Andrew B Brettler, who represents Andrew, 61, will argue that by including a reference to “royalty” in [the lawsuit that was settled, Giuffre] made the duke a potential co-conspirator, and that therefore he is covered by the terms of the release.
To use the legal term: Is Andrew a "third party beneficiary" of the release?
David Boies, Giuffre’s lawyer, said that the royal reference in the original claim was irrelevant. “The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it,” Boies said.
Giuffre, 38, claims that she was forced to have sex with the duke on three separate occasions in 2001, when she was 17, at the behest of Epstein and Maxwell....
I had to look up where Epstein's island was located and what was the age of consent. 17 — even 16 — seems to be accepted in much of the United States:
Why aren't we more upset about that?
But Epstein's island was in the Virgin Islands, and the age of consent there is 18. And federal law defines sex trafficking using the age 18.
পোস্টগুলি
৬৬টি মন্তব্য:
Anyone who wants to have "arranged" sex with young or underage girls is a loser.
Pedophilia, and arranged sex with underaged girls is okay for the elite. They want what they want, and it doens't matter WHO gets hurt...as long as they get theirs.
What consideration did Andrew offer? What agreement did HE make? Was he a signatory to the contract?
She should have held out for a few castles and a title
"wendybar said... Pedophilia"
If you're calling sex with a 17 year old "pedophilia," please confirm that you are outraged by the facts displayed on the map I embedded.
"What consideration did Andrew offer? What agreement did HE make? Was he a signatory to the contract?"
Please review the law about third party beneficiaries.
Remember, the question for the court is not whether Prince Andrew is a despicable slimeball.
There were other girls who were 14, and 15. They were also bedded by these pedophiles....and YES, I am outraged by it all. Why do the elites deserve to be protected from the truth? I don't care what the maps say. These people were monsters. They used these girls. Who cares about #Metoo, when you have #it'sokay,she is now 17!!!
like your map shows... The age of consent in Iowa is 16*
However; you're still able to get a CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR charge,
which doesn't even require any fornication, just corruptingism**
age of consent in Iowa is 16* actually, in Iowa there is (was?) a complicated +5 rule, where IF the adult is within 5 years of the minor (18:13, 19:14, 20:15) then things are "okay" (unless you are "contributing")
corruptingism** gilbar's public statement is that he, in no way, condones corruptingisms or any other nefariousisms
Japan just lowered the age of adulthood from 20 to 18, except for some activities that I don't remember the distribution of, reflecting legislative compromise with the old fart community.
Can Prince Andrew perhaps 100s of rich people in Epstein's black book then simply admit to everything and walk away free? This dismissal logic is a stretch.
@Althouse: "If you're calling sex with a 17 year old "pedophilia,"
Concur. Anyone who went through middle school can confirm that pubescent girls often play up their availability and interest in sex as young as 10 or 12. I recall a school Halloween party where a couple if grade 5 students came dressed as stereotypical hookers with miniskirts, high heels, thick make-up, swinging necklaces in circles, etc. They announced this plan as being "hookers" before the party too.
Human sexuality literally begins with puberty, and laws are what societies WANT to happen not what WILL be chosen by younger people. Learn the facts before judging anyone.
Wendybar said...
when you have #it'sokay,she is now 17!!!
Was the rapper R Kelly the old that filmed himself having sex with a Little girl...
Then was charge with possession of kiddy porn... then legally delayed the proceedings until the Little girl grew up (5 years or so)... Then said: "It's Cool, she's over 18"
???
I would assume the court will take a very narrow look at the common nucleus of operative fact between this claim against Andrew and the the settled Florida case before extending anything approaching global indemnity to the prince for the former.
The hearing, by video teleconference, comes the day after a previously confidential 12-page document was made public disclosing the terms of a $500,000 settlement agreement in 2009 by Epstein to Giuffre.
The prince’s lawyers are expected to argue the agreement means Giuffre has relinquished any rights to sue anyone connected to Epstein who could be described as a “potential defendant”.
The settlement, which relates to a Florida state case to which the prince was not a party, states Giuffre agreed to “release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge” Epstein and “any other person or entity” who could have been included as a potential defendant.
Though the document does not mention Andrew by name, Andrew B Brettler, who represents Andrew, has said the settlement should end the lawsuit. Brettler previously told the New York court that the agreement “releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here”.
However, Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, argued the settlement was “irrelevant to the case against Prince Andrew”.
How ridiculous. 17 year olds have served in wars, and in the old pioneer days, you had 18 y/o mothers fighting off Indians. A 17 y/o is old enough to consent to sex. And that certainly applies to women, who are more mature then boys that age.
If you want to raise the age of consent up to 18 or 19, then lets push the voting age up to 20 or 21. That's the real scandal. People 18-19 are almost always ingorant boobs and shouldn't be allowed to determine who runs the Government.
Isn't anyone going to comment on how this girl was "Taken to the cleaners"? $500,000? That was chicken feed to Epstein. She should have gotten at least x10 or x20 as much.
I don't hold a brief for Randy Andy. Went to school with someone who served with him in military who says he was a terrible guy (but excellent pilot).
But seems like a good defense on the Epstein release. Boies says the Prince is not covered because not individually named. But I have worked with Boies, and I know he as a corporate litigator approved a gazillion settlement agreements with release clauses that included people and entities generically. When you pay money to settle a case you are paying to buy peace as widely as possible. It hurts Epstein if the plaintiff turns around and makes trouble for him with xeroxed lawsuits against people connected to him. Drafting lawyer gets into trouble when trying to make the unsigned releasors generic. I have rejected such drafts more than once. But making releasees generic for signing releasors, just a matter of good drafting.
Also, the 17-age-of-consent defense may only be being used for a NYS cause of action in the complaint.
wendybar said...
Pedophilia, and arranged sex with underaged girls is okay for the elite. They want what they want, and it doens't matter WHO gets hurt...as long as they get theirs.
That isn't pedophilia. Pedophilia has to do with attraction to children that are not sexually mature.
This was sex slavery. These girls were abused and mistreated by predators but it is in a different bucket than pedophilia.
The MSM coverup of Epstein and Maxwell is expected. You'd think there would be more outrage over that. Why is the Judge sealing the charges that she was guilty on? why no curiousity about how many times Bill Clinton was on Epstein island? WHy no vilification of Maxwell, who engaged in sex trafficing? Why no anger about a Federal Procesuotor taking a dive and hiding the whole thing? He only got caught because he was appointed by Trump to a high level position. Dershoshit was involved in this scandal up to his eyeballs, but no one mentions it.
This country has turned into a banana republic.
pubescent girls often play up their availability and interest in sex as young as 10 or 12
From the girl's perspective, any such behavior is explained by either ignorance and cultural influence (which is a form of child abuse), or by specific sex abuse of the girl.
Age-inappropriate sexual behavior is often a sign of the latter.
From the viewer's perspective, a person that sees such a young girl in a sexual way is quite possibly a predator himself.
Third party beneficiaries do not have to give consideration. They do generally have to be intended beneficiaries. A problem for defendants who settle is someone else being sued and then seeking contribution or indemnification. A broad release protects against that risk.
I was told of a story, by a person studying for their masters in behavioral psychology, about a pedophile who had undergone aversion therapy, you know, like they sometimes use on gays who want to change. Anyway, they had programmed him to experience aversive sensations when they showed him pedophile porn, or something like that, and he reported that he smelled bitter sulphur when he drove past a school with a playground, even though that was not part of the program. This is a guy who did not want the feelings. Then you add in wealth, and the sense of entitlement it brings, and you have a real mess.
"The settlement, which relates to a Florida state case to which the prince was not a party"
The settlement agreement is worded to refer to all cases — federal or state — not just to the one case in Florida. I'm looking at a copy of the text, but it's an image, so I can't cut and paste or I would. It's too long to transcribe, but you can imagine what Epstein's lawyers put in the agreement, getting VG to give up as much as possible. The one thing they couldn't do was name all the third parties they wanted to protect. But the things they could do, they did.
It doesn't matter whether Andrew knew about the provision. Under US law, anyway (generally, it's a state law issue and YMMV), all that matters is the intent of the parties to the contract (one of whom is now dead by not-suicide). Did they intend to benefit Andrew? Only discovery can answer that.
But I don't think that's quite the right question. Third party beneficiary law determines whether he can sue to enforce the contract. Even if he can't, why wouldn't he be able to plead release as an affirmative defense, and prove that with the contract? It seems to me that Epstein's settlement agreement would've been intended to release all claims against third parties that could result in his being liable in some contributory fashion, which is how the list of released claims wound up in the document, and that would include the people like Andrew.
Having the pedophile smell sulphur might work better if he believed in Hell.
Why didn't the Democrats grill Acosta when he had his confirmation hearing before the Senate, you know, the guy who let Epstein skate in Palm Beach County? He said that he was told to lay off, as it was an "intelligence matter."
Back in the 70's, 18-yo boys would say "old enough to bleed, old enough to seed" and 15 will get you 20.
Those sayings are based on millions of years of evolution in the face of modern social and legal standards.
Obviously if a female can become pregnant, G_d thinks it's okay for a man to have sex with her.
Also, until fairly recently teenage boys could not compete with full grown dominating men for young trim. This fantasy island situation is really just evolutionary instinct meets the privileged and powerful.
Even though it's perfectly natural doesn't mean it's not wrong. My wife and I would happily murder a man for violating our 16-yo granddaughter. Where's the parents of these girls?
We all know guys that hit on younger women. They specifically look for gals with Daddy issues.
People behind what Epstein's activities were really about looking at this thread: This sex distraction we promote turned out just purrrfect
"Who cares about #Metoo, when you have #it'sokay,she is now 17!!!"
I didn't say I was okay with it, just that it can't be considered pedophilia unless you want to say that all those states on the map that aren't green have institutionalized pedophilia.
I have a problem with trapping people in prostitution and preying on vulnerable people to lure them into prostitution and keep them there. I favor calling things what they really are as we try to decide what the law is and should be on these subjects.
you can imagine what Epstein's lawyers put in the agreement, getting VG to give up as much as possible. The one thing they couldn't do was name all the third parties they wanted to protect. But the things they could do, they did.
This makes me wonder why Virginia Guiffre isn't getting the same publicity treatment that Stormy Daniels received. Daniels got all sorts of television appearances by simply claiming she had reached a legal agreement.
Do they still behead guilty royals in Great Britain? Asking for a friend.
Interesting that New England has 16 as the age of consent.
"[A]ny other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" for purposes of settlement of the earlier Florida claim should not necessarily absolve that person in every other claim. That's why the decision has to be fact specific along the lines of the "common nucleus of operative fact" analysis.
Otherwise, Prince Andrew should just run her over with his Rolls Royce.
"should not necessarily absolve that person in every other claim."
I think you have to look at the wording that is in the contract.
Misinforminimalism said...
It doesn't matter whether Andrew knew about the provision. Under US law, anyway (generally, it's a state law issue and YMMV), all that matters is the intent of the parties to the contract (one of whom is now dead by not-suicide). Did they intend to benefit Andrew? Only discovery can answer that.
But I don't think that's quite the right question. Third party beneficiary law determines whether he can sue to enforce the contract. Even if he can't, why wouldn't he be able to plead release as an affirmative defense, and prove that with the contract? It seems to me that Epstein's settlement agreement would've been intended to release all claims against third parties that could result in his being liable in some contributory fashion, which is how the list of released claims wound up in the document, and that would include the people like Andrew.
Are there any coercion or bad faith arguments that she could make?
Howard said...
Even though it's perfectly natural doesn't mean it's not wrong. My wife and I would happily murder a man for violating our 16-yo granddaughter. Where's the parents of these girls?
They specifically targeted girls without fathers.
For the same reasons that democrats target women without fathers.
Public hysteria is the business model of the news media. Underage sex was discovered as a ratings winner in the 1970s.
Ann Althouse said...
"I think you have to look at the wording that is in the contract."
As will the court. I was just speculating that the court needs to take a narrow, fact-specific view of that scope, which may not encompass all her direct claims against Andrew.
I would think she would be barred from suing Andrew in a US court, but could she get around this by giving back the original settlement to Epstein's estate?
David Boies redeeming himself after being the whistleblower killing shark for Elizabeth Wendell Holmes and Theranos.
Andy may be randy and a pervert, but he's covered under the law it seems.
And she was a moron for settling for $500k...she should have thrown Clinton's name (both of them) around more.
Assuming she had her life insurance all paid up, of course...
'Remember, the question for the court is not whether Prince Andrew is a despicable slimeball.'
Exactly.
He's an old guy who doesn't mind fucking hot, young (but legal) women.
Welcome to the party, pal...
A phrase popped into my mind from 40+ years ago: privity of contract.
My initial reaction - with no research on the caselaw - is that Andrew is SOL. But like they say: no fee, no guarantee.
Only Epstein knows who's been naughtical, naughty or nice.
Too bad he didn't kill himself.
How can the Girl give up the right to sue parties that aren't named or part of the contract? How can one agree not to sue someone when they aren't named?
"Hey, I give up my right to sue anyone anytime anywhere for things unspecified but somehow related to this matter"
Of course, in reality, it all depends on which judge she gets. American Law is a crap shoot where anything can happen.
calling sex with a 17 year old "Pedophilia" is silly. Its statutory Rape (assuming the age of consent is 18). She's too young to consent, and sex without consent is rape.
Bringing in children actually works against getting people outraged over this. People think "a 17 y/o is not a child, why are they calling him a pedophile?". Of course, some people need to be hit on the head with the most hysterical over the top label or they don't "get it".
And she was a moron for settling for $500k...she should have thrown Clinton's name (both of them) around more.
Assuming she had her life insurance all paid up, of course...
I assume she likes being alive.
Why didn't Andy's lawyers bring this up at the beginning and avoid some of a ton of bad publicity?
This was sex slavery. These girls were abused and mistreated by predators
I didn't follow the trial, but it was my impression there were more carrots than sticks. Were the girls imprisoned and coerced or just enticed?
My ex-boss's parents eloped to VA from NC in 1950 because she was 16. Now the two states are reversed. Laws change.
He's an old guy
He was about 40 when he allegedly boinked her. As a royal, he figured Epstein was paying her to go away afterwards--there was no shortage of women who would sleep with him for free.
'I didn't follow the trial, but it was my impression there were more carrots than sticks. Were the girls imprisoned and coerced or just enticed?'
If the age of consent is 17, then all was kosher.
Being nice to girls, buying them presents, taking them on trips, telling them they're pretty...it's called 'dating.'
How can the Girl give up the right to sue parties that aren't named or part of the contract?
Generally, a minor lacks capacity to contract and any attempted contract is void, assuming that the agreement is not already void as being contrary to public policy (which it should be).
Perhaps she can void the contract by claiming she was coerced. The drafting attorney or anyone else alive today other than the victim may not have been in a position to witness a threat.
How could Maxwell be guilty of trafficking children without the evidence of who those men were she sold them to? Was it just Prince Andrew since he is the only one being mentioned in the news? What was the evidence introduced at trial that indicates him as being guilty?
Ralph L said...
I didn't follow the trial, but it was my impression there were more carrots than sticks. Were the girls imprisoned and coerced or just enticed?
Depends on what kind of society you want.
Are we hurting the futures of poor young women without fathers by restricting their access to "enticements" from rich older men?
And bringing the State into any such decision has costs.
These are not easy answers.
Why did the contract not die with Epstein?
Personally I just want to have a system where the media is inquisitive and finds these women and tells their stories.
But the media is currently owned by the aristocracy so Maxwell and Epstein totally killed themselves.
I'm only interested in the evil people who arranged and benefitted from setting this racket up however deep it goes. I doubt Prince Andrew is an evil person or a perv but was lured in by Maxwell and Epstein...an easy mark. Of course, that doesn't make the Prince innocent but I think there were plenty of evil people involved that I want to see exposed. I have read about Maxwell's family and their connections to US government agencies...tech security companies, etc. I fear this is a big, big story that will never be fully told.
Just as a thought experiment: Is it possible for a teen age girl to have a sexual experience in a luxury setting on a tropic isle with a royal prince and to not be marred for life from such an experience?
Here’s the release. The key phrase is “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant” - does this mean a potential defendant in any litigation or only in the litigation being settled? If the former, Epstein negotiated a release of the whole world for the time period being released (“from the beginning of the world to the day of this release”). If the latter, Andrew would have to prove that he was a potential defendant in order to take advantage of the release.
Andrew’s lawyers seem to be taking the latter interpretation, arguing that a reference to royalty in the lawsuit being settled was a reference to Andrew and that he was therefore a potential defendant in the lawsuit. But does the one thing necessarily follow from the other? The single reference to royalty is on page 8 of the lawsuit:
“In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy Defendants every sexual whim, Plaintiff was also required to be sexually exploited by Defendants adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.”
By contrast, Ghislaine Maxwell is mentioned by name 19 times, and the lawsuit references “at least three assistants who helped him orchestrate this child exploitation enterprise.” I would argue that they are the other potential defendants covered by the release.
Perhaps the bigger question is, is this a question of law or of fact? In other words, will the judge decide this or let it go to the jury?
So yeah, third-party beneficiary rules don't require consideration from third party, nor privity. And it is based on the contracting parties' intent, which should wherever possible be determined from the four corners of the contract itself. (Someday I want to see a three-cornered one.)
Seems to me like "potential" defendants should include anyone who is alleged or could be alleged to have engaged in the offending conduct (sex with minor, whatever). Even if he's a slimeball. (And almost by definition he would be.)
In recent evolutionary history, both pedophelia and murder were more tolerated, now that murder is a no no, we have to deal with pedophiles harshly under the law
Remember that the ’royal prince’ had a disorder that caused him to sweat profusely.
They specifically targeted girls without fathers.
For the same reasons that democrats target women without fathers.
And do everything they can to create more of them.
If you raise the age of consent you have to start locking up teenagers for having sex with each other.
They've already started convicting teenagers as child porn distributors for sending each other nude pictures.
Pretend Epstein was still alive: would he have a breach of contract cause of action based on a suit against the prince? Discovery and testimony (including by Epstein) would be very embarrassing for him. So it seems like he would have intended the provision to cover the prince. That would be part of the peace bought wit $500K.
Lucien: interesting question. I sued on a contract that had a forum selection clause. My opponent filed a counterclaim asserting I had breached the contract by not suing in the forum specified in the contract. I thought it sounded like nonsense since I viewed the clause as a defense, but research backed his argument, with legal fees as damages. Moot because the Court ruled the forum clause unenforceable. I have the same instinct here--the clause is a defense and that's the way I have seen releases litigated. But maybe one could assert breach, with legal fees as damages if the court found the release applied.
Good read.... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন