Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:15:11 +0000
> Tone <email@address.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2022 11:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 10:56:21 +0000
>> > Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 03/01/2022 20:31, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 12:07:21 -0000
>> >>> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Yes da Prince seems to be very naive or living in some kind of time
>> >>>> bubble of his own.
>> >>>
>> >>> I dunno about that, from what's just been published it looks
>> >>> like she's been paid off once (very well - if someone had taken me to
>> >>> a sex party when I was 17 and then paid me $500K not to sue I think
>> >>> I'd have been well pleased - at least until my girlfriend found out)
>> >>> and he's covered by it if he needs to be - judge to decide of course.
>> >>
>> >> The argument is that the agreement is vague to the point of
>> >> meaninglessness. Plus, in order for Andrew to be covered by the
>> >> agreement, his lawyers have to say that he's a person liable to be
>> >> prosecuted.
>> >
>> > I thought the argument was more that if he acted as alleged then
>> > he's covered by the agreement and if he didn't then there's no case and
>> > so either way she can't sue him and so the question of whether he did
>> > or not can't be raised in court.
>> >
>>
>> Isn't withholding evidence for any reason an offence in itself?
>
> I don't think that bites until the case starts - the question being
> raised is whether she's allowed to bring it in the first place seeing as
> she's been paid once and agreed that covered everybody involved.

But it doesn't apply to him at all, unless he could be accused otherwise ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 07:15:30 -0600
Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:15:11 +0000

> > I don't think that bites until the case starts - the question
> > being raised is whether she's allowed to bring it in the first place
> > seeing as she's been paid once and agreed that covered everybody
> > involved.
>
> But it doesn't apply to him at all, unless he could be accused otherwise ?

Right - so either he didn't and there's no case to answer or he did
and he's covered by the agreement either way she can't sue him - at least
that seems to be his lawyer's point. I get the idea that somebody doesn't
want the question of what he did or did not do with her asked in court.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2022-01-05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 07:15:30 -0600
> Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:15:11 +0000
>
>> > I don't think that bites until the case starts - the question
>> > being raised is whether she's allowed to bring it in the first place
>> > seeing as she's been paid once and agreed that covered everybody
>> > involved.
>>
>> But it doesn't apply to him at all, unless he could be accused otherwise ?
>
> Right - so either he didn't and there's no case to answer or he did
> and he's covered by the agreement either way she can't sue him - at least
> that seems to be his lawyer's point. I get the idea that somebody doesn't
> want the question of what he did or did not do with her asked in court.
>
There's yet another twist to the tale. The agreement doesn't automatically
cover him. Thw wording says that it only covers people specified by either
Epstein or Giuffre. Epstein is dead and she isn't going to let him off the
hook.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 5 Jan 2022 16:12:07 GMT
Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> There's yet another twist to the tale. The agreement doesn't automatically
> cover him. Thw wording says that it only covers people specified by either
> Epstein or Giuffre. Epstein is dead and she isn't going to let him off the
> hook.

Oh what fun.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

In article <EtqdnRTxScRO30n8nZ2dnUU78IednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>Nick Odell said:

....

>> Erme - because he received his MBE the year before?
>
>*Ah*. Good point, well made ...
>
>[slumps off making vague arjlrneferfbyhgvba noises about keeping up
>at the back]

I've got one of those:

1. Don't make New Year's Resolutions.
--
Dennis Davis <dennisdavis@fastmail.fm>

In article <sr66rv$1m4c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Dennis Davis
<dennisdavis@fastmail.fm> on Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 07:48:16 awoke Nicholas
from his slumbers and wrote
>In article <EtqdnRTxScRO30n8nZ2dnUU78IednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
>Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Nick Odell said:
>
>...
>
>>> Erme - because he received his MBE the year before?
>>
>>*Ah*. Good point, well made ...
>>
>>[slumps off making vague arjlrneferfbyhgvba noises about keeping up
>>at the back]
>
>I've got one of those:
>
>1. Don't make New Year's Resolutions.

I kept that last year, so I didn't.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On 5 Jan 2022 16:12:07 GMT
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> There's yet another twist to the tale. The agreement doesn't automatically
>> cover him. Thw wording says that it only covers people specified by either
>> Epstein or Giuffre.

I think I also heard "in the US". London was also mentioned.

Not that I expect anything to come of that, of course.

>> Epstein is dead and she isn't going to let him off the
>> hook.
>
> Oh what fun.
>

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Dennis Davis said:
> In article <EtqdnRTxScRO30n8nZ2dnUU78IednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Nick Odell said:
>
> ...
>
>>> Erme - because he received his MBE the year before?
>>
>>*Ah*. Good point, well made ...
>>
>>[slumps off making vague arjlrneferfbyhgvba noises about keeping up
>>at the back]
>
> I've got one of those:
>
> 1. Don't make New Year's Resolutions.

Never mind, I expect you'll forget where you put it before long.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 05/01/2022 16:12, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 2022-01-05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 07:15:30 -0600
>> Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:15:11 +0000
>>
>>>> I don't think that bites until the case starts - the question
>>>> being raised is whether she's allowed to bring it in the first place
>>>> seeing as she's been paid once and agreed that covered everybody
>>>> involved.
>>>
>>> But it doesn't apply to him at all, unless he could be accused otherwise ?
>>
>> Right - so either he didn't and there's no case to answer or he did
>> and he's covered by the agreement either way she can't sue him - at least
>> that seems to be his lawyer's point. I get the idea that somebody doesn't
>> want the question of what he did or did not do with her asked in court.
>>
> There's yet another twist to the tale. The agreement doesn't automatically
> cover him. Thw wording says that it only covers people specified by either
> Epstein or Giuffre. Epstein is dead and she isn't going to let him off the
> hook.

I thought it was because the only people who could request the
enforcement of the contract were the signatories - Epstein and Giuffre.