Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Virginia Robert's Rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's Summary Judgement Push (Part 7) (6/9/26)

Transcript

Virginia Robert's Rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's Summary Judgement Push (Part 7) (6/9/26) · 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 continue talking about the
• 0:07
  Virginia Roberts response to Glenn Maxwell's attempt to get a
• 0:12
  summary judgment. Number three. Defendant cannot invoke the pre litigation
• 0:18
  privilege because she has no claim for good faith litigation. Finally,
• 0:23
  defendant cannot prevail in asserting this qualified privilege because in
• 0:27
  order to invoke this privilege, she must have a Meredith
• 0:31
  claim for good faith anticipated litigation. Khalil specifically states that
• 0:36
  for the qualified privilege to apply, the statements must be
• 0:40
  made pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation, and it
• 0:43
  does not protect attorneys asserting Holly Onmeridith claims unsupported in
• 0:48
  law and fact in violation of Council's ethical obligations. Khalil,
• 0:54
  twenty four and y Dot three d at seven eighteen
• 0:57
  seven twenty Defendant has neither Emeritis claim nor good faith
• 1:02
  anticipated litigation. Defendant cannot have a Emeridiths claim for good
• 1:07
  faith anticipation litigation against the press or Miss Roberts because
• 1:12
  Miss roberts reports of her sexual abuse are true. Defendant
• 1:15
  knows that they are true, and Defendant made a knowingly
• 1:18
  false statement when she called Miss Roberts a liar. Under
• 1:21
  these circumstances, defendant has no claim to make in good
• 1:25
  faith relating to either Miss Roberts's statements or their coverage
• 1:29
  in the press, thereby making her defamatory statements wholly outside
• 1:33
  the protection of this qualified privilege. At the very least,
• 1:37
  the issue of whether defendant has claims against the press
• 1:41
  on the grounds that she did not abuse Miss Roberts
• 1:44
  is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
• 1:47
  Number five. Defendant has not and cannot show that her
• 1:51
  defamatory statement is substantially true. Defendant's next claims that her
• 1:56
  press release calling Miss Roberts a liar about her past
• 1:59
  second abuse was somehow substantially true. Here again, this is
• 2:03
  a highly disputed claim on its face. To determine whether
• 2:07
  it's substantially true or not requires extensive fact finding, such
• 2:11
  as weather defendant recruited Miss Roberts as a minor child
• 2:14
  for sex with defendants live in boyfriend and convicted pedophile
• 2:18
  Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, some rejudgment is not appropriate. See Metre
• 2:23
  Sports International Limited versus Home Box Office Incorporated, twenty two
• 2:28
  f Dot supp Dot three D two forty two fifty
• 2:32
  five SDNY twenty fourteen, denying some rejudgment because it would
• 2:38
  require the court to decide disputed facts to determine whether
• 2:42
  the statement at issue was substantially true. The Silver versus
• 2:46
  Time Incorporated nine oh eight f one eighty four, one
• 2:50
  eighty seven sdn Y nineteen ninety five, denying motion for
• 2:54
  some rejudgment because there was a genuine issue of material
• 2:57
  act as to whether defamatory photo and caption were not true.
• 3:01
  Stating in the instant case of the Silva's contention that
• 3:05
  she was a reform prostitute at the time of photography
• 3:08
  and publication provides a rational basis upon which a FactFinder
• 3:12
  could conclude that the photograph was not substantially true. Additionally,
• 3:18
  defendant has remarkably not submitted any evidence that she did
• 3:22
  not recruit Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein. Nora's defendant
• 3:26
  offered any evidence that her role in Epstein's household was
• 3:29
  not to recruit girls and young women for Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly,
• 3:34
  some rejudgment is inappropriate. Ce Stern versus Cosby six forty
• 3:38
  five f two d two fifty eight two seventy seven
• 3:42
  SDNY two thousand and nine, because defendant had not submitted
• 3:46
  any evidence to show that statement eleven is substantially true,
• 3:50
  her motion for some rejudgment as to statement eleven is denied. Further,
• 3:55
  much of the purported evidence upon which defendant relies to
• 3:59
  allege the truth of her defamatory statement is merely hearsay,
• 4:03
  including it admissible hearsay statements made by Alan Dershowitz, who
• 4:07
  defendant did not depose in this case and whom Miss
• 4:11
  Roberts has not had the opportunity to cross examine. Hearsay
• 4:15
  cannot establish the truth of a defamatory statement as a
• 4:18
  matter of law at some rejudgment Lopez versus Univision Communications Incorporated.
• 4:23
  Forty five f Dot two dot D three forty eight
• 4:27
  three fifty nine SDNY, nineteen ninety nine, denying some rejudgment
• 4:32
  and holding Defendant's evidence as to what they were told
• 4:35
  by representatives of NYU and Keene College to the extent
• 4:39
  offered for the truth of the matters asserted, is admissible
• 4:42
  hearsay and an insufficient basis upon which to grant some
• 4:46
  rejudgment of dismissal on the grounds that the statements were
• 4:50
  substantially true. Finally, Many of the facts upon which Defendant
• 4:54
  bases her argument that her defamatory statement was true are
• 4:58
  a wholly clim aimes made against Miss Roberts and the
• 5:01
  defamatory statement. For example, Defendant supports her contention that she
• 5:06
  did not recruit Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein based
• 5:08
  on the fact that Miss Roberts lived independently of her
• 5:11
  parents before meeting Epstein and Maxwell. Of course, the child
• 5:15
  outside the supervision of her parents makes it much more
• 5:19
  likely she would be recruited by defendant into sex trafficking,
• 5:23
  but that is for the jury to decide. The fact
• 5:26
  does not go to whether or not the defendant statement
• 5:29
  calling Miss Roberts a liar is true because Miss Roberts
• 5:32
  never made any claims relating to where she lived prior
• 5:35
  to meeting defendant. Moreover, it is immaterial with whom she
• 5:40
  was living. The fundamental and overarching fact remains that defendant
• 5:44
  recruited Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein when she was
• 5:47
  a minor child. Defendant next proffers Miss roberts limited high
• 5:51
  school enrollment and short term jobs that she held as
• 5:55
  evidence that she and Epstein did not abuse her. The
• 5:58
  logic of this position is unclear. The fact that Miss
• 6:01
  Roberts worked at Taco Bell for a few days hardly
• 6:04
  establishes she was not abused by defendant and Epstein. Indeed,
• 6:08
  if anything, it shows the vulnerability of Miss Roberts to
• 6:11
  enticements that a billionaire and is wealthy and powerful girlfriend
• 6:15
  could offer. In any event, what to make of such
• 6:18
  fact is something for the jury to consider. They are
• 6:21
  irrelevant for the same reason as above, Miss Roberts never
• 6:25
  made any claims about her studies or her prior employment. Indeed,
• 6:29
  neither Miss Robert's statement about being recruited by defendant as
• 6:33
  a child, nor defendants refusion even mentions Miss roberts lack
• 6:38
  of schooling or a lack of a stable home as
• 6:41
  a child, purported facts that have nothing to do with
• 6:44
  Miss roberts claims of sexual abuse against the defendant and
• 6:48
  nothing to do with the defendant calling Miss Roberts a
• 6:50
  liar for such claims, and they do not establish the
• 6:54
  substantial truth of the defendant statement. Tellingly, defendant sites to
• 6:59
  no case in any jurisdiction that even suggests otherwise. Six
• 7:04
  Plaintiff does not need to establish malice for her defamation claim,
• 7:08
  but in the event, the court rules otherwise, there is
• 7:11
  more than sufficient record evidence for a reasonable jury to
• 7:14
  determine defendant acted with actual malice. Defendants next, and again
• 7:19
  quite a remarkable argument is that Miss Roberts somehow will
• 7:22
  be unable to establish actual malice. In this case. One
• 7:27
  would think that a sex trafficker calling one of her
• 7:29
  victims a liar would be quintessential example of actual malice.
• 7:33
  Defendant spurious case citations and misplaced argument do not detract
• 7:38
  from this core effect. Though defendant does not mention the
• 7:41
  legal standard for actual malice until she is forty eight
• 7:45
  pages into her sixty eight page brief, the legal definition
• 7:48
  of actual malice, as defined by the United States Supreme
• 7:52
  Court and reiterated by the Second Circuit, should be the
• 7:55
  light by which all of defendants purported facts and argument
• 7:59
  should be viewed. Actual malice means that a statement was
• 8:02
  published with knowledge and the statement was false or with
• 8:06
  reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Biola
• 8:10
  versus Disson six oh seven f appx eighteen, twenty Second
• 8:15
  Circuit twenty fifteen, quoting New York Times Company versus Sullivan
• 8:20
  three seventy six US two fifty four two eighty eighty
• 8:24
  four Supreme Court, eleven L. Dot ed Dot two D.
• 8:28
  Six eighty six, nineteen sixty four. Defendant argues that Miss
• 8:32
  Roberts is a limited purpose public figure, while Miss Roberts
• 8:35
  disputes that claim. The issue is entirely irrelevant here because
• 8:39
  Miss Roberts will prove at trial with overwhelming evidence that
• 8:43
  Defendant mad hers statement calling Miss Roberts a liar with malice,
• 8:47
  fully knowing as a sex trafficker, that it was false.
• 8:51
  Put another way, defendant knew that Miss Roberts was telling
• 8:54
  the truth when she described how defendant recruited her for
• 8:58
  sex as an underage girl and n and sexually traffickedor
• 9:01
  with her then boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein. The Second Circuit instructs
• 9:06
  that on a motion for some rejudgment, a court cannot
• 9:09
  try issues of fact. It can only determine whether there
• 9:12
  are issues to be tried. If, as to the issue
• 9:15
  on which some rejudgment is sought, there is any evidence
• 9:18
  in the record from any source from which a reasonable
• 9:21
  inference could be drawn in favor of the non moving party,
• 9:25
  some rejudgment is improper. Chambers versus TRM Copy Centers Corporation
• 9:31
  forty three f Dot three D twenty nine thirty seven,
• 9:35
  Second Circuit, nineteen ninety four. As the moving party, Defendants
• 9:40
  have the burden of demonstrating an absence of clear and
• 9:43
  convincing evidence substantiating Plaintiff's claims. The soul versus Knoedler Gallery LLC.
• 9:49
  One thirty nine F Dot supp Dot three D six
• 9:53
  eighteen six forty sdn Y twenty fifteen. Citing Chambers, defendant
• 9:58
  fails demeter burden of demonstrating an absence of clear and
• 10:02
  convincing evidence substantiating Miss Roberts' claims that defendant acted with
• 10:07
  actual malice. Miss Roberts will easily be able to meet
• 10:11
  any trial burden of clear and convincing evidence of actual
• 10:14
  malice telling Lee, defendant does not even attempt to address
• 10:18
  the documentary evidence nor the testimonial evidence showing she was
• 10:22
  a recruiter of girls for Epstein as shown above, far
• 10:27
  beyond showing that a reasonable inference could be drawn in
• 10:30
  her favor, which is all that is required at this
• 10:33
  point to defeat defendant's motion. Miss Roberts will easily be
• 10:37
  able to meet her trial burden of clear and convincing
• 10:40
  evidence of actual malice. Of course, a plaintiff need only
• 10:43
  show actual malice on the part of a defendant if
• 10:46
  that plaintiff is a public figure or a limited public figure,
• 10:50
  which Miss Roberts is not, As explained Infra. All right,
• 10:55
  we're going to wrap up right there, and in the
• 10:57
  next episode we're going to pick up where we left
• 10:59
  off with Part seven. The court need not reached the
• 11:03
  issue at this time of whether Miss Roberts is a
• 11:06
  limited purpose public figure. All of the information that goes
• 11:09
  with this episode can be found in the description box.