Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (Part 5) (6/6/26)

Transcript

Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (Part 5) (6/6/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  In this episode, we're diving right back in to the
• 0:05
  Glen Maxwell brief in support for her to get a
• 0:08
  summary judgment. Part four. Miss Maxwell's January fourth, twenty fifteen
• 0:14
  statement is non actionable. Plaintiff did not respond to our
• 0:17
  argument that Miss Maxwell's January fourth, twenty fifteen statement to
• 0:22
  a reporter is non actionable see Memo of Law thirty
• 0:25
  eight and thirty nine. We respectfully submit plaintiff has confessed
• 0:29
  this point. Ce Cowen, ninety five f. Dot supp Dot
• 0:33
  three d at six forty five and forty six five.
• 0:37
  Some rejudgment is warranted because plaintiff cannot establish falsity or
• 0:41
  actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiff is a
• 0:45
  public figure cee. Memo of Law sixteen and seventeen forty
• 0:49
  nine through fifty four. Therefore, she must prove falsity and
• 0:52
  actual malice. Under New York law, a public figure defamation
• 0:56
  plaintiff must go beyond the federal constitutional minimum and prove
• 1:00
  falsity by clear and convincing evidence. Blair versus. Inside Edition,
• 1:05
  Production seven f supp three d three forty eight three
• 1:09
  fifty eight and N dot six sdn y twenty fourteen,
• 1:13
  citing de Bella vers. Hopkins, four O three F dot
• 1:16
  three D one O two one eleven, Second Circuit, two
• 1:19
  thousand and five. She must also prove actual malice by
• 1:23
  clear and convincing evidence Kuratus versus Acurley Group Incorporated. Four
• 1:28
  twenty five F dot three D one oh seven one fourteen,
• 1:32
  Second Circuit, two thousand and five, quoting Philadelphia Newspapers versus
• 1:36
  Heps four seventy five US seven sixty seven seven seventy three,
• 1:41
  nineteen eighty six. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces,
• 1:45
  in the mind of the trier of fact, a firm
• 1:48
  belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegation
• 1:51
  sought to be established. Evidence so clear, direct, in weighty,
• 1:55
  and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come
• 1:58
  to a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of
• 2:02
  the precise facts. In issue Blair seven f. Supp. Three
• 2:06
  d at three fifty eight, plaintiff must prove by clear
• 2:09
  and convincing evidence a the material falsity of three sentences
• 2:13
  in the context of the January twenty fifteen statement, and
• 2:17
  B miss Maxwell's actual malice ie knowledge of the falsity
• 2:21
  of the three statements, or reckless disregard of whether they
• 2:25
  were false. The three sentences are in the first paragraph
• 2:28
  of the statement Plaintiff's allegations are untrue, in the same
• 2:32
  paragraph the original allegations have been shown to be untrue,
• 2:36
  and the third paragraph Plaintiff's claims or obvious lies. Plaintiff
• 2:40
  cannot prove the falsity of the three sentences, let alone
• 2:43
  actual malice. If rule fifty six record establishes that two
• 2:47
  of Plaintiff's CVR joined her motion allegations are false and
• 2:51
  two of our original allegations are false, this defamation action
• 2:54
  collapses on itself. This is because the statement does not
• 2:59
  specify how many of plaintiff's allegations are false. It certainly
• 3:03
  does not say all plaintiff's allegations are false. It uses
• 3:06
  the plural of allegation. The plural of allegation literally means
• 3:10
  more than one see Memo of Law at twenty one,
• 3:13
  sentence number one. Since the sentence does not specify any
• 3:16
  particular allegation, and since plaintiff made a plethora of allegations
• 3:20
  against Miss Maxwell, plaintiff would be required to prove the
• 3:23
  truth of every one of the plethorau of allegations, and
• 3:26
  that Miss Maxwell knew each one of the allegations was true. Conversely,
• 3:31
  if there are at least two allegations that Plaintiff cannot
• 3:33
  prove to be true, or if there was good reason
• 3:36
  for Miss Maxwell to believe at least two of the
• 3:38
  allegations to be false, then some rejudgment should enter against plaintiff.
• 3:43
  There are at least two allegations by plaintiff against Miss
• 3:46
  Maxwell that are untrue. In the CVRA Joinder motion, plaintiff
• 3:51
  alleged that in Plaintiff's first encounter with mister Epstein, Miss
• 3:54
  Maxwell took her to mister Epstein's bedroom for a massage
• 3:58
  that mister Epstein and Miss Maxwell turned into a sexual
• 4:01
  encounter Document five for two to five forty four example
• 4:05
  D at three. This allegation contradicted her allegation in the
• 4:09
  Sharon Churchiard article that a woman other than miss Maxwell
• 4:12
  took her to mister Epstein's bedroom. During the massage, that
• 4:15
  woman gave instructions a plaintiff, and the massage quickly developed
• 4:19
  into a sexual encounter. A second allegation pertaining to Plaintiff's
• 4:23
  entire story about Miss Maxwell's introduction to plaintiff of Prince
• 4:27
  Andrew is untrue. In the joined her motion, plaintiff alleged
• 4:31
  Miss Maxwell served an important role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring,
• 4:35
  namely connecting mister Epstein to powerful individuals who would sexually
• 4:39
  abuse plaintiff ID Example D at five. Plaintiff alleged that
• 4:44
  in this role, Miss Maxwell introduced plaintiff to Prince Andrew
• 4:48
  and she was forced to have sexual relations with this
• 4:51
  Prince in three separate geographical locations, including Miss Maxwell's London
• 4:55
  apartment ID example D at five. These allegations directly contradicted
• 5:01
  her earlier allegations in the twenty eleven Churcher article that
• 5:05
  A there never was any sexual contact between plaintiff and
• 5:09
  Prince Andrew, and b Prince Andrew did not know Epstein
• 5:12
  paid her to have sex with Epstein's friends ID Example
• 5:16
  A at six. Mister Barton On, behalf of Miss Maxwell,
• 5:20
  said in the first sentence that Plaintiff's allegations plural against
• 5:23
  Miss Maxwell are untrue. We have just established, through Plaintiff's
• 5:27
  own contradictory words that it would be fair to characterize
• 5:31
  at least two of her allegations to be untrue, having
• 5:34
  spent significant time with Miss Churcher in twenty eleven and
• 5:38
  having substantial incentive to disclose all important details of her
• 5:42
  sex abuse story see Menager declaration Exhibit zero zero. Plaintiff
• 5:46
  in twenty eleven presented a story that exculpated Miss Maxwell
• 5:51
  and Prince Andrew of the very misconduct that in twenty fifteen,
• 5:55
  after securing a lawyer and seeing her story as a
• 5:57
  profit vehicle, she inculpated them. In the face of her
• 6:01
  contradictory allegations, Plaintiff cannot possibly prove by clear and convincing
• 6:06
  evidence that all her joined her motion allegations are true,
• 6:10
  or that when Miss Maxwell said they were untrue, she
• 6:13
  knew each one of the allegations was true, or that
• 6:16
  she recklessly disregarded whether each one was true. Under New
• 6:21
  York law, a defendant's allegedly defamatory statement is held to
• 6:25
  a standard of substantial, not literal accuracy law Firm of
• 6:29
  Daniel P. Foster, eight forty four f dot two d
• 6:32
  at nine fifty nine. Here, miss Maxwell's first sentence literally
• 6:36
  is true. More than one of Plaintiff's allegations are untrue. Accordingly,
• 6:40
  there is no defamation. Sentence Number two, the second sentence
• 6:45
  at issue in the action, states the original allegations are
• 6:47
  not new and have been fully responded to and shown
• 6:50
  to be untrue. Plaintiff alleges the sentence is defamatory to
• 6:54
  the extent it asserts the original allegations were shown to
• 6:58
  be untrue Document one at thirty. Plaintiff cannot prove this
• 7:02
  statement's falsity. It is a matter of pure opinion whether
• 7:06
  any given allegation was shown to be untrue. Some people
• 7:09
  require more proof than others to conclude that affect has
• 7:12
  been shown to be untrue. We discussed above various examples
• 7:16
  of this eg. Climate change. Here. Miss Maxwell via mister
• 7:20
  Barton in March twenty eleven issued a statement denying Plaintiff
• 7:24
  Church's story allegations as all entirely false Document five forty
• 7:29
  two and five forty three example. See Plaintiff did not
• 7:32
  respond to this statement, let alone claim it was defamatory.
• 7:36
  Her non response reasonably could be seen as a concession
• 7:39
  that Miss Maxwell's denial was righteous. See document five forty
• 7:43
  two through five forty seven example. K Mister Bardon, I
• 7:47
  would have been remiss if I had sat back and
• 7:49
  not issued a denial, and the press had published that
• 7:52
  Miss Maxwell had not responded to inquiries and had not
• 7:55
  denied the new allegations. The public might have taken the
• 7:58
  silence as an admission, and there was some truth in
• 8:01
  the allegations. Regardless, we easily can show two of plaintiff's
• 8:05
  original allegations are untrue. Many of plaintiff's original allegations are
• 8:10
  contained in the two Church ar articles five forty two
• 8:14
  one and five forty two two. The article contained numerous
• 8:18
  allegations by plaintiff relating to her alleged sexual abuse. In
• 8:21
  her deposition, plaintiff was shown Deposition Exhibit seven a collection
• 8:26
  of some of her allegations in the articles. Plaintiff plays
• 8:29
  check marks by those allegations she'd admitted over the course
• 8:33
  of twenty pages of testimony were not true. See Manager
• 8:37
  Declaration Exhibit pp. At four thirty five, seven, four fifty five,
• 8:41
  and six Deposition Example seven. These include her claims that
• 8:46
  one she was seventeen when she flew to the Caribbean
• 8:49
  with mister Epstein and Miss Maxwell went to pick up
• 8:52
  Bill in a huge black helicopter, referring to former President
• 8:55
  Bill Clinton. To her conversation with mister Clinton about Miss
• 9:00
  Maxwell's pilot skills, and three Donald Trump was a good
• 9:03
  friend of mister Epstein's and deflirted with me. Plaintiff's admissions
• 9:07
  on the falsity of her original allegations are fatal to
• 9:11
  her defamation claim as to the second sentence. The eleven
• 9:15
  admittedly false original allegations axomatically would warrant the second sentence.
• 9:20
  Plaintiff has no possible way to prove the second sentence
• 9:24
  is false. Indeed, like Miss Maxwell's first sentence, the second
• 9:27
  sentence literally is true. More than one Plaintiff's original allegations
• 9:32
  are untrue. A statement that literally is true cannot be
• 9:35
  defamatory as a matter of law. Sentence number three. Defamation
• 9:40
  as to the third sentence is foreclosed to begin with.
• 9:44
  As discussed above, whether plaintiff has uttered obvious lies is
• 9:47
  a matter of opinion. In the face of Plaintiff's gratuitous
• 9:51
  and lurid allegations of Miss Maxwell's year's long participation at
• 9:55
  the center of a child sex trafficking ring. For the
• 9:58
  journalist recipients of the jeal by twenty fifteen statements, the
• 10:02
  phrase was anticipated fiery rhetoric or hyperbole Stein Hilbert five
• 10:07
  oh one ne dot two d at five point fifty six.
• 10:11
  See Tel Systems International, two thousand and three two two
• 10:16
  two three two nine zero eight at two, observing Court's
• 10:19
  previous holdings in Rizzuto that defendants use of phrases conned,
• 10:24
  ripoff and lying in advertisements were not actionable as liable
• 10:29
  and were rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those
• 10:33
  who considered themselves unfairly treated and sought to bring what
• 10:37
  they allege were true facts to the readers. Even if
• 10:40
  our gwendo the third sentence, plaintiff's claims or obvious lies
• 10:44
  cannot be considered opinion. The rule fifty six record forecloses
• 10:48
  a defamation claim. The sentence does not specify which of
• 10:52
  plaintiff claims ie allegations or obvious lies. It could refer
• 10:56
  to the original claims. The new cvr A claims the
• 10:59
  claims against Miss Maxwell, the claims against anyone including Dershowitz,
• 11:03
  who was mentioned in the preceding sentence, or any two
• 11:06
  or more of all the claims plaintiff has ever made
• 11:09
  about her alleged experiences as the alleged victim of a
• 11:13
  child sex trafficking ring. Regardless of what is being referred to,
• 11:17
  there is no defamation. As demonstrated in the discussion above
• 11:21
  the first and second sentences, the rule fifty six record
• 11:24
  establishes that at least two of plaintiff's original allegations are untrue,
• 11:29
  at least two of her CVR A allegations are untrue,
• 11:32
  at least two of her allegations against miss Maxwell are untrue,
• 11:36
  at least two of her allegations against anyone e. G.
• 11:39
  Maxwell Andrew Dershowitz are untrue, and at least two of
• 11:43
  her allegations about her alleged sex trafficking experiences are untrue. Moreover,
• 11:49
  the untruthfulness the falsity of the allegation certainly is obvious.
• 11:53
  After all, plaintiff herself admitted under oath that a multitude
• 11:58
  of her original allegations are untrue, and she implicitly admitted
• 12:02
  some of her CVR allegations are untrue because they were
• 12:06
  contradicted by her original allegations. Conclusion, the court should grant
• 12:11
  some rejudgment in favor of miss Maxwell. This was dated
• 12:15
  on February tenth, twenty seventeen, and it was signed by
• 12:19
  Laura Meninger. All right, folks, that's a wrap for this document,
• 12:23
  but have no fear, there are plenty more where those
• 12:26
  came from, and we're going to keep it rolling. All
• 12:28
  of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 12:30
  found in the description box.