Rev dear Rev: Wherefore the future for Legal Alitigious Agreements after NYC 22?

I reproduce one such Agreement here below that appears in a long and erudite sentence of 44 pages from a New York judge, featuring footnotes to US Law and USA Jurisprudence:

“V and her agents for such in consideration of the sum of five hundred thousand dollars and other valuable consideration, received from and on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein Esquire and his agents etc, hereby remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge, the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (Other Potential Defendants) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia R., whatsoever in law or in equity, for compensatory or punitive damages, that the said Parties ever had or now have” (As per pro, The Daily Mail, 4th January 2022, page 5, Lawyer for Prince Andrew, Andrew B Brettler).

How such an Agreement does not positively exclude Prince Andrew and other associates of Mr Epstein from future litigation is a marvel of intellectual somersaulting, given the assurances under-taken by the young mistress of the same, in receipt of 500,000 smackaroos - US legal reasoning is known for such gymnastics, dancing like an angel ballerina on a pinhead, but the judge was adamant that the said Agreement does not include the Prince, simply because he was not explicitly and positively named in the Agreement, even though he and others like the Clintons and the Gateses and the Obamas are quite obviously intended by the said Agreement. The girl took the money and ran with it, and quite obviously she did not carefully examine the terms and conditions of that said Agreement she signed when she made off with such a huge wad of cash, a fistful of dollars for a few dollars more. This should mean something. A marvel of legal gymnastics. The judge is to be awarded this year’s prize for pole vaulting over the obvious range and clear intent of such Agreements. 44 pages of argumentation that would grace the walls and the framed certificates of any medieval theologian discussing angels pirouetting around mysticals. Astonishing. An appeal might still be grantable to the US Supreme Court and thence to the UK Supreme Court as an incidental question dilatory exception case. Amazing.