[quote]LAWYERS for Prince Andrew’s rape accuser tonight told The Sun they have served him – after help from a British policeman and a judge appointed by the Queen.
Prince Andrew served with papers over bombshell sex assault allegations from Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts
|by Anonymous||reply 50||September 16, 2021 8:11 AM|
[quote]Prince Andrew of Britain was served with a lawsuit filed by an American woman who accuses him of having sex with her when she was underage, during the same time she also was being abused by his friend Jeffrey Epstein, a new court filing revealed Friday.
[quote]Andrew, who is the Duke of York, was served with the civil suit filed by Virginia Giuffre on Aug. 27 in England, according to that filing in Manhattan federal court.
[quote]The document, an affidavit by a process server engaged by Giuffre’s legal team, says the suit was left with a police officer on duty at the gates of the Royal Lodge in Windsor, a property occupied by Andrew.
[quote]The affidavit said that when the process server tried to give Andrew the lawsuit a day earlier, a police officer told him that “security there had been instructed not to allow anyone” onto the grounds thee to serve the prince with the suit, or to accept service on his behalf.
[quote]On Aug. 27, the process server wrote that he was told that the suit could be left with a police officer at the Royal Lodge “and that this matter would then be forwarded on to the Legal Team.”
[quote]A spokesman for Andrew had no immediate comment.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||September 10, 2021 7:27 PM|
He is too fat to run away from the process server.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||September 10, 2021 7:27 PM|
Was the found in Pizza Express Woking?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||September 10, 2021 7:28 PM|
[quote]An important court date in Prince Andrew's ongoing legal battle is set for Monday, and PEOPLE has confirmed that the royal was served papers for the lawsuit filed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre late last month.
[quote]Court filings on Friday revealed that Andrew was served at 9:30 a.m. on August 27 at his Royal Lodge residence in Windsor. Just before news of Andrew being served broke, Giuffre's lawyer accused the Duke of York, 61, of dodging servers.
[quote]"Process servers have shown up at his residence, and they have refused to take the summons and refused to let the process servers in to serve," David Boies, chairman of New York-based law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, said, according to ABC News. "He has stopped coming out in public. He has been moving around."
[quote]Earlier this week, photographers captured Prince Andrew traveling to Balmoral Castle in Scotland, where the Queen is on her summer break. Andrew also traveled to the Scottish royal residence with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson one day after the lawsuit was filed on August 9.
[quote]Giuffre has accused the royal of forcing her to have sex with him three times between 1999 and 2002 — accusations Queen Elizabeth's son has refuted.
[quote]Looking forward, the first, virtual court hearing in New York City is scheduled for Monday; it's currently unclear whether Andrew will attend.
continued at link
|by Anonymous||reply 4||September 10, 2021 7:30 PM|
[quote]Court documents show that a response is now due from Andrew by 17 September.
[quote]Giuffre filed a lawsuit against Andrew in August. She accused Andrew of sexually abusing her at the home of Ghislaine Maxwell in London and on three occasions in the US in 2001.
[quote]Andrew has “absolutely and categorically” denied having sex with Roberts and Buckingham Palace has called the claims “false and without foundation”.
[quote]The legal claim alleges that Giuffre “was compelled by express or implied threats by Jeffrey 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”.
[quote]The lawsuit further claims that Andrew knew she was a sex-trafficking victim, and that she has suffered – and continues to suffer – “significant emotional and psychological distress and harm”.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||September 10, 2021 7:33 PM|
I'm sure the crown will try to protect him in order to save face. You have to remember the Royal family is the scum of the Earth, they don't care about Andrew's many victims. They only care about being dragged into a scandal.
I'm sure the Daily Mail is already being contacted so they can harass the poor woman.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||September 10, 2021 7:39 PM|
Surely the statute (or 'statue' as some DL-ers like to say) of limitations has run out by now?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||September 10, 2021 7:45 PM|
I’m no fan of Andrew but I would think there are dozens of JE’s friends who are in the same situation. Why not go after them also?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||September 10, 2021 7:52 PM|
I think the statute was extended in recent years for sex related crimes.
That said, I'm puzzled at service being considered legal when it is delivered to a third party at a location where the respondent is known not even to be in residence, and therefore makes someone else responsible for completing service.
Anyone know how the law stands on this?
I think she's looking for a quick financial settlement. How on earth can she prove what he knew about her and whether he had sex with her?
If the case is dismissed or she loses, it will make subsequent attempts with other high profile men nearly impossible. I think she and her legal team are playing a game of chicken with Andrew, and betting that if it gets close to trial, he'll have and pay her off to make or go away.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||September 10, 2021 7:54 PM|
^* he'll cave (not have)
|by Anonymous||reply 10||September 10, 2021 7:56 PM|
The thought of Andrew pawing at anyone's parts makes my toes curl.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||September 10, 2021 7:56 PM|
Always save stained clothes. Like Monica did.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||September 10, 2021 7:58 PM|
R7 dd you mean the statue of litigations?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||September 10, 2021 7:59 PM|
R9 & R10
The gamble is that having publicized the charge, what's the leverage now? Had it remained private, she could threaten "Pay me off or I'll go public" but the story is already public. If he pays her off, he's essentially admitting guilt. Isn't it easier to admit that yes they had consensual sex and that 17-year-olds can consent to sex in the U.K. hence no crime?
I'm not suggesting this isn't grotesque and shady A.F., but the actual crime may be difficult to prove and the allegations are so widely known that what would be the point in a settlement?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||September 10, 2021 8:05 PM|
Now Fergie doesn’t seem that bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||September 10, 2021 8:08 PM|
They can just give the papers to a security police officer? That seems odd. Then why didn't they do that before now? I thought the papers has to be served to Andrew personally.
This doesn't add up, at least not yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||September 10, 2021 8:25 PM|
Supposedly, serving took place on Aug 27; however, the papers were still not delivered to Andrew personally. If it's legal to just drop them off with whomever is on security detail, then why wasn't this done sooner?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||September 10, 2021 8:30 PM|
According to the BBC:
Legal papers say a process server working for Ms Giuffre's team arrived at the Royal Lodge on Thursday 26 August at 09:30 BST.
The man met security staff, left a business card, and was asked to wait.
The papers say he then spoke to police, including the head of security, who could not locate Prince Andrew's private secretary "or anyone senior".
The agent was told the security team "had been told not to accept service of any court process".
He was then given the solicitor's name and number, phoning him at 10:40, but did not get a response.
On Friday 27 August, the same process server returned to the Royal Lodge in Windsor and spoke to the "head of security".
He was advised the papers could be left with police at the main gates, which would be forwarded to the legal team.
The papers state: "The deponent did enquire whether it was possible to meet personally with the defendant, but the deponent was told that this was not possible."
Ms Giuffre's legal team claim that by leaving the papers with the officer, the service was successfully completed.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||September 10, 2021 8:35 PM|
Hiding behind the Queen? How awful. She should kick him out!
|by Anonymous||reply 19||September 10, 2021 8:39 PM|
"Isn't it easier to admit that yes they had consensual sex and that 17-year-olds can consent to sex in the U.K. hence no crime?"
Indeed, r14. He should have just stated that they had consensual sex and the fact she's smiling and has her arm around him in that infamous photo proves that she gave him the impression it was consensual.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||September 10, 2021 8:42 PM|
R6 = ignorant American
|by Anonymous||reply 21||September 10, 2021 8:43 PM|
R6 do you even follow the lurid story or n the DM? If you do then you’d know that DM is one of the British news outlets that broke the story and has since gone after Andrew.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||September 10, 2021 8:52 PM|
She was 17 so the notion that he’s a pedophile is ridiculous. Pedophiles are attracted sexually to prepubescent kids, not 17-year-olds. That said, Andrew is a disgusting pig and a low, greedy character ,who, if he wasn’t a member of the BRF, would’ve been Andy the lorry driver. Same goes for his equally dumb and entitled nephew Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||September 10, 2021 8:57 PM|
She claimed that sex with foot-licking fetishist Prince Andrew was “the longest 10 minutes of my life”
|by Anonymous||reply 24||September 10, 2021 9:00 PM|
Of course you cannot go and 'serve' the prince in person.
It's all showboating.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||September 10, 2021 9:02 PM|
Andrew's dodging being served the papers makes him look mega guilty.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||September 10, 2021 9:03 PM|
R26, most people do not want to be sued.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||September 10, 2021 9:06 PM|
Andrew's lawyers are already saying that the papers were not properly served.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||September 10, 2021 10:59 PM|
What jurisdiction do private American lawyers have outside of the US?
Guiffre is just pissed because she wanted to meet with Andrew personally so she could get him to give her money but he refused to meet.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||September 11, 2021 8:18 AM|
No it doesn't, r26. Young Giuffre in a photo smiling and with her arm around him makes it look as though she was happy to be with him.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||September 11, 2021 8:19 AM|
Allegations without evidence.
Would you believe that the Queen smiled and touched me back in 1974?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||September 11, 2021 9:03 AM|
R30---Appearing in a photo to be happy to meet a famous prince does not imply or give explicit consent, either before or after, being forced to fuck him.
You are repugnant.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||September 11, 2021 5:34 PM|
If the guard accepted service on Andrew's behalf, and it was legally insufficient, then it seems obvious that Giuffre's lawyers would have already known this (the process server would have known it too, most likely), and they would have fully expected Andrew's attorneys to challenge the sufficiency of the service, and were prepared to use the whole story simply as a public display of Andrew's refusal to face the justice system. In the US at least, the idea is that no one should be able to just evade service of legal pleadings forever. The idea of requiring physical serving of pleadings on a person is getting pretty out of date in the modern world.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||September 11, 2021 5:51 PM|
Not at all r32. I believe Giuffre, even though her targeting solely of Andrew, her attempts to come to an agreement with him privately and this charade of American lawyers serving papers on someone in the UK do make me question her motives.
What I was saying was that this photo - which is supposedly evidence of Andrew's guilt - could equally have been used by him, if he had been smarter, as a line of defence: yes, I met her and did have sex with her but as far as I was aware she was over the age of consent and she showed no sign of being coerced, look, she's even smiling in that photo and has her arm around me.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||September 11, 2021 5:58 PM|
This is a law suit in a US Federal Court against a UK citizen (??). Are they crazy? The Courts of the United States exercise NO jurisdiction over people in foreign states... Why didn't they file the suit in the UK? Is it illegal to sue a member of the Royal family in the UK? I don't get this. It's a kind of grandstanding on the part of the plaintiff's attorneys.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||September 12, 2021 2:43 AM|
The BRF isn’t getting involved in this shit. They never get involved in scandals. They try to stay out of it. They haven’t done much about the Suckssex’s melodrama, either.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||September 12, 2021 2:54 AM|
No one can do anything to him unless he stupidly comes to America, and I'm sure he will not ever again. This lawsuit put an end to that.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||September 12, 2021 3:17 AM|
Who are the idiots saying foreigners can't be prosecuted in the U.S. for crimes they commit in the U.S.?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||September 12, 2021 5:07 AM|
R38, that’s not what they are saying. This is a civil, not criminal, lawsuit. U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction outside the U.S. In order to serve a .British citizen with foreign process, you have to follow the steps outlined in international agreements. That frequently involves getting a British court involved. It’s unclear, but the US law firm may not have followed the necessary steps.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||September 12, 2021 5:51 AM|
This is PR, not a serious process. As R39 says, US lawyers can't just turn up in a foreign country and serve papers for a civil case.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||September 12, 2021 12:30 PM|
No. It is not illegal to sue a member of the BRF.
Personal service is particularly relevant in a modern era when electronic interference is so easy. Some things are rendered more valuable precisely in an era like ours. As things get increasingly impersonal, it's perhaps not so absurd not to offer electronic buffer against the humiliation of being served personally. I don't know how the law stands, but to me something does seem to be diluted if the cop at the gate takes the papers and promises to send them on.
She filed in the US because that's where she alleges the "crime" took place.
Andrew can be convicted by default in absentia, but whether a US court can get its hands on his money for damages is doubtful. But certainly he will never be able to set foot in America again without fear if arrest.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||September 12, 2021 12:32 PM|
It’s not a conviction. He can have a default judgment issued against him if he has been served.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||September 12, 2021 1:11 PM|
I think it's more that there was no UK court involvement, which would apparently be expected or required in a case like this, than just the circumstances of the papers being served.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||September 12, 2021 1:33 PM|
No UK court would dare try to extradite him, so it's a non issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||September 12, 2021 4:55 PM|
IANAL, but if it's a lawsuit is it not by definition a civil case? Because the suit is alleging a crime took place in the U.K., in Manhattan, and in U.S. Virgin Islands. Until 2017, the age of consent in the state of New York was 14. In the U.K, it is 16. In the U.S. Virgin Islands it is 18.
Prince Andrew is grotesque but if he claims the sex was consensual, then neither NYC nor London should be problems. USVI may be different. I just don't understand how a lawsuit filed in Manhattan reaches the U.K. What's supposed to happen? If the proceedings take place in Manhattan, must he appear in person or can he be represented by lawyers to avoid losing by default?
What is the endgame? Sure, she could very well deserve a payout, but by whom exactly. Epstein's dead, so can she go after his estate or Andrew the deepest pockets even if he is one of several offenders?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||September 12, 2021 6:13 PM|
' Isn't it easier to admit that yes they had consensual sex and that 17-year-olds can consent to sex in the U.K. hence no crime?'
How can a sexually trafficked girl consent to sex, you flabby Klan Granny?
|by Anonymous||reply 46||September 14, 2021 12:52 AM|
Have I told that you The Queen assaulted me in 1974?
I remember it vividly. My imagination swells with pride as the memories flash through my brain!
|by Anonymous||reply 47||September 14, 2021 12:56 AM|
R46, get a grip. No one on DL is claiming that she consented. The speculation is that Andrew might turn around and claim that of course he didn't have sex with her, but even if he did it was consensual.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||September 14, 2021 3:38 AM|
[quote] The speculation is that…
This girl is a gold-digger.
She may have got sex fifty years ago but now she wants cash for whatever happened (or didn't happen) fifty years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||September 14, 2021 3:48 AM|
So not even bothering with one iota of reality for your argument.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||September 16, 2021 8:11 AM|