Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (Part 2) (6/6/26)

Transcript

Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (Part 2) (6/6/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:04
We're going to dive right back into the memorandum supporting
0:07
Colin Maxwell and the summary judgment twenty one. Mister Barton,
0:12
who prepared the January twenty fifteen statement, did not intend
0:16
it as a traditional press release solely to disseminate information
0:19
to the media, so he intentionally did engage a public
0:22
relations firm, such as Miss Goal's firm Acuity Reputation to
0:26
prepare the statement twenty two. The January twenty fifteen statement
0:31
served two purposes. First, mister Barton intended that it mitigate
0:35
the harm to Miss Maxwell's reputation from the press republication
0:38
of plaintiff's false allegations. He believed this could be accomplished
0:42
by suggesting to the media that, among other things, they
0:45
should subject plaintiff's allegations to inquiry and scrutiny. For example,
0:49
he noted in the statement that plaintiff's allegations change dramatically
0:52
over time, suggesting that they are obvious lies and therefore
0:56
should not be publicized as news. Twenty three. Second, mister
1:00
Barton intended the January twenty fifteen statement to be a
1:03
shot across the bow of the media, which he believed
1:06
had been unduly eager to publish plaintiff's allegations without conducting
1:10
any inquiry of their own. Accordingly, in the statement, he
1:13
repeatedly noted that plaintiff's allegations were defamatory in this sense.
1:18
The statement was intended as a cease and desist letter
1:21
to the media recipients, letting the media recipients understand the
1:25
seriousness with which Miss Maxwell considered the publication of plaintiff's
1:29
obvious false allegations and the legal and defensibility of their
1:33
own conduct twenty four. Consistent with those two purposes, mister
1:38
Gal's emails preface the statement with the following language, Please
1:41
find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Miss Maxwell
1:44
emphasis supplied. The statement was intended to be a single,
1:47
one time only, comprehensive response quoted in full to plaintiff's
1:51
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen allegations that would give the media
1:55
Miss Maxwell's response nineteen. The purpose of the prefatory statement
2:00
was to inform the media recipients of this intent twenty five.
2:04
Plaintiff's activities to bring light to the rights of victims
2:07
of sexual abuse. Plaintiff has engaged in numerous activities to
2:11
bring attention to herself, to the prosecution and punishment of
2:14
wealthy individuals such as Epstein, and to her claimed interest
2:18
of bringing light to the rights of the victims of
2:20
sexual abuse. Twenty six, Plaintiff created an organization, Victims Refuse Silence, Incorporated,
2:26
a Florida corporation, directly related to her alleged experience as
2:30
a victim of sexual abuse. Twenty seven. The goal of
2:33
Victims Refuse Silence was and continues to be, to help
2:37
survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by
2:41
victims of sexual abuse. Towards this end, Plaintiff has dedicated
2:46
her professional life to helping victims of sex trafficking twenty eight.
2:50
Plaintiff reportedly has sought out media organizations to discuss her
2:54
alleged experience as a victim of sexual abuse twenty nine,
2:58
as discussed above. On December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, plaintiff publicly
3:03
filed an entirely unnecessary joinder motion laden with what Judge
3:07
Marra described as unnecessary lured details about being sexually abused
3:11
as a minor victim by wealthy and famous men and
3:14
being trafficked all around the world as a sex slave.
3:17
Thirty The plaintiff alleged purpose in filing the Jointerer motion
3:21
was to vindicate her rights under the CVRA. Exposed the
3:24
government secretly negotiated non prosecution agreement with Epstein, shed tremendous
3:29
public light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would
3:32
undermine the agreement and support the CVRA. Plaintiff's requests for
3:36
documents that would show how Epstein used as powerful political
3:40
and social connections to secure a favorable plea deal, and
3:43
the government's motive to aid Epstein and his co conspirators.
3:47
Thirty one. Plaintiff has written the manuscript double book she
3:51
has been trying to publish, detailing her alleged experience as
3:54
a victim of sexual abuse and of sex trafficking in
3:57
Epstein's alleged sex scheme. Two republication alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff
4:03
was required by interrogatory number six to identify false statements
4:07
attributed to Miss Maxwell that were published globally, including within
4:11
the Southern District of New York, as plaintiff alleged didn't.
4:14
Paragraph nine of Count one of her complaint. In response,
4:18
plaintiff identified the January twenty fifteen statement and nine instances
4:23
in which various news media published portions of the January
4:26
twenty fifteen statement in news articles or broadcast stories. Thirty three.
4:32
In none of the nine instances was there any publication
4:35
of the entire January twenty fifteen statement. Thirty four, Miss
4:40
Maxwell under agents exercised no control or authority over any
4:44
media organization, including the media identified in Plaintiff's response to
4:48
interrogatory number six, in connection with the media's publication of
4:52
portions of the January twenty fifteen statement Exhibit J Exhibit
4:57
K thirty five Plaintiff's d information action against Miss Maxwell
5:02
eight years after Epstein's guilty plea. Plaintiff brought this action,
5:05
repeating many of the allegations she made in her CVR
5:08
joined her motion thirty six. The complaint alleged that January
5:13
twenty fifteen statement contained the following delivered falsehoods. A that
5:18
Roberts sworn allegations against Maxwell are untrue. B that the
5:21
allegations have been shown to be untrue. C that Robert's
5:25
claims are obvious lies. Some rejudgment standard courts should not
5:30
be reluctant to grant some rejudgment in appropriate cases. One
5:33
of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is
5:36
to isolate and dispose of factually insupportable claims, thereby permitting
5:41
courts to avoid protracted, expensive, and harassing trials. Don King
5:46
Productions Incorporated. Versus Douglas, seven forty two f. Dot supp
5:51
seven seventy eight, seven eighty SDNY, nineteen ninety quoting Celates
5:56
Court verus catret For seventy seven US three seventeen three,
6:00
twenty three and twenty four, nineteen eighty six, and Mary
6:04
versus Dakin, seven fifty nine f Dot two D nine
6:07
eighty nine, nine ninety eight, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty five.
6:11
Where some rejudgment is sought under Article I, Section eight
6:15
of the New York Constitution, the New York Court of
6:17
Appeals has declared, we reaffirm our regard for the particular
6:21
value of some rejudgment where appropriate in lible cases a
6:25
Muno ag versus Morjinkowski, five sixty seven two d twelve
6:30
seventy twelve eighty two n Y, nineteen ninety one, particularly when,
6:35
as here, a defendant is challenging a defamation claim under
6:39
the independent state law approach articulated in immunoag that might
6:44
make summary disposition more likely than under a federal approach.
6:48
Some rejudgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue
6:52
as to any material fact, and the moving party is
6:55
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, said
6:58
Dot r Dot siv Dot p. Fifty six CE. The
7:01
relevant inquiry on application for some rejudgment is whether the
7:04
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury,
7:09
or whether it is so one sided that one party
7:12
must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson Versus Liberty
7:16
Lobby Incorporated, four to seventy seven US two forty two,
7:19
two fifty one, and fifty two, the mere existence of
7:22
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat
7:26
an otherwise properly supported motion for some rejudgment. The requirement
7:32
is that there be no genuine issues of material fact idea.
7:35
Two forty seven and two forty eight. The substantative law
7:39
determines that facts are material Idea. Two forty eight. Only
7:43
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit.
7:46
Under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
7:50
some rejudgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will
7:54
not be counted. IDEA dispute about a material fact is
7:58
genuine if the evidence is so much that a reasonable
8:01
jury could return a verdict for the non moving party.
8:04
In the face of the properly supported some rejudgment motion,
8:07
the plaintiff may not rest on the allegations in her
8:10
complaint Idea two forty nine. The trial court's function is
8:14
to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial,
8:18
and there is no issue for trial unless there is
8:20
sufficient evidence favoring the non moving party for a jury
8:24
to return a verdict for that party. The plain language
8:27
of Rule fifty six ce mandates the entry of some
8:30
rejudgment against a party who fails to make a showing
8:33
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
8:37
the party's case and on which the party will bear
8:40
the burden of proof a trial Celates Corps Verse caterat
8:44
four to seventy seven US three seventeen three twenty two,
8:47
nineteen eighty six. In such a situation, there can be
8:51
no genuine issues as to any material fact, since a
8:54
complete failure or proof concerning an essential element of the
8:58
non moving party's case necessarily renders all the other facts immaterial.
9:03
The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
9:06
matter of law because the non moving party is failed
9:09
to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of
9:12
her case with respect to which she has the burden
9:14
of proof IDEA three twenty three. See fed RCIV P.
9:18
Fifty six. Advisory Committee's Notes twenty ten amendments. Restoration of
9:23
shell grant some rey judgment was intended to express the
9:27
direction to grant some rejudgment and avoid the unintended consequences
9:32
of any other word. One argument, Miss Maxwell is not
9:36
liable for republications of her January twenty fifteen statement that
9:41
she did not authorize her request and by enities she
9:43
did not control. A as summary judgment is warranted to
9:47
the extent plaintiff seeks to impose liability on any media's
9:51
republication of all or a portion of the January twenty
9:54
fifteen statement. Bardon and Gall acting on behalf of Maxwell,
9:59
caused the January twenty fifteen statement to be transmitted published
10:03
to various individuals employed by media organizations. The question presented
10:08
In this argument, one is whether miss Maxwell is liable
10:11
for any republication of all or a portion of the
10:15
January twenty fifteen statement by the media. Under New York law,
10:19
the answer is no. Liability for a republication must be
10:23
based on real authority to influence the final product. Davis
10:28
versus Costa Gavrus, five eighty f. Supp. Ten eighty two,
10:32
ten ninety six, SDNY, nineteen eighty four. Emphasis added. Where
10:37
a defendant had no actual part in composing or publishing,
10:40
he cannot be held liable without disregarding the settled rule
10:43
of law that no man is bound for the tortias
10:45
act of another over whom he is not master of
10:48
power control id quoting Fallwell versus Miller, one forty five f.
10:53
Four ninety five, four ninety seven, Second Circuit nineteen oh six,
10:56
Siegaraci versus Probes, nine thirty eight and II two D
11:00
nine seventeen, nine twenty seven, holding that defendant was not
11:04
liable for republication in part because there is no indication
11:07
that probes that any control over whether or not Newsday
11:11
publish the article. Conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority
11:15
is sufficiently dispositive that the trial court has no option
11:19
but to dismiss the case, id quoting Ronaldi versus Viking
11:23
Penguin Incorporated. Four twenty e two D. Three seventy seven,
11:27
three eighty two and Y nineteen eighty one. As the
11:30
New York Court of Appeals held in Garacci, it is
11:33
too well settled to now be questioned that one who
11:35
prints and publishes a libel is not responsible for its
11:38
voluntary and unjustifiable repetition without his authority or request by
11:43
others over whom he has no control, and who thereby
11:46
make themselves liable to the person injured, And that such
11:50
repetition cannot be considered in law a necessary, natural, and
11:54
probable consequence of the original slander or libel nine thirty
11:58
eight an E dot two D and nine T one.
12:01
With the goal of garnering maximum publicity and defaming Miss Maxwell,
12:05
Miss Roberts filed an entirely unnecessary joined promotion with lurid
12:09
details about sexual facts for the purpose of attracting the
12:13
attention of the public which was curious, titillated, or intrigued
12:17
about sexual acts and relationships among the rich and famous.
12:21
In defense of Miss Maxwell's reputation, Bardon and Gower responded
12:25
with the January twenty fifteen statement, all right, folks, we're
12:29
gonna wrap this one up here, and then the next
12:31
episode we'll pick back up with this unredacted version of
12:34
the memo supporting Maxwell's summary judgment. All of the information
12:38
that goes with this episode can be found in the
12:41
description box.