Giuffre v. Prince Andrew—yet another egregious example of how wokeism is destroying the US legal system.


Every day, on Twitter and a thousand other media and social-media forums, Americans of a “conservative” or “right-wing” persuasion bemoan and lament the civilizational destruction caused by the crazed, bureaucrat-and-brownshirt armies of wokeness.

I bemoan and lament with them. But what distresses me even more is the destruction—serious destruction—caused by trends that ordinary people on the right approve or at least choose to keep silent about.

One of these trends concerns some of the criminal and civil cases inspired by the #MeToo movement—cases that represent the anti-male, pro-histrionic-female theme in the broad wokeist takeover of the American judicial system. (Another prominent theme in that takeover, the anti-white-law-abiding-citizen, pro-black-felon theme, I wrote about just over a month ago.)

A particularly striking #MeToo case, still in its early stages but already with prominent media coverage, lies before us now.

This is the case brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the most media-noisy of the sex kittens paid and kept by the late Jeffrey Epstein. She claims that—more than two decades ago, when she was just 17—she slept with the British royal Prince Andrew, and suffered so much harm thereby that she is now entitled to significant monetary damages. According to the complaint filed by her lawyers:

Prince Andrew committed sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff when she was 17 years old. As such, Prince Andrew is responsible for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to New York common law. The damage to Plaintiff has been severe and lasting . . . .

The below photograph depicts Prince Andrew, Plaintiff, and Maxwell at Maxwell’s home prior to Prince Andrew sexually abusing Plaintiff.

The reader is free to peruse the full complaint [pdf], to follow the case as it progresses, and to make judgments accordingly. I offer here, as a mere bystander who knows none of the parties, only my own humble, hushed opinions.

Which is to say, I think it’s a shameless fraud that demonstrates the shambles of the American legal system under the pressures of wokeist feminization.

Worse, I think it puts on full display America’s cultural corruption—for no media commentator of prominence, as far as I know, has offered even mild skepticism about this outrageous case or others like it.

In other words, while I believe that the stink of this business is more or less universally apparent, the average media person pretends otherwise because the stories generate clicks, and also for fear of cancellation—cancellation by the same hysteria-prone demographic that got people hanged at Salem and other innocents burned at the stake throughout Europe.

Let me clarify that Giuffre’s case against Andrew doesn’t—I mean, logically shouldn’t—have a close connection to the legal cases against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. I happen to think the latter were both obviously guilty of sex trafficking and related offenses, even if the sentence Epstein would have received in New York and the one Maxwell is now set to receive will be excessive (on the Great White Defendant principle) compared to typical trafficking cases, i.e., involving some Nigerian or Honduran who really does enslave and brutalize his victims. But no one has ever presented evidence that Andrew was a party to Epstein’s trafficking scheme, or that he was anything other than a gentle fool who, like other fools (Bill Gates and Bill Clinton among them) hung out with his friend Epstein from time to time. (How Epstein generated the charisma to gather such people in his orbit is to me a significant mystery, albeit not relevant here.)

Giuffre’s case rests on the simple allegation that Andrew, in cahoots with Epstein and Maxwell, somehow “forced” Giuffre to sleep with him—which seems not just an unsupported allegation but a preposterous one. Assuming Giuffre and Andrew even did have sex, we have been given no reason to picture it as any less volitional on her part than her demeanor in the photograph would suggest. And I think it’s safe to say that Andrew, whatever his other failings, has never shown a propensity for treating women in the manner alleged.

At the same time, it appears that Giuffre, having partied and traveled widely and gotten to know various men, all on Epstein’s nickel, has been, since E’s legal troubles began, squeezing him or his estate (also Ghislaine Maxwell and Alan Dershowitz) for further money; and the suit against Andrew represents one of the continuations of that broader effort; all of which speaks clearly to the issue of her motive.

In short, the case has the prima facie appearance of being no more than a shakedown: an attempt essentially to extort money with the threat of an embarrassing civil trial if the money is not paid.

Despite this, there is a good chance Giuffre will prevail—her blue-chip lawyers, who probably stand to get around a third of any award or settlement, would not have taken the case otherwise. Most likely she will prevail because Andrew and his family will decide to settle rather than endure the pain of a trial. Even if they are willing to endure that pain, the corruption the #MeToo strain of wokeness has caused in the American legal system, including juries, makes any such case a roll of the dice, at least. The judge in the case also may not be an even-handed Myron Kovitsky type (Bonfire of the Vanities); he is Lewis Kaplan, a Clinton appointee and a paid-up member of the New York liberal elite, whose demeanor in an early hearing does not bode well for the prince.

Shakedowns occur all the time, among highlifes and lowlifes, but this one is so prominent, so front-and-center, and yet apparently so untouchable by simple reason and skepticism. No disinterested observer can question it! Everybody loves Empress Virginia’s new clothes! Little wonder that Dershowitz, target of another one of Giuffre’s suits, has come across as almost apoplectic when talking about her to reporters.

certified, complete, total liar [link]

I’m not neutral on this, because [Giuffre] also accused me of having sex with her, and I proved conclusively — through her own diaries, through her own lawyer, through our own emails — that it would be impossible for me to have ever met her. [link]

Anyway, I hope my writing this emboldens some of you out there to speak up—quixotically, I know, but so be it—and state what is obvious about cases like this, namely that they need to be strongly discouraged somehow, and the men targeted by them need to be better protected. The US and other Western legal systems already make many concessions to women, including protection from incidental reputational harm in rape cases. Why can’t men receive a similar level of protection from the deliberate reputational harm of shakedown cases?

Well, of course, you know why—because women essentially are now in charge, and are remodeling the institutions of Western life to suit themselves. With essentially zero pushback from men. I begin to tire of pointing this out.