bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Was she using the same lawyers as now, do you know?
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Not sure, I didn't write it, but I think you are misreading the tweet.
The contractual arguments are sufficiently strong for him IMV - the joint tortfeasor stuff looks actually to be of more assistance rather than less as well. The idea that these people weren't well advised and wouldn't have a very strong legal position is also a bit silly - it's the Royals/establishment.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
oh yeh it's the royals / establishment so they must have a strong position. doesn't follow. just look at the number of times successive governments have been found wanting in the courts: and you'd think if anyone kept to the law it'd be people responsible for making it.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Indeed, the guy is one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet - a sick, intensely evil freak. Good article on him in the Newyorker a few years back. What really shines the through the piece is that Dershowitz' extreme misogyny predates his embroilment in Epstein's child rape cult by many decades. Victim-shaming, anti-feminism and defending sexual predators has been a long staple of his.
Alan Dershowitz, Devil’s Advocate
The noted lawyer’s long, controversial career—and the accusations against him.
Athos
Well-Known Member
EDIT: Some of the same.
Last edited:
Legalise is such unreadable drivel.
e.g.
15. Defendant objects to the definition of the terms “Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous to the extent it incorporates persons
and entities of which Defendant has no knowledge. For purposes of responding to these Requests, Defendant understands “Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” to
mean Jeffrey Epstein.
How can references to Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” be meaning other people, vague, over broad. FFS.
e.g.
15. Defendant objects to the definition of the terms “Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous to the extent it incorporates persons
and entities of which Defendant has no knowledge. For purposes of responding to these Requests, Defendant understands “Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” to
mean Jeffrey Epstein.
How can references to Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” be meaning other people, vague, over broad. FFS.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Indeed, the guy is one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet - a sick, intensely evil freak. Good article on him in the Newyorker a few years back. What really shines the through the piece is that Dershowitz' extreme misogyny predates his embroilment in Epstein's child rape cult by many decades. Victim-shaming, anti-feminism and defending sexual predators has been a long staple of his.
Alan Dershowitz, Devil’s Advocate
The noted lawyer’s long, controversial career—and the accusations against him.www.newyorker.com
That's a long read, but worth it. This early passage in particular is interesting with reference to his own moral compass:
The article also sets out Giuffre's history, how she sought to put the Epstein past behind her and why she couldn't when five years later they tracked her down to Australia.
Athos
Well-Known Member
He's objecting to how she defined those terms for the purposes of her requests. Without knowing how she's defined then, it's hard to say whether or not the objection is reasonable. If for example, she sought to define them as, say, including "all family, friends, associates, and staff, as well as associated businesses" that could be too wide.
steveseagull
Well-Known Member
3pm our time?
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
The only question I have is "Will There Be a Trial?", I'm sure someone will announce it sooner or later, 15.00 there is 20.00 here.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It’s too long for me to read on a screen. I started but didn’t even get as far as the passage you quote.
But it doesn't read like that is my point. It looks like nonsense. If it said “Jeffrey Epsteidn and all other parties, that would make sense.
The logic of how that #15 is written is he objects to “Jeffrey Epstein” and “Epstein” as being too wide. When by any normal persons reading, that phrase refers to one person.
No, I think you (and plenty of others in this thread) are misunderstanding.
There is some other document (issued by Guifre’s side) that has defined the phrase “Jeffrey Epstein” for some purpose. We don’t know what that other document says, but from context we know that it has defined “Jeffrey Epstein” in a way that includes more than just the man himself. For example, maybe it has defined “Jeffrey Epstein” to mean the man AND any business he ever set up.
So in THIS document, the lawyers are objecting that the definition of “Jeffrey Epstein” in the OTHER document is unfair. They are saying that “Jeffrey Epstein” should refer only to the man himself.
TL;DR: The point you are making means you actually agree with the nonce’s lawyers.
Athos
Well-Known Member
This.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, 1500 here.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
OK expect to here soon then eh?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't know if the judge will make a decision today, or just hear the arguments, and take time to consider.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
But aren't they also arguing that the agreement covers Andrew. SO on one hand objecting to what might be a very wide interpretation of the usage, Epstein
And on the other saying the agreement which presumably doesn't explicitly name Prince Andrew, does in fact cover him.
Fucking lawyers.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Athos
Well-Known Member
But aren't they also arguing that the agreement covers Andrew. SO on one hand objecting to what might be a very wide interpretation of the usage, Epstein
And on the other saying the agreement which presumably doesn't explicitly name Prince Andrew, does in fact cover him.
Fucking lawyers.
Is like saying it's not appropriate - for the purposes of trying to find things posted on the internet by Xenon - to define Xenon as 'Xenon and and their associates', whilst, at the same time, arguing that Xenon is captured within a group defined as 'people who post on Urban75'; there is no inherent contradiction.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Listening to it, interesting, the judge doesn't seem too friendly with Nonce's brief, the one with the hairdo...
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Now arguing that she filed it too late whilst acknowledging it was within the time limit.
steveseagull
Well-Known Member
Coverage from Simon Marks
Athos
Well-Known Member
Arguing that the Governor shouldn't have extended the limitation period for any victims of sexual abuse isn't a good look.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No sweat said the duke
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
I'll bet he's sweating now.
Similar threads
