Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Maxwell's Summary Judgement Request (Part 7-9) (6/7/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Maxwell's Summary Judgement Request (Part 7-9) (6/7/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:04
In this episode, we're going to continue talking about the
0:07
Virginia Roberts response to Glenn Maxwell's attempt to get a
0:12
summary judgment. Number three. Defendant cannot invoke the pre litigation
0:18
privilege because she has no claim for good faith litigation. Finally,
0:23
defendant cannot prevail in asserting this qualified privilege because in
0:27
order to invoke this privilege, she must have a Meredith
0:31
claim for good faith anticipated litigation. Khalil specifically states that
0:36
for the qualified privilege to apply, the statements must be
0:40
made pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation, and it
0:43
does not protect attorneys asserting holly unmeridith claims unsupported in
0:48
law and fact in violation of Council's ethical obligations. Khalil,
0:54
twenty four and y Dot three d at seven eighteen
0:57
seven twenty Defendant has neither Emeritis claim nor good faith
1:02
anticipated litigation. Defendant cannot have a EMEREDITHS claim for good
1:07
faith anticipation litigation against the press or Miss Roberts because
1:12
Miss roberts reports of her sexual abuse are true. Defendant
1:15
knows that they are true, and Defendant made a knowingly
1:18
false statement when she called Miss Roberts a liar. Under
1:21
these circumstances, defendant has no claim to make in good
1:25
faith relating to either Miss Roberts's statements or their coverage
1:29
in the press, thereby making her defamatory statements wholly outside
1:33
the protection of this qualified privilege. At the very least,
1:37
the issue of whether defendant has claims against the press
1:41
on the grounds that she did not abuse Miss Roberts
1:44
is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
1:47
Number five. Defendant has not and cannot show that her
1:51
defamatory statement is substantially true. Defendant's next claims that her
1:56
press release calling Miss Roberts a liar about her past
1:59
second abuse was somehow substantially true. Here again, this is
2:03
a highly disputed claim on its face. To determine whether
2:07
it's substantially true or not requires extensive fact finding, such
2:11
as weather defendant recruited Miss Roberts as a minor child
2:14
for sex with defendants live in boyfriend and convicted pedophile
2:18
Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, some rejudgment is not appropriate. See Metre
2:23
Sports International Limited versus Home Box Office Incorporated, twenty two
2:28
f Dot supp Dot three D two forty two fifty
2:32
five SDNY twenty fourteen, denying some rejudgment because it would
2:38
require the court to decide disputed facts to determine whether
2:42
the statement at issue was substantially true. The Silver versus
2:46
Time Incorporated nine oh eight f one eighty four, one
2:50
eighty seven sdn Y nineteen ninety five, denying motion for
2:54
some rejudgment because there was a genuine issue of material
2:57
act as to whether defamatory photo and caption were not true.
3:01
Stating in the instant case of the Silva's contention that
3:05
she was a reform prostitute at the time of photography
3:08
and publication provides a rational basis upon which a FactFinder
3:12
could conclude that the photograph was not substantially true. Additionally,
3:18
defendant has remarkably not submitted any evidence that she did
3:22
not recruit Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein. Nora's defendant
3:26
offered any evidence that her role in Epstein's household was
3:29
not to recruit girls and young women for Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly,
3:34
some rejudgment is inappropriate. Ce Stern versus Cosby six forty
3:38
five f two d two fifty eight two seventy seven
3:42
SDNY two thousand and nine, because defendant had not submitted
3:46
any evidence to show that statement eleven is substantially true,
3:50
her motion for some rejudgment as to statement eleven is denied. Further,
3:55
much of the purported evidence upon which defendant relies to
3:59
allege the truth of her defamatory statement is merely hearsay,
4:03
including inadmissible hearsay statements made by Alan Dershowitz, who defendant
4:08
did not depose in this case and whom Miss Roberts
4:11
has not had the opportunity to cross examine. Hearsay cannot
4:15
establish the truth of a defamatory statement as a matter
4:18
of law at some rejudgment Lopez versus Univision Communications Incorporated.
4:23
Forty five f Dot two dot D three forty eight
4:27
three fifty nine SDNY, nineteen ninety nine, denying some rejudgment
4:32
and holding Defendant's evidence as to what they were told
4:35
by representatives of NYU and Keene College to the extent
4:39
offered for the truth of the matters asserted, is admissible
4:42
hearsay and an insufficient basis upon which to grant some
4:46
rejudgment of dismissal on the grounds that the statements were
4:50
substantially true. Finally, Many of the facts upon which Defendant
4:54
bases her argument that her defamatory statement was true are
4:58
a wholly clim aimes made against Miss Roberts and the
5:01
defamatory statement. For example, Defendant supports her contention that she
5:06
did not recruit Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein based
5:08
on the fact that Miss Roberts lived independently of her
5:11
parents before meeting Epstein and Maxwell. Of course, the child
5:15
outside the supervision of her parents makes it much more
5:19
likely she would be recruited by defendant into sex trafficking,
5:23
but that is for the jury to decide. The fact
5:26
does not go to whether or not the defendant statement
5:29
calling Miss Roberts a liar is true because Miss Roberts
5:32
never made any claims relating to where she lived prior
5:35
to meeting defendant. Moreover, it is immaterial with whom she
5:40
was living. The fundamental and overarching fact remains that defendant
5:44
recruited Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein when she was
5:47
a minor child. Defendant next proffers Miss roberts limited high
5:51
school enrollment and short term jobs that she held as
5:55
evidence that she and Epstein did not abuse her. The
5:58
logic of this position is unclear. The fact that Miss
6:01
Roberts worked at Taco Bell for a few days hardly
6:04
establishes she was not abused by defendant and Epstein. Indeed,
6:08
if anything, it shows the vulnerability of Miss Roberts to
6:11
enticements that a billionaire and is wealthy and powerful girlfriend
6:15
could offer. In any event, what to make of such
6:18
fact is something for the jury to consider. They are
6:21
irrelevant for the same reason as above, Miss Roberts never
6:25
made any claims about her studies or her prior employment. Indeed,
6:29
neither Miss Robert's statement about being recruited by defendant as
6:33
a child, nor defendants refusion even mentions Miss roberts lack
6:38
of schooling or a lack of a stable home as
6:41
a child, purported facts that have nothing to do with
6:44
Miss roberts claims of sexual abuse against the defendant and
6:48
nothing to do with the defendant calling Miss Roberts a
6:50
liar for such claims, and they do not establish the
6:54
substantial truth of the defendant statement. Tellingly, defendant sites to
6:59
no case in any jurisdiction that even suggests otherwise. Six
7:04
Plaintiff does not need to establish malice for her defamation claim,
7:08
but in the event, the court rules otherwise, there is
7:11
more than sufficient record evidence for a reasonable jury to
7:14
determine defendant acted with actual malice. Defendants next, and again
7:19
quite a remarkable argument is that Miss Roberts somehow will
7:22
be unable to establish actual malice in this case. One
7:27
would think that a sex trafficker calling one of her
7:29
victims a liar would be quintessential example of actual malice.
7:33
Defendant spurious case citations and misplaced argument do not detract
7:38
from this core e fact. Though defendant does not mention
7:41
the legal standard for actual malice until she is forty
7:44
eight pages into her sixty eight page brief, the legal
7:48
definition of actual malice, as defined by the United States
7:51
Supreme Court and reiterated by the Second Circuit, should be
7:55
the light by which all of defendants purported facts and
7:59
argument should be viewed. Actual malice means that a statement
8:02
was published with knowledge and the statement was false or
8:06
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
8:10
Biola versus Disson six oh seven f appx eighteen, twenty
8:15
Second Circuit twenty fifteen, quoting New York Times Company versus
8:19
Sullivan three seventy six US two fifty four two eighty
8:24
eighty four Supreme Court, eleven L. Dot ed Dot two D.
8:28
Six eighty six, nineteen sixty four. Defendant argues that Miss
8:32
Roberts is a limited purpose public figure, while Miss Roberts
8:35
disputes that claim. The issue is entirely irrelevant here because
8:39
Miss Roberts will prove at trial with overwhelming evidence that
8:43
Defendant mad hers statement calling Miss Roberts a liar with malice,
8:47
fully knowing as a sex trafficker, that it was false.
8:51
Put another way, defendant knew that Miss Roberts was telling
8:54
the truth when she described how defendant recruited her for
8:58
sex as an underage girl and n and sexually traffickedor
9:01
with her then boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein. The Second Circuit instructs
9:06
that on a motion for some rejudgment, a court cannot
9:09
try issues of fact. It can only determine whether there
9:12
are issues to be tried. If, as to the issue
9:15
on which some rejudgment is sought, there is any evidence
9:18
in the record from any source from which a reasonable
9:21
inference could be drawn in favor of the non moving party,
9:25
some rejudgment is improper. Chambers versus TRM Copy Centers Corporation
9:31
forty three f Dot three D twenty nine thirty seven,
9:35
Second Circuit, nineteen ninety four. As the moving party, Defendants
9:40
have the burden of demonstrating an absence of clear and
9:43
convincing evidence substantiating Plaintiff's claims. The soul versus Knoedler Gallery LLC.
9:49
One thirty nine F Dot supp Dot three D six
9:53
eighteen six forty sdn Y twenty fifteen. Citing Chambers, defendant
9:58
fails demeter burden of demonstrating an absence of clear and
10:02
convincing evidence substantiating Miss Roberts' claims that defendant acted with
10:07
actual malice. Miss Roberts will easily be able to meet
10:11
any trial burden of clear and convincing evidence of actual
10:14
malice telling Lee, defendant does not even attempt to address
10:18
the documentary evidence nor the testimonial evidence showing she was
10:22
a recruiter of girls for Epstein as shown above, far
10:27
beyond showing that a reasonable inference could be drawn in
10:30
her favor, which is all that is required at this
10:33
point to defeat defendant's motion. Miss Roberts will easily be
10:37
able to meet her trial burden of clear and convincing
10:40
evidence of actual malice. Of course, a plaintiff need only
10:43
show actual malice on the part of a defendant if
10:46
that plaintiff is a public figure or a limited public figure,
10:50
which Miss Roberts is not. As explained Infra. All right,
10:55
we're going to wrap up right there, and in the
10:57
next episode we're going to pick up where we left
10:59
off with Part seven. The court need not reach the
11:03
issue at this time of whether Miss Roberts is a
11:06
limited purpose public figure. All of the information that goes
11:09
with this episode can be found in the description box.
11:13
What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
11:18
In this episode, we're going to pick up where we
11:20
left off with Virginia Roberts and her response to gland
11:23
Maxwell's attempt to get a summary judgment. So let's dive
11:27
right back in part number seven. The court need not
11:31
reach the issue at this time of whether Miss Roberts
11:34
is a limited purpose public figure. For the reasons just explained,
11:38
Miss Roberts will easily be able to prove actual malice
11:42
at the trial. In this case, defendant argues that Miss
11:46
Roberts is a public figure who must prove actual malice
11:50
MSJ at forty nine. Given the overwhelming proof of the
11:54
second part of the statement, the Court need not spend
11:57
time considering the first. If the Court wished two nonetheless
12:01
consider the issue at this time, it is not appropriate
12:04
for disposition. At the summary judgment stage of the case.
12:08
The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff
12:11
is a limited purpose public figure. C Luhmann versus Flint
12:17
Distribution Company, seven forty five F. Dot two, d one
12:20
twenty three, one thirty six through one thirty seven, Second Circuit.
12:25
Nineteen eighty four. Defendant correctly articulates the legal test for
12:30
finding that a plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure,
12:33
but losses over the fact that all prongs of the
12:36
test must be met in order for a court to
12:38
make that finding. Cee e g. Contemporary Mission Incorporated versus
12:43
New York Times Company, eight forty two F. Dot two
12:46
D six twelve six seventeen, Second Circuit. Nineteen eighty eight.
12:51
This Court set forth a four part test for determining
12:54
whether someone is a limited purpose public figure Herbert versus Lando,
12:59
five ninety six F. Dot supp eleven seventy eight, eleven
13:04
eighty six, sdn Y, nineteen eighty four. The second Circuit
13:08
recently summarized the criteria Affidavid in part revised in part
13:13
seven eighty one F Dot two D two ninety eight,
13:16
Second Circuit nineteen eighty six, Nells Versus Hillsdale College, one
13:21
seventy eight F Dot supp Dot two D seven seventy one,
13:26
seven seventy eight E Dot D. Michigan, two thousand and one,
13:30
finding plaintiff was not a limited public figure for failing
13:33
one element of the Lerman test and thus denying defendant's
13:37
motion for a summary judgment. The defendant has proven all
13:41
of the elements but the third Affidavid at sixty five f.
13:45
Appendix nine eighty four, six Circuit two thousand and three.
13:50
Of course, proof that Miss Roberts or anyone else is
13:53
a limited purpose public figure requires proof of a set
13:56
of facts from which Miss Roberts believes Defendant has not
14:00
shown in satisfaction of the four part test. Significantly, this
14:04
Court should pause here to note that the details of
14:07
Jane Doe number three sexual exploitation and abuse, as anonymously
14:12
set forth in her cvr A joined her motion, caused
14:16
the defendant to identify with certainty Jane Doe number three
14:20
as Miss Roberts, yet at her deposition defendant claim to
14:24
barely remember her at all. Defendant's ability to immediately and
14:28
positively identify the anonymous individual making claims of sexual abuse,
14:33
if anything, shows the defendant was intimately aware of Miss
14:37
roberts sexual exploitation, and to be sure, Miss Roberts never
14:41
asked to be sexually abused or trafficked by defendant or
14:45
the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein when she was a child.
14:49
Legally she did not even have the capacity to consent.
14:52
Defendant cannot recruit a minor child for sexual exploitation and
14:56
then afterwards argue that her victim injected herself into the
15:00
public controversy when coming forward about the abuse that she
15:04
has suffered. Moreover, the defendant has not made a sufficient
15:08
showing that Miss Roberts has regular and continuing access to
15:11
the news media. The policy rationale behind this prong is
15:15
that the public figures generally enjoy significant access to the media.
15:20
One reporter wrote some articles on Miss Roberts in twenty eleven. Thereafter,
15:24
it was not until twenty fifteen that Miss Roberts spoke
15:28
to someone in the news about these issues, and that
15:31
the interview was granted after the defendant's defamatory remarks. Such
15:36
limited contacts precludes a finding that Miss Roberts is a
15:39
limited public figure. See Hutchinson versus Proxmier, four forty three
15:44
US one eleven, ninety nine. Supreme Court twenty six seventy
15:48
five sixty one l dot Ed two D four eleven,
15:52
nineteen seventy nine, finding plaintiff maintained no regular and continuing
15:57
access to the media and thus was not public figure.
16:01
It is also unclear how defendant plans to show that
16:04
Miss Roberts successfully invited public attention to reviews. To be sure,
16:09
Miss Roberts decided to start Victims Refuse Silence, a not
16:13
for profit organization whose mission is to change the landscape
16:17
of the war on Sexual abuse and human trafficking. Our
16:21
goal is to undertake an instrumental role in helping survivors
16:24
break the silence associated with sexual abuse. To fulfill this mission,
16:29
we aim to enhance the lives of women who have
16:31
been victimized. The website lists the National Trafficking Hotline and
16:36
provides a state by state resource for local organizations where
16:40
victims can seek help. Unsurprisingly, defend in sites no cases
16:45
that hold that maintaining a website makes one a public figure.
16:49
See Metre Sports International Limited vers Home Box Office Incorporated.
16:54
Twenty two f DOT supp Dot three D two forty
16:58
two fifty two SDN one why twenty fourteen, finding plaintiff
17:03
was not a limited public figure and denying defendant's motion
17:06
for some rejudgment corporate policy. Denouncing child labor on its
17:10
website does not show that MITRE aim to influence the
17:14
public's views on the controversy. More important, defendant does not
17:18
explain how Miss Roberts was using the website to influence
17:22
public views on whether she had been abused by defendant,
17:25
the subject at issue in this lawsuit. Interestingly, Defendant has
17:30
spent seventeen thousand, eight hundred and seventy five dollars and
17:33
forty nine cents on an expert witness to tell the
17:36
court and the jury that hardly anyone searches on the
17:39
Internet using search terms such as victims, refuse, silence, sex slave.
17:44
One of the defendants six briefs raising Dawbird issues specifically
17:48
argues that doctor anderson estimates on the cost of remediating
17:53
Miss roberts online reputation are improper because doctor Anderson included
17:58
nearly unused search phrases one of evaluating Internet content can
18:02
rebuttal report states there seems no reason to believe that
18:06
such a person would use this item. Indeed, these are
18:09
terms unlikely to be used by anyone unfamiliar with this litigation. Why,
18:14
for instance, would it be necessary to push down offending
18:17
web pages in the results that the search engines provide
18:20
for the term victims refuse silent sex slave when this
18:23
term is likely never used CEE McCauley declaration at Exhibit
18:28
twenty five, can Report at ten thirty three. Defendant cannot
18:33
argue to the court that Miss Roberts has successfully invited
18:37
public attention to reviews through her VRS website while simultaneously
18:41
filing a Daubert motion that argues the search terms such
18:45
as victims refuse silent sex slave are likely never used,
18:49
thus making the website unsuccessful and inviting public attention. In
18:54
any event, Defendant has failed to set forth with precision
18:57
the allegedly undisputed fact and supporting evidence she uses the
19:02
support her argument. Moreover, it is preferable to reduce the
19:07
public figure question to a more meaningful context by looking
19:10
to the nature and extent of an individual's participation in
19:14
the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation. Greenberg versus.
19:19
CBS Incorporated. Sixty nine A Dot d Dot two D
19:23
six ninety three, seven O four four nineteen nys two
19:27
D nine eighty eight, nine ninety five, nineteen seventy nine,
19:31
citing Gertz versus. Robert Welch Incorporated. Four eighteen US three
19:36
twenty three three forty five three fifty two ninety four.
19:39
Supreme Court twenty nine ninety seven forty one L. Dot
19:43
Eed Dot two D seven eighty nine. The context here
19:47
is highly significant. Miss Roberts never chose to participate in
19:51
Defendant and Epstein's under age sex ring, a controversy that
19:55
gave rise to defendant's defamation. In arguing that Miss Roberts
19:59
thrust herself health into the public spotlight, Defendant conveniently leaves
20:03
out the fact that it is by her doing that
20:06
Miss Roberts is in this controversy in the first place,
20:09
No minor child willingly becomes a participant in sexual abuse,
20:14
and it is perverse for the abuser to argue that
20:17
her victim deliberately became a subject of public attention when
20:20
speaking out about that abuse for the purpose of advancing
20:24
justice and helping other victims. For all these reasons, the
20:28
Court should simply decline to decide the public figure issue
20:31
at this juncture, but if it chooses to reach the issue,
20:34
it should reject defendant's unsupported argument. Section eight. The January
20:40
twenty fifteen statement was not substantially true, and Miss Roberts
20:45
has produced clear and convincing evidence of its falsity. As
20:49
a final argument, defendant argues that her January twenty fifteen
20:53
statement was substantially true. Given that the statement argues that
20:58
Miss Roberts lied when she said she was sexually trafficked
21:01
by the defendant, the reader of Defendant's motion might reasonably
21:05
expect to see some evidence presented showing that defendant was
21:08
not a sex trafficker. Instead, the reader is treated to
21:13
technical quibbles. For example, the lead argument show the substantial
21:17
truth of defendant statement is the argument that Miss Roberts
21:21
was not fifteen years old, but all of sixteen or
21:24
seventeen years old when she was trafficked. As the Court
21:28
knows and can take judicial notice of, Florida law makes
21:32
age eighteen the age of consent. Accordingly, it is no
21:36
moment that Miss Roberts may have been mistaken about the
21:39
exact year the sex trafficking started. Call this the yes,
21:44
I'm a sex trafficker, but only of sixteen year old
21:46
girl's defense. To even describe the defense is to show
21:50
how meritless it is. More broadly, at issue are the
21:54
statements Miss Roberts made regarding Defendant's involvement in and knowledge
21:58
of the sexual abuse and sex trafficking of Miss Roberts
22:02
and other minor girls through a recruitment scheme executed by
22:06
defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. In response to those various statements,
22:11
Defendant publicly claimed that the allegations made by Miss Roberts
22:15
against Glen Maxwell are untrue. Defendant continued that Miss roberts
22:20
claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such. Defendant,
22:24
through her statement, intended to convey that Miss Roberts was
22:28
lying about everything she had said against defendant in the allegations.
22:33
In some an essence, those statements made by Miss Roberts,
22:37
about which Defendant released a public statement to exclaim were
22:40
untrue and obvious lies were one. The defendant approached Miss
22:45
Roberts while Miss Roberts was an underage miner working at
22:48
mar Alago Country Club and recruited the then minor Miss
22:52
Roberts to the house of Jeffrey Epstein under the pretense
22:56
of providing a massage to Jeffrey Epstein for money. Two
23:01
that Miss Roberts followed Defendant's instructions and was driven to
23:04
Jeffrey Epstein's house, where she was greeted by defendant and
23:07
later introduced to Jeffrey Epstein. Three that Miss Roberts was
23:12
led upstairs to be introduced to Jeffrey Epstein in his bedroom,
23:16
and while there, Defendant demonstrated how Miss Roberts should provide
23:20
a massage to Jeffrey Epstein. Four. Defendant and Epstein converted
23:25
the massage into a sexual experience, requesting that Miss Roberts
23:29
remover clothing, after which time a sexual encounter was had.
23:33
Five The defendant and Epstein expressed approval for Miss Roberts
23:38
and offered her money in exchange for this erotic massage
23:41
turned full sexual encounter. Six the defendant and Epstein offered
23:46
Miss Roberts the promise of money and a better life
23:49
in exchange for Miss Roberts acting sexually compliant and subservient
23:53
to their demands. Number seven that Miss Roberts, after that
23:57
first sexual encounter, was repeatedly requested to service Epstein and
24:02
or defendant sexually or others. Eight that Miss Roberts was
24:07
taken on Epstein's private planes on numerous occasions and trafficked
24:11
nationally and internationally for the purpose of servicing Epstein and others,
24:15
including the defendant, sexually. Number nine The defendant was Epstein's
24:20
primary manager of the recruitment and training of females who
24:24
Epstein paid for sexual purposes. Ten Defendant participated in sexual
24:29
encounters with females, including Miss Roberts, and eleven that Miss
24:33
Roberts and other recruited females were encouraged by defendant and
24:37
Epstein to bring other young females to Epstein for the
24:40
purpose of servicing him sexually. Defendant, by way of her
24:45
January twenty fifteen statement, declared that Miss Roberts lied about
24:49
each and every one of these allegations regarding the defendant.
24:52
In fact, Defendant clarified further this position in her deposition
24:56
when she said repeatedly that everything Miss Roberts said about
24:59
the defendant was totally false. The clarification in her deposition
25:04
is identical in intention to the reasonable interpretation of her
25:08
statement that defendant made publicly, which has formed the basis
25:12
of this defamation action, that Miss Roberts was lying about
25:15
everything she said about the defendant, and that the defendant
25:19
was not at all involved in this activity that she
25:22
is accused in engaging in. While her public statement could
25:25
not have been more clear, as her deposition testimony further underscored,
25:29
defendant intended the world to believe that nothing Miss Roberts
25:33
said about the defendant was true and that the defendant
25:36
was not at all involved with any of the things
25:39
she was accused of. Defendant has decided in this motion
25:43
to minutely dissect the nuance of Miss Roberts's various statements
25:47
to cause the court to reach a far fetched conclusion
25:50
the defendant insidiously a false statement was somehow substantially true. Ironically,
25:55
this repositioning amounts to nothing more than an admission by
25:59
the defendant of the defamatory nature of her statement. All right, folks,
26:04
we're going to wrap up right there, and in the
26:06
next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
26:10
All of the information that goes with this episode can
26:12
be found in the description box what's up everyone, and
26:17
welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
26:21
picking up where we left off with the Virginia Roberts
26:24
response to glean Maxwell's attempt to get a summary judgment a.
26:30
When Miss Roberts initially described her encounters with the defendant
26:34
and Epstein, she mistakenly believed the first encounter occurred during
26:38
the year nineteen ninety nine. Discovery has resulted in the
26:41
production of records, including Miss Roberts' employment records from mar
26:45
A Lago, which she did not possess at the time
26:49
she was recounting her interactions with a defendant. Those records
26:53
established that the initial encounter wherein defendant recruited Miss Roberts,
26:57
occurred during the year two thousand and not nineteen ninety nine.
27:01
Miss Roberts was sixteen years old before August ninth, two
27:05
thousand and turned seventeen on that date. It is unclear
27:09
from the limited records available whether the defendant approached and
27:13
recruited Miss Roberts before or just after Robert's seventeenth birthday. However,
27:18
what has now been established through numerous witnesses is that
27:22
defendant approached and recruited a minor child for the purposes
27:25
of enticing that miner over to the house of Jeffrey Epstein,
27:29
a currently registered sex offender. The exact lure of Miss
27:33
Roberts by defendant enticement of being paid money to give
27:37
a billionaire a massage at his mansion, was used by
27:40
Epstein and as many associates and employees to recruit dozens
27:44
and dozens of other underage girls. There is no doubt
27:48
that the crux of Miss Robert's statements on this point
27:52
is that the defendant recruiteder when she was only a
27:54
minor child unable to consent to sex, not precisely how
27:58
far under the age of go in sense she was.
28:01
Defendant's public claim that Miss Roberts account of this approach
28:04
and recruitment element was untrue and obvious lies is not
28:08
substantially true, but is itself an obvious lie. As Miss
28:13
Roberts will approve to the jury trial b defendants January
28:18
twenty fifteen statement claiming as untrue and an obvious lie,
28:22
the allegation that she regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation
28:27
of miners, and that the government knows such fact is
28:30
not substantially true. But instead completely false. Defendant next argues
28:36
that she accurately denied that she irregularly participated in Epstein's
28:41
sexual exploitation on miners, and that the government knows such
28:45
as a fact ms. Jay at fifty eight. It's not
28:48
clear whether defendant is nitpicking this statement by contesting whether
28:52
she regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation or whether she
28:57
did participate but the government was unaware of the extent
29:01
of her involvement. Call this the yes, I'm a sex
29:04
trafficker but only on Tuesdays and Thursday's defense here again,
29:09
to simply recount the claim is to see its absurdity.
29:14
Contrary to Defendant's misleading cherry pick fragments of information that
29:18
she has chosen to use the support her point. There
29:21
is an abundance of evidence clearly linking defendant to Epstein's
29:24
sexual exploitation of miners. As the court is aware, numerous
29:28
message pads were recovered from Epstein's home, indicating Defendant's involvement
29:33
in and knowledge of Epstein's illegal exploitation. Additionally, numerous employees
29:39
and others have testified about Defendant's high ranking position in
29:43
the hierarchical structure. Of the sexual exploitation scheme. In fact,
29:47
multiple individuals in addition to Miss Roberts, have testified about
29:51
Maxwell's involvement in the exploitation of miners, including Miss Roberts.
29:56
Defendant also argues that one government investigator, pom Each Florida
30:00
Detective riccari may not have been aware of her involvement
30:04
in the sex trafficking. Defendant felt to cite another passage
30:07
in Detective Riccariy's deposition where he noted that he was
30:11
aware of Defendant's involvement with Epstein and the sexual exploitation
30:15
of children. But even assuming riccary was unaware, which Miss
30:20
Robert strongly disputes, defendant would have at most a yes,
30:24
I'm a sex trafficker, but I successfully hit it from
30:27
one of the cops defense, again not a likely claim.
30:31
More broadly, Miss Robert's statement about what the government knew
30:35
about sex trafficking was made in pleadings filed in a
30:38
federal court case attacking the decision of the U. S.
30:41
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to offer
30:44
Jeffrey Epstein immunity from prosecution for federal sex trafficking crimes. Accordingly,
30:50
to present an even arguable claim for some rejudgment, defendant
30:55
would have to show that the US Attorney's Office and
30:58
its investigators from the FBI u I did not know
31:01
about defendant sex trafficking. This proof would need to include,
31:04
for example, evidence that the FBI did not learn about
31:08
defending sex trafficking when, among other things, Miss Roberts told
31:12
FBI agents about it when she met them in Australia
31:15
in twenty eleven. Here, again, the defendant has no evidence
31:19
to even begin making such a showing see defendants January
31:24
twenty fifteen. Statement claiming as untrue or an obvious lie
31:29
that Maxwell and Epstein converted Miss Roberts into a sexual
31:33
slave is not substantially true. Defendant next argues that she
31:38
accurately disputed Miss Robert's statement that the defendant held her
31:42
as a sex slave, relying on dictionary definitions of slave
31:46
that define the term to refer to a confined person
31:49
who is the legal property of another MSJA at fifty nine,
31:53
citing Merriam, Webster, etc. Defendant claims Miss Roberts was not
31:58
confined to the property of the defendant. Call this the yes,
32:01
I'm a sex trafficker but I didn't use Chain's defense,
32:05
and once again, to even describe the defense is to
32:08
refute it. Defendant does not explain why the jury would
32:12
be required to use the held in Chain's definition of
32:15
slave in evaluating her statement Merriam Webster, eleventh edition, two
32:20
thousand and six. It also defined slave as one that
32:23
is completely subservient to a dominating influence, a definition that
32:28
fits Miss Robert's circumstances to a t. As Miss Roberts
32:32
has explained in detail, she was recruited as a minor
32:35
child by the defendant, who then dominated her and used
32:39
her for sexual purposes. That testimony alone creates a genuine
32:43
issue of fact on this point. From the context of
32:47
all of Miss Robert's statements about the defendant, Miss Roberts
32:51
has never said or implied that she was physically placed
32:54
in a cage. Instead, she has described the vast disparity
32:57
of power and the influence of defendant and Epstein, the
33:01
fear of disobedience, the typical locations of the abuse being
33:05
in a private plane, a huge mansion man with Epstein's
33:08
employed servants, a private island, or some inescapable place abroad
33:13
in the presence of the defendant, in addition to the
33:16
continued and fraudulent promise of a better future, as those
33:20
things that kept her attained in a situation of sexual servitude.
33:24
While not physical chains, miss Roberts was groomed as a
33:28
miner and trained, and these factors became her invisible chains. Indeed,
33:33
as Miss Roberts expert on sex trafficking Professor Coonan has explained,
33:38
popular understanding of the term sex slave might still connote
33:42
images of violent pimps, white slavery, or a victim's chained
33:46
to a bed and a brothel in the minds of
33:48
some people. To call Miss Roberts a victim of sex
33:51
trafficking would, however, very accurately convey the reality that she,
33:55
along with a great many other victims of contemporary forms
33:59
of slavery, are often exploited by the invisible chains of
34:03
fraud and psychological coercion. CE McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty three.
34:09
Coonan Expert Report at twenty If this Court takes as true,
34:14
which it must for the purpose of this motion, that
34:17
Miss Roberts was trafficked and used exclusively for sexual purposes
34:21
by the defendant at Epstein, then the Court must also
34:24
reach the conclusion at this stage that Maxwell's assertion that
34:28
Miss Robert's description of being a sex slave is untrue
34:32
or obvious lies is not substantially true. There undoubtedly remains
34:37
a genuine issue of material fact on this point, and
34:40
in fact, Defendant's position taken in this motion is tantamount
34:44
to an admission of the truth of plaintive statement about defendant.
34:48
On this point, d any statement misdirection regarding Professor Alan
34:54
Dershowitz is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction to the
34:58
facts of this case and matters on the defense of
35:01
whether defendant statement was substantially true. Defendant next contends that
35:06
she accurately recounted that Alan Dershowitz had denied having sex
35:09
with Miss Roberts MSJ at sixty call this the yes,
35:14
I'm a sex trafficker, but she was not trafficked to
35:17
the professor defense. While it is accurate that Miss Roberts
35:20
made allegations against Professor Dershowitz, those allegations are not at
35:24
issue in this case. Defendant, in her defamatory statement, claimed
35:29
that the allegations made by Miss Roberts against Glayn Maxwell
35:32
are untrue. C. McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty six GM
35:37
zero zero zero sixty eight. In her deposition, defendant maintained
35:42
the position that she cannot speculate on what anybody else
35:45
did or didn't do. C. McCauley declaration at Exhibit eleven,
35:50
Maxwell for twenty two, twenty sixteen. In fact, regarding Miss
35:56
Roberts' claims about others, Defendant unequivocally stated, I can only
36:00
testify to what she said about me, which was one
36:03
hundred percent false. CEE McCaulay declaration at eleven. Defendant Maxwell
36:09
makes additional misstatements about Dershowitz production in a defamation action
36:14
filed against him in her desperate attempt to have Dershowitz
36:17
jump aboard and help bail out her sinking canoe. Miss
36:21
Roberts can and if necessary, will refute Dershowitz's claim he
36:25
was not a beneficiary of Epstein and defendant sex trafficking.
36:29
That is not relevant at this stage. Whatever may or
36:32
may not have happened with Dershowitz and Miss roberts sworn
36:36
statement that he sexually abused hers alone enough to create
36:40
disputed facts on the issue of whether defendant statements about
36:43
him are substantially true, has no bearing whatsoever on the
36:47
truth or falsity of the statements Miss Roberts made about
36:51
the defendant. This case is not about whether Miss Roberts
36:54
has ever made untruthful allegations against anyone, which he contends
36:58
she is not, but about whether her allegations about defendant
37:02
were true, or whether those specific allegations were untrue obvious lies,
37:07
as defendant publicly proclaimed. These issues are disputed and must
37:12
go to the jury. E Contrary to the defendant's position,
37:17
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
37:20
whether she created or distributed child pornography, or whether the
37:24
government was aware of the same. Defendant next argues that
37:28
she did not create child pornography and that the government knew.
37:31
This call this the until you find the photos on
37:35
innocent defense, of course, is noted earlier. Defendant's claim requires
37:40
that she show the government in context, the FBI and
37:43
the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
37:46
knew that she had no child pornography. Yet defendant has
37:51
offered no such evidence, much less evidence so powerful as
37:54
to warrant some rejudgment on this point. This point is
37:58
disputed from the simple fact that Miss Roberts herself testified
38:02
that defendant took many photographs of her naked see McCauley
38:06
declaration at Exhibit five, Robert's deposition at two thirty two,
38:11
three through nine, two thirty three, seven through nine. This
38:15
is consistent with the Palm Beach butler Alfredo Rodriguez testimony
38:19
that he personally saw photos of naked children on the
38:22
defendant's computer see McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty one Rodriguez
38:27
deposition at one fifty ten through seventeen, three oh six,
38:32
one through three oh six, and twenty four. Another housekeeper,
38:35
Juana Lessi, also saw photos of young nude females on
38:39
the defendant's computer, although he wasn't aware or sure whether
38:44
to consider it pornography see McCauley declaration at exhibit one. Finally,
38:49
Detective Rickerrey found a collage of nude photos of young
38:52
females in Epstein's closet and turned the photos over to
38:56
the FBI and the US Attorney's Office. While the US
38:59
Attorney Office will not share the photos obtained from Riccari's investigation,
39:04
it is thus undisputed that the government possesses photos of
39:07
nude young females confiscated for Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Indeed,
39:12
the police video disclosed through a Freedom of information request
39:16
shows naked images of women throughout the house, including a
39:19
full nude of the defendant. At a minimum, there is
39:23
a clear genuine issue of material fact in this regard.
39:28
F defendant did act as a madam for Epstein to
39:31
traffic Miss Roberts to the rich and the famous. Defendant
39:35
Nex argues that she did not act as a madam
39:37
for Epstein MSJA at sixty three. The gist of the
39:40
argument seems to be that the defendant believes trafficking one
39:44
girl to Epstein does not a madam. Make call this Yes,
39:48
I was Virginia's madam, but no one else's defense. This
39:51
argument fails linguistically on the very dictionary definitions that defendant
39:56
sites elsewhere but not here see Merriam Webster eleven the
39:59
DA two thousand and six, defining madam as the female
40:03
head of prostitution. Once again, defendant conceals the relevant facts
40:08
on this issue. First, multiple witnesses have testified two defendants recruiting, maintaining, harboring,
40:14
and trafficking girls for Epstein. In fact, defendant herself was
40:18
unable to deny procuring Miss Roberts for Epstein. While defendant
40:23
as attempted to fumble her way through explaining some plausible
40:27
reason for bringing a sixteen or seventeen year old to Epstein,
40:31
her explanations are, to put it, blandly unpersuasive. As with
40:35
other issues, the jury will have to decide who'll believe
40:39
one of the individuals Miss Roberts was trafficked to was
40:42
Prince Andrew. Trafficking that took place in the defendant's owned
40:46
townhouse in London. There exists flight logs evidencing Miss Roberts
40:50
flying to London alongside defendant and Epstein on Epstein's private plane,
40:55
and the photo of Miss Roberts, Defendant and the Prince,
40:58
without Defendant ever offering a legal reasonable explanation for that
41:03
photo being taken or for a traveling with a year
41:05
old girl overseas. Defendant begins to meanders somewhat aimlessly on
41:10
this point, shifting plaintiff's burden to substantiate plaintiff's claim that
41:15
defendant was Epstein's madam, which at this point at issue
41:19
into whether or not plaintiff has conclusively proven the identities
41:23
and accurate job titles of the other men to whom
41:25
plaintiff was lent for sex by Epstein. No matter how
41:29
hard defendant tries to reframe the case, drag other people
41:32
in or split hairs, she is unable to contest the
41:35
facts fact showing she was more than a madam but
41:38
a full fledged sex trafficker. Miss Roberts told the truth
41:42
when she said the defendant recruitter as a miner under
41:46
the pretense of giving her a massage and converted her
41:49
into a traveling sex slave, consistent with defendant and Epstein's
41:53
pattern of practice. As the Court astutely acknowledged early on,
41:57
at the center of this case is the vera of
42:01
a contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly
42:04
defamatory statements. Either transgressions occurred or it did not. Either
42:10
Maxwell was involved or she was not. If defendant was involved,
42:14
then her January twenty fifteen statement was defamatory. Miss Roberts
42:19
will prove to the jury through overwhelming evidence her prior
42:24
allegations about Defendant's involvement. The court should give Miss Roberts
42:28
that opportunity and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Conclusion.
42:33
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny defendant's motion
42:37
for summary judgment in all respects. This was signed by
42:41
Sigrid McAuley and it was dated January thirty first, twenty seventeen.
42:46
All Right, folks, that's going to conclude our look at
42:49
Virginia Roberts response to Glame Maxwell's attempt to get a
42:53
summary judgment. And if you're not disgusted yet, just wait,
42:57
plenty more is on the way. All of the information
43:01
that goes with this episode can be found in the
43:04
description box.