[imagesource: Florida Southern District Court]

First Prince Andrew hid, mostly at his mother’s castles and country estates.

Then the Duke of York’s US lawyer, Andrew Brettler, argued that the 2009 settlement Virginia Roberts Giuffre signed with Jeffrey Epstein released Andrew from “any and all potential liability”.

Now we have entered the next phase of the legal battle, which involves a vicious attack from Andrew on Giuffre, accusing her of coming after a “payday” at his expense,

Below via The Guardian:

A filing with the US district court in Manhattan on Friday signed by the lawyer Andrew Brettle said: “Giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him.”

…The document said: “Accusing a member of the world’s best known royal family of serious misconduct has helped Giuffre create a media frenzy online and in the traditional press. It is unfortunate, but undeniable, that sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth.”

Contained in the filing were a number of allegations made against Giuffre, who maintains that she was raped by Prince Andrew three times when she was 17.

The Duke’s lawyers accuse her of trying to procure underage “slutty” girls for the disgraced financier, reports The NZ Herald:

In the 36-page document, lawyers for the royal alleged that she was involved in the “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse” and includes a reference to her as a “money hungry sex kitten.” (One section in the document is headed: “Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise.”)

In essence, Prince Andrew is trying to turn the tide of public opinion against Giuffre, having had his name battered to bits over the past few years.

Legal minds agree that it’s a risky tactic and one that could quite easily backfire.

UK media law expert Mark Stephens told The Guardian that Prince Andrew had “potentially opened himself up to further embarrassment” and added that he’s now “embarked on a route towards a case”.

A senior partner at a leading London law firm, who wished to remain anonymous, went one step further:

“This looks like putting up a smokescreen to tarnish her [Giuffre’s] reputation but it has no legal relevance whatsoever. Whether or not she was complicit in assisting Epstein with his child abuse is neither here nor there when you consider the allegations against Prince Andrew, which are that he raped and molested her. However he tarnishes her character, it makes absolutely no difference to that issue.”

Enter The Daily Mail and its royal correspondent, Richard Kay, who states that “the biggest gamble of Prince Andrew’s life will either save him… or sink him”.

The attack also comes at a time when the Queen’s health has come under scrutiny, drawing comparisons with the timing of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey as Prince Philip was in hospital.

When The Daily Mail compares you to Meghan and Harry, you know shit’s getting real:

In exhibiting his accuser’s own dubious past, Andrew has now gambled everything on turning this increasingly unseemly saga into a battle that pitches his folly against the ‘money-grubbing’ Virginia Roberts.

The outcome is uncertain and it will certainly be unsavoury.

Come now, we ventured past “unsavoury” a very long time ago.

[sources:guardian&nzherald&dailymail]