Prince Andrew served with papers over bombshell sex assault allegations from Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts

[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.

He is too fat to run away from the process server.

Was the found in Pizza Express Woking?

[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

[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”.

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.

Surely the statute (or 'statue' as some DL-ers like to say) of limitations has run out by now?

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?

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.

^* he'll cave (not have)

The thought of Andrew pawing at anyone's parts makes my toes curl.

Always save stained clothes. Like Monica did.

R7 dd you mean the statue of litigations?

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?

Now Fergie doesn’t seem that bad.

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.

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?

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.

Hiding behind the Queen? How awful. She should kick him out!

"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.

R6 = ignorant American

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.

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.

She claimed that sex with foot-licking fetishist Prince Andrew was “the longest 10 minutes of my life”

Of course you cannot go and 'serve' the prince in person.

It's all showboating.

Andrew's dodging being served the papers makes him look mega guilty.

R26, most people do not want to be sued.

Andrew's lawyers are already saying that the papers were not properly served.

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.

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.

Allegations without evidence.

Would you believe that the Queen smiled and touched me back in 1974?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Who are the idiots saying foreigners can't be prosecuted in the U.S. for crimes they commit in the U.S.?

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.

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.

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.

It’s not a conviction. He can have a default judgment issued against him if he has been served.

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.

No UK court would dare try to extradite him, so it's a non issue.

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?

' 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?

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!

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.

[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.

50 years?

So not even bothering with one iota of reality for your argument.

Typical rapist.

I notice the Klan are gatekeeping any Pedo of York threads and insisting on his innocence.

[quote] one iota of reality

5 inches or six?

Apparently, things aren't going well for Andrew. The judge stated that the previous settlement would remain sealed, so Andrew's team can't bring it into evidence as proof that the settlement she accepted doesn't exonerate him, and also said that service through Andrew's lawyers would be perfectly acceptable.

Dear me, the Platinum Jubilee could prove to be a most interesting year!