• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

zooterkin said:
Well, I don't know about the military, but according to Popbitch (link will expire in about 10 weeks), he wasn't highly thought of by his police protection team.
Click to expand...

What is Popbitch, other than a miserable pile of unsupported claims?

Actually I shouldn't be so mean to Popbitch. Plenty of "reputable" media outlets also like to cite anonymous sources without any corroboration.
 
One defense attorney's opinion

At a defense lawyer's blog, Harvey Silverglate wrote, "This judge seems not to understand the concept of a fair trial. She has stacked the deck against the defendant. One would think that in a high-profile case, the judge would be more careful. Is she ignorant? Incompetent? Careless? Biased? I find it all very puzzling. I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer for over half a century, and I find myself gasping at this charade."

I know enough of Mr. Silverglate's career (see links above) not to dismiss his opinion out of hand; I only wish I knew more of his reasons.
EDT
Mr. Silverglate was commenting; the host of the blog is Scott Greenfield.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
At a defense lawyer's blog, Harvey Silverglate wrote, "This judge seems not to understand the concept of a fair trial. She has stacked the deck against the defendant. One would think that in a high-profile case, the judge would be more careful. Is she ignorant? Incompetent? Careless? Biased? I find it all very puzzling. I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer for over half a century, and I find myself gasping at this charade."

I know enough of Mr. Silverglate's career (see links above) not to dismiss his opinion out of hand; I only wish I knew more of his reasons.
Click to expand...

The first eight words...

"The case against Jeffrey Epstein proxy Ghislaine Maxwell...."

... pretty much tells me everything I need to know about what the rest of his article will be like.

If he doesn't understand that Maxwell was prosecuted for what SHE DID, not what Epstein did, then he hasn't been paying attention.
 
Ms. Maxwell's husband has apparently left her for a yoga instructor. (or yoga enthusiast, I'm not sure -- based on the article the headline may be wrong)


thedailybeast said:
Ghislaine Maxwell’s husband reportedly dumped her with a brutal phone call while she was behind bars, telling the now-convicted sex trafficker that he had decided to “move on” with a yoga instructor.

...

“There was a dramatic phone call between them, while she was in jail in solitary confinement. It became confrontational. Scott told her he had moved on and was seeing someone else.”
Click to expand...
 
Sealed Esptein Lawsuit details made public

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ein-prince-andrew-accuser-now-public/3476896/

"A previously sealed $500,000 lawsuit settlement in 2009 between Jeffrey Epstein and an American woman that Prince Andrew claims protects him from an ongoing lawsuit was made public Monday.

The deal between Epstein and Virginia Roberts, now known as Virginia Giuffre, contained a paragraph that said it protects anyone “who could have been included as a potential defendant” from being sued by Giuffre."​

Of course, the only question now is, is "a paragraph that said it protects anyone “who could have been included as a potential defendant” " a legally valid clause in a settlement of a law suit. I can't see how unless Price Andrew was actually named in the settlement, otherwise, that would "broad brush" let everyone on Epstein's little black book off the hook.

In any case, I don't much care about this lawsuit. We already know that Andrew is lying (we have all seen that photo) and it is almost certain that he did in fact knowlingly have sex with a trafficked under-aged girl. His name is already mud so I cannot see there is much more to gain by carrying on.
 
Last edited:
I am not a lawyer, but how can someone pay someone else not to ever sue an unnamed potential third party?
 
carlitos said:
I am not a lawyer, but how can someone pay someone else not to ever sue an unnamed potential third party?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the question I am asking.

ETA: For me this has some disturbing echoes of the "sweetheart deal" Alexander Acosta did with Epstein, where he attempted to grant immunity from prosecution to unnamed friends of Epstein. Thankfully, it didn't fly
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
At a defense lawyer's blog, Harvey Silverglate wrote, "This judge seems not to understand the concept of a fair trial. She has stacked the deck against the defendant. One would think that in a high-profile case, the judge would be more careful. Is she ignorant? Incompetent? Careless? Biased? I find it all very puzzling. I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer for over half a century, and I find myself gasping at this charade."

I know enough of Mr. Silverglate's career (see links above) not to dismiss his opinion out of hand; I only wish I knew more of his reasons.
EDT
Mr. Silverglate was commenting; the host of the blog is Scott Greenfield.
Click to expand...

He's a defense attorney. Presumably the main message here is, "if you hire me, I will seek out - and find! - procedural missteps I can use to keep you out of prison."

It would be a lot more noteworthy to me if a reputable prosecutor spoke out publicly against the judge's conduct in this trial.
 
smartcooky said:
Of course, the only question now is, is "a paragraph that said it protects anyone “who could have been included as a potential defendant” " a legally valid clause in a settlement of a law suit. I can't see how unless Price Andrew was actually named in the settlement, otherwise, that would "broad brush" let everyone on Epstein's little black book off the hook.
Click to expand...


I suspect that an agreement not to sue anyone for particular events could be valid: it’s preventing a party to the agreement from doing something, which I would have thought would be something that a party to an agreement could agree to. Do settlements like this need to be approved by the court? Do we know what the clause in question actually says?
 
Mojo said:
I suspect that an agreement not to sue anyone for particular events could be valid: it’s preventing a party to the agreement from doing something, which I would have thought would be something that a party to an agreement could agree to. Do settlements like this need to be approved by the court? Do we know what the clause in question actually says?
Click to expand...

It's an estoppel.

How the judge will determine that issue is anyone's guess.

I would have though a settlement is a settlement.
 
Vixen said:
It's an estoppel.
Click to expand...

Weeeell... sort of

An estoppel prevents someone from changing their story after their original statement has been established by the court as true. For example if a person pleads, and is found, guilty of an offence in a criminal trial, they cannot turn around and claim they are not guilty in a civil trial.

Estoppel doesn't fully apply here, since no-one is changing their testimony or their claim from true to not-true. Victoria Guiffre had previously claimed, and continues to claim that Epstein had trafficked her to Andrew, who subsequently had under-age sex with her a few times. The settlement establishes the trafficking by Epstein as true, so that is an estoppel and cannot be reversed, however, no court has yet established whether the allegations against Andrew are true, so no estoppel there.

Worth noting that estoppels do not work in reverse. If a person pleads and is found not guilty (which in legal terms does not mean they are innocent, it means that it is not true that they are guilty) that person can still be charged in a civil trial (See OJ Simpson).
 
smartcooky said:
The settlement establishes the trafficking by Epstein as true, so that is an estoppel and cannot be reversed
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? IIRC, the settlement was made without admitting liability. Surely this cannot be used to establish guilt?
 
Ian Osborne said:
Are you sure about that? IIRC, the settlement was made without admitting liability. Surely this cannot be used to establish guilt?
Click to expand...

Firstly, its a civil action not a criminal one so there is no determination of "guilt", there is only determination of "liability". This misconstruction is quite common - its why is why people often get it wrong when they say that OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial for murder, but guilty in the civil trial. No-one is found guilty or not-guilty in a civil trial, they are found "liable" or "not-liable". In the case of OJ Simpson, he was found "liable in the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman".

AIUI, just as in a criminal trial, in a civil trial pursuant to a lawsuit, when the court decides that a defendant is liable, or if they admit liability and settle, they cannot later reverse that and deny liability in another action. AFAIK, this cannot have any effect on any action Giuffre takes against others unless they were named in the settlement, and Giuffre agreed to it. Otherwise, anyone she sues could just claim they came under the umbrella of the settlement.

However the reverse is not true, a person who denies liability cannot be estopped - they can later admit liability if they so choose.

If Prince Andrew is named in the Epstein/Giuffre settlement, then he could be in the clear, but if he is not named, then he might not have a leg to stand on.

So here is the full text of the settlement (1.35mb PDF)

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21172730/jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffre-settlement.pdf

Firstly, Andrew is not named.

Secondly, the following could be a real big kicker...

First and Second Parties further stipulate and agree that this Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfillment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to and in conformity with the Non-Prosecution Agreement, its Addendum, and its Affirmation (collectively, the “NPA’), between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.​
The problem here for Andrew is the SDFL NPA is only valid in Florida, and since Giuffre filed her suit against Andrew in the SDNY, and they were not a signatory to the NPA, none of the agreements in the settlement apply. This is the exact same workaround that SDNY were able to use to prosecute Epstein in 2019
 
Last edited:
ISTM that once a case is settled with each party signing a legal agreement the matter is concluded, with the claimant paid off, the same matter cannot be brought before a civil court again. If Giuffre agreed not to sue any of Epstein's chums, accepted US$500K and signed the contract settling the matter I am not sure she can now bring it again in a civil law court. On Andrew's side, the contract does refer to 'royalty' so he can claimm it refers to him. The contract cannot refer to future issues but as it was done in 2010 (iirc?) and it relates to matters relating to 2001, I am not sure Giuffre has the legal right to bring it again as she agreed to settle.

Mind you, this is the USA and I daresay the judge will have his own take on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom