Prince Andrew has been ‘served’ the papers for Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit

Duke of Edinburgh death

For weeks, we heard about Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s lawyer sending a process server to Windsor to serve the lawsuit papers on Prince Andrew. Andrew had apparently been dodging the process server, and we even heard that Andrew fled to Scotland (again) to avoid being served. For the past week and a half, that was all bullsh-t. The process server did go Royal Lodge twice, and was basically forced to leave the lawsuit paperwork with Andrew’s security officers. From the Daily Mail’s exclusive:

Prince Andrew has been served with legal papers for the bombshell sexual assault lawsuit brought by the Jeffrey Epstein accuser who claims she was raped by the prince as a teen. According to a document filed on Friday, an affidavit of service was served at the Duke of York’s home in Windsor, England, on August 27.

An agent working on behalf of Virginia Roberts handed the papers over to police officers at the property, who agreed to hand them to the prince, according to the papers. The agent had tried the day before but was rebuffed and told that staff had been ‘primed’ not to accept any documents, the papers state. When the agent returned the next day, the police officers at the gate of Royal Lodge, Andrew’s official residence, changed their mind and allowed him to leave the paperwork.

The documents filed on Friday state that Cesar Sepulveda with British corporate intelligence company GCW intelligence went to Andrew’s home on August 26 at 9.30am where he met with security staff at the gate, handed over a business card and was asked to wait. The document says that ‘after some time’ Sepulveda met with a Metropolitan police officer who tried to call to see whether he could be let up. After more time passed, Andrew’s head of security arrived and had ‘apparently experienced the same difficulties and could not raise anyone in charge there’.

Sepulveda said the officers said that anything he left with them ‘would not be forwarded to the defendant and it appeared from the attendance that the security staff had already been primed not to allow anyone access onto the property to serve court process and had been instructed not to accept any service’.

The following day Sepulveda returned to the Royal Lodge and a police officer at the entrance called a different supervisor who said that the documents could be left with the cops at the gate. The material would then be ‘forwarded on to the legal team’. The document states that Sepulveda ‘did enquire whether it was possible to meet personally with the defendant, but he was told that was not possible and although (Sepulveda) did ask the whereabouts of the defendant, the Metropolitan Police Officer said that he could not answer any questions.’

[From The Daily Mail]

David Boies (Virginia’s attorney) confirmed to British and American outlets that he believes that this qualifies as “Andrew being served,” although Boies noted that “Process servers have shown up at his residence, and they have refused to take the summons and refused to let the process servers in to serve… He has stopped coming out in public. He has been moving around.” LMAO, Andrew is so dumb. Hiding behind royal hedges and dodging process servers and running off to whine to mummy about it. Meanwhile, this was incredibly predictable: because the papers were not handed directly to Andrew, he believes he was not “successfully served.”

Prince Andrew’s team do not believe that legal papers from lawyers for the woman who has accused him of sexual abuse have been successfully served, the BBC understands. Virginia Giuffre has launched a civil case against the prince in New York – and legal papers have to be “served” before the case can proceed. Her lawyers said they were left with a police officer at his home in Windsor.

On Monday, a US judge must determine whether the papers have in fact been “served” before any case can get under way. The video conference, scheduled for a New York court, will consider the next stages of the case.

Asked whether the prince had received the papers and if he accepted they had been served, a spokeswoman representing the prince said: “No comment.”

One reason it is believed the duke’s team does not consider papers have been served is because they maintain British legal procedures require that a valid request for assistance from UK court officials must come from a judicial or diplomatic officer in the US – and not from Ms Giuffre’s lawyers. It is understood there are also questions over the steps taken to deliver the papers, in particular, attempts to serve them personally to the prince at his home and to email them to barristers who may not be authorised to conduct litigation.

BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said: “Clearly the papers have not been served personally on Prince Andrew. Equally clearly, Prince Andrew has not been making himself available to receive these papers so it will all now have to be decided by a judge in New York on Monday – whether they’ve been served, whether the court case can continue.”

[From BBC]

It was my understanding – from my attendance at Dick Wolf University – that because this is an international situation involving an American suing a British national in American civil court, that it doesn’t actually matter that Andrew was not personally served. Besides, it is clear that Andrew has been “informed” of the lawsuit – Boies is in contact with Andrew’s lawyers already, and has been for years. Andrew’s entire legal strategy seems to be “head in the sand, hide behind a curtain, you can’t see me.” Which is not really a legal strategy, it’s just an immature bluff.

Duke of Edinburgh death

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

113 Responses to “Prince Andrew has been ‘served’ the papers for Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Noki says:

    These people always leave things to boiling point so strange given their power and yet they seem to always lack some basic contigency planning. Seeing how this is a civil and not criminal,it would have spared him all this press and humiliation had he just settled with her years ago.

    • Ania says:

      Because they believe their privilige make them untouchable. They are so used to it that they haven’t noticed it doesn’t work anymore.

  2. VS says:

    Doesn’t he see that dodging the process is making him look guilty? especially after he said he will collaborate with the FBI? or does he think H&M will be once again used and thrown under the bus by the uk press and a lot in the public so he could continue to play hide and seek?

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Everyone even royalists knows that family is doomed. The Sussexes have survived the worst of what was thrown at them and are thriving. Randy Andy, Chucky and the other brother’s mutually assured reputational destruction is on the cards.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      Not just this, but that his lawyers are trying to get this thrown out, not on any merit, but *THIS*TECHNICALITY * (of not being “personally” served. Utter bullshit.

      It’s not like this nonce is EVER without 24 hr guards that would let a process server close enough, let alone leave his guarded gated palaces/residence alone to allow that to occur.

      And of course, *safest* place is behind mummy’s skirt!

      • TEALIEF says:

        Why is he being protected by the Metropolitan Police when he is no longer a “working royal”? Is he still receiving money from the Sovereign fund? Is the Queen who draws on said fund using these resources to protect and house this person? If so, why are public monies and protection being used to shield a paedophile from due process? Where is the accounting for this? This is insane, like of DOJ mounting defences for Trump when he was civilly sued for acts committed when he was a private citizen. The only way he was able to put that off was because he was President. Andrew no longer represents the Crown.

      • Lorelei says:

        @TeaLirf this is soooo bringing back the absolute frustration I felt when 45 blatantly flouted the laws with zero consequences (and there don’t even seem to have been any consequences in the months he’s been gone). It’s so wrong and disgusting and I cannot understand why there are SO MANY people willing to protect this man. Sure, we knew the Queen was always going to do the most to keep him safe, but….all of his RPOs? Why hasn’t even one step forward? Virginia is the only person in this situation with a shred of courage. Everyone else is showing just how cowardly they are right now.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @TEALIEF-We know why he’s being protected. His only guilt is being good friends with a dead pedophile rapist and being an active participant in the abuse of someone that was being sexually trafficked by dead pedophile rapist. It’s not like he married a WOC. My goodness, it’s more important for the royal rota/BM to demonize Meghan than it is to criticize the Queen/BRF to actively hide Andrew and his nefarious illegal shenanigans. Cressida Dick was made a Dame mid July 2021. She’s investigating nothing. The Met Police themselves are guilty in protecting Andrew. At this point, the RPO’s/Met Police have show shown they have no integrity or honor of duty to anyone not in the BRF. The Guardian has a piece about people wanting her removed. Globally people know he’s hiding and being protected. It’s really a shame this is the stance the BRF want to take. I’m not 100% sure of this source, just in case it’s good, maybe the interwebs can serve him. Again. As people have mentioned, if he’s innocent, why the avoidance and deflection of being served?
        https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Prince-Phillip-sexual-assault-lawsuit.pdf

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Just realized the link I shared says Prince Phillip(with 2 LL’s)-not Prince Andrew. That is very strange since Philip wasn’t alive in August 2021.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Just realized the link I shared says Prince Phillip(with 2 LL’s)-not Prince Andrew. That is very strange since Philip wasn’t alive in August 2021.

    • Tessa says:

      H and M are still being thrown under a bus, even media complaining about their talking of 9/11. The royals have no clue.

      • Debbie says:

        Sorry, what? The BRITISH media is complaining about an AMERICAN woman commemorating an AMERICAN tragic event? The cheek of these cretins, why don’t they mind their own business? Is there no news going on in England that they could discuss? No royal evading process service or anything?

  3. Elizabeth Regina says:

    Watch as the British press and establishment try to muddy the waters with this lawsuit. Even now, they are still trying to rehabilitate his reputation. I pray that Virginia continues to press on no matter what. Thankfully the world sees through all their shenanigans as the UK continues to isolate itself.

  4. HufflepuffLizLemon says:

    I know it’ll never happen, but I just dream of seeing this monster cuffed and hauled away, preferably sweating profusely. Just unbelievable he’s allowed to behave this way, while Meghan was attacked and vilified for things like “sending early emails” and “expecting people to work.”

    • Chica1971 says:

      I’m sure PC has a plan afoot to cause another scandal etc that forces Andrew from public for good and it will happen before QEII passes. UK is having food shortages and other issues b/c Brexit, sooner or later they will need to engage US. Having Prince Andrew as a side story is distracting for other reasons.

  5. Aang says:

    Why didn’t he just settle out of court with a non disclosure? I’m sure the Queen would have paid. This could have all been avoided.

    • MY3CENTS says:

      I really don’t understand how these people are wealthy enough to have access to the best legal and pr people , yet they keep making the worst possible choices.

      • goofpuff says:

        It’s because of entitlement. They believe they are above the law and to settle with anyone means they have to abide by it.

      • Sarah11 says:

        @ My3cents : PA is making these choices because it is the ONLY move left to keep him out of jail. I am sure his lawyers are giving him good advice and so are his PR people. But if his interview showed anything, it showed how arrogant he is and how he believes (probably based on past experience) that he will never have to face the consequences of his own stupidity. Along with the best lawyers and the best PR, he probably has access to the best “fixers”. Don’t blame the lawyers or PR people for the stupid things their clients do even after they get advice to do something else.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      He’s astonishingly arrogant and painfully stupid. That’s part of the reason that Epstein targeted him. I’m not saying Andrew wasn’t interested in what Epstein had to offer. It’s just that Epstein used him as a useful idiot like many others have done. When Epstein got out of prison the first time, he got Andrew to agree to be seen in public with him as a way to repair his reputation and act as a shield from further investigation. Andrew has also been “tricked” into making illegal arms deals between countries that are not allies with the UK.

      • Sofia says:

        Let’s not make Andrew out to be someone who “just” gets “tricked” into doing things. I’m not arguing that he isn’t idiot but I think he has more awareness over what he’s doing than you think. He’s not the strategic genius he might think he is but he’s not a complete puppet either.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Sofia I don’t think Ainsley was absolving Andrew of his wrongdoing or implying he was a puppet in her comment— he’s a grown man and clearly he willingly participated. But he IS extremely arrogant and quite stupid, so he was an easy mark for Epstein.

        We all saw on the Newsnight interview *just how* unbelievably stupid and egotistical he is. I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that he may have been tricked into some shady-ass dealings that other people declined to to get themselves involved in.

        This makes me wonder how many other high-profile people Epstein tried to ingratiate himself to, but they were smart enough to “nope” right away from him immediately so they’d never be associated with him.

      • Sofia says:

        @Lorelei: Again, I don’t deny that he’s not an idiot and doesn’t think things through but I don’t think he needs to be “tricked” into most things. I believe he was fully aware of who Epstein was before and after his arrest. He didn’t care that Epstein got arrested and he needed to avoid the man. He enjoyed having a cozy relationship with certain people because of his arms deals and knew that it was going to lead to financial and other rewards for him if he secured the deals. He’s a grown man who knows what he’s getting into (even just a bit) even if it’s stupid. He might not think it’s stupid but again, he knows what he’s getting into and out of things.

      • Bluecat says:

        @Lorelei, well Epstein was “friends” with people like Gates. I think he did a lot of money laundering for people like Andrew and Gates, other than the trafficking ofc. People who hanged with Epstein knew very well what kind of person he was

      • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

        I figured that they had their conversation whilst walking in the park because it wouldn’t be bugged.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Sofia I think we’re on the same page here, and maybe “tricked” just isn’t the exactly the right word? I think it’s more that he’s truly too moronic to realize when he’s being played. He was just easier to lure in than some others might have been because imo flattery works *very* well with him, and from what it sounds like, they acted super-impressed with the fact that he’s a prince. So he might have been unlikely to realize there was an agenda there, and that they weren’t actually so genuinely thrilled and honored to be in his princely company, they were just using him for their own reasons. From what I’ve read, they made him feel like an enormous deal just because of his title, and he ate it up.

        And even if he *did* realize they were using him and it was only his status that they cared about, he probably still went along with…whatever, because he enjoyed the way they treated him and how it made him feel. The man has an ego the size of Texas. Plus, as you mentioned, he would do absolutely anything to benefit financially, even with the full knowledge that it’s wrong and/or illegal.

        I’m very sleep-deprived so I hope this makes sense (?) but we both agree he’s an utter moron who made outstandingly poor choices.

  6. Zen says:

    I feel like The Daily Mail thinks it has to use the word “bombshell” in every article about the Royals, whether it’s appropriate or not.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      They copy and paste a lot. Like , they’ll use large chunks of text about a subject from multiple previous articles without checking to make sure they make sense and are up to date. It’s very lazy and how they are able to get out like a million articles a day about stuff. The DM is all about the clicks. They don’t actually care about making sense and accuracy. They also mislabel pictures to a ridiculous degree.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    Royalists believe that the press has sufficiently covered Prince Andrew but there is absolutely no pressure on Andrew to face the consequences or to talk to the FBI from the press. There has been no condemnation of the Queen and the Palace for protecting Andrew and there has been no calls for his to be stripped of his titles. Andrew’s behaviour is not that of an innocent man.

    • goofpuff says:

      The royalists seriously believe human trafficking and rape of a minor is “sufficiently covered”? Wow. Even if they talk about her not being a minor at 16, it’s still human trafficking and rape.

      I guess if you’re a white royal, as long as you don’t marry a black woman, they will excuse you anything.

      • Bluecat says:

        This is quite disgusting right? This show what kind of people those royalists and journalists are.

      • Nic919 says:

        There are deranger accounts specifically attacking Virginia Giuffre’s credibility and you see them infest Omid Scobie’s Twitter feed and others. Anyone so sick as to defend Andrew despite photographic evidence is quite sick. But they must protect the white royal brand at all costs.

  8. Harper says:

    I asked a lawyer friend about whether Andrew’s strategy here is valid and she said that the idea of serving came about so that the defendant would be informed in a timely manner about the existence of the suit so they could begin to mount a defense. For example, It’s to avoid notice of a suit being sent to an old address that the defendant left years ago. Andrew KNOWS about the suit; Andrew can mount a defense. It’s not as if the judge can’t understand the difficulty of serving to someone who lives behind a gated entrance and guarded by security.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      I think this explanation. His lawyers can all claim they never knew the details of the suit and could not mount a thorough defense. But! This is just another example of how this family puts their heads in the sand and hope problems just resolve themselves and people will stop bothering them with consequences to their entitled and criminal actions.

    • Another Anna says:

      Nic19 gave a much better version of my answer.

    • Lorelei says:

      I said something similar to my husband this morning when I was furious after reading this — there’s the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. As others have mentioned, the rule exists to ensure that someone is aware of the lawsuit and has time to plan a defense. In this case, Andrew OBVIOUSLY FCKING KNOWS about it, but I don’t know if a judge is allowed to apply common sense, or if they have to just follow the letter of the law even when it’s being abused as it is here.

  9. terra says:

    He’s behaving like the least intelligent of my three cats who thinks that if he’s in a box – any box – we can’t see him there.

    So, along the same line of thought, I have a suggestion for Andrew: palaces are full of heavy drapery, so if you really want no one to be able to find you, just duck behind a set of toile or jacquard curtains and bam! You’ll be invisible.

    • Becks1 says:

      LOL it reminds me of Comey trying to hide in the curtains to avoid notice from Trump

      • Ladiabla says:

        Lolol I had forgotten about Comey trying to hide in the curtains 😆

      • terra says:

        @Becks1: Ha! I’d forgotten about that too, my goodness. We are truly living in the dumbest timeline, are we not? Andrew will likely be more successful at it than Comey was, as he’s not 8 ft tall. He’s got a better chance, at least.

        Also, an upside for us: since Andy about as bright as my aforementioned cat, the one who keeps getting stuck inside our kitchen garbage can when we’re in the middle of changing out the trash bag because JUMPING OUT has yet to occur to him – what the hell, cat??? why are you LIKE THIS?!? – so we’ve got a real shot he’ll get lost underneath whichever thick set he choses to burrow underneath.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks I’d forgotten about that! Lmfao. Wasn’t there also a time when Sean Spicer tried to hide in some shrubbery?

    • kelleybelle says:

      Or Maxwell wrapping her cell phone in tinfoil to evade the authorities and FBI.

  10. TabithaD says:

    I suspect his lawyers are trying to use procedure issues (service of papers, extradition, etc.) to block the case because that’s their only hope. I think they know he’s guilty and would make a terrible impression if he’s ever called to the stand (see also: that Newsnight interview).
    At one point, Andrew said he would “cooperate” with the investigation. What on earth happened to that?
    In the meantime, all this skulking about, hiding, and bolting up to Scotland, is an absolutely terrible look for the BRF (and they weren’t looking great before all this) The courtiers must be tearing their hair out.

    • Sofia says:

      Yeah this is my opinion too. Try and get the case thrown out by bringing up technicalities like not being literally served to Andrew or diplomatic immunity etc etc. I’m not a lawyer so I may be way off the mark.

  11. Jay says:

    While I’m not exactly surprised that Andrew and his legal team are taking the low road here, it does sort of show that he knows he cannot fight the actual charges, so he’s muddying the waters about the process. The actions of a very much innocent man, of course. Is anybody else reminded of Uncle Vernon trying to outrun the letters from Hogwarts?

    I feel like the fact that he tried his best to hide from the process server and instructed everyone in his household not to accept the papers shows he is aware of the charges against him, which is sort of the point, right? You are notified of charges against you so you have a chance to respond. Well, apparently, this is his response.

    I hope the judge in America sees Andrew’s antics for what they are, and we see a giant headline: “Andrew: YOU GOT SERVED”

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Now all I can see is John Inman asking him ARE YOU BEING SERVED? LOL. I love watching reruns of that show.
      Maybe they should give the papers to whomever does his grocery shopping and they can smuggle them into the house in the grocery bags, then at dinner they can be brought out on his plate when he’s served dinner. Then he can’t say he was never “personally served”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m free! (In my best Mr Humpries voice)

      • Jay says:

        That would be amazing! Also, going with the uncle Vernon example, I’m particularly taken by the image of Andrew beset by millions of ferocious owls at Balmoral, buried in a pile of court summons and bird droppings, before having the door of his remote little cabin kicked in by a giant who will haul him off to stand trial. If only.

      • Feeshalori says:

        l do like the image of a process server disguised as a footman and serving Andrew the papers along with his afternoon tea.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Jay LMAO at the Uncle Vernon comparison 😂

  12. Becks1 says:

    Serving a British royal who lives in the UK with notice of an American civil lawsuit is above my pay grade as a government lawyer.

    But I think the outcome of the hearing will be something like “well if he wasn’t served, and the lawyers are participating in the hearing, then just sit tight in your office while we run the papers over to you to be served.”

    It’s a very embarrassing defense for the royal family – that a member of the family was actively Hiding out and avoiding being served papers in a lawsuit – and I can’t believe they’re pushing this.

    • Nic919 says:

      Usually the remedy for service issues relates to giving the defendant more time to respond to provide a defence. They already left the claim with an adult at his residence , which is a valid method of service in most common law jurisdictions and the main difference between that and giving it to him directly is that you have to add more time before you can note the Defendant in default. The Hague convention governs the precise method of serving a claim in a foreign jurisdiction and both the US and UK are signatories to this. They seem to have complied with the usual methods of service so I am not sure how Andy’s lawyers are going to pretend he wasn’t properly served.

      It would have been easier if his lawyers had simply accepted service, but I guess they are going to be as messy as possible.

      • LaraW” says:

        Okay, I’ve finished laughing. Everything I’m about to say here is a product of my overactive and fevered imagination— not founded in actual international law— because we have all seen how ridiculous the RF is and scenarios that no reasonable person would or could contemplate are apparently the bread and butter of the RF. Because this passage from the BBC article gave me pause:

        One reason it is believed the duke’s team does not consider papers have been served is because they maintain British legal procedures require that a valid request for assistance from UK court officials must come from a judicial or diplomatic officer in the US – and not from Ms Giuffre’s lawyers.

        I know this argument is just Andrew’s team blowing smoke, but I don’t think they really thought this through. Hypothetical: Let’s say the judge decides “okay, fine, I’ll send a letter requesting the UK judicial system to serve the papers to Andrew on behalf of plaintiffs.” Now Andrew’s legal team have put the UK government in a very awkward position in US-UK international relations.

        If they say no, then— wow. Just wow. I just— imagine the headlines across the world. And what justification would the UK government use to refuse cooperation? By taking the OFFICIAL position that Andrew has diplomatic immunity? I’m sure that will go over SUPER well with everyone who isn’t a royal turd.

        If they say yes, I cannot imagine a scenario where Chuck and Liz do not get involved, and I don’t know the ins and outs of the relationship between the UK government and the RF, but I have this hysterical image of Johnson taking thr papers and personally handing them to Elizabeth at teatime.

        If they say “okay, we’ll do it,” and proceed to drag their feet on it— well, they can’t drag their feet because the judge will have set out a clear due date.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nic – thanks for that info. So it seems like “we weren’t served properly” isn’t going to do anything except maybe buy Andrew’s lawyers some more time. I’m assuming he has expensive, experienced lawyers, they have to know they can’t run from this forever, right?

        @LaraW that’s a good point, if Andrew’s lawyers are saying they weren’t served bc it didn’t go through the British courts or whatever…..so now they’ll go through the courts and then what? Andrew is going to avoid his own country’s legal processes?

        This just isn’t playing out well for Andrew and it really seems like his lawyers are making it worse (or maybe that’s all Andrew).

      • Feeshalori says:

        Andrew, you poor sap, you can run but you can’t hide. Those legal teeth are snapping at your heels. You can’t play hide and seek forever behind Mummy‘s skirts up at Balmoral.

    • Liz version 700 says:

      Right?!? I am also a bit beneath this pay grade as a civil lawyer, but if the press is writing articles about your lawsuit, and you are hiding to avoid process servers…you have notice of the suit. I don’t see this strategy lasting long after the hearing.

  13. Zapp Brannigan says:

    I’m just going to paste a comment I wrote about this a few months ago:

    The case will proceed in his absence (as it’s a civil case) she will be awarded and he won’t pay a penny of any award made. He likely will never travel outside of the UK again in case of extradition.

    However the palace pr machine will spin it that an awful American court never gave him a chance to defend himself, and how could they find him guilty when he was not even in court? So much bs will be thrown around to confuse everyone that he will slither away. I also expect many stories to be printed that Meghan Markle caused global warming, food shortages and is the person responsible when you put a pair of socks into the washing machine yet can only find one sock when the spin cycle is completed. Readers of the daily fail, the scum, etc will swallow all this down as fact and continue to spout that it wasn’t rape as Roberts was 17 at the time, even though age of majority doesn’t come into account when a person is sex trafficked, you can be 8 or 80 and be sex trafficked doesn’t matter what the age of consent is. Everyone will wave flags about for the Queen’s next event and everything will be forgotten and proceed as usual.

    • goofpuff says:

      I think you’re right. That is exactly their strategy. And it will work with all the royalists/white supremacists out there.

    • Capepopsie says:

      @Zapp Brannigan 😁😂🤣🤣😄

    • lee says:

      At the end of the day, the British establishment will always rally around the Crown – no matter what. I don’t think Andrew is going into hiding forever. According to the Mail he has a very high priced legal team. If the Court says he was serviced they will file an appeal and tie up the case in jurisdiction issues

    • Tessa says:

      And in the media some people actually Side with Andrew, and go in for trashing the victim. I am glad she came forward and I hope more come forward.

    • Miranda says:

      You forgot that Meghan was also the fabled 20th hijacker and the Zodiac Killer. Remember those mysterious anthrax letters right after 9/11? Meghan. Hell, probably Jack(ie?) the Ripper, too.

    • HeatherC says:

      The food shortages are because Meghan and Harry influenced an American election by saying reject hate and disinformation resulting in that orange guy not being re-elected now the British PM has to start all over to make sure the special relationship with US remains.

      Oh and Meghan has a time machine. She went back in time to make sure that Andrew was caught with his non sweaty pants down to distract from the news that her garden has purple in it, and once upon a time purple could only be worn by true royals, thereby insulting the queen because the queen has been denied the honor of opening up Archie’s Chick Inn, thereby that Chick Inn is invalid and doesn’t actually exist.

    • MerlinsMom1018 says:

      Well Zapp THAT explains why I can never match socks…all this time I thought it was the poltergeist in my house and it turns out to be the Duchess. Who knew? 😎

  14. Sean says:

    Question for someone more knowledgeable:

    What if Andrew just doesn’t respond? Can anyone make him do anything? Besides Charles and/or The Queen coming to their senses and forcing him to participate?

    • Nic919 says:

      If he doesn’t respond then Giuffre can note him default and proceed to being awarded judgment. With no defence it then becomes an issue of damages only. Once the court awards a judgment then the next step would be to get a British court to recognize the American judgment, which it is very likely to do and then they can start to process of enforcing the judgment. This normally involves things like garnishing wages and seizing property.

      • Sean says:

        “This normally involves things like garnishing wages and seizing property.”

        Could/would they really do this to a member of the royal family though? I was always under the impression they were “untouchable” in England.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        @sean- from what I have read, the UK could block the judgement if it goes against the laws in the UK in some way. So, there’s a chance he won’t have to abide by the judgement. So, after the judgement is issued than it will be up to the UK courts. It’s messy because he’s a Royal. I’m not sure how it’s going to play out. On the one hand, they will want to protect Andrew as a Royal, but on the other they risk pissing off a very important ally. They need all the friends they can get after Brexit.

      • Nic919 says:

        Seeing as the US derived its common law from the UK, the UK courts will have a hard time saying that this action is based on something that isn’t a tort in the UK. I also don’t think they want a UK judge setting a precedent of any sort so I expect a settlement eventually. But probably not until it goes through the litigation process in the US a bit more.

      • Lorelei says:

        The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that we’re protecting the woman who killed Harry Dunn, and his family has been very vocal about their desire for her to return to the UK to face the consequences there. And the US is refusing. Everything about this is such a mess.

  15. Mrs. Smith says:

    I read on the Daily Mail that Andrew’s Lawyers plan to “boycott” the hearing on Monday. If this happens, then, I believe it will roll out the way Zapp long predicted.

    • nina says:

      The DM is just blowing smoke. There is no way his lawyers will ignore this. They will protest loudly but they will be there because they know the consequences for their client.

  16. Chica1971 says:

    Did anyone see Guiliani talking about Prince Andrew yesterday? Andrew may be dodging and hiding out in UK but clearly this story and his behavior is front and center everywhere else. Guiffre will win by default. I’m sure this was a deliberate set up with security accepting papers.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      I just looked into Giuliani talking about Prince Andrew and that was incredibly weird. Like, why bring that up at all? The allegations against Andrew have nothing to do with 9/11. Him becoming more and more detailed in what he didn’t do with Prince Andrew makes me think that he did all those things with Andrew. Absolutely bizarre.

  17. nina says:

    Let the Games begin…

  18. LaraW” says:

    ROTFLOL 🤣🤣🤣😂😈

  19. Merricat says:

    Tick, tick, tick. Lol.

    • Call_Me_Al says:

      Love it love it love it. Bye bye Pedo Andy. You may not go to prison, but you have consequences. Well done, Virginia. You are a woman of steel. My utmost respect and admiration goes to you, your supporters, and your legal team. Wish I could contribute in some way.
      Wills and Kate are totally going to get Royal Lodge from him (not that they deserve/need it AT ALL, but I just think it will happen now for PR reasons). The BEST OUTCOME Andy could hope for at this point is to be relegated to some minor property — perhaps the “fishing lodge” where he had “luncheon” with Mummy a few days ago? LMAO.

      • Harper says:

        I don’t know about Will emerging triumphant over Andrew by moving into Royal Lodge with the children. We know William has skeletons in his closet and that Andrew and Sarah will know about them. What is the incentive for the Yorks–not just Andrew but Sarah and Beatrice and Eugenie– to give up the benefits of their legal lease and yet remain quiet about Will’s secrets? Can’t see it happening with this group.

      • Tessa says:

        I think William has to tread carefully. It won’t be easy, and William is very heavy handed which is something not in his favor.

      • Nic919 says:

        Royal Lodge has a lease and it would go to the York girls before William. Besides William is going to inherit everything including Sandringham so he doesn’t need any more places.

      • Call_me_al says:

        Good points on it going to Sarah and the girls for the remainder of the lease. Wills is a bully though and I wouldn’t put it past him to try.

    • The Recluse says:

      It’s funny that he is now serving a kind of self imposed incarceration, hiding out on Mummy’s properties to avoid the law. He can scarcely poke his head out in public anymore.

  20. Coco says:

    The next argument will be that now that Andrew has miraculously started sweating again, his palms are always so damp that he physically cannot accept papers since they slip right out of his hands.

  21. GrnieWnie says:

    But ignoring anything to do with reality and insisting on keeping up “how its always done” (i.e. a royal is never subject to criminal prosecution for sexual assault!) is the British way. This is 100% my experience with British institutions.

  22. Tessa says:

    Fergie will probably be getting desperate now. Her PR campaign Backfired. Big Time.

  23. Tessa says:

    The Queen suddenly remembered the whereabouts of the “stolen” property and abruptly stopped the Burrell trial when embarrassing revelations were afoot. She probably will do the same here, settle out of court, but I don’t think that will end Andrew’s troubles. There may be more demand for him to speak to the FBI and more lawsuits may be coming.

    • HeatherC says:

      The big difference between the Burrell trial and this one is this is in an American court. They’re not bound by any British convention that the queen has any power. And VG doesn’t have to accept a settlement.

  24. Amy T says:

    David Boies was Elizabeth Holmes’ lawyer when she ran Theranos, was on its Board of Directors and fought like a cornered wolverine to protect it even as it was crashing and burning. Based on what I’ve seen of Andrew, he’s not up to what Boies will throw at him if he gets the chance.

  25. Jaded says:

    As I commented in yesterday’s PA post, the manner in which the papers were served covered all bases and are considered legal in the US, according to David Boies. After the process server gave the papers to a police officer at the gate to Royal House, the papers were subsequently emailed to Andrew’s lawyers via Barbara Fontaine, Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division. Boies confirmed that they responded confirming receipt. The papers were also emailed to Andrew’s office. Lawyers were sent a response stating “This is an automatic acknowledgment to tell you we have received your email safely.” A copy was also mailed to Royal Lodge, by Royal snail mail. This is going to dog PA until he pays, and of course Maxwell’s trial is coming up fast and who knows what slimy creatures are going to be unearthed then. This is simply going to mean that from now on PA is persona non grata EVERYWHERE except with mummy.

    • Lady D says:

      He has hosted a hunting party at Windsor today. He also has like-minded scum for friends.

      • Jaded says:

        Yes, he and Fergie have managed to keep the usual bottom feeders to friend and defend them but I think they’ll end up being tainted by association.

      • Lorelei says:

        @LadyD well I for one am glad to hear he’s enjoying his vacation!
        (although he doesn’t do anything anymore, so his whole life is basically one long taxpayer funded vacation 😒)

        We know he’s an idiot. But seriously, he’s too stupid to know that at the very least, he should be discreet about hosting a PARTY right now? JFC, these people.

  26. Bunny says:

    “Prince Andrew’s team do not believe that legal papers from lawyers for the woman who has accused him of sexual abuse have been successfully served, the BBC understands.”

    This isn’t the “win” his legal team thinks it is. They’re admitting that 1). they’re aware of the lawsuit and 2). they’re avoiding service.

    “Look at me! You can’t find me guilty of forced sex with a child if you can’t find me!” is not what you want.

  27. TisMe says:

    I hope so much that justice is served. Andrew is a sick POS.
    Please keep us updated re: what the court decides on Monday.

  28. MangoAngelesque says:

    God, he is just absolute, vile, embarrassing trash.

  29. Merricat says:

    “Catch me if you can” is a terrible line of defense. But the BRF isn’t exactly known for taking responsibility for their actions.

    • MangoAngelesque says:

      @MERRICAT — Really, though! It’s like he’s “double-dog daring” them to actually do anything to him.

      And I’m certain that has worked well for the lot of them in the past. But to try it on an American lawyer with his teeth in a *highly* publicized sex trial, linked to one of the biggest pedo-arrest/deaths in recent times? That’s not the lawyer to wave your mummy’s crown jewels at and thumb your nose. Andrew’s just ticking him off and adding more fuel to the fire.

      “Mumsy, please, more Americans are trying to ruin our family!! These ones aren’t even black, I don’t understand!!! Can I play in Scotland for awhile? You won’t give my rooms to William whilst I’m on the ru—er, away, will you? Kisses!”

    • Eurydice says:

      Well, for Andrew it’s a better defense than “yes, I did it.” His legal team probably figures he can wait it out until Virginia runs out of money. But this is too high profile. He’s a rat in a trap and he’s just going to twist and turn and bite and claw until somebody, somehow puts him out of his misery.

      • Lorelei says:

        The attorneys who he hired *specifically to handle this case* are claiming he’s unaware of it?

        What an absolute farce

  30. Julia K says:

    Prince Andrew, Trump, Clinton and so many more men who have so far successfully avoided accountability. What is the common denominator here.
    Hmmm. Some things will never change.

  31. Liz version 700 says:

    One commenter the other day astutely noted that this has legs. The more Randy Andy acts above the law..the more others might be tempted to show him he isn’t. I certainly hope so.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      It has legs because it’s a global level of a faceplant on the BRF. Hiding Andrew vs. Harry & Meghan wanting to have a decent life…………hmmmmmm.

  32. Slippers4 life says:

    The best would be if Nick Cannon would stand outside Buckingham Palace with a drum and start yelling, “You Got Served!”

  33. Keri says:

    He is a fool for not sorting this out ASAP because if and when his mother dies, he better believe they’ll throw him under the bus for the sake of the continuity of that monarchy. Charles will never sacrifice shit for chance at kingdom and neither will William.

  34. Athena says:

    I read in the DM that another course of action by Andrew’s attorneys is to ask that the case be dismissed based on a settlement reached by Giuffre with Epstein in which she agreed not to go after the people she was trafficked to. Andrew’s defense is not that he did not know her, he did not rape her, but that she couldn’t sue him for raping her because of a settlement agreement she made with Epstein.

    If the case is dismissed because of the agreement she signed, he will see this as a win and with the case dismissed will believe he can go back to royal life.

    • Sure says:

      In his BBC interview PA said it ” never happened “. If he relies on VG’s settlement agreement to “win” this case then he’s admitting that it did happen and that he lied to Emily Maitlis. It’s the win lose option.

    • Lorelei says:

      I have no idea exactly how this works, but my gut feeling about Virginia is that she wouldn’t necessarily accept a monetary settlement — she wants him to have to actually face real consequences; she doesn’t strike me as being in this for the money.

      Of course I could be wrong, but I see her dragging this out as long as she can, and forcing Andrew to expose as much as possible, even if it means sacrificing a large settlement. I admire her so much.

  35. One Katie of Many says:

    Just to chime in, as a U.S. lawyer who practices in federal court, this type of procedural defense must be raised first thing, before any of the merits are addressed, or it is waived. Basically, the lawyers are challenging service of process because it is a necessary first step to give the U.S. court “personal jurisdiction,” or power to subject Andrew to a judgment in that court. Now that it has been raised, the issue must be resolved in Ms. Giuffre’s favor before any judgment can be entered for her, default or otherwise.

    Andrew’s lawyers are not wrong that service by a U.S. plaintiff on a U.K. defendant is usually done through a designated central authority, because both countries are signatories to the Hague Convention. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require service on a foreign defendant to comply with any agreement the two countries have for service if there is one, and the designated central authority is the official HC method of service. However, under the HC, if timely service cannot be reliably effected through the central authority, it can go through a reliable judicial officer in the U.K. through means authorized under the local rules. I believe a Q.C. is considered a reliable judicial officer, and I don’t think she would have represented through Boies that service was complete via the email she sent if it was not okay under the local rules. However, that non-central-authority method is not the default, so it’s not abnormal to have it challenged. I’m sure that Andrew’s lawyers are under instructions to try absolutely any procedural defense that might stick before addressing the merits of the claims.