Giuffre could argue that, regardless of his intent, the device itself was poorly worded by referencing any party вЂњwho could have been included as a potential defendantвЂќ in that action. It seems strange that Epstein would have forked over this amount of money for a Florida-only settlement given his involvement with Giuffre and other victims in homes around the world. 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 (вЂњOther Potential DefendantsвЂќ) 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. Look again at the language (emphasis added): AttorneyвЂ™s office in the Southern District of New York successfully argued that the actions of Florida prosecutors could not bind it, it is more difficult to argue that a comprehensive civil settlement does not bind a party who received half a million dollars in exchange for her consent.

However, such settlements often extend beyond the state of execution and this agreement expressly refers to any actions that Guiffre could bring in вЂњstate or federalвЂќ courts. GiuffreвЂ™s attorneyВ David Boies has suggested that the agreement would not include Prince Andrew because he was not subject to any litigation or allegations in Florida where it was finalized. Epstein clearly wanted a complete and final settlement not only for himself but his friends. Nevertheless, the absence to a reference to royalty does not matter if this is viewed as a Royal We provision. Brettler wrote that вЂњbecause Prince Andrew is a senior member of the British royal family, he falls into one of the expressly identified categories of persons, i.e., royalty, released from liability under the Release Agreement, along with politicians, academicians, businessmen, and others allegedly associated with Epstein.вЂќ One thing that the agreement does not include is a reference to вЂњroyalty.вЂќ Bizarrely, counsel for Prince Andrew claimed publicly that the agreement exempted вЂњroyalty.вЂќ The princeвЂ™s lawyer Andrew B. That is pretty sweeping and the agreement was signed after the alleged incidents involving Prince Andrew. Giuffre agreed to вЂњremise, 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 (вЂOther Potential DefendantsвЂ™) from all, and all manner of, action and actionsвЂќ that she may bring, whether вЂњstate or federal.вЂќ In exchange for $500,000, Giuffre agreed not only to release Epstein from any liability but any вЂњother defendantsвЂќ associated with him. Yet, the long-secret 2009 settlement (below) contains a provision that would seem to favor Prince Andrew in seeking dismissal. He has also challenged ( unsuccessfully) the claim that Giuffre is a resident, alleging that she lives in Australia in a $1.7 million home with her husband. We previously discussed an interesting challenge by Prince Andrew to the applicability of the age-of-consent in New York to the case. It turns out that the settlement agreement between Giuffre and Epstein contains what Prince Andrew might claim is a вЂњRoyal We provision.вЂќ In exchange for half a million dollars, the settlement expressly bars Giuffre from suing not just Epstein but вЂњother defendants.вЂќ Prince Andrew is arguing effectively that the plural reference includes him. He insists вЂњWe dropped off the damn moneyвЂ¦вЂќ When the Big Lebowski asks вЂњWe?,вЂќ the Dude responds вЂњI! The Royal вЂweвЂ™!вЂ¦вЂќ In the movie, there is a scene вЂњThe DudeвЂќ is pressed on what happened to a million dollars in a suitcase. The civil litigation between Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (nГ©e Roberts) just took a вЂњBig LebowskiвЂќ turn.

Sheiks bevy