Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
What's the jury bit all about?
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
The jury will decide whether he's guilty of the claims made by Guiffre, or not, rather than a bench trial where the judge decides the outcome.
Guilty isn't quite the right word but I can't think of the right one.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Full doc setting out his defences attached, with highlights below. Allthe defences are procedural (which isn't to say they won't succed), except the biggie - no.5 - consent.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
1. Giuffre’s Complaint should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, due to Giuffre’s improper assertion of diversity jurisdiction notwithstanding that she is a permanent resident of Australia and not a domiciliary of Colorado.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver and Release)
2. Giuffre, through her own actions, inactions, and other conduct – including, without limitation, entering into the 2009 Release Agreement with Epstein containing a broad third-party release of her claims against Prince Andrew and others – waived the claims now asserted in the Complain
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
3. Giuffre is barred, in whole or in part, from obtaining the requested relief based on the doctrine of lache.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Damages Contributed to by Other)
4. Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage, Giuffre and/or others, who are not Prince Andrew, contributed in whole or in part to the alleged damag
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)
5. Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the Complaint, Giuffre’s claims are barred by the doctrine of consent.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
6. Giuffre’s alleged causes of action are barred in whole or in part by her own wrongful conduct and the doctrine of unclean hand.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
7. As a result of Giuffre’s knowledge, conduct, words and/or actions, Giuffre’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppe.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
8. Giuffre’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute(s) of limitations.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Speculative Damage)
9. Giuffre cannot recover the damages alleged in the Complaint because such damages, if any, are too speculative to be recoverable at law.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Right to Exemplary or Punitive Damages)
10. Giuffre’s prayer for exemplary or punitive damages is barred because the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to entitle Giuffre to recover exemplary or punitive damages from Prince Andrew. Moreover, any award of punitive damages is unconstitutional if it is excessive under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
11. Giuffre’s causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute viable causes of action against Prince Andrew.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
1. Giuffre’s Complaint should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, due to Giuffre’s improper assertion of diversity jurisdiction notwithstanding that she is a permanent resident of Australia and not a domiciliary of Colorado.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver and Release)
2. Giuffre, through her own actions, inactions, and other conduct – including, without limitation, entering into the 2009 Release Agreement with Epstein containing a broad third-party release of her claims against Prince Andrew and others – waived the claims now asserted in the Complain
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
3. Giuffre is barred, in whole or in part, from obtaining the requested relief based on the doctrine of lache.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Damages Contributed to by Other)
4. Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage, Giuffre and/or others, who are not Prince Andrew, contributed in whole or in part to the alleged damag
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)
5. Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the Complaint, Giuffre’s claims are barred by the doctrine of consent.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
6. Giuffre’s alleged causes of action are barred in whole or in part by her own wrongful conduct and the doctrine of unclean hand.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
7. As a result of Giuffre’s knowledge, conduct, words and/or actions, Giuffre’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppe.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
8. Giuffre’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute(s) of limitations.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Speculative Damage)
9. Giuffre cannot recover the damages alleged in the Complaint because such damages, if any, are too speculative to be recoverable at law.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Right to Exemplary or Punitive Damages)
10. Giuffre’s prayer for exemplary or punitive damages is barred because the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to entitle Giuffre to recover exemplary or punitive damages from Prince Andrew. Moreover, any award of punitive damages is unconstitutional if it is excessive under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
11. Giuffre’s causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute viable causes of action against Prince Andrew.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I genuinely, sincerely, and ardently hope so.Does this indicate that he means to take the stand in his own defence
And this being the US, hopefully it will be live.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
He usually does so well when questioned tho!
The truth about the sweating defence will be well and truly proved or not!
Flavour
hang the bankers
As you may remember from previous episodes involving Prince Andrew, he does not much care for optics
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
We need to remember that he is utterly shameless. Wouldn't be surprised if he insisted on a jury trial then didn't turn up - it's a civil court, he doesn't have to. A new condition that means his heart explodes if he flies higher than 1,000 metres, perhaps. Walking medical miracle that he is.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Sure ts very high risk demanding a jury trail, if he doesnt get it, hes just pissed off the judge big time, and wont get any favours. Isnt it also a bit dangerous to keep banging on about whether the case should even proceed and claiming that hes covered by the epstein agreement, the judge has already rued on that so another opportunity to piss off judge!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Legal question. If I'm sued in a US civil court and totally ignore it, and they rule against me with some sum of money owed, if I continue to totally ignore it, is there anything they can do to me as long as I remember never to set foot in the US?
Athos
Well-Known Member
He's got a better chance of a jury finding in his favour than a judge; that's why he's insisting on it.
He wil get it; he's entitled to it.
It's usual to plead mutually exclusive defences in the alternative; increases his chance of geting home on something.
The judge hasn't ruled on the issue of the agreement as such; he merely decided that there wasn't grounds to strike the claim out based upon it; it's still open to be argued at trial.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, subject to satisfaction of six criteria, US judgements can be enforced in the UK as debts. Notably, not any part of the dameages that are punitive, though.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Thanks for clarifying, still think its taking the piss to demand a jury trial and then not attend in person!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He's a member of the British royal family. Taking the piss has been his lifelong occupation.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, surprising for such a stand-up kinda guy.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Will the proceedings be on TV? The Maxwell and Weinstein ones weren’t but they were federal affairs. I will go to church every Sunday for a year if we get to watch Andy giving evidence to a court.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I’m assuming his lawyers are not fighting this case on a no win no fee basis
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Someone's settled his interim account then.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
On a completely unrelated matter not involving His Royal Lowliness in the slightest but possibly filling a juror's mind with imaginings, this just goes to show how the worst of the very rich can behave.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
What am I missing? Why is this not bigger news?
Athos
Well-Known Member
It might be tomorrow. But it's notable that he still denies any sexual activity with her:
"44. Prince Andrew denies the allegations contained in paragraph forty-four of the Complaint and denies that he ever engaged in sexual acts with Giuffre."
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
So it’s “we didn’t have sex but if we did it would have been consensual”? I’m not following the legalese here.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't remember having sex with her, but if I did, then it will have been consensual because I don't rape people.
That would be Andrew-logic. Maybe he's writing his own defence.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Because it's not a criminal trial, the criminal concept of the age of consent does not necessarily apply (this is a guess, and obviously it would not look great to a jury).
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's pretty much it. Continue to deny any sex, but keep a defence consent open, just in case she's somehow able to prove sex happened.
Similar threads
