The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[sophie25]

Andrew said he never met her so why would he think her agreement with Epstein should involve him in the first place?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Lori138

I don't see how she could have as the agreement signed between her and Epstein would have scuttled any lawsuits. Personally, as others have said here, she may have been trafficked, but she did not leave this lifestyle until she was an adult and could have left sooner. She has already been paid millions of dollars, if not from Epstein, then from Maxwell and at this point to me she just looks like a gold digger, no matter who she is suing.

But now that Epstein is no longer alive and, per Judge Kaplan's logic, cannot enforce the settlement, why doesn't she also sue Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, or any of her other prominent American clients (or abusers depending on the PoV) ? Do her lawyers perhaps think that an American jury is more likely to decide against a British prince, who is seen by most Americans as an entitled / privileged individual who lives off taxpayers' money?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Andrew said he never met her so why would he think her agreement with Epstein should involve him in the first place?

He didn't say he never met her, he said he coulld not recollect meeting her.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

But now that Epstein is no longer alive and, per Judge Kaplan's logic, cannot enforce the settlement, why doesn't she also sue Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, or any of her other prominent American clients (or abusers depending on the PoV) ? Do her lawyers perhaps think that an American jury is more likely to decide against a British prince, who is seen by most Americans as an entitled / privileged individual who lives off taxpayers' money?

Did she ever say Clinton and Trump were involved with her?

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Denville

He didn't say he never met her, he said he coulld not recollect meeting her.

He absolutely denies her accusations so why would he think her deal with Epstein ought to include him?

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Lori138

She has already been paid millions of dollars, if not from Epstein, then from Maxwell and at this point to me she just looks like a gold digger, no matter who she is suing.

Well, she might be out for revenge... But anyway, let's say this Andrew story is milked by her, only to make money... - So what? Does this make Prince Andrew an innocent victim, if he did what is claimed? Obviously not!

I think, it is somehow cool, this new sign of the times, that the downtrodden, the oppressed, can sue their oppressors and make a very fine living out of it.

This teaches the society discipline and keeps the mighty in check.

[Moonmaiden23]

So if PA loses this civil case, how are the plaintiff and her attorneys planning to collect?

Does Andrew have any money of his own or is it all in Trust for his children?

Royal Lodge belongs to the Crown. They cannot touch it.

How much leeway does the American justice system have in Britain against a member of the Royal family?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Did she ever say Clinton and Trump were involved with her?

I don’t think so, but they were associated with Epstein. Anyway, I mentioned them figuratively. The point was that she is only suing Andrew now because he may be the easiest target. The settlement will no longer be an excuse not to sue other potential defendants if the judge rules it cannot be enforced.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by sophie25

He absolutely denies her accusations so why would he think her deal with Epstein ought to include him?

Because of the words of the deal, specifically the clause referring to "other potential defendants". You will find the full text of the deal at this link https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64713.32.1.pdf and a summary of his (counsel's) interpretation of it at this link https://news.sky.com/story/prince-an...wsuit-12508943.

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Excuse my lack of knowledge could somebody explain to me the statute of limitations, the timeframes and the relevance in these particular circumstances.

From the Sky News link:

New York State's Child Victims Act was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2019. This allowed for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file a case which had already been time-barred.

A year was given for this action to take place, which was extended again due to disruption during the COVID pandemic.

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

The only reason to delay filing is because she was worried that exculpatory evidence would come to light earlier.

There are other potential reasons, first and foremost that the Duke of York's ill-advised 2019 interview (as well as the charges of sex trafficking later filed against his close friend) could bolster the credibility of her recollections. There was at least one YouGov poll indicating that in the aftermath of the Duke's Newsnight interview, the number of Britons who credit Virginia Giuffre's allegations about him had substantially increased compared to 2015.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don’t think so, but they were associated with Epstein. Anyway, I mentioned them figuratively. The point was that she is only suing Andrew now because he may be the easiest target. The settlement will no longer be an excuse not to sue other potential defendants if the judge rules it cannot be enforced.

Indeed, she has not accused any former US presidents. As discussed earlier, Ms. Giuffre did file suit against a prominent professor and legal analyst to whom she says she was trafficked (he strongly denies her allegation).

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don’t think so, but they were associated with Epstein. Anyway, I mentioned them figuratively. The point was that she is only suing Andrew now because he may be the easiest target. The settlement will no longer be an excuse not to sue other potential defendants if the judge rules it cannot be enforced.

I agree. It will never happen but I would love for someone to ask her on the record why, of all the scores of famous powerful and wealthy men...men richer by far than Andrew , what made her decide that QEII's second son was the one to pursue in court.

Probably because she knew that only Andrew was foolish enough to be photographed with her. That made it simpler.

I know she also went after Alan Dershowitz but for reasons that are not clear he threatened her and she dropped it.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by sophie25

Andrew said he never met her so why would he think her agreement with Epstein should involve him in the first place?

A salient point.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

So if PA loses this civil case, how are the plaintiff and her attorneys planning to collect?



Does Andrew have any money of his own or is it all in Trust for his children?



Royal Lodge belongs to the Crown. They cannot touch it.



How much leeway does the American justice system have in Britain against a member of the Royal family?

I think Andrew does have some private funds stashed away some place. For years he has smooched with the über wealthy. Like most people he probably wants to pass something along to his descendants.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

He didn't say he never met her, he said he coulld not recollect meeting her.

That is not what the Duke said. He stated he has no recollection of having met Ms Roberts. That is what we all experience, as I have absolutely no recollection who sat next to me on my flight from Amsterdam to Barcelona, and who sat next to me on the return flight. But I can not deny I possibly have met a person X or a person Y who sat next to me -for three hours- on Seat 6E.


It is the Duke's legal team which does what it has to do and they pointed to an agreement Ms Roberts had made with Mr Epstein: settle all and everything for half a million US Dollars.

[LadyRaven]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That is not what the Duke said. He stated he has no recollection of having met Ms Roberts. That is what we all experience, as I have absolutely no recollection who sat next to me on my flight from Amsterdam to Barcelona, and who sat next to me on the return flight. But I can not deny I possibly have met a person X or a person Y who sat next to me -for three hours- on Seat 6E.


.

I work at the same bank for 15 years and the number of people acting like I remember them is staggering. All the electronic systems back up that I have helped them multiple times but no I don’t remember them at all. It’s a 9 to 5 for me. Can’t imagine how much worse that would be for a member of the BRF to remember someone from 20 years ago. Silly season right there.

[LadyRaven]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Excuse my lack of knowledge could somebody explain to me the statute of limitations, the timeframes and the relevance in these particular circumstances.

The statute of limitations is one in which can limit the time frame to sue a person for an action because memory fades and witness day and what have you. In the name of timely justice . The original statue of limitations had passed on this but NY governor cumo extended the limitations to one additional year. Virginia had filed her lawsuit a few days before that year was up. The issue now is bank records are destroyed after 7 years, the body guard has died and royal protection records are destroyed after 2 years. If the suit was filled earlier we might have all these things

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by LadyRaven

I work at the same bank for 15 years and the number of people acting like I remember them is staggering. All the electronic systems back up that I have helped them multiple times but no I don’t remember them at all. It’s a 9 to 5 for me. Can’t imagine how much worse that would be for a member of the BRF to remember someone from 20 years ago. Silly season right there.

I'm sure you would remember a customer you had sex with.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by sophie25

I'm sure you would remember a customer you had sex with.

Not necessarily. Not if, for example, Giuffre was just one of Epstein's girls that Andrew had intimate relations with. Like I've said before, Andrew could have just seen it as a "perk" of being friends with Epstein/Maxwell. Like a box of cigars on the nightstand or a bottle of scotch. This kind of sex doesn't involve the emotions but is just purely physical lust being satiated.

[Claire]

Don't you think that the prosecutors would have pulled them, if its a them out of the woodwork by now. Or heavily suggested it - to several outlets of the media.

I was listening to a podcast that noted that the purpose of this case was to pull one figurehead to trial to scapegoat for all the others that should be there. And that this was the prefect scapegoat as no American political party will get their hands dirty with the outcome. Even getting any anything out the courts will a victory to the prosecutor, as money for the victims was not the purpose of it. It was to pretend to care about the victims of the Epstein case, when most politicians, financers and Hollywood big honchos really don't give a nod. It was even noted that the prosecutor should be accepting a pay check from Rupert Murddock. This was such a perfect outcome for so many people.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That is not what the Duke said. He stated he has no recollection of having met Ms Roberts. That is what we all experience, as I have absolutely no recollection who sat next to me on my flight from Amsterdam to Barcelona, and who sat next to me on the return flight. But I can not deny I possibly have met a person X or a person Y who sat next to me -for three hours- on Seat 6E.


It is the Duke's legal team which does what it has to do and they pointed to an agreement Ms Roberts had made with Mr Epstein: settle all and everything for half a million US Dollars.

yes that is what I said. He claimed that he did not reccollect meeting her. However the picture proves that he did meet her.. and hada photo taken. He may or may not have had sex with her...

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Excuse my lack of knowledge could somebody explain to me the statute of limitations, the timeframes and the relevance in these particular circumstances.

I hope I explain this correctly but I can count on other lawyers on the forum to help out if I get something wrong.

Laws for time periods to bring a civil law suit (statutes of limitations) vary from country to country and even within the United States, depending on which area you live in. But it is important to know that according to Wikipedia, Virginia Giuffre was born on August 9, 1983. She is alleging that Andrew had sex with her in New York, London, and the Virgin Islands, when she was 17 (2000 and/or 2001).

There are legal limits on how long someone has to file a civil law suit for events that have happened in the past. There are several reasons to prohibit people from filing lawsuits for old cases: memories fade, physical evidence gets damaged or lost, and we want to prevent courts from being overrun with lawsuits for events that happened long ago.

Up until recently, the statute of limittions in New York prohibited alleged child victims of sexual assault from filing a lawsuit after their 23rd birthday. So under prior law, the statute of limitations for Ms. Giuffre's case expired on August 8, 2006.

However, since many victims argued that they were too traumatized or frightened to file a lawsuit before they turned 23, New York passed a law that gave sexual assault victims until August 14, 2021 to file a claim if the statute of limitations had already expired. That is the law Andrew claims is unconstitutional because it wasn't in place when the event allegedly took place.

Additionally, because Ms. Giuffre was a resident of Florida and was taken to other states (and the UK), she had 10 years after her 18th birthday to file a federal lawsuit. So she could have filed a lawsuit in federal court until August 8, 2012.

I also note that my understanding is that the age of consent in New York, the Virgin Islands, and London was 16 at the time of the alleged events. I assume that she is arguing that Andrew was aware she was a trafficking victim but I find that hard to believe.

I can see Epstein bragging about access to all the girls, but I can't see him going into a lot of detail as to how he's illegally bringing them to other jurisdictions. Andrew was friends with Epstein but I can't believe that Andrew was in Epstein's inner circle. In fact, I can more easily believe Epstein and Maxwell took pains to hide criminal activities because they would have been worried about Andrew's security team and government survelliance.