A Convivial Aviation Discussion Forum for Aviators, Aviatrices and for those who think Flying Machines are Magic.
https://ops-normal.org/
Prince Andrew’s lawyers claim papers in the lawsuit against him were not properly served, according to reports.
The duke’s legal team hope to get the case against him thrown out and may boycott the first hearing on Monday, according to the Daily Mail.
Couldn't agree more. Shirley even American lawyers would find it hard to argue that she was there under duress going by her big smile.G-CPTN wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:55 amWho in the UK thinks that Andrew 'did no wrong'? - apart from adultery.
The female was aged 18, and she was not apparently unwilling (based on her smiling appearance - though who knows what actually occurred?).
Why was she there?
The charges appear to have been contrived - why?
I don't know about nowadays, but I remember that in New York in the 1970s such papers must be served personally to the recipient in person. It was not enough to pop them in a mailbox or ask a doorman to pass them on. The papers had to be served on the intended recipient's person, though not necessarily into his hand. Stuffing them into his jacket, so long as he was wearing it at those time, was sufficient in those days.
On Monday the Judge gave the plaintiffs a week to provide evidence that the papers had been served on the Porchester boy. If he wants to demand disclosure of the terms of the Non Disclosure Agreement which forbids her from disclosing who shagged her and where and when, then he must engage in the process which will result from him accepting that he's in receipt of the court papers which he has personally dodged.The Duke of York has suffered an early setback in his US sex assault case after a judge refused to unseal a document that could invalidate the damages claim.
Prince Andrew, 61, is said to be pinning his hopes on the settlement – signed by his long time accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre in 2009 – which allegedly prevents her from suing.
It came as Ms Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, warned him to accept the lawsuit, saying: “Service is not intended to be a game of hide and seek behind palace walls.”
The Duke’s US lawyer, Andrew Brettler, told a pre-trial hearing on Monday that he believed the agreement Ms Giuffe made with Jeffrey Epstein released the Duke and others from “any and all potential liability”.
The decision to keep it under wraps means the Duke will now have to engage with his own court process in order to request a copy. That would mean accepting that he has been served the lawsuit and then being exposed to a potentially damaging discovery process.
Alan Dershowitz, a former lawyer for Epstein, had asked a judge to give the Duke’s lawyers a copy of the confidential settlement, believing it will allow them to get the case dropped.
Ms Giuffre had accused Mr Dershowitz of sexual assault in 2019. But she reportedly dropped the claim last month as a direct result of the agreement.
"The same reasons for dismissing the case against me seem to apply to Prince Andrew," Mr Dershowitz said. "These documents should get the charges against Prince Andrew thrown out."
He urged the judge in his own case, Loretta Preska, to unseal the document, warning he was “compelled not to sit back silently” knowing its contents.
“The issue before the court is a matter of professional ethics and the interests of justice,” he said.
However, Judge Preska was cutting in her response, stating there was “no basis” for him to obtain the document for a party in a different case.
“To the court’s knowledge, Mr Dershowitz has not been commissioned as a roving ethics monitor,” she said.
The judge noted that Prince Andrew may have “valid reasons” for trying to obtain the agreement but that he could do so through the discovery process in his own case.
Meanwhile, the Duke’s legal team has sought to further delay the court process by challenging the High Court’s agreement to serve him with the claim.
In a move that risks exasperating New York federal judge Lewis Kaplan, his solicitor Gary Bloxsome claimed on Thursday that due process had still not been followed.
The High Court was forced to intervene in the ongoing litigation when Prince Andrew refused to accept that the lawsuit, sent by courier to his Windsor home, posted to his lawyer’s office and sent by email, had not been properly served.
Mr Bloxsome said in order to comply with the Hague convention, a British court official had to deliver the paperwork.
After representation from Ms Giuffre’s legal team, the court accepted the request for service. However, Mr Bloxsome said the request had to be made by Judge Kaplan.
Ms Giuffre claims she was forced to have sex with the Duke three times when she was 17. The Duke denies all the claims and says he has “no recollection” of meeting her.
A judge has ruled that Prince Andrew's US lawyer can be served with legal papers in a sexual assault case filed by Virginia Giuffre in New York.
It follows a dispute over whether the prince has been formally notified of the civil claim against him.
New York judge Lewis Kaplan ruled Ms Giuffre's lawyers could take the US route to serve papers on the prince.
Ms Giuffre, 38, claims she was sexually assaulted by the prince at three locations including New York City.
Prince Andrew, the Queen's 61-year-old second son, has consistently denied the allegation.
Separately, the High Court in London has given the prince's lawyers until next Friday to appeal against its decision to serve papers on him in the UK.
Judge Kaplan, whose ruling emerged in public court records overnight, said that given the dispute over whether the papers had been served in London, it was now entirely lawful for him to order that they should be sent to the prince's Los Angeles-based lawyer Andrew Brettler.
Mr Brettler spoke for the prince in a telephone hearing on the case earlier this week - but he was not formally designated as a lawyer who was authorised to accept service for him and pass the material on.
But Judge Kaplan ruled: "Service on the defendant's US counsel is reasonably calculated to bring the papers served to the defendant's attention, regardless of whether his US counsel is 'authorised' to accept service on his behalf."
The judge noted that Ms Giuffre's lawyers had already proceeded with an attempt to serve the case on Prince Andrew in London under an international convention between the US and UK courts.
This request to intervene and assist in handing the documents to the prince was accepted earlier this week at the High Court.
Master Barbara Fontaine, a senior English judge who oversees requests from foreign courts for help, has authorised officials to begin the process of serving.
She has given the prince's legal team until next Friday to decide if they will challenge her decision to proceed with serving the papers in the UK.
The Judicial Office said in a previous statement: "Lawyers for Prince Andrew have indicated that they may seek to challenge the decision of the High Court to recognise the validity of the Hague Convention request for service made by Ms Giuffre's lawyers.
"The High Court has directed that any challenge must be made by close of business on September 24."
Serving of documents is the critical first stage in any claim for damages - it means that a defendant has been made fully aware of the allegations against them by receiving all of the papers in the case.
If a defendant does not take part in the case after they have been served, they risk automatically losing.
A spokeswoman for the prince declined to comment.
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the "slightly arcane legal tussle" had ended "with a victory for Virginia Giuffre's lawyers [and] a defeat for Prince Andrew's lawyers".
This, he said, had drawn Ms Giuffre's civil case "one step closer to the courtroom - which is exactly where Prince Andrew and his lawyers don't want it to be".