In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Vlog
Guardian UK - Honduras - Song  Maxwell Book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 31 – Prince Andrew was sued on August 9 by Virginia Giuffre, under the New York State Child Victims Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (where Inner City Press found it that day in the docket).  

 On September 13, a proceeding before SDNY Judge Lewis A. Kaplan largely about service of process, but also the settlement agreement the sealing of which is being challenged before SDNY Judge Loretta Preska. Inner City Press live tweeted the September 13 proceeding, here and below (podcast here)

  On January 31, Judge Kaplan issued for letters under the Hague Conventions, requesting that "the Senior Master of the Queen's Bench Division obtain testimony from Robert Ashton Olney," including on "Defendant's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell." Also, from Shurki Walker, on presence at Tramp.
 
  Judge Kaplan also issued letter to Australia for testimony from Robert Giuffre and Dr. Judith Lightfoot. Watch this site.

 Back on January 12, Judge Kaplan issued a 43 page Order denying Andrew's motions to dismiss Guiffre's complaint, now on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.

 On January 26 Andrew filed his answer, mostly boiler plate but citing the "doctrine of unclear hands" -- unclean with what? -- and stating "Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent" -- by a minor? Andrew demands a jury trial, perhaps with an eye to how Juror 5 / "Scotty David" is helping Ghislaine Maxwell request a new trial. Watch this site.

 On January 14, after Andrew was stripped of military titles, Guiffre though counsel filed a letter asking Judge Kaplan for orders to depose two people in the UK:

 Shurki Walker, Dunstan Road, Golder Green, London who has stated that "she was a witness to the Defendant's present at Tramp; and

 Robert Ashton Olney of Berwick Road, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, Prince Andrew's former enquerry (or assistant) whose name "appears in Epstein's Black Book." Letter on Patreon here.

 Later on January 14, Andrew asked for two in Australia: Enclosed are two Letters of Request to the Central Authority of Australia, which seek discovery of relevant information under the applicable Rule 26 standard from Robert Giuffre and Judith Lightfoot, both of whom are residents of Australia. Mr. Giuffre is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s husband, who allegedly met Plaintiff in Thailand in or about 2002 when she was attending a massage training course and recruiting one or more women to perform sexual acts for Jeffrey Epstein... Dr. Lightfoot is Plaintiff’s psychologist, from whom Plaintiff sought counseling. Dr. Lightfoot has relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s alleged abuse by Epstein and Maxwell." Letter on Patreon here.

  On Saturday, January 15, Judge Kaplan signed and issued an order asking for each side's opposition to the other's request, including any proposed specifications under Article 11(b) of the Hague Evidence Convention, by January 20. Inner City Press will remain on the case. Song here.

  Back on January 4, the day after the Jeffrey Epstein - Giuffre settlement and release was unsealed (Inner City Press put it on its DocumentCloud here), Judge Kaplan held an oral argument on Prince Andrew's motion to dismiss. Inner City Press live tweeted it here (podcast here)

OK - now Prince Andrew argues to try to dismiss complaint of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, using Epstein settlement / release unsealed yesterday. Inner City Press put out book #MaximumMaxwell   & will live tweet, thread below

Andrew's lawyer: Giuffre released Mr. Epstein and others, "other potential defendants." It must apply to Andrew, it could apply to the head football coach of the University of Kansas.

Judge Kaplan: Who is a potential defendant?

Judge Kaplan: This language excludes people who had already been named, no? Andrew's lawyer: It's a distinction without a difference. Prince Andrew was not named -- Judge Kaplan: But the use of the word potential, neither you nor I can find the meaning.

Andrew's lawyer Brettler: Prince Andrew could have been sued but was not.  Ms. Giuffre intended to release royalty --

Judge Kaplan: Including the Sultan of Brunei? Brettler: If there are allegations against him. [What about Norway's Princess Mette-Marit?]

Judge Kaplan: I understand that you are asserting this, but that does not mean it is correct. There could be a different view.

Brettler: I don't think you need to get there. Ms. Giuffre made allegations against royalty and academics and released them.

 Judge Kaplan: We do not have Mr. Epstein here to hear what his view was. He was offering X dollars for the broadest release the other party was willing to give him. But she may have intended it more narrowly. Brettler: I agree with the concept. But --

 Judge Kaplan: The phrase is, Other potential defendants. What did she have in mind?

Brettler: The plain language of the contract. Judge Kaplan: We're not talking about the parole evidence rule now. Were there two interpretations? Yes.

Judge Kaplan: Turn to the next point. Andrew's lawyer Brettler: Ms. Giuffre needs to lock herself into a story today. What date did this place on? And a place - all we have is an apartment. She doesn't explain what the abuse was.

 Brettler: Before Prince Andrew must answer, he should be told specifically what all the allegations are.

Judge Kaplan: That dog is not going to hunt. She has not obligation to do that in the complaint, only in discovery. Brettler: Her claims should be tested.

 Judge Kaplan: Mr. Brettler, I understand your point. It's just not the law. Brettler: She needs to allege an Article 130 allegation under the New York penal law. She doesn't. 

Judge Kaplan: I'm obliged to accept as true, at this stage, the allegations.

 Judge Kaplan: She says she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. Brettler: We don't know what the conduct was. Judge Kaplan: Involuntary sexual intercourse. There's no doubt that that means, at least since someone else was in the White House. [#BillClinton]

Brettler: The last point, the Constitutionality of the New York CVA. This case was filed after the second temporary extension in light of COVID. Was former Governor Cuomo's extension Constitutional? Ms. Giuffre waited- it's untimely.

Brettler: The extension was done by executive order, not by the legislature convening -- Judge Kaplan: Have you briefed the issue of the Governor's power to do this, under state law? Brettler: We could brief it. Ms. Giuffre is well represented...

 Brettler: She has given plenty of interviews all over the world, then files this lawsuit... It is unfair, it is unjust, it should be dismissed. Judge Kaplan: Thank you. Let's turn to the other side. Guiffre's lawyer David Boies: Their arguments are changing.

 Boies: In their motion to dismiss, they attack the legislative revival and contrast it to what Governor Cuomo did. Other courts have addressed that. Now they attack Governor Cuomo. Also, here there is a lack of implied consent. Let me turn to the release...

Boies: We concede that "potential defendant" could have more than one interpretation. We say it means a person subject to jurisdiction, and accused of the activity alleged in that action. But Prince Andrew was not subject to jurisdiction.

Judge Kaplan: There could be overlap between the Federal and the common claims, no?

Boies: Yes. But the only claim that the defendant asserts from the 2009 complaint that would cover Prince Andrew: transporting someone for illegal sexual activity.

 Boies: There's no allegation that Prince Andrew was the trafficker. He was a person "to whom the girls were trafficked." Counsel did not address this... If a third party beneficiary to a contract claims they were covered, the parties to the contract can respond

 Boies: Here, there is no reasonable reliance. The defendant did not even know about this contract until recently. And their affirmative defenses are not appropriate at this motion to dismiss stage.

 Judge Kaplan: Let me asking you about the second part of Paragraph 2 Judge Kaplan: What about this: "1st Parties & 2d Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are 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."

 Boies: I see what the court is saying - that the parties explicitly agreed, that the only person who could assert this release would be Epstein.

 Judge Kaplan: What about "neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any copy hereof, nor the terms hereof shall be used or disclosed in any court, arbitration, or other legal proceedings, except to enforce the provisions of this Settlement Agreement."

Boies: Only Epstein could raise it. Judge Kaplan: OK, Mr. Brettler, I'll give you five minutes, and I suggest you address the points I raised to Mr. Boies. Brettler: I take the paragraph to mean the settlement could not be used to show Mr. Epstein's guilt.

 Judge Kaplan: But the deal was to be secret. Paragraph 2 left the right of enforcement in the hands of the contracting parties, who weren't to tell anyone about it.

Judge Kaplan: Take the Sultan of Brunei - and I'm not casting aspersions, it's just a convenient example -- [#GoogleTheSultan]
 the point is, it's pretty hard to square with No third parties can enforce it and no one will be told about it

 Brettler: Melissa, could you pull it up on your computer?

Melissa Lerner: It sets venue in Palm Beach.

Judge Kaplan: Could Epstein and Giuffre have authority to make 3d parties accept Palm Beach jurisdiction? Brettler: Epstein and Ms Giuffre [he says it GOOF-ray]

Judge Kaplan: The language your colleague read to me has Epstein and Giuffre in their benevolence limiting third parties to Palm Beach, which they had no authority to do...

Judge Kaplan: I thank you all. You'll have a decision pretty soon.

  On December 28 Prince Andrew's lawyer contested jurisdiction of the court in a filing showing Giuffre's Colorado voter's registration and record, asking that the case by stayed until Giuffre can be deposed for two hours. Contesting jurisdiction is one thing - and filing a person's phone number and voting records is quiet another. Watch this site.

  On December 14, Judges Kaplan and Preska together signed an order setting a timeline and process for releasing the Epstein settlement agreement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre: "In the absence of a showing, on or before December 22, 2021, of good cause by a party to either of these actions or by a duly authorized executor, administrator, or other representative of the Estate Mr. Epstein, the Court will file the entire Document on the public record on or about January 3, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 12/14/21)." Full document on Patreon here.

 On November 3 in a routine proceeding Judge Kaplan issued a supplemental scheduling order that "any requests for letters rogatory or letters of request, and any notices pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1, shall be filed no later than December 15, 2021.

Opposition and reply papers with respect to defendant's pending motion to dismiss the complaint shall be filed by 11/29/2021. Reply due by 12/13/2021. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/3/21)."

On November 26, the day after Thanksgiving, Giuffre's lawyers asked Judge Kaplan for permission to file under seal not only Giuffre's 2009 settlement agreement with Epstein, but only the 2020 settlement with the Epstein Victims' Competition Fund, or least the amount and "the names of nonparties that Plaintiff did not release." Ghislaine Maxwell and her collaborators? Full letter on Patreon here.
 Watch this site.

On October 6, Judge Preska so-ordered the release of the Epstein deal to Prince Andrew. The request from David Boies (who also represented Harvey Weinstein, and Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos): "We write in our capacity as counsel to Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre in Giuffre v. Prince  Andrew, Duke of York, 1:21-cv-06702-LAK, pending before Judge Lewis Kaplan, to follow up on  our letter dated September 23, 2021. ECF No. 344. Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate has now consented  to Ms. Giuffre providing a copy of the confidential agreement at issue to Prince Andrew. We  thus request permission from the Court pursuant to this Court’s Protective Order to furnish a  copy of the release to Prince Andrew’s counsel."

On October 25, Judge Kaplan set a (long) schedule for Giuffre v. Prince Andrew: "CONSENT SCHEDULING ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED as follows: Amended Pleadings due by 12/15/2021. Joinder of Parties due by 12/15/2021. Deposition due by 7/14/2022. Discovery due by 7/14/2022. Pretrial Order due by 7/28/2022. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/25/21)."  Watch this site.

On September 24 Prince Andrew's lawyer Andrew B. Brettler signed an agreement that Andrew "will not challenge service of process."

On September 28 Judge Kaplan docketed this: "ORDER RE SCHEDULING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, It is hereby, ORDERED as follows: Counsel for both parties promptly shall confer regarding an agreed scheduling order. If counsel are able to agree on a schedule and the agreed schedule calls for filing of the pretrial order not more than six (6) months from the date of this order, counsel shall sign and file within twenty-one (21) days from the date hereof a consent order in the form previously attached to Dkt. 7 for consideration by the Court. If counsel are unable to agree on such a scheduling order, plaintiff and defendant each shall file with the Court, on or before October 22, 2021, a letter setting forth that party's proposed schedule, the rationale for its proposal and any objections to its adversary's proposal, and a description of the discovery that it proposes to conduct, including proposed depositions. 2. Regardless of whether a proposed consent scheduling order is filed on or before October 22, 2021, a video or teleconference will be held on November 3, 2021 at 11 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time." Watch this site.

On the evening of September 16, Judge Kaplan approved Guiffre's motion for alternative service. Game on.

There's the famous photo, with Prince Andrew with his arm around Giuffe's waist and Maxwell in the background.   The first cause of action is Battery.

Then, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and damages. Inner City Press will follow and report on the case. 

The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 21-cv-6702 (Kaplan). 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com