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

[ACO]

Apparently another woman might sue Andrew as well

https://twitter.com/tmorrowspapers/s...565391874?s=21

[US Royal Watcher]

This is so bad, I'm not sure that anything he can do or say would make a difference. Do we know whether Andrew has diplomatic immunity? I think he would be immune to most lawsuits if he does.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Magnolia471

According Giuffree's declaration, from the age of seven she was molested by 'a family friend' and she lived on the streets at age 13 before getting abused by a 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger.
She was trafficked to a large amount of wealthy men since she was a child but why Virginia is suing only Prince Andrew who had one or two intercourses with her when she was almost an adult?
In the previews interview she actually never said anything negative about Andrew, stating that he was 'nice' to her.
I don't doubt any of her worlds but she should make public names of all of her clients/abusers. If she is taking to the court only her well-know client seems like she is more interested in public attention and money that she could make out of this trial....
I'm not trying to defend Andrew, who is a complete jerk. But Giuffree life is a proff that outhere there a men who literally abusing and exploiting little children which is far from having an intercourse with someone who is almost a legal adult.

This brings up a really good point for me. I'm sure that there are other men that Virginia saw many more times than she did Andrew. Her abuse didn't start and end with Andrew.

I don't discount one little bit what this woman went through ensnared in the Epstein/Maxwell trap but to just single out Andrew makes me believe there's some other motive than the abuse she suffered.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Osipi

This brings up a really good point for me. I'm sure that there are other men that Virginia saw many more times than she did Andrew. Her abuse didn't start and end with Andrew.

I don't discount one little bit what this woman went through ensnared in the Epstein/Maxwell trap but to just single out Andrew makes me believe there's some other motive than the abuse she suffered.

I've always felt this way too. Even though I do believe she suffered abuse, she has really gone after Andrew and not other men.

[Susan D]

Prince Andrew has even worse judgement than Prince Charles. This scandal is odious and it has not been explained how Epstein made his money and whether or not he had planned to blackmail big shots eventually. I hope Prince Andrew is never back in public life, ever. Prince Andrew's pattern is too sleazy.

[Sionevar]

Originally Posted by Susan D

Prince Andrew has even worse judgement than Prince Charles. This scandal is odious and it has not been explained how Epstein made his money and whether or not he had planned to blackmail big shots eventually. I hope Prince Andrew is never back in public life, ever. Prince Andrew's pattern is too sleazy.

I don't believe he'll ever return to public life. I think there is simply no way back for him now, even if there is no legal judgement against him - the allegations have simply done too much damage.

As the details of this case unfold, there may be calls for him to be punished even further - to be stripped of his titles and removed from the succession. And I know that is neither easy to do, or something that should be done without a guilty verdict, but I can definitely see it happening.

It's a pretty heinous situation.

[UglyAmerican]

Originally Posted by Susan D

Prince Andrew has even worse judgement than Prince Charles. This scandal is odious and it has not been explained how Epstein made his money and whether or not he had planned to blackmail big shots eventually. I hope Prince Andrew is never back in public life, ever. Prince Andrew's pattern is too sleazy.

According to a former business associate, Epstein made his money in a Ponzi scheme in which they were both involved. (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/75115...assist-victims) Netflix's miniseries about Epstein interviewed this guy, and he seemed sincerely horrified at what he'd unwittingly enabled.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by UglyAmerican

According to a former business associate, Epstein made his money in a Ponzi scheme in which they were both involved. (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/75115...assist-victims) Netflix's miniseries about Epstein interviewed this guy, and he seemed sincerely horrified at what he'd unwittingly enabled.

Sincerely horrified my foot!Really,this excuse cult is ad nauseam.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

This is so bad, I'm not sure that anything he can do or say would make a difference. Do we know whether Andrew has diplomatic immunity? I think he would be immune to most lawsuits if he does.

No - the Queen has, as head of state, but other members of the Royal Family haven't.

It would be very awkward to claim it anyway. There's a lot of controversy in the UK over diplomatic immunity, after the wife of an American diplomat was involved in a road traffic accident in which a teenage boy was killed, then fled to America and has refused to come back and face trial on the grounds of "diplomatic immunity".

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Claire

I saw on SKY that the suit only came about as the statue for limitation expires in a few days and that Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and Prince Andrew's lawyers were unable to reach an out of court settlement.
Is this reported anywhere else?

It was in the complaint. They asked Prince Andrew's lawyers to agree to toll the statute of limitations (that is, to pause it) so that they could avoid having to file the suit immediately. They claim that they got no response whatsoever to that request.

On July 19, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff proposed a tolling agreement that would have enabled Plaintiff not to sue Prince Andrew at this time, while avoiding any argument that her failure to do so caused her claims to be time-barred. Again Prince Andrew stonewalled—ignoring Plaintiff’s letter and emails without any reply or response, thereby making this action necessary now. A copy of the July 19, 2021, letter proposing a tolling agreement is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is a link to the complaint.

[Claire]

Having read the complaint - and I am not a lawyer. Why does it seem like to she is actually filling this against Epstein, when she is suing Andrew?

Everything in the factual allegation is against Epstein and Maxwell. is it for the court to say hear a duck see a duck. Guilt by association with a criminal.

Did Ms. Giuffre sue the estate of Epstein/ Maxwell or any of the other men that she alleges she was forced to have relations with?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Sionevar

As the details of this case unfold, there may be calls for him to be punished even further - to be stripped of his titles and removed from the succession.

Very unlikely IMHO. Stripping him of his peerages would require only an act of the UK Parliament, but removing him from the succession requires legislation not only in the UK, but in several Commonwealth realms too and I don't see it happening.


There a few quotes from Ms Giuffre's lawyer today on the BBC website. From what I understand, his client tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with Prince Andrew, but was simply ignored. She decided to file the lawsuit then. Apparently, she is now claiming that the Duke engaged in sexual acts without her consent, knowing how old she was and that she was a sex-trafficking victim, which seems to contradict some of her own recollections about the events in the past.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58167469

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Claire

Having read the complaint - and I am not a lawyer. Why does it seem like to she is actually filling this against Epstein, when she is suing Andrew?

Everything in the factual allegation is against Epstein and Maxwell. is it for the court to say hear a duck see a duck. Guilt by association with a criminal.

Sometimes the complaint in a lawsuit against a very famous person is written more for the public than for the court. The nut of the allegation against Andrew is "Prince Andrew committed sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff when she was 17 years old. As such, Prince Andrew is responsible for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to New York common law." The rest is just setting a stage for that.

The USA does not have the "sub judice" rules that other countries have about reporting on matters before the court, so there can be an element of spectacle that creeps into the proceedings.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Sionevar

I don't believe he'll ever return to public life. I think there is simply no way back for him now, even if there is no legal judgement against him - the allegations have simply done too much damage.

As the details of this case unfold, there may be calls for him to be punished even further - to be stripped of his titles and removed from the succession. And I know that is neither easy to do, or something that should be done without a guilty verdict, but I can definitely see it happening.

It's a pretty heinous situation.

It is, and very sleazy.
However, Andrew has not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted.
That would probably be necessary to strip him of his titles.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

This is so bad, I'm not sure that anything he can do or say would make a difference. Do we know whether Andrew has diplomatic immunity? I think he would be immune to most lawsuits if he does.

Apparently Ms Giuffre's lawyer is trying to preempt any possible diplomatic immunity defense as seen in the excerpt below from the complaint.

47. During each of the aforementioned incidents, Prince Andrew was acting in his individual, personal capacity, and was not performing any duty relating to his former role as a trade envoy, any duty relating to his role as a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom, or any other official or diplomatic duty or function.

[Lady Daly]

The only member I'm aware of on this thread that's actually an attorney is GracieGiraffe and I appreciate her imput. It seems like there are so many pretenders contributing currently it's a challenge to weed out the legitimate information. Thank you!

[Roslyn]

Tatiana Maria, thank you very much for posting the link to the filed complaint. It's not my jurisdiction but that document seems like a nice piece of drafting work to me. It's all in there, a statement of the surrounding facts and circumstances and particulars of the actual causes of action arising from those facts and circumstances. It will be fun to watch Andrew trying to squirm out of this!

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Tatiana Maria, thank you very much for posting the link to the filed complaint. It's not my jurisdiction but that document seems like a nice piece of drafting work to me. It's all in there, a statement of the surrounding facts and circumstances and particulars of the actual causes of action arising from those facts and circumstances. It will be fun to watch Andrew trying to squirm out of this!

It is crazy that Ms Guffrie is accusing him of forcing himself into her (i.e. having sexual contact without her consent) while, at the same time, Prince Andrew categorically denies having even met her. Very risky strategy on his part which may backfire dramatically if he is proven to be lying.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Lady Daly

The only member I'm aware of on this thread that's actually an attorney is GracieGiraffe and I appreciate her imput. It seems like there are so many pretenders contributing currently it's a challenge to weed out the legitimate information. Thank you!

Could you please explain what inaccurate information was posted? If I am the one responsible, I would appreciate the correction.