JAN. 4, 2022
The Latest on Prince Andrew’s Epstein Scandal and Sexual-Assault Lawsuit
By Matt Stieb



Though the federal sex-trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein ended with his death, several alleged co-conspirators are now wrapped up in litigation stemming from their involvement with the late sex offender. Among the most prominent is Prince Andrew, the British royal who was sued for damages in August 2021 by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre for allegedly raping and sexually abusing her when she was 17. “I am holding Prince Andrew accountable for what he did to me,” Giuffre said in a statement. “The powerful and the rich are not exempt from being held responsible for their actions.” The prince certainly qualifies as part of that cohort: As Queen Elizabeth’s third child, he is ninth in line to the British crown.

With oral arguments now underway in federal court in Manhattan, below is everything we know about the allegations, the civil lawsuit, and how it could impact the Duke of York, who stepped down from public life amid the fallout from the scandal.



What does the lawsuit allege?

The lawsuit filed in August in Manhattan federal court by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent alleged victims, claims that after she was coerced into his sex-trafficking operation, he forced her on several occasions to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17 and he was around 40. Repeating prior claims, the suit alleges that the prince committed “sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff” at Epstein’s New York City mansion when she and “another victim” were forced to “sit on Prince Andrew’s lap as Prince Andrew toucher her.” During this visit, the lawsuit claims, the royal also forced Giuffre to “engage in sex acts against her will.” It also alleges that Prince Andrew abused Giuffre on Epstein’s private jet and that he raped her at the home of alleged Epstein madame Ghislaine Maxwell in London. (Maxwell was convicted on December 29 of sex trafficking and four other counts, and is potentially facing life in prison.) The lawsuit also includes a picture of Prince Andrew with his arm around Giuffre’s waist in which Maxwell appears in the background. The royal has previously claimed the photo was doctored, and he has never faced criminal charges.

“During each of the aforementioned incidents, Plaintiff was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority,” the lawsuit states.

“As such, Prince Andrew is responsible for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to New York common law,” the filing claims. “The damage to Plaintiff has been severe and lasting.” Giuffre is requesting damages to be determined by the court.

How will the lawsuit go forward?
Many civil suits are settled before they reach the trial stage, with a financial payment provided to the plaintiff and no admission of guilt from the defendant. But the trial at least reached the preliminary stage in September 2021, when Manhattan Federal Court Judge Lewis Kaplan presided over a pre-trial hearing via telephone conference.

The main topic of the conference involved the efforts to serve Prince Andrew with the lawsuit: One affidavit said the Duke of York was finally served on August 27 at the Royal Lodge in Windsor. A process server says that after initially being turned away, he was allowed to leave the papers with a police officer at the main gate to the Windsor Castle estate. On September 24, Prince Andrew officially acknowledged, via his attorney, that he had been served with the lawsuit and that he would not “challenge service of process.”

Prince Andrew’s lawyers did not attend the September hearing, but they sent a letter that argued the suit wasn’t served following proper procedures under the Hague Convention. “We reiterate that our client reserves all his rights, including to contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts (including on the basis of potentially defective service),” the attorneys wrote. According to the Daily Beast, his legal team now includes the Los Angeles attorney Andrew B. Brettler, who has represented clients including Bryan Singer and Armie Hammer. Attorney Spencer Kuvin, who has represented several Epstein victims in other suits, has claimed that damages “easily” could “range in excess” of $19 million.

The next pre-trial conference took place on November 3 and lasted less than 10 minutes. In the brief exchange, Judge Kaplan said that a trial date is likely to occur between September and December 2022, while attorneys for both sides said they expected to depose eight to 12 people. According to Giuffre’s attorney David Boies, one of those who may be deposed is Meghan Markle. In an interview with the Daily Beast, he gave three reasons for why the star deposition is likely: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her. Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge. Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”

Oral arguments began on January 4, 2022, when Prince Andrew’s lawyers tried to convince Judge Kaplan to dismiss the lawsuit. Much of their argument revolved around a $500,000 settlement between Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein reached in 2009 but only released on January 3, after Judge Kaplan did not find a reason why it needed to be sealed. During the hearing, one of Prince Andrew’s attorneys argued that the settlement was worded to protect his client from future lawsuits, a claim that the judge did not appear to buy. Though the judge did not immediately rule at the end of the video hearing, he did say he would have the “decision pretty soon.”

If the case is not dismissed, it will enter discovery mode, in which both Prince Andrew and his accuser will be deposed on video.

Why was the lawsuit filed in New York and why now?
The suit explains that Giuffre is filing in Manhattan federal court because she alleges that Prince Andrew “sexually abused [the] plaintiff in this state, and has thus committed a tortious [wrongful] action within this state.” As for the timing, in February 2019, former Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Child Victims Act into law, providing adult survivors a one-year window to sue in civil court for crimes that occurred when they were underage. (The law expanded the timeframe for survivors to file from their 23rd birthday to their 55th.) Because of the pandemic, the window to file was extended until August 14, 2021; Giuffre announced her suit on August 9.

The Child Victims Act and the location of one of the alleged crimes in New York make it much more advantageous for Giuffre to file in Manhattan, rather than in the United Kingdom, where Prince Andrew resides. “In theory, she could sue for damages in England but, given the dates of the alleged offences, it is likely that Prince Andrew would be able to argue that any claim was time-barred and could not be brought,” British attorney Richard Spafford told the Guardian.

How has Prince Andrew responded to the allegations?
The royal’s general response to his involvement in the Epstein scandal should go down as a lesson in what not to do in PR-crisis situations. Despite the picture of him with his arm around the waist of a then-17-year-old Giuffre, Prince Andrew has claimed he has “no recollection” of meeting her and has denied all wrongdoing. In an attempt to defend himself, he appeared on BBC’s Newsnight in November 2019, saying he did not regret his friendship with Epstein because it was “useful” and staying at his home was “convenient.” He also added that he was too “polite” to cut off the connection.

As for the Giuffre allegations, he provided a bizarre alibi against one interaction in 2001 with the 17-year-old — in which she claimed he was sweating profusely — by saying that he physically was not able to sweat two decades ago. “I have a peculiar medical condition, which is that I don’t sweat, or I didn’t sweat at the time,” he said. “I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at, and I simply … it was almost impossible for me to sweat. And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I am starting to be able to do that again.”

Following the bumbling interview, Prince Andrew announced he would step down from public duties for “the foreseeable future” — reportedly because his mother, the queen, told him to do so.

In a court filing in October, lawyers for Prince Andrew claimed that their client never sexually abused Giuffre, and claimed that the allegations were financially motivated. “Giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him,” the attorneys wrote. “Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years.” His attorneys also attempted in December to stop the suit because Giuffre is “actually domiciled in Australia.”

How has he responded to U.S. investigators?
Despite claiming in 2019 that he would cooperate with “appropriate” authorities on investigations into his alleged abuses, he has not responded to FBI and U.S. prosecutors’ requests to question him. After ignoring voluntary requests for testimony early in 2020, he began dodging prosecutors’ queries made through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to the British Home Office, which would allow a British court to question him.

According to a recent report, Prince Andrew was hiding out in late 2021 at one of his mother’s vacation estates: the Balmoral Castle in Scotland.

How could the lawsuit impact Prince Andrew beyond just a potential payment?
While millions of dollars in restitution may not be an extreme consequence for the Duke of York, a hypothetical settlement could create more legal concerns. “He is on record as saying that he had nothing to do with her,” law professor Melissa Murray told CNN. “And so any effort to settle at this point would appear to be a statement that there is some truth to her allegations.”

If the lawsuit does move forward, that could be even more concerning for him. “To have discovery, take depositions, [and] surface evidence means that anything that comes up in this civil suit that is made public can then be used as a basis for criminal charges against him, or any other person whose name is surfaced in this particular dispute,” Murray added. “He has a lot of general exposure and things to think about at this point.”

While extradition to the U.S. is not going to happen for a civil suit involving a British royal, the prince may not be able to visit the States for some time.
British attorney Richard Spafford wouldn’t advise such a trip, telling the Guardian that if Prince Andrew did so, “it would then be more difficult for him to argue that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the NY court.”

 

BoJo says he forgot!

Raynor will eat him alive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-corruption-great-exhibition-text-flat-refurb

Thinskin

 

I was assaulted by two cats and a Guinea pig
They took all my money, sprayed me with cannabis scent and sent me off on my way

 

Seems like a daily occurrence with you. You might want to take a different route next time. Hate seeing you as a victim.

 

So, is marijuana still illegal in the UK????

 

Interesting analysis!



Thinskin

 

More brexit lies!



Thinskin

 

60 Per Cent of Britons Reject Higher Taxes to Fulfil BoJo’s Green Agenda




A firm majority of the British public oppose paying higher taxes in order to fulfil Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s leftist green agenda of transforming the UK into a net-zero carbon emitter by the year 2050.

Some sixty per cent of Britons said they rejected the idea of paying more taxes to fund the Build Back Better green agenda of the supposedly Conservative government. The same number of respondents said that they did not believe that the green subsidies would benefit them personally.


A further 70 per cent revealed that they were concerned with the rising cost of energy during the Christmas holiday period, according to the poll commissioned by campaign group Net Zero Watch, reported by The Telegraph.

Commenting on the poll, Conservative MP and chairman of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group in the House of Commons, Craig Mackinlay told the broadsheet: “As I’ve been saying for some time, I didn’t become a Conservative to make my constituents colder and poorer. It’s clear, looking at these survey figures, that the British public are not signed up to the Government’s plans.

“They feel they haven’t been consulted or had their say. The majority don’t feel that government grants for air pumps or electric cars are either relevant to them, or more fundamentally needed to nudge them towards unreliable technologies they don’t want. And there is real worry about the ever-increasing costs of energy bills this winter.”


Tory MP and head of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group’s steering committee, Steve Baker added: “The cost of net-zero could deliver a political crisis greater than the Poll Tax, and these figures show that the Government is heading straight for such an eventuality.

“The British people are clearly deeply unhappy about paying higher taxes to help reach net-zero targets and feel they haven’t been consulted about the choices the Government are making.

https://twitter.com/BreitbartLondon...ct-higher-taxes-to-fulfil-bojos-green-agenda/


In October, household energy bills hit record highs in Britain, as the price cap set by the nation’s energy regulator, Ofgem, rose to an average of £1,277 for dual fuel (energy and gas) bills, The Guardian reported.

The price cap, which was put in place in 2019 in order to protect the bills of millions of Britons, is expected to continue increasing until at least 2023, with some analysts predicting that it could reach £2,000 by April when Ofgem is set to review the price cap.


Britain’s fourth-biggest supplier, EDF Energy told the Financial Times last week that the cap could “easily” surpass the £2,000 mark by October.

According to the National Energy Action charity, the increases in energy costs could plunge 6 million households into fuel poverty unless the government steps in to lower the increase of the energy price cap.


Others, including Brexit’s Nigel Farage, have argued for the government to scrap the heavy taxes placed on energy bills used to subsidise supposedly green energy alternatives, which currently accounts for around 25.5 per cent of the average household’s energy bills.

Mr Farage also called for the government to abolish the five per cent VAT placed on energy, a holdover from when the UK was a member of the European Union.

Boris Johnson had written that scrapping the tax would be a benefit to the public of leaving the European Union, but now he is in power — and collecting the money generated by taxes — the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten his pledge.

In a video released on Sunday, Brexit leader Nigel Farage said that cost of living has now become the “key issue” in British politics.

The Brexiteer called on the public to lobby their MPs to remove the taxes going to green subsidies on energy bills, saying: “Parliament the media are completely out of touch with ordinary folk.

Farage said that the government’s green agenda is “great for the rich,” but said that it is “catastrophic for everybody else and in environmental terms, given what India and China are doing, it makes no difference whatsoever.”

 

Common sense prevails again.

 

Green does not work.

 

The latests on BoJo's party antics!

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...arty-excuse-is-hes-even-dimmer-than-we-feared

Thinskin

 

Priceless!

'I apologise for the impression': how Boris Johnson has responded to lockdown party claims - YouTube

Thinskin

 

Settle down tourist....Boris apologized...all is right in the world once again.

 

Till next time he lies to get him and corrupt friends money.

 

You mean like this?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules

Thinskin

 

Yes or till his wife what's the flat redecorated

 

I must be one of the only people in the UK that oddly enjoys all this and wants to see how far he can actually take the ridiculous antics!

 

Unfortunately while ďoing this he doing untold damage to the country,the world must think who can I bribe to get some nice government contract does matter the goods don't work but we have both made a nice fat profit.

 

This has happened for decades in most, if not all, countries. There is bribery and corruption throughout the political system and within all political parties. I am not condoning this in any way, shape or form, but I would suggest that people were well aware they could use connections and bribes to get government contracts long before the current Tory government.