Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or see our HOMEPAGE



Prince Andrew documents sweat claim & Pizza Express




The Duke of York has become a virtual exile in the UK, for fear of extradition. UK law is even more strict than US, where under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a claimant is to be believed, regardless of the lack of any proof, other than the say so of a claimant. This reverses the Article 6 protections, where a person is to walk into a court innocent, until proven guilty. In the UK, you are guilty until proven innocent. The UK, with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as head of state, is guilty of removing the human rights of those accused of sexual offences in the UK. This statute was enacted after development by David Blunkett, himself guilty of extra marital activities that could have influenced him, if as alleged, he was being plied with sexual favours by a female with a vested interest, urging him to deprive UK defendants of rights granted under the Universal Declaration and European Convention. In an ironic twist of fate, it now appears that the Queen's 2nd born son, may have fallen foul of rules designed to increase conviction rates, regardless of innocence or guilt - though in the US. This is called noble cause corruption. The Crown does not mind filling prisons with an extra quota of men and women, around 3-5% of which are more than likely innocent - because the State has also deprived them of any effective remedy, by removing Article 13 from the HRA 1998, and cutting Legal Aid to the point where it is impossible to mount a comprehensive defence. They have thus anticipated the effect their rule bending will cause, and cut off any path to justice for those wrongly convicted.


The change in US law in 2019, to extend time for previously time barred cases, echoes the efforts of the UK to up the conviction rate, regardless of the difficulties in disproving allegations after such a long period of time. One might imagine that innocent people don't keep logs of their activities, whereas those scheming, hoping for an opportunity to make a few bucks, will keep documents and pictures such as to be able to put together a circumstantial case that is near impossible to rebut, in the absence of a comprehensive record. Put simply, there can be no record of an event that did not take place. As head of state, the Queen's law makers have been hoisted on their own petard.


Lessons to be learned. Stay clear of girls under the age of consent. Even when legally eligible for sexual activity, make sure they are not part of a deal to sweeten a deal, and not being paid by someone else to perform sexual favours. Audio record all such encounters, making sure to ask a girl's age and background. Ask who any potential sexual conquest is working for. Be wary of casual sex. It's not worth the bother. Single parents are prone to entrap males with offers of easy sex. The consequences can be dire. In the UK, you only have to have had an opportunity, to be convicted. Do not put yourself in that position. Do not feel sorry for single parent traps. They are like spiders waiting to trap the uninitiated - and they all know what they are doing. How? They all watch, and some record episodes of soaps featuring under age sex. The police will not secure a crime scene for you. The opposite is true. They will bury evidence likely to assist a defendant, to gain an easy conviction.




Hearing ended with a decision expected 'pretty soon'. (See 12th January decision)

Judge Lewis Kaplan said he should be able to make a decision "pretty soon" as to whether Virginia Giuffre's sex assault civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew should be dismissed. 

He did not give any further details on a timeline for a decision.



Is judge rejecting Prince Andrew's main argument?


Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg QC listened to the hearing for Sky News.

He says: "The judge is suggesting that only Epstein and Giuffre can enforce the agreement. If that's his final conclusion, he's rejecting Prince Andrew's main argument. 

"Judge Kaplan says that's supported by the fact that the agreement was intended to be confidential."



Judge points to language that says settlement is not to be used 'by any other person in any other case'


Judge Lewis Kaplan, presiding over the hearing, has asked Mr Boies about language in the settlement that says it is not to be used "by any other person in any other case".

Prince Andrew was not party to the settlement, and so Judge Kaplan has suggested that the duke falls under the umbrella of "any other person".

Mr Boies, for Ms Giuffre, argued that the only people who can assert this release are Epstein and Ms Giuffre.

Judge Kaplan said: "Epstein and Giuffre had an agreement between themselves… the only people who could enforce it was Epstein and Giuffre."




“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said, according to Newsweek reporter Jack Royston. “Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”





'Potential defendant' is someone who meets two criteria, says lawyer for Virginia Giuffre


David Boies, for Virginia Giuffre, has argued that to be considered a "potential defendant", Prince Andrew would have to meet one of two criteria.

These are to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and to be somebody likely to be involved in the kind of activity related to the settlement.

Mr Boies said: "Prince Andrew was not subject to jurisdiction, which is one reason he is not a potential defendant.

"Secondly, he was not engaged in [that] kind of conduct."

He added: "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."

To put it simply, Ms Giuffre's lawyers are suggesting that the 2009 settlement talked of "potential defendants" in that case, and Prince Andrew could not possibly have been a defendant in that case, so the agreement should not apply to him - and therefore Prince Andrew can be subject to a lawsuit now.




Melania Trump, Prince Andrew, Gwendolyn Beck and Jeffrey Epstein in Florida February 2000



THE INDEPENDENT 4 JANUARY 2022 - The judge at the Prince Andrew hearing appeared to take an unexpected sideswipe at a former US president, though he did not specify which one.

Prince Andrew’s lawyers are currently working to fend off a sexual assault lawsuit from Virginia Giuffre, who says the convicted sex criminals Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell “forced” her to have “sexual intercourse” with the Duke of York – an accusation that Andrew adamantly denies.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, the prince’s lawyers argued that this language was not detailed enough, but Judge Lewis Kaplan disagreed.

“It was sexual intercourse,” the judge said, according to Newsweek reporter Jack Royston. “Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”

It’s possible the judge was referring to former president Bill Clinton, who famously denied that he had had “sexual relations” with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky, sparking a national debate about what those words meant. He could also have been referring to Donald Trump, who faced multiple accusations of sexual assault. (Mr Trump has denied the allegations.)

On Twitter, journalists struggled to understand what the judge meant.

“A Bill Clinton joke from a Clinton appointee?” wondered Fox 5 New York reporter Mike Sacks.

Others transcribed the comment with the hashtag “#BillClinton.”

Ms Giuffre’s lawyers, meanwhile, have argued that the settlement does not mention Prince Andrew by name and is “irrelevant to Ms Giuffre’s claim” against him.

On Tuesday, the two sides also argued over whether Ms Giuffre should be forced to lay out her accusations in more detail. On that point, Judge Kaplan sided with Ms Giuffre, quoting the following paragraph from her complaint:

“On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff at Maxwell’s home. During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will.”

This was the language that Prince Andrew’s attorneys called unclear.

“We don’t know what the conduct was,” attorney Andrew Brettler said, according to Inner City Press.

Judge Kaplan rejected this argument, making his quip about the former president. He also used an old-fashioned American idiom.

“With all due respect, Mr Brettler, that’s a dog that’s not going to hunt here,” the judge said.






Attorney for duke says there is a 'problem' with extension of Child Victim's Act in this case


Lawyers for Prince Andrew have argued the duke should not be "dragged into this courtroom" 20 years after allegations took place.

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.

Mr Brettler said there is "certainly" a problem with the further extension in this case, adding that Ms Giuffre was well and able to file the suit earlier.



Where is judge leaning based on opening remarks?

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg listened into the hearing for Sky News.

He says: "Judge is firmly against Brettler on his demand for more details of Giuffre's claim at this point. 

"On the more important point — the effect of the agreement disclosed yesterday — he has not expressed a view beyond testing Brettler's arguments."


“On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff at Maxwell’s home. During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will.”






Lawyers for Andrew call on Ms Giuffre to 'explain what this alleged abuse was' - but judge says 'it just isn't the law'


Andrew Brettler, for the duke, has moved on to his second point at the New York hearing, arguing Virginia Giuffre "needs to lock herself into a story now".

He said: "The next point I would like to raise is the sufficiency of the allegations themselves.

"We don't even have a date, a time, a location other than an apartment, we don't know when this was.

"Ms Giuffre doesn't articulate what supposedly happened to her at the hands of Prince Andrew

"She doesn't explain what this alleged abuse was.

"We do not know the details of these allegations and it's time that we do before Prince Andrew is forced to answer these very serious allegations."

However, Judge Kaplan insisted Ms Giuffre "has no obligation to do that in a complaint".

He added: "I understand your point, it just isn't the law."







What a day to be Judge Lewis Kaplan, the district judge serving on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York – the man with the fates of Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Prince Andrew in his hands, and the eyes of the world upon him.

He must decide whether the text and the legal status of the settlement agreement Ms Giuffre signed with Jeffrey Epstein in 2009 means that her civil case for damages against Andrew is thrown out; or he can judge that it is irrelevant; or he can reserve judgement and order more “discovery” about the circumstances in which the text of the document was determined, and also have have more time to some to take a considered view about the legal points.

That might mean Andrew having to give some sort of statement, but that might be it. For the first time, Andrew’s lawyers would have gotten the better of the argument by demanding disclosure of the settlement agreement, and they’d have greatly increased Andrew’s chances of seeing it dismissed. His troubles would hardly be behind him, but they wouldn’t get much worse. Perhaps.

If I were the judge, I’d be in no hurry, because either way, he will find himself under vicious attack. If he did throw out the Giuffre claim, he’d be accused of allowing Prince Andrew to “get away with it”, being part of some establishment conspiracy and an enemy to the human rights of women and girls. There’d be a storm.

If he took the view that the cause of justice overrides any particular private agreement entered into by actual or potential defendants and plaintiffs in some unspecified future case, then he would effectively be trashing the whole culture of settlement agreements, non-disclosure agreements and even prenups that form such a routine part of modern legal life, especially in America. This would potentially single-handedly rewrite the civil legal system as it applies to much of employment, libel and family law. There’d be a storm. Either way there’d be appeals.

What are the chances? At the moment, they seem in Andrew’s favour, and the case will be at least delayed and it’s perfectly possible it will be thrown out. The powerful momentum behind the Giuffre claim will be lost, and the public and media will lose interest. This will suit Andrew perfectly well.

Epstein’s lawyers were certainly not negligent in the way they framed the 2009 document. Giuffre agreed to drop her civil claims against Epstein in exchange for $500,000, and freely agreed this would "forever discharge… any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant… from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal…” representing “a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation. The settlement agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party.”

It was also "not intended to be used by any other person, nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal”, though this seems to have now been overridden.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

So universal is the Giuffre-Epstein settlement agreement that the whole case could indeed be thrown out, though it would prompt an appeal by Giuffre’s lawyers. More likely, it will be stalled and will drag on for many months, but sooner or later it seems as though Andrew may well live to see it closed down.

There would be other options for Giuffre, including trying to get criminal proceedings under way – they normally don’t take much notice of such private settlement agreements – but the Metropolitan Police said in October that it isn’t taking any further action in relation to the case. And of, course, the Prince has always absolutely and categorically denied the allegations which the Palace calls “false and without foundation”.

Prince Andrew may not be sweating for much longer.






Lawyers for Prince Andrew argue he 'could' have been sued in 2009 action - but was not


The hearing in New York has begun with a discussion between Andrew Brettler, for the duke, and Judge Lewis Kaplan about the 2009 settlement between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein.

Ms Giuffre received $500,000, with the document stating that this would also "forever discharge… any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant… from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal..."

Mr Kaplan says: "Use of the word 'potential' is the use of a word to which you and I cannot find any meaning."

This might suggest the judge isn't yet totally convinced Prince Andrew is covered by that settlement - although he could be playing devil's advocate.

However, Mr Brettler said: "Potential defendant is someone who can be named as a defendant in the lawsuit but was not.

"Someone who was not named as a defendant but could have been by the nature of the allegations.

"I think it's unquestionable that Prince Andrew could have been sued in the 2009 Florida action. He was not."

Judge Kaplan said the "real question" is what did Ms Giuffre and Mr Epstein have in mind when using the language "other potential defendants".

He said there are "two or more" reasonable interpretations of what could be included under this term - one is that it's narrower than Mr Brettler is arguing and so it does not exempt him from the lawsuit.

Mr Brettler said surely this phrase must have "some other meaning" further than the second party involved in the 2009 settlement - and so extending to parties not involved, such as Prince Andrew.



The hearing got under way in New York.


We are expecting to hear from Prince Andrew's lawyer Andrew Brettler, who will present his motion to dismiss Virginia Giuffre's civil lawsuit.

David Boies, acting for Ms Giuffre, will then respond.

Stay tuned for all the latest as it happens.


The hearing was yet to start

Reporters have been given access to an audio line of the video conference - which is how the media were able to report updates virtually as they happened.







MSN Prince Andrew: Why sexual assault case against Duke of York could be nightmare for royals and Scotland Yard


If the case against Prince Andrew is like a slow drip, drip of information, this week we got a bucket load of news – none of which was good for him.

On Tuesday a judge in New York sounded unimpressed by the Duke’s request that the sex assault case brought by his accuser Virginia Giuffre be dismissed.

Over an hour-long hearing, Judge Lewis Kaplan interrogated the Duke’s lawyer Andrew Brettler, at times sounding like he was giving him a lecture in Law 101. Judge Kaplan repeatedly cut off Mr Brettler and bluntly dismissed one of his arguments by saying: “That’s not a dog that’s gonna hunt here”.

Seven days earlier Prince Andrew’s former close friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein and is facing up to 65 years in jail.

Now with Ms Giuffre’s lawsuit the focus of attention, the discomfort for the ninth in line to the throne is only just beginning.

Legal filings in the US show us what comes next if the case does move ahead, and it sounds like a nightmare not just for the Duke, but the royal family and Scotland Yard.

Ms Giuffre’s lawyers are requesting any information about any massage Prince Andrew received while in the company of Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell, as well as information about allegations of the Duke’s extra marital affairs.

They want any documents that prove his claim, made in his car-crash interview with the BBC’s Newsnight in 2019, that he doesn’t sweat. The Duke said this medical condition was evidence he didn’t have a sweaty night out dancing at a club in London with a 17-year-old Ms Giuffre in 2001 before they had sex, as she claims.

Among those the Duke has cited in legal documents as having such records are “Buckingham Palace” and “Scotland Yard”, meaning they may have to hand over their files.

The Duke’s friendship with Epstein and Maxwell has long been toxic for him but now it threatens to drag in the Met Police and the royal household.

The question now becomes whether the Duke will really see this through to the bitter end – a jury trial at a courtroom in New York – or whether he will change tactics.

The problem with the latter is that it would involve some kind of humility from the Queen’s second son, which he seems incapable of showing.

Instead he has provided a raft of excuses, such as how he was at a Pizza Express the night he allegedly had sex with Giuffre. His legal team have spent weeks avoiding dealing with the meat of the allegations and have tried numerous procedural and technical means to get the case dismissed.

Initially he tried to evade service of papers, leading to a weeks-long delay in the case and the unseemly appearance of avoiding justice. Ms Giuffre’s lawyers hired an agency to try and drop the papers off at Royal Lodge in Windsor but they were turned away.

Eventually Judge Kaplan made a formal request to the British legal authorities to serve him and ruled that service had been completed.

Last week Prince Andrew’s lawyers argued that Ms Giuffre could not file the lawsuit as she was a resident of Australia, where she lives.

The tactics echo those used by Maxwell during her trial: call the accusers liars and offer little beyond that. But shaming the victim is a brittle, outdated strategy and one that didn’t work for Maxwell.

What’s especially worrying for the Duke is that if Ms Giuffre’s case moves ahead then the jury will hear some of the same evidence they heard in the Maxwell case.

That includes flight logs of her allegedly being trafficked to Prince Andrew, and testimony about Ms Giuffre being recruited by Maxwell at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.

After the Maxwell verdict, Ms Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies said: “Andrew has still to this day has not apologised for his role with Epstein. He has to begin by accepting responsibility, showing some remorse and respect for these young women.

“One of the ironies is if he had simply shown some respect and taken responsibility, much of this would have been over by now”.

If sorry is the hardest word for most people, it seems to be near impossible for the Duke – even if it could cost him everything.

By Daniel Bates





Who is Hollywood lawyer representing Prince Andrew?


As we reported earlier, in a few moments the Duke of York's attorney Andrew Brettler will present his motion to dismiss Virginia Giuffre's sex assault civil lawsuit.

Mr Brettler is a notable Hollywood lawyer and senior partner with Lavely & Singer, who has previously represented several celebrities accused of sexual assault.

These include actor Armie Hammer, who faced allegations of sexual and physical abuse last year, and Danny Masterson of That 70s Show.

Mr Brettler has also represented singer-songwriter Ryan Adams, who faced accusations of sexual misconduct in 2019.


The hearing was due to begin at 3pm 15:00 hours GMT

Proceedings will begin in around 15 minutes as lawyers for Prince Andrew are set to argue that Virginia Giuffre's sex assault civil lawsuit should be dismissed.

The media made every effort We'll be bringing you all the latest from the New York courtroom as it happens.


How Prince Andrew fell into Epstein's social circle

Prince Andrew says he first met Jeffrey Epstein in 1999 through Ghislaine Maxwell, who was a close friend. He and Maxwell were photographed at social events together many times.

The former socialite was last week found guilty of recruiting underage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Flight logs have shown that Andrew began flying on Epstein's private plane in 1999 when he travelled to his private island, Little St James.

His name also appears in other logs from the same time for journeys to Florida and New Jersey. The royal has confirmed he went on Epstein's private plane and stayed in his homes.

In 2000, Epstein and Maxwell attended Prince Andrew's 40th birthday party. That same year, Prince Andrew threw Maxwell a birthday party in Sandringham and Epstein was among the guests.

In 2006, Prince Andrew invited Epstein to his daughter's 18th birthday party, despite Epstein being charged with procuring a minor for prostitution only one month prior.

Members of staff at Epstein's properties have confirmed seeing Prince Andrew at his homes, both to the media and in sworn testimony.


Who will we hear from at the New York hearing?

Proceedings will get under way in just under an hour, with lawyers for Prince Andrew set to argue a sexual assault civil lawsuit brought about by Virginia Giuffre is "baseless".

In the US courtroom, the Duke of York's attorney Andrew Brettler will present his motion to dismiss.

David Boies, acting for Ms Giuffre, will then respond.

Judge Lewis Kaplan will decide whether to dismiss the lawsuit. However, it is unclear whether he will make a ruling immediately or reserve his judgment and deliver it at a later date.

If he does not throw out Ms Giuffre's lawsuit, a trial could be held between September and December 2022.


Virginia Giuffre's $500k settlement with Epstein made public

The woman who has accused Prince Andrew of sexual assault agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a newly released document shows.

The 2009 settlement between Ms Giuffre and Epstein reveals he agreed to pay her $500,000 (Ł370,000) to end her legal claims against him.

Details of the confidential deal were made public on Monday following an order by US judges.

Ms Giuffre's settlement reveals she agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against Epstein "upon payment and clearance" of the $500,000.

The document states that this would also "forever discharge… any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant… from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal..."

It adds that the agreement "represents a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation".

"The settlement agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party," the document says.

Those involved in the settlement had agreed it was "not intended to be used by any other person, nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal", according to the document.




Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Balmoral, Royal residence in Scotland



BALMORAL OR IMMORAL - You would be persuaded by this picture, that Epstein and Ms Maxwell, were good friends of the Duke. On the other hand, Prince Andrew was always entertaining big business, in promoting Great Britain Ltd. Much the same as Queen Elizabeth brokered foreign deals on HMY Britannia.




Prince Andrew Duke of York with Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell



The Prince may not remember the 17 year old Virginia Roberts, but unless this photograph is a fake (doubtful - it must have been checked out) he did meet the young lady at some point - even if only posing at a drinks party, and Ghislaine Maxwell was at this meeting. One question we would ask is how do we know the age of the claimant from this picture? She could easily be 18 or older. Or she may have claimed to be over 18, for Ghislaine to have allowed Virginia to have been photographed with the Duke. No doubt, testimony from Ms Maxwell will clear that up. And where and when was the picture taken, and by whom? You can imagine that with US State laws varying, and this picture looking for all the world like London, where the age of consent is 16, the precise details relating to the taking of this picture are extremely important. It might be worth checking passports, etc. Not that we are saying anything did or did not happen between the Prince and Ms Roberts. For the sake of argument, if some did take place (that the Duke cannot recall) and it was in London, then no crime had been committed. You can marry a girl in Spain and Tahiti at 13 (we think). Hence, any prosecution would need to be very sure of dates and places to begin mounting an investigation. It would not be fair to even interview the Prince, until the facts had been established, for fear of trying to trick him into something he could not possibly remember. We know of a case where penetration had been alleged during a police interview, but the evidence told only of natural marks and a hymen that could not be opened [even] with labial traction. A so-called child specialist gave evidence at trial, that the natural marks could only be explained by penetration. Legal Aid restrictions prevented the defendant in that case from instructing a specialist. Sussex police allowed the jury to hear misleading evidence, and the man was convicted on naturally occurring marks, found in females of all ages. British justice is such that despite other discrepancies being identified, such as a diary being attributed by the trial judge to the defendant, when it belonged to a psychiatric nurse, an appeal has never made it back to the Courts. Europe sent back a claim after 4 years, suggesting the wrongly convicted man had a domestic remedy. On that basis, good luck to anyone facing trial in the UK. At least you have unlimited funds for your legal team in the USA.


The accusations against Prince Andrew

As reported by most media outlets, the Duke of York is being sued by Virginia Giuffre in a lawsuit in which she claims he "committed sexual assault and battery" upon her when she was a teenager.

Prince Andrew has always categorically denied any sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Giuffre.

But what exactly are her claims?

* Ms Giuffre alleges she was recruited by former socialite Ghislaine Maxwell into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation when she was working at Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida;

* She said between 2000 and 2002 she was flown all over the world by Epstein and sexually abused by him at "numerous locations";

* Ms Giuffre claims she was trafficked by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was aged 17, which made her a minor under US law;

* Andrew, who has not been charged with any criminal offences, has vehemently denied all the allegations against him;

* Ms Giuffre is seeking unspecified damages, but the sum could reportedly be in the millions of dollars.

2h ago - 13:44

Who's who in the Epstein scandal?

Today's hearing is connected to a much larger scandal following a raft of accusations made against disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

After his suicide while awaiting trial in 2019, focus has turned to his circle of friends and associates.

The woman at the centre of the scandal, Virginia Giuffre, has now filed a lawsuit against Prince Andrew in a New York court, accusing him of abusing her - something he denies.

So who are the key figures and how are they connected to a man, Epstein, who courted the rich and famous around the world?


Analysis of this days events were provided by Joe Pike in New York, along with Joshua Rozenberg.

Lawyers for Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre are arguing over the significance of a 167-word paragraph in a legal document.

For the duke's team, it is proof the whole civil case should now be thrown out.

For Virginia Giuffre's lawyers, the document is "irrelevant" and the fact the prince is not even mentioned means he is not covered by it.

In court today, Prince Andrew's attorney Andrew Brettler will present his motion to dismiss. David Boies, acting for Virginia Giuffre, will then respond.

Ultimately it is up to Judge Lewis Kaplan to decide. He may make a ruling immediately or reserve his judgment and deliver it at a later date.

If Prince Andrew's motion to dismiss the case is denied, Judge Kaplan is likely to set a schedule for more discovery.

That process involves both sides requesting evidence from each other, and could include depositions (sworn out-of-court oral testimony).

If the duke is deposed, this would mean him facing questioning from Virginia Giuffre's lawyers in private, with a transcript later submitted as evidence in court.





Virginia Giuffre





Why is a hearing taking place in New York?


Prince Andrew's lawyers are set to put forward a motion to dismiss the sex assault civil lawsuit brought against him by Virginia Giuffre, after her $500k settlement with Jeffrey Epstein was made public.

The Duke of York is being sued by Ms Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, in a lawsuit in which she claims he "committed sexual assault and battery" upon her when she was a teenager.

Judge Lewis A Kaplan, who is presiding over the civil case, will hear arguments from Andrew's legal team for the case to be dismissed during a video teleconference today.

It comes after a document was made public yesterday, which revealed the terms of a $500,000 (Ł370,000) payout from convicted sex offender Epstein to Ms Giuffre.

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

Andrew B Brettler, who represents the Duke of York, has argued that Ms Giuffre had entered into a "settlement agreement" that would end her lawsuit.

He previously told a New York hearing the agreement "releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here".

If judges do not throw out Ms Giuffre's lawsuit against Andrew, a trial could be held between September and December 2022.

The duke denies any wrongdoing.


This was live coverage as lawyers for Prince Andrew put forward a motion to dismiss a sex assault civil lawsuit brought against him by Virginia Giuffre.

Judge Lewis A Kaplan, who is presiding over the civil case, heard arguments from Prince Andrew's legal team for the case to be dismissed during a video teleconference at 3pm today (04-01-22).

A decision is unlikely to be given on the day of the hearing: 4th January 2022.







Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News - 4,840,669 views - 17 Nov 2019

In a Newsnight special, Emily Maitlis interviews the Duke of York as he speaks for the first time about his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and allegations which have been made against him over his own conduct.

The Duke of York speaks to Emily Maitlis about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations against him. In a world exclusive interview, Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis speaks to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York at Buckingham Palace. 

For the first time, the Duke addresses in his own words the details of his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who took his own life while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

In 2015, Prince Andrew was named in court papers as part of a US civil case against Epstein. The Prince, who is the Queen’s third child, also answers questions about the allegations made against him by one of Epstein’s victims, and discusses the impact of the scandal on the Royal family and his work.







NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) is examining fundraising practices at the Prince’s Foundation, following allegations that the Prince of Wales' closest former aide co-ordinated with "fixers" over honours nominations for a Saudi billionaire donor. Britain is held to be the most corrupt country in the world when it comes to laundering drug money.





















Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




This website is provided on a free basis as a public information service. copyright © Injustice Alliance 2021