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source added.
The duke's roles will be distributed among members of the Royal Family.

[sturginho]

He's still a Duke though so what's the point?

[fishfoodie]

He's still a Duke though so what's the point?

It means that in court papers he won't be HRH, or a Duke; just Andrew Windsor

[Uncle fester]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.



Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

Surely they'd funnel some quiet money to him?
Bad and all that it is him being in court but if he lost, it would get much worse.

[Hal Jordan]

In the old days he'd have been packed off to The Tower for an appointment with the headsman, followed by burial in a suitably expensive tomb in some out of the way Chapel.

[Glaston]

Makes a change for the Royals to have a good day to release bad news; with a Politician taking the spotlight off their domestic issues.



Mummy is going to have to open up the chequebook; again !

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

He will have to flog the Bentley he bought recently

[dpedin]

Think it'd be a massive blow for the monarchy if she did. There have been a number of countries looking to get rid of the Queen as head of state recently, it'll only further that.

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

He will have to flog the Bentley he bought recently

I thought he owed a lot of money on the chalet? Was he not taken to court for not keeping up with the payments?

[Lobby]

Prince Andrew recently got permission to sell a Swiss Chalet he owns, which should bring in about £18m for him to fund his legal fees, so I doubt Her Maj will be helping him out with this, especially as I see he has just been booted out of the Royal Family (no more HRH title or royal patronages, and no more military titles) - ergo, he's fucked and on his own.

He will have to flog the Bentley he bought recently

I thought he owed a lot of money on the chalet? Was he not taken to court for not keeping up with the payments?

He was, but he settled with the previous owner a few days ago (presumably by paying the remaining £6.6m he owed). He is now clear to sell the Chalet, and reportedly already has a buyer lined up.

[Lobby]

[GogLais]

He should get a few quid for his DOY number plate. Some might say that privacy would be uppermost in his mind at the moment. I confess to an unreasoned dislike of personalised plates - I don't give a damn what your initials are.

[fishfoodie]

Loathsome.

The Duke of York's lawyers want to question a psychologist who treated the woman accusing him of sexual assault, claiming she may "suffer from false memories".

Court documents show they want Virginia Giuffre's husband, Robert, and psychologist Dr Judith Lightfoot to be examined under oath.

So this scumbag wants to question whether or not the victim; & she is still the victim in this case; as Epsteins payoff; & guilty plea showed.

But somehow; we should trust his recollections; despite him denying ever having met Giuffre; even though we have this picture ?



I look forward to his deposition; & him explaining again his inability to sweat; despite numerous pictures again.... and I imagine the footage of his deposition itself ....

[SaintK]

Looks like he's settled? No sign of an apology though!!!

The Duke of York and his accuser Virginia Giuffre have reached an out-of-court settlement in the civil sex claim filed in the US.

In a letter submitted to the United States District Court on Tuesday, Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies wrote jointly with Andrew’s lawyers to say that the parties had “reached a settlement in principle”.

Court documents show the Duke will make a “substantial donation to Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights”.

Andrew has also pledged to “demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein” by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims.”

The Duke of York has always denied the allegations.

[Slick]

Tried to play hardball and lost

[C69]

Whilst by some legal gymnastics Andrew does not admit to sexual assault, the public will think this multi millionnaire paedo associating sweating creeep he is an abuser.

[SaintK]

Whilst by some legal gymnastics Andrew does not admit to sexual assault, the public will think this multi millionnaire paedo associating sweating creeep he is an abuser.

........and only "regrets" his association with Epstein.
At least his mother can stop paying the £M's he must have cost her in legal fees and get on with her Jubilee
I sincerely hope we do not see or hear from him in public life ever again.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Looks like he's settled? No sign of an apology though!!!

The Duke of York and his accuser Virginia Giuffre have reached an out-of-court settlement in the civil sex claim filed in the US.

In a letter submitted to the United States District Court on Tuesday, Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies wrote jointly with Andrew’s lawyers to say that the parties had “reached a settlement in principle”.

Court documents show the Duke will make a “substantial donation to Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights”.

Andrew has also pledged to “demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein” by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims.”

The Duke of York has always denied the allegations.

Pretty standard for an out-of-court settlement to specifically not include any admission of guilt or a direct apology than might indicate an admission of responsibility.

This is a win-win really - she gets a pile of money and the out-of-court settlement will be seen by most as an admission of guilt by Andrew, so she gets the same outcome as if it went to court (although granted without the satisfaction of actually seeing him found guilty). She actually probably gets way more money, because otherwise why would she settle?

Andy is obviously somewhat poorer than he was, but at least he can slink off somewhere away from the headlines and avoid weeks of very ugly headlines from the court case. HMQ probably relieved (wonder if she was leaning on him to settle?)

[fishfoodie]

I wonder if there are any other girls out there with photos ?

As a test case, all the possible legal defenses have been thwarted, & he was forced to settle !

It's a copy & paste effort for anyone else now.

[Enzedder]

I wonder if there are any other girls out there with photos ?

As a test case, all the possible legal defenses have been thwarted, & he was forced to settle !

It's a copy & paste effort for anyone else now.

Depends on whether the charity of their choice needs the money