The judge in Prince Andrew‘s sex abuse case came down hard on the royal’s lawyer as he argued that a sex assault lawsuit against Queen Elizabeth’s second son should be thrown out of court.  

Judge Lewis Kaplan heard arguments Tuesday morning in Virginia Roberts Giuffre‘s case against the Duke of York. The judge said he will rule on whether to dismiss Giuffre’s case against Andrew ‘pretty soon.’ 

Andrew’s lawyers argued that a $500,000 deal between Giuffre and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein shields the duke from liability, as she sues him for alleged sexual assault when she was a teenager.  

Giuffre’s legal team claims that the agreement is irrelevant to her complaint against Andrew  and that the case must proceed – but the duke’s legal team has now made its argument to dismiss the case.

Giuffre’s lawyer described the royal as ‘somebody to whom the girls were trafficked’ as a hearing in the bombshell case took place in New York. 

The Duke of York was photographed with his arm around the bare waist of then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts. In the background, Ghislaine Maxwell. Roberts claims she was forced to have sex with the royal three times

Judge Lewis Kaplan  heard arguments for an hour in Virginia Giuffre's claims against the Duke of York. Kaplan gave Giuffre's lawyer a hard time, interrupting his points several times during Tuesday's hearing

Judge Lewis Kaplan  heard arguments for an hour in Virginia Giuffre's claims against the Duke of York. Kaplan gave Giuffre's lawyer a hard time, interrupting his points several times during Tuesday's hearing

Judge Lewis Kaplan  heard arguments for an hour in Virginia Giuffre’s claims against the Duke of York. Kaplan gave Giuffre’s lawyer a hard time, interrupting his points several times during Tuesday’s hearing

Virginia Giuffre's lawyer David Boies (with Giuffre at an earlier hearing) claimed that Prince Andrew was not covered by a settlement with Jeffrey Epstein as he was not alleged to be a sex trafficker but 'somebody to whom the girls were trafficked'

Virginia Giuffre's lawyer David Boies (with Giuffre at an earlier hearing) claimed that Prince Andrew was not covered by a settlement with Jeffrey Epstein as he was not alleged to be a sex trafficker but 'somebody to whom the girls were trafficked'

Virginia Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies (with Giuffre at an earlier hearing) claimed that Prince Andrew was not covered by a settlement with Jeffrey Epstein as he was not alleged to be a sex trafficker but ‘somebody to whom the girls were trafficked’

Prince Andrew hired celebrity attorney Andrew Brettler to represent him in the sexual assault case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre

Prince Andrew hired celebrity attorney Andrew Brettler to represent him in the sexual assault case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre

Andrew's attorney Andrew Brettler of powerhouse Los Angeles law firm Lavely & Singer

Andrew's attorney Andrew Brettler of powerhouse Los Angeles law firm Lavely & Singer

Prince Andrew has hired Hollywood attorney Andrew Brettler (right) to represent him in the sexual assault case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre

Judge Lewis Kaplan held the case by video call a day after a document was made public revealing the terms of the payout from Epstein, who was found dead in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial. 

The document stated that Giuffre had in 2009 agreed to ‘release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge’ Epstein and ‘any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant’.

Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies said Andrew could not be a ‘potential defendant’ as referred to in the civil case documents released yesterday for two reasons.

He told the judge: ‘The only claim that is asserted that was made in Florida in the 2009 action that covered Prince Andrew was the third count which was to transport somebody for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. 

‘There is no allegation that Prince Andrew was the person transporting. There is no allegation that Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were doing the trafficking. He was somebody to whom the girls were trafficked.’ 

Judge Kaplan repeatedly interrupted Andrew’s lawyer Andrew Brettler, cutting him off mid sentence to ask him questions, sometimes repeating the same question. The judge interrupted Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies several times but his tone appeared significantly less abrasive.  

How Andrew is trying to have sex assault case thrown out

Prince Andrew’s lawyers appeared at a New York court Tuesday to try to get his sex assault case dismissed. 

Virginia Giuffre, 38, claims she was 17 when she slept with Andrew three times in 2001 under orders from Jeffrey Epstein, a friend of the duke. She is suing for claims of battery and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Andrew has called her accusations ‘baseless’ and repeatedly denied them, claiming that she is seeking a ‘payday at his expense’. 

His lawyers are using details of a $500,000 settlement reached in 2009 between Ms Giuffre and Epstein to block the case against the duke. 

They will argue that Andrew was essentially identified as a defendant in that settlement and so Ms Giuffre signed away the right to sue him.   

The unsealed court papers revealed that she agreed to ‘release, acquit, satisfy and for ever discharge’ Epstein and ‘any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant’.  

Andrew is not named in the settlement but his lawyers believe he is covered as a ‘potential defendant’. 

The document also references the term ‘royalty’, something the duke’s lawyers also suggest gives them ‘strong legal ground’ to dismiss the case.

It says: ‘In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy the defendant’s every sexual whim, (she) was also required to be sexually exploited by (Epstein’s) adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.’ 

His lawyers believe the document gives him a strong case to have the claims against him dismissed, though experts say its wording is ‘vague’. 

If unsuccessful, Andrew faces the prospect of a lengthy discovery and deposition process that could involve close members of family and his police protection officers, ahead of a trial in the autumn. 

<!—->

Advertisement

Giuffre, a 38-year-old mother-of-three, sued Andrew in federal court in New York in July for infliction of emotional distress and battery.

She claims she was forced to have sex with the duke three times in 2001 at Epstein’s command when she was 17.

Andrew strongly denies her claims and has said she is after ‘another payday at his expense’.

Brettler went first arguing each of the duke’s points. He spoke on the 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre and the phrase ‘other potential defendants.’

Brettler said, ‘That phrase has to be given meaning. It must go beyond  Epstein or this broad category that the head football coach of the University of Kansas could fit into?’

Judge Kaplan said, ‘What is a potential defendant as opposed to a defendant?’

Brettler answered but the judge, unsatisfied with his answer, cut in to repeat the question.

Judge Kaplan said: ‘What’s a potential defendant as opposed to someone who could have been named as a defendant but had not been?

Brettler: ‘I don’t think there would be a distinction.’

Judge Kaplan said: ‘That comes to another point. The word potential must have meant something and if there’s no difference it means nothing.’

Judge Kaplan added: ‘This is the use of the word potential to which neither you nor I can find any meaning at all.’

Brettler responded: ‘I respectfully disagree. Potential defendant is someone who could have been named in that lawsuit but was not, unlike this head coach…’

Judge Kaplan interrupted and Brettler explained further what ‘other potential defendant’ meant.’

Brettler said: ‘Someone who was not named as a defendant but could have been by virtue of the allegations Giuffre had articulated in her complaint to include Prince Andrew.

‘It’s unquestionable Prince Andrew could have been sued in the 2009 Florida action. He was not.

‘Therefore he was a potential defendant and a release under 2009 settlement by its unambiguous terms.’

Judge Kaplan cut in again and said that ‘this would include the Sultan of Brunei?’

Brettler responded: ‘If there were allegations against the Sultan of Brunei then it would’.

Brettler pointed out that Giuffre dismissed a claim of battery against the lawyer Alan Dershowitz based on the same settlement.

Judge Kaplan said that ‘none of that is in the record’ and documents he’d seen outside of the case were ‘not consistent with that’

The judge added: ‘Dershowitz was an attorney for Epstein and attorneys were released specifically in the other part of the clause.’

Brettler countered: ‘It is true he was an attorney for Epstein, he was not an attorney for Epstein in that case, I believe.’

Judge Kaplan cut in to say: ‘So what?’

Brettler responded: ‘In settlement agreements not all attorneys are released from liability.’

Judge Kaplan said: ‘I understand you’re asserting that but that doesn’t mean it’s true. There could be a different view.’ 

Judge Kaplan continued, ‘We’re talking about the question of whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of the language that could have been included. As a defendant, I understand your point of view, and I understand the other point of view to which I haven’t heard a persuasive answer, that is, that it was narrower than you suggested. 

‘Certainly if the intention of the parties had been was to release any other person or entity involved in any of the sexual activities with Mr. Epstein or others, it would have been easy to say it? Seems to me on the face of it possibly reasonable alternative views.’

Brettler replied, ‘I don’t disagree it would have been easier to say it. It would have been easy to leave out the phrase other possible defendant.

To which Kaplan said, ‘Maybe Epstein wouldn’t give her half a million dollars for clearer language?’ 

Prince Andrew came under fire after he was spotted taking a stroll through New York's Central Park with Epstein following his prison term in 2011

Prince Andrew came under fire after he was spotted taking a stroll through New York's Central Park with Epstein following his prison term in 2011

Prince Andrew came under fire after he was spotted taking a stroll through New York’s Central Park with Epstein following his prison term in 2011

Virginia Roberts holds a photo of herself at age 16, when she says Jeffrey Epstein began abusing her sexually

Virginia Roberts holds a photo of herself at age 16, when she says Jeffrey Epstein began abusing her sexually

Virginia Roberts holds a photo of herself at age 16, when she says Jeffrey Epstein began abusing her sexually

Andrew addressed the allegations against him in an interview with the BBC show Newsnight in November 2019. The interview was described as a 'train wreck' that hurt the prince more than it helped him

Andrew addressed the allegations against him in an interview with the BBC show Newsnight in November 2019. The interview was described as a 'train wreck' that hurt the prince more than it helped him

Andrew addressed the allegations against him in an interview with the BBC show Newsnight in November 2019. The interview was described as a ‘train wreck’ that hurt the prince more than it helped him

Virginia Roberts aged 17, around the time she says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth

Virginia Roberts aged 17, around the time she says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth

Virginia Roberts aged 17, around the time she says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth

Judge Kaplan butted heads with Brettler again when he tried to argue that the New York Child Victims Act, the 2019 law under which she brought her case, was unconstitutional.

The law gave victims a window to sue anybody from any time in the past regardless of the statute of limitations.

Brettler said that it ‘does not satisfy due process requirements’ and ‘memories fade, witnesses die’.

Judge Kaplan said: ‘What exactly is your argument, your constitutional argument?’

Brettler said that a second extension of a window to file complaints – Giuffre filed hers five days before the window closed – was a ‘problem’.

However he had issues with the law ‘from the get go’.

Judge Kaplan asked again: ‘What is the constitutional argument?’

Brettler said the second, year-long extension of the window for claims was ‘completely arbitrary.’

Judge Kaplan told Brettler: ‘You know, you know for certainty that I’m obliged to accept as true on this motion the well pleaded factual allegations of the complaint’.

Judge Kaplan read out part of the complaint which read: ‘On one occasion Prince Andrew sexually abused plaintiff in London at Maxwell’s home.

‘Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will’. I must assume the truth of that allegation’.

Brettler claimed that it only showed Andrew, Epstein and Maxwell ‘forced her to do something against her will’, adding that ‘we don’t know what the alleged sexual misconduct was or when it occurred.’

Judge Kaplan shot back: ‘Sexual intercourse. Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least since someone else was in the White House.’

Brettler insists that his client ‘needs to lock herself into a story now, not some time in the future, and figure out where the chips may fall. 

‘She needs to allege today when he supposedly abused her. I’d like a date, a month. We’d settle for a year. Right now all we have is that she was supposedly 17 years old. We don’t have a date, time, location, we don’t know when this was. Giuffre doesn’t articulate what supposedly happened to her at the hands of Prince Andrew.

Judge Kaplan interrupted to say, ‘With all due respect Mr. Brettler, that’s not a dog that’s gonna hunt here. She has no obligation to do that in the complaint. I’ll tell you that straight out right now. It’s not going to happen. You have every right to that information when the parties engage in discovery’.

Brettler said, ‘We would argue her claims should be tested in discovery. We should be told what those allegations are at the outset.’

‘I understand your point, it just isn’t the law,’ the judge said. 

Meekly Brettler replied, ‘Ok.’

'Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will,' a judge read in court Tuesday

'Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will,' a judge read in court Tuesday

‘Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will,’ a judge read in court Tuesday 

Ghislaine Maxwell's house in Belgravia, London, where Virginia Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, Duke of York

Ghislaine Maxwell's house in Belgravia, London, where Virginia Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, Duke of York

Ghislaine Maxwell’s house in Belgravia, London, where Virginia Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, Duke of York

The developments come at a bad time for the duke: last week his former close friend Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein.

She now faces up to 65 years in jail at her sentencing at a later date.   

Last week the duke suffered a setback when Judge Kaplan rejected his request to dismiss the case on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US. 

The duke refused to accept service for weeks until Judge Kaplan asked the British legal authorities to intervene and serve him.

Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with the duke three times in 2001 at Epstein's command when she was 17

Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with the duke three times in 2001 at Epstein's command when she was 17

Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with the duke three times in 2001 at Epstein’s command when she was 17

If the lawsuit moves ahead it will go into the discovery phase and Giuffre’s lawyers have already asked for documents that prove Andrew’s bizarre claim in an interview that he doesn’t sweat.

The duke said this was evidence he didn’t have a sweaty night out dancing at a club in London with Giuffre in 2001 before they had sex as she claims. 

Giuffre is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.

She claims she was trafficked by disgraced financier Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law. 

Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies said: ‘Our view, as expressed in our briefs to the Court, is that (1 ) Prince Andrew was not a party to, and did not even know about, the Release; (2) Andrew could not be a ‘potential defendant’ as that term is used in the Release both for the reason he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida because the abuse happened elsewhere, and for the reason that the claims in Florida were federal claims against people who did the trafficking, not the state law claims made now against Andrew as a person to whom the girls were trafficked; and (3) the actual parties to the Release have made clear Andrew is not covered.

‘But what will matter is what the Court’s view is’. 

Jeffrey Epstein agreed to pay Virginia Giuffre $500,000 in an agreement reached in 2009 that Prince Andrew says protects him from her lawsuit as he is covered as a 'potential defendant'

Jeffrey Epstein agreed to pay Virginia Giuffre $500,000 in an agreement reached in 2009 that Prince Andrew says protects him from her lawsuit as he is covered as a 'potential defendant'

Jeffrey Epstein agreed to pay Virginia Giuffre $500,000 in an agreement reached in 2009 that Prince Andrew says protects him from her lawsuit as he is covered as a ‘potential defendant’

 It’s been claimed that Buckingham Palace ‘sleepwalked’ into the Prince Andrew crisis and has been paralyzed with indecision over how to handle things.

Senior royal insiders said the duke operated with ‘impunity’ as a member of the Royal Family because staff were ‘too scared’ to stand up to him.

And they say the idea he could still return to public life, despite the swirling controversy around his friendship with Epstein, must be quashed.  

The prince was seen in public Friday for the first time since Maxwell was convicted of multiple counts of child sex trafficking for her boyfriend Epstein, driving himself to Windsor Castle.

In an interview Andrew told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis that on the date Roberts says they had sex in London, he was at a Pizza Express in Woking, 30 miles from Maxwell’s apartment. He has been told to prove this too. 

Giuffre, who at the time was known by her maiden name Virginia Roberts, claims she slept with Andrew three times in 2001, at a time when she was 17 and under the control of Epstein.

The prince vehemently denies the accusations. But pressure has increased on him following Maxwell’s conviction.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior former royal adviser stressed that while there was no knowledge of the extent of the duke’s friendship with Epstein and Maxwell to anyone outside of the prince’s private office, the ‘Andrew problem’ was a long-running issue for the royal household in general.

The developments come at a hellish time for the Duke: last week his former close friend Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein

The developments come at a hellish time for the Duke: last week his former close friend Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein

The developments come at a hellish time for the Duke: last week his former close friend Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein 

‘Anyone who even dared to offer their professional advice that maybe his way wasn’t the right one was met with a decisive ‘f*** off out of my office’,’ the source said.

The account is backed up by other former royal staff, all of whom claim the prince acted as if he ‘didn’t have to answer to anyone’ and was allowed to ‘go rogue’.

Particularly troublesome, it was said, was Andrew’s role as a roving trade ‘ambassador’, which saw him repeatedly criticized for cozying up to highly controversial world leaders and businessmen.

A former Buckingham Palace staff member recalled how it was an ‘impossible job’ to persuade the prince or his advisers to take any instruction. ‘The duke made clear that the only person he answered to was the Queen,’ they said.

‘He wouldn’t take advice from anyone. [He] acted with total impunity and staff were just too scared to stand up to him as a member of the Royal Family. Her Majesty almost always backed him and he fully exploited that.

‘There’s an element of Buckingham Palace sleepwalking into this whole crisis. Andrew would tell his family that it was all untrue and it would all go away.’

Lawyers for Prince Andrew's accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn't sweat - his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at Chinawhite nightclub in London in 2000

Lawyers for Prince Andrew's accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn't sweat - his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at Chinawhite nightclub in London in 2000

Lawyers for Prince Andrew’s accuser are demanding he hand over any documents which explain why he doesn’t sweat – his alibi for never having met her. He is pictured at Chinawhite nightclub in London in 2000

Andrew stepped back from official duties following the BBC interview. But the insiders said it was ‘unsatisfactory’ the option of his return to public life remained open. ‘It would be better for all concerned to lance that boil now, once and for all,’ they said.

On Tuesday, Andrew will try again to have the case brought by Miss Roberts thrown out.

But in court papers filed on Friday, her legal team made it clear they would test his alibi, when he disputed her claim he was sweating while they danced together in a London nightclub by saying he had a ‘peculiar medical condition’ which made it ‘impossible’ for him to perspire. 

Lawyers want the court to order him to hand over proof about his ‘alleged medical condition of anhidrosis’.

And they could ask for his former police bodyguards to testify about the duke’s whereabouts at the time Miss Roberts says they were having sex. 

Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

Source: Daily Mail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You May Also Like

Topless woman runs down Windsor High Street moments after minute’s silence for Prince Philip 

A woman who whipped off her top and ran half naked down…

The lurid script of Harry and Meghan’s pal

The Hollywood producer hired as the new boss of the Duke and Duchess…

Queen Letizia wears grey tweed dress and tan wedges on visit to Spanish Association Against Cancer

Queen Letizia of Spain looked summer chic in pair of tan wedges in…