First, let me welcome all of the lawyers and legal scholars who are going to be schooling me on everything I’m about to get wrong with this story. Welcome! Grab a cocktail and pull up a chair. As I covered back in January of this year, Prince Andrew got caught up in a decade-old sex scandal involving his friend and epically shady “financier” Jeffrey Epstein. A woman named Virginia Roberts claimed that Epstein had “hired her” when she was just a teenager (she was 17) to entertain his friends and business associates. Roberts claimed that Prince Andrew was one of the Epstein associates she had sex with. This happened more than a decade ago.
Epstein has already been to jail once, for 13 months, back in 2008. Roberts and a few other of Epstein’s former underage sex slaves are currently trying to sue the Department of Justice because of the way they believe the DOJ mishandled the Epstein case. To be fair to them, Epstein was and is pretty well-connected, and it’s believed that Prince Andrew’s association in particular was worrisome to several DOJ officials and senior Bush administration officials. It’s more than possible that Epstein was given a lighter sentence than the average sexual predator would have gotten, simply because of Epstein’s political contributions and connections. But! The current case against the DOJ has just been dealt a blow. I think?
A federal judge in Florida on Tuesday rejected a bid by two women to join a high-profile sex-abuse lawsuit — and ordered that shocking sex allegations against Britain’s Prince Andrew and famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz be stricken from the court record. US District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that Virginia Roberts’ accusations about Andrew be removed as he denied her and the other woman’s attempt to join the salacious suit against convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a friend of the prince.
“At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details are unnecessary,” Marra wrote in his order. “These unnecessary details shall be stricken.” He added that “factual details regarding with whom and where” Roberts claimed to have had sex “were “immaterial and impertinent” to her argument.
Dershowitz expressed his satisfaction with Marra’s ruling. “It’s a complete vindication of my position,” he told The Post. “The judge has already sanctioned those lawyers for defaming me and criticized them for filing (the lawsuit).”
Roberts, 31, identified as Jane Doe No. 3, and the other woman, Jane Doe No. 4, claim to be among dozens of women Epstein sexually abused when they were teens. They were seeking to join a long-running civil lawsuit against the US Department of Justice filed by other alleged Epstein victims. They claimed that government officials violated their rights by not letting them know that Epstein had received a sweetheart plea deal that exempted him from federal charges. The freaky financier served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a county jail after pleading guilty to soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008.
Roberts has accused the filthy-rich sex offender of pimping her out to Andrew and his other high-powered friends when she was just 17. She alleged that on some days, Epstein, 62, would sexually abuse as many as seven girls — and that the X-rated romps usually started with erotic massages. Roberts claimed to have bedded several powerful prominent pervs, including the royal Brit, whom she was paid $15,000 to sleep with.
She also has claimed former President Bill Clinton stayed in one of the many villas on Epstein’s US Virgin Islands estate — where group sex was a “regular occurrence.” She said she never had sex with Bubba. Andrew and Buckingham Palace have vehemently denied the allegations.
Um… this is shady, right? I think it’s “pertinent” to actually hear the claims of the women bringing this suit against the DOJ. Why aren’t they being allowed to tell their stories? Why is all of this being swept under the rug AGAIN?
Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.
Of course a member of the Royal Family won’t be prosecuted, they would never let that happen even if he raped her in front of the Buckingham Palace and all it would be filmed.
Men like him will always get away.
mte, I would’ve been surprised if this hadnt happened. It’s sickening.
But the result of this case would not be prosecution of any one. This is a civil case against the DOJ. The court would be awarding money damages.
Exactly! He could have raped her in front of Buckingham Palace, beaten her with the Queen’s handbag, then filmed a reality show about it all and still have walked. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The interesting thing to me about the “absolute power” thing in this context is that the power is not just ‘corrupting’ Andrew (and there are plenty of scumbags who abuse others, with no real power). But all of the people in the legal system – who are not even part of the Commonwealth – allowing this not to get a proper examination. The corruption of them is interesting.
Quite frankly, I think Andrew is taking the hit on this but that there are FAR FAR bigger names that are the real worry. Andrew and Dershowitz….small potatoes compared to the names that have been rumored to be on that list. Not meaning at all that they are innocent. I just think they are the names discussed publicly. There are others being whispered that would be much bigger hits for the US and that, IMO, is why the whole thing is going to be swept away – again.
Agree. Absolutely.
Yes. If anyone here has ever read The Franklin Cover-Up, written by a US SENATOR of all people (if I remember correctly), it is mind blowing. Yeah domestic human trafficking exists and kidnapped kids are never seen again and some really senior people are involved.
I don’t know, he and his ex wife have had trouble in the past, that had nothing to do with the U.S., and it’s all been quietly cleaned up.
The message to the public is devastating, nevertheless. A “prince” gets a free pass without a trial concerning sex with an underage prostitute (and possibly enforced underage prostitution).
It is absolutely disgusting. And if prince andrew gets off the hook like this then who else has gotten off the hook? And how many have gotten off the hook?
I hope they win their suit against the DOJ.
@ Hunter
Thanks for the book title.
money and power and blackmail (the powerful clients who participated in the ring)
Why am I not surprised. What could be more pertinent that hearing the alleged victims account, but prince Andrews reputation must come before justice. That lawyer dershowitz is so smug, I can’t wait for somebody to take him down, not likely but I live in hope.
I’ll join you in that hope.
The truth is out there now. She should write a book and DARE them to sue her for libel….
Disgusting. Eff the world.
Hands up if you’re surprised by this. Anyone? Anyone?
If she has details of sexual encounters to prove she was being pimped, wouldn’t you assume that would HELP her case and further convince the judge that she is a victim? I don’t get the logic that it is not relevant. Can someone enlighten?
IKR ? I thought the same. I’m wondering what all the Celebitchy lawyers and legal gurus have to say about it … I’m truly interested!
read lilacflowers comments!
It does seem shady. I mean, the case is supposed to establish whether or not the victims were coerced into Epstein’s plea deal, right? And if the plea deal took in other offences by Epstein AND other perpetrators, how can evidence about other offences/other perpetrators be “irrelevant”?
I haven’t read any of the court pleadings or decisions but it this reads that these two women were not allowed to join the case, which to me says they and their claims are somehow different than the other plaintiffs and their claims that are before the court in the lawsuit. Nothing stops them from filing their own lawsuit, however.
Reading the comments here, there seems to be, as usual, a great deal of misunderstanding. This lawsuit would not result in prosecution or jail time for anyone. It is a CIVIL, not a criminal case, and it is against the Department of Justice, not Epstein or Dershowitz or Prince Andrew. The issue is how the DOJ handled things. Also, not sure which jurisdictions these acts occurred – 17 is not underage in most of the US.
Thank you! I read the case is already going, they don’t add to it, and all the details the media are feeding on aren’t pertinent to that ongoing case.
But it doesn’t mean Andrew’s not guilty of what she said he did, or Dershowitz either, for that matter, and as a guy who’s been all over screaming about how he’s innocent, that was a great parsing of the judge’s ruling up there.
Thank, Lilacflowers.
Thank you!
Ok. I am completely ignorant of the US system. Your first para explains it to me. Merci!
Sadly, most Americans lack knowledge of our legal system.
Oh, it’s not peculiar to Americans, you know. Same over here. You know me, I like to be enlightened. Almost as much as I’d like to see Andrew fall from grace!
If I recall, the original complaints were made on behalf of a class of potential victims, so these additional women’s claims are already being represented. The judge specifically stated that these women could and should be heard, as witnesses at the trial, but that it just wasn’t the proper juncture for that evidence. So it’s been “stricken” in the sense that it’s not the proper time, but the door is completely open for it to come back in at trial, so long as it’s admissible at that time.
And the case is against the DOJ, not against Epstein, so this information may not be relevant.
Epstein received “punishment” literally unheard of before or after him. He was free by day and spent only 8 hours by night in a county jail rather than a secure prison where your freedom is much more closely monitored and your activities are regulated along with other inmates.
Furthermore the agreement covered both State and Federal charges, AND stipulated that no one else would be prosecuted based on the allegations made by the women.
There is the source of this current case for civil damages against the DOJ: NO ONE ELSE investigated or prosecuted for their “alleged” actions!
Wow, did he really just have to spend 8 hours a day there?! Talk about a soft sentence.
Great points Lilacflowers.
Actually, it is not uncommon for inmates to be free by day and incarcerated by night and weekends. People incarcerated for failure to pay child support are often sentenced in this manner so they can work to pay the money owed. Inmates who qualify for pre-release programs are also allowed out by day to work and return at night so that they establish good work habits and work contacts in order to lead a productive life when their sentence is complete.
That makes more sense… that it just wasn’t the right time for that evidence to be presented. I thought there was a lot more leeway for what constitutes evidence in a civil trial anyway, because of possible punitive damages and the like.
This is the perfect example of how the Queens power isn’t just ceremonial. This has back channel influence all over it. A phone call here a quiet word there and Voila! Andrew can relax at his Verbier chalet in peace. Thanks awfully, Mummy. Also Alan Dershowitz can bite me.
When I woke up this morning, for some silly reason the words, “The Sun King”, was on my lips! Absolute monarchical rule! Nice to know that because the governments (the leaders), are tied together, they are therefore less accountable to it (citing service to society). Poor Charles doesn’t realize that this will only make me despise him more – not that he cares!
What is so offensive is that these people have no accountability to the laws they impose, and supposedly uphold. Lies mean nothing to these people, other than for the purpose of putting us to sleep, to their crimes against humanity.
Impertinent indeed, Virginia!
I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. 🙂
Hyperbole is extravagant exaggeration – good morning, bluhare – I appreciate all your *even-handed remarks*.
Impertinent indeed, Virginia!
Isn’t that what you did? Extravagant exaggeration? Nothing wrong with some good old extravagant exaggeration; I do it all the time!
Sleaze.
It’s like an episode of Endeavour. I imagine a government fix – it man pro positioning someone by silencer to make everything go away.
Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or has been dismissed or won’t come back up later if evidence is given, just that those details aren’t necessary in these pleadings.
And these two women are not plaintiffs.
Stricken from the record doesn’t mean innocent.
This is a civil case against the Department of Justice. There will be no determination of “guilty” or “not guilty” or “innocent” for anyone involved. The question is whether the DOJ did its job properly and damages, in the form of money, will be awarded to the plaintiffs if the court finds that the agency did not do its job properly.
U have taken my words literally and perhaps they were open for misinterpretation. I didn’t think so, though. However, what I should have written was that “in this case, according to the judge and his findings, stricken does not mean that Prince Andrew did not have sex or sexual relations with Virginia Roberts. That very well could have happened and there could still be a smoking gun out there. So, in this case and based on this ruling, stricken doesn’t mean innocent. What the judge’s ruling means is that in terms of jurisprudence is that Virginia Roberts cannot join this particular lawsuit, which she was seeking to do.” That is what I should have written but didn’t think I needed to get technical with it, as the saying goes.
While I am at it, the “taint” of this case and his association with the guy who got convicted will always be a footnote in Prince Andrew’s life’s story, IMO. We will forgot Jeffrey Epstein’s name and that of Virginia Roberts’, perhaps, but not PA’s entanglement or the allegations.
Thank u, Lilacflowers🌸. Sometimes we all need to be more clear by literally stating what we mean and/or what we are implying.
Kaiser – I am glad you wrote about this story. I feel that the media’s headlines totally misrepresent what just happened in the case. The case is continuing and what was struck from the case – the right of Virginia Roberts to insert herself as another Jane Doe in the case – is basically immaterial.
Let Dersh pretend there was some victory for him here – there wasn’t. Ms. Roberts can and will be called as a witness in any trial – she just cannot be added as a plaintiff.
I am monitoring the Harvard Crimson where they are following the case and are not exactly enamored or fooled by Dersh’s smear the victim shenanigans.
Disgusting!
I am not surprised, at all!
It seems to me that there is another big problem here: the statute of limitations. That is a law which restricts the right to file a civil suit to a certain period of time after the claimed injury has occurred. These events happened many years ago. It seems to me that the statute of limitations would be a major hurdle in this case. Also, a judge can order language stricken from a pleading that s/he deems inappropriate and unnecessary to the litigation. Nothing extraordinary about it.
The statute of limitations applies to the DOJ’s actions, not Epstein’s, Dershowitz’s or Andrew’s
FYI- this law suit against DOJ was filed @ 2008. It has been in the works for over seven years and once it is filed by plaintiffs it will continue until resolved in some manner. I think the Jane Doe #3 wanted to join in the law suit, but may have passed the time period which the law allows for. \p.s. reportedly she is writing a book so any legal action will require anyone who wants to sue must do so in a U.S. court of law and testify. Something I highly doubt BRF will permit PA to continue to drag them through the mud. Oh, and he has no idea what other evidence authorities removed from Epstein’s property (photos and videos) reportedly that is how authorities located the victims including Jane Doe #3 (Virginia).
I hope it is leaked- just like Dershowitz illegally getting access of closed juvenile files and leaking them on Virgina when she was a child- not long before Esptein procured and groomed her.
Epstein got a pimp’s deal, no doubt. I’ve read all the Gawker pieces on him and the takeaway is that he kept meticulous records of who he knew and who he saw. He probably has enough dirt to ruin a lot of reputations if he so chose. I have no doubt the DOJ got leaned on very heavily to make the case go away.
And it did go away! Totally! Pesky little problem for all involved, however. Judge Marra is a fine, honest jurist.
ITA, he knows too much, and too many…
I used to admire Dershowitz. Prince Andrew has always been a sleaze.
More evidence that the royal family needs to be thrown down, disbanded, etc. Total nonsense. Worthless dolts.
Please stop it with the “literally”, literally.
Thank you.
How is she a slave if she got paid $15,000?
According to the Daily Mail, and the Daily Beast, Charles hasn’t been supportive of Andrew with this and that says a lot.
I wonder if the women will file civil suits now. Can Andrew even be deposed or sit on a trial? Isn’t he protected under ’embassador status’?
As far as I know Andrew is no longer an ambassador.
If he had been an ambassador when the alleged crimes happened then would he be persecuted?
prosecuted, not persecuted. The underage girls were persecuted.
Andrew was never actually an Ambassador, as in being a legitimate member of the Foreign Service of the U.K, He was dubbed an “Ambassador at Large” or an “Ambassador for Trade”, mostly by the British press, I think. Which means he was flying from place to place at someone else’s expense, schmoozing up foreign businessmen.
I think he and the ex-wife are both grifters and have been for a long time. Much in the same manner that his great-uncle the Duke of Windsor and Wallace were. That whole incident with Fergie in the hotel room accepting a briefcase full of cash in exchange for arranging facetime with “The Prince” from an undercover reporter? Does anyone really think Andrew knew nothing at all about such “arrangements”?
Andrew doesn’t have the income his older brother Charles has. So he likely does whatever he has to in order to support his “lifestyle”. And Fergie has shown herself numerous times over the years to be quite the load in terms of running up massive debts. As in MILLIONS of pounds.
Recently, Andrew and Fergie bought a multi-million dollar ski chalet. Together. And yet as recently as 3-4 years ago she was flat broke and in massive debt. Hmmmmm……..
I believe every word of this girl’s allegations about Randy Andy. And I’m glad she got the story out.
@ Deeana
Thanks for your posting.
I tend to believe the girl, too. I tend to believe all the girls, matter of fact.
The sleazy exploitation of these girls is abhorrent, however I think the allegations against members of the Belgian Royal Family (not the current king, Philippe) and others in The X Dossiers is the stuff of nightmares. Epic cover-up. Not for the faint of heart.
Wow. You are not kidding. Words fail.
Yeah, I couldn’t read the whole thing. There’s a point where the depravity and corruption are more than I can bear.
Link please. Or words I can search via google.com .
I’d love to know if the “victims” reported and paid federal income tax on all the money the IRS would have been entitled to ($15k a pop is pretty lucrative…) before they sued the DOJ.
@ Sarah
I don’t like the “” around the word victims.
As for the money: I consider it compensation and they deserve more.
Exactly – it was compensation, and compensation is typically taxable. So, I wonder if those taxes were paid, or if the plaintiff(s) stiffed the same federal government they’re now alleging failed them.
@ Sarah
If you claim that a victim’s compensation is taxable then you have to admit that they were victims. So don’t put ‘victim’ into double quotes to belittle the crimes they suffered. And do not skip this point. What had been done to these girls is absolutely abhorrent.
You are wrong on the tax question.
Victim compensation is nontaxable.
Restitution is taxable.
And after a while tax liabilities become time-barred.
How can this happen in the 21. century? Aren’t we all equal in front of the law? I know that some legal matters are taken much more seriously in the USA. I was very impressed that Paris Hilton had had to serve some days in jail for DUI.
Well, I really don’t know if such types as Prince Andrew would be persecuted in my countries but I am very glad we don’t have an official aristocracy any more.
The message to the public is devastating, nevertheless. A “prince” gets a free pass without a trial concerning sex with an underage prostitute (and possibly enforced underage prostitution).
It is absolutely disgusting. And if prince andrew gets off the hook like this then who else has gotten off the hook? And how many have gotten off the hook?
See Margaret’s comment above re the X Dossiers. Horrifying.
@ CynicalCeleste
Thanks, I googled and I found some stuff.
Time for a little revolution, French Style … And that instrument for getting rid of royals and aristos with the help of a blade moved by gravity …
thornton & tolman were better than freeman in Fargo, and odenkirk would have made a better lester imo. idk i found that series a little disappointing overall though.