Thread by @soychicka

Interestingly, it only refers to JE's estate, never to the decedent or anything else indicating Epstein is, in fact, deceased.

this is far out, but I'm curious -would waiving sec 1542 + no mention of death be grounds to prevent addl actions if his 'death' was exfiltration?

https://twitter.com/JayShams/status/1471201930554793991

IOW, since they only reference the estate, not the decedent - if he was actually whisked away by Barr &| Mossad and surfaces in 10 years, would this safely serve to indemnify all his powerful 'clients' in perpetuity

...in a way that victims would not have agreed to if they were aware he was not deceased (if that were indeed the case), as the potential for his harm to others would not have come to a fixed end as they believed?

IOW, since they didn't say he's dead, if it turns out he actually isn't,
does waiving their rights means they can't file additional claims against him/others based on fraudulent representations if those assumptions weren't actually included in the document....

Because although I don't BELIEVE the above, I've always found the "Epstein didn't kill himself" meme to be highly suspect, in that if it were meant to lay blame directly at the Clintons' feet, they would most certainly have used their names with glee....

"EDKH" could eventually be used to introduce in court that many individuals who publicly stated he was not dead at the time, and that the victims' willingness to sign was [insert derogatory claim here], and that fraud can't be claimed as a reason to overturn agreements...

basically, if this was a big racket set up to protect others based on the predicate that Epstein was dead - one that the survivors would never have signed off on had they known he was still living?

Again, I don't believe this, but I'm curious...

and the predicate for seeking to overturn this could change - iow, if in fact Maxwell was actually Epstein's "boss" but was technically employed by him for some period of time, as were all his co-conspirators to place them in a protected class...

IOW, would this preclude any coordinated misrepresentation of facts serving as a means of opening up his co-conspirators to charges, if not for the actual crimes thn for rackeering to prevent victims from pursuing restitution from each individual responsible for their abuse?

NB - this notion that blocking suits against Maxwell because it would put the estate in an endless cycle of litigation, for example, seems like it could be a fraudulent representation of the reason for including her in a protected class...

https://twitter.com/JayShams/status/1471203523383775236?s=20