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

[SpookyFrank]

That is what your money has paid US lawyers to say on behalf of her favourite son about a woman was was sexually abused as a child.

Cfy

 

[Chilli.s]

“Money hungry sex kitten.”

“Head bitch.”

That is what Queen Elizabeth II’s money has paid US lawyers to say on behalf of her favourite son about a woman was was sexually abused as a child.

Lovely.

It aint a good look

 

[Athos]

This might be of interest.

 

[bluescreen]

In completely unrelated news, Jes Staley is stepping down as chief exec of Barclays group following a regulatory investigation into the way he described his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Staley is contesting the conclusions, which made no findings that Staley knew about Epstein's crimes.

More, but not very much more, here (paywall): Subscribe to read | Financial Times

 

[bluescreen]

This might be of interest.

Tell us more.

 

[Pickman's model]

This might be of interest.

What is 'this' and why might it be of interest?

 

[TopCat]

“Money hungry sex kitten.”

“Head bitch.”

That is what Queen Elizabeth II’s money has paid US lawyers to say on behalf of her favourite son about a woman was was sexually abused as a child.

Lovely.

We get snippets. Is the whole document available?

 

[TopCat]

What is 'this' and why might it be of interest?

It’s the court documents. Super.

 

[Athos]

Tell us more.

What is 'this' and why might it be of interest?

They're some of his recent filings in the proceedings (albeit with redactions).

 

[MrCurry]

They're some of his recent filings in the proceedings (albeit with redactions).

Quite a lot of redactions in the case of the third one you’ve added… it’s nothing but redaction! Doc 1 is quite juicy though.

 

[bluescreen]

So as not to derail this Royal thread I've put more about Jes Staley over on the Epstein clone thread. I expect there will be a few more rolling heads.

Did Jeffrey Epstein clone himself, or sell secrets to Mossad, and other questions

Some musician called Leland Nally wrote this 12,000 word feature for Mother Jones last year. In my opinion it didn't create the waves it should have: I called everyone in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book. Maybe editors pooh-poohed it because Nally isn't a journalist? Maybe nobody read it to...

www.urban75.net

 

[Athos]

Quite a lot of redactions in the case of the third one you’ve added… it’s nothing but redaction! Doc 1 is quite juicy though.

Yes, just included for completeness, really. And it does show that his lawyers have a copy of the settlement agreement; there had been some speculation here that they didn't know what was in it.

 

[scalyboy]

This might be of interest.

Thanks for uploading this.

Some weird double-talk in the first two paragraphs:

“Virginia Giuffre may well be a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), and nothing can excuse, nor fully capture, the abhorrence and gravity of Epstein’s monstrous behavior against Giuffre
…
For over a decade, Giuffre has profited from her allegations against Epstein and others
…
Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years. This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits…”

So his lawyers concede that VG “may well” have been a victim of sexual abuse, but that doesn’t prevent them from attacking her for having “profited” from “frivolous” lawsuits.

If - as they state - VG has obtained sums of money that most can only dream of, she must now be quite wealthy. So by implication her motive for continuing to file such lawsuits must be sheer, unadulterated greed.

To me, it comes across as an extraordinarily offensive and aggressively-worded document, and I would hazard a guess it will further denigrate the UK public’s view of him.

Seems to me to be a PR disaster, not unlike the Met’s recent PR handling of the fallout from the Couzens case.

 

[MickiQ]

I want to know more about the Spitting Image puppet, is he now going to start claming that the picture of her posing with him is really a picture of her posing with his Spitting Image puppet?

 

[bluescreen]

Yes, just included for completeness, really. And it does show that his lawyers have a copy of the settlement agreement; there had been some speculation here that they didn't know what was in it.

From all the arguments I infer that Andrew isn't named in the settlement agreement. No doubt he agonised at the time over whether that would be incriminating in itself or whether it would let him off.

 

[Athos]

Thanks for uploading this.

Some weird double-talk in the first two paragraphs:

“Virginia Giuffre may well be a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), and nothing can excuse, nor fully capture, the abhorrence and gravity of Epstein’s monstrous behavior against Giuffre
…
For over a decade, Giuffre has profited from her allegations against Epstein and others
…
Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years. This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits…”

So his lawyers concede that VG “may well” have been a victim of sexual abuse, but that doesn’t prevent them from attacking her for having “profited” from “frivolous” lawsuits.

If - as they state - VG has obtained sums of money that most can only dream of, she must now be quite wealthy. So by implication her motive for continuing to file such lawsuits must be sheer, unadulterated greed.

To me, it comes across as an extraordinarily offensive and aggressively-worded document, and I would hazard a guess it will further denigrate the UK public’s view of him.

Seems to me to be a PR disaster, not unlike the Met’s recent PR handling of the fallout from the Couzens case.

Yeah, done himself no favors at all.

I guess a lot will turn on the court's interpretation of the settlement and release agreement, in particular whether or not it covers him - both the question of whether he's in scope and that if where he had standing to rely on it as a third party. It looks like it covered Dershowitz, and that's why she had to drop the claim against him; I fear it might be the same here.

 

[Athos]

From all the arguments I infer that Andrew isn't named in the settlement agreement. No doubt he agonised at the time over whether that would be incriminating in itself or whether it would let him off.

That appears to be true; he seems to be relying on the fact that he'd already been identified by her in the Epstein proceedings, and that he's captured in (at least) one of the classes of people included in the release agreement i.e. "royalty."

 

[Chilli.s]

Doesn't seem to be saying he never met her anymore, just didn't break the law.

To me, it comes across as an extraordinarily offensive and aggressively-worded document, and I would hazard a guess it will further denigrate the UK public’s view of him.

Agree, it is a totally offensive standpoint

If he had any scruples he'd applaud someone for recovering from abuse and bringing lawbreaking to the public eye

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yeah, done himself no favors at all.

I guess a lot will turn on the court's interpretation of the settlement and release agreement, in particular whether or not it covers him. It looks like it covered Derschowitz, and that's why she had to drop the claim against him; I fear it might be the same here.

I seem to recall that Dershowitz was covered as the agreement was for Epstein and his legal advisors.

 

[Athos]

I seem to recall that Dershowitz was covered as the agreement was for Epstein and his legal advisors.

I don't think any of know the terms of the agreement, which makes it very hard to compare how clearly Derchowitz was covered by it compared to Andrew.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Right charmers. Tact free shitbags. Andrew nonce agreed to this wording. What utter shit he is

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks for uploading this.

Some weird double-talk in the first two paragraphs:

“Virginia Giuffre may well be a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), and nothing can excuse, nor fully capture, the abhorrence and gravity of Epstein’s monstrous behavior against Giuffre
…
For over a decade, Giuffre has profited from her allegations against Epstein and others
…
Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years. This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits…”

So his lawyers concede that VG “may well” have been a victim of sexual abuse, but that doesn’t prevent them from attacking her for having “profited” from “frivolous” lawsuits.

If - as they state - VG has obtained sums of money that most can only dream of, she must now be quite wealthy. So by implication her motive for continuing to file such lawsuits must be sheer, unadulterated greed.

To me, it comes across as an extraordinarily offensive and aggressively-worded document, and I would hazard a guess it will further denigrate the UK public’s view of him.

Seems to me to be a PR disaster, not unlike the Met’s recent PR handling of the fallout from the Couzens case.

the met seem to contain many couzens

 

[bluescreen]

I know nothing about US law. Is there a good reason why Andrew is employing attorneys from LA in an action based in NY? Presumably they are qualified at the NY bar, but one would have thought NY attorneys a more obvious choice.

 

[Athos]

I know nothing about US law. Is there a good reason why Andrew is employing attorneys from LA in an action based in NY? Presumably they are qualified at the NY bar, but one would have thought NY attorneys a more obvious choice.

The firm has a lot of experience representing high-profile people (typically Hollywood stars) accused of this sort of thing.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I know nothing about US law. Is there a good reason why Andrew is employing attorneys from LA in an action based in NY? Presumably they are qualified at the NY bar, but one would have thought NY attorneys a more obvious choice.

Specialists in representing nonces.

 

[bluescreen]

The firm has a lot of experience representing high-profile people (typically Hollywood stars) accused of this sort of thing.

Ah, OK. I don't expect there would be many NY firms with that sort of expertise...

 

[DaveCinzano]

Pederast Andrew-adjacent news:

Barclays chief executive Jes Staley is stepping down after an investigation by the City watchdog over his links to the sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The bank said the investigation did not conclude that Staley “saw, or was aware of, any of Mr Epstein’s alleged crimes, which was the central question underpinning Barclays’ support for Mr Staley following the arrest of Mr Epstein in the summer of 2019.”

Barclays chief Jes Staley steps down after Epstein investigation

Executive plans to challenge findings of FCA inquiry and will be replaced by CS Venkatakrishnan

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pickman's model]

Ah, OK. I don't expect there would be many NY firms with that sort of expertise...

i thought there'd be loads

 

[dessiato]

Totally unrelated to the thread,

bluescreen your tagline translates as "I is another. Je suis un autre is "I am another."

Pedant mode will now be turned off.

 

[Athos]

Totally understand related to the thread,

bluescreen your tagline translates as "I is another. Je suis un autre is "I am another."

Pedant mode will now be turned off.

It's a Rimbaud quote.