Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Prince Andrew's lawyer says NY case is baseless and non-viable​

I don't know if it's really significant, but he/his lawyers now seem to have switched from simply saying he didn't do it to all sorts of legalistic wriggling - the papers weren't properly served, the US court doesn't have jurisdiction, and this one

The agreement thing, his lawyers haven’t even seen it, it is not public and they have requested a copy from the court. In the meantime them saying it absolves him from his crimes is speculation on their part, as baseless as their claim that her claim is baseless…

Wait and see, I have a feeling that things might not go Andrew’s way here.

A nice line I saw on Twitter yesterday was, “Call him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, not HRH or Duke, come on guys, we fought a revolution to get rid of these people!”

 

[Athos]

Especially as the first time they tried to serve them the copper on the gate, paid for by me and you told him that they were under orders not to accept any court papers.

It's funny how they claim to stay out of civil matters, but show up to assist bailiffs.

 

[dessiato]

Prince Andrew to challenge US court jurisdiction in sexual assault lawsuit

Planning to challenge the court's jurisdiction.

And if that doesn't work, claiming the papers were not properly served.

Willing to assist, my arse!

Is he going to claim Magna Carta and FOTL (or the American equivalent) so he doesn't recognise the court jurisdiction?

 

[Glitter]

Tennis related for those who've not yet had their coffee

@beardedgenius is my mate. I love it when I see his tweets somewhere like here

 

[danny la rouge]

I know when I haven’t done something I definitely always enter into prior agreements releasing me and others from any and all liability.

 

[Athos]

I know when I haven’t done something I definitely always enter into prior agreements releasing me and others from any and all liability.

I don't think he entered into any agreement (prior or otherwise). Rather, he trying to claim the settlement his alleged victim reached with Epstein prevents her from pursuing him. Though he seems to concede that he's not seen the terms of it!

 

[MrCurry]

I don't think he entered into any agreement (prior or otherwise). Rather, he trying to claim the settlement his alleged victim reached with Epstein prevents her from pursuing him. Though he seems to concede that he's not seen the terms of it!

Clearly he’s never colluded with Epstein or his representatives in connection with this matter. Plain as day, that.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think he entered into any agreement (prior or otherwise). Rather, he trying to claim the settlement his alleged victim reached with Epstein prevents her from pursuing him. Though he seems to concede that he's not seen the terms of it!

It’s a fantastic line of argument if he wants to sound as guilty as possible.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Would be surprised if this agreement with a now dead nonce would apply to HRH unless he was specifically named in the agreement in the first place.

 

[brogdale]

Would be surprised if this agreement with a now dead nonce would apply to HRH unless he was specifically named in the agreement in the first place.

Yeah, would be a good look to grasp at a clause that prevents the victim from pursuing any of Epstein's fellow rapists, nonces and sex traffickers. Reckon Maxwell's case shows that's fantasy land anyway.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Let’s see that secret agreement!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Her claim can't be baseless on the grounds that it didn't happen if as HWCS's lawyers argue a deal has previously been reach to absolve him of responsibility for his actions, it can only be baseless on the basis that the agreement stops him being done for his noncery. That's pretty much what his own lawyer has just argued. If the agreement doesn't cover him it will be quite hard to then argue that he never done it.

Anyone got any more popcorn?

 

[Pickman's model]

Her claim can't be baseless on the grounds that it didn't happen if as HWCS's lawyers argue a deal has previously been reach to absolve him of responsibility for his actions, it can only be baseless on the basis that the agreement stops him being done for his noncery. That's pretty much what his own lawyer has just argued. If the agreement doesn't cover him it will be quite hard to then argue that he never done it.

Anyone got any more popcorn?

Have some pizza express tiramisu

 

[Pickman's model]

Would be surprised if this agreement with a now dead nonce would apply to HRH unless he was specifically named in the agreement in the first place.

Not sure hrn (his royal nonceship) would want to be named in a document like that which would suggest there were other women who might have a claim on him

 

[Athos]

Clearly he’s never colluded with Epstein or his representatives in connection with this matter. Plain as day, that.

It's is a bit strange that he says he doesn't have a copy, though. If he does he'd adduce it if it helped him; if it didn't help him, he'd not try to rely on it, surely.

 

[not-bono-ever]

would it be a crap lawyer that allowed their clientto sign off on unknown things that might pop up in the future ? Pretty sure that when I signed off on stuff like this, my brief scored out this section of the agreement on principle

 

[Athos]

It’s a fantastic line of argument if he wants to sound as guilty as possible.

Yeah, the whole jurisdiction, service, settlement arguments - rather than engaging with the substance of the claim - are a PR disaster. But, you have to suspect that's the least bad option for him, and wonder what that says.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

It's is a bit strange that he says he doesn't have a copy, though. If he does he'd adduce it if it helped him; if it didn't help him, he'd not try to rely on it, surely.

AFAIK Dershowitz got off a battery charge on the strength of it, but it is all cloudy and marks down anyone trying to use it as 100% guilty.

What do Americans call deckchairs?

 

[Spymaster]

Her claim can't be baseless on the grounds that it didn't happen if as HWCS's lawyers argue a deal has previously been reach to absolve him of responsibility for his actions, it can only be baseless on the basis that the agreement stops him being done for his noncery. That's pretty much what his own lawyer has just argued. If the agreement doesn't cover him it will be quite hard to then argue that he never done it.

Anyone got any more popcorn?

IF such an agreement exists it could just be a confidentiality agreement preventing her from discussing anything relating to Shitstein or his associates, not noncery, although the further they pursue this route, the more convinced everyone is of his guilt.

Andrew is followed pretty much everywhere by royal protection officers. They will have logs of where he's been and when. If he was having a pizza in Woking, release the logs and end all this.

 

[not-bono-ever]

could she launch this action in the UK ? I warrant we would see the end of it if a move to see this in the high court was proposed

 

[Athos]

It's not impossible to have a settlement agreement that includes all claims against any party relating to the same facts/allegations. And quite likely that Epstein would've sought to protect Maxwell that way. Andrew might just be able to bring himself within that protection, even if not named. How shit does that look, though? You can't sue me, because my nonce friend paid you off.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

could she launch this action in the UK ? I warrant we would see the end of it if a move to see this in the high court was proposed

If the US judgement goes against him that must surely open the door to a formal police enquiry (again) in the UK. If she was trafficked against her will and made to shag him, that is rape. If she were a willing partner shagging him for money, having it away with a prostitute who is under 18 is a crime in the UK....

 

[danny la rouge]

If he was having a pizza in Woking, release the logs and end all this.

That’s a terrible alibi, though. “It can’t have been me because earlier that evening I’d been a short drive away having a pizza”. Nobody ever had a pizza and then went on to a club.

 

[DaveCinzano]

His legal team's just started a press conference where they are patting themselves on the back over their nuanced strategy

 

[Pickman's model]

IF such an agreement exists it could just be a confidentiality agreement preventing her from discussing anything relating to Shitstein or his associates, not noncery, although the further they pursue this route, the more convinced everyone is of his guilt.

Andrew is followed pretty much everywhere by royal protection officers. They will have logs of where he's been and when. If he was having a pizza in Woking, release the logs and end all this.

Release the card receipts or bank statement showing payment to pizza express.

 

[bluescreen]

One thing I don't understand about Windsor's lawyer trying to rely on the Giuffre/Epstein deal is how Windsor could enforce it if he's not a party to the contract. Surely it's only Epstein and his heirs and assigns? Or did Epstein assign a right to Windsor? Or what? Is it not a contract but some other beast?
It's a long time since I studied contract law, which is roughly the same in principle in the US as here.

 

[keybored]

Why would there be rules about not letting too many of them travel on the same Coca Cola? That doesn't even make sense.

It's in case they accidentally the whole bottle.

 

[not-bono-ever]

He probably paid in maundy money - no paper trail

 

[not-bono-ever]

It's not impossible to have a settlement agreement that includes all claims against any party relating to the same facts/allegations. And quite likely that Epstein would've sought to protect Maxwell that way. Andrew might just be able to bring himself within that protection, even if not named. How shit does that look, though? You can't sue me, because my nonce friend paid you off.

But any agreement would not override illegality and shit I assume

 

[Athos]

But any agreement would not override illegality and shit I assume

Not for the purposes of criminal proceedings. But these are civil.