Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Virginia Robert's Rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's Summary Judgement Push (Part 9)

Transcript

Virginia Robert's Rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's Summary Judgement Push (Part 9) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:04
In this episode, we're picking up where we left off
0:07
with the Virginia Roberts response to glean Maxwell's attempt to
0:11
get a summary judgment a. When Miss Roberts initially described
0:16
her encounters with the defendant and Epstein, she mistakenly believed
0:20
the first encounter occurred during the year nineteen ninety nine.
0:24
Discovery has resulted in the production of records, including Miss
0:28
Roberts' employment records from mar A Lago, which she did
0:31
not possess at the time she was recounting her interactions
0:35
with a defendant. Those records established that the initial encounter
0:39
wherein defendant recruited Miss Roberts, occurred during the year two
0:43
thousand and not nineteen ninety nine. Miss Roberts was sixteen
0:47
years old before August ninth, two thousand and turned seventeen
0:51
on that date. It is unclear from the limited records
0:54
available whether the defendant approached and recruited Miss Roberts before
0:59
or just after Robert's seventeenth birthday. However, what has now
1:03
been established through numerous witnesses is that defendant approached and
1:07
recruited a minor child for the purposes of enticing that
1:10
miner over to the house of Jeffrey Epstein, a currently
1:14
registered sex offender. The exact lure of Miss Roberts by
1:18
defendant enticement of being paid money to give a billionaire
1:22
a massage at his mansion, was used by Epstein and
1:25
as many associates and employees to recruit dozens and dozens
1:29
of other underage girls. There is no doubt that the
1:33
crux of Miss Robert's statements on this point is that
1:36
the defendant recruiteder when she was only a minor child
1:39
unable to consent to sex, not precisely how far under
1:43
the age of consent she was. Defendant's public claim that
1:47
Miss Roberts account of this approach and recruitment element was
1:50
untrue and obvious lies is not substantially true, but is
1:54
itself an obvious lie, as Miss Roberts will approve to
1:58
the jury a trial b defendants January twenty fifteen statement
2:04
claiming as untrue and an obvious lie, the allegation that
2:07
she regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation of miners, and
2:12
that the government knows such fact is not substantially true.
2:16
But instead completely false. Defendant next argues that she accurately
2:21
denied that she irregularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation on miners,
2:27
and that the government knows such as a fact MSJA
2:31
at fifty eight. It's not clear whether defendant is nitpicking
2:35
this statement by contesting whether she regularly participated in Epstein's
2:39
sexual exploitation or whether she did participate but the government
2:44
was unaware of the extent of her involvement. Call this
2:47
the yes, I'm a sex trafficker but only on Tuesdays
2:50
and Thursday's defense here again, to simply recount the claim
2:54
is to see its absurdity. Contrary to Defendant's misleading cherry
3:00
pick fragments of information that she has chosen to use
3:03
the support her point. There is an abundance of evidence
3:06
clearly linking defendant to Epstein's sexual exploitation of miners. As
3:11
the court is aware, numerous message pads were recovered from
3:14
Epstein's home, indicating Defendant's involvement in and knowledge of Epstein's
3:19
illegal exploitation. Additionally, numerous employees and others have testified about
3:25
Defendant's high ranking position in the hierarchical structure. Of the
3:29
sexual exploitation scheme. In fact, multiple individuals in addition to
3:33
Miss Roberts, have testified about Maxwell's involvement in the exploitation
3:37
of miners, including Miss Roberts. Defendant also argues that one
3:42
government investigator, Palm Beach, Florida, Detective Raccari, may not have
3:46
been aware of her involvement in the sex trafficking. Defendant
3:50
felt to cite another passage in Detective Riccari's deposition where
3:54
he noted that he was aware of defendant's involvement with
3:57
Epstein and the sexual exploitation of children. But even assuming
4:02
Riccari was unaware, which Miss Roberts strongly disputes, defendant would
4:06
have at most a yes, I'm a sex trafficker, but
4:10
I successfully hit it from one of the cops defense,
4:13
again not a likely claim. More broadly, Miss Robert's statement
4:17
about what the government knew about sex trafficking was made
4:20
in pleadings filed in a federal court case attacking the
4:24
decision of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District
4:27
of Florida to offer Jeffrey Epstein immunity from prosecution for
4:31
federal sex trafficking crimes. Accordingly, to present an even arguable
4:37
claim for some rejudgment, defendant would have to show that
4:40
the US Attorney's Office and its investigators from the FBI
4:44
did not know about defendant sex trafficking. This proof would
4:48
need to include, for example, evidence that the FBI did
4:51
not learn about defendant sex trafficking when, among other things,
4:55
Miss Roberts told FBI agents about it when she met
4:58
them in Australia in twenty eleven. Here, again, the defendant
5:02
has no evidence to even begin making such a showing
5:06
see defendants January twenty fifteen. Statement claiming as untrue or
5:12
an obvious lie, that Maxwell and Epstein converted Miss Roberts
5:16
into a sexual slave is not substantially true. Defendant next
5:21
argues that she accurately disputed Miss Roberts's statement that the
5:25
defendant held her as a sex slave, relying on dictionary
5:29
definitions of slave that define the term to refer to
5:32
a confined person who is the legal property of another
5:36
MSJA at fifty nine, citing Merriam, Webster, etc. Defendant claims
5:41
Miss Roberts was not confined to the property of the defendant.
5:44
Call this the yes, I'm a sex trafficker, but I
5:47
didn't use Chain's defense, and once again, to even describe
5:51
the defense is to refute it. Defendant does not explain
5:55
why the jury would be required to use the held
5:58
in Chain's definition of slave in evaluating her statement Merriam Webster,
6:03
eleventh edition, two thousand and six. It also defined slave
6:07
as one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence,
6:11
a definition that fits Miss Robert's circumstances to a t.
6:15
As Miss Roberts has explained in detail, she was recruited
6:19
as a minor child by the defendant, who then dominated
6:22
her and used her for sexual purposes. That testimony alone
6:27
creates a genuine issue of fact on this point. From
6:30
the context of all of Miss Robert's statements about the defendant,
6:34
Miss Roberts has never said or implied that she was
6:37
physically placed in a cage. Instead, she has described the
6:40
vast disparity of power and the influence of defendant and Epstein,
6:45
the fear of disobedience, the typical locations of the abuse
6:49
being in a private plane, a huge mansion man with
6:52
Epstein's employed servants, a private island, or some inescapable place
6:56
abroad in the presence of the defendant in addition to
7:00
the continued and fraudulent promise of a better future, as
7:04
those things that kept her attained in a situation of
7:07
sexual servitude. While not physical chains, miss Roberts was groomed
7:12
as a minor and trained, and these factors became her
7:15
invisible chains. Indeed, as Miss Roberts expert on sex trafficking
7:19
Professor Coonan has explained, popular understanding of the term sex
7:24
slave might still connote images of violent pimps, white slavery,
7:29
or a victim's chain to a bed and a brothel
7:31
in the minds of some people. To call Miss Roberts
7:34
a victim of sex trafficking would, however, very accurately convey
7:38
the reality that she, along with a great many other
7:41
victims of contemporary forms of slavery, are often exploited by
7:45
the invisible chains of fraud and psychological coercion. CEE. McCauley
7:51
declaration at Exhibit twenty three. Coonan Expert Report at twenty.
7:57
If this Court takes as true, which it must for
7:59
the perse this motion, that Miss Roberts was trafficked and
8:03
used exclusively for sexual purposes by the defendant at Epstein,
8:07
then the court must also reach the conclusion at this
8:10
stage that Maxwell's assertion that Miss roberts description of being
8:14
a sex slave is untrue or obvious lies is not
8:18
substantially true. There undoubtedly remains a genuine issue of material
8:23
fact on this point, and in fact, Defendant's position taken
8:27
in this motion is tantamount to an admission of the
8:30
truth of plaintiff statement about defendant. On this point, d
8:35
any statement misdirection regarding Professor Alan Dershowitz is nothing more
8:40
than an irrelevant distraction to the facts of this case
8:43
and matters not on the defense of whether defendant statement
8:46
was substantially true. Defendant next contends that she accurately recounted
8:51
that Alan Dershowitz had denied having sex with Miss Roberts
8:55
MSJA at sixty call this the yes, I'm a sex trafficker,
8:59
but she was not trafficked to the professor defense. While
9:03
it is accurate that Miss Roberts made allegations against Professor Dershowitz,
9:07
those allegations are not at issue in this case. Defendant,
9:11
in her defamatory statement, claim that the allegations made by
9:14
Miss Roberts against Glayn Maxwell are untrue. Ce McCauley declaration
9:19
at Exhibit twenty six GM zero zero zero sixty eight.
9:24
In her deposition, defendant maintained the position that she cannot
9:28
speculate on what anybody else did or didn't do. C.
9:32
McCauley declaration at Exhibit eleven, Maxwell for twenty two, twenty sixteen.
9:39
In fact, regarding Miss Roberts' claims about others, Defendant unequivocally stated,
9:44
I can only testify to what she said about me,
9:46
which was one hundred percent false. C. McCauley declaration at eleven.
9:52
Defendant Maxwell makes additional misstatements about Dershowitz production in a
9:57
defamation action filed against him in her desperate attempt to
10:01
have Dershowitz jump aboard and help bail out her sinking canoe.
10:05
Miss Roberts can and if necessary, will refute Dershowitz's claim
10:09
he was not a beneficiary of Epstein and defendant sex trafficking.
10:13
That is not relevant at this stage. Whatever may or
10:17
may not have happened with Dershowitz and Miss Roberts, warren
10:20
statement that he sexually abused her is alone enough to
10:23
create disputed facts. On the issue of whether defendant statements
10:27
about him are substantially true has no bearing whatsoever on
10:31
the truth or falsity of the statements Miss Roberts made
10:35
about the defendant. This case is not about whether Miss
10:38
Roberts has ever made untruthful allegations against anyone, which he
10:42
contends she is not, but about whether her allegations about
10:45
defendant were true, or whether those specific allegations were untrue
10:50
obvious lies, as defendant publicly proclaimed. These issues are disputed
10:55
and must go to the jury. E Contrary to the
11:00
defendant's position, there is a genuine issue of material fact
11:04
as to whether she created or distributed child pornography, or
11:08
whether the government was aware of the same. Defendant next
11:12
argues that she did not create child pornography and that
11:15
the government knew. This call this the until you find
11:18
the photos on innocent defense, of course, is noted earlier.
11:22
Defendant's claim requires that she show the government in context,
11:26
the FBI and the U. S. Attorney's Office for the
11:29
Southern District of Florida knew that she had no child pornography.
11:34
Yet defendant has offered no such evidence, much less evidence
11:37
so powerful as to warrant some rejudgment on this point.
11:42
This point is disputed from the simple fact that Miss
11:45
Roberts herself testified that defendant took many photographs of her
11:49
naked ce McCauley declaration at Exhibit five, Robert's deposition at
11:54
two thirty two, three through nine, two thirty three, seven
11:58
through nine. Assistant with the Palm Beach butler Alfredo Rodriguez
12:03
testimony that he personally saw photos of naked children on
12:06
the defendant's computer. See McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty one.
12:11
Rodriguez deposition at one fifty ten through seventeen, three oh six,
12:16
one through three oh six, and twenty four. Another housekeeper,
12:20
Juana Lessi, also saw photos of young nude females on
12:24
the defendant's computer, although he wasn't aware or sure whether
12:28
to consider it pornography see McCauley declaration at exhibit one. Finally,
12:33
Detective Rickerry found a collage of nude photos of young
12:36
females in Epstein's closet and turned the photos over to
12:40
the FBI and the US Attorney's office. While the US
12:43
Attorney's Office will not share the photos obtained from Riccari's investigation,
12:48
it is thus undisputed that the government possesses photos of
12:51
nude young females confiscated from Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Indeed,
12:56
the police video disclosed through a Freedom of information request
13:00
shows naked images of women throughout the house, including a
13:04
full nude of the defendant. At a minimum, there is
13:07
a clear genuine issue of material fact in this regard.
13:12
F defendant did act as a madam for Epstein to
13:15
traffic Miss Roberts to the rich and the famous. Defendant
13:19
X argues that she did not act as a madam
13:21
for Epstein msj At sixty three. The gist of the
13:24
argument seems to be that the defendant believes trafficking one
13:28
girl to Epstein does not a madam. Make call this Yes,
13:32
I was Virginia's madam, but no one else's defense. This
13:36
argument fails linguistically on the very dictionary definitions that defendant
13:40
sites elsewhere but not here see Merriam Webster, eleventh edition,
13:44
two thousand and six, defining madam as the female head
13:48
of prostitution. Once again, defendant conceals the relevant facts on
13:52
this issue. First, multiple witnesses have testified two defendants recruiting, maintaining, harboring,
13:58
and trafficking girls for Epstein. In fact, defendant herself was
14:02
unable to deny procuring Miss Roberts for Epstein. While defendant
14:07
as attempted to fumble her way through explaining some plausible
14:11
reason for bringing a sixteen or seventeen year old to Epstein,
14:15
her explanations are, to put it blandly unpersuasive. As with
14:19
other issues, the jury will have to decide who'll believe
14:23
one of the individuals Miss Roberts was trafficked to was
14:26
Prince Andrew. Trafficking that took place in the defendant's own
14:30
townhouse in London. There exists flight logs evidencing Miss Roberts
14:34
flying to London alongside defendant and Epstein on Epstein's private plane,
14:39
and the photo of Miss Roberts, Defendant and the Prince,
14:42
without Defendant ever offering a legal reasonable explanation for that
14:47
photo being taken or for traveling with a year old
14:50
girl overseas. Defendant begins to meanders somewhat aimlessly on this point,
14:55
shifting plaintiff's burden to substantiate plaintiff's claim that defendant was
15:00
Epstein's madam, which at this point at issue into whether
15:03
or not plaintiff has conclusively proven the identities and accurate
15:07
job titles of the other men to whom plaintiff was
15:10
lent for sex by Epstein. No matter how hard defendant
15:14
tries to reframe the case, drag other people in or
15:17
split hairs, she is unable to contest the facts fact
15:20
showing she was more than a madam but a full
15:23
fledged sex trafficker. Miss Roberts told the truth when she
15:27
said the defendant recruited her as a miner under the
15:30
pretense of giving her a massage and converted her into
15:34
a traveling sex slave, consistent with defendant and Epstein's pattern
15:37
of practice. As the Court astutely acknowledged early on, at
15:42
the center of this case is the veracity of a
15:45
contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly defamatory statements.
15:50
Either transgressions occurred or it did not. Either Maxwell was
15:55
involved or she was not. If defendant was involved, then
15:59
her January twenty fifteen statement was defamatory. Miss Roberts will
16:04
prove to the jury through overwhelming evidence her prior allegations
16:08
about Defendant's involvement. The court should give Miss Roberts that
16:12
opportunity and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment conclusion
16:17
for the foregoing reasons, this court should deny defendant's motion
16:21
for some rey judgment in all respects. This was signed
16:25
by Sigrid McAuley and it was dated January thirty first,
16:29
twenty seventeen. All Right, folks, that's going to conclude our
16:33
look at Virginia Roberts response to Glain Maxwell's attempt to
16:37
get a summary judgment. And if you're not disgusted yet,
16:41
just wait, plenty more is on the way. All of
16:45
the information that goes with this episode can be found
16:48
in the description box.