Mountbatten-Windsor

And that came after...

the US Department of Justice published documents which raised suspicions that he'd forwarded confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein when Mountbatten-Windsor was a UK trade envoy in 2010.

And we should say that the former prince has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to convicted sex offender Epstein, who took his own life in 2019.

Let's take you to the United States for more news overnight.

Will return to court on November 23.

Meanwhile, the former Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has won a significant legal victory after a judge ruled police searches of his homes were unlawful.

Thames Valley Police searched Royal Lodge and Wood Farm after arresting the former prince on his 66th birthday back in February.

His lawyers challenged the warrants, arguing police had seized private and confidential material unrelated to the investigation.

And now both sides have agreed the warrants were unlawfully issued, and a High Court judge has formally quashed them.

But the judge made clear this does not end the criminal investigation, and police can keep some of the material they seized.

Mountbatten-Windsor has not been charged.

The investigation, of course, centers on allegations he shared sensitive information with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy.

And if you're gonna go after somebody like Prince Andrew, you better have all your goddamn ducks in a row.

Mountbatten Windsor was not in court for the hearing.

Mark Stevens of the Howard Kennedy law firm in London described the hearing as a prelim skirmish in the broader legal battle.

It's the first step of Prince Andrew and his lawyers saying, "Actually, this is tainted evidence.

That would give them the basis they're looking for, and they wouldn't have to worry about it being, quote-unquote, improperly seized because they'd be getting it from America, from the DOJ, not from Andrew's accounts.

So that's certainly significant, and it's something to keep an eye on.

King Charles III stripped Mountbatten Windsor of his princely title last year as he sought to shield the rest of the royal family from the continuing fallout from his younger brother's links to Epstein.

While Mountbatten Windsor, 66, continues to receive a stipend from the king's private funds, Buckingham Palace has made it clear that those funds may not be used to fund his effort to challenge the search warrants.

Those were taken from properties at Sandringham and Windsor.

Mountbatten-Windsor opposes the application.

The judge said it would be heard next year.

The case marked the first time a member of the royal family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since the 1649 trial of Charles I. Buckingham Palace said the King's private funds must not pay for it.

So if you don't have all your ducks in a row, you're asking for big trouble.

Justice Nicholas Hillard said that the Thames Valley Police had made a significant error in applying for the warrants when they searched the properties of the former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

So what were the errors? What were the mistakes? And look, I understand that the UK has a different legal system than the United States, but how come we don't know what was improper? Are we going to get that information at some point? Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on February 19th on suspicion of misconduct in public office and police searched two of his homes.

His lawyers asked the high court to invalidate the warrants under which those searches were conducted.

Hilliard said the parties had agreed to invalidate the warrants before the hearing on Thursday.

They have their own, you know, guidelines.

And if you're going to go after somebody like Prince Andrew, you better have all your goddamn ducks in a row.

Mountbatten-Windsor was not in court for the hearing.

So if you don't have all your ducks in a row, you're asking for big trouble.

"Justice Nicholas Hilliard said that the Thames Valley Police had made a significant error in applying for the warrants when they searched the properties of the former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor." So what were the errors? What were the mistakes? And look, I understand that the UK has a different legal system than the United States, but how come we don't know what was improper? Are we gonna get that information at some point? "Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on February 19th on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and police searched two of his homes.

His lawyers asked the High Court to invalidate the warrants under which those searches were conducted.

Hilliard said the parties had agreed to invalidate the warrants before the hearing on Thursday.

They have their own, you know, guidelines.

And if you're gonna go after somebody like Prince Andrew, you better have all your goddamn ducks in a row.

"Mountbatten-Windsor was not in court for the hearing.

Mark Stephens of the Howard Kennedy law firm in London described the hearing as a prelim skirmish in the broader legal battle.

US Marshals say he'll remain in custody pending extradition to Iowa.

We're also learning this morning that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, received a hefty check for surrendering the lease on his home known as Royal Lodge.

Now, the Crown Estate that manages properties owned by his brother, King Charles, says the former prince was given around $400,000 for terminating his lease early.

Now, King Charles evicted his brother earlier this year amid the fallout over Mountbatten-Windsor's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Comes just a day after a British court ruled that warrants used to search the former prince's homes on the day of his arrest in February were unlawful.

And finally, a man arriving at Miami International Airport last weekend was stopped by customs after noticing he appeared nervous and had what they called an unexpected bulge.

I mean, they're consistent, aren't they? They're consistent.

How about this? A British judge has ruled in favour of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in a dispute over police searches of his homes earlier this year when they arrested the former prince on suspicion of misconduct due to his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The decision, they say, is a significant victory for the former prince.

This is nine months after his arrest made global headlines, and it raises questions over the evidence gathered and whether he may ever be charged.

Justice Nicholas Hilliard said in London yesterday Thames Valley Police had relied on the wrong law when seeking approval from the courts for the search warrants days before the raids in February.

Mountbatten Windsor applied for the search warrants to be quashed, and Thames Valley Police said it accepted that they'd not be properly granted.

Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during our searches, according to the police, will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation.

Extraordinary.