Andrew Windsor.

Why don't you go and find some examples of English court cases where US judgements have not been enforced because the English Court refused to recognise the US court's jurisdiction in similar circumstances?

We'll see what happens. My guess is that he will have his arm twisted to settle,and your learned opinion will not be tested in court.
The debt is pursued under common law in uk and for that to be successful the US court needs to have jurisdiction. If defendant wasn’t in US when he was served and doesn’t submit to US court then it appears that no debt can be recovered. Andy May settle out of court because his reputation is in tatters and he has had enough bad publicity but that is a different matter.
I'm sure his lawyers will keep trying every avenue possible to get him off the hook (as mentioned he's the best of the best at this type of case apparently) so we'll see, including if/when there's a judgement against him and they come knocking on the door of a UK court to recognise any ruling.
Yes the last thing they want is his grubby life being undefended in a US court.
My original point was if he didn’t defend it and did not acknowledge it then it would seem that they cannot get his money on UK.
I am still happy to be wrong. If he nonced a trafficked kid he deserves what is coming.
 
Last edited:


For me, the debt bit is immaterial, he’s either going to go to court, or he isn’t.

If he doesn’t go to court, he’s got to either settle or ignore, neither of which will paint him as being innocent.

If he goes to court, he’s going to have to do better than he did with Emily Maitlis.
 
Yes but that depends on jurisdiction being recognised. I’m yet to see anywhere that jurisdiction will be recognised in the case.
Reading this, it looks to me like the first bullet doesn't apply, but the second looks to me like it has already. Andrew's lawyers did dispute jurisdiction based on Giuffre's residence, but they also tried to argue various points of constitutional law too, as well the point about whether she was bound by the gagging clause with Epstein. That looks to me like 'having voluntarily appeared in the proceedings' which I don't read as being there physically (hence that being spelled out in the first clause), and none of the later group of three bullets apply.

Debating points of law with the court is submitting to its jurisdiction, no? To not submit would have been to write to the court and say 'we don't think you have jurisdiction, get fucked'.

The US court will be considered to have had jurisdiction if the judgment debtor:
  • was present in the US at the time proceedings were issued (the burden of proving this will be on the party seeking enforcement); or
  • has otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court. For example, through a prior contractual agreement or by having voluntarily appeared in the proceedings other than to dispute jurisdiction.
Parties should also be aware that there are certain steps that do not amount to submission to an overseas court's jurisdiction. In particular, the judgment debtor shall not be regarded as having submitted to the overseas court's jurisdiction if they have only appeared (conditionally or otherwise) in the proceedings for any one or more of these reasons:
  • to contest the court's jurisdiction;
  • to ask the court to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the ground that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration or to the courts of another country; or
  • to protect or obtain the release of property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceedings.
The question of whether a party has submitted to jurisdiction is to be inferred from all the facts.
 
Last edited:
For me, the debt bit is immaterial, he’s either going to go to court, or he isn’t.

If he doesn’t go to court, he’s got to either settle or ignore, neither of which will paint him as being innocent.

If he goes to court, he’s going to have to do better than he did with Emily Maitlis.
If it does go to court, Giuffrees may have to go into detail about things she would only know if she'd indulged in sex with him. I'm sure Andy would not want details of his genatalia being discussed in public ! Or having to prove it otherwise in court :lol:
 

Boots

Midfield
fair do's. all very valid points.

if all of that was lodged against a normal member of society, or even worse a member of a certain ethic minority community, and instead of 'peado island' it was 'room above a pizza shop', and instead of 'good friends with maxwell and epstien' it was 'good friends with convicted peadophile and sex traffickers', and instead of 'waitress at a high profile party' it was 'young lass from broken home on a council estate in a deprived northern town' ... there is no way that so many people would be taking the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance.
Its prefectly possible to think hes probably done it and is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Youve got examples on this thread of people saying exactly that. I just think we need to apply a bit of balance. I have a good friend who's sons life was all but destroyed in his early 20s because of (ultimately) unfounded rape allegations from a young girl. His life was and to an extent still is defined by it. I dont think hell ever leave the allegations behind and there are certain people who will never let him forget it. All he was ever guilty of was getting pissed and getting caught shagging somebody else girlfriend. She cried rape to deflect from her cheating. Thats what happens and for me its absolutely why we need to let the process run.

Ive CAPITALISED proven because I think itll be settled out of court. And I also think settling out of court isnt proven guilty.,,,it might be done for expediency.
 
Reading this, it looks to me like the first bullet doesn't apply, but the second looks to me like it has already. Andrew's lawyers did dispute jurisdiction based on Giuffre's residence, but they also tried to argue various points of constitutional law too, as well the point about whether she was bound by the gagging clause with Epstein. That looks to me like 'having voluntarily appeared in the proceedings' which I don't read as being there physically (hence that being spelled out in the first clause), and none of the later group of three bullets apply.

Debating points of law with the court is submitting to its jurisdiction, no? To not submit would have been to write to the court and say 'we don't think you have jurisdiction, get fucked'.

The US court will be considered to have had jurisdiction if the judgment debtor:
  • was present in the US at the time proceedings were issued (the burden of proving this will be on the party seeking enforcement); or
  • has otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court. For example, through a prior contractual agreement or by having voluntarily appeared in the proceedings other than to dispute jurisdiction.
Parties should also be aware that there are certain steps that do not amount to submission to an overseas court's jurisdiction. In particular, the judgment debtor shall not be regarded as having submitted to the overseas court's jurisdiction if they have only appeared (conditionally or otherwise) in the proceedings for any one or more of these reasons:
  • to contest the court's jurisdiction;
  • to ask the court to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the ground that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration or to the courts of another country; or
  • to protect or obtain the release of property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceedings.
The question of whether a party has submitted to jurisdiction is to be inferred from all the facts.
This is what I find interesting. If they engage with case then the debt will be enforceable. I’m not sure they have yet engaged. If they have then they can definitely get his money.
 

Boots

Midfield
If it does go to court, Giuffrees may have to go into detail about things she would only know if she'd indulged in sex with him. I'm sure Andy would not want details of his genatalia being discussed in public ! Or having to prove it otherwise in court :lol:
I dont think shagging her was illegal at the time (if she consented) Not in the UK nor in New York., not sure about the Caribbean. Seedy yes. Illegal no. Unless ive misunderstood the case is ultimately about whether she was coerced and whether he assaulted her.
 

NYMackem

Winger
Reading this, it looks to me like the first bullet doesn't apply, but the second looks to me like it has already. Andrew's lawyers did dispute jurisdiction based on Giuffre's residence, but they also tried to argue various points of constitutional law too, as well the point about whether she was bound by the gagging clause with Epstein. That looks to me like 'having voluntarily appeared in the proceedings' which I don't read as being there physically (hence that being spelled out in the first clause), and none of the later group of three bullets apply.

Debating points of law with the court is submitting to its jurisdiction, no? To not submit would have been to write to the court and say 'we don't think you have jurisdiction, get fucked'.

The US court will be considered to have had jurisdiction if the judgment debtor:
  • was present in the US at the time proceedings were issued (the burden of proving this will be on the party seeking enforcement); or
  • has otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court. For example, through a prior contractual agreement or by having voluntarily appeared in the proceedings other than to dispute jurisdiction.
Parties should also be aware that there are certain steps that do not amount to submission to an overseas court's jurisdiction. In particular, the judgment debtor shall not be regarded as having submitted to the overseas court's jurisdiction if they have only appeared (conditionally or otherwise) in the proceedings for any one or more of these reasons:
  • to contest the court's jurisdiction;
  • to ask the court to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the ground that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration or to the courts of another country; or
  • to protect or obtain the release of property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceedings.
The question of whether a party has submitted to jurisdiction is to be inferred from all the facts.
You're wasting your time. He has spent 30 seconds googling this point and another 30 seconds misunderstanding the results of that Google search, so is now pretty confident he has spotted a loophole that Andy's £1,200 an hour lawyers have missed.

He's happy to be wrong though. Which is why he keeps posting the same opinion over and over again when challenged.
I dont think shagging her was illegal at the time (if she consented) Not in the UK nor in New York., not sure about the Caribbean. Seedy yes. Illegal no. Unless ive misunderstood the case is ultimately about whether she was coerced and whether he assaulted her.
Legal in the UK, illegal in New York, don't know about the Caribbean.
 
Last edited:

Dogbark

Striker
I dont think shagging her was illegal at the time (if she consented) Not in the UK nor in New York., not sure about the Caribbean. Seedy yes. Illegal no. Unless ive misunderstood the case is ultimately about whether she was coerced and whether he assaulted her.
That's right but he denies ever even meeting her, never mind rattling her.
 
You're wasting your time. He has spent 30 seconds googling this point and another 30 seconds misunderstanding the results of that Google search, so is now pretty confident he has spotted a loophole that Andy's £1,200 an hour lawyers have missed.

He's happy to be wrong though. Which is why he keeps posting the same opinion over and over again when challenged.
It is an interesting element to the case and was looked up in response to people being very sure that debts can be pursued. I was sure of nothing.
If you see my response to the lad’s post you will see that.
 
I dont think shagging her was illegal at the time (if she consented) Not in the UK nor in New York., not sure about the Caribbean. Seedy yes. Illegal no. Unless ive misunderstood the case is ultimately about whether she was coerced and whether he SEXUALLY assaulted her.
She is claiming that she was sexually abused by him on several occasions, and in multiple geographical locations. Which makes you wonder why she kept turning up in London, Manhattan, US Virgin Islands, unless somehow she was forced to.
 

Boots

Midfield
She is claiming that she was sexually abused by him on several occasions, and in multiple geographical locations. Which makes you wonder why she kept turning up in London, Manhattan, The Virgin Islands, unless somehow she was forced to.
Or she was "working" and chose to go. Not a particularly pleasant thought but a reasonable inference especially as she is already on record as having "recruited" others.
 

Dogbark

Striker
Or she was "working" and chose to go. Not a particularly pleasant thought but a reasonable inference especially as she is already on record as having "recruited" others.
If the court accepts that she was groomed though then that'll make little or no difference.
 
Last edited:

Cee Jay

Striker
You're wasting your time. He has spent 30 seconds googling this point and another 30 seconds misunderstanding the results of that Google search, so is now pretty confident he has spotted a loophole that Andy's £1,200 an hour lawyers have missed.

He's happy to be wrong though. Which is why he keeps posting the same opinion over and over again when challenged.

Legal in the UK, illegal in New York, don't know about the Caribbean.
It's Harry man...this is what he does :lol:
 

NYMackem

Winger
Was it 18 in NY then ? Thank you for the clarification. That actually makes a bit of difference I think (ie if she can prove he did then it cannot be consensual) .
Age of consent was 17, but still illegal to have sex with a trafficked woman (actual wording is something along the lines of "woman who has been transported across state lines for immoral purposes" in the original statute).

Not guaranteed they can make this stick with Andrew though if they can't prove they had sex or that he knew or suspected she was trafficked.
 
Is it? When that someone has taken a billionaire convicted paedophile (with the best lawyers money can buy) to court and he has been forced to reach a settlement with her? And when the person she is now making allegations about remained friends with said paedophile, even after he was publicly convicted of sex crimes against minors?

I don't know anything about this case beyond what is already public, but I don't think there is any doubt that the plaintiff was abused by Epstein and Murdoch, or that the defendant was a close associate of her abuser and was aware of his crimes.
Now I don't like Murdoch but think you mean Maxwell?
 
You're wasting your time. He has spent 30 seconds googling this point and another 30 seconds misunderstanding the results of that Google search, so is now pretty confident he has spotted a loophole that Andy's £1,200 an hour lawyers have missed.

He's happy to be wrong though. Which is why he keeps posting the same opinion over and over again when challenged.

Legal in the UK, illegal in New York, don't know about the Caribbean.
To be fair, I've just been googling too. I didn't take it as anything other than a genuine 'this is interesting, let's explore it' conversation, tbh. Your point about the lawyers is very important though - if there was no chance of recovering the debt they'd either not take the case because they won't get paid, or VG would have been very badly-advised if they hadn't made that clear, and could probably sue them.

Besides, imagine the optics. US court finds that on the balance of possibilities that Andrew did sexually assault her and should pay compensation. Presumably appealed and upheld on appeal. And then Andrew's lawyers in the UK play 'you can't get to us here, we're not playing'. Ooof. I'd genuinely avoid driving through tunnels if I were him and it got to that.
 

Top