Jeffrey Epstein victim's $500,000 settlement deal unsealed in lawsuit against Prince Andrew

[TexasTowelie]

A Jeffrey Epstein victim’s $500,000 settlement deal in 2009 with the notorious sex offender, which Prince Andrew says shields him from lawsuits, was unsealed by a Manhattan federal judge Monday.

The agreement between Epstein and Virginia Giuffre was revealed through ongoing litigation between her and the British royal.

Giuffre says Epstein lent her three times to Andrew for sex when she was 17 and he was 41.

Lawyers for the Queen’s son say the broad terms of the deal protect him from Giuffre’s lawsuit.

The 11-page agreement “forever discharge(s)” Epstein and “other potential defendants” from “the beginning of the world to the day of this release.”

Read more: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-virginia-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-settlement-deal-unsealed-20220103-tyam6j5fl5hd3cygwzyyflcp3a-story.html

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. If she signed away any right to sue other potential defendants for $500K, then she signed it away

That's a decision she made as an adult, that $500K was adequate compensation for her pain regarding the whole Epstein episode.

So I kinda wonder what the 'ongoing litigation' is about?

In any case, this existence of this settlement w/Epstein that covers other defendants ... probably doesn't help with whatever she's trying to do.

[Sur Zobra]

4. You think that $500k is an adequate

amount to compensate for being prostituted out to dirty old men? Male privilege much

[Effete Snob]

5. Apparently she did

It was her decision to take the $500k settlement.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

[Sur Zobra]

14. Disgusting

Absolutely deplorable attitude

[Effete Snob]

15. She shouldn't have been allowed to settle her own lawsuit?

Okay.

Good to know I'm just deplorable. Usually I'm called a bot or a troll.

But the bottom line with any settlement is that it can't happen unless the parties agree to it. i haven't looked at the original filing in that lawsuit to see if there was a specific figure she was initially shooting for, but when you file a suit, it's up to you whether or not you want to settle it. That's kind of how lawsuits work.

I respect her personhood and personal autonomy in pursuing the lawsuit and her sole legal right to settle it on terms she believed were acceptable. If you have an objection to that, you should take it up with her.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. We'll see. There are two sides to every story.

A representative for Giuffre’s lawyers said the release was “irrelevant to Ms Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew” as it “does not mention Prince Andrew”.

“He did not even know about it. 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. The actual parties to the release have made clear that Prince Andrew was not covered by it.

“Lastly, the reason we sought to have the release made public was to refute the claims being made about it by Prince Andrew’s PR campaign.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-giuffres-legal-deal-with-jeffrey-epstein-released/ar-AASnL4Q

[brush]

2. 500k? That's all? Epstein was allegedly a billionaire.

She needed a better lawyer, who probably took half of it for fees.

[Effete Snob]

6. Section 8

Why make stuff up when the document is public:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

The Parties and their attorneys have agreed to resolve the
amount of attorneys’ fees and costs through the Special Master whom they have mutually
selected, Sidney Stubbs, Esq. Virginia Roberts agrees that any claims by her for attorneys’
fees or costs is solely through her attorneys and the Special Master proceeding.

Attorney fees were dealt with separately.

If you read stuff, you know what's in it.

[brush]

7. I just read what you wrote so I assume you think that chump change was just.

She needed a better lawyer to advise her.

[Effete Snob]

8. I don't understand your comment

I don't think she should have settled, if that's what you are driving at.

But your comment about attorney's fees has nothing to do with the $500k, since the document addresses that separately.

[brush]

9. She needed a better lawyer. Do you agree with that?

[Effete Snob]

10. I have no idea

It's not up to the lawyer whether a client accepts a settlement. I have not reviewed that case and have no idea what sort of a job those two lawyers did.

The firm principal is a fairly substantial Democratic donor....

Category Contributor Occupation Date Amount Recipient Recipient Jurisdiction

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133 Podhurst Orseck 08-26-2020 $1,000 Cunningham, Cal (D) Federal

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
MIAMI, FL 33131 NOT EMPLOYED 07-22-2019 $1,000 Jones, Doug (D) Federal

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
MIAMI, FL 33131 PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 07-10-2020 $1,000 Biden, Joe (D) Federal

Money to Parties PODHURST, AARON S
MIAMI, FL 33131 PODHURST ORSECK ET AL 07-31-2019 $250 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D) Federal

Money to Parties PODHURST, AARON
MIAMI, FL 33131 PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 11-02-2017 $500 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D) Federal

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
MIAMI, FL 33131 PODHURST ORSECK, PA 09-30-2017 $1,000 Haggman, Matt (D) Federal

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
MIAMI, FL 33131 PODHURST ORSECK TRAIL AND APPELLATE LA 09-30-2018 $2,700 Shalala, Donna (D) Federal

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
MIAMI, FL 33131 PODHURST ORSECK TRAIL AND APPELLATE LA 03-21-2018 $1,000 Shalala, Donna (D) Federal

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON
Miami, FL 33131 ATTORNEY 09-27-2018 $3,000 GILLUM, ANDREW D. (DEM)(GOV) Florida

Money to Candidates PODHURST, AARON S
Miami, FL 33131 ATTORNEY 05-30-2017 $3,000 GRAHAM, GWEN (DEM)(GOV) Florida

So, it's not as if there was some political "fix" in play.

I have no idea whether they are good lawyers or not. The firm is apparently highly rated and does a lot of sophisticated litigation, including class action litigation.

Here's the thing - if she said "yes" to the $500k, then her lawyers have no choice but to go ahead and settle at $500k. They can't make her settle for more or reject an offer she is willing to accept. That's not even legal. The client decides.

[brush]

11. You just said in a previous post that you don't think...

she should've settled so why avoid the question with all this copy?

A better lawyer maybe would've advise her not to settle, as you suggested. IMO he/she certainly should've advised her not to settle for so little, considering that Epstein was a billionaire.

[Effete Snob]

13. You don't know what her lawyer advised her

Neither do I.

I'm not avoiding any question. I simply don't know what the fuck she was advised by her lawyer or not. You don't either.

If the lawyers were sitting there saying "I think we can get more" and she said she wanted to take the $500k, then what would you suggest they do? Get out torture implements?

I do not know what her lawyers suggested she do or not do.

I assume she was a person with the free will to make her own decisions, and not an instrument to be manipulated by lawyers.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Tuns out Prince Andrew's lawyers are full of shit and The Prince wasn't a party to that settlement

You gotta admit, The Prince has a good PR team when he has DUers arguing the merits of his baseless claims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59871514

Prince Andrew to face civil sex assault case after US ruling


Prince Andrew is to face a civil case in the US over allegations he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her in 2001.

His lawyers said the case should be thrown out, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But a New York judge ruled that the case could be heard.

The prince has consistently denied the claims. Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was outlined in a 46-page decision by Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It means the case against the Duke of York, 61, could be heard later this year.

[Effete Snob]

18. Who was arguing the merits of Andrew's claim?

This subthread was about accepting the settlement from Epstein in the first place.

I had said in another thread that I had no idea whether his motion would suceed:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2848041

The complete ruling, by the way, is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713/gov.uscourts.nysd.564713.64.0.pdf

The judge found that the wording was ambiguous, and that its interpretation involved resolving a factual issue that was not appropriate on a motion to dismiss.



In other words "even if" Andrew fell within the scope of the language, it was not an appropriate matter to decide at this procedural stage of the case.

After discovery is completed, the next stage will be cross motions for summary judgment.

But I would like to see a link to DUers who were arguing the merits of Andrew's claim, if you have one. That would be amusing, and I'm sorry I missed it.

I was defending Giuffre's right to settle the claim against Epstein, since several DUers attacked her for doing it.

[Effete Snob]

16. Here's a profile of Katherine Ezell

One of Giuffre’s lawyers.

Ms. Ezell graduated from law school in 1969.

https://www.podhurst.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kathy-Ezell-Atty-At-Law-03-2012.pdf

She seems to have extensive experience and quite a distinguished career.

[Grins]

3. "...Epstein lent her..." to Andrew? Lent? Like a garden hose?

How the...?