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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

I would like to ask those who have closely followed the events: When contacted by the media, the Duke of York's spokesperson declined to comment on the civil suit. Is it the first time in recent years that the Duke's spokespersons have refused to comment on Virginia Giuffre's allegations instead of repeating the categorical denial, or has it already happened before?

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I am a lawyer but haven’t practiced in a while. I’ve certainly never been involved in a suit trying to obtain jurisdiction over a foreign national.

I agree with Roslyn the complaint is well drafted. It is more than barebones but it has to be as a line of cases came out from US Supreme Court about 14 years ago that require more than barebone complaints in federal filings.

I also see some of the details as a way to head off a challenge to the courts jurisdiction. Essentially, Andrew can challenge the suit on the grounds that the court cannot constitutionally acquire jurisdiction over his person because he has not had enough contacts with the forum state. I see some of the details involving Epstein as a way to head that off, not simply to sensationalize. The allegations in a complaint must be take as true at this point, challenges to credibility usually come later. The allegations are Andrew committed a tortuous act in New York. That would generally trigger jurisdiction under what we call “long arm” statutes. However I believe Andrew will try to mount a serious challenge to that. The other details of his connection to Epstein might be enough to sway a court there are enough “minimum contacts” to permit the case to proceed.

The personal jurisdiction challenge IMO is Andrews last best chance to avoid what he really dreads; subjecting himself to formal investigation in this matter. If he can’t get it dismissed on technical grounds this is very serious.

There is also the issue of getting to him to serve him personally with the complaint but from a public relations standpoint any evasion of service could be disastrous particularly if the BRF is seen cooperating with that.

 

[Osipi]

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.

This is very true but I'd also like to add that there's another angle to doing this that makes me believe that removing Andrew's titles and removing him from the succession will never happen.

Doing so would set a precedent. If Parliament drafted an act and it was ratified by all that are required for ratification, it stands in Parliament then not only for Andrew but then for *any* peer that is deemed to have "behaved badly". As Andrew, at this time, is only accused of something that isn't even considered a crime in London, "behaving badly" kind of fits the bill.

Parliament, to my knowledge has only stripped a peer of his titles for one reason only and that is treason against crown and country.

 

[Lady Daly]

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

Tatiana Maria, your contributions are excellent! I always look forward to your posts I see Ista the moderator sent out a warning so people may refrain a bit more.

And thank you again GracieGiraffe and also Roslyn. It really helps to get a legal perspective.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

We’re not even close to consideration of removing his titles and or taking him out of the line of succession. These accusations are just that, accusations. I think everyone is entitled to some form of due process where they can challenge accusations and put up a defense.

 

[Rayal]

Defense lawyers preferred Ghislaine Maxwell's trial to begin on Nov. 8 while prosecutors wanted it to start Nov. 29th, but jury selection can occur the week of Nov. 15. Public interest in this will really increase substantially at that time. I have not researched who Prince Andrew has been taking guidance from but so far it has not been stellar. His missteps continue to pile up. Even so he remains innocent until proven guilty in American courts as of now. Please, please, please, tell the grey suits not to schedule a dinner party with New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo.

 

[UglyAmerican]

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

Well, no one can really know whether he's sincere or not. But his scheme was to steal money from giant banks, and he rightly spent years in prison for that. There's enough of a leap from that to sexually abusing 14-year-olds that I don't think it's so unbelievable that someone might do the former and be horrified by the latter. I just don't see a motive, other than a sincere desire to do what he believes is right, for him to speak out against Epstein now, especially since he's not denying his own role in the earlier Ponzi scheme. If his motive was to get back at Epstein for throwing him under the bus in the Ponzi scheme, that motive would have disappeared when Epstein died. But he's still here talking about it and assisting Epstein's alleged victims with lawsuits to get at Epstein's money. Why else would he do that?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

According to a former business associate, Epstein made his money in a Ponzi scheme in which they were both involved. (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/7511...r-business-associate-i-want-to-assist-victims) Netflix's miniseries about Epstein interviewed this guy, and he seemed sincerely horrified at what he'd unwittingly enabled.

I think Epstein was also involved in arms dealing, which is not only very profitable but it would have put him in contact with some really bad people.

 

[Eskimo]

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.

I think there’s a picture out there if Andrew and Ms. Guffrie along with the Maxwell creature.

Also, I find it interesting that she tried to get Andrew to settle privately but he (and I’m guessing the RF’s lawyers) ignored her.

Also her lawyer is shady as well having represented Harvey Weinstein

 

[Roslyn]

I think there’s a picture out there if Andrew and Ms. Guffrie along with the Maxwell creature.

Also, I find it interesting that she tried to get Andrew to settle privately but he (and I’m guessing the RF’s lawyers) ignored her.

Also her lawyer is shady as well having represented Harvey Weinstein

I'm not surprised Andrew ignored her attempts to settle. He seems to be an astonishingly arrogant man whose own words indicate that he does not give much consequence to those he deems to be beneath him. I find it normal that Ms Giuffre's lawyers would attempt to settle; that's standard operating procedure for litigation of this type in the jurisdictions in which I practise. Here the parties are expected to try and settle and if they don't make a reasonable attempt there can be severe costs penalties for them.

I am defensively bristling at the suggestion that a lawyer should be tainted with the crimes/flaws of their clients.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am defensively bristling at the suggestion that a lawyer should be tainted with the crimes/flaws of their clients.

Agreed. Particularly as it is essential to justice that all defendants, and most importantly those accused of serious crimes, have access to legal representation.

On a related issue, quotes from anonymous "royal sources" have been put out in British papers (for example) calling into question the legal strategy of the Duke of York's team of solicitors, namely saying that their continued silence on the court case may damage the reputation of the duke and the monarchy. I find that criticism inappropriate: For the legal team, their professional responsibility is to protect the legal interests of their client, not the reputation of the monarchy.

 

[Mbruno]

Agreed. Particularly as it is essential to justice that all defendants, and most importantly those accused of serious crimes, have access to legal representation.

On a related issue, quotes from anonymous "royal sources" have been put out in British papers (for example) calling into question the legal strategy of the Duke of York's team of solicitors, namely saying that their continued silence on the court case may damage the reputation of the duke and the monarchy. I find that criticism inappropriate: For the legal team, their professional responsibility is to protect the legal interests of their client, not the reputation of the monarchy.

Has the Duke hired a legal firm in the US to represent him?

 

[camelot23ca]

I'm not surprised Andrew ignored her attempts to settle. He seems to be an astonishingly arrogant man whose own words indicate that he does not give much consequence to those he deems to be beneath him. I find it normal that Ms Giuffre's lawyers would attempt to settle; that's standard operating procedure for litigation of this type in the jurisdictions in which I practise. Here the parties are expected to try and settle and if they don't make a reasonable attempt there can be severe costs penalties for them.

I am defensively bristling at the suggestion that a lawyer should be tainted with the crimes/flaws of their clients.

What constitutes a “reasonable attempt” to settle in a case like this, where she’s accusing him of something that he so far categorically denies? I don’t have a clear understanding of how these sorts of civil suits work. Can he reach any sort of settlement with her without admitting guilt?

 

[Osipi]

This is a good article that explains what could happen with this civil suit and the repercussions with whatever strategy Andrew and his team of lawyers decide to follow concerning it.

No matter how you slice it, this is not going to do Andrew any favors whatsoever. It states right in this article though that Guiffre's main motivation is monetary to recompense for her suffering.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/13/uk/royal-news-newsletter-08-13-21-scli-gbr-cmd-intl/index.html

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If her primary motivation is monetary compensation why is she zeroing in on Andrew? I find it difficult to believe that he was the only wealthy male she had to be with during her time with Epstein.

Does Giuffre's civil suit target more than one person? Have the others already settled with her?

 

[Alison H]

I don't know how the US system works so I can't comment on that. In the UK, people will sometimes agree a settlement without admitting guilt in something like an employment tribunal, where a former employee sues their former employer for wrongful dismissal. But I can't see how that could work in this sort of case. If Andrew agrees to pay Virginia Giuffre so much as a penny, then surely he'll be admitting that he owes her damages because he's done her wrong.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

It's quite common to reach settlements where neither party admits fault. The reality is that civil litigation is mind-numbingly expensive for both parties, and even if an accused party genuinely feels that he is not at fault, it can often be much more cost-effective and save years of trouble to simply agree to a settlement rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against a civil claim. In fact, people not in Andrew' s privileged position often have no choice but to settle when they are completely innocent of the claim against them, simply because they do not have the money to litigate. In the US, it is nigh on impossible to recover litigation fees. It is for this reason that something like 90%+ of cases settle. It has little or nothing to do with the fault of the parties or the merits, legal or otherwise, of the cases.

I suspect one of two things is keeping and will keep this case from settling:

(1) the public perception that settling is tantamount to admitting guilt, which Andrew will be keenly aware of
(2) the plaintiff may refuse to settle without an admission of guilt, which would not surprise me

 

[padams2359]

Epstein’s estate settle, through a foundation, with 100+ women with somewhere in the $125 million range with amounts varying based on variables of the abuse. It was done quietly to protect the women.

That does not settle Andrew’s guilt, or anyone else’s. If she wants to go after each of them, go for it.

 

[BriarRose]

It's normal in the settlement agreements (in the U.S.) for the defendant to explicitly not admit fault, but instead is paying simply to spare legal expense. In most states, it's also normal for the terms of the settlement to be confidential.

I've never liked Andrew, so it's hard for me to be unbiased about him, but we really don't know how reasonable Ms. Guiffre's previous settlement discussions were. I've certainly seen plaintiffs make an outrageous demand (more money than the defendant has; or with an unreasonable deadline, given the amount of money demanded), then turn around and claim that they tried so hard to settle with the defendant, but the defendant refused to do so. In some states civil plaintiffs are required to make a settlement demad prior to filing a lawsuit.

It's normal for Ms. Guiffre's complaint (papers filed in the court against Andrew) to state that she is solely seeking monetary compensation. In civil court, you have the seek relief that the court is legally allowed to award you, so you have to outright state you are seeking monetary compensation for something that is legally recognized (pain and suffering).

Personally, I'm not concluding anything untoward against Ms. Guiffre's intentions or accusations by her choice of attorney. I do suspect that her attorney expects to profit for this lawsuit, and I don't know that Andrew truly understands that this won't be going away easily.

 

[Mbruno]

It's normal in the settlement agreements (in the U.S.) for the defendant to explicitly not admit fault, but instead is paying simply to spare legal expense. In most states, it's also normal for the terms of the settlement to be confidential.

I've never liked Andrew, so it's hard for me to be unbiased about him, but we really don't know how reasonable Ms. Guiffre's previous settlement discussions were. I've certainly seen plaintiffs make an outrageous demand (more money than the defendant has; or with an unreasonable deadline, given the amount of money demanded), then turn around and claim that they tried so hard to settle with the defendant, but the defendant refused to do so. In some states civil plaintiffs are required to make a settlement demad prior to filing a lawsuit.

It's normal for Ms. Guiffre's complaint (papers filed in the court against Andrew) to state that she is solely seeking monetary compensation. In civil court, you have the seek relief that the court is legally allowed to award you, so you have to outright state you are seeking monetary compensation for something that is legally recognized (pain and suffering).

Personally, I'm not concluding anything untoward against Ms. Guiffre's intentions or accusations by her choice of attorney. I do suspect that her attorney expects to profit for this lawsuit, and I don't know that Andrew truly understands that this won't be going away easily.

It is entirely possible IMHO that Virginia Giuffre and/or her lawyers overestimated Andrew's wealth and made outrageous settlement demands well beyond Andrew's ability to pay. Most American have this misconception that British royals are billionaires as they confuse the Crown Estate (held in trust by the Queen in right of the Crown) with the Royal Family's private fortune.

I also agree it is somewhat odd that she is targeting Andrew specifically when, given Epstein's network of acquaintances, there are probably other far wealthier men who might have abused her and whom she could go after.

Prince Andrew might perhaps be even more of a celebrity than other potential defendants, but he is not necessarily the best one to go after if Ms Giuffre's primary goal is financial compensation.