Accused Duke of York hits a roadblock
A rational person, a reasonably intelligent person, might take at face value the settlement agreement between late convicted sex monster Jeffrey Epstein and one of the sexual complainants against him.
Concluding that, in exchange for $500,000, the now 38-yearold complainant, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, had signed off on bringing future lawsuits against any “potential defendants.” Including, though unmentioned, the Duke of York, Queen Elizabeth’s middle son.
The documents unsealed by court order on Monday would seem to state that explicitly — a one-size-fits-all “forever discharge” protecting other individuals from a theoretical reckoning in court.
But contract law isn’t anywhere near that transparent or simple. That’s how lawyers get rich.
Little was agreed upon by the parties in a virtual motion heard Tuesday to dismiss a lawsuit by Giuffre against Prince Andrew. Although at one point, presiding Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told the duelling attorneys that surely there was no disputing the definition of “involuntary sexual intercourse,” which Giuffre has alleged of three intimate episodes with the royal when she was 17 years old.
“There’s no doubt about what that means, not since there was someone else in the White House.”
A clear reference to a comment made by then-president Bill Clinton to the grand jury looking into his affair with Monica Lewinsky. “It depends upon the meaning of what the word ‘is’ is,” in exculpating his lie to top aides that he’d never had sexual relations with the White House intern.
That triggered a widely mocked linguistic existential crisis. Which Kaplan was not having any of.
But “potential defendant,” now there’s the rub, and the gist of the arguments made in the virtual hearing before Kaplan. “This could include the Sultan of Brunei, no?” Kaplan quite facetiously asked Andrew Brettler, the prince’s attorney.
Gauging the tenor of the exchanges — reporters could access only the audio portion of the hearing — Kaplan certainly sounded skeptical of the bid to dismiss the suit. If it isn’t tossed, the suit would proceed to a civil trial. Kaplan said he would render his decision “pretty soon.” Possibly in the next few days.
Any way you cut it, there’s surely no disagreement that Andrew, ninth in line to the throne and repeatedly caught up in scandals, is using the loophole of a dead sex trafficker to rid himself of what could be a steep cost in civil damages. Because forget about rehabilitating his reputation — that ship has long sailed.
Andrew has repeatedly and vehemently denied Giuffre’s allegations, filed in August in Manhattan federal court.
From parts unknown, Andrew was presumably listening in on the hearing as well.
Perhaps most intriguing of what unfolded Tuesday was in an exchange between Kaplan and Giuffre’s celebrity lawyer David Boies when he argued that the settlement didn’t excuse the prince because Giuffre hadn’t claimed he was among “people who were doing the trafficking” but rather was “someone to whom girls were trafficked.” Girls, making it sound like Giuffre was not the only minor served on a plate to the randy royal.
Billionaire financier Epstein died by suicide in his prison cell awaiting trial a month after his arrest two years ago, but had been convicted and sentenced to 18 months for procuring a child for the purpose of prostitution in 2008. He was already on the sex offender registry long before Andrew became a friend, and the prince remained a friend after the conviction, a frequent visitor to Epstein’s Florida mansion, New York City penthouse and estate on a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In her lawsuit, Giuffre alleges that Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell — convicted on five sex trafficking charges last week — recruited, groomed and coerced her, from the age of 16, to sexually service powerful men around the world. She has accused the prince of committing sexual assault and battery against her more than two decades ago; that she submitted fearing “death or physical injury” and other repercussions from Epstein, Maxwell and Andrew “due to their powerful connections, wealth and authority.”
None of the allegations have yet been proven in court.
The settlement between Epstein and Giuffre was signed in 2009. Andrew’s lawyers have accused Giuffre of now seeking a second “payout.”
“‘Potential defendant’ is someone who could have been named as a defendant in that lawsuit, but was not,” argued Brettler. “I think it’s unquestionable that Prince Andrew could have been sued in the 2000 Florida action.” He wasn’t.
Kaplan, however, said the key issue is what Giuffre and Epstein intended. “The real question is what did she have in mind and what did he have in mind,” noting that “we don’t have Mr. Epstein here” to explain how broad a release he wanted.
“We’re talking about whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of the language,” Kaplan continued. “I understand your point of view. I understand the other point of view.”
Boies countered that Andrew would not be a “potential defendant,” as referred to in the civil case documents, for several reasons, including that the only claim against his client in the initial lawsuit against Epstein was the count of transporting somebody for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. “There is no allegation that Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were doing the trafficking.”
In that 2009 claim against Epstein, Giuffre’s lawyers contended that, apart from being exploited for sex personally, Giuffre “was also required to be sexually exploited by the defendant’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academics, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances.”
Coming back to the matter now before the court, Brettler added, the statute didn’t apply in New York — where one of the sexual encounters with the prince occurred, allegedly — because the state’s age of consent is 17. Further, Brettler complained that Giuffre’s lawsuit was too sketchy — no year, no month, no location and not specific as to the abuse. Kaplan scotched the whole vagueness argument.
“With all due respect, that’s not a dog that’s gonna hunt here.”