Doc67 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:35 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:24 am If there’s one thing to be learned from this, it’s not to allow yourself to be photographed in close proximity to a member of the opposite sex who isn’t your spouse.
Perhaps in time the real truth about what actually went on between those two will be revealed, but at the moment it seems to be a case of her word against his, with the whole case being centered around a single photograph, a photograph that could be interpreted in several ways.
Without that photograph this would be a non story.
No wonder Keanu Reeves always makes it perfectly clear his hands are nowhere near the body of any fan who wants a picture/selfie taken with him.

I reckon he shagged her, probably more than once, she was right up for it and everyone was happy. 20 year later, the opportunity to extract millions of dollars from him is irresistible (as he once was) and this grubby spectacle is the result. This is what happens when Princes and Dukes sleep with 'below stairs' class people, a lesson painfully learnt by so many of the aristocracy but one that seems to have passed him by.

I think the lesson learned is to simply not be photographed. Especially when having a good time. The lawyers are simply making a bloody fortune, and quite likely some of them are breathing a sigh of relief that they weren’t photographed in what could be compromising company 20 years ago.

Simple solution- have a few well chosen grey chaps go and have a chat with her lawyers. The replacement set may well advise her to take a more conservative view on how she should remember her well spent or misspent teen years. There’s plenty of spare lawyers.

Spigzy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 10:44 am Ghislain however will get the lot, like Lewinsky did - the focus will all be about her involvement - a total distraction whilst Smokin' Bill & Andrew walk away whistling, hands in pockets...

Let start guessing: 10M $ or more?

bet the royal family told him pay up, we cant have our shit dragged thru public. I understand he is NOT wealthy>
will the brit tax payers pay the settlement?


Prince Andrew settles sex assault lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre

NEW YORK - Prince Andrew and his accuser Virginia Giuffre have settled a sexual assault lawsuit for an unspecified sum, according to a court filing Tuesday.

In a letter sent to a New York judge on behalf of both parties, Giuffre's lawyer David Boies wrote that they "have reached an out of court settlement," without disclosing the financial terms.

As part of the agreement, the British royal will make a "substantial donation" to a charity established by Giuffre that supports sex trafficking victims, Boies said.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/2264647

UPDATE:
EXCLUSIVE: The Duke of York will pay his accuser more than £12 million using money from the Queen

Undisclosed sum to her "charity" (tax efficient?)

Apparently, her charity is quite small so when her charity files her returns/accounts at the end of the next accounting period, the enormous bump in income should reveal the scale, if not the specific amount, of the "donation" after her lawyers have been paid off. What is the going rate for a high profile, high value, contingency fee arrangement in the U.S.? 30%?

The out-of-court settlement in the US civil case means Prince Andrew makes no admission of guilt over claims by Giuffre that he sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, allegations he has repeatedly denied.

In a letter filed to the judge, Lewis A Kaplan, lawyers for Andrew, 61, and Giuffre, 38, said the two had reached a “settlement in principle”. A statement read: “The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms Giuffre’s receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed).”

It added that Andrew would make a “substantial donation” to Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights. International lawyers told the Guardian that the cost to Andrew was likely to be more than $10m (£7m) even before paying his own legal bill that is expected to run into millions.

Tuesday’s legal statement continued that Andrew had “never intended to malign Ms Giuffre’s character” and that he recognised she had “suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks”. [ha ha ha ha]

Andrew also pledged to “demonstrate his regret for his association” with the sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein, by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”. He commended the “bravery of Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others”.

[ ]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -principle

Prince Andrew may have escaped a trial but he won’t escape the public’s verdict

London: We will probably never know exactly how much it took to make the Virginia Giuffre case finally go away, once and for all.

But a clue to the significant size of the sum was hidden in a comment David Boies, Giuffre’s lawyer, made to my London Telegraph colleague Celia Walden in January.

Adamant that it wasn’t about the money for his client but “holding Prince Andrew to account”, he chose his words carefully as he admitted: “If you had a settlement that was large enough to be, in effect, a vindication, then it’s something we would obviously look at.”



Giuffre had wanted an apology, but the lack of any admission of guilt on Andrew’s behalf suggests the 61-year-old royal’s new-found freedom from a jury trial has come at a significant price.

Whatever the legal bill, which is being partly footed by the Queen, the true cost to the reputation of the ninth-in-line to the British throne remains incalculable.

Many will see this out-of-court settlement as an admission of guilt – even though more than 90 per cent of US civil cases are thought to be resolved ahead of any trial.

Quite what happens to Andrew’s role in the ongoing FBI investigation now remains to be seen.

It is worth remembering that US authorities still want to speak to him as a witness to the crimes of the late American Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and prosecutors appear to have revelled in making a public example of him.

Full: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/ ... 59wts.html