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

[Alison H]

He's exactly what Prince Albert always dreaded - a throwback to the days of the Hanoverian younger sons. But even Prince Albert couldn't make his children be what he wanted.

50 years ago,, maybe even 30 years ago, this would all have been hushed up, however wrong that may have been. But the world has changed, and I don't think Andrew gets that.

[Granada]

Osipi, respectfully disagree. Andrews actions are most certainly carrying over into The Family Business, The Firm.
Its a public relations nightmare. And its just getting started.
I believe the Queen and Andrew, on advice of the her Advisors and the Family will try to settle to get past this. She has the resources to do so. Turn the page, move on.

[GraceOMalleysGhost]

Originally Posted by Alison H

He's exactly what Prince Albert always dreaded - a throwback to the days of the Hanoverian younger sons. But even Prince Albert couldn't make his children be what he wanted.

50 years ago,, maybe even 30 years ago, this would all have been hushed up, however wrong that may have been. But the world has changed, and I don't think Andrew gets that.

I just realized that 30 years ago was HM's Annus Horribilus! Fifty years ago a lot was still being covered up, but by 1992 the press had taken their gloves off with the royals.
Ironic that he was part of the problem then and still is 30 years on. The man just needs to go crawl under a rock and stay there.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

That said, I'm seeing social media chatter that seems to indicate that there's a slight possibility that he just won't show up and will allow a judgment to be entered against him because no one would be able to collect on it. I have no idea why that would be unless it's something to do with different countries, etc. but that is a possibility being floated around.

I believe anyone genuinely familiar with the Duke of York's legal planning would be unlikely to chatter on social media about those plans. I also consider that the potential of a public judgment that he committed sexual abuse will cause him, and the royal family and the public, deeper concern than any potential financial losses.

That said, below is a newspaper's summary of the legal principles behind the UK enforceability of damages awards from US courts. I hope the legal experts here will be able to post a superior source.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...door-dbtr7qbz3

Richard Marshall, of the law firm Penningtons Manches Cooper, said: “Whether a US judgment can be enforced is determined as a matter of English common law.”

The rules by Albert Dicey, the 19th-century jurist, set out that a judgment of a foreign court would not be enforceable in England, unless either the defendant was present in the US when the proceedings were instituted or it submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. Submission would have to be by voluntarily appearing in the proceedings, such as filing a defence, or by prior contractual agreement.

The US federal judge can send a letter of request to the senior master at the High Court in London seeking information that may assist the lawsuit.

That would be governed by English disclosure rules rather than the wider “discovery” applied in the US.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

But how would he be compelled to give the deposition? The US Courts have no authority over a citizen of a foreign country. All they can do is request extradition (not even sure they can do that for a civil proceeding), and I believe that the Met Police's statement of "no crime here" would quash that effort straight away.

Indeed, extradition is a procedure for criminal cases, not civil ones.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradit...ses-and-review

However, refusal to participate could result in a default judgment against him.

[Claricecolin]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

But how would he be compelled to give the deposition? The US Courts have no authority over a citizen of a foreign country. All they can do is request extradition (not even sure they can do that for a civil proceeding), and I believe that the Met Police's statement of "no crime here" would quash that effort straight away.

I am not a lawyer. A quick reading suggests he could refuse if he runs out of options. However I believe that would result in a default against him. That would him basically be admitting guilt. The best thing for him and the RF is to settle asap.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Now what?

From news reports, short summaries of the schedule set earlier by the judge:

What happens next in the legal proceedings?

The legal clock is now ticking in Virginia Giuffre v Prince Andrew - because Judge Kaplan has set an unambiguous timetable to keep things moving towards a trial in the autumn.

In the coming days, he wants to know whether his Manhattan court will be asked to send formal requests to the UK for assistance from judges in London with obtaining evidence. This is a common procedure in some international cases - but it may get complicated and political, depending on what Ms Giuffre's team ask for.

By mid-May he wants to know who the witnesses are going to be for each side.

While all this is going on, Ms Giuffre's team will be pressing for the prince's lawyers to disclose evidence. Their current demands - detailed in court papers - include information about the medical condition 20 years ago that prevented him sweating and, secondly, evidence that he went to Woking Pizza Express.

He must comply with these requests, if the evidence exists.

By mid-July, witnesses will have filed their depositions. This means a formal recording of their evidence, on oath, out of court. If Prince Andrew refuses to comply with that, Virginia Giuffre can seek an automatic judgment in her favour at the end of that month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514

On 25 October, Kaplan issued a scheduling order. Expert witnesses must be disclosed by 13 May. Rebuttal witnesses must be disclosed a month later. The order also states that discovery must be complete by 14 July. Both sides have to file a joint pretrial proposal by 28 July. This will include whether either side wants a trial by jury and if so, questions for potential jurors.

This in no way means the case will progress according to those deadlines.

Mitchell Garabedian has represented victims of sexual abuse for decades, settling more than 2,000 clergy abuse cases.

He said: [...] “The deadlines are a guideline. Usually in these cases, one deposition leads to another unexpected deposition and so on, for both parties. If all parties are acting in good faith, and working diligently, and there’s a reasonable need for an extension of deadlines, judges usually grant those extensions.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...t-happens-next

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

IIndeed, extradition is a procedure for criminal cases, not civil ones

However, refusal to participate could result in a default judgment against him.

This is where the decision laid down by the Metropolitan Police that investigated into the allegations that took place in at Maxwell's home figure in. Andrew would only be extradited to the US on a criminal charge (not a civil one) and in order to be extradited to the US, UK courts would have to deem the allegations against Andrew to be of a criminal nature and punishable by at least a year in jail. So should Andrew be accused of a criminal offense in the US, it would also have to be deemed a crime in the UK. This doesn't apply to the Giuffre lawsuit whatsoever as it's a civil matter.

I still think Andrew and his team of lawyers are going to dig in and let Giuffre do her worse and possibly hang herself in the doing. As I've said before, what else does Andrew stand to lose? A win against Giuffre won't clear his name and reputation. A win against Giuffre isn't going put bold red letters on the Daily Mail's fresh off the press papers stating "The Monarchy Is Safe From Harboring Predators" or "Andrew Honored by Queen in Honor's List".

Even if Andrew is spotted selling maps to the Crown Estate properties tours to pay his settlement to Guiffre (should he lose), anyone that hasn't lived under a rock will realize that he's brought this all down on himself and has been called to face the music and the repercussions that he's caused himself.

[Alison H]

Even in a civil court, I would think it would be very difficult to prove anything. If he wasn't at Pizza Express, it wouldn't prove that he *was* anywhere else. Having your photo taken with someone doesn't prove that you did any more than meet them. I'm not saying that Andrew is innocent, just that it will be very difficult to prove otherwise.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I believe anyone genuinely familiar with the Duke of York's legal planning would be unlikely to chatter on social media about those plans. I also consider that the potential of a public judgment that he committed sexual abuse will cause him, and the royal family and the public, deeper concern than any potential financial losses.

.

Prince Andrew is currently 9th in line to the throne. Even the jury returns a veredict against him (which is very likely), I don't see any major impact on the British monarchy as an institution.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Prince Andrew is currently 9th in line to the throne. Even the jury returns a veredict against him (which is very likely), I don't see any major impact on the British monarchy as an institution.

I really don't see any impact either no matter what way things go from here on out with Andrew and legal cases.

The monarchy survived and thrived going through the period where a king actually turned tail and abdicated the throne for reasons that affected his personal life. Andrew actually is very small potatoes in relationship to the monarchy today. In fact, I'd wager that as Andrew was demoted from roles and stepped back from other various roles, no one has really missed him or wished he was still around to "do the things he does".

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Granada

Andrew was hanging around with Epstein-Maxwell since the early 2000's.

Actually Andrew's friendship with Epstein and Maxwell goes back earlier.
Andrew by his own admission has known Ghislaine since the '80s
Andrew met Epstein in early 1990s and by the summer of 1999 Andrew was obviously so close to them that he invited Epstein, Maxwell, and a mini harem of young women to stay at the Queen's beloved Balmoral.

*Personally* and this is just *my opinion* based on presented facts- the Duke of York is a vile and terrible person because he knew exactly the kind of people Maxwell and Epstein were and yet he still remained close friends with them. He invited them to Balmoral, had them sit on the Queen's throne, and invited them to gatherings organized by the Queen and the DofE...etc

Courtiers- the infamous gray men also share blame. They should have vetted Maxwell and Epstein and if there were even murmurings of unbecoming behaviors- they should have been banned from visiting Balmoral and banned from getting on royal guest lists.

[LauraS3514]

I have no idea what happened in this case. I did have training as a paralegal before my children were born so I do have a little knowledge of the system. Here are my thoughts:

If this goes to court, there will be a jury because it is far easier to get a judgment from twelve people who do not know the letter of the law as opposed to a decision from a judge who does. Guiffre and her legal team will not take that chance. I think it is telling that she was not called by the prosecution in the Maxwell trial even though she was the "public face" of the initial accusations if you will. They knew the defense would tear her apart on cross-examination.

It is quite common to reach a financial settlement without admitting guilt - that happens all the time as it's usually just not worth the effort for large companies or famous people to go through the trial process. In this instance, IF a settlement is reached it will not include an admission of guilt and I am positive that Andrew's legal team will insist on a gag order for Guiffre and her team. No interviews, no books, nada, or the settlement is null and void and will need to be repaid. She may get money from Andrew, but the cash cow stops there.

Again, I don't know what happened and neither does anyone else except those directly involved. What I do know is this: Andrew's life and reputation are ruined and his public life is over, guilty or not, and his family will always have the cloud hanging over them; Guiffre has notoriety she may or may not have wanted but she also may gain a great deal of money (along with her lawyers of course.) The other loser? The Royal Family, especially Beatrice and Eugenie and their children. THEY did nothing wrong but every time they are mentioned in the press, so will this case. And that's not fair.

[royalfandom]

There ARE winners in this lawsuit--and they're called attorneys. Queen Elizabeth will likely end up paying handsomely, but may see it as worth the cost to end the nightmare.

I am fairly confident that this case will never go to trial. Reportedly, 95% to maybe as much as 98% of cases are settled before trial, and sometimes as late as the day trial is supposed to start. I don't see this case falling into the 2%-5% category, even with, or maybe because of the notoriety.

Going to trial for Giufffre might NOT be a slam dunk. Reports are, if true, that she came from a troubled home, and had been sexually abused by multiple people, including Epstein and other clients, and others even before meeting Epstein. Proving how "only" Andrew (and Epstein) damaged her, would seem to be an uphill battle.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Indeed a settlement is not an admissible of guilt (unless one is part of the settlement) and is how the vast majority of cases that are not dismissed outright are resolved, with it meaning that any party is guilty at all.

It's true that many- and surely the most vocal- people would crow from the rooftops that a settlement is Andrew admitting guilt. I would posit, though, that those same people have already decided he is guilty and will say the same about any outcome. If he is found not guilty after a full and fair trial, this same vocal group will be insufferable saying that it was somehow rigged, decided on a technicality, etc.

We can probably count on one hand the number of people waiting for a verdict, or to see the evidence, to decide whether they think Andrew is guilty. Yes, people will say he is guilty if he takes a settlement, but those people already think it.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Claricecolin

He has to try to settle. Otherwise he will be compelled to give a deposition and I don't think he wants that. The questions will she accept a settlement and where does he get the money?

He could sell the remainder of his Royal Lodge lease back to the Crown Estate. He could even be partially reimbursed for the 7.5 million pounds he spent on renovations.

BTW, that lease may have certain terms in it pertaining to commercial for-profit use of the property. Sarah has used the house and grounds to promote her commercial endeavors, the latest being her romance novel. If they violated the terms of the lease, The Crown Estate could take it back.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Alison H

He's exactly what Prince Albert always dreaded - a throwback to the days of the Hanoverian younger sons. But even Prince Albert couldn't make his children be what he wanted.

50 years ago,, maybe even 30 years ago, this would all have been hushed up, however wrong that may have been. But the world has changed, and I don't think Andrew gets that.

It would still have been hushed up in the UK, even today. Andrew's downfall was to have a civil lawsuit brought against him in the US and in New York of all places.

[BriarRose]

Do you really think so? I just don't think the U.K. newspapers would pass up the opportunity at such a juicy story, even if it was filed in the U.K. Civil cases are still part of the public record in the U.K. And I don't think Ms. Giuffre would have not gone the press either.

As far as the U.S., it would be public no matter what state it was filed in.

And even if the newspapers were somehow kept quiet, the internet cannot be controlled. This is massive clickbait. Some citizen journalists would have put it out there.

I have no idea what Andrew is going to do, but I would think he would have to pay an exorbitant amount of money to get the type of settlement his family will desire- a settlement with a gag clause that bans Ms. Guiffre from ever discussing the allegations again. At the same time, I can't imagine the risk of the headlines if he loses the lawsuit.

I also would think that after watching his voluntary TV interview, his attorneys are dreading his future deposition.

[US Royal Watcher]

My understanding is that there is still a chance the lawsuit will be dismissed. I don't handle civil litigation like this but it seems that her residency argument is based on maintaining voter registration at her mother's address. She may have additional links but in most of the cases I've been involved with, the person establishes residency based on a financial account and voting registration.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

My understanding is that there is still a chance the lawsuit will be dismissed. I don't handle civil litigation like this but it seems that her residency argument is based on maintaining voter registration at her mother's address. She may have additional links but in most of the cases I've been involved with, the person establishes residency based on a financial account and voting registration.

Well, the case wont be dismissed because of the settlement between the now deceased Mr. Epstein and Mrs. Virginia Giuffre. That is clear by now:
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/...022%200900.pdf

A lot of complicated American-English in the text above, but it basically says in my humble understanding, the settlement was not about Prince Andrew. But this decision might open a way for a future appeal of Prince Andrew against a verdict not favourite to him.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/1...uffre-lawsuit/

[Granada]

I would just like to say that as of this ruling today Andrew and His Legal Team will be proceeding on how The Queen and Charles NOW want this to be handled.
They allowed him to respond and try to squash it, that failed and now a Trial is being planned. Discovery, Deposition and a Trial ? Unbelievable.
I (laughingly)picture Andrew being called into a meeting with The Queen and Charles, and Andrew says....."I and my lawyers are planning"....and Charles drops the hammer and say something like, "No THIS IS WHAT YOU are going to do".
Doesn't matter what Andrew wants now. The Queen, Charles and their Advisors will decide on the least risk adverse way forward during The Jubilee Year, of a 96 year old Woman, Mother and Queen.
Andrew is superfluous now. He got himself into this situation and has bungled it at every turn. He is done. He will never return to Public life. I doubt even to be seen on The Balcony.
From the 'friendship' with Epstein to the ill considered bombshell 'interview' in 2019. Just terrible. Love to know who approved that one. Or was Andrew just going rogue again ? Zero oversight.
Charles is probably making the calls with the Queen on how to minimize the damage and hopefully get Virginia and her Team to settle. Quickly and quietly. If they can, that is.