PRINCE Andrew began his bid to dismiss the sex assault lawsuit against him last night by accusing his alleged victim of “profiting” from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
The Duke of York’s US lawyer, Andrew Brettler, filed a motion to dismiss the civil case brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
As an “alternative”, he also asked a New York court to compel her to provide “a more definitive statement of her allegations”.
But in strong comments, he accused sex trafficking victim Virginia of profiting from the Epstein scandal.
Mr Brettler said: “For over a decade, Giuffre has profited from her allegations against Epstein and others by selling stories and photographs to the press and entering into secret agreements to resolve her claims against her alleged abusers, including Epstein and his ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.
“Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has
secured for herself over the years.
“This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits against individuals such as Prince Andrew, whose sullied reputation is only the latest collateral damage of the Epstein scandal.”
He said the 38-year-old filed the lawsuit because she was out for another "payday".
Mr Brettler continued: "Accusing a member of the world’s best known royal family of serious misconduct has helped Giuffre create a media frenzy online and in the traditional press.
"It is unfortunate, but undeniable, that sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth.
"Giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him."
Mr Brettler said Andrew “unequivocally” denied Virginia’s claims.
He said: “Without diminishing the harm suffered as a result of Epstein’s alleged misconduct, Prince Andrew never sexually abused or assaulted Giuffre.
“He unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false allegations against him.”
Accusing a member of the world’s best known royal family of serious misconduct has helped Giuffre create a media frenzy online and in the traditional press.
Andrew’s defence team cited a clause in a 2009 settlement between Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein, in a bid to dismiss her lawsuit.
The secret agreement is said to release lawyers, employees, agents and heirs from liability in connection with the Epstein case – but Andrew is claiming it stretches to him too.
Mr Brettler said in his court filing last night: “As part of the settlement, (Virginia) agreed to release Epstein and numerous other individuals and entities from any and all liability arising from their alleged misconduct.”
At a court hearing last month, Brettler claimed the clause “absolves” his client – adding that the lawsuit facing the royal was “baseless, non-viable and potentially unlawful”.
Virginia, 38, alleges that she was abused by the duke three times while underage, in London, New York and on Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean.
Her sensational lawsuit, filed in New York in August, accused the duke of sex assault and even “rape in the first degree”.
BOMBSHELL DOCUMENT
The case – which could be fought well into 2022, if it goes to trial – look set to overwhelm the duke during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee year and shred his already battered reputation.
But his legal team reckon the confidential Epstein document could get Andrew off the hook for the lawsuit without having to go to a civil trial.
The agreement was reached during a civil settlement between sex trafficker Epstein and Virginia in 2009, ten years before the billionaire paedophile killed himself in prison.
Its exact wording has not been released publicly.
Virginia’s legal team believe the agreement has no relevance to Andrew and will not stop her lawsuit.
The mum-of-three’s lawyer, David Boies, agreed to share the Epstein settlement agreement with Andrew’s legal team, insisting it would be “irrelevant to the case” against him.
Mr Boies wrote earlier this month: “There is no evidence from any of the parties to the release, or Prince Andrew, that the release was ever intended to include Prince Andrew, and we believe the evidence will be that it wasn't.”
A spokesman for Andrew refused to comment last night.
Source: Read Full Article
