The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/...s-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]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

An article on the court hearing of September 13:

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-09-13/...s-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]

Originally Posted by 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/entert...nt/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/...w-if-necessary

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Alison H

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]

Originally Posted by Alison H

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.

[Sunnystar]

Originally Posted by Osipi

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.

That's my understanding of what Dershowitz is saying as well. Whatever agreement Guiffre reached with Epstein in 2009 was supposed to shield basically all of the men who slept with her while she was under age from being sued by her at some point in the future.

[Roslyn]

I am having trouble understanding how an agreement she made with Epstein would prevent Guiffre from bringing civil proceedings against Dershovitz or Andrew.

[Osipi]

I'm understanding the wording of the settlement that Epstein paid off to Giuffre has explicit wording that states that the settlement covers *anything* that Epstein wanted her to do and did put a shield around the men Epstein wanted her to accommodate. This is just my impression as I've not read the settlement agreement itself.

[Leopoldine]

But if that settlement is binding, prosecutors seemed to jettison it when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell.

If it was not binding for Ghislaine, why would it ever apply to Andrew?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

But if that settlement is binding, prosecutors seemed to jettison it when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell.

If it was not binding for Ghislaine, why would it ever apply to Andrew?

I would think that Maxwell wouldn't even have been included in the settlement because she wasn't an actual "victim" of Epstein. Everything Maxwell did to aid and abet Epstein's "circle" was of her own free will and done without coercion or threats. Epstein probably knew he had Maxwell willingly to do as he wished hook, line and sinker.

Andrew was one of the men that is alleged to have had Giuffre "provided" for him as a "perk" of friendship or whatever else it was that they had between them. A whole different ball o' wax.

Besides, Giuffre has already had a case against Maxwell. Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in federal court in New York in September 2015. After much legal confrontation, the case was settled under seal in June 2017 with Maxwell reportedly paying Giuffre "millions". This tells me that Giuffre isn't hurting for money and is able to afford "expensive" lawyers.

[Leopoldine]

But the secretive settlement was composed to shield the predators, not other victims.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree. Over the last few days, we've had Prince Andrew hiding away so he can't be served with papers, and now his lawyers saying that he can't be sued because of this settlement reached with someone else. I still don't think he's guilty, but, for someone who supposedly has nothing to hide, he's not exactly acting like an innocent man.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I agree. Over the last few days, we've had Prince Andrew hiding away so he can't be served with papers, and now his lawyers saying that he can't be sued because of this settlement reached with someone else. I still don't think he's guilty, but, for someone who supposedly has nothing to hide, he's not exactly acting like an innocent man.

To me it is all just tactics and his legal team simply does not want to roll out the red carpet for the likes of Ms Giuffre. It is a good right of anyone to fight with all means. I would do the same.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

But if that settlement is binding, prosecutors seemed to jettison it when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell.

If it was not binding for Ghislaine, why would it ever apply to Andrew?

A settlement agreement between Virginia and Epstein cannot bind the State who are the ones prosecuting Maxwell because they were not a party to it. It can only bind those who are parties to it i.e. impose obligations benefits and restrictions on those who made the agreement - Virginia and Epstein.

If Virginia wanted to sue Maxwell like she is suing Andrew the agreement might apply to prevent her depending on its wording. If the State of New York had the evidence to bring criminal proceedings against Andrew, Dershowitz or anyone else, an agreement between Virginia and Epstein cannot prevent them doing so.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

But the secretive settlement was composed to shield the predators, not other victims.

Yes that's what it looks like and if it is and Andrew can't get sued because of it then can you imagine the take on that in the media and by the public? ie Andrew escapes court case because of a deal his pal Epstein did to help his friends get out of trouble.