Lootman wrote:And in a sense here isn't the point of the case more than just money? It will also place on official record that a judge or jury found Andrew liable for a seriously illegal act, on a preponderance of the evidence? Even a default judgement against Andrew carries the stench of guilt with it, since Andrew will probably not formally contest the claim in court.
If a default judgment is obtained it won't be as a result of a judicial decision - it's just an administrative act, and doesn't mean that she has proved her case.
Although we all know Andrew has historically been questionable in his ethics towards such matters since the days of Koo Stark and Randy Andy, I do not believe it was well known until now that he may have had sex with a minor. I certainly did not know that before this case. And that is an act that will usually get you prison time in the US and an entry on the register of sex offenders. Especially if the underage victim may have been groomed or coerced, as is claimed here.
But as I understand it, the only allegation that he had sex with Giuffre was when she was in London. And under English law she was not a minor, so it would have been perfectly legal. Whilst the US likes to throw its weight about on the world stage I don't see why any English person should submit to a claim for compensation for an act that was not illegal in England.
And the allegations made by his lawyers are incredibly vague. For example, it says:
"On one occasion, Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in London at Maxwell's home. During this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Plaintiff, against her will.
On another occasion Prince Andrew sexually abused Plaintiff in Epstein's New York mansion""Again, this seems designed to capture media attention more than follow the rules of pleading a civil case. She was not a "child" in the normal sense of the word, so there's no justification for using that term in a formal statement of claim other than to grab a headline.
But what really amazed me is that in this formal statement of her claim it doesn't even give an approximate date when these incidents were supposed to have taken place, thereby failing on a fundamental level to establish that she was actually a minor at the time.
Lootman wrote:Clitheroekid wrote:Ironically, all this might well have been avoided simply by serving the papers through the post, which, perhaps surprisingly, would appear to be a valid method of service.
The plaintiff's lawyers claim the summons and complaint was also sent by first class mail, thereby meeting that criterion:
"A copy of the summons and the complaint were also reportedly emailed to Andrew’s royal household office email address, and to his lawyers by email and FedEx, as well as being sent to his home by first class post."
Sending the papers by email was
definitely not valid service, so I don't know why they even bothered doing it. Neither is sending documents by FedEx valid service. And from the term `first class post' it sounds like the documents were posted to his house from England, rather than New York. Again, that would not amount to good service, either.
Frankly, they appear to have made a complete mess of it, and I can't understand why they didn't just use a London solicitor to deal with it. They may get away with it, but they frankly don't deserve to.