Prince Andrew was accused in a civil action for damages. He denied it. He has now settled the case, which happens when a plaintiff and defendant agree on a resolution to the claims made. But what about you?
It’s deflating to see how often wealth can be used to obscure truth.
WaPo columnist Christine Emba is pissed. How dare Prince Andrew use his wealth to settle the suit against him?
Such is the feeling upon learning that Britain’s Prince Andrew, son of Queen Elizabeth II, has agreed to an out-of-court settlement to end the sexual abuse lawsuit brought against him by Virginia Giuffre.
Of course, Emba isn’t a party to the suit. Emba makes no claim to victimhood at the prince’s hand. But does that mean she isn’t entitled to her feelings?
It is perhaps not just a coincidence that the Giuffre case will end here, just weeks before Prince Andrew’s scheduled deposition on March 10. The settlement likely guarantees that we will learn less, not more, about the extent of Epstein’s practices; Prince Andrew’s alleged involvement in Epstein’s circle will remain unknown. And it makes it less likely that Epstein victims will secure the vindication they deserve.
See what she did there? She made it about the vindication the victims deserve, except the victim in this suit made the decision to settle. Maybe Giuffre is thrilled with the settlement. Maybe not, as the snarky lawyer explanation of settlements is a resolution that makes neither party happy. Either way, the party involved, Giuffre, agreed to it. She got exactly the vindication she deserves because she decided that this was good enough to bring Prince Andrew’s involvement to a close.
As for Prince Andrew, he made the business decision to pay rather than fight. Emba can speculate all she wants about why, but she’s got no clue whether Prince Andrew’s, or the Firm’s, decision was because he did it or not. All a settlement means is that it was decided that it was better to settle than not settle.
As for his wealth, people without wealth settle too, only for lesser amounts because a huge judgment that can’t be paid or collected is really hard to spend. Better to settle with a wealthy person than a poorer one. Better to collect on a settlement than have an open and unsatisfiable judgment.
But all of these obvious aspects of settlement really have nothing to do with Emba’s compaint, which has nothing to do with Giuffre but with her.
Seeing these wealth-enabled settlements crop up again and again — whether during the 2008 financial crisis or the #MeToo movement — is a reminder that our system of torts works better for some than for others. They draw potentially revelatory and important cases quietly out of sight so that they don’t become a public relations inconvenience or ruin your mother’s special day. It’s not difficult to understand why people begin to believe in conspiracy theories when it does appear as though there is a separate operating system for the affluent.
Emba doesn’t care about Giuffre, but about Emba. Her grievance is that the settlement of a civil action agreed upon by the parties involved didn’t give her the blood for which she lusts. How dare she be deprived of her desire to see Prince Andrew ruined, even if he never did anything to her. What about Emba’s salacious pleasure as a completely uninvolved bystander to Giuffre’s suit? Where’s Emba’s vindication?
If you have enough money, you can avoid trial in civil cases and, in some instances, even avoid answering questions. Settling with accusers becomes just another cost of doing business.
That’s exactly what settlement is supposed to be about, even if it leaves Emba feeling unsatisfied that she didn’t get to watch some famous guy squirm, suffer, be humiliated and ruined. Civil actions are not for the benefit of angry women who desperately need to live out their fantasies of outrage through the victimhood of others.
Emba has nothing to do with this case. She alleges no injury by Prince Andrew, and has no right to complain. Someone else’s lawsuit didn’t end up the way she wanted, so she should get her jollies at the expense of the litigants? That’s exactly how civil suits are supposed to work. Whatever happened between Giuffre and Prince Andrew, it has nothing to do with Emba, no matter what fantasies of self-importance give rise to her grievance.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The signs here were that Andrew would have liked to try the case, but the family with which he is burdened could not abide the continuing publicity. This is an illustration of status leaving him with fewer rights than if he were some Liverpool commoner.
Whatever Andrew wanted, and nobody really knows what that might be, it clearly had implications for the royal family as well. Whether he won or lost, perpetuating this case and his involvement was not in the family’s best interests.
Why is she mad about not hearing what Prince Andrew had to say? It’s not like she was going to listen anyway, as she’s already made up her mind that he’s guilty and deserves to burn.
When “believe the woman” is a bedrock view, there is nothing to lose as even a defendant’s verdict wouldn’t have meant it didn’t happen, but only proven how corrupt the legal system is.
I thought it was supposed to be all about the victim. Ms. Giuffre was not compelled to take Prince Andrew or his family’s money. She could have gone to a very public trial in front of a jury of her peers. But she chose not too. It sounds like Ms. Emba should be directing her ire at Ms. Giuffre. But, of course, that would be impolitic.