Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prince Andrew should ‘default’ on Virginia Giuffre sexual assault case to avoid trial, New York lawyer claims - i-news (18th Jan 2022)
One of New York’s most experienced trial lawyers believes the Duke should ‘default’ in a New York court to force Virginia Giuffre to bring her case to the UK system
A leading New York attorney has told i that if he was advising Prince Andrew he would recommend the Duke ‘defaults’ in the sexual assault civil case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre in attempt to force her to take action in an English court.
Randy Zelin, who is considered one of New York’s top trial lawyers and has represented clients in both civil and criminal trials for more than 30 years, said Prince Andrew may want to avoid the risks of any court trial and simply refuse to co-operate with the New York court, which would lead to Judge Lewis Kaplan ruling in Ms Giuffre’s favour “by default”.
The prince faces allegations of three sexual assaults from Ms Giuffre, who claims she was trafficked to the duke by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the early 2000s. Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.
The prospect of a trial became more likely last week after Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected an attempt by Prince Andrew’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, to have the case thrown out after claiming the Duke was protected from litigation by a 2009 settlement agreement between Ms Giuffre and Epstein.
Mr Zelin said: “If I’m Prince Andrew, I’m saying to myself, wait a minute ‘why am I going to continue to play on a foreign pitch? I’m not getting a fair shake. So why am I going to spend money to just continue to get all this horrible publicity, which will only get worse every time I open my mouth.’”
“He could just say goodbye to the US and let Ms Giuffre get a judgment. It won’t be on the merits. It would be on default. Prince Andrew could say he’s doing it to protect his family and that he doesn’t believe he’ll get a fair trial in the US.”
While Ms Giuffre would win her case, Mr Zelin argues that she would then have to launch a case in the UK to force the Duke to pay any damages awarded to her by Judge Kaplan.
“She would essentially have to start a brand new action in a UK court, and it basically becomes a breach of contract action,” he said. “If I am Prince Andrew, I’m thinking if you’re getting killed in the US, why continue in the US when you probably have a safer haven in the UK, where she’s going to have to play on your pitch.”
While Prince Andrew’s legal team declined to comment on the possibility of taking a default route in the New York case, it is understood they are currently weighing up another motion to have the case dismissed based on Ms Giuffre’s residency.
In order to bring a federal lawsuit in the US, one of the parties involved must reside in the country. The Duke’s team may argue that Ms Giuffre’s 19 years with her family in Perth, Australia rule her out of bringing the case in New York.
Last Friday Ms Giuffre submitted evidence of her domestic arrangements. The filing included her Colorado driving licence and proof of her voting registration in her home state, as well as a statement on her intention to return to the US with her family.
The UK Legal system is very different to the US System for a start there is the issue of the sub judice rule which regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.
Therefore the Media has to be very careful not to prejudice the trial or the trial will collapse and those responsible in the media can be prosecuted and even jailed for contempt of court in such circumstances.
Secondly Civil cases in the UK do not generally involve juries, and at best you will have two High Court judges whose primary interest will be the law rather than lawyers trying to play to the jury or authorities trying to cut deals.
I agree with Randy Zelin, that the Prince would be better off ignoring the US case and thereby causing a default judgement, this would in turn force a case at the High Court in London.
In terms of the US case, perhaps the Prince should have added Randy Zelin to his team in the first place, as he seems to be very highly thought of in the NYC Legal community.
Last edited by Brave New World; 01-20-2022 at 10:11 AM..
Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable sleazy person who was accused of sex trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking, he was never a convicted paedophile, (spell it how you like.)
Paedophile and pedophile are words slung around at the drop of a hat, I repeat, to say that Epstein was not a nice person is the understatement of the year, but to my knowledge he was never accused of paedophilia.
A paedophile is an adult who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, girls up to 9 or 10, boys up to 11 or 12.
A 17 y.o. girl is not pre-pubescent, nor is she a child to most people, yes it’s morally repugnant for 40 plus men to sexually pursue a 17 y.o., but it doesn’t make the men paedophiles.
So put Epstein down as much as you like, but get his crimes right, as for Andrew, his title should have been Court Jester, and not a very amusing one.
Epstein's 2008 case involved a 14-year old (and there are plenty of 14-year-olds involved in this whole scandal) He was... 55 at the time. You can argue all you want about the technicalities of pedophilia -- whether the said victim had breast buds or not, etc. - but the fact remains that this falls on the pedophilia spectrum. Legally, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia. Oh, ok, so the girls were a year older and this doesn't make Epstein a pedo.... right. I was once a 14-year-old girl. I assure you that I was not capable of 'consent.' I knew exactly nothing about how the world worked. I could have been (and sometimes was) hoodwinked and eased into accepting things that were unacceptable (and sometimes illegal), by the adults around me.
When cops searched Epstein's pad on the second round, there were prominent, large photographs of a naked toddler on his walls, which fits the portrait of the man. Maybe he didn't rape toddlers... probably fantasized about them while he was getting that massage-with-a-happy-ending from the 14-year-old.
Epstein's 2008 case involved a 14-year old (and there are plenty of 14-year-olds involved in this whole scandal) He was... 55 at the time. You can argue all you want about the technicalities of pedophilia -- whether the said victim had breast buds or not, etc. - but the fact remains that this falls on the pedophilia spectrum. Legally, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia. Oh, ok, so the girls were a year older and this doesn't make Epstein a pedo.... right. I was once a 14-year-old girl. I assure you that I was not capable of 'consent.' I knew exactly nothing about how the world worked. I could have been (and sometimes was) hoodwinked and eased into accepting things that were unacceptable (and sometimes illegal), by the adults around me.
When cops searched Epstein's pad on the second round, there were prominent, large photographs of a naked toddler on his walls, which fits the portrait of the man. Maybe he didn't rape toddlers... probably fantasized about them while he was getting that massage-with-a-happy-ending from the 14-year-old.
He really sounds a piece of work and makes me feel sick.. However at any age growing up I knew when things werent right, maybe were not all the same..
This is the link to the multi-part series that 9news/60 Minutes Australia did which includes the stories of some of the victims and how Virginia Roberts Giuffre was lured into Epstein's sex trafficking operation at age 16, as well as others' first-person accounts, who were groomed and lured at even younger ages.
Roberts Giuffre describes how Maxwell came to her and told her that they wanted her to have a baby by Epstein. Thats when she made a deal to get the massage license first and they sent her to Thailand to get it. Thailand, which is well known as a travel destination for pedophiles.
You’re talking about Koo Stark, the American “soft porn” actress whose worst films would apparently only have attracted a censorship of 18 in the U.S.
She was never an adult industry porn actress.
Allegedly her involvement with Prince Andrew put her on an IRA hit list in the eighties.
Why a hit list?? Because they wanted to hurt someone Andrew was close to?
I wonder how Prince Andrew's behavior would be viewed in a historical perspective? Go back a few centuries and it would probably have been shrugged off.
Probably. Just like priests molesting 6 year olds was "shrugged off" even in the recent past. Are you implying that it's no big deal because in the past it wouldn't be considered a big deal??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
