Prince Andrew’s lawyers fight to dismiss Virginia
Giuffre lawsuit in court
Arguments via videoconference come day after unsealing
of 2009 Epstein settlement as judge promises ‘a decision pretty soon’
Victoria
Bekiempis in New York
Tue 4 Jan
2022 17.55 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/04/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-lawsuit-arguments
Lawyers for
Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre, who has long accused the royal of sexual
abuse, faced off in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday, in his attempt to
dismiss her civil lawsuit.
The
arguments via videoconference came a day after the unsealing of a 2009
settlement between Giuffre and the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein.
The judge,
Lewis Kaplan, questioned lawyers for Andrew closely over their claim that the
settlement means Giuffre’s lawsuit should be dismissed.
He also
promised “a decision pretty soon”.
Giuffre,
who accused Epstein and his ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell of sexual abuse and
forcing her into sex with Prince Andrew at age 17 – an accusation he vehemently
denies – received $500,000 in her settlement with the late financier.
Using
Giuffre’s maiden name, the settlement contains a provision releasing “second
parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a
potential defendant … from all, and all manner of, action and actions of
Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action”.
Andrew, who
is not mentioned in the settlement, has contended that this clause bars Giuffre
from suing him.
On Tuesday
morning, reporters missed up to 15 minutes of arguments. A teleconference
number only provided audio at 10.15am, after proceedings began.
The judge,
Lewis Kaplan, asked Andrew’s lawyer, Andrew Brad Brettler: “What is a
‘potential defendant’?”
Brettler
said: “A potential defendant is someone who could have been named in this
lawsuit but was not. Prince Andrew could have been sued in the 2009 Florida
action. He was not. Therefore, he was a potential defendant and releasee.”
Later,
Brettler said: “I don’t even understand how there could be any question as to
whether ‘other potential defendants’ had a meaning. Clearly, Ms Giuffre
intended to release a broad category of individuals including royalty,
including businessmen.”
Brettler
also said Epstein “would never want to have to be dragged into a lawsuit were
she to sue Prince Andrew later”.
Kaplan
responded: “We don’t have Mr Epstein here to say that’s in fact what his view
was.”
The judge
also said Epstein might have wanted to grant the broadest release possible, or
might have intended to provide the narrowest release possible. He also
questioned how enforceability could apply to other parties if they didn’t know
about the agreement, which included a confidentiality provision.
“Arguably,”
he said, “it would be that Epstein and Giuffre had an agreement between
themselves that there was a release to other potential defendants, whatever
that means, but they weren’t to know about it”.
Apparently
speaking rhetorically, the judge added: “The only people who could enforce it
were Epstein and Giuffre.”
Epstein,
who also counted former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump among
influential associates, killed himself in custody in New York in 2019. Maxwell,
60, was convicted on sex trafficking charges last month. Her lawyers have said
they will appeal.
Andrew has
been dogged by his links to Epstein and Maxwell and by the Giuffre suit.
On Tuesday,
Brettler reiterated what was said in a 29 October court filing.
“Giuffre
settled her sex-trafficking and sexual-abuse claims against Epstein in 2009,”
the filing said. In doing so, she provided Epstein with a general release of
all claims against him and numerous other individuals and entities.
“To avoid
being dragged into future legal disputes, Epstein negotiated for this broad
release, insisting that it cover any and all persons who Giuffre identified as
potential targets of future lawsuits, regardless of the merit – or lack thereof
– to any such claims.”
That filing
also said: “Because Prince Andrew is a senior member of the British royal
family, he falls into one of the expressly identified categories of persons,
ie, royalty, released from liability under the release agreement, along with
politicians, academicians, businessmen and others allegedly associated with
Epstein.
“As a
third-party beneficiary of the release agreement, Prince Andrew is entitled to
enforce the general release contained therein.”
David
Boies, appearing for Giuffre, argued that the parties on the agreement could
handle their agreement as they jointly wished, “at least so long as the third
party has not reasonably relied to their detriment on what they have promised”.
Boies also
said there was no “reasonable” evidence Andrew knew about the agreement before
being sued by Giuffre.
As part of
the litigation, Giuffre’s lawyers have requested documents including proof of
Andrew’s now famous claim that he cannot sweat.
Giuffre has
alleged that the prince was “sweating profusely all over me” at a London
nightclub on an evening when, she claims, they had sex.
Andrew told
the BBC that could not be true, saying: “I have a peculiar medical condition
which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time.”
He also
said that on the night cited by Giuffre, he brought his daughter Beatrice to a
late-afternoon children’s party at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking,
Surrey. The prince says he was then at home with his children all night.
Oral
arguments in the attempt to dismiss Giuffre’s case took place amid sustained
and damaging fallout over Andrew’s links to Maxwell and Epstein.
Maxwell,
the daughter of the late British press baron Robert Maxwell, was convicted on
five counts for luring girls as young as 14 into Epstein’s orbit for him to
sexually abuse.
At the end
of the proceeding on Tuesday, Kaplan told lawyers: “You’ll have a decision
pretty soon.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário