Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Sweets Opinion Denying Maxwell's Request For Summary Judgement (Part 5)

Transcript

Judge Sweets Opinion Denying Maxwell's Request For Summary Judgement (Part 5) · 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
0:06
order by Judge Sweet, denying Glenn Maxwell her summary judgment
0:11
that she was trying to get against Virginia Roberts. Fifty.
0:16
Roberts drafted a one hundred and forty four page purportedly
0:19
autobiographical book manuscript in twenty eleven, which she actively sought
0:24
to publish. In twenty eleven, contemporaneous with her Churcher interviews,
0:28
Roberts drafted a book manuscript which reported to document Robert's
0:32
experiences as a teenager in Florida, including her interactions with
0:36
Epstein and Maxwell. Roberts communicated with literary agents, ghostwriters, and
0:42
potential independent publishers in an effort to get her book published.
0:46
She generated marketing materials and circulated those, along with book chapters,
0:50
to numerous individuals associated with publishing and the media. Roberts
0:55
has denied the statement in part and admitted it in part,
0:59
stating that she received a victim notification letter from the
1:02
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
1:06
regarding her sexual victimization by Epstein that in twenty eleven,
1:11
she sought psychological counseling from a psychologist for the trauma
1:14
she endured, and that also that year, Churcher sought her
1:18
out an interviewed her. Roberts was interviewed by the FBI
1:21
in twenty eleven. Roberts has noted that she began to
1:25
draft a fictionalized account of what happened to her as
1:28
an active empowerment and as a way of reframing and
1:31
taking control over the narrative of her past abuse that
1:34
haunts her. And while she explored trying to publish her
1:38
story to empower other individuals who were subject to abuse,
1:42
she ultimately decided not to publish it. Fifty one, the
1:46
CVR joined her motion filed by Roberts generated a media
1:50
melstrom and spawned highly publicized litigation between roberts lawyers Bradley
1:55
Edwards and Paul Cassel and Dershowitz. After Roberts publicly acus
2:00
used Dershowitz of sexual misconduct, Dershowitz vigorously defended himself in
2:04
the media. He called Roberts a liar and accused her
2:07
lawyers of unethical conduct. In response, Edwards en Cassel sued
2:11
Dershowitz who counterclaimed. This litigation, in turn caused additional media
2:16
attention by national and international media organizations. Roberts has denied
2:22
the statement has set forth in statement seven fifty two,
2:25
Roberts formed nonprofit Victims Refuse Silence to attract publicity and
2:30
speak out on a public controversy. In twenty fourteen, Roberts,
2:34
with the assistance of the same council, formed a nonprofit organization,
2:38
Victims Refuse Silence. According to Roberts, the purpose of the
2:42
organization is to promote Robert's profess cause against sex slavery.
2:46
The stated goal of her organization is to help survivors
2:50
surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims
2:55
of sexual abuse. Roberts attempts to promote Victims Refuse Silence
2:59
at every opportunity. For example, Roberts participated in an interview
3:04
in New York with ABC to promote the charity and
3:07
to get her mission out to the public. Roberts has
3:10
denied that she formed the nonprofit Victims Refused Silence to
3:14
speak out on a public controversy, and noted she sought
3:17
to help survivors of sexual abuse and sexual trafficking and
3:21
in order to provide assistance to victims. She attempted to
3:24
talk about the nonprofit's mission when she had the opportunity
3:27
to do so. Three. The applicable standard summary judgment is
3:32
appropriate only when there is no genuine issue as to
3:35
any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
3:38
a judgment as a matter of law fedt r Dot
3:42
siv p. Sixty six. The substantative law will identify which
3:47
facts are material Anderson versus Liberty Lobby Incorporated for seventy
3:52
seven US two forty two, two forty eight, nineteen eighty six.
3:57
A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that
3:59
are reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non
4:03
moving party. The relevant inquiry on an application for some
4:07
rejudgment is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
4:11
requirement submission to a jury, or whether it is so
4:14
one sided that one party must prevail. As a matter
4:17
of law id At two fifty one and fifty two.
4:20
A court is not charged with weighing the evidence and
4:23
determining its truth, but with determining whether there is a
4:26
genuine issue for trial. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, First New York
4:31
City Transit Authority seven thirty five F. Supp twelve oh
4:35
five twelve twelve sdn Y, nineteen ninety quoting Anderson for
4:40
seventy seven US at two forty nine, the mere existence
4:43
of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
4:46
defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for some rejudgment. The
4:50
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material
4:54
fact Anderson for seventy seven US at two forty seven
4:58
and forty eight. While the move moving party bears the
5:01
initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material
5:04
fact exists Atlanta Mutual Institution versus CSX Lines LLC. Four
5:11
thirty two F Dot three d four to twenty eight,
5:13
four to thirty three, Second Circuit, two thousand and five.
5:16
In cases where the non moving party bears the burden
5:19
of persuasion at trial, the burden on the moving party
5:22
may be discharged by showing, that is, pointing out to
5:26
the district court that there is an absence of evidence
5:29
to support the non moving party's case. Celatex Corporation Verst Cat. Writ.
5:34
Four seventy seven US three seventeen three twenty five, nineteen
5:38
eighty six. It is ordinarily sufficient for the movement to
5:41
point to a lack of evidence on an essential claim
5:44
of the non movement's claim. The non moving party must
5:48
then come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a
5:51
genuine issue of fact for trial. Jeramillo versus Weierhauser Corporation,
5:57
five thirty six f Dot three d one p. Forty
5:59
one five, Second Circuit, two thousand and eight. Internal citations omitted.
6:05
See also Gonega versus March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation,
6:10
fifty one Ft three d fourteen eighteen, Second Circuit, nineteen
6:14
ninety five. Once the moving party has made a properly
6:17
supported showing sufficient to suggest the absence of any genuine
6:21
issue as to a material fact, the non moving party
6:24
must come forward with evidence that would be sufficient to
6:27
support a jury verdict in his favor. Part four. The
6:31
motion for some rejudgment on republication grounds is denied. Maxwell
6:36
has moved for some rejudgment dismissing Robert's complain on the
6:39
grounds that Maxwell is not liable for the republication of
6:43
a press release by the media, because, as a matter
6:45
of law, the issuer of a press release is responsible
6:48
for its publication. The motion is denied. In New York,
6:51
liability for a republication must be based on real authority
6:55
to influence the final product. Davis versus Costa Gavrus, five
6:59
eighty f. Dot supp ten eighty two, ten ninety six,
7:04
SDN Y, nineteen eighty four. See also Hoffmann versus Landers,
7:07
one forty six A D two D seven forty four
7:11
seven forty seven, New York Appeals Division, Second Department, nineteen
7:15
eighty nine. The one who makes a defamatory statement is
7:18
not responsible for its recommunication without his authority or request
7:23
by another over whom he has no control. Where a
7:26
defendant had no actual part in composing or publishing, he
7:29
cannot be held liable without disregarding the settled rule of
7:33
law that no man is bound for the tortiouth act
7:35
of another over whom he has not a master power
7:38
of control. Davis, five eighty f d at ten ninety six.
7:43
Internal quotation marks and citations omitted. The New York Court
7:47
of Appeals summarized New York's republication liability standard in Garachi
7:51
versus Probes, nine thirty eight and Dot e Dot two
7:54
D nine seventeen, New York twenty ten, stating that one
7:58
who prints and publishes liable, is not responsible for its
8:02
voluntary and unjustifiable repetition without his authority or request by
8:07
others over whom he has no control, and who thereby
8:11
make themselves liable to the person injured, And that such
8:14
repetition cannot be considered in law unnecessary, natural, and probable
8:19
consequence of the original slander or lible nine thirty eight
8:23
and Dot E two d At nine twenty one. Thus,
8:26
conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority is sufficiently dispositive
8:31
that the court has no option but to dismiss the
8:34
case Davis five eighty f. Dot supp At ten ninety six,
8:39
quoting Ronaldi Verus Viking Penguin Incorporated. Four twenty and Dot
8:43
E two D three seventy seven, three eighty two, New York,
8:46
nineteen eighty one. However, New York law assigns liability to
8:50
individuals for the media's publication of press releases. New York
8:55
appellate courts have held that an individual is liable for
8:58
the media publishing that in the visuals defamatory press release.
9:02
See Levy versus Smith, one thirty two A d. Dot
9:05
three D nine sixty one, nine sixty two, and sixty
9:08
three New York Appeals Division, Second Department, twenty fifteen. Generally,
9:13
one who makes a defamatory statement is not responsible for
9:16
its recommunication without his authority or request by another over
9:21
whom he has no control. Here, however, the appellant intended
9:25
and authorized the republication of the allegedly defamatory content of
9:29
the press releases in the news articles. See also restatement
9:33
second of torts. The publication of a libel or slander
9:37
is a legal cause of any special harm resulting from
9:40
its repetition by a third party, if the repetition was
9:43
authorized or intended by the original defamer, or the repetition
9:48
was reasonably to be expected. The facts is set forth
9:51
above established that Maxwell approved the press release. The press
9:55
release was sent to between six and thirty media representatives
9:59
by Gao as an employee of Acuity Reputation, the public
10:03
relations firm hired by Maxwell. The initial sentence of the
10:06
press release, please find attached a quotable statement on behalf
10:10
of Maxwell communicates Maxwell's authorization for the media recipients of
10:14
the press release to publish it. See national Ie Puerto
10:18
Rican Day Parade Incorporated versus Costa Pubs Incorporated. Seventy nine
10:23
A D. Three D five ninety two five ninety five
10:26
NY Appeals Division, First Department, twenty ten, affirming the refusal
10:31
to dismiss defamation counts against a defendant who submitted an
10:34
open letter that was published in a newspaper, and that
10:37
the defendant paid to have the open letter published, finding
10:41
that the defendant authorized the newspaper to recommunicate his statements.
10:46
Maxwell has cited Garachi versus Probes in support of her position,
10:50
but Garacchi is distinguishable from the instant action. In Garachi,
10:54
the defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire Commissioners,
10:57
and more than three years later a newspaper published the letter.
11:01
The court held that the defendant was not liable for
11:04
the belated publication made years later without his knowledge or
11:07
his participation nine thirty eight and E two d at
11:11
nine to nineteen. Here, unlike in Garacchi, the press release
11:14
was not published without her authority or request, but rather
11:18
with Maxwell's authority and by her express request. Gal's testimony
11:22
establishes Maxwell's authority and control over the press release. Question
11:27
when you sent that email, were you acting pursuant to
11:29
miss Maxwell's retention of your services? Answer? Yes, I was question.
11:34
The subject line does have FW, which to me indicates
11:38
it's a forward. Do you know where the rest of
11:40
this email chain is? Answer? My understanding of it is
11:44
it was a holiday in the UK, but mister Barton
11:46
was not necessarily accessible at some point in time, so
11:50
this had been sent to him originally by miss Maxwell,
11:53
and because he was unavailable, she forwarded it to me
11:56
for immediate action. I therefore responded, Okay, Glaine, I'll go.
12:00
It's my understanding that this is the agreed statement. Because
12:04
the subject of the second one is urgent. This is
12:06
the statement, so I take that as an instruction to
12:09
send it out as a positive command. This is the statement.
12:13
Maxwell also cites Davis versus Costa Gavrus involving a libel
12:17
claim against an author who wrote a book about a
12:19
military coup in Chile five eighty f supp At. Ten
12:24
eighty five. Years after the author published the book, a
12:27
third party publishing house republished the book in paperback form,
12:30
and a third party filmmaker released a movie based on
12:33
the book. The book author did not actually participate in
12:37
the republications, though he was aware of the projects. The
12:41
court held that the author of the book could not
12:43
be held liable for the republications, explaining that a party
12:47
who is innocent of all coimplicity in the publication of
12:50
a libel cannot be held accountable five eighty ft. Supp
12:54
At ten ninety four. The Court further noted that active
12:58
participation and implementing the republication resurrects the liability. Likewise, the
13:05
Caradooman versus Newsday Incorporated. Four sixteen and a NE two d.
13:09
Five fifty seven, nineteen eighty also cited by Maxwell, the
13:13
Court held that reporters of a series of articles on
13:16
narcotics trade cannot be held personally reliable for injuries arising
13:20
from the subsequent republication in book form absent a showing
13:24
that they approved or participated in some other manner in
13:27
the activities of the third party republisher Idea at five
13:31
fifty nine and five sixty. However, the Court explicitly noted
13:35
that this result was required because the record was barren
13:38
of any concrete evidence of the reporter's involvement in the
13:42
republication of the newspaper series Idea five forty. Here, there
13:47
is evidence in the record that Maxwell actively participated in
13:50
influencing the media to publish the press release Davis five
13:54
eighty FSupp At ten ninety four, and approved and sought
13:58
the publication of the press release Caradoman four sixteen e
14:02
two d at five sixty. Maxwell retained the public relations
14:06
media specialist. The press release was sent by Maxwell's express request.
14:11
Goals's testimony about the process leading up to the dissemination
14:14
of the press release indicates that Maxwell did indeed authorize
14:18
or intend for the media recipients to publish the statement.
14:22
Because there are sufficient facts to demonstrate Maxwell's authority and
14:25
control over the publication of the press release, Maxwell's liability
14:30
for the press release's publication survives the motion for some rejudgment.
14:34
Maxwell additionally asserted that subjecting her to liability for republication
14:39
is particularly unfair because excerpts of the press release, rather
14:43
than the whole statement, were published. Defendant's reply at nine
14:47
Maxwell sites Iran versus New York Times Company, seventy five
14:50
A D two D four seventeen, New York Appeals Division,
14:54
First Department, nineteen eighty, in which a newspaper paraphrase the
14:57
defendant's opinion, essentially extra sizing the opinion from the context
15:02
in which it was given. No similar altercation, sanitization, hyperbolezing,
15:08
or paraphrasing of Maxwell's statements has been established here. Nor
15:12
does the record establish that any statements of Maxwell's were
15:15
taken out of context. Rather, they were directly quoted, accurately,
15:19
and unchanged. The publication of Maxwell's statement that Robert's claims
15:23
or obvious lies does not distort or misrepresent the message
15:27
Maxwell intended to convey to the public with the press release.
15:31
Because the purpose of the issuance of the press release
15:34
was publication, Maxwell is liable for its content, and the
15:37
motion for some rejudgment on the grounds and non liability
15:40
for republication is denied. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
15:44
up right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna
15:46
pick up where we left off. All of the information
15:49
that goes with this episode can be found in the
15:52
description box.