Thread by @innercitypress

OK - now Prince Andrew argues to try to dismiss complaint of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, using Epstein settlement / release unsealed yesterday. Inner City Press put out book #MaximumMaxwell amazon.com/dp/B09PFR6M8N & will live tweet Guiffre v. Andrew, thread below

Andrew's lawyer: Giuffre released Mr. Epstein and others, "other potential defendants." It must apply to Andrew, it could apply to the head football coach of the University of Kansas.
Judge Kaplan: Who is a potential defendant?

Judge Kaplan: This language excludes people who had already been named, no?
Andrew's lawyer: It's a distinction without a difference. Prince Andrew was not named --
Judge Kaplan: But the use of the word potential, neither you nor I can find the meaning.

Andrew's lawyer Brettler: Prince Andrew could have been sued but was not. Ms. Giuffre intended to release royalty --
Judge Kaplan: Including the Sultan of Brunei?
Brettler: If there are allegations against him.
[What about Norway's Princess Mette-Marit?]

Judge Kaplan: I understand that you are asserting this, but that does not mean it is correct. There could be a different view.
Brettler: I don't think you need to get there. Ms. Giuffre made allegations against royalty and academics and released them.

Judge Kaplan: We do not have Mr. Epstein here to hear what his view was. He was offering X dollars for the broadest release the other party was willing to give him. But she may have intended it more narrowly.
Brettler: I agree with the concept. But --

Judge Kaplan: The phrase is, Other potential defendants. What did she have in mind?
Brettler: The plain language of the contract.
Judge Kaplan: We're not talking about the parole evidence rule now. Were there two interpretations? Yes.

Judge Kaplan: Turn to the next point.
Andrew's lawyer Brettler: Ms. Giuffre needs to lock herself into a story today. What date did this place on? And a place - all we have is an apartment. She doesn't explain what the abuse was.

Brettler: Before Prince Andrew must answer, he should be told specifically what all the allegations are.
Judge Kaplan: That dog is not going to hunt. She has not obligation to do that in the complaint, only in discovery.
Brettler: Her claims should be tested.

Judge Kaplan: Mr. Brettler, I understand your point. It's just not the law.
Brettler: She needs to allege an Article 130 allegation under the New York penal law. She doesn't.
Judge Kaplan: I'm obliged to accept as true, at this stage, the allegations.

Judge Kaplan: She says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew.
Brettler: We don't know what the conduct was.
Judge Kaplan: Involuntary sexual intercourse. There's no doubt that that means, at least since someone else was in the White House.
[#BillClinton]

Brettler: The last point, the Constitutionality of the New York CVA. This case was filed after the second temporary extension in light of COVID. Was former Governor Cuomo's extension Constitutional? Ms. Giuffre waited- it's untimely.

Brettler: The extension was done by executive order, not by the legislature convening --
Judge Kaplan: Have you briefed the issue of the Governor's power to do this, under state law?
Brettler: We could brief it. Ms. Giuffre is well represented...

Brettler: She has given plenty of interviews all over the world, then files this lawsuit... It is unfair, it is unjust, it should be dismissed.
Judge Kaplan: Thank you. Let's turn to the other side.
Guiffre's lawyer David Boies: Their arguments are changing.

Boies: In their motion to dismiss, they attack the legislative revival and contrast it to what Governor Cuomo did. Other courts have addressed that. Now they attack Governor Cuomo. Also, here there is a lack of implied consent. Let me turn to the release...

Boies: We concede that "potential defendant" could have more than one interpretation. We say it means a person subject to jurisdiction, and accused of the activity alleged in that action. But Prince Andrew was not subject to jurisdiction.

Judge Kaplan: There could be overlap between the Federal and the common claims, no?
Boies: Yes. But the only claim that the defendant asserts from the 2009 complaint that would cover Prince Andrew: transporting someone for illegal sexual activity.

Boies: There's no allegation that Prince Andrew was the trafficker. He was a person "to whom the girls were trafficked." Counsel did not address this... If a third party beneficiary to a contract claims they were covered, the parties to the contract can respond

Boies: Here, there is no reasonable reliance. The defendant did not even know about this contract until recently. And their affirmative defenses are not appropriate at this motion to dismiss stage.

Judge Kaplan: Let me asking you about the second part of Paragraph 2
[Inner City Press put the settlement / release on its DocumentCloud yesterday right after it was unsealed: documentcloud.org/documents/2117…

Judge Kaplan: What about this: "1st Parties & 2d Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal."

Boies: I see what the court is saying - that the parties explicitly agreed, that the only person who could assert this release would be Epstein.

Judge Kaplan: What about "neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any copy hereof, nor the terms hereof shall be used or disclosed in any court, arbitration, or other legal proceedings, except to enforce the provisions of this Settlement Agreement."

Boies: Only Epstein could raise it.
Judge Kaplan: OK, Mr. Brettler, I'll give you five minutes, and I suggest you address the points I raised to Mr. Boies.
Brettler: I take the paragraph to mean the settlement could not be used to show Mr. Epstein's guilt.

Judge Kaplan: But the deal was to be secret. Paragraph 2 left the right of enforcement in the hands of the contracting parties, who weren't to tell anyone about it.

Judge Kaplan: Take the Sultan of Brunei - and I'm not casting aspersions, it's just a convenient example --
[#GoogleTheSultan]
the point is, it's pretty hard to square with No third parties can enforce it and no one will be told about it

Brettler: Melissa, could you pull it up on your computer?
Melissa Lerner: It sets venue in Palm Beach.
Judge Kaplan: Could Epstein and Giuffre have authority to make 3d parties accept Palm Beach jurisdiction?
Brettler: Epstein and Ms Giuffre [he says it GOOF-ray]

Judge Kaplan: The language your colleague read to me has Epstein and Giuffre in their benevolence limiting third parties to Palm Beach, which they had no authority to do...

Judge Kaplan: I thank you all. You'll have a decision pretty soon.
[Soon podcast and stories on InnerCityPress.com and patreon.com/MatthewRussell…