Prince Andrew and the secret sealed document

[yorksrob]

Brexit voters said the exact same, and we have a shortage of just about everything, apart from another convienient excuse to blame it on.

Now we cant blame it on Europe any more, I suppose the Monarchy is the next one in the frame.
If you keep taking big fish out of the sea, the size of the catch keeps getting smaller, eventually people will have to face up to solving their own problems On the surface instead of fishing in the sea for an excuse to blame something else.

Yet in spite of the shortages, there's always been something to eat and drink. People are out and about supporting the economy where they can.

I can't see the bulk of the population blaming the monarchy for the countries ills.

 

[Sm5]

Yet in spite of the shortages, there's always been something to eat and drink. People are out and about supporting the economy where they can.

I can't see the bulk of the population blaming the monarchy for the countries ills.

They did in France in the 18th Century, Russia in the 20th century.

its probably noteworthy that in any country that abolished its monarchy in Europe, none have fared better afterwards… Hungary, Prussia, Russia, France
The case for improvment in quality of life isnt there.


so whats the benefit, apart from an anti-wealth statement ?

I think more than likely is that following the Queens passing, many commonwealth countries will break with the monarchy and go their own way anyway. It doesnt benefit them and is probably more of a symbol of respect in a post colonial era. Similarly the UK doesnt offer much benefits to being linked to itself.

 

[brad465]

Epstein's private plane pilot has testified in the Maxwell trial that Prince Andrew was one of his passengers:

Ghislaine Maxwell: Epstein pilot testifies he flew Prince Andrew

The paedophile financier's pilot tells a court he also flew Bill Clinton and Donald Trump on the jet.

www.bbc.co.uk

(Apologies for no text quote, I can't copy it from my phone)

 

[GusB]

Epstein's private plane pilot has testified in the Maxwell trial that Prince Andrew was one of his passengers:

Ghislaine Maxwell: Epstein pilot testifies he flew Prince Andrew

The paedophile financier's pilot tells a court he also flew Bill Clinton and Donald Trump on the jet.

www.bbc.co.uk

(Apologies for no text quote, I can't copy it from my phone)

Paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein's long-time pilot has testified at the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell that he flew VIPs to luxury locations worldwide.
Larry Visoski, the first witness in Ms Maxwell's sex-trafficking trial, recalled flying Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Kevin Spacey.
Ms Maxwell denies the charges and says she is being used as a scapegoat for Epstein, who died in prison in 2019.
But prosecutors argue the pair were "partners in crime" in sex abuse.
Ms Maxwell has been in a US jail since her arrest last year, and faces up to 80 years in prison if convicted.
Prosecutors say the British socialite, who also has US and French citizenship, recruited and groomed underage girls for her long-term companion Epstein to abuse.
Asked to described Ms Maxwell's standing in Epstein's operations, Mr Visoski described her as "the number two".
"Epstein was the big number one," he told the New York court on Tuesday.
Mr Visoski served as Epstein's pilot for over 25 years. During his testimony, prosecutors showed the jurors photographs of Epstein's properties.
He testified that he had never seen any sexual activity during trips, although the cockpit door was always kept closed during flights on the plane nicknamed the "Lolita Express".
He also recalled flying Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who says she was sexually assaulted by Prince Andrew.
The Queen's 61-year-old second son has consistently denied the allegation.
Asked if he remembered Ms Giuffre, Mr Visoski said: "Yes. A shorter woman with dirty blonde hair. She didn't look young. I mean, whatever you decipher is the definition of young. But she was a woman in my category."

• What are the accusations against Prince Andrew?

Asked to describe Ms Maxwell's relationship to Epstein he said it was "more personal than business".
"I wouldn't characterise it as romantic," he added.
Another woman testifying under the pseudonym "Jane" told the court that Ms Maxwell had frequently been in the room with her when she had sexual relations with Epstein while just 14 years old.
"Jane" told the court she had met Epstein and Ms Maxwell while attending summer camp in Michigan 1994. He was introduced to her as a wealthy donor who offered scholarships to pupils.
Epstein had promised to fund her education but instead abused her, prosecutors said. She testified that her father had died one year earlier from cancer and her family was struggling financially at the time.
In graphic detail, she described her alleged abuse and said that Ms Maxwell, who she said was present for much of it, was "very casual" about the encounters.
Jane said that Ms Maxwell would talk to her about sex, and that she soon began visiting Epstein's home every week or two.
She said her first sexual experience came when they were having a discussion about her future.
She said that Epstein led her from his office to his pool house, then pulled down his pants and started masturbating.
"I was frozen in fear, I had never seen a penis before," the witness said. "I was terrified and felt gross and like I felt ashamed."
It was not long after that she had her first sexual experience with Ms Maxwell, she testified, saying it took place at Epstein's home in Palm Beach, Florida.
Jane said that the defendant and Epstein had her follow them to his bedroom. They took their clothes off and "started sort of fondling each other and kind of casually giggling", she said.
"I was just standing there and he asked me to take my top off and then their hands [were] everywhere and Jeffrey proceeded to masturbate and Ghislaine was rubbing him and kissing him and fondling," she continued.
She added that she travelled with Epstein and Ms Maxwell about 10 times, mainly between his homes in New York and New Mexico while she was between the ages of 14 and 16.

• Who is Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's ex-girlfriend?
• Panorama: The Prince and the Epstein Scandal
• Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

"Jane" also described "orgies" with other participants, and described feeling pain during the alleged encounters.
Both Epstein and Ms Maxwell would brag about their connections, including the famous people that they knew, she said.
Jane is the first of four accusers expected to testify at trial.
Ms Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to eight charges of sex trafficking and other crimes.
The allegations at trial cover the period 1994 to 2004. Prosecutors allege Ms Maxwell was a "right-hand" partner for Epstein, helping to groom vulnerable teenage girls as young as 14 for abuse at his luxurious residences.
They described her as "the lady of the house" who "helped normalise abusive sexual conduct".

 

[brad465]

The secret sealed document has now officially been released, and reveals Virginia Giuffre was paid $500,000 in 2009 to not sue anyone who could be revealed as a defendant:

Prince Andrew accuser’s 2009 deal with Jeffrey Epstein made public

It shows Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone who could be described as a "potential defendant".

www.bbc.co.uk

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 settlement of her Florida damages claim against the sex offender shows.
The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
He has consistently denied the claims.
Ms Giuffre alleges that 20 years ago she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
The document was released ahead of a critical hearing on Tuesday in the civil case involving Prince Andrew.

The prince's lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him - because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a "potential defendant".
Epstein died in prison in 2019, while Maxwell was last week convicted of recruiting and trafficking young girls to be abused by the late financier.
But Ms Giuffre's legal team say the terms of the Florida settlement are irrelevant to her case against the Prince - which alleges sexual abuse by the royal in New York, London and the US Virgin Islands.
In her 2009 claim against Epstein, lawyers for Ms Giuffre said she was lured into a world of sexual abuse at his Florida home when she was a teenager.
They added: "In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy defendant's [Epstein] every sexual whim, [Ms Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances."
That case never went to trial because on 17 November 2009 Jeffrey Epstein agreed to pay her $500,000 to stop it in its tracks. That deal was confidential until now - but has been made public because of its potential importance to the Prince Andrew case.
In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".
The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world".
"It is further agreed that this Settlement Agreement represents a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation. This Settlement Agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party.
"The Parties further confirm and acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement is being entered into without any duress or undue influence, and that they have had a full and complete opportunity to discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement with their own attorneys."
The precise meaning of that wording is expected to be the subject of intense legal arguments on Tuesday in New York.
During a scheduled hearing, the duke's lawyers are expected to say it means Ms Giuffre's damages claim - which they say is baseless - must be halted.
In filings to the New York court last month, Andrew B. Brettler, the duke's lead lawyer, said the Epstein settlement's plain language would be clear once it was released to the public.
"Epstein negotiated for this broad release, insisting that it cover any and all persons who Giuffre identified as potential targets of future lawsuits, regardless of the merit— or lack thereof —to any such claims," he said.
"Giuffre's baseless claims against Prince Andrew ... must be dismissed at this stage."
Ms Giuffre's lawyers say the Florida settlement is irrelevant.
In their own court filings they have told the court that the Epstein deal is "outside the four corners" of her action against Prince Andrew because it does not cover her claims against him.

Regardless of whether this causes the legal action to be dropped, I think it highlights some serious foul play must have happened somewhere, as otherwise she wouldn't have effectively been paid/bribed to keep quiet.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Regardless of whether this causes the legal action to be dropped, I think it highlights some serious foul play must have happened somewhere, as otherwise she wouldn't have effectively been paid/bribed to keep quiet.

The case could be made that she was given the money under duress.

 

[43096]

The case could be made that she was given the money under duress.

That is specifically provided for in the agreement, according to what's published on the BBC website:

The Parties further confirm and acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement is being entered into without any duress or undue influence, and that they have had a full and complete opportunity to discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement with their own attorneys.

 

[Gloster]

I wonder who is going to be the next person to drive into a tree, fall down a lift shaft or catch a mysterious fever from the drains.

 

[ComUtoR]

The secret sealed document has now officially been released, and reveals Virginia Giuffre was paid $500,000 in 2009 to not sue anyone who could be revealed as a defendant:

It's an odd tactic for the Prince and his legal team to take. For this to be upheld he has to admit to being a "potential defendant" Whilst that isn't legally an admission of guilt....

Would it be possible for her not to 'sue' but take other legal action ?

 

[popeter45]

i gotta say such a vague signoff of basilcy everybody ever has gotta be legally dubious with questions of enforment, for all we know the judge could throw out the case or nullify the settlement?

 

[najaB]

It's an odd tactic for the Prince and his legal team to take. For this to be upheld he has to admit to being a "potential defendant" Whilst that isn't legally an admission of guilt...

True. But simply being closely-associated with Epstein realistically makes him a "potential defendant" in the way that you or I would not.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely Prince Andrew cant be both a potential defendant and someone who never met the putative claimant!

 

[najaB]

Surely Prince Andrew cant be both a potential defendant and someone who never met the putative claimant!

Yes he can. Being a defendant wouldn't mean he committed the crime it would just require that it's plausible that he could have committed it. Especially if you're talking about a civil suit where the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal cases. Americans in particular sue all the time, on the most spurious of bases.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes he can. Being a defendant wouldn't mean he committed the crime it would just require that it's plausible that he could have committed it. Especially if you're talking about a civil suit where the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal cases. Americans in particular sue all the time, on the most spurious of bases.

I was being fatuous. Should have added a:

 

[ABB125]

Surely the fact that Andrew is being sued makes him a "potential defendant"? (Though surely he would then become an actual defendant?)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will the judicial verdict on the referred-to document be forthcoming today?

 

[LOL The Irony]

That is specifically provided for in the agreement, according to what's published on the BBC website:

Anyone can put a gun to your head and say here, sign this. Here's half a mil for your troubles, you never saw or spoke to us.

I wonder who is going to be the next person to drive into a tree, fall down a lift shaft or catch a mysterious fever from the drains.

Maxwell herself seems the most likely candidate to meet with an accident at the present moment.

 

[21C101]

I suspect if it goes against his highness it will be appealed right through to the Supreme Court.

Because if that settlement dosen't block legal action against his highness then it won't block action against a goodly number of the good and great in the US as well including at least one former president.

 

[brad465]

It's been a bad day for people alleged/found to have attended dodgy parties: Prince Andrew has failed to get the civil case by Virginia Giuffre thrown out and will go ahead:

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Virginia Giuffre's claims against the Duke of York can continue to be heard, a US court says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew has failed in his bid to get a civil case which alleges he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre dismissed by a US judge.
Ms Giuffre is suing the prince claiming he abused her when she was 17.
His lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled that the claim could be heard.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.
The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In court documents, Ms Giuffre said she was the victim of sex trafficking and abuse by late billionaire financier Epstein.
Part of her abuse involved being lent out to other powerful men, she alleges.
Prince Andrew, the Queen's second son, said in an interview with BBC Newsnight in 2019 that he had no recollection of ever meeting Virginia Giuffre, and her account of them having sex "didn't happen".

His lawyers had argued that Ms Giuffre agreed in court in 2009 not to sue anyone else connected to Epstein when she settled her damages claim against the billionaire sex offender.
During a virtual hearing they said the Duke of York was a "potential defendant" as defined by the agreement and the case "should be dismissed".
Ms Giuffre's lawyer said only the parties of the settlement agreement could benefit from it, and not a "third party".
In his decision, Judge Kaplan said the agreement "cannot be said" to benefit the Duke of York.
He said his ruling did not consider the "defendant's efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms Giuffre's allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial".
He added: "In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."

 

[D821]

And mummy sorts Andy's legal fees courtesy of the UK tax payer.

 

[brad465]

And mummy sorts Andy's legal fees courtesy of the UK tax payer.

Yes if the case is completed before the Platinum Jubilee and Andrew loses, I suspect she won't be getting the Platinum Jubilee she'd hope for (at the moment the legal fees' news is relatively low profile, but I suspect the press will make a huge deal of it should Andrew lose).

 

[najaB]

Yes if the case is completed before the Platinum Jubilee and Andrew loses...

I'd be very surprised if that happens - I expect that Andrew's lawyers will try to tie this up for as long as they possibly can. Months at the very least, years possibly.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see the case settled with a non-disclosure agreement preventing us from ever knowing the terms.

 

[LOL The Irony]

It's been a bad day for people alleged/found to have attended dodgy parties: Prince Andrew has failed to get the civil case by Virginia Giuffre thrown out and will go ahead:

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling

Virginia Giuffre's claims against the Duke of York can continue to be heard, a US court says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Excellent news.

And mummy sorts Andy's legal fees courtesy of the UK tax payer.

Rumour has it she's told him to do one and he's having to sell one of his chalets.

 

[brad465]

How the mighty have fallen:

Prince Andrew loses military titles and use of HRH

It comes as the prince faces a US civil case over claims he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.

Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source added.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

 

[Trackman]

How the mighty have fallen:

Prince Andrew loses military titles and use of HRH

It comes as the prince faces a US civil case over claims he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

www.bbc.co.uk

About time.
I wonder what his next move will be?

 

[ABB125]

I wonder if the Queen has had a chat with Andrew, along the lines of "did you do it or not? I won't tell anyone if you did, but I need to know"?

 

[dgl]

About time.
I wonder what his next move will be?

Her Maj organising him a trip to paris?

 

[Trackman]

I wonder if the Queen has had a chat with Andrew, along the lines of "did you do it or not? I won't tell anyone if you did, but I need to know"?

I can see it now: 'You've let me down Andrew' - 'I'm sorry Mummy'

 

[baz962]

I never thought I would see the day. Although is this because she is ashamed ( for want of a better phrase ) or to hope that it all fades away . Bit of out of sight , out of mind etc.

 

[najaB]

Although is this because she is ashamed ( for want of a better phrase ) or to hope that it all fades away .

Though not directly comparable, it's similar to someone being put on indefinite leave from their job when there have been strong accusations made against them. You see it happening often with media personalities.