The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[Alison H]

I don't know who's bankrolling Virginia Giuffre, but I gather that she's using some very expensive lawyers, so presumably she's also using some very expensive process servers who, if necessary, will hang around the house 24/7 until Andrew comes out and they can serve the papers on him in person. He can't avoid them indefinitely, so he may as well accept the papers, have done, and decide where he goes from here.

 

[sophie25]

If I was accused if the things he has been accused of and I knew I was 100'% innocent I would be running to the courts to clear my name and that would surely be the reaction of any innocent person. As I said earlier, the ducking and diving has to stop for his own sake. If he is innocent he should help the authorities as an innocent person has nothing to fear.

 

[Roslyn]

I don't know who's bankrolling Virginia Giuffre, but I gather that she's using some very expensive lawyers, so presumably she's also using some very expensive process servers who, if necessary, will hang around the house 24/7 until Andrew comes out and they can serve the papers on him in person. He can't avoid them indefinitely, so he may as well accept the papers, have done, and decide where he goes from here.

I agree. Her advisors are not inexperienced lightweights who are going to be put off by Andrew's ducking and weaving to try to avoid service. I am sure that all necessary steps are being taken to effect service, including laying the groundwork for an application for an order for substituted service if necessary. It shouldn't be necessary though because no way in the wide world can this man realistically claim he has not been made aware of the proceedings against him. By playing these games and hiding behind Mummy's skirts he is not endearing himself to anyone.

 

[sophie25]

Prince Andrew's lawyers 'claim court papers were NOT properly served'

It appears that Andrew's lawyers claim the papers were not properly served and plan to boycott Monday's court hearing into the accusations lodged by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Roberts.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Oh here we go, his legal team are indeed going down the route of the papers not being served correctly. They are also hoping to get the case thrown out on a technicality rather than have to defend him against the charges.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If he is innocent he should help the authorities as an innocent person has nothing to fear.

As you are applying your statement generally to every person who has ever been declined to be interviewed by authorities, I will reply to it as a general statement (not related to this case): It is not true, even in democratic countries, that an innocent person never has anything to fear from the police.

See here

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I don't know who's bankrolling Virginia Giuffre, but I gather that she's using some very expensive lawyers, so presumably she's also using some very expensive process servers who, if necessary, will hang around the house 24/7 until Andrew comes out and they can serve the papers on him in person. He can't avoid them indefinitely, so he may as well accept the papers, have done, and decide where he goes from here.

In the US, civil cases are generally handled on contingency. That means that unless the plaintiff wins, the lawyers get nothing. So, lawyers are quite careful to select cases that will make them money - in this case, the PR is worth a lot.

Plus, the firm might well win a judgment and that will be worth millions in PR.

It's a gamble, sure. I bet some of these lawyers are getting speaking engagements to instruct others on filing this kind of federal case, from first hand experience.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't know who's bankrolling Virginia Giuffre, but I gather that she's using some very expensive lawyers, so presumably she's also using some very expensive process servers who, if necessary, will hang around the house 24/7 until Andrew comes out and they can serve the papers on him in person. He can't avoid them indefinitely, so he may as well accept the papers, have done, and decide where he goes from here.

The head of her legal team is David Boies. To describe him as a heavy hitter is kind of an understatement. He successfully sued Bill Gates and Microsoft for anti-trust violations if memory serves.

 

[Leopoldine]

People close to Andrew were describing him as "stir-crazy" being stuck inside Royal Lodge while process servers swarmed all over Windsor.

Perhaps Andrew will give a thought to people around the UK and elsewhere who have had to sequester in their homes during the last year and a half due to Covid, a good many not having a 30 room secured mansion to swan around in.

 

[UglyAmerican]

He doesn't have to avoid them forever. There's a time limit for how long the plaintiff has to serve them after the complaint is filed. Giuffre filed this lawsuit just before the statute of limitations ran out, so if her team can't get it served before that deadline, then in theory she wouldn't be able to pursue it further. They'll undoubtedly have a lot of arguments about why that shouldn't happen, with his obvious service-dodging being at the forefront, so that may not be the end of the matter.

 

[sophie25]

He doesn't have to avoid them forever. There's a time limit for how long the plaintiff has to serve them after the complaint is filed. Giuffre filed this lawsuit just before the statute of limitations ran out, so if her team can't get it served before that deadline, then in theory she wouldn't be able to pursue it further. They'll undoubtedly have a lot of arguments about why that shouldn't happen, with his obvious service-dodging being at the forefront, so that may not be the end of the matter.

It's virtually impossible to approach a member of the royal family as their homes and themselves are constantly shielded by security as are many rich and famous people. If no exception can be made for when it's these kind of people papers are being served to then we would basically be saying they are above the law so I'm sure the courts would need to accept the serving of papers to their lawyers, for example, as being acceptable.

 

[Mirabel]

One thing for sure is that if Andrew does decide to face this head on, any talking to the press or the public should be done by his legal team and *not* himself.

I think Andrew is finding out that this isn't going to go away anytime soon. The sooner it's resolved, the better.

I'm not certain it can ever be truly resolved.
It sounds as if it will come down to his word against hers, with no real evidence to go by.

 

[Lori138]

Whether or not he is innocent or guilty, I am appalled that Ms. Guiffre has decided that Andrew is the ONLY person who has ever sexually assaulted her. I am sure that she was handed around to several powerful men (a former president?) and why are they not being sued as well. All about the publicity in this case, I think.

To make her case more legitimate she should have sued all the men that she supposedly was forced to have sex with.

(Have eliminated the name I put in here, sorry everyone).

 

[Leopoldine]

Whether or not he is innocent or guilty, I am appalled that Ms. Guiffre has decided that Andrew is the ONLY person who has ever sexually assaulted her. I am sure that she was handed around to several powerful men (Bill Clinton?) and why are they not being sued as well. All about the publicity in this case, I think.

To make her case more legitimate she should have sued all the men that she supposedly was forced to have sex with.

She has been most emphatic that Bill Clinton was not one of the men she had sexual activity with. The ones she did name are very prominent figures, including a former prime minister (not UK), a former senator and a former governor. I don't think the moderators would want their names listed here.

Andrew is probably the least careful and circumspect of the group. His odious sense of entitlement, tarnished reputation and the probability that his family organization will pay to stay out of court make him a ripe target.

 

[Alison H]

Whether or not he is innocent or guilty, I am appalled that Ms. Guiffre has decided that Andrew is the ONLY person who has ever sexually assaulted her. I am sure that she was handed around to several powerful men (Bill Clinton?) and why are they not being sued as well. All about the publicity in this case, I think.

To make her case more legitimate she should have sued all the men that she supposedly was forced to have sex with.

Publicity and money. I don't think she realises that the Royal Family are probably considerably less well off than some of the others allegedly involved.

All the same, it's been very poorly handled. Surely Prince Andrew's lawyers must realise how bad it looks for him to be skulking about and trying to avoid the case on a technicality?

 

[ladongas]

Whether or not he is innocent or guilty, I am appalled that Ms. Guiffre has decided that Andrew is the ONLY person who has ever sexually assaulted her. I am sure that she was handed around to several powerful men (Bill Clinton?) and why are they not being sued as well. All about the publicity in this case, I think.

To make her case more legitimate she should have sued all the men that she supposedly was forced to have sex with.

Is it perhaps unfair to expect a victim of sex-trafficking and rape to be in charge of rounding up all the men who victimized her? Chances are good that she never knew the names of many of them. I’m sure her present team of lawyers are prudently handling the case for maximum
effectiveness.

And since Ms. Guiffre has indicated that former President Clinton was not among those who harmed her, it might be wise to avoid accusing him.

 

[Leopoldine]

So now Virginia Giuffre's lawyer and his firm are under heavy artillery fire. I wonder who instigated this?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-100-attorneys-advised-Harvey-Weinstein.html

 

[Harald]

I wonder who instigated this?

That is very much not anyone's guess!

 

[Osipi]

So now Virginia Giuffre's lawyer and his firm are under heavy artillery fire. I wonder who instigated this?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-100-attorneys-advised-Harvey-Weinstein.html

I think it's been a steady exodus of personnel due to many different things and really has nothing to do with Andrew whatsoever. It doesn't help Andrew's case much in the court of public opinion to be represented by a firm notorious for taking on "seedy" and "disgraced" clientele.

Still, the law is the law and that's what any lawyer needs to stick to.

 

[Lord_Royal]

A lawyer's job in a case like Prince Andrew's is to extricate the client in the fastest, least intrusive, and most certain way possible.

That means you take every single opportunity for your client, even if it is a technicality like the service of originating pleadings. The argument that's being discussed in the media, that an agreement Ms. Giuffre signed years ago precludes her from taking action against anyone else associated with Mr. Epstein, is technical in nature.

However, if it is open to Prince Andrew's legal counsel to pursue this avenue they would be negligent to do anything else. If that is unsuccessful then they have to look at what would occur in a trial. But a trial has risks and even a person in the right could pull the unlucky straw, get the wrong judge, and be found liable.

What we will be seeing from Prince Andrew's legal counsel is a vigorous defence in as many ways, and down as many avenues, as possible.

 

[victor1319]

That means you take every single opportunity for your client, even if it is a technicality like the service of originating pleadings.

Well, the whole world does know, that the papers were delivered to Prince Andrew's house - everybody but him, at least "technically".

This makes him look a bit unfortunate. I mean, this is not the Wild West anymore! The idea of the norm is surely not, that rich folks can hide out in their keeps ...

In short: It makes Andrew look guilty and damages the House of Windsor.

 

[Kataryn]

If I was accused if the things he has been accused of and I knew I was 100'% innocent I would be running to the courts to clear my name and that would surely be the reaction of any innocent person. As I said earlier, the ducking and diving has to stop for his own sake. If he is innocent he should help the authorities as an innocent person has nothing to fear.

I am not sure he is like any other innocent person when it comes to such an accussation. The media is always after Royals and the public opinion can be quite damaging, as we have seen here. Yes, he should have claimed after he saw that photo from Maxwell's house that he saw the pic, have met her there and that she obviously was a houseguest there (or even a maid like young Lady Diana was once at friends). But that he couldn't remember and did not have sexual relationships with her. I mean, Clinton survived the Lewinsky story. But as he didn't do that, he is now in a very public hole and I'm wondering how he will manage to get out of it. If at all.

OTOH Ms. Giuffre surely had her own reasoning selecting him as the accussed, because I would have thought he would settle out of legal proceedings and quietly. Well, that didn't happen and now she is fighting forward though she must know it will be difficult and dirty. For both of them, IMHO, for I think she did the job for Epstein willingly though her reasoning might have been wrong back then.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

An article on the court hearing of September 13:

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-09-13...-says-sexual-assault-allegations-are-baseless

At a pre-trial hearing, Mr Brettler, for the duke, also said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a settlement agreement “releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability”.

[...]

Judge Lewis A Kaplan repeatedly sought to limit the scope of the hearing to whether or not the duke had been properly served notice of the case, and what action the court needs to take to ensure the legal papers reach him.

[...]

Mr Brettler said that the duke’s team contested “the validity of service to date”, adding he has not been properly served under either UK or international law.

He said that it could be up to the High Court in London to decide whether the case can proceed.

[...]

The alleged settlement agreement cited by Mr Brettler is currently sealed under the order of a different judge, the court heard.

Mr Boies said it was “inconsistent” to be making discovery requests for documents when the case still hinges on whether or not the duke has been properly served notice of the proceedings, and whether the US courts have jurisdiction over the case.

[...]

Judge Kaplan listed the case for a further hearing in-person at 3pm UK time on October 17.

He recommended both sides discuss the service of the case ahead of the next hearing in order to get to the “substance” of the claim.

“I can see a lot of legal fees being spent and time being expended and delay, which ultimately may not be productive for anyone,” he said.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

An article on the court hearing of September 13:

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-09-13...-says-sexual-assault-allegations-are-baseless

I am not familiar with settlement agreements:

"At a pre-trial hearing, Mr Brettler, for the Duke, also said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a settlement agreement “releasing the Duke and others from any and all potential liability. He told the US district court for the southern district of New York that the lawyers have “significant concerns about the propriety of this lawsuit”.

[.....]

"The alleged settlement agreement cited by Mr Brettler is currently sealed under the order of a different judge, the court heard."

[....]

"Mr Brettler said that he believed the document “absolves our client from any and all liability”, adding other defendants had avoided similar proceedings by relying on its existence."

Why and with whom would Ms Giuffre make a settlement agreement? Is this a sort of payment between two parties with a result that no liabilities are pursued? Why does another judge block the opening of said settlement when this seems a quite important document?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am not familiar with settlement agreements:

"At a pre-trial hearing, Mr Brettler, for the Duke, also said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a settlement agreement “releasing the Duke and others from any and all potential liability. He told the US district court for the southern district of New York that the lawyers have “significant concerns about the propriety of this lawsuit”.

[.....]

"The alleged settlement agreement cited by Mr Brettler is currently sealed under the order of a different judge, the court heard."

[....]

"Mr Brettler said that he believed the document “absolves our client from any and all liability”, adding other defendants had avoided similar proceedings by relying on its existence."

Why and with whom would Ms Giuffre make a settlement agreement? Is this a sort of payment between two parties with a result that no liabilities are pursued? Why does another judge block the opening of said settlement when this seems a quite important document?

Partly answer to my own question but not why the settlement agreement remains closed:

"In 2009, Giuffre and Epstein reached a confidential settlement in a lawsuit she filed against him, which has been sealed ever since. Last month, according to documents on file in federal court, Giuffre dropped her claim of sexual battery she made in a separate lawsuit against lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who formerly represented Epstein, after Dershowitz invoked this part of the 2009 settlement agreement.

But the judge interrupted Brettler before he could launch into his argument, saying this hearing was not intended for that discussion, and was focused only on the service issue. Later, after Brettler again brought up the sealed settlement issue, Kaplan batted it away, even as he said he understood Brettler's position.

"If there is a document that would provide your client with an affirmative defense to a claim, or help him out in England or both, you'd rather see it sooner rather than later. There's a lot to be said for that point of view," Kaplan said.

[.....]

As for releasing the settlement agreement, Kaplan said that would be up to a different federal judge.

In fact, Dershowitz is seeking the permission of U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska, who is presiding in his lawsuit with Giuffre, to release the relevant portions of the settlement agreement to Andrew’s lawyers for his defense. Preska has not yet ruled.

Dershowitz argues that Giuffre's lawyers should have notified Judge Kaplan that she dropped her claim against him before filing a lawsuit against Andrew.

"The same reasons for dismissing the case against me seem to apply to Prince Andrew," Dershowitz said in a statement obtained by USA TODAY. "These documents should get the charges against Prince Andrew thrown out."

[.....]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/enter...ease-of-secret-epstein-settlement/8320876002/

 

[Harald]

The high court has agreed to intervene if necessary to serve papers on the Duke of York in the sexual assault civil case filed against him in the US, it has said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...us-court-papers-on-prince-andrew-if-necessary

 

[Alison H]

I am not familiar with settlement agreements:

"At a pre-trial hearing, Mr Brettler, for the Duke, also said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a settlement agreement “releasing the Duke and others from any and all potential liability. He told the US district court for the southern district of New York that the lawyers have “significant concerns about the propriety of this lawsuit”.

[.....]

"The alleged settlement agreement cited by Mr Brettler is currently sealed under the order of a different judge, the court heard."

[....]

"Mr Brettler said that he believed the document “absolves our client from any and all liability”, adding other defendants had avoided similar proceedings by relying on its existence."

Why and with whom would Ms Giuffre make a settlement agreement? Is this a sort of payment between two parties with a result that no liabilities are pursued? Why does another judge block the opening of said settlement when this seems a quite important document?

Alan Dershovitz, who was at one time Epstein's lawyer, was also accused of sexual misconduct by Giuffre, which he denied. According to what he said on Sky News yesterday, she made an agreement with Epstein by which she received a large financial settlement and agreed that that would be the end of the matter, i.e. she couldn't take any further action against anyone else. I don't quite understand how this works, but that's what he said - and her attempt to sue Dershovitz failed because of it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Alan Dershovitz, who was at one time Epstein's lawyer, was also accused of sexual misconduct by Giuffre, which he denied. According to what he said on Sky News yesterday, she made an agreement with Epstein by which she received a large financial settlement and agreed that that would be the end of the matter, i.e. she couldn't take any further action against anyone else. I don't quite understand how this works, but that's what he said - and her attempt to sue Dershovitz failed because of it.

Googling it learns me this is mainly a practice in the USA and also UK practice. Wikipedia even says:

In the USA usually, lawsuits end in a settlement, with an empirical analysis finding that less than 2% of cases end with a trial, 90% of torts settle, and around 50% of other civil cases settle.

For countries on the Continent it sounds quite strange that even allegations of abuse or rape can be "solved" with an agreement between parties in exchange for cash.

For me this is quite profitable for rich folks, for them it is peanuts to make an agreement. For someone on a minimum wage this is much harder.

Anyway, I am curious to see if Dershowitz escapes liability because of said Settlement Agreement, what this means for the Duke.

 

[Alison H]

Ah, right - if it's under the tort law, it pretty much derives from the Anglo-Saxon wergild system, whereby damages would be awarded to victims of wrongdoing, usually awarded to families of murder victims. Families of murdered lords would get a lot more than families of murdered serfs, needless to say! In more recent times, there was a case known as "the ginger beer case" in which a woman sued after becoming ill because there was a decomposed snail in her ginger beer - one of those wonderful cases they make you learn for exams! Sometimes damages of £1 are awarded, to make the point that the case is rather silly but that the person bringing it is in the right.


I understand that, but I'm not quite clear on how reaching a settlement agreement with one party would prevent you from taking legal action against another party. But presumably that's how this particular agreement was worded.

 

[sophie25]

I think it's unseemly that because of all his hiding away the High Court has had to get involved in serving Andrew the papers. It's cringworthy.

 

[Osipi]

Alan Dershovitz, who was at one time Epstein's lawyer, was also accused of sexual misconduct by Giuffre, which he denied. According to what he said on Sky News yesterday, she made an agreement with Epstein by which she received a large financial settlement and agreed that that would be the end of the matter, i.e. she couldn't take any further action against anyone else. I don't quite understand how this works, but that's what he said - and her attempt to sue Dershovitz failed because of it.

What I'm seeing is that there was a settlement between Giuffre and Epstein and because it was an out of court settlement, The details of the settlement were not made public and both parties probably had to agree to a non disclosure stipulation along with the settlement.

This is just my supposition but should this document actually state that with the financial settlement she received, she was barred from taking action against anyone else. It seems to be the case that Dershovitz was able to use this settlement to his advantage. If it *is* pertinent to Andrew's case, it may be his ace in the hole.

I'm not a lawyer or anywhere close to one. I'm just surmising what may happen.