[News] Is This THE Best Good News Day Ever?

[Seagull58]

I always found it strange to say 'You can't take me to court because my pedo mate paid you off a number of years ago' as some kind of defense.

She can take him to criminal court any time. Just convince the DA there's a case to answer.

It may be a strange defence but she signed the agreement and took the money.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I find the Andrew decision a strange one. She got half a million bucks from Epstein on the understanding she didn't sue him or anyone connected to him. Now the judge has overturned it with a 46 page decision. He must have had to go all round the legal houses to find a way to overturn the agreement if it took 46 pages to explain how he did it.
Of course, Andrew should face justice if he's done anything wrong.

From a former Chief Crown Prosecutor.

[tweet]1481274795664814080[/tweet]

 

[Norman Potting]

OOOH I know this one (with help from Google) - schadenfreude

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is she giving the half a mill back to Epstein's estate now the agreement has been set aside? But, it's all about justice, not money.

Quite.

Or, as she would say, no amount of mony compensates for justice.

Apparently the smart bet is that justice will be obtained out of court, and manifest as Adrew giving her a large amount of money.

Our money.

 

[Springal]

She can take him to criminal court any time. Just convince the DA there's a case to answer.

It may be a strange defence but she signed the agreement and took the money.

Prince Andrew said himself he was not even 'close friends' with Epstein so seems a bit odd to try and rely on that agreement. Any way that settlement related to sex trafficking - not sexual assault that Prince Andrew is being pursued for.

 

[Seagull58]

From a former Chief Crown Prosecutor.

[tweet]1481274795664814080[/tweet]

I can understand the traffickers-only argument but there are no names other than Epstein in the agreement so nobody is named as being in or out. I don't get the argument about ALL NY child abusers as the agreement is specific to Guffie and those who trafficked and abused her.

 

[Bold Seagull]

And the Queen thought 1992 was a annus horribilis...

 

[Seagull58]

Quite.

Or, as she would say, no amount of mony compensates for justice.

Apparently the smart bet is that justice will be obtained out of court, and manifest as Adrew giving her a large amount of money.

Our money.

She says she wants her day in court to prove her case and ensure justice is done and seen to be done. All that goes out of the window if she takes a "whacko jacko" style payoff. However it ultimately plays out I expect his inability to sweat has been cured.

 

[pb21]

Is she giving the half a mill back to Epstein's estate now the agreement has been set aside? But, it's all about justice, not money.

As I understand it the agreement hasn't been set aside, rather the agreement doesn't apply in this case.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Reeperbahn?

Did you have a Hamburg- er on the Reeperbahn?

 

[Dick Head]

[tweet]1409460318800125958[/tweet]

https://twitter.com/NIAbbot/status/1409460318800125958

 

[PeterT]

Is she giving the half a mill back to Epstein's estate now the agreement has been set aside? But, it's all about justice, not money.

I heard one reporter say that she doesn’t need a pay off this time because she is already a wealthy woman because of the pay off she had last time. So she’ll probably not take a deal (unless it’s from a publisher I guess) …..

 

[lawros left foot]

The prick, the unpricked prick and the right royal prick.

If I wore a hat, I would,at this moment, be doffing it to you, Sir.

 

[lawros left foot]

I can understand the traffickers-only argument but there are no names other than Epstein in the agreement so nobody is named as being in or out. I don't get the argument about ALL NY child abusers as the agreement is specific to Guffie and those who trafficked and abused her.

The child abusers getting a free pass was to do with Prince Andrews lawyers claiming that Ms Guifres case was unconstitutional because it should have a statute of limitations,not the Epstein agreement.

 

[Hamilton]

I find the Andrew decision a strange one. She got half a million bucks from Epstein on the understanding she didn't sue him or anyone connected to him. Now the judge has overturned it with a 46 page decision. He must have had to go all round the legal houses to find a way to overturn the agreement if it took 46 pages to explain how he did it.
Of course, Andrew should face justice if he's done anything wrong.

But, if Andrew's claims are true i.e. he had nothing to do with Epstein and his shady world, then by very definition he's not protected by the deal that Epstein signed with her. In Andrew's own words, he wasn't that friendly with Epstein - even though we all know that's 100% a bare faced lie.

I do feel for the Queen. Despite not being a monarchist (although republicanism fills me with dread, as we can barely vote in a parliament let alone a president), poor old Elizabeth doesn't deserve this in her 94th year. She must despair, and she really needs to put distance between herself and Andrew right now.

 

[Seagull58]

I heard one reporter say that she doesn’t need a pay off this time because she is already a wealthy woman because of the pay off she had last time. So she’ll probably not take a deal (unless it’s from a publisher I guess) …..

I will be very happy with this if she doesn't take a deal and this is tested in court. Preferable in a criminal court, as per Maxwell, but a civil court suits her better with the lower standard of proof required. I would think Andrew also prefers the civil route rather than potentially facing decades in jail. Say it goes to civil court and evidence is produced, examined and found credible enough for her to win. Does that put a criminal case back in play?

 

[lawros left foot]

Wasn’t the Epstein agreement only pertinent if both signatories agreed to it’s use by a third party or even revealing it’s existence?

As Epstein was suicided, he couldn’t sign, and the other surviving signatory certainly wouldn’t sign.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

She says she wants her day in court to prove her case and ensure justice is done and seen to be done. All that goes out of the window if she takes a "whacko jacko" style payoff. However it ultimately plays out I expect his inability to sweat has been cured.

I daresay that should she win her case, then there will be plenty of lucrative opportunities to tell her side of the story.
Therefore she stands to have her day in court and see justice done and make a few quid out of it too.

Andy is ****ed.

 

[rippleman]

If Andrew throws her a bung then we know he is guilty. That is the act of a guilty man.

An innocent man would submit to the US Courts and defend himself against his accuser. If he never met her, then there can be no evidence against him can there? So what's to fear eh?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Umm…no not really