Prince Andrew Jeffrey Epstein’s victim, Virginia Robert, failed his last attempt to file a civil suit against him.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of New York today refused to grant the motion to dismiss the royal family.This is the son of Queen Elizabeth now Faced with full trial prospects later this year..
Andrew’s lawyer He appeared in court on Tuesday, claiming that Andrew had raped her three times at the age of 17, and that Jufre’s proceedings seeking unspecified damages should be revoked.
The judge ruled today, saying he would rule a motion to dismiss “immediately” last Tuesday.
It was not impressed by the argument by Andrew B. Brettler, Andrew’s lawyer who claimed that the prince was freed from legal danger under the terms of a $ 500,000 settlement signed by Jeffrey Epstein in 2009. I clearly confirmed the impression formed by most observers. It was only opened last Monday.
Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Spooky Party with Prince Andrew
The agreement stated that Giuffre agreed to “permanently dismiss other individuals or groups that may be included as potential defendants” from future legal action. Brettler claimed that Andrew was “clearly” included in the “Other Potential Defendants” category. However, Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, replied that the 2009 category had nothing to do with Andrew, as there were no allegations that Andrew was involved in Giuffre’s “transportation.” Rather, he states: “Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were trafficked. He was a girl who was trafficked.”
However, the judge was much more interested in the section of reconciliation he suggested that the provisions could only be called by Epstein and Juffrey, or their agents, rather than by a third party such as Prince Andrew. It seemed to be.
As The Daily Beast pointed out in a hearing reportThe judge’s approach, surprisingly, seemed to capture both sides, temporarily confusing the boys, who normally couldn’t flap. The settlement was “not intended for use by others.”
Obviously stunned, Brettler said, “If other potential defendants do not have the right to use the contract as affirmative defense, it makes no sense to include the words to release other potential defendants. I argued.
However, the judge told Brettler that the discussion “crashed into paragraph 4 and all this had to be kept secret.” They do not intend to give anyone a copy of this agreement and cannot disclose the terms. “
The case is now proceeding to discovery and testimony recording, with a full trial likely to take place later this year.
However, Andrew may conclude that he has little to lose by not participating in the trial anymore and allowing the court to register a default judgment against him.
For more information, see The Daily Beast.
Deliver the Daily Beast’s largest scoops and scandals directly to your inbox. Sign up now.
Stay informed and have unlimited access to The Daily Beast’s unmatched reports. Subscribe now.