ONE 2009 confidential one-time settlement agreement signed by Jeffrey Epstein that was prominent in the case against Prince Andrew went public on Monday, the day before the long-awaited trial involving the royal family.
The $500,000 settlement contains a provision that is intended to insulate “Other Potential Defendants” from Epstein-related liability.
Prince Andrew invoked this provision to try to fight a lawsuit by Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts), who accused him of sexually abusing her when she was 17 years old.
The exceptionally broad provision provides that Giuffre “amends, releases, acquits, satisfies and permanently removes said Second Parties and any other persons or entities that may be included as such as a potential defendant (‘other potential defendants’) from all, and all manners, acts and actions” she may take, whether “state or federal”.
Prince’s lawyer Andrew B. Brettler previously stated that the special waiver agreement “royalties.”
“Because Prince Andrew is a senior member of the British royal family, he is in one of the well-defined categories of people, i.e. the royal family, who are exempt from liability under the Emancipation Agreement, along with politicians. politicians, academics, businessmen, and others believed to be associated with Epstein, “Brettler” Written in a memo on October 29.
The word “royalty” does not appear in the specific document released on Monday, and on this point the prince’s defense press conference appeared to refer to the language of Giuffre’s underlying lawsuit.
Giuffre claimed that Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her in three locations: Epstein’s mansion in New York and his private island in the US Virgin Islands and his London home The sex trafficker has now been convicted Ghislaine Maxwell.
Second place is where the prince is pictured with his arm around Giuffre’s waist, with Maxwell standing in the background. Andrew denies the allegations.
Also on Monday, US District Judge Alison Nathan-who presided over Maxwell’s case–request prosecutors and defense attorneys to set sentencing schedules and plan the remaining two counts of perjury. Before the trial, Maxwell succeeded in cutting out two of the eight charges the indictment accused her of lying in her case against Giuffre. The jury heard only six other counts in her first trial, roughly categorizing minors in preparation for Epstein’s sex trafficking and abuse. Maxwell was convicted of five counts.
Over an hour before Maxwell was found guilty, two federal judges command the release of the Epstein deal: US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over Giuffre’s case against Andrew, and Senior Judge of the United States Loretta Preska, who is presiding over the sprawling litigation between Giuffre and Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz. After Giuffre accused Dershowitz of lewdness, Dershowitz, who called Giuffre a liar he had never met, protested the defamation charge. He also argued that the 2009 Epstein deal protected him under a provision that protected “academicians” linked to Epstein.
Prince Andrew’s solicitor Written that Dershowitz’s plea for a settlement was successful in his case.
“Indeed, it was that agreement that underpinned Giuffre’s agreement to dismiss her previously published battery claim against Professor Dershowitz earlier this year,” Brettler’s memo reads. “Professor Dershowitz, as a third party beneficiary of the 2009 settlement, is entitled to rely on and enforce the terms of that confidentiality agreement.”
On Tuesday of this week, Andrew and Giuffre’s legal team will face off in federal court to contest the royal’s motion to dismiss the case. The 2009 settlement will be just one of the topics covered in the hearing. Prince Andrew has argued that the case does not belong to the Southern District of New York, arguing that Giuffre exaggerated her ties to the US and actually resides in Perth, Australia. Royal attorneys also argued that Giuffre had passed the age of majority in New York and attacked the constitutionality of the state’s Child Victims Act, which had temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for cases. in connection with allegations of sexual abuse of minors. The statute of limitations expired shortly after Giuffre filed the lawsuit.
If Giuffre’s lawyers were able to overcome the prince’s various procedural objections, they planned a multifaceted legal assault. Lawyers hope to undermine Prince Andrew’s Interview with BBC Newsnight, considered by many to be a disaster for the royal family.
In response to Giuffre’s description of Andrew sweating profusely in the nightclub, the prince issued a memorable rebuttal: “I have a special medical condition,” the prince told the network, claiming that he lost the ability to sweat because of an “adrenaline overdose during the Falklands War.”
Giuffre’s attorney David Boies said in court papers that he wanted to investigate that claim.
“If Prince Andrew indeed has no documents relating to his communications with Maxwell or Epstein, his travels to Florida, New York, or various locations in London, allegedly no the ability to sweat or anything that might support the proof he gave in his BBC interview, then continuing to explore wouldn’t be a burden on him at all,” said Boies. Written.
In a statement to Law & Crime, Boies reiterated his stance that the release was “not related” to Giuffre’s lawsuit.
“The release makes no mention of Prince Andrew,” Boies wrote. “He didn’t even know about it. He cannot be a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he is out of Florida jurisdiction and because the Florida case involves federal claims he not part of it. “
In the wake of Maxwell’s criminal case, her legal team argued that she had been quarantined by another arrangement: a 2008 plea agreement between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida, which was intended to be quarantined. his accused accomplice.
The United States Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York argued that the actions of the Florida prosecutors were not binding on them. Judge Nathan eventually agreed, dismissed Maxwell’s challenge and read the file for trial.
Boies argued that the same was true of Giuffre’s civil agreement, entered into in the Southern District of Florida when his client was known only as “Jane Doe No. 102”. The settlement contained a clause that shielded the plaintiff’s anonymity, which is no longer relevant, as Giuffre has made it public in court and the press.
Boies continued in a statement: “The parties actually involved in the release have made it clear that Prince Andrew is not covered up by it. “Ultimately, the reason we sought to bring the release to the public was to disprove the claims made about it during Prince Andrew’s PR campaign.”
Attorney Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor who led sex trafficking cases in the County of New Jersey in 2003 and 2004, was amazed at the breadth of the deal.
“This is an extremely broad release that, in the face of it, makes any claims that Miss Giuffre Roberts against anyone she might sue for sexual abuse by Epstein,” said Epner, who is currently a consulting lawyer said. with the company Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC. “It unleashes all the claims she once had or is now ha[s] for, upon, or for whatever reason… (whether known or not) from the beginning of the world until this date of release. ‘”
“So if Prince Andrew has outdone Virginia Giuffre Roberts in a hit-and-run, that should be out as well,” Epner added.
Attorneys for Prince Andrew did not immediately respond to Law & Crime’s emails requesting comment.
Read the agreement, below:
(Photo by Epstein via DOJ)
Is there a trick we should know? [email protected]
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/long-secret-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-at-issue-in-lawsuit-against-prince-andrew-made-public-for-first-time/ 2009 Jeffrey Epstein Secret Settlement With Virginia Giuffre Released