backin the united states, this agreement, back in 2009, and it was an agreement worth $500,000 us we are told, but some of the allegations against prince andrew concern what happened allegedly in london and the caribbean, not in the us. weill. happened allegedly in london and the caribbean, not in the us.— caribbean, not in the us. well, that certainly is — caribbean, not in the us. well, that certainly is helpful— caribbean, not in the us. well, that certainly is helpful to _ caribbean, not in the us. well, that certainly is helpfulto her, _ caribbean, not in the us. well, that certainly is helpfulto her, and - caribbean, not in the us. well, that certainly is helpfulto her, and i - certainly is helpful to her, and i think she can make that argument. i also notice that in the document that was released which i have read carefully, there is no signature on the line forjeffrey epstein and nor is there a line for a notary signature from him. so i assume they're probably a fully executed agreement somewhere, but that's something thatjumps out at agreement somewhere, but that's something that jumps out at you right away to. find something that “umps out at you right away to._ something that “umps out at you right away to. something that “umps out at you riaht awa to. �* ., , right away to. and the 'udge who is acresidin right away to. and the 'udge who is presiding o_ right away to. and the 'udge who is presiding over the _ right away to. and the judge who is presiding over the civil _ right away to. and the judge who is presiding over the civil case - right away to. and the judge who is presiding over the civil case is - presiding over the civil case is going to be holding a video teleconference tomorrow, on tuesday, when a request from the duke poss 's legal team is going to be heard. they are currently going to be using this unsealed document. what do you think is going to go to the judge's mind and when might we get some sort of decision from the judge? 50. i