ROYALTY DENIED: GIUFFRE Lawsuit Against PRINCE ANDREW Continues & MAXWELL Juror Update

Major setback for Prince Andrew as a Federal Judge allows Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit against the Duke of York to Advance. New updates in the Ghislaine Maxwell case as Juror 50 hires a lawyer and requests a copy of his questionnaire. And more!

🔹 Mindmap: https://mm.tt/map/2105681969?t=Q999Oc3TcG
🔹 Judge Kaplan rules that Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s lawsuit against Prince Andrew can continue.
🔹 In a 46-page order, Judge Kaplan reviews the 2009 settlement agreement between Epstein and Giuffre in detail.
🔹 What did “Other Potential Defendants” mean when the agreement was executed?
🔹 Finding that the there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the agreement, the Judge allows Giuffre’s suit to continue.
🔹 Judge Kaplan addresses The Dershowitz Argument in his order, and we review the opinion.
🔹 The Times UK reports that Dershowitz asked Trump to pardon Ghislaine on his way out.
🔹 Ghislaine Maxwell Update: Juror 50 hires a lawyer and requests a copy of his questionnaire. 
🔹 Juror 50, publicly identifying himself to the Daily Mail, explains his opinion of Ghislaine.
🔹 Mr. David turns red when he is asked about disclosing this past on the jury questionnaire. 
🔹 Your questions and comments!

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: 
💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):
👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699

Channel List:
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ
✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A

Connect with us:
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  
🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq 

#WatchingtheWatchers #MaxwellTrial #GhislaineMaxwell #JeffreyEpstein #PrinceAndrew

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gove. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. And today we're talking about prince Andrew, duke of York, w wa he the motion to dismiss, to be granted by the judge, trying to get Virginia Roberts civil lawsuit thrown out. And the judge said, that's not gonna happen. Sorry, wrote a 46 page order. This is judge Kaplan out of New York. And this is regarding the, the 2000 and nines. I think it's New York, a 2009 settlement agreement between Epstein and Virginia Roberts and prince Andrew and Dershowitz wanted this settlement agreement to cover them, to immunize them from any civil claims brought forward by Virginia. And the judge said that's not gonna happen. And so we're gonna go through that order. It is 46 pages, but we're not gonna read all of it. We're just gonna pick out some of the highlights, cuz there is some good stuff in there answers a lot of the same questions that we've been talking about here on this channel, on this show specifically, how the heck are these agreements so broad, so encompassing that they can cover basically everybody, anybody under the sun. And so the judge goes through that and says, you know, because we can read this in a light, most favorable to Virginia Roberts, we're gonna allow this case to go forward. And so prince Andrew is gonna be facing this lawsuit moving forward. So that's good news for a lot of people. So we are gonna break that down. There's also a different section in this same order that is addressing the Dershowitz argument. The judge actually talked about this in the argument, of course, Alan Dershowitz, kind of a co-defendant in a way, somebody who was also being sued by Virginia Roberts long time ago, back in 2019 before she filed the lawsuit against prince Andrew. And so he's making his own argument that that same settlement agreement should cover him. And so the judge addressed that as well in the Deitz argument sec section of the order. And so we'll break that down. We also have a new story from Dershowitz. Apparently the times over in the UK is reporting that he was asking Donald Trump to pardon Golin Maxwell, which is kind of one of those stories. I'm not real sure how far you can carry that, but it is out there. And so we'll talk about that. And then we're gonna spend the last segment on the show today talking about number 50. This is the Gill Maxwell juror who was on the jury panel, making the decision rendering a verdict. After the verdict came out, he went out on a bunch of the different media shows and was, uh, doing an interview and explained what happened. Turns out he's the victim of the type of abuse that was the subject of the Gill than Maxwell case. Well could be a problem, especially if he didn't answer it appropriately on the jury questionnaire sounds like he may have missed that. And so we're gonna hear from him, he gave an interview to the daily mail. He's hired a lawyer, he's asked for a copy of his own questionnaire. So we're gonna take a look at that juror. Number 50 is Scotty David. And so we've got a lot to get to, if you wanna be a part of the program, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Shout out to NICE's in the house. Tweak is over there. We've got kingcade is chatting away. Chairman of the board says, Hey, all, what's good. A lot of people chatting away. We've got Matt's moms over there, tweaks in the house. Okay. And so over on YouTube, chatting away over there as well. And so if you wanna be a part of the show, there's a form over@watchingthelocals.com looks just like this. Get your question in. We'll be sure to get to them. We also have a, uh, links channel, eclipse channel at a different location and YouTube. And so go check that out. All right. So without any further ado, let's get into the show. Shall we? I'm just seeing it. Everybody who's chatting over there. Prince Andrew, duke of York facing a bad ruling from a judge today, him and his team as defense attorneys wanted this case, dismissed prince Andrew being sued by Virginia Roberts Guffy. And you can see here, we've got two different claim, two different case numbers. We've got a case emanating from 2000 thousand and 19. This is from a Dershowitz. We've talked about him a lot below him is the case from 2021. This is from prince Andrew. And you know this because both of them submitted this settlement agreement. I'm sorry. They submitted motions about this settlement agreement and the general release. And they submitted these in to the court asking that or dismiss the cases against them, dismiss the lawsuits that have been filed by Virginia Roberts over towards these two guys. Now they're saying these two guys are saying that Virginia's settlement with Epstein covered them because there was a big blanket paragraph in here. This is a, a, a direct withdrawal from the actual settlement agreement. This sentence here says that any person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant or other potential defendants are basically covered, right? They're part of this immune part of this settlement agreement and this general release. And so this existed between these two people. It did not exist. You're if you go through this document, doesn't say any, anything about prince Andrew, doesn't say anything about Alan Dershowitz. Doesn't say anything about royalty or you know, anybody from the UK, none of that, but it does say this other potential defendants. And so we've spent a lot of time on this channel being very critical about these types of agreements that we have seen strangely in the Epstein case, the 2007 non prosecution agreements sort of resembled said that any of Epstein's co-conspirators were immune from prosecution, never seen anything like that. Something that gives basically a blank check to anybody who is under the, the wing of Epstein's kind of nuts, but they cited to prosecute Golin Maxwell anyways. And so all of that's happening. We've got this settlement agreement. Prince Andrew is holding this up in front of the court and saying, judge, it says other potential defendants in there. Guess what? Guess what I am. I'm another potential defendant. In fact, I'm a defendant right now in this case look, but this says that we're immune and we're covered. And I want you to dismiss this case against me. And the judge said, no, here's what that opinion looked like. It was electronically filed on January 12th. You can see this is in the 2021 case. This is the prince Andrew Case duke of York. This is the opinion from the court. It's in the case of Virginia goof, Ray versus prince Andrew. And this is the judge who wrote it. We've talked a little bit about him. Let's revisit this quickly. Judge Kaplan. He's a United States district judge. Yeah, he's outta the Southern district of New York where all this is taking place, appointed by bill Clinton, who allegedly was on that aircraft. That was being flown by Epstein or his pilots appointed by bill Clinton, 94, serving all the way up to 2011. Uh, looks like in the SDNY. He's been there basically. Oh, I wonder why they, oh, he took senior status. That's when he senior status. Okay. So he's been there since he took senior status in 2011. So you can see where he is from. Right? Right in New York went to Harvard law school smart guide and he wrote a massive opinion on this thing. So here is just a, uh, snippet. This is the table of contents in this document, and I'm gonna show you what we're not gonna cover and then we'll cover what we're gonna to cover. So you'll notice that there's a discussion section here. So we're gonna go through the facts because these facts are good. We can fly through them pretty quickly, a lot of footnotes. And we'll be able to just kind of skip over the footnotes. Some of the, the meaty stuff we'll get to, but it talks about everything that we basically spent time talking about in the Maxwell trial. I mean, we basically lived most of this, so we'll be able to, to fly through it and you're gonna go, oh yeah, I remember that the Epstein scheme, we've got that. We've got the defendant's relationship with Epstein and Maxwell. So that's gonna be Virginia Roberts. Then we have Epstein recruits, Virginia. Then we have defendants alleged abuse. We've got the Florida state prosecution and the non prosecution agreement, which we talked about. We've got Guffy, Florida suit, the federal case against Epstein. And then the 2009 agreement, right? 10 pages of facts. We'll get through it real quick. But then you see there's a big discussion section. And the discussion section is responding to all of the different arguments that were proffered forward by prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz really largely the same arguments as it relates to some of the crux of the main argument, which is the other potential defendant's section. So I know this is kind of in the weeds, but let me just show you what we're getting rid of here. So down here, prince Andrew was saying that this case should be dismissed because they didn't know enough information. So we remember this argument here, the prince was saying, what you, what, what Virginia put in her original complaint? She says a battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Like she said, in there that she was, uh, harmed. And she's, you know, uh, disturbed and distressed by this thing because of this outrageous conduct. But that's not enough information. He says, she's filing a lawsuit against me. I need more than that in order to defend myself. And so I move to dismiss the case because she has factually facially on the facial of the document failed to, to bring a sufficient complaint. And he says, no, that's not true. They're actually not entitled to a more definite statement. He says, the defense attorneys here will get detail. When the discovery starts, you have everything that you need right now. Okay. Other stuff will come out when discovery starts. So section four, not valid. This case is not gonna be dismissed on that basis. We also have another attack on the constitutionality of this lawsuit saying that they didn't file it under the New York child victims act. And he says, Nope, that's that's without merit. That is not gonna be a basis for dismissing this. So I'm not gonna count that one either. And then we see this big section here from about page 31 down to what is this? 35. That's not that big. The complaint states legally sufficient claims. So this is rebutting. The argument proffered forward by the defense prince. Andrew saying that these are insufficient claims. We talked about this, right? I think it was a 12[inaudible] motion, right? They just, they didn't say enough. This section is saying that Virginia Roberts in her complaint, just even come up with a problem. Like she said, all this stuff happened, but that's not enough to bring a lawsuit. And the judge said, yeah, it is. She says, her complaint is in fact legally sufficient. It's good enough. She says the defendant's contention that the plaintiff was obliged to plead specific facts. Not, not accurate. Doesn't have to do that. It's not how the law works. And she says that the two claims, so you can see here, this I, I E D that's intentional infliction of emotional distress. And the battery claims are not duplicative. So prince Andrew and his lawyers were saying, it's kind of the same thing. You know, if you, if you batter somebody, aren't they also going to have emotional distress. Right. I know battery's not that. But like if you assault somebody, right, if you, if you physically abuse somebody, aren't they also going to be emotionally distraught, be distressed. Yeah. Right. So it's kind of the same thing. And they're saying, well, you can't, so you can't Sue us with both of the same thing. That's ridiculous. And the judge says, now they're different. Okay. They are different things. Battery is a front that intentional infliction of emotional distress. And so you can see, we can just get rid of, you know, a huge chunk of this. But really most of the conversation is about this section anyways, which is really the analysis of the 2009 agreement. Legal principles will kind of fly through a lot of this, but this is the argument that this agreement protects the prince. This agreement protects Alan Dershowitz. And you can see if we break this down just a little bit further, we go through the legal principles, we have the actual analysis of the agreement. And so we're gonna go through that. And then we're gonna wrap up with the Dershowitz argument as the last part of this order analysis, which means we've got a little bit of heavy lifting to do. We've got some reading of a court order. Let's get to it. Shall we? Here? You can see judge Kaplan, Lewis Kaplan district judge, senior SD. I says, plaintiff Roberts brings this action. We already talked about it. Battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Why we know the story. She says Epstein and others trafficked her to prince Andrew who then abused her. She was under the age of 18 at the time he says, and this is the judge writing defendant denies prince Andrew Deni, Roberts allegations and attacks her credibility and her motives. He asserted that she was complicit in Epstein's activities, but this is a motion to dismiss Guthrie's complaint as legally and sufficient. Not to Deru in the truth, determine the truth of the fity of the charges. So what he's saying here is this is not, not a trial, okay? We're not on trial right now. All we're trying to determine right now is whether this case can move forward or go away at this stage. So remember, this is not a criminal case. This is a civil case. So it's a little bit different. It's a lot, a bit different, but it we're still saying like we, we're not at a jury trial yet. Okay. We're not where we're gonna determine whether this actually happened. Whether what Virginia Robert said happened actually happened. We're just asking ourselves this question. It's really a legal question is what she's bringing into court right now enough, just to continue the lawsuit. Like has she, has she brought enough? Is there a basis for this? And so the judges, it being very clear about this. Now I wanna spend a little time on this because the judge does. So obviously spends a lot of time on this and he's, I, I think doing it so that we're, so that he's crystal clear. I think he knows that the public is gonna be reading this. There's a lot of attention on this case. I think if this had less public scrutiny, maybe he gets away with a 20 page order instead of a 40 page order, but he's being very clear on it. And he wants to make sure that we can understand how he's sort of assembling this puzzle. He says, and defendant relies mainly, although not exclusively on a 2009 agreement that he says, shields him from liability, which we're gonna break down. He says that the fact that the defendant has brought the matter before the court on a motion to dismiss is very important of central importance. He says as is well known for lawyers, but not for ha perhaps for the lay public. So he is gonna explain this right for the public as is well known to lawyers, but maybe not. Non-lawyers the defendant prince Andrew, by making this motion placed upon the court. The unyielding duty to assume for the purposes of this motion, only the truth of all plaintiff's allegations and draw in the PLA, which is Virginia Roberts and draw in Virginia Roberts favor all the inferences that reasonably may be drawn from those allegations. Okay. This is the same concept that we talk about here on the show. We say, let's take the argument and, and frame the argument in a light, most favorable to the person who's making the argument. Let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt. Let's say, all right, Virginia, if everything that you're arguing today in court, if we're just not even gonna try to rebut it, we're gonna say a hundred percent true. That's what we're going to be doing here. Right? We're gonna be sort of setting that standard. And he's explaining that we're gonna draw all inference in favor that reasonably may be drawn from those allegations. Okay? We're gonna draw in her favor. We're considering it. Why? Because prince Andrew is saying, I want this case dismissed. And so here's how this works, right? If prince Andrew comes in, he says, I want this gone. And we take a look at all the facts of Virginia Roberts claim. And we say, look, Virginia. I mean, even if we gave you, even if we said, you're right, you're right. You're right. That's true. That's true. That's true. Even if it's all true, you still don't have a claim because it's just, it's legally. It's just bad. It just doesn't, you know, it may all be true, but it's just not a violation of any of the laws or any, any rules. If that's the case, that's a failure to state a claim. You might be mad. You might think that this all happened or whatever, but it's not enough. But because prince Andrew was saying, I want this case gone. We're gonna give, we're gonna give the person who is the non-moving party. All the benefits that we possibly can, because if there is one way that we can interpret it in this case, in Virginia's favor, we let it go forward. So he's explaining that very clearly. He says, inconsequence the law prohibits the court from considering at this stage, the defendant's efforts to asked doubt on the truth of GRE's allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial, the law prohibits the courts from considering his efforts to undermine Robert's credibility, cuz he's moving to dismiss. So we want to keep this in a light, most favorable to Virginia in a similar vein for similar reasons, rights Kaplan. It is not open to the court now to decide as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in 2009 actually meant. Cause I can't really know. It's not open for us to decide as a matter of fact, what Virginia and Jeffrey Epstein, what they meant when they signed this document. But he does say, as we're gonna explain below the court's job at this juncture is simply to determine whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of that document.

Speaker 2: 17:49

We're

Speaker 1: 17:49

Gonna look at the settlement agreement. If there are two or more reasonable interpretations, then what's happened. He says, if there are the determination of the quote, right, or the controlling interpretation must await further proceedings. Okay? Because here's how that works. If prince Andrew says that he's immune and we look at this case in a light, most favorable to Virginia, and there's nothing under that lens that would give her a claim to Pierce that veil. Then we have to dismiss the case. But if we look at this, settle him in agreement and we say, look, you know, it's actually pretty reasonable in a light, most favorable to Virginia that maybe she does. In fact breach that Pierce, that veil that Andrew is wearing, then this can go forward because we don't know what the facts are gonna say. And we know that the realm of possibilities includes a potential Virginia Roberts. The so we we're gonna allow it to go forward. And so the judge says, well, we're just got, we gotta determine that right now. So again, we're not determining what actually happened. Did prince Andrew really do what the allegations say with Virginia? We don't know yet, but we're not asking ourselves that question. We're just saying if he did, if we look at this all in a light, most favorable to Virginia, will it continue? Here's what the judge says. Let's go through the facts. He says, except as otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from GRE's complaint. It bears repeating that its allegations are deemed true only for the purposes of this motion, whatever a trial, a fact might ultimately might determine at trial, right? So something might change later at trial, but we're gonna look at it in Virginia's benefit. He says, let's talk about Epstein's scheme. He says Robert's allegations arise. Principally from the scheme that was orchestrated with Epstein inter complaint, she says Epstein was involved with more than 30 individuals in a concert with paid employees, uh, in concert with paid employees. It says notably goly Maxwell who was recently convicted in this district of similar charges in connection with the Epstein events, Epstein and others lured Lord vulnerable girls into a scheme for his powerful and wealthy friends, his own gratification. And for that of some of his powerful and wealthy friends and he footnotes that. Yeah, but nobody's being prosecuted. Are they? Huh? Well, that's weird judge. Yeah. Bill Clinton, the guy who appointed you was on the airplane. They looking into him at all. Yeah. So defendant's relationship with Epstein and Maxwell continues. So again, according to GRE's complaint, judge Kaplan writes the defendant first met Epstein 1999, former close friend go Maxwell over. And we learned about that during the trial over the next several years, defendant traveled with Epstein and Maxwell. So this is talking about prince Andrew, Andrew traveled on the airplane. He was a guest at Epstein's numerous homes, including the private island at the Virginia islands. Little St. James went to Palm beach, went to New York city. They were pulling around all over the place. This guy was being treated like Epstein and Maxwell were guests at the defendant's 40th birthday in the year 2000 Y two K as well as the birthday party that the defendant threw for Maxwell in San Greenham in, in the UK in the same year in 2006, then one month after Florida prosecutors charged Epstein with crimes, defendant invited Epstein to the 18th birthday party of one of defendant's daughters. The defendant invited Epstein prince Andrew invited Epstein to the 18th birthday party of one of prince Andrew's daughters did is registering here. Yeah. So in the year 2000, you've got, you've got prince Andrew flying all over the place. Little St. James, New York Palm beach, hanging around with the Maxwells on the Epsteins and then the defendant prince Andrew invited EP to the birthday party of his daughter who just turned 18. Okay. Just making sure I read that, right? Yeah. It's all there. As recently as 2010 and therefore after Epstein had done jail time, AF<laugh> after also, oh my gosh, this just gets worse and worse after also after one month after they charged him with procuring a minor. Okay. So it just gets worse.<laugh> so I forgot about that. So not only did the prince invite Epstein to his daughter's is 18, his daughter's 18 birthday, but it was the birthday party was one month after he got charged with crimes for things involving minors. My goodness, as recently as 2010 and therefore after Epstein had done jail time in connection with the charges prince Andrew was photographed with Epstein and he stated Epstein's mansion carries on, says Epstein Kaplan rights Epstein, then recruits the plaintiff Maxwell recruited Guffy into Epstein's activities in the year 2000, when she was 16 years old, she was employed over at the Marra Lago beach club in Palm beach, like others there plaintiff initially was recruited to provide at massages and therefore after to engage in a variety of acts for Epstein, you can see the massage table. This one was pulled out of. I think that was from Palm beach county that came out of the Maxwell trial from 2000 through 2002 plaintiff traveled frequently with Epstein both within the United States and internationally on his private plane. So prince Andrew was on the plane in I'm sorry. Plaintiff was on the plane. Plaintiff is uh, Virginia Robert she's on the plane. In addition to being call for Epstein for certain services, plaintiff on other occasions was lent out to others, including she says the defendant, okay. Now all of these quotes are coming from Virginia Roberts document, right from her complaint. This is where she's making all of these allegations. And so he's saying we're gonna take these allegations and we're just gonna look at him in a light, most favorable to her. So she said here that she was lent out. Okay. Check that one. Um, me Lago. Does that have jurisdiction? Okay, got that one. So we'll do that jurisdiction. We've got this over here. A variety of certain acts got that one. Right? So that's a battery there. Uh, would this be intentional infliction to be lent out to other people? Yep, probably so. Okay. So we're gonna look at all of that in a light, most favorable. And then he goes on and talks about the actual abuse. You see the photograph, the infamous photograph. Now judge Kaplan writes the complaint from Roberts alleges that the court and the court for the present purposes is obliged to accept that prince Andrew did in fact abused Guffy when she was under the age of 18. Okay. We have to accept it just for the purposes of this motion. On one occasion, Andrew allegedly forced her to sleep with her against her will at the home in London, Virginia Roberts also says the complaint includes a reproduction of an now widely published photograph, which you can see over here on the right plaintiff says, was taking prior to the event prior to the actual activity on another occasion, defendant allegedly. So prince Andrew allegedly abused Guffy during a visit to the private island, little St. James Guffy alleges also that the prince abused her at Epstein's mansion that was in New York, says specifically during that particular account encounter, Maxwell's involved now says plaintiff, a child and another victim were, were forced to sit on prince Andrew's lap while there was touching during the visit New York, according to the complaint, defendant forced Ms. Guffy to engage in other acts, both were aware of her age at the time. And she was a coerced victim. So Kaplan is saying all of these allegations in the complaint, we have to look at them in a light, most favorable to Virginia Roberts. We have to say that those are true. He carries on. He says in each of these encounters, plaintiff alleges that Epstein Maxwell and the defendant compelled her to engage in these acts either expressly or by implied threat as a consequence, plaintiff feared injury to herself. And there were other repercussions. This is what caused her to have significant emotional and psychological distress and harm. So that's the, I, I E D that's the intentional infliction of emotional distress. When I was in law school, I had a professor shout out, professor Salzman. If you're out there who taught me this statute? Well, because she used to say intentional infliction of emotional distress is outrageous conduct and she would scream it outrageous. She says, if it's just outrageous, it's not good enough. That's not the standard. It has to be your own, or I'm gonna spare everybody's ears. But she would say class and it drove the point home, shout out. She says, uh, Kaplan says the Florida state prosecution and the non-federal and the federal non prosecution agreement. So this is something we spent a lot of time talking about something I still think is an appealable issue in the Glenn Maxwell case might become moot. Thank you, juror number 50, but this is still something that is very important. He says at this point, it is helpful and appropriate to refer to facts, not alleged in the complaint, but in the case where the court takes judicial notice says in July, 2006, Florida state grand jury indicted Epstein in a state court, single count as will appear. The charge remained pending until mid 2008. This was an excerpt from that non prosecution agreement. Now this was not in the judge's order, but since we've been talking a lot about this, I went and clipped it out for us. And here is what you can see here. It says if Epstein successfully fulfills all the terms in the conditions of the agreement, the United States also agrees no criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators including, right? So potential co-conspirators doesn't that mirror the same language that we see here in the settlement agreement of other potential defendants. Yeah. Any potential co-conspirators very much resembles all potential defendants, right? Same type of language. So they're putting in these J gigantic blanket coverages, but this doesn't name Maxwell, which is strange. It does say Sarah, Kell's on this list. Adriana Ross is on this list, Leslie GRS here, and Nadia, Nadia, Marcy, Covas on this list, right? Co-conspirators including, but not limited to these four women. So why does that not include go Maxwell? And you know, I mean, goodness, maybe they would argue prince Andrew would argue that that covers him. If they charged him. I think he could argue that he's making the same argument in this case. So this goes on, the judge is saying they have something very similar in that non prosecution agreement. Let's revisit that he says as previously noted defendant's motion in this case relies heavily on the 2009 motion as well. Uh, the 2009 settlement agreement, which is the language here. So two things we've got the 2007 settlement agree, I'm sorry, the 2007 non prosecution agreement between Epstein and the us government that give blanket criminal immunity to basically everybody. And then we also have this settlement agreement specifically between Epstein and Guffy that is now, uh, being used as the judge talks about by prince Andrew, to immunize him from civil claims. The judge writes as previously noted defendant's motion in this case relies on the 2009 agreement specifically this paragraph first and second parties further stipulate that this is in conformity with the non prosecution agreement that we just talked about. He says, so the then therefore the non prosecution agreement may shed some light on the meaning of the 2009 agreement. Therefore, we also take judicial notice of the non prosecution agreement, its addendum and its affirmation. So he's sort of considering it, but not really. He's taking judicial notice of it, but he's saying it's not binding. You know, we don't have to U we don't have to comport with that, but I am taking notice of it. We're incorporating it into the record. And, uh, he continues. He says, Epstein relied on Maxwell and others to identify and target these people, schools, spas, trailer parks, and the street lured these girls once manipulated. They were then groomed, okay. This is the same pattern that we saw from Dr. Lisa Rocko, identify target sort of, you know, groom with, uh, you know, more benign massages and then turn those into sexualized massages. Once this had occurred, they would then further manipulate them, promises, threats, and surveillance. And he's, he's referencing the complaint at the height. Epstein's sexual abuse was transcontinental used his private jets, flew people all over the place. New York city, we've got New Mexico. We've got us Virgin islands and other places in 2008, he pled guilty to a crime. So in considering all of this says the judge, we need to ask ourselves this, whether the reason, whether the only reasonable interpretation of this phrase could have been included as a defendant is the one advanced by the defendant. Whether that would be inherently unreasonable to constru the phrase as referring only to persons who could have been sued. Okay. So here's what he's saying. It would be inherently unreasonable to limit that phrase to only to, to, to narrow it. So he, he's kind of making an argument for prince you right now, he's saying it would be silly if the non prosecution agreement and this settlement agreement was really, really narrow, but it's also not really, really, really broad either. Okay. It's also, as we're gonna see, it's also not something that just encompasses everything, just like it doesn't encompass nothing. So he says, let's, let's get down to this. What, what, what can we, uh, what can we tease out here? The judge writes in this case, everyone agrees that the phrase quote could have been included as a potential defendant. It must mean something. He says, I mean, it's in there. It says, could have been included as a potential defendant. And so the judge is doing the old, uh, Hmm. I don't know what this means. So let's just play some games with this. Shall we let's take, let's play some games. Uh, what do you think it means prince Andrew, what do you think? It means Virginia? Let's see it's in there. So it's gotta mean something. He says, no, no doubt. That is. So it means something there he says, nor is there much doubt that better drafting probably could have eliminated any uncertainty to the meaning. Meaning if, if these guys would've written a better agreement, maybe we wouldn't be in this pickle here, but these knuckleheads screwed it up. He says, in fact, however, the meaning of the phrase is far from self-evident for a number of reasons. Uh, we don't really know what it means. All right, let's begin. He says, he says, well, we should probably start with the question of what was meant by could have been included as a potential defendant, as opposed to could have been included as a defendant. So we're just gonna focus on this one word, right? Potential. He says, well, one might suppose that whether one was or could have been included as a defendant, not included as a potential defendant is clear enough. Although even that seemingly simple supposition is we'll see, is not accurate in the context of this case, but the conclu, the concept of inclusion as a potential defendant is even less capable of definition. So do you see what he's saying here? Now? Listen, I know this is gonna be very tedious. Okay. We've got a couple more slides of this. The judge is making a very important point here. He's saying this, this settlement agreement is garbage is really what he's saying. And he's going to, it's going to be tedious because he's being very tedious here. He's just showing us how poorly drafted this. This really is. And he's saying, okay, so listen. So we're, we're just gonna have to slog through it. I'm gonna have to type out why this is so logically inconsistent. And so he's exploring it. All right. We got a problem with this sentence. Could have been included as a potential defendant. Well, what's the problem with this sentence potential. All right. So let's read it. If we keep the word potential in there, what might it mean if we take the word potential out of there? What might that mean? And then he says, well, I mean, doesn't really matter what you do. That word is still a problem. Either way you do it. It leaves ambiguity in this thing. So he says, all right, so now let's carry on Kaplan rights. Look, of course we do not know what, if anything went through the party's minds back when they signed this, he said, uh, hypothetically, we can imagine what someone in Epstein's position might have thought at the time that they signed this. Let's say, he says, well, Epstein. Hmm. At least some of the goals of a person like Epstein, presumably would've been to end the Florida case get as much protection for himself as he could himself from being involved in similar litigation. Okay. And do so for an acceptable price. So in other words, a possible concern might have been that Guffy, having settled with Epstein could have sued someone else who might in turn make a claim against Epstein based on that contention Epstein should then bear or contribute to the, to the, to the consequences. So he's playing this out, right? He's saying, okay, listen, let's put ourselves in Epstein's shoes. Epstein doesn't want to get sued. Again, wants to pay the least amount of money as possible, wants to immunize himself from this person and any other individuals that this person might trigger off to go and Sue him. What happens if she, uh, starts blabbing about this stuff? So the settlement agreement should also keep her under wraps, right? He's putting himself in Epstein shoes and saying, how can I get the best thing outta this deal? Like buying a car. Now he says, she's gonna be doing the same thing, but in reverse the goal of one of somebody in miss gut's position, hypothetically, well, that could have been something like, uh, getting as much money as possible for settling the case and keeping as much of her freedom to go after others as she could while keeping an acceptable sum of money. Right? So now Virginia is balancing two other factors saying, well, I kind of want to, uh, do the right thing and go after a bunch of people and expose all these people. But I also wanna be compensated for the harm that I received. So if I say that I'm gonna get that financial compensation, but I'm gonna give up these freedoms to go do these things. How do I balance these out? So the judge is saying, okay, so she might sign an agreement that balance those competing interests. He writes limiting the release language to persons who could have been sued in a particular court on a particular claim, could secure that freedom to a substantial degree. And so some of this is on point. Some of it isn't, they're also making jurisdictional arguments. And so some of it is, uh, more related to that argument, but he goes back to the 2009 agreement. He says, less, listen the logic of the situation. Then if we, he goes on for this for a lot longer, I kind of took a, some of this out. But he says after we've explored all of these ideas, the logic of the situation thus suggests that the parties of the 2009 agreement had competing goals. Epstein wanted her to shut up and pay as little as possible. And Virginia wanted to say as much as she could and get paid as much money as she could. And the muddled release language, they agreed upon suggests they may have arrived at something of a middle ground, a release extending, not as broadly as Epstein ideally may have wanted and somewhat more broadly than would've been the best case outcome for Guffy. Okay. They met in the middle, they compromised on this thing. Moreover, he says it would not be unreasonable to recognize among other considerations that the settlement amount may have been affected by the views of both parties concerning the terms of the release. Epstein might be willing to pay more. If he gets more, if she's more silent, then he'll increase the, the bill Epstein perhaps would not have been willing to pay a price demanded for the broadest possible release of other persons, clear language or, or short of that clear language concerning the nexus between other potential defendants in claims in Florida. Right? So now it's talking some more jurisdictional stuff. Kaplan continues. He says there are additional considerations supporting the reasonableness of the could have been included as a defendant language. He says, listen, if we in fact, take a look at this thing in a light, most favorable to Virginia Roberts, we can come to some conclusions. Number one, first things for the Florida case was brought in federal court. He says that gives them jurisdiction over this thing. The complaint in Florida, he writes specifically alleges that Epstein had committed a number of such violations, but it, nowhere alleges that this defendant committed any, it's not clear that a claim in a Florida clay. Okay? So they're talking more about jurisdictional stuff here. And then we get near the end of this order. And this is what the judge is ultimately writing. He says, listen, in the last analysis, it is not now the court's function to decide which party's view of the term could have been included as a potential defendant in the Florida case properly reflects the intent. Okay, he's saying here, we don't even need to decide what that phrase means. Could have been a potential defendant. It's really complicated. Prince Andrew says it includes him. Virginia says it doesn't include him. He says, right now it is not the function to what it means. Don't know what it means, but he says it is enough though, to conclude that the meaning of this pivotal phrase in the contract is not by any means unambiguous and free of conflicting inferences. He says, we can take that phrase and reasonable people can disagree about what that means. The parties he says have articulated at least two reasonable interpretations of that language. Therefore, the agreement is ambiguous accordingly. The determination of the meaning of the release language must await further proceedings. Okay? So the motion to dismiss now is denied. There's enough looking at this in a light, most favorable to Virginia Roberts to let this thing keep going. And because it's ambiguous, we gotta dig into this a little bit further. It's not enough. So prince, Andrew's not happy about that. We'll talk more about that. As the case continues to unfold, I'm already hearing that his defense team is preparing for depositions and fighting those requests. And we'll see where this goes. Alan Dershowitz also came up in today's order. We can see here. Deitz was in the 2019 case. Virginia Roberts goof. Ray sued him as well. Epstein said entered into that settlement agreement with Virginia. And Allen is now trying to use that to shield him from liability. Alan Deitz, new story came out on January 9th. Now this came over from the times.co.uk says that a Dershowitz asked Donald Trump to grant Glen Maxwell, a preemptive pardon in, oh my goodness. Could that be true? Epstein's former lawyer lobby Donald Trump to preemptively. Pardon? In Glen Maxwell, during the final days of his presidency, a Dershowitz 83 former Harvard law school professor represented Epstein during the nineties and Trump during the first impeachment trial since been accused of abuse by one of Epstein's underage persons, which he denies. So some new stuff, you know, interesting things coming from him now. I'm not sure I believe most of those articles. I feel like, I feel like after every presidency, I there's always a whole slew of those articles. Everybody just says that you're like when Obama was leaving, everybody was like, oh yeah, everybody asked Obama for a pardon of that. Uh, multi mass murderer. Did, did he, did anybody ask for that? Was he considering it? I don't know, but it's one of those stories, but Alan Deitz comes up in this. In fact, he has an entire section here says, uh, the DWIs argument. So the judge says, all right, listen, finally, now I want you to see how, how sort of messy this is. Okay. Cause it it's just, it's just, this is like lawyering in like it's worth, this is what lawyers do, right? Killing each other over this language, he says, all right. So finally, prince Andrew argues the interpretation of other potential defendants clause is the only reasonable one on the basis of events. Alleged relating to Dershowitz Dershowitz now is a retired lo lawyer law professor Guffy suing him. In another case, Andrew says that Guffy dismissed her claims against Dershowitz when his release was raised her as a potential defense. This according to Andrew proves that if Dershowitz had his case dismissed that this could also be dismissed here, D oral argument court questioned that argument based on its suggestion, that Dershowitz was covered by the release. And therefore one of the quote, second parties. In other words, that he was by the release independent of whether he was an other potential defendant. Okay? So that Alan is saying that he is a, in a different category on further reflection and analysis. However, the suggestion that Mr. Deitz was covered because of the second parties was not necessarily correct. He says a release has three elements. Somebody gives a release, one against whom the releaser gives up or surrenders something and a description of what is being released here. He goes through the document. He says specifically, section two says that claims release were claims that the first parties ever had or may have against Epstein and other potential defendants. It does not say that first parties released the second parties other than Epstein. And he goes on, you can, it's just, it's a lot of language. And it's first party's second parties Epstein. You can see how, how, how messy you can get. But it, he says, it doesn't really matter what it, what it actually means is not what we're even talking about. Regardless of what the ultimate definition was. He says, listen, the 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that this document directly, primarily or substantially intended to benefit prince Andrew. Okay? You can't read it that way. The existence of the requisite intent to benefit him, right? This document is not for him or others. Comparable to him is an issue of fact that could not be properly decided on this motion because it's ambiguous the, in this independent then of whether the release language applies. And so, as a matter of law, this cannot rewrite the agreement. He says for the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied in all respects, not even considering anything else. So ordered Lewis Kaplan, January 11th, 2022, that's the judge outta the Southern district of New York. And so that sort of also applies to Alan DWIs. We'll see what happens with his case. And so that's judge Kaplan motion to dismiss filed by prince Andrew denied cases, moving forward, Virginia Guffy. We'll see what the next court dates look like. I'm sure they're gonna be preparing all sorts of discovery motions. And I'm sure the Prince's attorneys over there are scrambling. I know that we talked about many headlines here after Maxwell got convicted, they were on high alert. They thought we're next, we're doomed. Looking like this train may keep going down the tracks. And so we'll continue to follow along on that. Goly Maxwell also has a big update. We have to take a look at the court docket because a lot more activity since the last time we looked recall that on January 5th, we had this very interesting new order in the Glenn Maxwell case problem with a juror. And so the judge came out and said, uhoh, we're gonna have to brief a lot of these issues. Apparently juror number 50, this guy, Scotty David flew through the questionnaire. And after the trial was over, he started to give some media interviews, talking a lot about some unfortunate things that happened in his past and how that might have influenced the deliberations back during the jury deliberations. And so the judge had to get this thing under control. They said, we want this briefed, everybody look into this and they appointed him a lawyer, but then he went and got his own lawyer. We're gonna take a look at this document, this notice of appearance. Uh, we have order order, uh, docket entry, 5 73, where the judge, uh, judge Allison, Nathan is relieving the coin court appointed attorney of any further obligations. And just allowing this to go through his attorney. Then we also have a joint letter. Now this is a joint letter as to sentencing, right? This scheduling document. Remember Glenn Maxwell got convicted five of six counts. We were waiting just for sentencing. She was gonna go get a presentence report. She was gonna go and be interviewed. Uh, you know, tell me about your past there, Glenn. Uh, what do you think about underage people and so on? Right? All these types of questions. And then they're gonna draft a report and they're gonna send that over to the judge. The defense is gonna make their recommendation. Government's gonna make their recommendation. PSR is gonna make recommendation. Judge issues, a ruling. You go to prison for X, many years. This whole thing has gotten totally derailed because now we have juror number 50, who is, uh, potentially gonna cause a, a new trial. And we have hints that other jurors are also very problematic, which may lead to more of a systemic problem. In which case, you know, the defense is gonna be arguing for a dismissal with prejudice. I'm going to guess. Yeah. So here let's take a look. Now we've got another order, uh, with, as to goind Maxwell, parties are ordered now to submit any redactions. And so let's take a look at what's going on here. We can see this was Scotty David Scotty. David is juror number 50, and he started giving interviews right after the conviction went out. And so the daily mail was the first one to get the interview with this guy. You can see up here in the top, right? You've got John M mantel over there from the daily mail. And so there's a full, they got the full video. I don't wanna clip too much of it, but, uh, I've got about a minute of, uh, about two minutes of it. This is where he's describing his, uh, opinion on Maxwell. And then we're gonna see the moment he realizes the, that maybe there was a question on the jury questionnaire that may have been problematic. So this is juror number 50

Speaker 3: 49:44

In not really knowing much, but now after what all I've learned, she's just as guilty as Epstein. She's also,

Speaker 1: 49:53

I don't wanna call her one, get that audio up

Speaker 3: 49:56

Monster. Um, and in not really knowing much, but now after what all I've learned, she's just as guilty as Epstein. She's also, I don't wanna call her a monster. Um, a predator is the right word. Um, she, she knew what was happening. She knew what, what Epstein was doing and she allowed it to happen. She participated in getting these girls comfortable so that he could have his way with them. And to me, them returning repe repeatedly for the money has nothing to do with anything because these girls were minors. It doesn't matter what was incentivized to them. It, what matters is what happened to them. I thought it

Speaker 1: 50:52

Was a great, so he goes on, there's a full interview with him and you can listen to the whole thing. If you want, seems like a nice guy. He is just, you know, he is out there. He wants to make a statement. You know, everybody wants to make a statement after they're involved in these high profile cases. Okay. So you can go and do that. You're entitled to your opinion, right? This is a, this is a civic duty. He just spent a lot of time out there, uh, slogging away through a trial that was like this, you know, basically a show, you know, sort of halfhearted prosecution. Okay. So he's entitled to make his opinion, make his position, all of that, right. Here's where he gets a question from this interviewer. Now you're not gonna be able to hear too much of the interviewer because the, the, the volume is very low on her end, but she, and she's got a British accent she's over at the daily mail and says, so you decided to share your story here. Uh, Scotty, and your story involved, some about your background and some of the things, the activities that been to you, I'm just surprised that you were able to share that. I mean, they didn't ask you about this on the juror questionnaire, watch his body language.

Speaker 4: 51:57

So to, to day three, for you to really reach that level of understanding that each other, and then make true progress with the deliberations. Would that be your assessment? Yes. So you decided to share your story, presumably that's something that you'd say yes to in the questionnaire. It was something that they people were aware of when you were selected as a juror.

Speaker 3: 52:18

No, they don't ask your, uh, sexual abuse history. They didn't ask it in the questionnaire.

Speaker 4: 52:23

I thought in the questionnaire, there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or a relatively victim, I'm pretty sure it was number 48,

Speaker 1: 52:32

Number 48 in the questionnaire.

Speaker 3: 52:36

I don't remember

Speaker 4: 52:38

Somebody said me the questionnaire today. And there was

Speaker 1: 52:40

A question somebody sent me the questionnaire.

Speaker 4: 52:44

I mean, I guess when did you fill in that questionnaire?

Speaker 3: 52:46

I definitely on the first day that of jury selection, I would've definitely marked yes, but I honestly don't remember that question. You

Speaker 4: 52:54

You're, you're not in the sun right now too.

Speaker 3: 52:56

No, I mean, I know my face is right. Cause I can feel the blood, but I honestly, that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there, but, um, I did answer, I definitely remember a family or relative or something, but uh, being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions.

Speaker 4: 53:13

Oh yeah. I, I,

Speaker 1: 53:14

Oh man, this poor guy. Uh, oh no, he even see it. He, uh, he just, uh, no, I didn't answer that question. I didn't see that. They didn't ask me about that. Yeah, it's in there.<laugh> it's in there brother. Whoa. All right. And so, Hmm. Well, Ben fur Hart over at New York post says, here are the questions that the jurors were asked. So they were asked multiple trials about their past experiences with abuse. And they were warned that their answers would be used to determine whether they could be impartial in the case. This is more than a 51 question document that hundreds of people filled out under the microscope this week after juror number 50 admitted, he used his own past abuse to sway deliberations prior to being selected. Scotty and hu hundreds of others were asked to truthfully fill out the questionnaire that included these specific questions. Have you have you or a family member ever supported lobby, petition protests worked in any other manner for against laws about any of those things, witnesses in this case may testify about use or assault. Would you have any difficulty addressing the credibility of a witness claiming essay, just like you would have any other witness assessing the credibility of somebody claiming that like, like you would have with any other witness, have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of harass abuse or assault? Oh, uhoh that includes actual or attempted or other unwanted advanced by anybody family member, teacher. So on. Yikes. Yep. That's a big question right there. Have you or a friend or family ever been accused or of abuse or assault or any of those things? So probably not that one, but yeah, that's a pretty big one there. Pretty big one in several press interviews this week, David claimed that he was asked about his. He said he wasn't asked about his history and said that he flew through the questionnaire, flew through it. Nope, Nope, Nope. Like the doctors, you know, do you have any of these conditions? No healthiest can be baby. Don't need to fill out those forms.<laugh> so you can see what's happening. So, uh, yeah, he's a little bit, um, in, in a, in a prickly position isn't he let's see what the judge says. So he went and hired a lawyer right away, says, uh, a notice of appearance had been filled out by retain counsel. On behalf of juror. Number 50 retain counsel is communicated to the court. Juror does not wish to have an attorney appointed accordingly. The court is not going to appoint counsel as indicated previously. And so we're gonna see that he fires off a letter. Here's what it says that lawyer filed this counsel for juror number 50 has submitted a motion to intervene and he wants a copy of jurors completed questionnaire. And voer wants to see what he wrote on that. Questionnaire wants to see what he put in there. The motion has been submitted via email, allow the parties, the opportunity to propose any redact actions. Dang it. The parties are ordered to submit via email. And so they're gonna go and redact the heck out of it. Parties shall respond to juror fifty's motion by January 20th. So some more court dates coming up upon further reflection, unless an until juror number 50 is permitted to intervene. He may have no standing to be heard on the question of whether an inquiry should be conducted. Okay. So is he even a party to this case? Now, now the juror is gonna be involved in this case. Should the does, in other words, the defense and the prosecution in this case, Colin's case have said, we want an inquiry. We wanna go investigate this. We gotta dig into it. Now that this juror is a Hardy to this motion intervene in the case through his attorney. Does he get a say in that inquiry process? Cuz he's a part of the inquiry. This case is so messed up, man. Accordingly the court withdraws the aspects of its prior order setting the J 26 date by which counsel for juror 50 should file a submission on the issue of the appropriateness of the inquiry. So now this juror is gonna say, you shouldn't do an inquiry. You don't, you shouldn't go right. The juror is gonna make his argument that they shouldn't go and go into what happened in the deliberation room, preserve the sanctity of the deliberation. He shouldn't have to talk about this. Maybe he changes his statement. Maybe his statement to the media was a little bit off and he sort of reversed this back. Well, I didn't actually say that. I was a, you know, I actually didn't say that. What I actually said was this, but you shouldn't be allowed to go in there anyways. Anyway, court will hear from the parties regarding the jurors pending motion, depending on the resolution of that motion, the court will provide further guidance to counsel about any other permitted submissions. The, if further submission is permitted, the court will provide docketing at that time and we're not done with the jurors. Daily mail is reporting. Maxwell's lawyers told the daily mail on Sunday that they believe they have found a third juror in her trial who lied about being abused. Number three, a source from Maxwell's legal team says they feel confident. A third juror lied on their jury application. There are also questions over a fourth juror. So this thing is up in the air, says Maxwell's lawyer, New York times confirms that says in another potential complication, a second juror described in an interview with the New York times having been abused as a child. Okay. Not Scotty David, not juror number 50 another one. So if the jurors got on, because there was some sort of a catastrophic problem, you know, some sort of an error that happened here, what are Maxwell's lawyer gonna say? Violation of due process? This juror who requested anonymity said that they too had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury's discussions. Uh oh, so they all talked about it. Two jurors disclosures could be problematic if they failed to note their experiences to the court during jury selection, all potential jurors. So look two things either. They didn't say it, right? It's not on there in which case it was erroneous and she should get a new trial or they said, yeah, I was to use and they let'em on. Anyways. In which case you should get a new trial. All the potential jurors in the case were asked in a confidential questionnaire, whether they or anyone else had been a victim, multiple people. Now the government's gonna come out and say, well, look, we should just try this all over again. But the defense is gonna say you had your shot. You blew it. You well, you just wanna keep trying her until she gets convicted. That's somehow this system works. Uh, all right. So now since this is all messy, we have to get scheduling figured out for Glenn. She was supposed to be sentenced. The judge asked everybody for sentencing memos and memorandums and briefs on when this was all gonna be taking place. They can't agree on it though. Can you believe that? On January 10th they submitted this joint memo. They say, dear judge, Nathan, the parties here, both the prosecution and the defense. We submit this joint letter, proposing a schedule for sentencing. And we've also gotta talk about those perjury counts. This schedules, in addition to all of the other stuff that we gotta deal with now, but those have been dealt with in a separate order, says the government believes that the court should order the preparation of the preen. So we've got two positions what the prosecutors want to do and what the defense wants to do. The government believes that the court should order preparation of the presentence and schedule a sentencing hearing three to four months from today, they're saying we think she's guilty. She's already been convicted. The sentence is gonna be upheld. We'll prepare all this stuff in three to four months, we'll come back. We'll sentence her. Then this gives us enough time to prepare the report for sentencing and secure any post-trial motions says in the event that the defendant. So if Maxwell's motions are denied, the government is prepared to dismiss the severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing. You're kidding me. The prosecutors are gonna dismiss two perjury counts. Well, that's really nice of them. Why are they gonna do that in light of the victim's significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again.<laugh> okay. So they're gonna go ahead. So Golin now is gonna, you know, they're gonna go ahead and dismiss those. If they're saying, if, if her motions are not successful and she does in fact get sentenced, then we're gonna go ahead and just get rid of those additional perjury counts. We don't need to get this thing, you know, get, get into it again, cuz it's gonna cause a lot of trauma to everybody. You testified. But they say if Maxwell's motions are granted, the government proposes that the parties be directly directed to prompt, confer, and then propose a schedule for further proceedings. So kind of what they're saying is if Galin Maxwell is successful in her post post-trial motions, if she gets a new trial or whatever, they are going to look at those perjury counts and they'll move forward with the perjury counts. If the case, I, if, if, if she moves forward to sentencing, they're gonna dump perjury. If she escapes this, these charges, they're gonna keep the per recharges. Now this is what the government wants. The defense is proposing something differently. They say they request delay, setting a schedule for sentencing because there is a compelling basis for the court to overturn this conviction and grant her a new trial. The parties are currently briefing the issue regarding juror number 50, the defense, therefore objects to setting a schedule for sentencing until this motion is resolved for the same reason, the defense intends to set forth in its moving papers. The reasons why Ms. Maxwell should not be forced to expend resources, to brief other post-trial motions until after the court decides this motion. Why should we talk about a motion for acquittal, a judgment of acquittal? Why should we talk about any of those other sentencing memos or any of those other things? Because Galin gets a new trial is what they're it's obvious is what they're saying. Juror number 50, screw this whole thing up. There's several other jurors or we're gonna bring to your attention shortly. Therefore we're not gonna waste our time on any of those other issues. We object to sentencing. We object to going down that road. We're not gonna end up there anyways, until this issue is resolved. Furthermore, they say requiring Maxwell to participate in the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report while she's waiting a decision for her motion on a, on a new trial will adversely impact her fifth amendment rights. Because during that interview, they're gonna ask her a bunch of questions, Ms. Maxwell, they say he is gonna be forced into the position of not cooperating with the probation department's investigation, because any statement she makes will be used against her at a retrial. Pre-sentence you go in, you talk about probation, you know, typically it's tell me about what got you in this position. Be open with me so we can help you. And then if she says those things in order to demonstrate that she's open to rehabilitation so that they give her a lighter sentence so that they recommend, they say, oh, Golin, Maxwell's very sorry. And she's gonna, you know, try to be a better person in here. She's gonna have to sit there and say, I can't talk to you because if I say something, you're gonna record that and use that again in a retrial. So she sort of screwed both ways. If she opens her mouth and talks, maybe she gets a good recommendation from the probation department, but she wins later on the motion for a new trial and they take her statements and use them against her at a motion for a new trial. So she can't do that. So she has to keep her mouth shut, which might ultimately lead her to having a more serious sentence. So they say here for the same reasons, the defense agrees with the government, that the scheduling of any proceedings related to the perjury counts should be deferred. So Glenn, Maxwell's probably gonna be, you know, escaping those perjury charges in addition to the other charges. And so let's see what you have to say about this over from our friends@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com got some questions in the house on this one, MOS one says, Rob, your last name sounds like a fancy chocolate company. Gove. I think you're, it is like, um, GVA is the, is the other one? I don't think there's any relationship. What is GVA? So Gove is actually Portuguese. GVA is what is Gava Turkish? The diva is, oh, it's a Belgian chocolate maker. Jointly owned by a Turkish conglomerate. Oh yeah. Belgian. So no, not, not even close, but kind of, I mean, it sounds the same, but it's just not, not the same, uh, uh, parts of the world. TWI says I absolutely agree that far. Right? Sup uh, wait, that was from yesterday. What happened to that? Where'd that one come from. All right. So back to the locals questions that was from monster one, GVA Sergeant Bob says, I do not buy into the me too mania. Although I do support provable cases, it seems there is a factual basis for Virginia's claim. She was Starr team in princely fellow apparently took advantage of that. What a creep you're right about that Sergeant Bob and you know, his interview was just really horrific. Thunder seven says really appreciate you getting into the legal nitty gritty, but I still don't understand the judge's decision. Virginia was a paid person over to prince Andrew and he slept with her are Epstein's crimes against minors being dragged into this case. Virginia was a willing participant, even recruited young teenage girls into the ring. Maybe she needs to be charged instead of this ridiculous lawsuit, which is all about her getting more money. So the reason why it's continuing is cuz the judge is looking at it in a light most favorable to her, right? He's saying, look, yeah. Most to dismiss the reason you have to think about it this way is like, it's the end of the case? Like, it's it right? There's nothing. There's nothing else to do. So it is a ultimate consequence. So in order to make sure that it's absolutely the right thing to do, you take a look at everything the other person is saying, and you just say, we're gonna say it's true. So we don't know whether or not. So remember thunder, we're still very early in this case, you know, there may be a lot more that comes out later that would, uh, would support a dismissal on a different basis. But not right now, right? This is, this is, it's still a very preliminary, uh, motion and there's enough to continue it onto the next stage. But that doesn't mean that it actually goes all the way to a jury trial, right? Sergeant Bob says, if the case gets tossed because of the jury is then officer Vin's case should be tossed as well as we have discussed before. I've I've agree with you. Sergeant P totally agree with you on that. The, the, uh, parallel here being in Maxwell's case, we've got juror number 50, juror number 50 goes out. I was abused. I was incorrect on my juror form and that's disqualified fines. Chauvin's case, same thing, Brandon Mitchell. Forget what juror number he was was somebody on the juror form said that he didn't participate in any political protest that were related to the George Floyd death. Guess what? He was all over the place. Now he doesn't have Maxwell's lawyers. Does he? There's a difference there. Thunder seven says, Scotty, David either lied to get onto the jury is lying now. Or judge Nathan allowed him to sit on the jury, even though he should have been rejected. We'll see. I mean, if look, if he, if he answered yes, on that form, there's gonna be an inquiry. How did that form get through? How did he get on there? And we'll be able to point to who, what you know, where that happened says, is it all a legal ploy to ensure Maxwell goes free on a mistrial and she keeps silent about the VIPs who really did the bad stuff. Yep. It's all done deliberately to keep all the important names out of this. Can't argue with that one. They're thunder seven feels very one for sure. Sergeant Bob says, if I were ever on a criminal case jury, when hell freezes over, I would never, ever go YY to the media. Those that do are, but attention individuals, I<laugh>, I can understand that Sergeant Bob feels like they, you know, people who sort of elbow their way to get out out there to get onto a jury. That's kind of not who you want on there. Ghost gunner says, wow, this dude likely just corrupted that verdict. What is the penalty for perjury in a federal court? It's not good. You know, something, a guy like that with no criminal history, you know, an honest mistake. I'm not sure that they would prosecute him for that. I really don't think that they would because it was a mistake. But if, if there was something intentional there they could, I don't think you can say that this verdict was done by a fair and impartial jury. And he's not the only one that's questionable. Yeah. The media's saying there's several others, four up to four. So that's a nice chunk of the whole panel. Ghost gunner says, I feel bad for judge Nathan. She probably can't wait to finally get her promotion. You think she started getting her bigger paychecks yet? You know? I don't know, but she's probably packing up. She's got cardboard boxes filled. She's like running out the door and her clerk's like judge, judge, judge one second. Remember juror number 50. The bald white guy. Yeah. What about him? Well, couldn't need you to stick around here her a little bit, judge. She's uh, not happy about that. Hopefully she doesn't take it well, we'll see if she takes it out on Maxwell during sentencing monster. One says anyone wanna bet these jurors work for Epstein? Get on the jury, make sure a mistrial happened. I, I don't, I can't comment on that. Sergeant Bob says as much as I Des Maxwell, her dream team is earning their billable hours. They certainly are. This is all part of the plan.<laugh> right. This is what they were doing. Soon as they can just latch onto anything, they were going to do it. They're sort of engineering, you know, mistakes. Chairman of the board says, I feel bad for that guy. When the reporter tells him about that question, he looks like a deer in headlights. I know I forum two chairman, but also how on earth? You miss a question, especially that one question.<laugh> if you're a potential jury member on the most high profile cases in years, all that said they have to give her a new trial, right? How can they call it justice? If they don't I'm with you chairman I'm with you. Totally right. It's justice. I've said that from the beginning. I didn't want this ever to be a dog pile on Glenn Maxwell just because she's Maxwell. Right? We don't bend the rules of justice just because we don't like the defendant. It's not how this works. And it's insane that you know, this, that, that our justice system is like, so, so disfunction that we're gonna go through this whole thing again, at least we have a mind map. So that's good. VI antique kiss says, what if you get abused by your inner child, does it cause problems with you being a juror asking for a friend that's a whole separate conversation there Vient kiss. I, I, I, I think, I don't think that one accounts though, leafy bug says, Hey Rob, if the daily mail got an exclusive interview with the juror, I think it's highly likely that money changed hands to make it happen. There seems a clear incentive at the very least a perception of an incentive for potential jurors to lie, to get onto the juries of high profile trial so they can benefit from post-trial publicity. We saw the, this after the shown trial as well. Do you think there should be some kind of restriction on jurors directly profiting off their jury duty experience in specific trials? Um, no, I don't think so. I mean, I don't typically, like, I understand your points here. You know, I don't like, um, sort of, you know, more regulations and bureaucracy. I don't know that it's a problem to the point that you need to regulate anything like that. But I do understand your, your concern. And I think it is a valid one as we've seen it happen now several times, but I don't think that even if you limited people from a, uh, you know, speak like, like for example, like lawyers, we are regulated, right? We can't, we can't do certain things with post-trial publicity because it might impact our decision making opinions or our, our approach to handling a case in direct measurable ways. An example would be, if you have a high profile case, you might do high profile, risky things. You might try, you know, different strategies or tactics that are in the best interest of puffing up your media profile, but not in the best interest of representing your client might try something risky because it looks good, but it doesn't serve your client's interest. So you gotta be sort of cognizant of those things. Jurors are a little, a bit different, right? There's enough sort of randomness in there that if they get picked, you sort of rely on other people to balance them out. You know, if you have an odd ball sticking out, you rely on the other 11 people to sort of even things out it's kind of the lob of averages. So there are other protections there, and I'm not sure if you, if you put a limit on people being able to speak freely to the media, or like, you know, like go on YouTube or something. Like what if this guy just wanted to go on YouTube? Would you wanna prohibit him from doing that? I don't think so. I think you wanna make sure that people can communicate about that. Like if he came out and said, you know, I maybe I don't wanna talk to the daily mail in exchange for compensation, but what if he was like drew Hernandez? Well, he wasn't a jury. He was a witness in the Kyle written house case, but he has a YouTube channel. Right. He testified and went on YouTube after that. I think people should be able to talk openly about what's going on. I would like to see more, you know, more accountability. Like if we, if we could see what was going on in this trial a little bit further, maybe we'd be able to identify where some of these catastrophic problems or how happening. I don't know. It's a good question, but I think you're onto something by saying that, you know, the more politicized these trials get, the more problematic it, it really is for the justice system. If you've got people elbowing their way on to get onto juries, that's not good. Cuz they're looking to convict people to make a political statement rather than doing justice that's nonsense. Uh, oh my gosh, prince Andrews, who or his Royal Highness, the princess of the princes says, please read this in your best posh English accent.<laugh> I can't do that. Um, uh, what do they, how do they speak over there? One, one did not do it. You little people have forgotten that one cannot. What is that? Is that, is that British<laugh> is that English<laugh> delete that from your computers, whatever the hell that was. That was, uh, judge Sullivan.<laugh>. So that was delete that from your computers. Everybody erase that realtor, Patty says it came out. Number 50 works at one of the best places that Epstein gave money to came out. He works at one of the places that Epstein gave money to. Ugh.<laugh> is that for real number 50? So I gotta look more into this, uh, Scotty fellow apparently, but my goodness, Sergeant Bob says comic relief. Miss lucky causes me to make supper tonight. If I displease her, I will be punished. Is that an actionable case? If you ask, would your mom gimme her meatloaf recipe? I gotta ask her. I gotta, I gotta ask her about that. You know, she's, she's pretty protective of those family recipes there, Sergeant Bob, but I think<laugh>, I'm watching the. Uh, has Rob ever been to England or has he only seen it in the movies? He's the Queen's favorite son that was bloody dodgy. Nope. Butchered it<laugh> well, I gave it a shot. So Sergeant Bob, um, no, you have no cause of action against miss lucky. She's fully entitled to demand that you make supper for her. And if it is subpar, in fact, I think she actually has the claim against you. So make sure it is up to snuff. My friend, we also have monster. One says if Maxwell gets a new trial, do you think she might try to negotiate a plea? She's gotta know she's getting convicted again. Any sort of delusional thought of acquital had to die. Does this give a reason to give up names for a deal? I'm not sure about the, that monster one<laugh> I'm not sure. I mean, look, the jurors were full of people who had, uh, like actual history of abuse and it still took'em like four days. And then they started saying, well, look, I was abused and you know, five, five days. So maybe if you take all of those people out four people who also have been abused, apparent according to her lawyers, maybe the verdict doesn't go that way because a lot of people were saying, uh, we don't, we don't find them credible. And then the, and then Scotty David and these jurors come out and they say, uh, well let me fill in the gaps for you. What if those people are not there the next time four of'em are gone? I don't think she's gonna, I don't think she's going to make a deal cuz I don't. I think she's gonna walk somehow, somehow some way shape or form. I think she knows it and they know it and the government knows it and I think they know the government knows it<laugh> so why would they make a deal? I mean, stuff like this keeps happening for jurors. They're just telling go hang tight deer, hang we're on it. Don't worry about it. All right. My friends, those were the questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com and Ronnie Cole sent in a super chat earlier today. I'm playing around with this, uh, little, uh, little thing here. So we'll see if that works. I gotta fix it cuz it looks terrible. But uh, I'm trying to get the super chats on the screen as well. But my friends that is it for show for the day. I wanna thank you for being a part of the program and we're going to welcome some new members tomorrow to our watching the watchers.locals.com community. We've got a monthly meetup coming up in January. It's not this weekend. It is the 22nd monthly meetup watching the watchers.locals.com, gotta register and, and sign up for it. But it's gonna be a lot of fun. Hope you join us on that. Cause we've got a lot to talk about. And so, uh, that is it for me for the day. My friends, everybody. Thank you so much for being here for participating in the program. Have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye.