advertisement


Andy's not sweating.

Not sure how current a photo, but Koo still looks lovely IMO.

545708-C5-9-BC8-4-EE6-A7-FB-1096-D1701-E1-F.jpg
 
I think everyone kind of knew, I mean how long has he been called "Randy Andy"? Like Savile, hiding in plain sight never expecting society to change and the knock on the door to come.
 
The sweaty man might get a wriggle out of it.

On Wednesday in New York (yesrerday), US District Judge Loretta Preska granted permission for the Prince's lawyers to receive the agreement.

Defense has said that - "There has been a settlement agreement that the plaintiff (Giuffre) has entered into with Epstein in a prior action that releases the Duke and others from any and all potential liability."
 
If he was indeed scarfing down a pepperoni with extra jalapeños (without sweating of course) in Woking on the night in question, then why should his lawyers give a flying feck what is in the sealed document?
 
I don't see any court accepting the argument that an agreement between two parties can somehow be binding between either one of said parties and a third. That is, without the third party being specifically mentioned.

Defence has jumped into the abyss by grasping at a straw that can only make their client appear all the more guilty. One can clearly see why Giuffre's counsel were happy to agree to the sealed agreement being presented to defence.

This is American civil court, btw, where dirt wins every time. The only way to avoid more dirt is for a new sealed agreement to wing its way to the USA with a big fat cheque stapled on.
 
I don't see any court accepting the argument that an agreement between two parties can somehow be binding between either one of said parties and a third. That is, without the third party being specifically mentioned.
I imagine you could use clever wording such as ‘anyone met in my house’ or ‘anyone I introduced you to’ - not saying that these would apply in this case btw, just examples - but one thing’s for sure there will be a huge amount of argument about it.
 
We do not know what restrictions the lady in question has agreed to as part of the settlement agreement. Since her current lawyers presumably have not seen it either (it is sealed) they might be in the dark too.

I am curious as to why it seems that only Andrew is being pursued by this woman and her lawyers. If what she says is right, there must be a slew of easier to get hold of targets in the US that could or should be sued in the same way. Why are they not? Something smells. Or is that the agreement means that she knows she cannot pursue Americans and figured she could have a go at someone in another jurisdiction - but then why bring the case in the US (money??, of course!!!!)
 


advertisement


Back
Top