The Supremes? maybe Michael Jackson, but definitely not Australian as far as I can tell 
1 Like
My Daughter has a habit of saying “shut up” as an exclamation of surprise.
When she says it, I do just that. I stop talking to her until she asks why I’m ignoring her? 
3 Likes
Interpretation of language looks like it’s going to be central in the Giuffre case against Prince Andrew.
Having read the Settlement Agreement she entered into with Epstein in 2009 I think a UK Court would dismiss her claim from the outset.
Not sure how the US courts will approach it though.
The question I have, which you might or might not be in a position to know, the original ruling was in Florida, but she is now going through courts in NY, does the NY court have to accept the Florida court ruling or can they disregard it?
The other thing, is if the NY court can’t do anything, would the FBI be able to do it the federal court if they are accused of moving these kids accross state and international boarders?
The first paragraph I don’t know the answer to. It seems to be legally binding pursuant to general contract law terms though and I’d be surprised if another Court would override such an agreement, particularly as it was entered into between two legally represented parties, under the authority of a competent body, and in the knowledge of a United States Attorney.
Your second paragraph deals with a separate issue, one of criminal conduct rather than the civil suit Giuffre is seeking to bring against Prince Andrew. In principle there is no reason why this would prevent criminal proceedings from being brought, as per Maxwell, but I don’t know what evidence (if any) prosecutors have against Andrew that would meet the criminal burden of proof.
Deescalation 
I would bet money that this will be during the negotiations with the US and that no troops will be demobilised in the meantime.
A good read if you are looking for information and various takes from informed persons:
The American legal system from state court to state court can be surprisingly chaotic - the Federal system very frequently is where that problem is sorted out (or muddled further). It is very unlikely that a NY court would simply defer to a FL court if they saw some legitimate line of argument - and in this case, I believe it is merely a settlement agreement entered into in order to end FL proceedings, so not exactly a strong imprimatur. If there is any doubt in a NY judge’s mind about conflict of laws, the judge is most likely to make a ruling and then see where the Federal courts take it. The only caveat there is that NY courts tend to think more carefully than most state courts about the broader issues of jurisprudence and conflict of laws - but equally will be wondering if the FL court would have thought about that for even a second.
However, from Andrew’s point of view, he is wrestling with a pig. If his defence starts to turn on enforcing a settlement agreement with a convicted pedophile that he simultaneously claims does not cover him because of his innocence, he not only annihilates his own reputation but does catastrophic damage to the institution of the monarchy.
1 Like
I think he’s OK at the moment. If Giuffre’s argument is that Andrew was part of Epstein’s ‘circle’ then he’s a “potential defendant” and therefore covered by the terms she agreed in 2009. Irrespective of the merits of what she alleges him to have done.
If he’s not under that umbrella, and therefore not covered by the Settlement Agreement, then that rather contradicts the case I understood she was asserting.
Surely the relevance of this Settlement Agreement will be tried as a preliminary issue though? He won’t have to say anything in answer to the factual allegations until that point has been determined, will he? That’s what would happen in the UK at least.
1 Like
I think that’s correct, but I think you underestimate the damage that position is going to do him, and more relevantly the monarchy. I expect he has a winnable line of argument to shield behind the Epstein settlement, but I think that is probably game over for the monarchy outside the UK.
I’m surprised about that. It’s just legal pragmatism. A party is quite legitimately able to seek a quick issue estoppel argument without it being seen as either a) getting off on a technicality or b) an admission that their position wouldn’t stand up if subject to judicial scrutiny (or both). Fundamentally, if the Settlement Agreement covers Andrew (and others) her claim is without merit.
That is why it is wrestling with a pig for him. He now has at best two ways out - confirmation of innocence, which is his own legal strategy precludes, and perhaps a quiet settlement. I don’t recall another story about any royal in Canadian media, but there Andrew is on the front page, with a photo of Epstein & Maxwell, and another with Andrew & Guifre, Maxwell lurking behind them. He can take the liability shield, but that really doesn’t solve his problem, and it makes him a larger one for the institution. If he truly doesn’t sweat, then all he needs to do is provide evidence, and he has demonstrated the falsehood of the claims, and his innocence. Why take the expedient but harmful course of sheltering behind a dead pedophile.
Legal pragmatism would have us say that Canada/Australia/NZ/etc are nations of immigrants, with no particular reason for a continued attachment to the British Crown, and at least one clear reason to disassociate.
2 Likes
Well, David Boies is one sharp attorney. Here is his argument against the Settlment protecting Andrew.
“As we have said from the beginning, the release is irrelevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew. The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it,” Boies said in the statement Monday.
“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,” he added.
1 Like
The events were so long ago, for a case to succeed there would need to be corroborating testimony from an eye witness to the events, like Ghislaine Maxwell, or better still, testimony to a pattern of pedophilia. To me the evidence is not strong enough to bring to trial, based on what has been disclosed so far. Boies is just trying to shake money out of the Royal Family.
1 Like
I can only speak from a UK point of view but in the UK it would be irrelevant that the Settlement Agreement doesn’t mention Prince Andrew by name, it’s drafted deliberately wide enough to include him and others if they could be implicated with the claims Giuffre alleged against Epstein.
Whether he could be subject to Florida jurisdiction is also irrelevant. It isn’t a qualifying term to be included within the group of potential defendants. It doesn’t particularise that the Potential Defendants would need to be pursued within a particular jurisdiction to form part of that class.
It is also irrelevant that the Florida issue involved federal claims of which he was not part.
…
She…
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, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances,
trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in
equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have,
or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter
can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or
by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the
beginning of the world to the day of this release.
It does feel as if she’s hoping to leverage a further financial settlement. But that’s definitely not going to happen. That would surely be more damaging than seeking the claim’s dismissal on the basis that it’s an abuse.
1 Like
To me that’s one of those everything-but-the-kitchen-sink clauses judges love to sever from agreements, at least here. Will be interesting to see if Boies can navigate the challenges to standing, jurisdiction and that clause. I’m not a lawyer, but to me it would be extremely relevant in which jurisdiction the two initially had sex in, assuming it happened. If it was New York, she was legal age at the time (same for England). That really muddies the waters.
Generally, a weak case, it seems to me.
I’ll gladly see an end to ‘circle back’. Hate it, absolutely hate it.
Legal niceties aside, does anyone on earth think that Prince Andrew is anything other than a sleazy scumbag at this stage?
3 Likes
Perhaps his lack of an ability to perspire has led to addling in his brain.
1 Like
Bet ya a penny to a pound he has been sweating these last few weeks.! 