SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:59 am My entrails are reading...


A settlement.
fully confidential of course

Andrew's best course would be to defend the claim quietly, law firm to law firm, and thrash out a settlement - without liability, non disclosure of terms etc - but they will want an absolute fortune.

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:49 am M'learned friends have been commenting on Andrew's legal straregy faced with the Giuffre claim.

The gathering in Scotland should not necessarily lead to conclusions the family are addressing the crisis, said the royal author Penny Junor. “The Queen is not good at confrontation. I don’t think Charles enjoys it either. It may be they did nothing but talk about grandchildren. It’s not a family of communicators,” she said.

Of Andrew’s future, she said: “I think he does not really have a future as a working member of the royal family. Because, whatever the reality, the PR has been so bad that I think his reputation is damaged for ever. The public perception is he’s a condemned man.”

Giuffre’s lawyers filed the civil suit at a New York federal court last week seeking unspecified damages, with documents claiming she was “lent out for sexual purposes” by Epstein, including while she was still a minor under US law. Andrew is named as the only defendant in the 15-page suit, though Epstein and his ex- girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell are also mentioned throughout.

Nick Goldstone, the head of dispute resolution at the international law firm Ince, said he did not think Andrew would engage with the civil claim, which left the duke’s reputation “highly tarnished”.

“I see the civil claim as being a way of trying to flush him out, because they have tried other ways and it’s not worked,” he said. “I don’t think he will engage. Silence shouldn’t be taken as an admission of guilt. But in the court of public opinion, I think he’s already lost.”

Giuffre’s case was brought under New York legislation with no equivalent in English law, and because it is a civil case, Andrew is not compelled to engage as he would if there were criminal proceedings against him, Goldstone said.

Giuffre could succeed in obtaining a default judgment against him for damages, which would not necessarily be enforceable under UK law, he said. But it would be enforceable in New York. “Therefore the defendant will effectively have to stay away from the New York jurisdiction for the rest of his time. He could be served with an enforcement order as soon as he steps across JFK’s customs line. And if he has any assets in New York, they could be subject to enforcement.”

Mark Stephens, of Howard Kennedy law firm, who was an adviser on the Harry Dunn case, said Andrew faced an “uphill struggle”.

“He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. If he gives an interview, like he did with Emily Maitlis, he is condemned out of his own mouth. If he stays silent, he’s damned by his own silence. So neither is a good option.”

But a worse option could be Andrew having to go into detail about his private life, which could be “far more harmful that this kind of Neverland of opprobrium that he’s got at the moment”, Stephens added. “And so his legal strategy, combined with the reputational strategy, is it can only get worse by giving an account. Therefore, ‘we don’t do anything, we just sit tight.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ms-experts

M'learned friends

Prince Andrew has finally been served court papers over his sex accuser’s lawsuit — after his police guards and security were initially ordered not to accept them, according to court papers filed Friday.

Cesar Sepulveda filed an affidavit in the Manhattan federal lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre confirming that he had served the papers to Andrew at his Royal Lodge home at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 27.

He detailed how he had been repeatedly rebuffed in previous attempts to hand over the documents in which Queen Elizabeth II’s 61-year-old son is accused of first-degree rape tied to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s sex ring.

Sepulveda said the day before the papers were successfully served, he had been told to wait at Andrew’s main gates, where police officers — including Andrew’s head of security — repeatedly claimed they could not reach anyone inside.

The server said he was then told that “the security there had been instructed not to allow anyone attending there for the purpose of serving court papers onto the grounds of the property and at the time they had been told not to accept service of any court process.”

He was “also advised at that time that anything left there would not be forwarded” to the prince.

clutchcargo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:43 am So what constitutes whether a lawsuit has been legally served or not??

Prince Andrew: Duke of York served with legal papers for sexual assault lawsuit, according to US court document

Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre - who is suing the Duke of York - say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August.

According to the document, there was a first attempt to serve the papers on the prince on 26 August, when an agent went to Windsor Great Park. A Metropolitan Police officer who was the head of security said they had been told not to accept service of any court process, or let anyone trying to serve legal papers on to the property.

The agent then returned the following day and was told the court process could be left with the police officer at the main gate "and that this matter would then be forwarded on to the legal team".

Sources close to the Queen's son say he has not been served the papers in person, and could not confirm if security had received the document.


[In associated news:]

Lisa Bloom is a lawyer who represents eight victims of Epstein. Although she does not represent Ms Giuffre, one of her clients is a witness who alleges she saw Prince Andrew and Ms Giuffre together in London. She told Sky News this is a "colossal development", adding: "Apparently he has been served. That means it's game on for the lawsuit - it goes forward.

"That means that after a couple of weeks pass, her attorneys will be able to subpoena records, documents, logbooks, calendars, photos, texts, emails - anything that he or anybody else may have that will become relevant to the lawsuit and that would show, for example, that the two of them were together in New York at the places and times where she says that they were." When asked whether it was likely that Prince Andrew will face a deposition, she added: "Absolutely - I would be very surprised if a judge says he does not have to appear at all."

Full: https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andre ... s-12404352