It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
One court statement lists ten employees and associates of Epstein who, it said, were being represented by lawyers paid for by the convicted sex offender.
They include Nadia Marcinkova, described as “Epstein’s live-in sex slave”, who invoked her right not to incriminate herself, protected by the US constitution’s Fifth Amendment, when she was asked about the Duke of York.
Asked by a victim’s lawyer: “Have you ever been made to perform sexually on Prince Andrew?” she replied: “Fifth.”
Sarah Kellen, Epstein’s executive assistant, whose legal fees were also said to have been paid by Epstein, was asked: “Would you agree with me that Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein used to share under-age girls for sexual relations?” She replied: “On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.”
Epstein himself, questioned under oath, refused to answer the questions: “Did you provide any under-aged girls for sex to Prince Andrew?” and: “Did you fly with Prince Andrew on your plane, or planes, with any under-aged girls, girls under the age of 18?”
Adriana Ross, a former model who worked as Epstein’s diary organiser, refused to answer the question: “Has Prince Andrew ever been involved with under-age minor females to your knowledge?”
At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity
WHEREFORE Alan M. Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting his limited motion to intervene for such purposes as may be appropriate including submitting a motion to strike the allegations made against him and requesting the issuance of a
show cause order against Plaintiffs’ counsel, and awarding such other relief that the Court deems just and proper under these unfortunate circumstances.
originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Anyafaj
Nice and concise overview there mate!
I was just gonna sit down and put one together myself so thanks for that, you saved me the trouble, lol.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Tangerine
I think one question you should be asking yourself is, are you happy with wealthy and powerful men being able to acquire very young and children to enjoy sexual exploits with - especially when they are married and may well have mistresses in tow also?
This is above the normal moans about the powerful that rule us, its about a sickness within our society that we need to address. Thjere are victims here and should we treat themwith less respect because the perpetrator is an elite? We are diligent in going after the John Smiths' of the world.
Slightly off topic, if you ever watch world news channels in India they are having to face the idea of police raping women and then when told about it, having to hunt for their missing police - that is currently going on there. So the world is waking up to this particular abuse of power and we should surely be reminding those who benefit from positions of power, that they have a responsibility of duty to give of their best, not their sleaziest.
Sounds more like a JOB offer than slavery?
Doesn't sound like much pressure/slavery there then?
Hmmmn.... KERCHING ...Methinks the coffers are very low!
Calls for a court case and substantial pay outs!! There was no
where in her story that she couldn't have left at anytime? or
am I missing something?