Thread by @LisaBloom

LIVE now: Prince Andrew’s attorney is arguing that Virginia Giuffre’s case against him should be dismissed due to a 2009 settlement agreement in which she released all “potential defendants.”

Judge Kaplan aggressively questioning him about the law on this.

I’m listening in.

Prince Andrew's attorney is now arguing that Virginia's complaint is too vague as it does not include the dates she says she was abused by him. Only says she was 17 at the time.

Judge: "that's not a dog that's gonna hunt here. She has no obligation to do that in the complaint."

Judge: "I understand your point. It's just not the law." Defense attorney keeps arguing. Bad idea. Once the judge has made his view clear, time to move on to other arguments.

Prince Andrew's attorney says Virginia's sexual allegations are too vague.

Judge: "involuntary sexual intercourse" is clear to me

Prince Andrew's attorney argues Virginia's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress should be dismissed.

Judge: "Next point."

Oof.

Prince Andrew's attorney now arguing the NY law extending the statute of limitations to give victims of child sexual abuse more time to sue is unconstitutional.

He doesn't just want to block Virginia's access to justice. He wants to block ALL child sexual abuse victims' access.

Prince Andrew has now done a complete reversal of his prior position that he would fully cooperate with any investigation into sexual abuse in Epstein's orbit.

Prince Andrew's attorney says Virginia "took advantage" of extended statute of limitations, waiting 5 days before the deadline, which is "inherently unjust."

Oh please. She filed before the deadline. That's all that should matter.

That was Andrew Brettler, an attorney I have been up against many times, as he represents many high profile people accused of sexual misconduct.

Now up, David Boies, attorney for Virginia Giuffre, arguing that her case should go forward.

Virginia's attorney is now arguing that NY's extended statute of limitations (SOL) for child sexual abuse victims has been held constitutional by courts.

Judge had no questions on that. Good sign for Virginia.

Does not look like Judge Kaplan wants to strike down the law.

Virginia's attorney points out the complaint is clear and specific.

Judge has no questions on that point either. Another good sign for Virginia.

Virginia's attorney argues that her prior dismissal of "potential defendants" should be 1) subject to jurisdiction of FL courts and 2) one who engaged in conduct at issue there, i.e. federal sex trafficking.

Neither would apply to Prince Andrew, he says.

Virginia's attorney says "parol evidence" should be allowed in to show the intent of the parties in her 2009 settlement agreement, which released all "potential defendants" as well as Jeffrey Epstein.

Normally this is not allowed as contracts speak for themselves.

Presumably this means he wants his client, Virginia, to testify as to what "potential defendants" meant to her. Of course she would say this did NOT mean Prince Andrew.
And Jeffrey Epstein isn't around to give his view.

Judge Kaplan: what about Virginia's settlement agreement language that the terms of the agreement are not to be used in any other case by any other person in any other case?

Is this the death knell for Prince Andrew's attempt to get Virginia's case thrown out?

Here's the section of the settlement agreement Judge Kaplan is asking about. "Not intended to be used by any other person."

It is key as Prince Andrew is a person.

Judge hands David Boies his winning argument.

Judge also points out to Prince Andrew's attorney that the 2009 settlement agreement says it's secret. So how could other "potential defendants" enforce it? They weren't even to know about it.

We are back to the SDNY judge aggressively questioning Prince Andrew's attorney.

Here's the 2009 settlement agreement language Prince Andrew relies on, where Virginia released "potential defendants."

Just made public yesterday.

Judge points out that the 2009 settlement agreement is to be enforced in FL, which would not have jurisdiction over Prince Andrew. And Epstein and Virginia do not have the power to confer that jurisdiction.

Prince Andrew's attorney still arguing, but he's circling the drain.

Judge says he will have a decision "pretty soon." Jokes that he will not be more specific on that so it won't be enforceable.

Looking very good for Virginia's case to go forward.

I listened to oral arguments in Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew this morning.

Andrew wants her case thrown out on technical grounds. Judge Kaplan aggressively questioned defense on this and appeared unwilling to do it.

I'm optimistic that Virginia will get her day in court.

Most shocking to me is that Prince Andrew's attorney wanted the judge to say NY's law giving child sexual abuse victims more time to sue is unconstitutional.

This would have blocked access to justice for so many victims.

Does the Queen know what her son is attempting to do?

I'm doing an Instagram live with Kiki, a Jeffrey Epstein victim I am proud to represent, in a half hour, 9amPT.
I'm LisaBloomEsq over there. Join us with your questions. We are fired up about these shenanigans.

Sorry, update, we will start at 9:15am PT. Come on over and tune in!