Lawyers ask Prince Andrew to respond under oath about claims of sex with 17-year

[HistoryGirl]

I'm sure they did refuse it...

[Limabeany]

Can they force him?

[Macrobug]

I find this all very odd.  Why would a letter like this be available to the public?  He hasn't been charged with anything so why would it be a matter of public record.

Why would the lawyers make it known publicly that the letter was refused.  How would that help her case?  PA isn't charged with anything - he is a witness in this matter (the case is not a criminal matter).  He isn't a hostile witness being brought to court against his will.  So why make the matter public at this point?  It really doesn't make sense.

And can a Florida court force a British subject to testify?

[Canuck]

Without getting too into the weeds, it doesn't really surprise me or strike me as odd.  It sounds like this was a request from the lawyer for Andrew to voluntarily provide evidence.  The lawyer is free to make such a request public unless the judge has put a gag order on the case, and I would guess here they were hoping to put some pressure on Andrew by publicizing the fact that he refused to answer questions on the record.

You can in some circumstances force foreigners to testify, but I have no idea whether in this case they'll be able to compel Andrew to do so.

[Macrobug]

Thanks Canuck.  I am finding hard to figure out exactly what is going on.  The media is concentrating on the fact that PA is involved and the exact charges are difficult to determine through all the scandal. 

[Canuck]

No problem!  (And no promises on the accuracy of my posts on this, though I'm pretty sure that's all right.)  You're right that the media isn't doing a great job of explaining what the case is actually about, and it's compounded by the fact that the case itself is a little out of the ordinary.

[TryingTimes]

Without getting too into the weeds, it doesn't really surprise me or strike me as odd.  It sounds like this was a request from the lawyer for Andrew to voluntarily provide evidence.  The lawyer is free to make such a request public unless the judge has put a gag order on the case, and I would guess here they were hoping to put some pressure on Andrew by publicizing the fact that he refused to answer questions on the record.

You can in some circumstances force foreigners to testify, but I have no idea whether in this case they'll be able to compel Andrew to do so.

Strange - if this were true, that Andrew is not compelled to comply, and if it were true that Andrew is innocent of all these allegations, why would he refuse to accept this alleged letter asking him to testify? He could've just politely responded that he would be unable to comply for some reason.

Also, was this request to testify the only thing actually written in this letter, and that's why he's refusing to accept delivery of it?

Curious.

I think Andrew is acting guilty of something. His responses such as the continual rebuttal and avoiding the letter and turning the Davos event as a forum for airing - yet again - his protests as to his involvement, are very telling, in my opinion. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

[Canuck]

So this gets kind of complicated and technical, but there's actually a good reason to refuse to accept the letter.  If you live outside the U.S. and someone wants to serve you with official court papers (like a lawsuit against you, or a subpoena to testify), they usually have to go through a tedious and lengthy process to have the service done in an official way.  But if you voluntarily accept mailed things related to the lawsuit, then that can sometimes be used by the other side to argue that since you've been accepting the informal mailings they should be able to send you the official court papers the same way rather than going through the tedious and lengthy official process.

[Macrobug]

Thank you!  That is exactly what I was thinking.  I was sure that this was not a official way to serve a legal document and that is why I found it odd.  Especially with fedex involved.

To see your summary really helped clear the mist.   :hug:

[Canuck]

No problem!  I think the confusion here is partly because this wasn't an official court document at all, the lawyer was just asking Andrew to voluntarily agree to be interviewed under oath.  So none of the normal court rules apply or have to be followed.  But if they wanted to actually sue Andrew or force him to testify, then there would be a whole complex set of rules and procedures to follow.

[TryingTimes]

Sorry - I'm still in a mist. (I don't know what the official way would be to send a court document to someone overseas.)  --> If Andrew had nothing to hide, why would he make such an uncooperative statement such as refusing the letter - whether it be unofficial or official? People accept letters and documents all the time without knowing the contents. It doesn't mean they agree with what's inside the letter, or that they will comply with whatever is demanded from them in that letter.

Do you see a different side to this than what I'm able to see? All I see is that Andrew could've accepted the letter and replied he would be unable to comply. And no one could force him to comply. So why is Andrew making such a fuss over this by not even accepting the letter? I think it just makes him look guilty, and draws even more attention to this whole affair (pun intended).

[Canuck]

I know it sounds (and kind of is) silly, but it's just how the court rules work.  If they want to sue Andrew, they have to send him those papers in an official, and often difficult to accomplish, way.  Making it as difficult as possible (or at least not making it any easier) for the other side to accomplish that paper-sending is part of a lawyer's job.  Although these were not official papers that had to be sent in the official way, if Andrew had accepted this letter -- which is from the lawyers in the lawsuit and is definitely related to Andrew's possible involvement in the lawsuit -- then in the future if they decided to sue him they might be able to convince a judge that just mailing the papers was enough because he had previously accepted mailed papers related to the case.

Andrew definitely could have accepted the letter and just said no to the request (or not responded at all), but not accepting it at all is probably the slightly safer course, legally. 

[Curryong]

We have people employed as summons-servers in Australia, and presumably in Britain, who actually chase after or lay in wait for people who the other side wants to appear in court in civil suits, divorce cases etc. Once a person accepts the letter thrust into their hand, that's regarded as having been 'served'.

Obviously no-one was going to get near enough to Andrew to do that, so I suppose the Fed-Ex manoeuvre was the next best thing! It's certainly not a good look for Andrew that this has leaked but as his reputation is in the gutter anyway, I suppose it makes no difference.

[Curryong]

Rebecca English ‏@RE_DailyMail

The Fed-Exed letter that Buckingham Palace refused to accept #PrinceAndrew #JeffreyEpstein

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B76GWbwIIAAthWm.jpg

They want Andrew to give a deposition. He can either answer the questions in private, public or not at all. He can claim the 5th but whatever he chooses to do he is screwed.

Andrew is responsible for putting himself in this situation. He thinks if he just ignores this then it will go away.

Can British subjects claim the Fifth? I thought that was only for Americans. Anyway, we now know, (I think,) why Mr Clegg QC was consulted. Interesting!

[Macrobug]

So, if I understand this correctly, they want him to give a deposition and if he refuses the request, the only way is to subpoena him (and this letter is not a subpoena and therefore can not be "served")  And even then, that request could be squashed.  This is all part of the discovery phase.  Andrew is being treated as a witness, not as the accused.

But could anything stated during a deposition be used to charge PA?  Would a deposition for a civil case (such as this) be used in a separate criminal case?

[amabel]

I know it sounds (and kind of is) silly, but it's just how the court rules work.  If they want to sue Andrew, they have to send him those papers in an official, and often difficult to accomplish, way.  Making it as difficult as possible (or at least not making it any easier) for the other side to accomplish that paper-sending is part of a lawyer's job.  Although these were not official papers that had to be sent in the official way, if Andrew had accepted this letter -- which is from the lawyers in the lawsuit and is definitely related to Andrew's possible involvement in the lawsuit -- then in the future if they decided to sue him they might be able to convince a judge that just mailing the papers was enough because he had previously accepted mailed papers related to the case.

I think he'd be an awful fool to make it any easier than he has to.. of course Andy IS a fool

[Macrobug]

He is a twit.  And he has a aura of creepiness.  But we have to remember that he has not been charged with anything, nothing has been proven in court and at the moment he is just a witness in a civil case that is still in discovery phase.

[Limabeany]

We have people employed as summons-servers in Australia, and presumably in Britain, who actually chase after or lay in wait for people who the other side wants to appear in court in civil suits, divorce cases etc. Once a person accepts the letter thrust into their hand, that's regarded as having been 'served'.

Obviously no-one was going to get near enough to Andrew to do that, so I suppose the Fed-Ex manoeuvre was the next best thing! It's certainly not a good look for Andrew that this has leaked but as his reputation is in the gutter anyway, I suppose it makes no difference.

thanks for your explanations @Canuck Can this be done in the UK ? The RF would increase Andrew's security, if so, so they cannot get close.

[Canuck]

I think it's unlikely it will ever come up, as my guess is that they probably won't be able to subpoena Andrew (because he's a foreign citizen living outside the U.S.) as a witness in this civil suit.  But if they did try to serve him with something official, the rules are often different outside the U.S. and there are usually methods available other than physically chasing the person down.  And in any event, you can always ask the court for permission to serve in a different way, like by mail, if there's a reason you can't use the normal methods (in Andrew's case, with protection officers blocking access to him, they could certainly show that physically handing him the papers is all but impossible).

[Limabeany]

Thanks again @Canuck  :notworthy: :hug:

[Canuck]

No problem!  This is actually a surprisingly complicated area of the law, especially once it involves people living outside the U.S.   

[cinrit]

Prince Andrew Publicly Denies Sex Claims  (VIDEO)

Prince Andrew has spoken for the first time since sex claims were made against him by a woman in the US. Speaking in Davos, the Duke of York said he "reiterated and affirmed" earlier statements released on his behalf by Buckingham Palace.

"Firstly I think I must - and want - for the record, to refer to events that have taken place in the last few weeks.

I just wish to reiterate and to reaffirm the statements which have already been made on my behalf by Buckingham Palace.

My focus is on my work."

– THE DUKE OF YORK SPEAKING IN DAVOS

Cindy

[Canuck]

What a bizarre statement.  He didn't actually say anything, but he felt the need to bring it up anyway.  "I want to talk about my sex scandal by saying that those earlier statements my office put out are still true.  But please, focus on my work."

[Macrobug]

Hey Look!!  Pink Elephants!!    <_<

[TryingTimes]

BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said: "We have had two unprecedented statements from Buckingham Palace and now this, Prince Andrew on camera.

"It's a sign of how damaging these allegations are and the price he is paying for his past friendship with a convicted sex offender."

BBC News - Prince Andrew publicly denies sexual misconduct claims