Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Virginia Robert's Rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's Summary Judgement Push (Part 8)

Transcript

Virginia Robert's Rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's Summary Judgement Push (Part 8) · 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 going to pick up where we
• 0:06
  left off with Virginia Roberts and her response to gland
• 0:10
  Maxwell's attempt to get a summary judgment. So let's dive
• 0:14
  right back in Part number seven. The Court need not
• 0:17
  reach the issue at this time of whether Miss Roberts
• 0:21
  is a limited purpose public figure. For the reasons just explained,
• 0:25
  Miss Roberts will easily be able to prove actual malice
• 0:29
  at the trial. In this case, defendant argues that Miss
• 0:32
  Roberts is a public figure who must prove actual malice
• 0:36
  msj at forty nine. Given the overwhelming proof of the
• 0:40
  second part of the statement, the Court need not spend
• 0:43
  time considering the first. If the Court wishes to nonetheless
• 0:47
  consider the issue at this time, it is not appropriate
• 0:50
  for disposition at the summary judgment stage of the case.
• 0:54
  The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff
• 0:58
  is a limited purpose public figure. C Luhmann versus Flint
• 1:03
  Distribution Company, seven forty five f Dot two D one
• 1:07
  twenty three, one thirty six through one thirty seven, Second Circuit,
• 1:11
  nineteen eighty four defendant correctly articulates the legal test for
• 1:16
  finding that a plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure,
• 1:19
  but losses over the fact that all prongs of the
• 1:22
  test must be met in order for a court to
• 1:25
  make that finding. Ceg. Contemporary Mission Incorporated versus New York
• 1:30
  Times Company, eight forty two, F Dot two D six twelve,
• 1:34
  six seventeen, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty eight. This Court set
• 1:38
  forth a four part test for determining whether someone is
• 1:41
  a limited purpose public figure. Herbert versus Lando, five ninety six,
• 1:47
  F Dot supp. Eleven seventy eight, eleven eighty six, sdn
• 1:52
  Y nineteen eighty four. The Second Circuit recently summarized the
• 1:56
  criteria Fidavid in part revised in part seven eighty one
• 2:01
  F Dot two d two ninety eight, Second Circuit, nineteen
• 2:04
  eighty six. Nells versus Hillsdale College, one seventy eight, F
• 2:08
  Dot supp Dot two d seven seventy one, seven seventy eight,
• 2:14
  E Dot d. Michigan two thousand and one, finding plaintiff
• 2:17
  was not a limited public figure for failing one element
• 2:21
  of the Lermann test and thus denying defendant's motion for
• 2:24
  a summary judgment, the defendant has proven all of the elements,
• 2:28
  but the third Affidavid at sixty five f. Appendix nine
• 2:34
  eighty four six Circuit two thousand and three. Of course,
• 2:37
  proof that Miss Roberts or anyone else is a limited
• 2:40
  purpose public figure requires proof of a set of facts
• 2:43
  from which Miss Roberts believes Defendant has not shown in
• 2:47
  satisfaction of the four part test. Significantly, this Court should
• 2:52
  pause here to note that the details of Jane Doe
• 2:54
  number three's sexual exploitation and abuse, as anonymously set forth
• 3:00
  in her CVR A joined her motion, caused the defendant
• 3:03
  to identify with certainty Jane do number three as Miss Roberts.
• 3:08
  Yet at her deposition defendant claim to barely remember her
• 3:12
  at all. Defendant's ability to immediately and positively identify the
• 3:16
  anonymous individual making claims of sexual abuse if anything shows
• 3:21
  the defendant was intimately aware of Miss roberts sexual exploitation.
• 3:25
  And to be sure, Miss Roberts never asked to be
• 3:28
  sexually abused or trafficked by defendant or the convicted pedophile
• 3:32
  Jeffrey Epstein when she was a child. Legally she did
• 3:36
  not even have the capacity to consent. Defendant cannot recruit
• 3:39
  a minor child for sexual exploitation, and then afterwards argue
• 3:43
  that her victim injected herself into the public controversy when
• 3:48
  coming forward about the abuse that she has suffered. Moreover,
• 3:52
  the defendant has not made a sufficient showing that Miss
• 3:55
  Roberts has regular and continuing access to the news media
• 4:00
  see rationale behind this prong is that the public figures
• 4:03
  generally enjoy significant access to the media. One reporter wrote
• 4:07
  some articles on Miss Roberts in twenty eleven. Thereafter, it
• 4:11
  was not until twenty fifteen that Miss Roberts spoke to
• 4:14
  someone in the news about these issues, and that the
• 4:18
  interview was granted after the defendant's defamatory remarks. Such limited
• 4:23
  contacts precludes a finding that Miss Roberts is a limited
• 4:26
  public figure. See Hutchinson versus Proxmire, four forty three US
• 4:31
  one eleven, ninety nine. Supreme Court twenty six seventy five
• 4:35
  sixty one L dot Ed two D four eleven, nineteen
• 4:39
  seventy nine, finding plaintiff maintained no regular and continuing access
• 4:44
  to the media and thus was not a public figure.
• 4:47
  It is also unclear how defendant plans to show that
• 4:50
  Miss Roberts successfully invited public attention to reviews. To be sure,
• 4:55
  Miss Roberts decided to start Victims Refused Silence, a not
• 4:59
  for profit organization whose mission is to change the landscape
• 5:03
  of the war on Sexual Abuse and human trafficking. Our
• 5:07
  goal is to undertake an instrumental role in helping survivors
• 5:11
  break the silence associated with sexual abuse. To fulfill this mission,
• 5:16
  we aim to enhance the lives of women who have
• 5:18
  been victimized. The website lists the National Trafficking Hotline and
• 5:23
  provides a state by state resource for local organizations where
• 5:27
  victims can seek help. Unsurprisingly, defend in sites no cases
• 5:31
  that hold that maintaining a website makes one a public figure.
• 5:35
  See Metre Sports International Limited, verst Home Box Office Incorporated,
• 5:40
  twenty two f Dot supp Dot three D two forty
• 5:44
  two fifty two SDNY twenty fourteen. Finding plaintiff was not
• 5:49
  a limited public figure and denying defendant's motion for some
• 5:53
  rejudgment corporate policy denouncing child labor on its website does
• 5:58
  not show that Metre aim to end influence the public's
• 6:01
  views on the controversy. More important, defendant does not explain
• 6:05
  how Miss Roberts was using the website to influence public
• 6:09
  views on whether she had been abused by defendant, the
• 6:12
  subject at issue in this lawsuit. Interestingly, Defendant has spent
• 6:17
  seventeen thousand, eight hundred and seventy five dollars and forty
• 6:20
  nine cents on an expert witness to tell the court
• 6:23
  and the jury that hardly anyone searches on the Internet
• 6:26
  using search terms such as victims refuse silence sex slave.
• 6:30
  One of the defendants six briefs raising Dawbird issues specifically
• 6:35
  argues that doctor anderson estimates on the cost of remediating
• 6:39
  Miss Roberts's online reputation are improper because doctor Anderson included
• 6:44
  nearly unused search phrases when evaluating Internet content. Ken rebuttal
• 6:49
  report states there seems no reason to believe that such
• 6:53
  a person would use this item. Indeed, these are terms
• 6:56
  unlikely to be used by anyone unfamiliar with this litigation
• 7:00
  by for instance, would it be necessary to push down
• 7:03
  offending web pages in the results that the search engines
• 7:06
  provide for the term victims refuse silent sex slave when
• 7:10
  this term is likely never used. Ce McAuley declaration at
• 7:14
  Exhibit twenty five. Can Report at ten thirty three defendant
• 7:19
  cannot argue to the Court that Miss Roberts has successfully
• 7:23
  invited public attention to her views through her VRS website
• 7:27
  while simultaneously filing a Daubert motion that argues the search
• 7:31
  terms such as victims, refuse, silent, sex slave are likely
• 7:35
  never used, thus making the website unsuccessful and inviting public attention.
• 7:40
  In any event, Defendant has failed to set forth with
• 7:43
  precision the allegedly undisputed fact and supporting evidence she uses
• 7:49
  the support her argument. Moreover, it is preferable to reduce
• 7:53
  the public figure question to a more meaningful context by
• 7:56
  looking to the nature and extent of an individual duels
• 8:00
  participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation.
• 8:05
  Greenberg versus CBS Incorporated. Sixty nine A Dot D Dot
• 8:09
  two D six ninety three, seven O four four nineteen
• 8:13
  NYS two D nine eighty eight, nine ninety five, nineteen
• 8:17
  seventy nine, citing Gertz versus. Robert Welch Incorporated. Four eighteen
• 8:21
  US three twenty three three forty five three fifty two
• 8:25
  ninety four. Supreme Court twenty nine ninety seven forty one
• 8:29
  L Dot E ed Dot two D seven eighty nine
• 8:32
  the context here is highly significant. Miss Roberts never chose
• 8:36
  to participate in Defendant and Epstein's under age sex ring,
• 8:40
  a controversy that gave rise to Defendant's defamation. In arguing
• 8:44
  that Miss Roberts thrust yourself into the public spotlight, Defendant
• 8:49
  conveniently leaves out the fact that it is by her
• 8:52
  doing that Miss Roberts is in this controversy In the
• 8:55
  first place, No minor child willingly becomes a participant in
• 8:59
  sexual abuse, and it is perverse for the abuser to
• 9:02
  argue that her victim deliberately became a subject of public
• 9:06
  attention when speaking out about that abuse for the purpose
• 9:09
  of advancing justice and helping other victims. For all these reasons,
• 9:14
  the court should simply decline to decide the public figure
• 9:17
  issue at this juncture. But if it chooses to reach
• 9:20
  the issue, it should reject defendant's unsupported argument. Section eight.
• 9:26
  The January twenty fifteen statement was not substantially true, and
• 9:30
  Miss Roberts has produced clear and convincing evidence of its falsity.
• 9:35
  As a final argument, Defendant argues that her January twenty
• 9:39
  fifteen statement was substantially true given that the statement argues
• 9:44
  that Miss Roberts lied when she said she was sexually
• 9:47
  trafficked by the defendant. The reader of defendant's motion might
• 9:51
  reasonably expect to see some evidence presented showing that defendant
• 9:55
  was not a sex trafficker. Instead, the reader is treated
• 9:59
  to techn quibbles. For example, the lead argument show the
• 10:03
  substantial truth of defendant statement is the argument that Miss
• 10:06
  Roberts was not fifteen years old but all of sixteen
• 10:10
  or seventeen years old when she was trafficked. As the
• 10:14
  court knows and can take judicial notice of, Florida law
• 10:18
  makes age eighteen the age of consent. Accordingly, it is
• 10:22
  no moment that Miss Roberts may have been mistaken about
• 10:25
  the exact year the sex trafficking started. Call this the yes,
• 10:30
  I'm a sex trafficker, but only of sixteen year old
• 10:33
  girls defense. To even describe the defense is to show
• 10:37
  how meritless it is. More broadly, at issue are the
• 10:40
  statements Miss Roberts made regarding Defendant's involvement in and knowledge
• 10:45
  of the sexual abuse and sex trafficking of Miss Roberts
• 10:48
  and other minor girls through a recruitment scheme executed by
• 10:52
  defendant and Jeffrey Epstein In response to those various statements,
• 10:57
  Defendant publicly claimed that the allegationations made by Miss Roberts
• 11:02
  against Glen Maxwell are untrue. Defendant continued that Miss Roberts
• 11:06
  claims or obvious lies and should be treated as such. Defendant,
• 11:11
  through her statement, intended to convey that Miss Roberts was
• 11:14
  lying about everything she had said against defendant in the allegations.
• 11:20
  In some an essence, those statements made by Miss Roberts
• 11:23
  about which Defendant released a public statement to exclaim were
• 11:27
  untrue and obvious lies were. One the defendant approach Miss
• 11:31
  Roberts while Miss Roberts was an underage miner working at
• 11:35
  mar A Lago country Club and recruited the then minor
• 11:38
  Miss Roberts to the house of Jeffrey Epstein under the
• 11:42
  pretense of providing a massage to Jeffrey Epstein for money.
• 11:46
  Two that Miss Roberts followed Defendant's instructions and was driven
• 11:50
  to Jeffrey Epstein's house, where she was greeted by defendant
• 11:54
  and later introduced to Jeffrey Epstein. Three that Miss Roberts
• 11:58
  was led upstairs to be introduced to Jeffrey Epstein in
• 12:01
  his bedroom and while there defendant demonstrated how Miss Roberts
• 12:05
  should provide a massage to Jeffrey Epstein. Four. Defendant and
• 12:10
  Epstein converted the massage into a sexual experience, requesting that
• 12:15
  Miss Roberts remover clothing, after which time a sexual encounter
• 12:19
  was had. Five The defendant and Epstein expressed approval for
• 12:23
  Miss Roberts and offered her money in exchange for this
• 12:26
  erotic massage turned full sexual encounter. Six the defendant and
• 12:31
  Epstein offered Miss Roberts the promise of money and the
• 12:34
  better life in exchange for Miss Roberts acting sexually compliant
• 12:38
  and subservient to their demands. Number seven that Miss Roberts,
• 12:43
  after that first sexual encounter, was repeatedly requested to serve
• 12:47
  as Epstein and or defendant sexually or others. Eight That
• 12:53
  Miss Roberts was taken on Epstein's private planes on numerous
• 12:56
  occasions and trafficked nationally and internationally for the purpose of
• 13:00
  servicing Epstein and others, including the defendant, sexually. Number nine
• 13:05
  The defendant was Epstein's primary manager of the recruitment and
• 13:09
  training of females who Epstein paid for sexual purposes. Ten.
• 13:13
  Defendant participated in sexual encounters with females, including Miss Roberts,
• 13:18
  and eleven that Miss Roberts and other recruited females were
• 13:22
  encouraged by Defendant and Epstein to bring other young females
• 13:26
  to Epstein for the purpose of servicing him sexually. Defendant,
• 13:30
  by way of her January twenty fifteen statement, declared that
• 13:34
  Miss Roberts lied about each and every one of these
• 13:36
  allegations regarding the defendant. In fact, Defendant clarified further this
• 13:41
  position in her deposition when she said repeatedly that everything
• 13:45
  Miss Roberts said about defendant was totally false. The clarification
• 13:49
  in her deposition is identical in intention to the reasonable
• 13:53
  interpretation of her statement that Defendant made publicly, which has
• 13:57
  formed the basis of this defamation action, that Miss Roberts
• 14:01
  was lying about everything she said about the defendant, and
• 14:04
  that the defendant was not at all involved in this
• 14:07
  activity that she is accused in engaging in. While her
• 14:11
  public statement could not have been more clear, as her
• 14:13
  deposition testimony further underscored, defendant intended the world to believe
• 14:18
  that nothing Miss Roberts said about the defendant was true
• 14:22
  and that the defendant was not at all involved with
• 14:24
  any of the things she was accused of. Defendant has
• 14:27
  decided in this motion to minutely dissect the nuance of
• 14:31
  Miss Roberts's various statements to cause the court to reach
• 14:35
  a far fetched conclusion the defendant insidiously a false statement
• 14:39
  was somehow substantially true. Ironically, this repositioning amounts to nothing
• 14:44
  more than an admission by the defendant of the defamatory
• 14:47
  nature of her statement. All right, folks, we're going to
• 14:51
  wrap up right there, and in the next episode, we're
• 14:53
  going to pick up where we left off. All of
• 14:56
  the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 15:00
  in the description box.