ANDREW SERVED WITH U.S. SEX CASE PAPERS
Following a bizarre cat-and-mouse game with security at prince’s home
PRINCE Andrew has finally been served legal papers over a civil case for rape and sexual assault.
They were accepted by the security chief at his Windsor home after weeks of ‘avoiding’ officials, court documents dramatically revealed.
However, it appeared last night that Andrew’s lawyers claim the papers were not properly served and plan to boycott Monday’s court hearing into the accusations lodged by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Roberts.
The prince’s team also hopes to get the case thrown out on a technicality. In a legal filing, his solicitor Gary Bloxsome said
the document Ms Roberts signed in 2009 may make her action invalid. It is the first indication of how the prince and his lawyers intend to fight the case after weeks of silence.
Yesterday a new affidavit was also lodged in New York from a London-based ‘corporate investigator and process server’, Cesar Augusto Sepulveda, who was employed to personally serve Andrew with court papers relating to the US action.
He records how he first went to Royal Lodge, Andrew’s Windsor mansion, on August 12 and was met by Metropolitan Police officers guarding the gate who told him they ‘could not raise anyone in charge’. They said they had been ‘instructed not to allow anyone attending there for the purpose of serving court process on the grounds of the property’. And they added that no documentation would be forwarded on, leaving the server with the strong impression they had been ‘primed’.
But Mr Sepulveda returned on August 27 and was told he could now leave his papers and they would be forwarded.
The serving has now been ratified under civil procedure rules as required by the Supreme Court of England and Wales. There was no comment from Prince Andrew’s legal team last night.
They are now trying to access the sealed document Ms Roberts signed via the US courts because they believe it may prevent the case from progressing. The initial hearing is at 9pm Irish time on Monday in a conference call before a Manhattan judge.
Ms Roberts’ representatives have indicated they will fight the move by the prince’s team, saying there is ‘no evidence’ he was ever intended to be covered by the previous legal agreement.
The 38-year-old, who is arguably Epstein’s most high-profile victim, has repeatedly accused the Queen’s son of having sex with her three times when she was aged 17 in London, New York and the British Virgin Islands.
Last month, she launched a surprise legal move lodging a civil claim against the prince for rape, sexual assault and battery. Andrew, 61, has refused to comment on the case but has previously strongly denied her claims.
Ms Roberts alleges she was scouted and groomed as a schoolgirl by Epstein and his then-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, before being used by the billionaire financier as an underage ‘sex slave’.
In 2009 she reached a confidential settlement in Florida with the financier that may contain clauses which prevent her from taking action against individuals she has accused of being co-conspirators of the tycoon.
One of those was high-profile US lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who previously represented Epstein. He was accused of sexual assault by Ms Roberts in 2019.
But last month she reportedly dropped the claim because of the Epstein settlement, which released him from liability.
Her withdrawal was described in a joint court filing last month as ‘a compromise’ that should not be viewed as an admission by either party of the validity or invalidity of the claims about the settlement agreement. Mr Dershowitz has lodged a request with the Manhattan court dealing with the action against Andrew to have the original agreement unsealed, as he believes it may help to get the case against the prince thrown out.
The Harvard law professor said yesterday: ‘We strongly suspect that Virginia and her lawyers may have committed fraud on the court by filing a lawsuit against Prince Andrew after dismissing the battery case against me.
‘The same reasons for dismissing the case against me seem to apply to Prince Andrew. These documents should get the charges against Prince Andrew thrown out. It’s an airtight defence for Prince Andrew and a potential fraud on the court.’
But Ms Roberts’ lawyer, David Boies, has said there was ‘no evidence Prince Andrew was intended to be covered by the release’.
Mr Boies said he was unable to comment on the details of her settlement with Epstein, citing its confidentiality, but added: ‘What I can say is that there is no evidence that Prince Andrew was intended to be covered by the release. And, indeed, Prince Andrew has never himself asserted he was intended to be covered by the release.’
In a letter obtained by ABC News in the US, Mr Bloxsome described the methods used by Ms Roberts’ legal team as ‘objectionable’.
In correspondence with a judge, he said: ‘They have made several public, indeed well-publicised, attempts at irregular service of these proceedings in this jurisdiction, in at least one case accompanied by a media representative.’
Mr Bloxsome maintained that under British law, a valid request for assistance from UK court officials must come from a judicial or diplomatic officer in the US.
US district judge Lewis Kaplan, who will oversee Monday’s proceedings, must now decide whether Andrew has been officially served. If he does, the prince will be given a deadline to respond.
‘Have the case thrown out’