Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (6/6/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (6/6/26) · 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 dive right back into
0:06
the core documents and we're going to start taking a
0:09
look at the memorandum of law in support of Gleid
0:13
Maxwell's attempt to get that summary judgment. Preliminary statement of
0:17
the facts, The following facts are undisputed. Additional undisputed facts
0:22
are set forth in specific argument sections. All paragraphs containing
0:26
undisputed facts will be sequentially numbered one. Miss Maxwell's response
0:31
to publication of Plaintiff's false allegations the March twenty eleven statement.
0:36
In early twenty eleven, plaintiff, in two British tabloid interviews,
0:41
made numerous false, in defamatory allegations against Miss Maxwell Exhibits
0:46
A and B one. In the articles, plaintiff made no
0:49
direct allegations that miss Maxwell was involved in any improper
0:53
conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, who had pleaded guilty in two
0:56
thousand and seven to procuring a minor for prostitution. Nonetheless,
1:01
plaintiffs suggested that miss Maxwell worked with Epstein and may
1:05
have known about the crime for which he was convicted.
1:08
See generally, Exhibits A and B two. In the articles,
1:12
plaintiff alleged she had sex with Prince Andrew, a well
1:15
known businessman, a world renowned scientist, a respected liberal politician,
1:21
and a foreign head of state idea at five three.
1:24
In response to the allegations, Miss Maxwell's British attorney, working
1:28
with mister Gow, issued a statement on March ninth, twenty eleven,
1:32
denying the various allegations about Miss Maxwell that have appeared
1:37
recently in the media. These allegations are entirely false. The
1:41
exhibits C five plaintiff's gratuitous and lurid accusations. In an
1:46
unrelated action, in two thousand and eight, two alleged victims
1:50
of Epstein brought an action under the Crime Victim's Rights
1:53
Act against the United States government, purporting to challenge Epstein's
1:57
plea agreement. They alleged the government and violent there's CVR
2:01
rights by entering into an agreement with Epstein see Exhibit
2:05
d A two. Six Seven years later, on December thirtieth,
2:10
twenty fifteen, Miss Roberts moved to join the CVRA action,
2:14
claiming she too had her CVRA rights violated by the government.
2:19
On January first, twenty fifteen, Miss Roberts filed a corrected
2:22
joinder motion Exhibit D at one O nine seven. The
2:26
issue presented inner joinder motion was narrow whether she should
2:30
be permitted to join the CVRA action as a party
2:34
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twenty one, specifically whether
2:38
she was a known victim of mister Epstein and the
2:41
government owed them CVR duties Exhibit E at five. Yet,
2:47
the court noted the bulk of the motion consists of
2:50
copious factual details that plaintiff enter co movement would prove
2:54
if allowed to join. Id brackets obmitted. Miss Roberts gratuitously
2:59
included provocative and lurid details of her alleged sexual activities
3:04
as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. Eight. At the
3:08
time they filed the motion, Miss Roberts and her lawyers
3:12
knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal
3:14
case and the CVR action. While they deliberately filed the
3:19
motion without disclosing Miss Roberts's name, claiming the need for
3:23
privacy and secrecy, they made no attempt to file the
3:25
motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion
3:29
publicly Exhibit D at one and and one. Nine. As
3:35
the District Court noted in ruling on the joined her motion,
3:38
miss Roberts named several individuals, and she offers details about
3:42
the type of sex acts performed and where they took
3:44
place Exhibit E. At five. The court ruled that these
3:49
lured details are unnecessary. The factual details regarding whom and
3:53
where the Jane those engaged in sexual activities are immaterial
3:58
and impertinent, especially considering that these details involved non parties
4:03
who are not related to the responding government. Accordingly, these
4:07
unnecessary details shall be stricken. The court then struck all
4:11
Miss roberts factual allegations relating to her alleged sexual activities
4:16
and her allegations of misconduct by non parties at five
4:20
and six. The court said striking of the lurid details
4:24
was a sanction for Miss Roberts in proper inclusion of
4:27
them in the motion. Number ten. The District Court found
4:31
not only that the lurid details were unnecessary, but also
4:34
that the entire joined motion was entirely unnecessary idea at seven.
4:39
Miss Roberts under lawyers knew the motion with all its
4:42
lurid details was unnecessary because, as the court pointed, out
4:46
the motion itself recognized that she would be able to
4:50
participate as a fact witness to achieve the same results
4:53
she sought as a party See Ida at seven and eight.
4:57
See also Ida at eight, noting that in the motion,
5:00
Miss Roberts lawyers said that regardless of whether this Court
5:03
grants the motion, they will call her as a witness
5:05
at any trial. The court denied Plaintiff's joined her motion eleven.
5:10
One of the non parties Miss Roberts named repeatedly in
5:13
the joinder motion was Miss Maxwell Exhibit D at three
5:17
and six. According to the lurid details of Miss Roberts
5:21
included in the motion, Miss Maxwell personally was involved in
5:25
a sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein.
5:30
Miss Maxwell approached plaintiff in nineteen ninety nine, when plaintiff
5:34
was fifteen years old. A recruiter into the scheme. Miss
5:37
Maxwell was one of the main women Epstein used to
5:40
procure underage girls for sexual activities. Miss Maxwell was a
5:44
primary co conspirator with Epstein in his scheme. She persuaded
5:49
plaintiff to go to Epstein's mansion in a fashion very
5:52
similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other
5:55
co conspirators coerce dozens of other children at the mansion.
6:00
When plaintiff began giving Epstein a massage, he and Miss
6:03
Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter. Epstein, with the
6:07
assistance of Miss Maxwell, converted plaintiff into a sex slave.
6:11
Plaintiff was a sex slave from nineteen ninety nine through
6:15
two thousand and two. Miss Maxwell was a co conspirator
6:19
in Epstein's sexual abuse id at four. Miss Maxwell appreciated
6:23
immunity she acquired under Epstein's plea agreement because the immunity
6:27
protected her from prosecution for the crime she committed in Florida.
6:32
Miss Maxwell took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls
6:36
involved in sexual activities, including the plaintiff. She shared the
6:40
photos with Epstein. As part of her role in Epstein's
6:43
sexual abuse ring, Miss Maxwell connected Epstein with powerful individuals
6:48
so that Epstein good traffick plaintiff to these persons. Plaintiff
6:51
was forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew in
6:54
Miss Maxwell's apartment in London. Miss Maxwell facilitated Plaintiff's sex
6:59
with Prince ada Andrew by acting as a madam for Epstein.
7:03
Miss Maxwell assisted in internationally trafficking plaintiff and numerous other
7:07
young girls for sexual purposes. Plaintiff was forced to watch Epstein, Ms,
7:12
Maxwell and others engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens
7:16
of underage girls twelve the joint heer motion. Plaintiff also
7:21
alleed she was forced to have sex with Harvard law
7:24
professor Alan Dershowitz, model scout Jean Luke Brunel, and many
7:28
other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives,
7:34
foreign presidents, a well known prime minister, and other world leaders.
7:39
Idea at four and six thirteen. Plaintiff said after for
7:43
four years as a sex slave, she managed to escape
7:46
to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and
7:49
his co conspirators for years. Idea three fourteen. Plaintiff suggested
7:55
the government was part of Epstein's conspiracy when it secretly
7:58
negotiated a non prossecu acution agreement with Epstein precluding federal
8:02
prosecution of Epstein and his co conspirator's id at six.
8:07
The government secrecy plaintiff alleged was motivated by its fear
8:11
that plaintiff would raise powerful objections to the agreement that
8:15
would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein and other
8:19
powerful individuals idea at six and seven fifteen. Notably, the
8:23
other Jane, Though who joined the plaintiff's motion, who alleged
8:27
she was sexually abused on many occasions by Epstein, was
8:31
unable to corroborate any of Plaintiff's allegations see id at
8:35
seven and eight sixteen. Also, notably, in her multiple and
8:40
lengthy consensual interviews with Miss Churchier three years earlier, Plaintiff
8:44
Totlemis Churchier virtually none of the details she described in
8:47
the joined her motion see Exhibit A and B seventeen.
8:51
Miss Maxwell's response to Plaintiff's lurid accusations the January twenty
8:56
fifteen statement, as plaintiff na lawyers expected before District Judge
9:02
Mara in the CVRA action, could strike the lurid details
9:06
of plaintiff's allegation in the joinder motion. Members of the
9:10
media obtained copies of the motion see Exhibit g at
9:14
thirty one, two, Dash thirty six and four, and deposition
9:19
examples three and four eighteen. At mister Barden's direction on
9:23
January two, twenty fifteen, Mister Goo sent numerous representatives of
9:29
British media organizations and email containing a quotable statement on
9:33
behalf of Miss Maxwell Exhibit F Exhibit G at thirty
9:37
three A through twenty three. The email was sent to
9:41
more than six and probably less than thirty media representatives
9:45
see Exhibit G at thirty three eight through thirty four
9:49
and three. It was not sent to non media representatives
9:53
cee ID at thirty one, two, thirty five through twenty
9:56
one nineteen. Among the media representative fives were Martin Robinson
10:01
of The Daily Mail, p Peach of The Independent, Nick
10:05
Summerland of The Mirror, David Brown of The Times and
10:08
Nick Always and joe Ane Pugh of the BBC, and
10:12
David Mercer of the Press Association c EG Exhibit F.
10:17
These representatives were selected based on their request after the
10:20
joint her motion was filed for a response from Miss
10:24
Maxwell the plaintiff's allegations in the motion cee EG Exhibit
10:27
G at thirty twenty three through thirty five twenty one
10:32
and Deposition example three twenty. The email to the media
10:36
members read to whom it may concern, please find attached
10:40
the quotable statement on behalf of Miss Maxwell. No further
10:43
communication will be provided by her on this matter. Thanks
10:47
for your understanding. Best, Ross Rosco acuity reputation. Jane do
10:53
three is Virginia Roberts, so not a new individual. The
10:56
allegations made by Victoria Roberts against Glenn Maxwell are untrue.
11:01
The original allegations are not new and have been fully
11:04
responded to and shown to be untrue. Each time the
11:07
story is retold, it changes with new salacious details about
11:11
public figures and world leaders. And now it is alleged
11:15
by miss Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having
11:18
sexual relations with her, which he denies. Miss roberts claims
11:22
are obvious lies and should be treated as such and
11:25
not publicized as news, as they are defamatory claim Maxwell's
11:30
original response to the lies and the defamatory claims remains
11:33
the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of unsavory nature which
11:39
have appeared in the British press and elsewhere, and reserves
11:42
her right to seek redress at the repetition of such
11:46
old defamatory claims. All right, We're going to wrap up
11:50
this episode here and then the next episode we'll pick
11:53
up where we left off. All the information that goes
11:56
with this episode can be found in the description box.
12:00
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
12:04
We're going to dive right back into the memorandum supporting
12:07
Glain Maxwell and the summary judgment twenty one. Mister Barden,
12:12
who prepared the January twenty fifteen statement, did not intend
12:16
it as a traditional press release solely to disseminate information
12:19
to the media, so he intentionally did engage a public
12:22
relations firm, such as Miss Goal's firm Acuity Reputation to
12:27
prepare the statement twenty two. The January twenty fifteen statement
12:31
served two purposes. First, mister Barton intended that it mitigate
12:35
the harm to Miss Maxwell's reputation from the press republication
12:39
of plaintiff's false allegations. He believed this could be accomplished
12:42
by suggesting to the media that, among other things, they
12:45
should subject plaintiff's allegations to inquiry and scrutiny. For example,
12:49
he noted in the statement that plaintiff's allegations change dramatically
12:53
over time, suggesting that they are obvious lies and therefore
12:56
should not be publicized as news. Twenty three. Second, mister
13:00
Barton intended the January twenty fifteen statement to be a
13:03
shot across the bow of the media, which he believed
13:06
had been unduly eager to publish Plaintiff's allegations without conducting
13:10
any inquiry of their own. Accordingly, in the statement, he
13:14
repeatedly noted that Plaintiff's allegations were defamatory in this sense.
13:18
The statement was intended as a cease and desist letter
13:21
to the media recipients, letting the media recipients understand the
13:25
seriousness with which Miss Maxwell considered the publication of Plaintiff's
13:29
obvious false allegations and the legal and defensibility of their
13:33
own conduct twenty four. Consistent with those two purposes, mister
13:38
Gal's emails preface the statement with the following language Please
13:41
find attached to the quotable statement on behalf of Miss Maxwell,
13:45
emphasis supplied. The statement was intended to be a single,
13:48
one time only, comprehensive response quoted in full the plaintiffs
13:52
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen allegations that would give the media
13:55
Miss Maxwell's response nineteen. The purpose of the prefatory state
14:00
state was to inform the media recipients of this intent
14:03
twenty five Plaintiff's activities to bring light to the rights
14:07
of victims of sexual abuse. Plaintiff has engaged in numerous
14:10
activities to bring attention to herself, to the prosecution and
14:14
punishment of wealthy individuals such as Epstein, and to her
14:17
claimed interest of bringing light to the rights of the
14:19
victims of sexual abuse. Twenty six, Plaintiff created an organization,
14:24
Victims Refuse Silence, Incorporated, a Florida corporation, directly related to
14:28
her alleged experience as a victim of sexual abuse. Twenty seven.
14:33
The goal of Victims Refuse Silence was and continues to be,
14:36
to help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically
14:40
experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Towards this end, Plaintiff
14:45
has dedicated her professional life to helping victims of sex
14:48
trafficking twenty eight. Plaintiff reportedly has sought out media organizations
14:53
to discuss her alleged experience as a victim of sexual
14:56
abuse twenty nine, as discussed above. On December thirtieth, twenty fourteen,
15:02
plaintiff publicly filed an entirely unnecessary joinder motion laden with
15:06
what Judge Mara described as unnecessary, lurried details about being
15:10
sexually abused as a minor victim by wealthy and famous
15:14
men and being trafficked all around the world as a
15:16
sex slave. Thirty The plaintiff alleged purpose in filing the
15:20
Jointerer motion was to vindicate her rights under the CVRA.
15:24
Exposed the government secretly negotiated non prosecution agreement with Epstein,
15:29
shed tremendous public light on Epstein and other powerful individuals
15:32
that would undermine the agreement and support the CVRA. Plaintiff's
15:36
request for documents that would show how Epstein used as
15:39
powerful political and social connections to secure a favorable plea deal,
15:43
and the government's motive to aid Epstein and his co conspirators.
15:47
Thirty one. Plaintiff has written the manuscript of a book
15:51
she has been trying to publish, detailing her alleged experience
15:54
as a victim of sexual abuse and of sex trafficking
15:57
in Epstein's alleged sex scheme. Thirty two republication alleged by plaintiff.
16:03
Plaintiff was required by Interrogatory number six to identify false
16:07
statements attributed to Miss Maxwell that were published globally, including
16:11
within the Southern District of New York. As plaintiff alleged
16:14
in paragraph nine of count one of her complaint. In response,
16:18
plaintiff identified the January twenty fifteen statement and nine instances
16:23
in which various news media published portions of the January
16:26
twenty fifteen statement in news articles or broadcast stories. Thirty three.
16:32
In none of the nine instances was there any publication
16:35
of the entire January twenty fifteen statement. Thirty four. Miss
16:40
Maxwell under agents exercised no control or authority over any
16:44
media organization, including the media identified in Plaintiff's response to
16:48
interrogatory number six in connection with the media's publication of
16:52
portions of the January twenty fifteen statement Exhibit J Exhibit
16:57
K thirty five plaintiff defamation action against ms Maxwell eight
17:02
years after Epstein's guilty plea. Plaintiff brought this action, repeating
17:06
many of the allegations she made in her CVR joined
17:09
her motion thirty six. The complaint alleged that January twenty
17:14
fifteen statement contained the following delivered falsehoods. A that Roberts
17:18
sworn allegations against Maxwell are untrue. B that the allegations
17:22
have been shown to be untrue. C that Robert's claims
17:25
are obvious lies some rejudgment. Standard court should not be
17:30
reluctant to grant some rejudgment inappropriate cases. One of the
17:34
principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate
17:37
and dispose of factually insupportable claims, thereby permitting courts to
17:41
avoid protracted, expensive, and harassing trials. Don King Productions Incorporated.
17:47
Versus Douglas, seven forty two Ft. Supp. Seven seventy eight,
17:52
seven eighty SDNY, nineteen ninety quoting Celate's Court Verus Catret.
17:57
Four seventy seven US three seventeen three, twenty three and
18:01
twenty four nineteen eighty six, and Mary versus Dakin seven
18:05
fifty nine f Dot two D nine eighty nine, nine
18:08
ninety eight, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty five. Where some rejudgment
18:13
is sought under Article I, Section eight of the New
18:15
York Constitution, the New York Court of Appeals has declared,
18:19
we reaffirm our regard for the particular value of some
18:22
rejudgment where appropriate and libel cases immunoag Versus Morjinkowski five
18:28
sixty seven two D twelve seventy twelve eighty two n Y,
18:32
nineteen ninety one, particularly when as Here a defendant is
18:38
challenging a defamation claim under the independent state law approach
18:41
articulated in immunoag that might make summarydisposition more likely than
18:47
under a federal approach. Some rejudgment is appropriate where there
18:51
is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
18:54
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
18:56
matter of law fed dot r dotziv dot p. Fifty
19:00
six CE. The relevant inquiry on application for some rejudgment
19:04
is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
19:08
submission to a jury, or whether it is so one
19:11
sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.
19:14
Anderson versus Liberty Lobby Incorporated, four to seventy seven US
19:18
two forty two, two fifty one, and fifty two, the
19:22
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties
19:25
will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for some rejudgment.
19:31
The requirement is that there be no genuine issues of
19:34
material fact idea two forty seven and two forty eight.
19:38
The substantiative law determines that facts are material Idea. Two
19:42
forty eight. Only disputes over facts that might affect the
19:45
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
19:48
preclude the entry of some rejudgment. Factual disputes that are
19:52
irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. IDEA dispute about
19:57
a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such
20:00
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
20:03
non moving party. In the face of the properly supported
20:06
some rejudgment motion, the plaintiff may not rest on the
20:09
allegations in her complaint Idea two forty nine. The trial
20:13
court's function is to determine whether there is a genuine
20:17
issue for trial, and there is no issue for trial
20:19
unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non moving party
20:23
for a jury to return a verdict for that party.
20:26
The plain language of Rule fifty six C mandates the
20:29
entry of some rejudgment against a party who fails to
20:32
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
20:36
element essential to the party's case and on which the
20:39
party will bear the burden of proof a trial celatex
20:42
corps Verse caterat four to seventy seven US three seventeen
20:46
three twenty two, nineteen eighty six. In such a situation,
20:50
there can be no genuine issues as to any material fact.
20:54
Since a complete failure or proof concerning an essential element
20:58
of the non moving party's case necessarily renders all the
21:01
other facts immaterial, the moving party is entitled to a
21:05
judgment as a matter of law because the non moving
21:08
party is failed to make a sufficient showing on an
21:11
essential element of her case with respect to which she
21:14
has the burden of proof IDEA three twenty three. See
21:17
fed R siv P. Fifty six. Advisory Committee's Notes twenty
21:21
ten amendments. Restoration of shell grant some rejudgment was intended
21:26
to express the direction to grant some rejudgment and avoid
21:30
the unintended consequences of any other word. One argument, Miss
21:36
Maxwell is not liable for republications of her January twenty
21:39
fifteen statement that she did not authorize her request and
21:43
by entities she did not control. A as summary judgment is
21:46
warranted to the extent plaintiff seeks who impose liability on
21:50
any media's republication of all or a portion of the
21:53
January twenty fifteen statement. Bardin and Gal, acting on behalf
21:58
of Maxwell, caused January twenty fifteen statement to be transmitted
22:03
published to various individuals employed by media organizations. The question
22:08
presented in this argument one is whether miss Maxwell is
22:11
liable for any republication of all or a portion of
22:15
the January twenty fifteen statement by the media. Under New
22:19
York law, the answer is no. Liability for a republication
22:23
must be based on real authority to influence the final product.
22:27
Davis versus Costa Gavrius, five eighty f. Supp. Ten eighty two,
22:32
ten ninety six, SDNY, nineteen eighty four, emphasis added. Where
22:37
a defendant had no actual part in composing or publishing,
22:40
he cannot be held liable without disregarding the settled rule
22:43
of law that no man is bound for the tortias
22:46
act of another over whom he is not master of
22:48
power control id quoting Fallwell versus Miller one forty five f.
22:53
Four ninety five, four ninety seven, Second Circuit nineteen oh six,
22:57
Siegarachi versus Probes nine thirty eight and X two D
23:01
nine seventeen nine twenty seven, holding that defendant was not
23:04
liable for republication in part because there is no indication
23:08
that probes that any control over whether or not Newsday
23:11
publish the article. Conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority
23:15
is sufficiently dispositive that the trial court has no option
23:19
but to dismiss the case id quoting Ronaldi versus Viking
23:23
Penguin Incorporated. Four twenty e two D. Three seventy seven,
23:27
three eighty two and Y nineteen eighty one, as the
23:30
New York Court of Appeals held in Garacci, it is
23:33
too well settled to now be questioned that one who
23:36
prints and publishes a libel is not responsible for its
23:39
voluntary and unjustifiable repetition without his authority or request by
23:43
others over whom he has no control, and who thereby
23:47
make themselves liable to the person injured, And that such
23:50
repetition cannot be considered in law a necessary, natural, and
23:54
probable consequence of the original slander or libel nine thirty
23:58
eight n E dot two D and X nine one.
24:01
With the goal of garnering maximum publicity and defaming Miss Maxwell,
24:05
Miss Roberts filed an entirely unnecessary joined her motion with
24:08
lurid details about sexual facts for the purpose of attracting
24:13
the attention of the public which was curious, titillated, or
24:17
intrigued about sexual acts and relationships among the rich and famous.
24:21
In defense of Miss Maxwell's reputation. Bardon and Gower responded
24:25
with the January twenty fifteen statement. All Right, folks, we're
24:29
gonna wrap this one up here, and then the next
24:31
episode we'll pick back up with this unredacted version of
24:34
the memo supporting Maxwell's summary judgment. All of the information
24:38
that goes with this episode can be found in the
24:41
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the
24:44
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back into
24:48
the core documents and we're going to continue taking a
24:51
look at the unredacted memorandum in support of Glen Maxwell's
24:55
attempt to get herself a summary judgment. Thirty five Plaintiff's
25:00
defamation against miss Maxwell. Eight years after Epstein's guilty plea,
25:04
plaintiff brought this action, repeating many of the allegations she
25:07
made in her CVR joinder motion thirty six. The complaint
25:11
allege that the January twenty fifteen statement contained the following
25:15
deliberate falsehoods. A that Roberts sworn allegations against Maxwell are untrue.
25:20
B that the allegations have been shown to be untrue.
25:24
See that Robert's claims their obvious lies. Thirty seven Plaintiff
25:28
lived independently from her parents whether fiance, long before meeting
25:32
Epstein or Miss Maxwell. After leaving the Growing Together drug
25:35
rehabilitation facility in nineteen ninety nine, plaintiff moved in with
25:39
the family of a fellow patient. There, she met and
25:42
became engaged to her friend's brother, James Michael Ostrich. She
25:46
and an Ostrich thereafter rented an apartment in the Fort
25:49
Lauderdale area with another friend, and both worked at various
25:53
jobs in that area. Later, they stayed briefly with Plaintiff's
25:57
parents in the Palm Beach locks a Hatchie, Florida area,
26:00
before Ostrich rented an apartment for the couple on Bentoke
26:04
Drive in Royal Palm Beach. Although plaintiff agreed to marry Austrich,
26:08
she never had any intention of doing so. Thirty eight.
26:12
Plaintiff re enrolled in high school from June twenty first,
26:14
two thousand, until March seventh, two thousand and two. After
26:18
finishing the ninth grade at Forest Hills High School on
26:21
June ninth, nineteen ninety nine, Plaintiff re enrolled at Wellington
26:24
Adult High School on June twenty first, two thousand. Again
26:27
on August sixteenth, two thousand and on August fourteenth, two
26:30
thousand and one. On September twentieth, two thousand and one,
26:33
Plaintiff then enrolled at Royal Palm Beach High School. A
26:37
few weeks later, on October twelfth, two thousand and one,
26:40
she matriculated at Survivor's Charter School. Survivor's Charter School was
26:44
an alternative school designed to assist students who had been
26:48
unsuccessful at more traditional schools. Plaintiff remained enrolled at Survivor's
26:53
Charter School until March seventh, two thousand and two. She
26:56
was present fifty six days and absent thirteen days during
26:59
her time there. Plaintiff never received a high school diploma
27:03
or ged. Plaintiff in Figueroa went back to school together
27:07
at Survivor's Charter School. The school day there lasted from
27:10
morning until early afternoon thirty nine During the year two thousand,
27:14
Plaintiff worked at numerous jobs. In two thousand, while living
27:18
with her fiance, Plaintiff held five different jobs at Aviculture
27:22
Breeding and Research Center, Southeast Employment Management Company, The Club
27:26
mar A Lago Oasis Outsourcing, and Neiman Marcus. Her taxable
27:31
earnings that year totaled nine thousand dollars. Plaintiff cannot now
27:35
recall either the Southeast Employment Management Company or the Oasis
27:39
Outsourcing Jobs forty. Plaintiff's employment at the mar Alago spa
27:44
began in fall of two thousand. Plaintiff's father, Sky Roberts,
27:48
was hired as a maintenance worker at the mar Alago
27:51
Club in Palm Beach, Florida, beginning on April eleventh, two thousand.
27:54
Mister Roberts worked there year round for approximately three years,
27:58
and after working there for a period of time, mister
28:01
Roberts became acquainted with the head of the spy area
28:04
and recommended Plaintiff for a job there. Mar A Lago
28:07
closes every Mother's Day and reopens on November first. Most
28:11
of employees mar A Lago, including all employees of the
28:14
spa area, such as SPA attendants, are seasonal and work
28:18
only when the club is open ie between November one
28:21
and Mother's Day. Plaintiff was hired as a seasonal SPA
28:24
attendant to work at the mar A Lago Club in
28:26
the fall of two thousand, after she had turned seventeen
28:30
forty one. Plaintiff represented herself as a messuse for Jeffrey Epstein.
28:34
While working at the marri A Lago Spa and reading
28:37
a library book about massage, Plaintiff met Miss Maxwell. Plaintiff
28:40
thereafter told her father that she got a job working
28:43
for Jeffrey Epstein as the massous. Plaintiff's father took her
28:46
to Epstein's house on one occasion around that time, and
28:49
Epstein came outside and introduced himself to mister Roberts. Plaintiff
28:53
commenced employment as a traveling massuse for in mister Epstein.
28:58
Plaintiff was excited about her job as a massous, about
29:01
traveling with him, and about meeting famous people. Plaintiff represented
29:05
that she was employed as a massous beginning in January
29:09
two thousand and one. Plaintiff never mentioned Miss Maxwell to
29:12
her then fiancee Ostrich. Plaintiff's father never met Miss Maxwell.
29:17
Forty two, Plaintiff resumed her relationship with convicted felon Anthony
29:21
Figaroa in spring two thousand and one. While living with Ostrich,
29:26
Plaintiff lied to and cheated on him with her high
29:28
school boyfriend, Anthony Figaroa. Plaintiff and Ostridge thereafter broke up,
29:33
and Figaroa moved into the bent Oak apartment with plaintiff.
29:37
When Ostrich returned to the Bentok apartment to check on
29:39
his pets and retrieve his belongings, Figaroa, in plaintiff's presence,
29:43
punched Ostrich in the face. Figaroa and plaintiff fled the
29:46
scene before police arrived. Figaroa was then a convicted felon
29:51
and a drug abuser on probation for possession of a
29:53
controlled substance forty three. Plaintiff freely involuntarily contacted the police
29:59
to come to aid in two thousand and one. In
30:01
two thousand and two, but never reported to them that
30:04
she was Epstein's sex slave. In August two thousand and one,
30:07
at age seventeen, while living in the same apartment, plaintiff
30:10
and Figaroa hosted a party with a number of guests.
30:14
During the party, according to plaintiff, someone entered Plaintiff's room
30:18
and stole five hundred dollars from her share pocket. Plaintiff
30:21
contacted the police. She met and spoke with police officers
30:24
regarding the incident, and filed a report. She did not
30:27
disclose to the officer that she was a sex slave.
30:30
A second time in June two thousand and two, plaintiff
30:33
contacted the police to report that her former landlord had
30:36
left her belongings by the roadside and had lit the
30:38
mattress on fire. Again, Plaintiff met and spoke with law
30:42
enforcement officers, but did not complain that she was the
30:45
victim of any sexual trafficking or abuse or that she
30:48
was being held as a sex slave. Forty four from
30:52
August two thousand and one until September two thousand and two,
30:55
Epstein and Maxwell were almost entirely absent from Florida on
30:59
documented travel unaccompanied by plaintiff. Flight logs maintained by Epstein's
31:04
private pilot, David Rodgers evidenced the substantial number of trips
31:08
away from Florida that Epstein and Maxwell took unaccompanied by
31:11
plaintiff between August two thousand and one and September two
31:15
thousand and two. Rogers maintained the log of all flights
31:18
on which Epstein and Maxwell traveled with them. Epstein additionally
31:22
traveled with another pilot who did not keep such logs,
31:25
and he also occasionally traveled via commercial flights. For substantially
31:30
all of the thirteen months of the twenty two months
31:32
from November two thousand until September two thousand and two
31:35
that plaintiff lived in Palm Beach in New Epstein. Epstein
31:38
was traveling outside of Florida unaccompanied by Plaintiff. During the
31:42
same period of time, Plaintiff was employed at various jobs,
31:46
enrolled in school, and living with her boyfriend forty five.
31:50
Plaintiff and Figeroa shared a vehicle during two thousand and one.
31:53
In two thousand and two, Plaintiff and Figeroa shared a
31:56
nineteen ninety three white Pontiac. In two thousand and one
31:59
and two two, Plaintiff freely traveled around the Palm Beach
32:02
area in that vehicle. In August of two thousand and two,
32:05
plaintiff acquired a Dodge Dakota pickup truck from her father.
32:09
Figaroa used that vehicle in a series of crimes before
32:12
and after plaintiff left for Thailand. Forty six. Plaintiff held
32:16
a number of jobs in two thousand and one and
32:18
two thousand and two. During two thousand and one. In
32:20
two thousand and two, plaintiff was gainfully employed at several jobs.
32:24
She worked as a waitress at Menino's restaurant, at tgif
32:28
Friday's restaurant, Akacci of Royal Palm Incorporated at the Roadhouse Grille.
32:33
She also was employed at Courtyard Animal Hospital aka Mark
32:37
Pinkwasser DVM forty seven. In September two thousand and two,
32:42
plaintiff traveled to Thailand to receive massage training and while
32:45
there met her future husband and a lope with them.
32:47
Plaintiff traveled to Thailand in September two thousand and two
32:50
to receive formal training as a massusse. Figaroa drove her
32:54
to the airport. While there. She initially contacted Figaroa frequently,
32:58
incurring a phone bill of four thousand dollars. She met
33:01
her husband while in Thailand and decided to marry him.
33:03
She thereafter ceased all contact with Figaroa from October two
33:07
thousand and two until two days before mister Figaroa's deposition
33:10
in this matter in May of twenty sixteen forty eight.
33:14
Detective Raccari's investigation of Epstein failed to uncover any evidence
33:18
that miss Maxwell was involved in sexual abuse of minors,
33:21
sexual trafficking, or production or possession of child pornography. Joseph
33:26
Raccary served as the lead detective from the Palm Beach
33:29
Police department charged with investigating Jeffrey Epstein. The investigation commenced
33:33
in two thousand and five. Riccari worked only on the
33:36
Epstein case for an entire year. He reviewed previous officers
33:40
reports and interviews, conducted numerous interviews of witnesses and alleged
33:44
victims himself, reviewed surveillance footage of the Epstein home, participated
33:48
in and had knowledge of the search warrant executed on
33:51
the Epstein home, and testified regarding the case before the
33:54
Florida State grand jury against Epstein. Detective Raccari's investigation revealed
34:00
that none of the alleged Epstein victims ever mentioned Miss
34:02
Maxwell's name, and she was never considered a suspect by
34:05
the government. None of Epstein's alleged victims said they had
34:09
seen Miss Maxwell at Epstein's house, nor said they had
34:12
been recruited by her, nor paid any money buyer, nor
34:15
told what to where or how to act buyer. Indeed,
34:18
none of Epstein's alleged victims ever reported to the government
34:22
they had met or spoken to Miss Maxwell. Maxwell was
34:25
not seen coming or going from the house during the
34:27
law enforcement surveillance of Epstein's home. The arrest warrant did
34:30
not mention miss Maxwell, and her name was never mentioned
34:33
before the grand jury. No property belonging to Maxwell, including
34:37
sex toys or child pornography, was seized from Epstein's home
34:41
during execution of the search warrant. Detective Roccary, when asked
34:44
to describe everything that you believe you know about the
34:47
land Maxwell's sexual trafficking conduct, replied, I don't. He confirmed
34:51
he has no knowledge about miss Maxwell's sexually trafficking anybody.
34:55
Detective Rocary Judgment forty nine. Nude photograph of plaintiff was
35:01
displayed in Epstein's home. Epstein's housekeeper, Juan A. Lessi, never
35:06
saw any photographs of Virginia Roberts in mister Epstein's house.
35:09
Detective Raccari entered Epstein's home in two thousand and two
35:13
to install security cameras to catch a thief and did
35:15
not observe any child pornography within the home, including on
35:18
Epstein's desk in his office. Fifty Plaintiff intentionally destroyed her
35:23
journal and dream journal regarding her memories of this case.
35:26
In twenty thirteen, while represented by counsel, Plaintiff drafted a
35:31
journal describing individuals to whom she claims she was sexually trafficked,
35:35
as well as her memories and thoughts about her experiences
35:38
with Epstein. In twenty thirteen, she and her husband created
35:42
a bonfire in her backyard in Florida and burned the journal,
35:45
together with the other documents in her possession. Plaintiff also
35:50
kept a dream journal regarding her thoughts and memories that
35:53
she possessed in January twenty sixteen. To date, plaintiff cannot
35:57
locate the dream journal. One Plaintiff publicly peddled her story
36:02
Beginning in twenty eleven. Plaintiff granted journalist Sharon Churcher extensive
36:07
interviews that resulted in seven widely distributed articles from March
36:12
twenty eleven through January twenty fifteen. Churcher regularly communicated with
36:17
plaintiff and her attorneys or other agents. From early twenty
36:21
eleven to the present day. Plaintiff received approximately one hundred
36:25
and sixty thousand dollars for stories and pictures that were
36:28
published by many news organizations fifty two. Plaintiff drafted a
36:33
one hundred and forty four page purportedly autobiographical book manuscript
36:37
in twenty eleven, which he actively saw the publish In
36:40
twenty eleven, contemporaneous with her Churcher interviews, Plaintiff drafted a
36:45
book manuscript which purported to document Plaintiff's experiences as a
36:50
teenager in Florida, including her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell.
36:55
Plaintiff communicated with literary agents, ghostwriters, and potential independent publishers
37:00
in an effort to get her book published. She generated
37:04
marketing materials and circulated those, along with book chapters, to
37:08
numerous individuals associated with publishing and the media. Fifty three,
37:13
Plaintiff's publicly filed LURID cvra pleadings initiated a media frenzy
37:18
and generated highly publicized litigation between her lawyers and Alan Dershowitz.
37:23
On December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, Plaintiff, through Council, publicly filed
37:28
a joint Heer motion that contained her Lurid allegations about
37:31
Miss Maxwell and many others, including Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew
37:35
Jean Luke Burnel. The joint her motion was followed by
37:38
a corrected motion and two further declarations in January and
37:42
February twenty fifteen, which repeated many of Plaintiff's claims these
37:47
CVR pleadings generated a media maelstrom and spawned highly publicized
37:51
litigation between plaintiff's lawyers, Edwards Kassel and Alan Dershowitz. After
37:57
plaintiff publicly alleged mister Dershowitz of sexual misconduct, mister Dershowitz
38:02
vigorously defended himself in the media. He called plaintiff a
38:05
liar and accused her lawyer of unethical conduct. In response,
38:09
attorney's Edwards en Cassel sued Dershowitz, who counterclaimed. This litigation
38:13
in turn caused additional media attention by national and international
38:18
media organizations. Fifty four, plaintiff formed a nonprofit Victims Refused
38:23
Silence to attract publicity and speak out on public controversy.
38:27
In twenty fourteen, plaintiff, with the assistance of the same council,
38:31
formed a nonprofit organization Victims Refused Silence. According to plaintiff,
38:35
the purpose of the organizations to promote plaintiff's profess cause
38:39
against sex slavery. The stated goal of her organization is
38:43
to help survivors to amount the shame, silence, and intimidation
38:46
typically experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Plaintiff attempts to
38:50
promote victims, refused silence at every opportunity. For example, plaintiff
38:55
participated in an interview in New York with ABC to
38:58
promote charity and get our mission out of the public,
39:02
dated January sixth, twenty seventeen, and this was signed by
39:05
Laura Maninger. All Right, folks, that's going to do it
39:08
for this one. All of the information that goes with
39:10
this episode can be found in the description box. What's
39:13
up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In
39:17
this episode, we're going to dive right back in to
39:19
the brief in support for a summary judgment for Glaine Maxwell.
39:24
Factor number four. The broader setting surrounding the statement, including
39:29
conventions that might signal to readers that the statement is
39:32
likely opinion and not fact. It is undisputed that the
39:36
January twenty fifteen statement was sent exclusively to more than
39:40
six and fewer than thirty media representatives, each of whom
39:44
expressly had requested from mister Gwo that he provided them
39:48
with Miss Maxwell's reply to the new Joint Motion Allegations
39:52
Document five point forty two seven example K eight and ten.
39:57
As was obvious from the statement, it was not a
39:59
traditiontional press release. As such, press releases does not explain
40:03
lawyer like why new allegations, when measured against previous allegations,
40:08
lack credibility, nor does a traditional release threaten to sue
40:12
the media to whom the release is sent. The media representatives,
40:16
upon receiving the January twenty fifteen statement would have understood
40:21
it was presenting an opinionated argument that plaintiff was not
40:25
credible because of her inconsistent and shifting sex abuse story
40:30
and her increasingly lurid allegations against more and more prominent individuals,
40:35
and they would have understood that these characteristics of a
40:38
storyteller undermine her credibility and ergo the credibility of her
40:43
new allegations. In its twelve B six order, the Court
40:47
said the three sentences have the effect of denying plaintiff's story,
40:51
but they also clearly constitute fact to the reader. The
40:54
ruling is affected in two ways by the rule fifty
40:57
six record. Based on the foregoing discs rush of the evidence,
41:01
the three sentences clearly constitute argumentative opinions of mister Barton
41:06
on behalf of Miss Maxwell, though the court did not
41:09
discuss who is the reader. This is important in Steinhilbert
41:13
Fact four. Under settled defamation opinion law, an allegedly defamatory
41:18
statement is to be viewed from the perspective of the
41:21
audience to whom it is addressed. De bella verse Hopkins
41:25
number one CIV eleven seven seventy nine, d C two
41:30
zero zero two w L three one four two seven
41:33
three six two AT two SDNY, October thirtieth, two thousand
41:37
and two. Here the reader is six to thirty journalists.
41:41
They could not have read the July twenty fifteen statement
41:44
or the three allegedly defamatory sentences the same way it
41:48
was read by these journalists audience, ie, the general public.
41:52
This is because, as plaintiff implicitly concedes, these journalists only
41:56
republish excerpts and not the entirety of the statement, which
42:00
would have given context to the three sentences. It's axiomatic
42:04
that an aud of context republication of the three sentences
42:07
without the rest of the statement would deprive the reader
42:11
of the logic and reasoning behind the opinionated conclusion that
42:14
plaintiff was making untrue allegations and telling obvious lies. Three.
42:20
The pre litigation privilege bars this action. A. The privilege
42:24
applies to the January twenty fifteen statement. Statements pertinent to
42:29
a good faith anticipated litigation made by attorneys or their
42:33
agents under their direction before the commencement of litigation are privileged,
42:37
and no cause of action for defamation can be based
42:40
on those statements. Front Incorporated first Khalil twenty eight three,
42:45
D fifteen sixteen, and Y twenty fifteen. The facts that
42:50
must be established therefore are a statement and B that
42:54
is pertinent to a good faith anticipation litigation and C
42:58
by attorneys or their agents on under their direction. We
43:01
did this See Memo of Law six through eight, thirty
43:04
three through thirty eight, Document five forty two, and five
43:07
forty seven example K. For example, mister Barton A drafted
43:12
the vast majority of the January twenty fifteen statement and
43:16
approved and adopted all of it. P directed mister Gow
43:20
to send it to the media representatives who had requested
43:22
Miss Maxwell's reply to plaintiffs joint motion allegations. C in
43:26
the statement threatened legal action against these media representatives, and
43:31
D at the time of the statement was contemplating litigation
43:34
against the press recipients ID example K ten sixteen and seventeen,
43:39
twenty eight and thirty. Plaintiff argues, without citation to authority,
43:43
Miss Maxwell herself did not testify she intended to sue.
43:47
She hasn't offered any witnesses to testify she intended to
43:51
bring a lawsuit she didn't in fact sue, and this
43:55
one as a non sequitur, the statement was an attempt
43:58
to continue to conceal her criminal response at forty one
44:02
and forty two. These arguments fail. The privilege exists without
44:06
regard to whether Miss Maxwell testifies she intended to sue,
44:10
whether she is witnessed to say she intended to sue,
44:13
or whether she in fact sued. It refers to anticipated litigation,
44:17
not guaranteed litigation. Indeed, the point of pre litigation privilege
44:21
is to promote communications that avoid litigation see Khalil twenty
44:26
eight e three d at nineteen. When litigation is anticipated,
44:31
attorneys and parties should be free to communicate in order
44:34
to reduce or avoid the need to actually commence litigation.
44:37
It applies when there is a good faith basis to
44:40
anticipate litigation. Mister Bardon, miss Maxwell's lawyer who drafted and
44:45
caused the statement to be sent out, actually was anticipating
44:49
litigation document five five forty two through five forty seven.
44:53
Example k at twenty eight. The argument that the statement
44:57
was an attempt to conceal miss Maxwell's criminal acts is incorrect.
45:01
It would be hard to post facto conceal allege criminal
45:04
acts that plaintiff luridly and salaciously described in an earlier
45:09
public filing, ie the CVR case in which the United
45:12
States Government was the defendant. Citing no record evidence, plaintiff argues,
45:17
the record evidence shows mister Barden did not make the
45:20
January twenty fifteen statement. Response at forty two. That argument
45:25
is easily disposed of by mister Barton's uncontested testimony. B
45:30
malice is irrelevant to the pre litigation privilege. Citing the
45:34
New York Court of Appeals decision in Khalil, we pointed
45:37
out that malice is not relevant to the pre litigation
45:41
privilege memorandum of law thirty four and thirty five. To
45:45
prevail on the pre litigation privilege, the defendant need only
45:48
establish one element the allegedly defamatory statement at issue was
45:53
pertinent to a good faith anticipation litigation ID Quoting Khalil
45:57
twenty eight, e three d at sixteen. Plaintiff disputes this, and,
46:03
without discussing Khalil or citing authorities, simply argues that prelittigation
46:07
privilege is foreclosed because miss Maxwell acted with malice response
46:12
at forty three. As suggested by her inability to find
46:16
any law to support her, Plaintiff is wrong. Under general
46:19
New York defamation law, the shield provided by a qualified
46:23
privilege may be dissolved if plaintiff in rebuttal can show
46:27
that the defendants spoke with malice Lieberman versus Gelstein, six
46:30
oh five E two d three forty four, three forty nine,
46:34
New York, nineteen ninety two. According to Khalil twenty eight
46:38
E three d at nineteen, malice means two things spite
46:42
or ill will and knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard
46:45
of falsity Lieberman, six oh five E two d at
46:49
three forty nine. Plaintiff relies on this general qualified privilege law.
46:54
The problem for plaintiff is that in Khalil, the New
46:57
York Court of Appeals held that general rule does not
47:00
apply to the pre litigation privilege. Khalil worked for a
47:04
company named front. After eight years, he resigned and began
47:07
working for EOC, one of Front's competitors. Front's lawyer, Kimmel,
47:11
sent a demand letter to Khalil, alleging he had committed criminal,
47:15
tortious and ethical misconduct. Kimmel sent another demand letter to
47:19
EOC and others, stating Khalil had conspired with EOC to
47:24
breach his fiduciary duty to FUNT. Six months later, FRONT
47:28
sued Khalil. Khalil brought a third party claim against Kimmel
47:31
for libel per se. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit,
47:35
ruling that the letters were absolutely privileged under the litigation
47:38
privilege and that it therefore did not need to reach
47:42
the question of malice. Twenty eight et three d At seventeen.
47:47
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the litigation privilege absolutely
47:51
protected the letter because they were issued in the context
47:55
of prospective litigation id At eighteen. The Court of Appeals
47:59
affirmed but altered the law on the litigation privilege. It observed,
48:03
although it is well settled that statements made in the
48:06
course of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege, this Court
48:10
has not directly addressed whether statements made by an attorney
48:14
on behalf of his or her client in connection with
48:17
prospective litigation are privileged. Some appellate division departments had held
48:23
that absolute privilege applies to statements made in connection with
48:26
prospective litigation, but other departments had held such statements were
48:30
entitled only to qualified privilege. The answer to whether pre
48:34
litigation statements should be absolute or qualified, the Court of
48:38
Appeals held, is driven by the rationale for protecting pre
48:42
litigation statements. When litigation is anticipated, attorneys and parties should
48:48
be free to communicate in order to reduce or avoid
48:51
the need to actually commence litigation. Attorneys often send cease
48:55
and desist letters to avoid litigation. Communication during this pre
49:00
litigation phase should be encouraged and not chilled by the
49:03
possibility of being the basis for a defamation suit Idea nineteen. However,
49:09
the Court recognized that extending privilege status to communication made
49:13
prior to anticipated litigation has the potential to be abused.
49:16
Extending an absolute privilege to this context, the Court said,
49:20
would be problematic and unnecessary. The Court held it would
49:24
recognize only a qualified privilege for pre litigation communications. Crucially
49:29
to the case at Bar, the Court held that the
49:31
traditional privilege rebuttal malice was inapplicable to the pre litigation privilege.
49:37
Rather than applying the general malice standard to this pre
49:40
litigation stage, the privilege should only be applied to statements
49:44
pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation. This requirement ensures
49:49
that privilege does not protect attorneys who are seeking to bully, harass,
49:54
or intimidate their client's adversaries by threatening baseless litigation or
49:58
by asserting holy on Meritis's claims unsupported in law and fact,
50:03
in violation of Council's ethical obligations. Therefore, we hold that
50:08
statements made prior to the commencement of an anticipated litigation
50:12
are privileged, and that the privilege is lost where a
50:15
defendant proves that the statements were not pertinent to a
50:18
good faith anticipated litigation. Accordingly, the only question is whether
50:23
the January twenty fifteen statement mister Barden caused to be
50:27
issued to the six to thirty journalists was pertinent to
50:30
a good faith anticipated litigation. The undisputed evidence establishes that
50:35
the answer is yes. Mister Barden anticipated litigation. He fully
50:40
complied with his ethical obligation as a lawyer. He was
50:43
hardly bullying, harassing, or intimidating the six to thirty journalists
50:47
since he caused a press agent, mister Gout, to issue
50:50
a statement and he believed he had affirmative duty in
50:53
representing Miss Maxwell, to prepare the statement and cause it
50:56
to be delivered to the journalists. Plantiff argues that when
51:00
mister Barden issued the January twenty fifteen statement on Miss
51:04
Maxwell's behalf, he had only wholly unmeritis claims, unsupported in law,
51:08
in fact, in violation of Council's ethical obligations, and did
51:12
not have good faith anticipated litigation response at forty six,
51:17
quoting Khalil twenty eight E three d at nineteen. Plaintiff's
51:21
rationale because she was telling the truth and so media
51:24
would only be reporting the truth. That is nonsensical frivolous
51:28
arguments whether mister Barden, who represents Miss Maxwell, had emeritis
51:33
or a good faith basis for anticipating defamation litigation has
51:36
nothing to do with whether the media believe plaintiff was
51:40
telling the truth, and surely not whether the plaintiff believed
51:43
or said she was telling the truth. Based on this
51:45
knowledge of plaintiff's history, mister Barden in good faith believed
51:49
that plaintiff had been making false allegations for years, and
51:53
that the falsity of the allegations should have been obvious
51:56
to the media. Document five forty two through five forty seven,
52:00
example K, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, twenty through twenty three,
52:05
twenty six through twenty eight, and thirty. Accordingly, at the
52:08
time he caused the statement to issue, mister Barden had
52:11
a good faith basis to anticipate litigation against any of
52:15
the media that republished plaintiff's false allegations. It hardly matters
52:20
for purpose of pre litigation privilege whether the media republished
52:24
or did not republish Plaintiff's allegations, or whether mister Barden
52:28
ultimately did or did not sue any of the media
52:31
for republication. As the Khil Court recognized, attorneys often send
52:37
ceason desist letters to avoid litigation, and such letters have
52:41
a valid purpose protected by the pre litigation privilege. Mister
52:46
Barden testified that the January twenty fifteen statement in fact
52:50
served as a cease and desist letter. See Document five
52:54
forty two through five forty seven, example K and seventeen.
52:58
All right, folks, we're going to wrap up episode here
53:01
and in the next episode we'll pick up where we
53:03
left off. All of the information that goes with this
53:06
episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone,
53:10
and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
53:14
we're diving right back into the Glen Maxwell brief in
53:17
support for her to get a summary judgment. Part four.
53:21
Miss Maxwell's January fourth, twenty fifteen statement is non actionable.
53:26
Plaintiff did not respond to our argument that Miss Maxwell's
53:29
January fourth, twenty fifteen statement to a reporter is non
53:33
actionable see Memo of Law thirty eight and thirty nine.
53:36
We respectfully submit plaintiff has confessed this point. Ce Cowen,
53:40
ninety five f. Dot supp Dot three d at six
53:44
forty five and forty six five. Some rejudgment is warranted
53:48
because plaintiff cannot establish falsity or actual malice by clear
53:53
and convincing evidence. Plaintiff is a public figure see Memo
53:57
of Law sixteen and seventeen forty nine through fifty four. Therefore,
54:01
she must prove falsity and actual malice. Under New York law,
54:05
a public figure defamation plaintiff must go beyond the federal
54:08
constitutional minimum and prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence.
54:13
Blair versus Inside Edition Production seven f. Supp. Three d
54:17
three forty eight three fifty eight and N Dot six
54:21
sdn y twenty fourteen, citing de Bella vers. Hopkins four
54:25
oh three F Dot three D one O two one eleven,
54:28
Second Circuit, two thousand and five. She must also prove
54:32
actual malice by clear and convincing evidence Curatus versus Acurley
54:36
Group Incorporated. Four twenty five F Dot three d one
54:40
oh seven one fourteen, Second Circuit, two thousand and five,
54:43
quoting Philadelphia Newspapers versus Heps four seventy five US seven
54:48
sixty seven seven seventy three, nineteen eighty six. Clear and
54:52
convincing evidence is evidence that produces, in the mind of
54:56
the trier of fact, a firm belief or conviction as
54:59
to the te truth of the allegations sought to be established.
55:02
Evidence so clear, direct, in weighty, and convincing as to
55:06
enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction
55:09
without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts. In
55:12
issue Blair seven f. Supp. Three d at three fifty eight,
55:17
plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence a the
55:21
material falsity of three sentences in the context of the
55:24
January twenty fifteen statement, and B miss Maxwell's actual malice
55:29
ie knowledge of the falsity of the three statements or
55:33
reckless disregard of whether they were false. The three sentences
55:36
are in the first paragraph of the statement Plaintiff's allegations
55:40
are untrue, in the same paragraph the original allegations have
55:44
been shown to be untrue, and the third paragraph Plaintiff's
55:47
claims or obvious lies. Plaintiff cannot prove the falsity of
55:51
the three sentences, let alone actual malice. If rule fifty
55:55
six record establishes that two of Plaintiff's CVR joined her
55:58
motion allegations are false and two of our original allegations
56:02
are false, this defamation action collapses on itself. This is
56:07
because the statement does not specify how many of plaintiff's
56:11
allegations are false. It certainly does not say all plaintiff's
56:14
allegations are false. It uses the plural of allegation. The
56:18
plural of allegation literally means more than one see Memo
56:21
of Law at twenty one, sentence number one. Since the
56:24
sentence does not specify any particular allegation, and since plaintiff
56:28
made a plethora of allegations against Miss Maxwell, plaintiff would
56:32
be required to prove the truth of every one of
56:34
the plethorau of allegations, and that Miss Maxwell knew each
56:38
one of the allegations was true. Conversely, if there are
56:41
at least two allegations that plaintiff cannot prove to be true,
56:44
or if there was good reason for Miss Maxwell to
56:47
believe at least two of the allegations to be false,
56:49
then some rejudgment should enter against plaintiff. There are at
56:54
least two allegations by plaintiff against Miss Maxwell that are untrue.
56:58
In the CVR Joinder Mote Shin, plaintiff alleged that in
57:01
plaintiff's first encounter with mister Epstein, Miss Maxwell took her
57:05
to mister Epstein's bedroom for a massage that mister Epstein
57:08
and Miss Maxwell turned into a sexual encounter Document five
57:12
forty two to five forty four, example D at three.
57:16
This allegation contradicted her allegation in the Sharon Churchiard article
57:20
that a woman other than miss Maxwell took her to
57:22
mister Epstein's bedroom during the massage that woman gave instructions
57:26
a plaintiff, and the massage quickly developed into a sexual encounter.
57:31
A second allegation pertaining to Plaintiff's entire story about Miss
57:35
Maxwell's introduction to plaintiff of Prince Andrew is untrue. In
57:39
the joint her motion, plaintiff alleged Miss Maxwell served an
57:42
important role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring, namely connecting mister
57:46
Epstein to powerful individuals who would sexually abuse plaintiff ID
57:51
Example D at five. Plaintiff alleged that in this role,
57:54
Miss Maxwell introduced plaintiff to Prince Andrew and she was
57:58
forced to have sexual relayations with this prince in three
58:01
separate geographical locations, including Miss Maxwell's London apartment ID Example
58:07
D at five. These allegations directly contradicted her earlier allegations
58:12
in the twenty eleven Churcher article that A there never
58:16
was any sexual contact between plaintiff and Prince Andrew, and
58:20
b Prince Andrew did not know Epstein paid her to
58:23
have sex with Epstein's friends ID Example A at six.
58:27
Mister Barton On, behalf of Miss Maxwell, said in the
58:30
first sentence that Plaintiff's allegations plural against Miss Maxwell are untrue.
58:35
We have just established, through plaintiff's own contradictory words, that
58:39
it would be fair to characterize at least two of
58:41
her allegations to be untrue, having spent significant time with
58:45
Miss Churcher in twenty eleven and having substantial incentive to
58:49
disclose all important details of her sex abuse story see
58:53
Menager declaration Exhibit zero zero. Plaintiff in twenty eleven presented
58:58
a story that x pated Miss Maxwell and Prince Andrew
59:02
of the very misconduct that in twenty fifteen, after securing
59:05
a lawyer and seeing her story as a profit vehicle,
59:08
she inculpated them for. In the face of her contradictory allegations,
59:13
Plaintiff cannot possibly prove by clear and convincing evidence that
59:17
all her Joined her Motion allegations are true, or that
59:20
when Miss Maxwell said they were untrue, she knew each
59:23
one of the allegations was true, or that she recklessly
59:27
disregarded whether each one was true. Under New York law,
59:31
a defendant's allegedly defamatory statement is held to a standard
59:35
of substantial, not literal accuracy. Law Firm of Daniel P.
59:39
Foster eight forty four f. Dot two d at nine
59:42
fifty nine. Here, Miss Maxwell's first sentence literally is true
59:47
more than one of Plaintiff's allegations are untrue. Accordingly, there
59:50
is no defamation. Sentence number two, the second sentence at
59:54
issue in the action, states the original allegations are not
59:57
new and have been fully responded to and shown to
1:00:00
be untrue. Plaintiff alleges the sentence is defamatory to the
1:00:04
extent it asserts the original allegations were shown to be
1:00:08
untrue Document one at thirty. Plaintiff cannot prove this statement's falsity.
1:00:13
It is a matter of pure opinion whether any given
1:00:16
allegation was shown to be untrue. Some people require more
1:00:19
proof than others to conclude that affect has been shown
1:00:22
to be untrue. We discussed above various examples of this, eg.
1:00:27
Climate change. Here. Miss Maxwell via mister Barton in March
1:00:31
twenty eleven issued a statement denying Plaintiff Church's story allegations
1:00:35
as all entirely false Document five forty two and five
1:00:39
forty three example. See Plaintiff did not respond to this statement,
1:00:43
let alone claim it was defamatory. Her non response reasonably
1:00:47
could be seen as a concession that Miss Maxwell's denial
1:00:51
was righteous see Document five forty two through five forty
1:00:54
seven example K. Mister Bardon, I would have been remiss
1:00:58
if I had sat back and not issued a though
1:01:00
and the press had published that Miss Maxwell had not
1:01:03
responded to inquiries and had not denied the new allegations.
1:01:06
The public might have taken the silence as an admission
1:01:09
there was some truth in the allegations. Regardless, we easily
1:01:14
can show two of plaintiff's original allegations are untrue. Many
1:01:18
of Plaintiff's original allegations are contained in the two Church
1:01:21
ar articles five forty two one and five forty two two.
1:01:26
The article contained numerous allegations by plaintiff relating to her
1:01:29
alleged sexual abuse. In her deposition, plaintiff was shown Deposition
1:01:34
Exhibit seven, a collection of some of her allegations in
1:01:37
the articles. Plaintiff plays check marks by those allegations she
1:01:42
admitted over the course of twenty pages of testimony were
1:01:45
not true. See Manager declaration Exhibit pp. At four thirty five, seven,
1:01:50
four fifty five, and six Deposition Example seven. These included
1:01:55
her claims that one she was seventeen when she flew
1:01:58
to the Caribbean with mister Epstein and Miss Maxwell went
1:02:01
to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter, referring
1:02:04
to former President Bill Clinton, to her conversation with mister
1:02:08
Clinton about Miss Maxwell's pilot skills, and three Donald Trump
1:02:12
was a good friend of mister Epstein's and deflirted with me.
1:02:16
Plaintiff's admissions on the falsity of her original allegations are
1:02:20
fatal to her defamation claim as to the second sentence.
1:02:24
The eleven admittedly false original allegations axelmatically would warrant the
1:02:29
second sentence. Plaintiff has no possible way to prove the
1:02:33
second sentence is false. Indeed, like Miss Maxwell's first sentence,
1:02:36
the second sentence literally is true. More than one Plaintiff's
1:02:40
original allegations are untrue. A statement that literally is true
1:02:44
cannot be defamatory as a matter of law. Sentence number three.
1:02:49
Defamation as to the third sentence is foreclosed to begin with.
1:02:53
As discussed above, whether plaintiff has uttered obvious lies is
1:02:57
a matter of opinion. In the face of Plaintiff's gratuitous
1:03:01
and lurid allegations of Miss Maxwell's years long participation at
1:03:05
the center of a child sex trafficking ring for the
1:03:07
journalist recipients of the July twenty fifteen statements. The phrase
1:03:12
was anticipated fiery rhetoric or hyperbole Stein Hilbert five oh
1:03:17
one ne dot two d at five point fifty six.
1:03:21
See Tel Systems International two thousand and three two two
1:03:25
two three two nine zero eight at two, observing Court's
1:03:29
previous holdings in Risuto that defendants use of phrases conned,
1:03:34
ripoff and lying in advertisements were not actionable as liable
1:03:39
and were rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those
1:03:43
who considered themselves unfairly treated and sought to bring what
1:03:46
they allege were true facts to the readers. Even if
1:03:50
our gwendo the third sentence, plaintiff's claims or obvious lies
1:03:54
cannot be considered opinion. The rule fifty six record forecloses
1:03:58
a defamation claim. The sentence does not specify which of
1:04:01
plaintiff claims, ie allegations or obvious lies. It could refer
1:04:05
to the original claims. The new cvr A claims, the
1:04:09
claims against Miss Maxwell, the claims against anyone including Dershowitz
1:04:13
who was mentioned in the preceding sentence, or any two
1:04:16
or more of all the claims plaintiff has ever made
1:04:19
about her alleged experiences as the alleged victim of a
1:04:22
child sex trafficking ring. Regardless of what is being referred to,
1:04:27
there is no defamation. As demonstrated in the discussion above
1:04:31
the first and second sentences, the rule fifty six record
1:04:34
establishes that at least two of plaintiff's original allegations are untrue,
1:04:39
at least two of her CVR A allegations are untrue,
1:04:42
at least two of her allegations against miss Maxwell are untrue,
1:04:46
at least two of her allegations against anyone e. G.
1:04:49
Maxwell Andrew Dershowitz are untrue, And at least two of
1:04:53
her allegations about her alleged sex trafficking experiences are untrue. Moreover,
1:04:59
the untruthful the falsity of the allegation certainly is obvious.
1:05:03
After all, Plaintiff for herself admitted under oath that a
1:05:07
multitude of her original allegations are untrue, and she implicitly
1:05:11
admitted some of her CVR allegations are untrue because they
1:05:15
were contradicted by her original allegations. Conclusion, the court should
1:05:20
grant some rejudgment in favor of miss Maxwell. This was
1:05:24
dated on February tenth, twenty seventeen, and it was signed
1:05:29
by Laura Meninger. All Right, folks, that's a wrap for
1:05:32
this document, but have no fear, there are plenty more
1:05:35
where those came from, and we're going to keep it rolling.
1:05:37
All of the information that goes with this episode can
1:05:40
be found in the description box.