The Yorks - News

[Curtains]

Article today in The Daily Beast.  It holds that senior courtiers have prepared for Andy to place his title “in abeyance”.

https://www.thedailybeast...ould-destroy-him?ref=home

Prince Andrew Faces the Week That Could Destroy Him

(Small snippet)

The royals don’t seem massively optimistic about Prince Andrew’s chances of emerging the victor from Giuffre’s lawsuit. To that end, senior courtiers are drawing up plans to strip him of his “Duke of York” title, and force him into “internal exile” within the royal family, according to the Sunday Times, as The Daily Beast reported yesterday.

“If he loses the case, the question is: what do you do with him?” a source said. “You can’t make him resign like you would a normal person but he would be asked to put his dukedom into abeyance.”

His allies within palace walls seem non-existent. The prince allegedly operated “with impunity” because palace staff were too scared to challenge him, the Mail reports. Andrew wouldn’t listen to any guidance from palace staff. “Anyone who even dared to offer their professional advice that maybe his way wasn't the right one was met with a decisive 'f*** off out of my office,’” the source said. Andrew acted as if he “didn't have to answer to anyone,” and was allowed to “go rogue.”

The link above works for me because I’m a subscriber; if anyone can’t see the whole of it, let me know and I’ll do a full cut & paste.

[ralf103]

The 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre has been made public:

https://storage.courtlist...urts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

"Virginia Roberts and her agent(s), attorney(s),
predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), and/or assign(s) (hereinafter, “First
Parties”), for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000.00) and other valuable consideration, received from or on behalf of Jeffrey
Epstein and his agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s),
administrator(s), assign(s) and/or employee(s) (hereinafter, “Second Parties’), the receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged,
HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second
Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential
defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of
Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or
statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills,
specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances,
trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in
equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have,
or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter
can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or
by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the
beginning of the world to the day of this release.

[Mariola]

The 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre has been made public:

https://storage.courtlist...urts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

"Virginia Roberts and her agent(s), attorney(s),
predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), and/or assign(s) (hereinafter, “First
Parties”), for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000.00) and other valuable consideration, received from or on behalf of Jeffrey
Epstein and his agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s),
administrator(s), assign(s) and/or employee(s) (hereinafter, “Second Parties’), the receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged,
HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second
Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential
defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of
Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or
statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills,
specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances,
trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in
equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have,
or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter
can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or
by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the
beginning of the world to the day of this release.

It means she can sue Prince A. because he was not an employee of Epstein and is not covered by this agreement?

[Gemsheal]

The 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre has been made public:

https://storage.courtlist...urts.nysd.564713.32.1.pdf

"Virginia Roberts and her agent(s), attorney(s),
predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), and/or assign(s) (hereinafter, “First
Parties”), for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000.00) and other valuable consideration, received from or on behalf of Jeffrey
Epstein and his agent(s), attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s),
administrator(s), assign(s) and/or employee(s) (hereinafter, “Second Parties’), the receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged,
HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second
Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential
defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of
Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or
statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills,
specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances,
trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in
equity for compensatory or punitive damages that said First Parties ever had or now have,
or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter
can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or
by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the
beginning of the world to the day of this release.

It means she can sue Prince A. because he was not an employee of Epstein and is not covered by this agreement?

I don't read it that way.  But, the agreement is only enforceable in the State of Florida and she's suing Prince Andrew in a New York court.

[Oh_Caroline]

So the way I read it is that Andrew’s team will focus on the “ and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential
defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”)” bit and the “all manner of, action and actions of
Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal,” bit in order to get this suit thrown out.  And they might have a case…might…depending on how the NY judge.  But it’s a FL judgement in a NY court so it’s no where near a slam dunk.  It’s certainly interesting.

[Paulina]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

[Hester]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

Are you advocating for 25 to be the age of consent? 😹

[Lady Mellie]

I'm confused about the York girls holidaying in Verbier. I thought there was a problem with Andrew's chalet... he was sued by the former owner, or something like that?

[Oh_Caroline]

I'm confused about the York girls holidaying in Verbier. I thought there was a problem with Andrew's chalet... he was sued by the former owner, or something like that?

https://www.express.co.uk...land-inside-home-pictures

In September 2021, de Rouvre reportedly withdrew the lawsuit as the couple repaid the debt after selling the property for £18million.

Sarah Ferguson, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice chose Verbier to start the new year although it is unknown where they are currently staying.

[Maria]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

Are you advocating for 2( to be the age of consent? 😹

This is not a discussion I can moderate.

[Hester]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

That was 2009 money. More like $2 million in 2022 money.

[TexasBear]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

That was 2009 money. More like $2 million in 2022 money.

$500,000 USD in 2009 has the same buying power as approximately $650,000 USD in fourth quarter 2021.

[Hester]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

That was 2009 money. More like $2 million in 2022 money.

$500,000 USD in 2009 has the same buying power as approximately $650,000 USD in fourth quarter 2021.

The US is an outlier. Giuffre is Australian- if she bought a house here for $500,000 in 2009 it would now be worth well over  $2 million.

[TexasBear]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

That was 2009 money. More like $2 million in 2022 money.

$500,000 USD in 2009 has the same buying power as approximately $650,000 USD in fourth quarter 2021.

The US is an outlier. Giuffre is Australian- if she bought a house here for $500,000 in 2009 it would now be worth well over  $2 million.

If the settlement is filed in and governed by the laws of the State of Florida, one would expect the currency to be USD unless otherwise specified, no?

[Princess MS]

$500,000 is not that much for something like this.

I'm rooting for her. Whether someone was of the age of consent or not (trafficked, so no consent no matter the age), the rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. Plus, imo, 18 is not old enough to be an adult if you look at brain formation. 21 maybe, and 25 realistically.

That was 2009 money. More like $2 million in 2022 money.

$500,000 USD in 2009 has the same buying power as approximately $650,000 USD in fourth quarter 2021.

The US is an outlier. Giuffre is Australian- if she bought a house here for $500,000 in 2009 it would now be worth well over  $2 million.

She apparently bought a $1.9m house in Perth Australia last year... she appears to have benefited financially from selling her story and other financial settlements