So ya, to victor and all, if you watched the first video, you would see how one victim describes how she had to massage and then have sex with Epstein, and Gislaine was present, watching! It was sort of under her supervision. Victim was 16 or 17 then. So yes, she was the madame and he was the pimp and together they did what you see other pimps are doing. Only on a much larger scale imo and much more f up. They were a f weird couple. Yeah they have been a couple before, but that changed later. Weird. Very weird indeed. And what you guys are pointing out, maybe Epstein was really good at writing bills too. Or maybe he was even a great h fund manager and had ideas on the side.

Thx. I enjoy the SistersInLaw podcast and listen to every episode so i have set now for later this evening.

I didn't know sistersinlaw podcast. I like Australia 60 minutes and 2020, all of their presenters are great. Not too dolled up not too stupid, just right. It's a messy case cuepee. But this is what happened. The guy found out how much power he could have through sex and sex trade imo. Maybe he was just addicted, not sure. That vibe is there, also.

Bc rich elites don't pay that much for underage sex and adrenochrome.

You need to slow down and read better. Ofc he was diddling teens and part of providing them for others.

I'm just saying that its very questionable that such activity is what made him rich. In other words, he got rich outside of his "pimping" (your word).

Of course he got rich before pimping, in fact he could only do what he was doing bc he got so rich. If you wanna talk about how he got rich before, that's an interesting question.
If you know what I know about this case, it's that they targeted young girls who were from poor neighbourhoods etc, and gained their attention with their wealth. Then the question arises who you want to punch more in the face for this. Gislaine or Epstein? I mean she must be sick in the head, right? She was watching, did she get off from this? I mean who does that? They were a couple btw and then they weren't and she trafficked him girls.

I started this discussion by making this exact point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Nah I just thought that quote could be interpreted in different ways than as an admission to the Epstein stuff. But--I can't be the only person who knows some guys who channel that kinda can't sit still energy into chasing chicks&coke

Prince Andrew says he shouldn't be sued by someone who claims he sexually abused her, because she already accepted $500K from Epstein to STFU. Lulz.....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...?ocid=BingNews

Humans have allowed some zany scams to get going over the years but--royalty lol

Third party releases in settlement agreements are a real thing. If you reach an agreement with a corporation and you settle the case, in addition to releasing the corporation, you almost always release the officers and directors, employees, agents, successors, agents, etc. And those provisions are generally believed to be enforceable by those third parties.

Here, I don't know. The release doesn't mention Prince Andrew by name, and in a case this notorious, I would expect close calls to go in favor of the plaintiff. I guess that I expect the court to allow the case to go to a jury (on this issue, at least), but I'm not 100% certain.

I've been keenly listening to the news on this and it's quite interesting that among all the coverage there is ~ zero independent legal opinion on what this means. Obviously both sides insist it 100% works for them but that seems to be it so far.

I wonder if no-one wants to say what they think is the truth which is that legally andy should be getting away with it but that's so obviosuly outrageous that a way will be found to ignore the law.

There is discussion in this article.

https://www.insider.com/virginia-giu...rts-say-2022-1

If there is any loophole possible the royals will use all their leverage to make for it goes through.

Other than paying for an army of good lawyers, I'm not sure what leverage the royal family can exert on a civil proceeding in the SDNY.

Well there was a guy serving underage kids to high profile people including royalty and ex presidents out if his NYC home and trafficking them across state and international lines for over a decade and they didn't do **** about it.
If there is any hope it would be the SDNY but I'm not holding my breath. You and Grizy can say all you want about how pure, just and well intentioned the federal court system is but it's not the perception for a lot looking from the outside.

What the **** was a judge in the SDNY supposed to do about Epstein abusing underage girls? Judges aren't cops and they aren't prosecutors. They preside over the cases in front of them.

"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by three separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders; and the judges, who don't let villains get away with shenanigans. These are their stories."

Interview with Julie K. Brown, Investigative Reporter Who Exposed Jeffrey Epstein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TMUNCXeFts

This interview/discussion gets really interesting around the 44:00 minute mark when Julie Brown answers the question concerning whether she believes Epstein committed suicide or he was murdered. (After listening to her account of all the "strange things" that occurred surrounding his death, I think it's more likely that Epstein was murdered ...)

John Locke? Montesquieu??

Voltaire.

"Even we cannot persuade a judge to decide the case the way we want"
"So what can we do"
"We make sure it's a judge who doesn't need persuading"

I paraparse the correct quote and mostly for comedic purposes. I doubt even the royal thingies have such influence although others in the usa might

On the big decision coming 'pretty soon'. I gather it can and almost certainly will be appealed.

Let's see. My guess is nothing happens to the guy and it's conveniently chalked up to "not a strong enough case"