Judge Skewers Lawyer for Prince Andrew for Making Service 'More Complicated' Than It Is

[zuul]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-skewers-lawyer-for-prince-andrew-for-making-service-more-complicated-than-it-is/

Prince Andrew has disputed that the woman accusing him of sexually abusing her as a 17-year-old girl served him properly with a lawsuit. That argument appeared to land poorly federal in court on Monday, when a federal judge signaled that this is a losing battle.

“You have a pretty high degree of certainty that he can be served sooner than later,” U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan told the prince’s lawyer during a telephone conference.

“Let’s cut out all the technicalities and get to the substance,” he added.

With that remark, the judge made clear that ducking service is not likely to be a successful gambit to avoid a lawsuit by Virginia Giuffre, one of the most outspoken victims of the now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

snip . . .

“We’ve proceeded to serve Prince Andrew in several ways pursuant to Article 10 of the Hague Convention,” Boies said.

That is the treaty under which Prince Andrew disputes service, but Judge Kaplan skewered the prince’s lawyer for making matters “more complicated” than they need to be.

“I’m sure you know that the Hague Convention is optional,” Kaplan told Brettler, adding that he can order service effected upon a foreign national under Federal Rule 4(f)(3) of the United States code.

That rule offers wide latitude for service a foreign person “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.”

Judge Kaplan indicated that he would likely grant that order—and is “unlikely” to change his mind on that front.

The Duke of York vehemently denies the allegations. For years, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York described the prince as unhelpful in their investigation into the Epstein case. The district’s former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman released a statement declaring that Prince Andrew provided “zero cooperation” in connection with the matter.

[Effete Snob]

1. The ritual of showing up to argue that service wasn't made is so silly

This had a meaning long ago, when service was a proxy for being subject to seizure by the sheriff, but it no longer serves any useful purpose.

It's one thing to argue against a default on the grounds that one didn't receive notice.

But it's an entire other thing to show up to argue that service hasn't been made, before the court has moved on to a default.

The lawyer is there, in the court, getting paid by the client, to essentially argue, "My client doesn't have notice of this suit." It's so freaking inane.

[Tomconroy]

2. Wow. He hired high priced American lawyers. This going to

Cost the Prince some royal coin.