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

[bemused]

Only just caught up with this, but his lawyers seem fairly clear she signed something absolving any of Epstein's mates of guilt - is that the gist?

Of course the whiff will always hang over the Andy but it would be a massive shame if this is the case.

Pretty much, I'm sure her legal team read it before taking on the case.

 

[Athos]

I reckon it will be option 1. Draws a line under things and gives a little mental
wiggle-room to deluded Royalists.

Yes, unless she insits on her day in court, no matter what he offers.

 

[Athos]

Only just caught up with this, but his lawyers seem fairly clear she signed something absolving any of Epstein's mates of guilt - is that the gist?

Of course the whiff will always hang over the Andy but it would be a massive shame if this is the case.

Yes. But the exact terms are not yet available to the public; should be relased today.

 

[Petcha]

Pretty much, I'm sure her legal team read it before taking on the case.

Well that's a bit of an anti-climax. I wonder if they specifically name names then. I think Bill Clinton at least should be a little worried given his track record.

 

[Athos]

Here it is.

'2. General Release. Virginia Roberts and her agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), and/or assign(s) (hereinafter, “First Parties”), for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) and other valuable consideration, received from or on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein and his agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), assign(s) and/or employee(s) (hereinafter, “Second Parties’), the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have, or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release. The issue of amount of attorneys’ fees and costs is specifically addressed in Paragraph 8, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. is further agreed that this Settlement Agreement represents a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation. This Setttement Agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party.'

 

[Athos]

And here's the unsealed motion to dismiss the claim against Windsor, based upon the agreement with Epstein.

'A. 2009 Settlement and Release Agreement (Exhibit A) On May 1, 2009, using the pseudonym Jane Doe No. 102, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre sued Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in an action styled, Jane Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 09-cv-80656-KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009) (the “Epstein Action”). Plaintiff and Epstein settled the case in November 2009. As part of the settlement, plaintiff agreed to release Epstein and numerous other individuals and entities from any and all liability arising from their alleged misconduct. That 2009 Settlement and General Release Agreement (the “Release Agreement”), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is dispositive of this action, in that it provides a complete release of any claims and/or potential claims that Plaintiff could have asserted against Prince Andrew. In light of this same Release Agreement, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her battery claims against Epstein’s former attorney, Alan Dershowitz, that she asserted in the parallel proceeding pending before Judge Preska, Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 19-cv-03377-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021) (the “Dershowitz Action”) [ECF No. 331]. A copy of the Release Agreement also was filed in the Dershowitz Action. See Dershowitz, No. 19-cv-03377-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2021) [ECF Nos. 334-1 (sealed), 335-1 (redacted)], and accordingly, is an appropriate subject of judicial notice here. “Settlement agreements are documents of which a court may take judicial notice in order to determine whether future claims are barred by a previous settlement.” Deylli v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 13-cv-06669 (NSR), 2014 WL 2757470, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2014) (taking judicial notice of settlement agreement in a related case).'

 

[Athos]

And here, subject to some redactions, is the Plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss based on the settlement agreement.

The important bits are too lengthy to quote, but can be found at pages 7 to 17.

 

[Athos]

On the face of it, the agreement would appear to cover Windsor, but, Giuffre has some decent legal arguments as to why it shouldn't, in particular: i) the court can't take it into consideration, becasue it wasn't publicly filed; ii) it doesn't cover him, becuse he wasn't a potential defendant to those proceedings, for procedural/jurisdictional reasons; iii) that the agreement was effectively superceded by a later one (that didn't cover Prince Andrew)); and, iv) the parties didn't intend to release him.

It could go either way - too close to call. The court will consider this issue at tomorrow's hearing.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Doesn’t specifically mention him. The judge will decide tomorrow. The same judge that has already said, “Let's cut out all the technicalities and get to the substance,”

 

[bluescreen]

It seems incredibly widely drawn. Effectively, Roberts releases Epstein

and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential
defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action [...] against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release [...]

This is the thing that's always puzzled me - how can Windsor claim protection under the release without admitting he was a potential defendant? Or does the fact that Roberts/Giuffre is suing him make him a potential defendant by definition? Could it prevent her from ever suing anyone anywhere for anything ever?
That would be unconscionable.

I'm still thinking that Windsor imagines he can get away with it though.

ETA obvs she can sue for things that occurred post release but equally obvs that doesn't apply to Windsor

 

[Athos]

Doesn’t specifically mention him. The judge will decide tomorrow. The same judge that has already said, “Let's cut out all the technicalities and get to the substance,”

That was in respect of them playing silly buggers on the issue of service; as the judge rightly noted, it was inevitable he'd be served eventually, so it made no sense to keep arguing the issue. But whether or not someone is barred from pursuing a claim is a significantly more substantive issue. Though, obviously, I hope you're right and he fails tomorrow (and on the ultimate point, in due course).

 

[Athos]

It seems incredibly widely drawn. Effectively, Roberts releases Epstein


This is the thing that's always puzzled me - how can Windsor claim protection under the release without admitting he was a potential defendant? Or does the fact that Roberts/Giuffre is suing him make him a potential defendant by definition? Could it prevent her from ever suing anyone anywhere for anything ever?
That would be unconscionable.

I'm still thinking that Windsor imagines he can get away with it though.

ETA obvs she can sue for things that occurred post release but equally obvs that doesn't apply to Windsor

Yes, it does seem wide, but, on the other hand, Andrew was pretty obviously a potential defendant at the time she settled with Epstein; she knew who he was, and what he had done, and the issue of royalty had already been raised in proceedings. But she does have the technical arguments about whether or not he was a potential defendant for the purposes of those proceedings, based on jurisdiction, as well as the other procedural points.

 

[kabbes]

The key is this part:

plaintiff Virginia Giuffre sued Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in an action styled, Jane Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 09-cv-80656-KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009)

What did Giuffre sue Epstein for, and could she have included Nonce Andrew as co-defendant in that very specific action? If so, he cannot be a defendant here -- although, I think this is only true if this amounts to a re-run of the same action but with a different name on the ticket. If the Nonce of York couldn't have been named in that other action and/or(?) if this is a different action, the release is worthless.

 

[kenny g]

I always find US law a head twist but based on my skim reading I reckon this will still go to trial. The 2009 agreement has to be read in its context otherwise it becomes so wide as to be unjust.

 

[Thora]

I'm not sure "but the victim promised she wouldn't go after the rest of us" is the argument I'd want to take if I was trying to look innocent

 

[Athos]

I'm not sure "but the victim promised she wouldn't go after the rest of us" is the argument I'd want to take if I was trying to look innocent

I guess it'd depend on whether you thought you'd be be vindicated if it went to trial, which, in turn, would depend on whether or not you did it. Getting off on a 'technicality' might be your best outcome.

 

[Athos]

I always find US law a head twist but based on my skim reading I reckon this will still go to trial. The 2009 agreement has to be read in its context otherwise it becomes so wide as to be unjust.

I think you're probably right; there seems too much in the motion to dismiss that amounts to a factual dispute not to allow it to proceed to trial.

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure "but the victim promised she wouldn't go after the rest of us" is the argument I'd want to take if I was trying to look innocent

I think the point is that they don’t phrase it the way you just did.

 

[Athos]

The key is this part:



What did Giuffre sue Epstein for, and could she have included Nonce Andrew as co-defendant in that very specific action? If so, he cannot be a defendant here -- although, I think this is only true if this amounts to a re-run of the same action but with a different name on the ticket. If the Nonce of York couldn't have been named in that other action and/or(?) if this is a different action, the release is worthless.

That's essentially what's she's saying; that he couln't have been included in the Florida 2009 proceedings, becuase the subject matter was different, and because the court didn't have jurisdiction in respect of him.

 

[8ball]

Only just caught up with this, but his lawyers seem fairly clear she signed something absolving any of Epstein's mates of guilt - is that the gist?

I thought he wasn’t Epstein’s mate.

 

[andysays]

I guess it'd depend on whether you thought you'd be be vindicated if it went to trial, which, in turn, would depend on whether or not you did it. Getting off on a 'technicality' might be your best outcome.

If being vindicated was your aim, and if you genuinely thought you'd be vindicated if it went to trial, I can't see why you'd go through all these ridiculous and frankly desperate legal maneuverings to try to avoid it getting to trial.

Whatever the eventual legal outcome, his reputation is utterly destroyed forever. If that was (part of) Virginia Guiffre's aim, I think she's pretty much achieved it already.

 

[bemused]

If being vindicated was your aim, and if you genuinely thought you'd be vindicated if it went to trial, I can't see why you'd go through all these ridiculous and frankly desperate legal maneuverings to try to avoid it getting to trial.

Whatever the eventual legal outcome, his reputation is utterly destroyed forever. If that was (part of) Virginia Guiffre's aim, I think she's pretty much achieved it already.

Getting is dismissed saves months maybe years and all the associated costs. Pretty standard practice.

 

[Athos]

If being vindicated was your aim, and if you genuinely thought you'd be vindicated if it went to trial, I can't see why you'd go through all these ridiculous and frankly desperate legal maneuverings to try to avoid it getting to trial.

That was my point.

 

[andysays]

Getting is dismissed saves months maybe years and all the associated costs. Pretty standard practice.

But if the process of getting it dismissed results in your reputation being destroyed, what have you actually achieved?

 

[weltweit]

But if the process of getting it dismissed results in your reputation being destroyed, what have you actually achieved?

But but surely he is far too honourable ..

 

[bemused]

But if the process of getting it dismissed results in your reputation being destroyed, what have you actually achieved?

How would a judge dismissing a case before trial destroy a reputation? Although, with Adny I think that ship has sailed, struck a reef and sunk.

 

[Athos]

But if the process of getting it dismissed results in your reputation being destroyed, what have you actually achieved?

It's destroyed anyway. And will be even if a court doesn't find in her favour.

Having it kicked out early protects his fortune, and avoids the risk of a court finding of noncery.

 

[not a trot]

Well that's a bit of an anti-climax. I wonder if they specifically name names then. I think Bill Clinton at least should be a little worried given his track record.

That episode of Family Guy was a little disturbing.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

As an aside, I note Fergie, the princesses, their husbands and kids are holidaying in Switzerland, with Andy too scarred to leave the grounds of Windsor Great Park

 

[quiet guy]

He'll always be worried going overseas Incase someone has a warrant out for his arrest