Prince Andrew’s attorneys tried again Tuesday to end a lawsuit by a woman who says he sexually assaulted her at the age of 17 by telling a New York federal judge that she failed to “articulate what.” happened to her through the hands of the prince ”.
US District Judge Lewis Kaplan vehemently disagreed.
“It was sexual intercourse, involuntary sex,” Kaplan told defense attorney Andrew Brettler. “There is no doubt what that means.”
Kaplan also denied Brettler’s request that the woman, Virginia Giuffre, provide further details of where and when the alleged assaults took place before the lawsuit may proceed.
“With all due respect, Mr. Brettler, this is not a dog that will hunt here,” said Kaplan. “I’ll tell you right now. It won’t happen.”
Kaplan closed the virtual hearing by saying he would decide “pretty soon” whether the lawsuit should proceed.
Giuffre, who is seeking unspecified damages, claims she was a teenager when convicted sex offender and powerful financier Jeffrey Epstein and confidante Ghislaine Maxwell forced her to have sex with Queen Elizabeth II’s son Andrew in the 1990s to have – a claim that Andrew has repeatedly denied.
Epstein was awaiting trial for sex trafficking in 2019 when he died of suicide in a Manhattan prison cell. Maxwell was found guilty last week of sexually abusing and caring for four teenagers for Epstein.
Giuffre was none of the four women in the Maxwell case, and there were no allegations against Andrew in the course of those proceedings.
Brettler, who tried to block the lawsuit by arguing that Giuffre no longer lives in the United States and insisting that a $ 500,000 settlement she reached with Epstein in 2009, put Andrew against further legal action immunized, took a different route during the opening arguments on Tuesday.
Before the case moved any further, Brettler said he wanted Giuffre “locked himself in a story now, not the future” and reveal more and more specific details about her allegations.
Kaplan said it wasn’t necessary at this stage in the process, adding, “It’s just not the law.”
Andrew’s attorneys can review Giuffre’s claims once they start sharing evidence, said Kaplan, who dismissed any suggestion that the prosecutor vaguely read directly from her lawsuit about what allegedly happened.
“On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually assaulted the plaintiff in Maxwell’s house in London,” Kaplan read. “During that encounter, Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced the applicant, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will.”
Previously, Kaplan had put aside the defense’s argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that Giuffre had all but two of the past 19 years lived in Australia and raised three children with her Australian husband in the city of Perth.
Andrew’s attorneys have also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Giuffre, then using her maiden name Roberts, agreed in the Epstein Agreement, “said second parties and any other person or entity that could have been included as a potential defendant may … from any and all acts and acts of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal causes and causes of action.
Andrews’ attorneys have alleged that the prince was a “Third party beneficiary of the exemption contract “, although it is not named in the comparison.
A representative of Giuffre’s attorney, David Boies, released a statement on Monday which said: “The release is irrelevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew.”
“He didn’t even know about it,” said the settlement representative. “He couldn’t have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the closed trial against Jeffrey Epstein, both because he was outside of Florida jurisdiction and because the Florida case had federal claims in which he was not involved.”
But section 21 of Giuffre’s complaint against Epstein says that the powerful Epstein friends who “sexually exploited” her contain “royalty”.