Prince Andrew Settles Sex Abuse Lawsuit After Pressure To Do So, Avoiding Trial
Some have come out and said it was the royal family who dictated it, but plenty of others wanted this proceeding avoided.
The disgraced Prince Andrew came to an out of court settlement with Virginia Giuffre this week, potentially dismissing the case and halting any further legal proceedings for the prince regarding the matter that ties back to Jeffrey Epstein.
Giuffre alleges Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her multiple times when she was just 17 years-old. The instances were said to have occurred between 2000 and 2002, at a time when she was being abused and trafficked by Epstein, who also lent her to other powerful men, according to the lawsuit.
The settlement's sum has not been disclosed, but it is believed to be more than $10 million.
The civil case is being suspended by Judge Lewis Kaplan until a stipulation of dismissal of the case is filed, which must be done before March 17. Both parties anticipate this will happen and that the dismissal will be carried out.
In a letter from Giuffre's attorneys to Judge Kaplan, they wrote that Prince Andrew will give a "substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights." The letter also noted that Prince Andrew "never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks."
Furthermore, the letter goes on to acknowledge Epstein's trafficking and to claim that Andrew "regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others." Then it notes the prince's pledge to illustrate this regret "by supporting his [Epstein's] victims."
No comment came from Prince Andrew or his representatives, nor from Buckingham Palace.
This settlement comes about a month after Judge Kaplan rejected Prince Andrew's bid to dismiss the federal lawsuit that rested on a number of defenses, including the assertion that Andrew did not have sex with Giuffre, but if he did, it was consensual. After the judge's rejection, the prince was stripped of his military titles in a move that had a lot of consideration and support from those within the royal family.
It is very clear that the royals at Buckingham Palace were intent on keeping this shadow from looming over them for too long. The New York Post reported that it was them that pressured Andrew to reach the settlement, citing a "big year" for Queen Elizabeth, whose platinum jubilee marks her 70th year on the throne and will make host to numerous events throughout the year.
The Associated Press cited international lawyer Mark Stephens as assuming the same thing to be the driving force behind the settlement.
The Queen very likely didn't want to spoil her big year and bring more shame to the family—as if insisting on your divine right isn't pathetic enough—but more than that, the desire to prevent this from going to trial would benefit so many more.
Think about the other notable public figures Giuffre has made accusations against. These are people like well known attorney Alan Dershowitz, former governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson, former Senator George Mitchell, and hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, among others. All of the men Giuffre has accused have, like Prince Andrew, claimed that the accusations are false and fabricated.
Avoiding a trial cuts the above individuals a large deal of slack. Regardless of guilt or innocence, this settlement does a lot to keep these individuals' names out of the mouths of those involved in the proceedings and the media, and thus it continues to keep the names out of the minds of the general public.
Even if the main motive was to preserve the queen's year-long celebration, this settlement does more to brush the whole matter beneath the rug than it does to flesh out the details and hold all guilty parties accountable.
Just two months ago, Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on sex trafficking charges in a trial that featured a narrow scoped prosecution, neglected evidence, unbudging redactions, and muzzled transparency.
Her trial came and went—her tentative charging date set for June 28—but perhaps the largest question in the minds of millions of Americans was left unanswered as it was swelling larger than ever.
That question: Who else does this implicate?
Free from the millions of distractions and chunks of ear wax that cloud out the news that actually matters, the Epstein matter and the way it implicated powerful people ranging from former presidents to celebrities, and seemingly many more, was a hot issue on everyone's minds. However, as people got wind of the trial, the media never drew open their sails to venture towards transparency, allowing the whole issue to be left behind in the dark.
Similarly, when Epstein was in custody in August 2019 and died in mysterious fashion, the consensus was "suicide" despite credible questions calling that claim into question. Nevertheless, in spite of the magnitude of the event and the uncertainties surrounding it, the corporate media apparatus moved the news cycle forward.
Same goes for all the suspicious factors that exist including the unresolved evidence of Epstein and Maxwell's ties to intelligence.
Sure, pressure came from the royal family, but there are plenty of powerful people who stood to lose from this civil case being carried out in the court room.
If anything, this news of a settlement should sharpen focus on this matter, not dull it.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!