• 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

smartcooky said:
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
Click to expand...

A key concept in contract law is that a contract cannot cloak a misdemeanour so even if someone signs a contract saying they will accept a sum of money or other benefit, then if the contract includes a clause that is illegal in constitution or law, then that contract is repudiated. for example, say someone pays me £1m to keep quiet about some kind of embezzlement they or another ​have been engaged in and I accept it, that contract is worthless as it cloaks something that cannot be legally cloaked and the embezzler cannot hide behind it.
 
rejection of some witnesses

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because he occasionally comments on cases, I looked up former prosecutor Bennett Gershman. I was surprised to find this passage:

"U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan barred Maxwell from calling Bennett Gershman, a professor at Pace Law School in White Plains, New York. In his 1985 treatise, Gershman reviewed thousands of criminal cases and focused on wrongful convictions and prosecutorial ethics and Maxwell had wanted him to testify about the “the integrity of any prosecution.” Maxwell is scheduled to go on trial Nov. 29. Her lawyers have argued that prosecutors ignored a 2008 non-prosecution agreement which her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein got from federal authorities in Florida, which she says protected her from prosecution." IIUC her defense wanted to argue that she was being treated as a proxy for Epstein. The judge also rejected Ryan Hall as a witness.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Because he occasionally comments on cases, I looked up former prosecutor Bennett Gershman. I was surprised to find this passage:

"U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan barred Maxwell from calling Bennett Gershman, a professor at Pace Law School in White Plains, New York. In his 1985 treatise, Gershman reviewed thousands of criminal cases and focused on wrongful convictions and prosecutorial ethics and Maxwell had wanted him to testify about the “the integrity of any prosecution.” Maxwell is scheduled to go on trial Nov. 29. Her lawyers have argued that prosecutors ignored a 2008 non-prosecution agreement which her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein got from federal authorities in Florida, which she says protected her from prosecution." IIUC her defense wanted to argue that she was being treated as a proxy for Epstein. The judge also rejected Ryan Hall as a witness.
Click to expand...

That's simply throwing mud at the wall and hoping some will stick, the judge was right to not allow it.
 
theprestige said:
Bet the answer is either "nowhere", or "royalties".
Click to expand...

I've seen it referred to in several media reports, though I haven't seen the full document.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/03/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre
“To avoid being dragged into future legal disputes, 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.”

The attorneys also said: “Because Prince Andrew is a senior member of the British royal family, he falls into one of the expressly identified categories of persons, ie, royalty, released from liability under the release agreement, along with politicians, academicians, businessmen and others allegedly associated with Epstein.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, here's an analysis, which also explains where the 'royalty' etc came from, it was in the original claim that was withdrawn subsequent to the deal (IIUC).

Brettler said his client was covered by the wording of the claim that Giuffre had agreed to withdraw, which referred specifically to “royalty”:

Giuffre’s complaint in the Epstein action alleges, in relevant part, that, “n addition to being continually exploited to satisfy [Epstein]’s every sexual whim, [Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by [Epstein]’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.
Click to expand...
 
zooterkin said:
Ok, here's the full thing, apparently - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

I don't see the word 'royal' in there; nor politician or any of the other categories mention; maybe there's another document.
Click to expand...

It seems I misread it. The 'royalty' reference supposedly refers to something Epstein agreed elsewhere.

Seems like Andrew is clutching at straws, as the agreement says it relates to Epstein only. I am not sure it is legally valid for Epstein to waive away liability for anyone else even if there is a whole load of legal disclaimers thrown in.

Can't see Judge Kaplan accepting that.
 
Vixen said:
It seems I misread it. The 'royalty' reference supposedly refers to something Epstein agreed elsewhere.

Seems like Andrew is clutching at straws, as the agreement says it relates to Epstein only. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, you did misread, since it clearly says:
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
Click to expand...
Epstein and associates are the 'second parties', Andrew is claiming to fall under the 'any other person...' clause.
 
AIUI, all this debate about whether Andrew is covered by the settlement agreement is moot, given what smartcooky posted. The SDNY was not party to the NPA between Epstein and the SDFL, and is not bound by it.
 
zooterkin said:
Ah, here's an analysis, which also explains where the 'royalty' etc came from, it was in the original claim that was withdrawn subsequent to the deal (IIUC).

....
Giuffre’s complaint in the Epstein action alleges, in relevant part, that, “n addition to being continually exploited to satisfy [Epstein]’s every sexual whim, [Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by [Epstein]’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



The highlighted covers a lot of ground. Has Giuffre ever named anyone other than Epstein, Andrew and Dershowitz?
 
junkshop said:
AIUI, all this debate about whether Andrew is covered by the settlement agreement is moot, given what smartcooky posted. The SDNY was not party to the NPA between Epstein and the SDFL, and is not bound by it.
Click to expand...

The current court case involving Prince Andrew is civil, not criminal.
 
junkshop said:
AIUI, all this debate about whether Andrew is covered by the settlement agreement is moot, given what smartcooky posted. The SDNY was not party to the NPA between Epstein and the SDFL, and is not bound by it.
Click to expand...

Aber said:
The current court case involving Prince Andrew is civil, not criminal.
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
Good point
Click to expand...

Nope, in the specific circumstance here it is irrelevant. The fact that this is a civil action does not change the fact that SDNY are not bound by the NPA between Epstein and SDFL.

Have a look at this clause in the settlement:

"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."

In legal terms, "pursuant" means "in accordance with (a law or a legal document or resolution)". That NPA is a legal document signed by Epstein and Alexander Acosta, US Attorney for SDFL, but because SDNY were not a party to that document, it does not apply to them. The document therefore, has no standing in SDNY (the courts have already decided this in the matter of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490), therefore, at the very least, that clause of the settlement has no standing (it refers to a document that, for all intents and purposes, does not exist ). Because that clause is the basis of the settlement... "Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfilment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts", and if it has no standing in SDNY, then the whole settlement has no standing there either..
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Nope, in the specific circumstance here it is irrelevant. The fact that this is a civil action does not change the fact that SDNY are not bound by the NPA between Epstein and SDFL.

Have a look at this clause in the settlement:

"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."

In legal terms, "pursuant" means "in accordance with (a law or a legal document or resolution)". That NPA is a legal document signed by Epstein and Alexander Acosta, US Attorney for SDFL, but because SDNY were not a party to that document, it does not apply to them. The document therefore, has no standing in SDNY (the courts have already decided this in the matter of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490), therefore, at the very least, that clause of the settlement has no standing (it refers to a document that, for all intents and purposes, does not exist ). Because that clause is the basis of the settlement... "Settlement Agreement is pursuant to and is in fulfilment of Jeffrey Epstein’s obligations to Virginia Roberts", and if it has no standing in SDNY, then the whole settlement has no standing there either..
Click to expand...

I don't read that clause that way, I read it is saying it has been drafted so it doesn't conflict with anything previously agreed in another binding court order.
 
Darat said:
I don't read that clause that way, I read it is saying it has been drafted so it doesn't conflict with anything previously agreed in another binding court order.
Click to expand...

Irrespective of how you personally read it, the fact is that SDNY are NOT bound by the NPA, just as they weren't for the exact same NPA when they charged Epstein in 2019.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom