Prince Andrew’s legal team has challenged his accuser’s claims of being abused. She exposed her past as an’sex cat’ and accused her of procuring slut girls for Jeffrey Epstein, legal documents show.

The 36-page motion filed by the Duke of York’s lawyers to dismiss the US civil suit brought in by Virginia Giuffre, in which Virginia Giuffre accuses the Royale of rape, is a blistering one.

The 38-year old, who was previously known as Roberts, claims that she was sex-trampled to Andrew three times by Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted paedophile. The first time she was 17, and below the legal age for consent under New York law.

The Duke, who is 61 years old has denied her claims repeatedly and vehemently.

Andrew’s US legal team labelled Ms Giuffre’s lawsuit frivolous in court documents filed Friday night. They stated that she had initiated the baseless lawsuit against Prince Andrew to get another payday.

They claimed that she had made a fortune from her association to Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offenders, for many years and was willing ‘to milk the publicity’ for as many years as she could, but had not kept her story straight. 

Lawyers also cited a story published in the New York Daily News in 2015 that claimed Giuffre recruited young women into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring and referenced former friends who had described her as a ‘money-hungry sex kitten’ who enjoyed a lavish lifestyle.

US Lawyers for Prince Andrew (pictured on Thursday at Windsor castle) have submitted a response to a lawsuit filed against him in New York by his sex abuse accuser Virginia Roberts

US Lawyers for Prince Andrew (pictured at Windsor castle on Thursday) have responded to a New York lawsuit filed against him by Virginia Roberts, his sex abuse accuser.

Prince Andrew (pictured) has fired back at a Virginia Giuffre's 'frivolous' sex-assault lawsuit claiming she's just out for a 'payday' in a shock motion he filed to dismiss the claims on Friday

Giuffre (pictured), 38, has accused the Duke of York of sexually abusing her three times back in 2001 when she was just 17 years old - more than two decades ago

Prince Andrew (left) has hit back at Virginia Giuffre’s (right), ‘frivolous, sex-assault case. She claims she’s just out of a payday’ in shock motion he filed Friday to dismiss the claims.

Giuffre (right with Andrew), one of Epstein's most vocal accusers, claimed that she was forced into sex with the Duke of York. She has long claimed that she was a victim of Epstein's sex trafficking ring throughout the early 2000s when she was a teenager (Ghislaine pictured right)

Giuffre (right alongside Andrew), was one of Epstein’s most vocal accusers. She claimed that she was forced to sex in order to get with the Duke. She has claimed since childhood that she was a victim Epstein’s sex trading ring in the early 2000s, when she was just a teenager (Ghislaine pictured left).

In a section of the legal papers headed ‘Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise’, lawyers cite Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Ms Giuffre for help in recruiting underage girls.

The quote is: [Giuffre]I would ask you, “Do you know any girls who’re kind of slutty?”

The court filing states: “It is a striking feature in this case that while lurid accusations are made against Prince Andrew, Giuffre, the only party whose conduct involved the wilful recruiting and trafficking of young women for sexual abuse was Giuffre herself, even while she was an adult.” 

In the New York Daily News article, which is cited in Prince Andrew’s response, one of Giuffre’s ex-lovers who would drive her to Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion told the news site: ‘She was like head b****.

“She’d have like nine to ten girls she used to bring to her.” She never seemed like she was being held hostage…

“She and the other girl would walk out smiling, with their little bathing suits on. It was like they had just come off the beach. She would have liked four grand. 

Prince Andrew fiercely denied Giuffre's claims in the motion he filed in US District Court in Manhattan on Friday. He called her claims 'baseless' in an effort to 'achieve another payday' before slamming Giuffre for her allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

Prince Andrew fiercely denied Giuffre’s claims in the motion he filed in US District Court in Manhattan on Friday. He called her claims ‘baseless’ in an effort to ‘achieve another payday’ before slamming Giuffre for her allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

The prince has also accused Giuffre of helping Ghislaine Maxwell in her sex trafficking ring with Jeffrey Epstein (pictured)

The motion to dismiss Giuffre's claims cited a damning story published in the New York Daily News in 2015 that revealed 'Giuffre also was trained to and did, in fact, recruit other young women into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring'

The motion cited a 2015 shocking story that revealed that Giuffre (right), had been trained to recruit other young women into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring.

“And then I’d take them all down to the mall, and they’d get tats done.”

Giuffre was settling a lawsuit in March 2015 with Epstein. Former friends claimed she was more of an’money-hungry, sexy kitten’ who enjoyed a lavish lifestyle than someone who had been enslaved or abused by Epstein.

Andrew’s lawyers replied that Virginia Giuffre might be a victim sexual abuse at Jeffrey Epstein…and nothing is able to excuse or fully capture Epstein’s abhorrent and grave behavior against Giuffre, in this case.

“Prince Andrew never sexually assaulted or abused Giuffre, despite Epstein’s alleged misconduct.

“He unambiguously denies Giuffre’s false allegations against his character.”

The royal's attorney, Andrew Brettler believes a legal agreement reached between Epstein and Giuffre in 2009 absolves Andrew of all responsibility in the lawsuit he described as 'baseless'

Andrew Brettler, Andrew’s attorney, believes that an agreement between Epstein & Giuffre in 2009 exonerates Andrew of any responsibility in the lawsuit that he called ‘baseless.

According to court documents, Giuffre had profited from Epstein’s allegations and others by selling stories, photographs and secret agreements to settle her claims against Epstein and his ex, Ghislaine Maxwell. 

It states that Epstein’s abuses of Giuffre do not justify her public campaign against Prince Andrew.

The motion stated that her ‘pattern’ of filing lawsuits against high-profile people should be stopped as it continues to irreparably damage many innocent people. 

“Most people can only dream of obtaining such large sums of money as Giuffre has secured over the years,” the legal papers stated. They also noted that the money could be a “compelling motive” for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous suits against individuals like Prince Andrew.

According to court documents, Giuffre also created a media frenzy in the press that has led to’sensationalism (to) prevail over the truth’.  

Giuffre was Epstein’s most vocal accuser. She claimed that she was a victim to his sex trafficking rings when she was a teenager.

Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley told the Sunday Times yesterday: ‘If Virginia Giuffre had stood silent in the face of outrageous statements like those Prince Andrew routinely churns out — his motion to dismiss the litigation being no exception — the decades-long sex-trafficking ring his friend Jeffrey Epstein operated and he participated in would have never been exposed.

“On the subject money, let’s be very clear: Prince Andrew is the only party to this lawsuit that uses money to his advantage.” 

Andrew has repeatedly denied that he has sex with Roberts or ever met her despite a photo of the two together: 'I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever'

Andrew has denied ever having sex with Roberts, despite a photo of them together: “I have no recollection ever meeting this lady. None whatsoever.”

The court papers were a scandal to women’s groups, campaigners and activists. Andrew’s lawyers claimed that Ms Giuffre had obtained sums’most people can only dream of’ by filing lawsuits in court against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. These cases were eventually settled out of court. 

Joan Smith, a former chairwoman of the Mayor’s Violence Against Women group in London, said that the Duke seems to live in the 1950s, when abused females were often called “gold diggers”. It is very low to accuse a victim of sexual exploitation that they were motivated by money.

“It is victim shaming, further evidence of his appalling judgement. Andrew is just dragging the reputation of his abominable judgment further.

Karen Ingala Smith is the chief executive of NIA. NIA is a London-based charity that works to end domestic and sexual violence against women.

“It is grossly dishonest for one to claim that sexual violence is abhorrent, and then on the contrary to label those seeking legal redress in such a way as money grabers.” 

Ms Giuffre’s lawyer said last night that she might subpoena Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and her daughters Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie, and force them to testify in court. 

The Duke of York faced an immediate backlash from women's groups after his lawyers filed a blistering 36-page motion to dismiss the US civil suit brought by Ms Giuffre in which she accuses the Royal of rape

After his lawyers filed a blistering 36 page motion to dismiss the US civil suit brought in by Ms Giuffre, in which she accuses Royal of rape, the Duke faced immediate backlash from women’s groups

Sigrid McCawley’s team is looking into Andrew’s 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, which was recorded with Emily Maitlis, for ‘inconsistencies’.

She wants to interview Andrew’s ex wife and daughters about his alibi.

Ms Giuffre may also ask for the Duke’s medical records. After he claimed he couldn’t have been’sweating profusely” on a dance floor as Ms Giuffre claimed because he has a medical condition which prevents him from perspiring, Ms Giuffre said that Ms Giuffre was right. 

According to a legal source familiar with the matter, the Mail reported Sunday that Andrew and his team were not looking to victim shame their accuser. This could backfire in the court of public opinions.

Wednesday, September 13, is the first pre-trial hearing for this case.