Jeffrey Epstein legal deal with Prince Andrew accuser to be unsealed

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Guardian

Anear-dozen-year-old legal settlement between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender whom she accused of sexual abuse, is expected to be unsealed on Monday.

The unsealing stems from Giuffre’s sexual abuse lawsuit against Prince Andrew, which she filed on 9 August in Manhattan federal court.

Giuffre has long accused Epstein and his sometime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell – now a convicted sex-trafficker, after the conclusion of her New York trial last week – of forcing her into sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17. The Duke of York vehemently maintained his innocence.

Prince Andrew filed Giuffre’s settlement with Epstein as part of his attempt to dismiss her case against him, arguing that it shields him. Lawyers for the prince contend that the settlement contains provisions that bar Giuffre from taking legal action against many of Epstein’s associates.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-giuffres-legal-deal-with-jeffrey-epstein-released/ar-AASnL4Q

[leftieNanner]

1. Uh-Oh Andy!

You're a creep and everyone now knows it. Better get mama to pull out her royal checkbook.

Charles and Andrew - what a pair!

[3Hotdogs]

2. Then there's Anne.

She's always goo for a chuckle or two.

[Effete Snob]

3. Why does former NM Gov. Bill Richardson get a pass?

Giuffre named more than just Andrew.

[2Gingersnaps]

6. Same reason Jerry Sandusky, Dr. Nasser, Dr. Strauss, Denny Hastert, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby,

and what Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, and Madison Cawthorne hope remains true-these cases are extremely hard to prosecute, victims spend years begging for justice and shock and surprise-by the time anyone listens statutes of limitations may have run out. Ask Gym Jordan. Because victims are always liars or just making charges for a money grab dontchaknow, Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers played that card.

So it will be interesting if Epstein was able to con his victim into a deal that protected his "clients" while he cut a sweetheart deal in State court in Florida for a slap on the wrist. Anyone that he cut a deal to protect should face prosecution, anyone. Not just the ones named and shamed by Q without evidence.

Kevin Spacey, Bill Clinton, and tRump were named in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial by the pilot of the "Lolita Express." I swear as much as I love Tom Hanks, if there is real evidence, every movie of his I own goes in the trash. But I already hear Trump and Gaetz did nothing wrong, and bullshit. Joel Greenburg already turned on Gaetz and is awaiting sentencing pending further cooperation. Trump's 13 year old at the time victim dropped the charges, has a sworn affidavit to the claim, was doxxed, claims to have been threatened. Plus, who goes to the Supreme Court to hide DNA evidence that would prove their innocence?

Let's face it, some people have always known we have a multiple tier justice system. At risk kids are the happy hunting ground of predators, and this is the worst kept dirty secret privilege of the entitled. It's best use is political cudgel, sure Anthony Wiener was guilty-but he actually got prosecuted and sent to jail in short order! What?

[padah513]

10. Reuters fact checked Tom Hanks

His name or initials do not appear in any of Jeffrey Epstein's private flight logs. Not saying he didn't, but there is no record of it so they deemed that bit of information false.

[2Gingersnaps]

23. Yeah, I find that impossible to believe myself,

but those Q types banter his name about at every chance. I'd like to see a few slander suits. My guess is most of them have a hard time with rent and groceries, Trump has always traded on that National Enquirer mind set. Fed them stories in trade for flattering ones on him.

I thought the Al Franken business was a railroad job, and Roger Stone and Sean Hannity's involvement was confirmation. Harvey Weinstein did get away with it FAR too long, as well as Cosby. But for every false accusation there's a half dozen CONVICTED creeps walking free.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Giuffre is only suing Prince Andrew for sexual abuse

She's also suing Dershowitz for defamation, since he claims she's lying about it all.

So if you want to know why she's suing Andrew but not others, you need to address that to her or her lawyers, not DU.

[Effete Snob]

13. I get that

I didn't realize that the principal interest was in her lawsuits, and not in whom she alleges to have been child molesters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. It's what may come up in court that gets talked about

An allegation that doesn't seem likely to be expanded on is not news.

[FarPoint]

25. Well said!

Thank you ..

[Bev54]

4. You can find the released agreement here

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/long-secret-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-at-issue-in-lawsuit-against-prince-andrew-made-public-for-first-time/

Edited for direct link to document:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21172724-2009-epstein-giuffre-settlement

[cadoman]

7. ok honestly this is a bit disappointing -- how does this relate to other victims?

I thought what made the agreement so unconscionable was that it blocked criminal prosecution or civil settlements involving other victims. Is anyone seeing anything related to that here? This agreement seems to be between Virginia and Epstein.

Is there a separate agreement between the Federal government and Epstein that's still blocked?

[Bev54]

8. I think we were all hoping for names but they named nobody

Very disappointing.

[Effete Snob]

15. Giuffre has named a bunch of people

The document doesn't stop her from doing that

She's named Andrew, Gov. Bill Richardson (D), Sen. George Mitchell (D), model agent Jean-Luc Brunel, and one other who escapes me now.

Now, of course, the Qanon crowd believes there is a much larger secret global pedophile network, but they don't post as much at DU, with a few exceptions.

[Effete Snob]

11. The significance of this document

Is whether it prevents Giuffre from continuing her lawsuit against Prince Andrew.

None of the other Epstein victims has made claims that they were abused by any Epstein associates.

If, for example, you followed the Maxwell trial, you would have noticed that they specifically denied being abused by Epstein associates.

Giuffre, on the other hand, has said she was abused by Prince Andrew, Gov. Bill Richardson, model agent Jean-Luc Brunel, and Senator George Mitchell.

Because two of them are Democratic politicians, we don't talk about them at DU.

[cadoman]

14. thanks for the heads up, I love Gov. Richardson

He was an amazing Governor. Don't know George Mitchell that well but he has both a Nobel Peace Prize and a Presidential Medal of Freedom so it's hard to think ill of the man.

As for Andrew, I don't trust anyone that doesn't sweat.

But how could this document in any way limit a suit against Prince Andrew? At the very top it has the parties described, and Epstein's "party" (what a choice of words) is described as:

"Epstein and his agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), assign(s) and/or employee(s) (hereinafter, “Second Parties’)"

So unless Prince Andrew is somehow an attorney, predecessor, successor, heir, administrator, assign, or employee of Epstein, how could this document matter?

[Effete Snob]

16. how could this document matter?

Because she agrees to release anyone else who could have been a defendant in the action.

This part:

"Virginia Roberts and her agent(s), attorney(s),
predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), and/or assign(s) .....

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,"

It releases anyone who could have been joined in the action with Epstein as a defendant. That's normal, since in general if you settle a case but allow for potential un-named co-defendants to be sued, then that can allow the co-defendants to drag you back in through various mechanisms.

[cadoman]

17. wow, that is an absolutely screwball clause to add!

Do you think that is shoddy practice or perhaps an oversight by her lawyer? I would be beyond fuming mad if I paid a lawyer to draft or review a document and ended up with a clause like that in it.

Makes me think any time I sign something it should be _drafted_ by my lawyer--not just reviewed.

Will this turn into a legal dispute as to whether Virginia could have signed away that right to begin with? After all, those parties are not in any way a part of the agreement. It could potentially be read as any potential defendant related to Epstein's estate, although it's obviously phrased in a much broader sense.

[Effete Snob]

18. It's bog standard normal

There's nothing unusual about it, and her attorney would certainly have told her that this is a final settlement involving claims against Epstein and anyone who could have been named as a co-defendant with him.

>After all, those parties are not in any way a part of the agreement.

It doesn't matter. If you borrow your friend's car and run me over, I can sue both you and your friend - You, for running me over, and your friend for loaning you the car. You and your friend would be proper defendants to join in a single suit.

But, let's say that I didn't know your friend loaned you the car, and I just sue you. When I settle with you, the settlement is most likely going to include both you and anyone else who could have been joined as a defendant, whether known or unknown.

The reason for language like that is let's suppose it wasn't there. I settle with you, and then I go sue your friend separately. In that suit, your friend then brings you back in as a party for running my over with HIS car - since his liability is dependent on what you did with the car he loaned you. So, then, the settlement was no good, since there you are, back in court, as a defendant on what boils down to a different aspect of the same claim.

This is not really unusual in a settlement.

[cadoman]

20. thank you for the explanation, so is it your expectation her suit against Andrew will be invalid?

If that is the common verbiage and practice, then it would seem to be an open and shut case, right?

[Effete Snob]

21. I have no idea

What's normal language in a settlement and how a court might apply it, are two different things.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. From her attorney

A representative for Giuffre’s lawyers said the release was “irrelevant to Ms Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew” as it “does not mention Prince Andrew”.

“He did not even know about it. He could not have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part. The actual parties to the release have made clear that Prince Andrew was not covered by it.

“Lastly, the reason we sought to have the release made public was to refute the claims being made about it by Prince Andrew’s PR campaign.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-giuffres-legal-deal-with-jeffrey-epstein-released/ar-AASnL4Q

[FakeNoose]

24. The lawyers failed to notify the other victims that this deal was being made for Epstein

Once Epstein agreed to pay Virginia Roberts Giuffre $500K, there was no opportunity for the other victims to join in the lawsuit. If you've read any of the news articles by the Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, she has covered this story from the get-go.

(link) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article257015497.html

She has published a book, plus many columns about the Jeffrey Epstein crimes for the last 10(?) years. I believe she won a Pulitzer when the story first broke in the Miami Herald several years ago. After Epstein's death, Brown turned her interest to Ghislaine Maxwell, covering her arrest and trial.

[cadoman]

5. orange man be shaking right now, his right hand man drew up this agreement!

Jim Acosta!

[Effete Snob]

9. What in here would bother him?

Here's the document:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf