Prince Andrew Served... With papers

Yes Prince Andrew has been served with papers and he has until the 17th September to accept them.
www.bbc.co.uk...

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 say they were served on 27 August, being left with a police officer at Windsor's Royal Lodge.

Prince Andrew denies all the claims made by Ms Giuffre.

A spokeswoman representing the Duke of York has declined to comment on the latest development.

A US judge must determine whether the papers were in fact "served" before any case can proceed.

A video conference on the next stages of the case is scheduled for a New York court on Monday.

According to court documents, an answer is due from Prince Andrew to the affidavit by 17 September and "if you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint".

Is this news in the USA? Prince Andrew is accused of being involved in sex trafficking at the least, once the unravel this case it may be much more.

If this heats up, a massive distraction may follow, how long has COVID kept this at bay are things that should be asked, Randy Andy is linked with them all,
And we have already seen he does not do well under pressure, luckily his victims are much stronger. If this is a fair trial and if it even happens, they are going down. That girl will be much stronger than that pathetic man.

Legal papers say a process server working for Ms Giuffre's team arrived at the Royal Lodge on Thursday 26 August at 09:30 BST.

The man met security staff, left a business card, and was asked to wait.

The papers say he then spoke to police, including the head of security, who could not locate Prince Andrew's private secretary "or anyone senior".

The agent was told the security team "had been told not to accept service of any court process".

He was then given a solicitor's name and number, phoning him at 10:40, but did not get a response.

On Friday 27 August, the same process server returned to the Royal Lodge in Windsor and spoke to the "head of security".

He was advised the papers could be left with police at the main gates, which would be forwarded to the legal team.

The plot thickens

a reply to: DAVG1980
A couple of obsevations.
One is that this is a civil case, not a criminal case. He is being threatened with a damages claim, not imprisonment.
It would be harder to mount a criminal case about anything happening in England, because "under-age sex" in England still means under 16, not under 18.
So her case actually rests on "non-consent", and she would need to show that he knew that. THough an American jury might be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DAVG1980
A couple of obsevations.
"under-age sex" in England still means under 16, not under 18.

I believe that this excludes cases where people were trafficked for sex.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
I've had no reason to study that law in detail, only on a general-knowledge level.
I'm not sure how that would work in practice, if a man could claim that he did not know.

a reply to: DAVG1980

What will be NEWS is if he even bothers his arse to turn up to answer for his crimes.

These people dance between the raindrops of justice with impunity.

Good luck getting a hold of that dirty wrong'yin peeps.

Because as unfortunate as the case may be you have a snowballs chance in hell.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ya hopefully Americans. Brits have an adoration with the Royals.

a reply to: CptGreenTea

Only a select few these days imho.

And certainly not where that one is concerned unless they frequent similar circles or rings.

Quite a few Americans have adoration and admiration where our Royal family are concerned also.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think sex trafficking is frowned upon regardless of the age, but 17 years old man, when I was 17 I was a child.

a reply to: DAVG1980
Technically-he was not served.
His people took the papers,not him.

I am sure this was done as a form of legal trickery.
We shall see.

As far as I am aware Prince Andrew has not been served with anything in person. Something was handed to one of his protection team, but apparently they don’t know what happened to it. This is likely to go nowhere.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: AaarghZombies
I've had no reason to study that law in detail, only on a general-knowledge level.
I'm not sure how that would work in practice, if a man could claim that he did not know.

Under both US and UK law it's illegal to move a person from one jurisdiction to another in order to circumvent consent laws.

If she was moved to a location with a lower age for the purposes of sex, then it's classified as being sex trafficking, and this applies even if the person having sex doesn't know.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: DAVG1980

What will be NEWS is if he even bothers his arse to turn up to answer for his crimes.

These people dance between the raindrops of justice with impunity.

Good luck getting a hold of that dirty wrong'yin peeps.

Because as unfortunate as the case may be you have a snowballs chance in hell.

He should boycott until such time as the US fixes its extradition system. No cooperation until Washington cooperates with London on the people who fled to the US to avoid British justice.

The agent was told the security team "had been told not to accept service of any court process".

Doesn't that put Andrew and whoever refused the papers under contempt of court?

Courts see no humor in people trying to out-clever them, esp. with a technicality as lame as this. "But I never got the papers!" won't win a case anywhere. For everything else Andrew gets off the Royal allowance, they could find him a functional lawyer.

a reply to: DAVG1980

It's a PR nightmare for the royals but nothing more. He's untouchable.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

If she was moved to a location with a lower age for the purposes of sex, then it's classified as being sex trafficking, and this applies even if the person having sex doesn't know.

I can see the logic in the case of the person doing the moving. it creates a legal minefield in the case of the person having sex.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

He should be handed an Osman warning if we are honest AaarghZombies.

No cooperation suits his type just fine.

I surprised Mummy has not had him "put down" by now if i'm honest, coz if that's not a ""family liability"" i'm not sure what is.

Says he doesn't have any recollection of ever even meeting her, when his picture of them shows he would never forget her.

The pos. has no honor or intent of ever taking responsibility for anything.

originally posted by: gb540

The agent was told the security team "had been told not to accept service of any court process".

Doesn't that put Andrew and whoever refused the papers under contempt of court?

No, not really. As that person is not a subject to the legal proceeding, they have no duty to do anything.

Courts see no humor in people trying to out-clever them, esp. with a technicality as lame as this. "But I never got the papers!" won't win a case anywhere. ...

Oh yes it will! You must be served in person. That, or your legal guardian / legal agent (power of attorney) must be served...in person. Otherwise, the subject person has not been "served". The courts may not find humor in it, but this is the law, and they know it.

a reply to: gb540
As a few of have mentioned-it looks like the papers were not correctly served-and Andys (no doubt mega expensive-and likley paid for by the state) Lawyers are fast on the case trying to get the case thrown out!!

Shocked picachu face . jpeg!!

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Who would have guessed such tactics would be used..

Where he's going they won't be serving tea and crumpets with caviar 😃