Prince Andrew details struck from court records – but docs still in public domain

Virginia Roberts, Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell

On Tuesday a US court ruled that legal documents specifying allegations of sexual relations with a minor by Prince Andrew be removed from court records. The aim of the court ruling was, presumably, to prevent any further embarrassment to the prince. However, many documents relating to the lawsuit and an earlier case are still in the public domain. These are given below…

US District Judge Kenneth Marra ordered that Virginia Roberts’ sex abuse accusations against Prince Andrew are to be struck from court records after he had denied her plea to join a lawsuit involving Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier and friend of the prince. The judge stated: “At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details [re. Prince Andrew] are unnecessary… These unnecessary details shall be stricken.”

Roberts – known as “Jane Doe #3” – had attempted to join a lawsuit against the US government, originally filed in 2008 and which sought to reopen a non-prosecution agreement that Epstein reached with federal prosecutors. Epstein had pleaded guilty to state sex offences more than six years ago and served a 13-month jail sentence,.

The judge said that the details of the sex abuse allegations against Prince Andrew and a well-known lawyer had no bearing on the lawsuit’s goal of reopening the Epstein agreement. He added: “The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim. “These unnecessary details shall be stricken.”

It is believed that attorneys for both women could appeal the decision, and it was suggested that Roberts could still be called to give evidence as a witness in the other women’s court action when it goes to trial. The lawsuit against the US government, filed by two other Jane Does, claims that federal prosecutors improperly concealed the Epstein non-prosecution agreement, so violating federal victims’ rights laws. If reopened, Epstein could face a new federal prosecution.

Roberts, who has waived anonymity in relation to the case by speaking to several publications, has claimed that Prince Andrew was one of the men she was forced to sleep with while allegedly being kept as a “sex slave” by Epstein. She claimed she had sex with the Prince on three separate occasions. Both Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace have denied Roberts’ accusations, however, the Palace has yet to respond to the court decision.

The submissions still in the public domain:

The legal submission by the plaintiffs – each going by the name ‘Jane Doe’ – was made on 30 December 2014. This is also available in pdf format.

Here also are copies of court documents relating to Epstein’s trial: click here.

In her original submission to the court Virginia Roberts – listed as “Jane Doe #3” – alleged that:

  • in 1999 she was groomed as a ‘sex slave’ at the age of 15 on Epstein’s behalf by Ghislaine Maxwell (the daughter of the late and disgraced media magnate, Sir Robert Maxwell)
  • she was subsequently sex trafficked to US politicians, business executives, a ‘well-known prime minister’, foreign presidents and world leaders
  • she had sex with Prince Andrew in London, New York and on an island in the Virgin Islands owned by Epstein
  • Epstein intended to blackmail those persons who participated in the sexual liaisons
  • Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer, had sex with her on numerous occasions

The submission further alleged that Prince Andrew used his influence on the US Government to assist Dershowitz in negotiating:

  • a low sentence for his client of 18 months (for having sex with a 14 year old girl) though he only served 13 months
  • an agreement that Epstein’s associates would be immune from prosecution (although not necessarily from being subpoenaed to appear in any future court hearing as a witness)
  • that the cases involving 40 more sex abuse victims would not be investigated further

The plea deal negotiated for Epstein stated: “If Epstein successfully fulfills all the terms of this agreement the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein including but no limited to [four named individuals not including Prince Andrew or Dershowitz].” In other words if Prince Andrew was considered to be a co-conspirator he could be prevented from having to face criminal charges (though not necessarily charges raised in a civil suit).

After Epstein was released from jail he and Prince Andrew met up and were photographed together in New York’s Central Park. However, because of his association with Epstein the Prince was subsequently forced to relinquish his role as UK trade envoy.

Other documents:

Here are copies of pages from the 2006 police submissions raised in connection with charges made against Jeffrey Epstein and which detail salacious sex practices – to see, right click on each image then zoom in…

This entry was posted in Government and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Prince Andrew details struck from court records – but docs still in public domain

  1. sdbast says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.


  2. joekano76 says:

    Reblogged this on Floating-voter.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.