Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (6/6/26)

Summary

The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell Seeks A Summary Judgement Against Virginia Roberts (6/6/26)
Host: Bobby Capucci (Narrator / Legal Analyst)
Date: June 7, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal push to secure summary judgment in her long-running defamation suit brought by Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre). Drawing directly from extensive, newly unredacted court documents and legal memoranda, host Bobby Capucci (and court document narrators) break down Maxwell’s central arguments, the legal standards at play, and the factual disputes (or lack thereof) that Maxwell claims should end Roberts’ case as a matter of law. The narrative weaves through intricate allegations, defense tactics, and broader commentary on the media’s role and public attention surrounding the Epstein saga.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: The Defamation Case

• Virginia Roberts Giuffre accused Ghislaine Maxwell of deep involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring.
• In response to Roberts' 2014/2015 public legal filings, Maxwell (through her British attorney and PR representative) issued public statements vehemently denying the allegations.
• Roberts later filed a civil suit, claiming Maxwell’s denials constituted defamation.

---

2. Summary Judgment: Maxwell’s Central Legal Arguments

(see [20:31]–[24:48])

a. No Liability for Media Republications

• Maxwell argues she cannot be held liable for how the media reported or republished her 2015 statement unless she directly controlled the publication.
• Quote:

  "Ms. Maxwell is not liable for republications of her January 2015 statement that she did not authorize, request, and by entities she did not control."
  — Narrator / Legal Analyst [24:49]

b. Pre-Litigation Privilege Applies

• Statements made in anticipation of litigation, especially by attorneys, are generally privileged (protected from defamation claims), provided they pertain to litigation contemplated in good faith.
• Quote:

  "The privilege exists without regard to whether Ms. Maxwell testifies she intended to sue, whether she has witnesses to say she intended to bring a lawsuit, or whether she in fact sued."
  — Legal Analyst / Court Doc Narrator [51:28]

• The court has ruled malice (intent to harm) is not relevant when it comes to the pre-litigation privilege, as long as the communication was pertinent to anticipated litigation.

c. No Falsity or Actual Malice Provable

• To win, Roberts must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Maxwell’s statements were false, and that Maxwell made them knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
• Maxwell’s lawyers claim discrepancies and prior admissions by Roberts/Giuffre show at least some of her allegations were untrue or inconsistent — making broad denials defensible.

---

3. Review of Plaintiff’s (Roberts’) Allegations & The Defense’s Attack

• Roberts’ Joinder Motion: In 2014, Roberts filed a detailed (and “lurid”) motion to join a federal victims’ rights case, making explicit claims about sexual abuse by Epstein, Maxwell, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean Luc Brunel, and several prominent politicians.
• Court Reaction: The judge struck the explicit sexual details and ruled the motion was unnecessary for her to participate in the case.
• Maxwell’s Media Response: Maxwell, through her PR, sent a statement to 6-30 journalists explicitly denying Roberts’ claims and warning of legal action for repetition.

---

4. Dissecting the Allegedly Defamatory Statements (January 2015 Maxwell Statement)

(see [12:42]–[13:30]; [36:00]–[44:00])

• Three main statements at issue:
  1. "The allegations ... against Maxwell are untrue"
  2. "The original allegations ... have been shown to be untrue"
  3. "These claims are obvious lies"
• Maxwell’s legal team argues:
  • These statements are at least partially true because Roberts admitted facts contradicting her later claims (e.g., about Prince Andrew, timeline details, who recruited her).
  • The language is opinion or hyperbole directed at journalists, not actionable fact.
  • Many details in Roberts' own media accounts and book manuscript differ from her later legal filings.
• Quote:

  "The media representatives, upon receiving the January 2015 statement, would have understood it was presenting an opinionated argument that Plaintiff was not credible because of her inconsistent and shifting sex abuse story."
  — Legal Analyst / Court Doc Narrator [44:44]

---

5. Impeaching Roberts’ Credibility and Motive

• Maxwell’s defense spends extensive time chronicling Roberts’ life circumstances (schooling, jobs, living arrangements, relationships, and her actions after alleged abuse).

• They point out she:

  • Did not report the abuse to police when she had the chance ([35:31])
  • Was employed, traveling, and living independently while allegedly enslaved
  • Publicly “peddled her story” to media, wrote a book manuscript, and founded a nonprofit advocating for abuse victims ([41:40]–[44:09])

• Quote:

  "Plaintiff publicly peddled her story. ... Plaintiff received approximately $160,000 for her stories and pictures that were published by many news organizations."
  — Narrator / Legal Analyst [41:59]

• They also allege Roberts destroyed potentially relevant journals in 2013.

---

6. Legal Standards and Precedents at Issue

(see [24:48]–[51:28])

• Defamation law distinguishes between fact/literal accuracy and “substantial truth.” If even some of Roberts’ allegations were false or are contradicted by her own prior statements, Maxwell cannot be found liable.
• The pre-litigation privilege means that statements made by lawyers (like Maxwell’s denial) in anticipation of potential lawsuits are shielded — unless they are wholly unconnected to the matter at hand.
• The "public figure" doctrine: Because Roberts is a prominent advocate and self-identified public figure, the bar for proving defamation is higher (actual malice required).

---

7. Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Denial and Media Statements:

  "Maxwell strongly denies allegations of unsavory nature which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere, and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of such old defamatory claims."
  — Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator [12:44]

• On Conflicting Evidence:

  "Plaintiff’s admissions on the falsity of her original allegations are fatal to her defamation claim ... like Ms. Maxwell’s first sentence, the second sentence literally is true. More than one plaintiff’s original allegations are untrue. A statement that literally is true cannot be defamatory as a matter of law."
  — Legal Analyst / Court Doc Narrator [68:26]

---

Important Timestamps

• [01:41] – Start of legal document narration (Preliminary Statement of Facts)
• [03:28]–[06:41] – Discussion of Roberts’ attempts to intervene in the Crime Victims Rights Act case, inclusion of lurid details, and first court rebukes of her filings
• [12:05]–[13:30] – Maxwell’s 2015 official statement to the press and key phrases repeated in the legal proceedings
• [24:48]–[26:52] – Arguments detailing legal standards for summary judgment and limits on defamation liability regarding uncontrolled republication
• [35:29]–[44:44] – Plausibility and credibility arguments on Roberts’ life, evidence of her activities, and scrutiny of her claims
• [51:28]–[54:54] – Thorough explanation of pre-litigation privilege and its legal implications in New York defamation law
• [63:52]–[68:26] – Verdict on the “truth or falsity” of Roberts’ specific allegations, including her own admissions of falsehood in deposition/exhibits

---

Conclusion

This "Mega Edition" episode provides a granular walkthrough of Ghislaine Maxwell’s latest legal maneuver to escape defamation liability. Through readings and analysis of court filings, Bobby Capucci lays bare the technical legal battleground—emphasizing how summary judgment could shut down Roberts’ claim if Maxwell’s denials are protected by legal privilege, cannot be proven to be knowingly false, or are factually true in light of Roberts' own statements.

Listeners are left with a picture not just of legal complexity, but also of the messy, fractious history between high-profile accuser, accused, legal teams, and the ever-involved global media spotlight.

---

For additional information, court documents, and supporting materials referenced in the episode, see the Description Box provided by the host.

Transcript

[Bretzky]

What's up everybody? It's Bretzky and America is turning 250 and I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than playing on an American owned social casino. Spinquest.com with all of your favorite games, live crafts, bubble craps, live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free and win real cash prizes.

[Spinquest Announcer]

Spinquest.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Jace Medical Advertiser]

Your child wakes up in the middle of the night with a high fever and the pharmacy is closed. You could wait agonizing hours just to try and get a doctor's appointment or you could prepare ahead of time with Jace Medical. Jayce makes it simple for families to stay ready with kits like the Jace case. These are ready to go supplies of prescription antibiotics and essential medications for travel, emergency emergencies or everyday life. With Jace, you're investing in more than health. You're investing in true peace of mind that you are prepared for the unexpected. It's fast, it's affordable, and it could be life saving. Just head to jace.com, answer a few quick questions and a licensed doctor reviews your info in minutes. After that, your meds are shipped directly to your door. Keep yourself and your loved ones prepared with the right medications on hand no matter what comes [e-mail] what's up everyone

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

In this episode, we're gonna dive right

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

back into the court documents and we're gonna start taking a look at the

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

Memorandum of Law in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to get that summary judgment. Preliminary Statement of the Facts the following

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

facts are Additional Undisputed facts are set forth in specific argument sections.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

All paragraphs containing undisputed facts will be sequentially 1. Ms. Maxwell's response to publication of plaintiff's false allegations the March 2011 statement in early 2011, plaintiff in two British tabloid interviews made numerous false and defamatory allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Exhibits A and B.1 in the articles, plaintiff made no direct allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in any improper conduct

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

with Jeffrey Epstein, who had pleaded guilty

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

in 2007 to procuring a minor for prostitution. Nonetheless, plaintiffs suggested that Ms. Maxwell worked with Epstein and may have known about

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

the crime for which he was convicted. See generally Exhibits A and B.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

Two in the Articles, Plaintiff alleged she had sex with Prince Andrew, a well known businessman, a world renowned scientist, a respected liberal politician and a foreign head of State. Id. At 5.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

3.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

In response to the allegations, Ms. Maxwell's

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

British attorney working with Mr. Gow, issued

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

a statement on March 9, 2011, denying the various allegations about Ms. Maxwell that have appeared recently in the media. These allegations are entirely false. Exhibit C 5. Plaintiff's Gratuitous and Lurid Accusations in an unrelated action in 2008, two alleged victims of Epstein brought an action under the Crime Victims Rights act against the United States Government purporting to challenge Epstein's plea agreement.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

They alleged the government violated their CVRA

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

rights by entering into an agreement with with Epstein.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

See Exhibit DIA 2.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

6. Seven years later, on December 30, 2015, Ms. Roberts moved to join the CVRA action, claiming she too had her CVRA

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

rights violated by the government.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

On January 1, 2015, Ms. Roberts filed a corrected joinder motion exhibit Diet 1 and 9. 7 the issue presented inner joinder motion was narrow whether she should be permitted to join the CVRA action as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, specifically whether she was a known victim of Mr. Epstein and the government owed them CVRA duties. Exhibit E at 5. Yet, the court noted the bulk of the motion consists of copious factual details that plaintiff and her co movement would approve if allowed to join ID. Ms. Roberts gratuitously included provocative and lurid details of her alleged sexual activities as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. 8 At the time they filed the motion, Ms. Roberts and her lawyers knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal case and the CVRA action. While they deliberately filed the motion without disclosing Ms. Roberts name, claiming the need

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

for privacy and secrecy, they made no

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

attempt to file the motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion publicly. Exhibit D at 1 and N.1.9 as the District Court noted in ruling on the joinder motion, Ms. Roberts named several individuals and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place. Exhibit E at 5. The court ruled that these lurid details are unnecessary. The factual details regarding whom and where the Jane does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent, especially considering that these details involve non parties who are not related to the respondent government. Accordingly, these unnecessary details shall be stricken. The court then struck all Ms. Roberts factual allegations from relating to her alleged sexual activities and her allegations of misconduct by non parties at 5 and 6. The court said striking of the lurid details was a sanction for Ms. Roberts improper inclusion of them in the motion. 10 the district court found not only that the lurid details were unnecessary, but also that the entire joinder motion was entirely unnecessary Ms. Roberts and her lawyers knew the motion, with all its lurid details was unnecessary because, as the court pointed out, the motion itself recognized that she would be able to participate as a fact witness to achieve the same result she sought as a party. See id. At 7 and 8 see also id. At 8 noting that in the motion, Ms. Roberts lawyers said that regardless of whether this court grants the motion, they will call her as a witness at any trial. The court denied plaintiffs joinder motion.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

11.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

One of the non parties Ms. Roberts named repeatedly in the joinder motion was Ms. Maxwell. Exhibit D at 3 and 6. According to the lurid details of Ms. Roberts included in the motion, Ms. Maxwell personally was involved in a sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein. Ms. Maxwell approached plaintiff in 1999 when plaintiff was 15 years old to recruit her into the scheme. Ms. Maxwell was one of the main women Epstein used to procure underage girls for sexual activities. Ms. Maxwell was a primary co conspirator with Epstein in his scheme. She persuaded Plaintiff to go to Epstein's mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co conspirators coerced dozens of other children at the mansion. When Plaintiff began giving Epstein a massage, he and Ms. Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter. Epstein, with the assistance of Ms. Maxwell, converted plaintiff into a sex slave. Plaintiff was a sex slave from 1999 through 2002. Ms. Maxwell was a co conspirator in Epstein's Sexual Abuse. IDF. 4 Ms. Maxwell appreciated immunity she acquired under Epstein's plea agreement to because the immunity protected her from prosecution for the crime she committed in Florida. Ms. Maxwell took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including the plaintiff. She shared the photos with Epstein as part of her role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring. Ms. Maxwell connected Epstein with powerful individuals so that Epstein could traffic Plaintiff to these persons. Plaintiff was forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew and in Ms. Maxwell's apartment in London. Ms. Maxwell facilitated plaintiff sex with Prince Andrew by acting as a Madam for Epstein. Ms. Maxwell assisted in internationally trafficking Plaintiff and numerous other young girls for sexual purposes. Plaintiff was forced to watch Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and others engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. 12 the jointer motion plaintiff also alleged she was forced to have sex with Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, Model Scout Jean Luc Brunel, and many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister and other world leaders. Id. At 4 and 6. 13 plaintiff said after for four years as a sex slave, she managed to escape to a foreign country and and hide out from Epstein and his co conspirators for years. Idea 3:14 plaintiffs suggested the government was part of Epstein's conspiracy when it secretly negotiated a non prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding federal prosecution of Epstein and his co conspirators. Id. At 6. The government secrecy, plaintiff alleged, was motivated by its fear that Plaintiff would raise powerful objections to to the agreement that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein and other powerful individuals. Ideates 6 and 715 notably the other Jane Doe who joined Plaintiff's motion, who alleged she was sexually abused on many occasions by Epstein, was unable to corroborate any of plaintiff's allegations. CID at 7 and 8. 16. Also notably in her multiple and lengthy consensual interviews with Ms. Churcher three years earlier, plaintiff told Ms. Churcher virtually none of the details she described in the joinder motion.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

See exhibit A and B.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

17 Ms. Maxwell's response to plaintiff's lurid accusations the January 2015 statement as plaintiff and her lawyers expected before District Judge Mara in the CVRA action could strike the lurid details of Plaintiff's allegation in the Jointer motion, members of the media obtain copies of the motion. See exhibit G at 31, 2, 36, 4 and deposition examples 3 and 4. 18 At Mr. Barden's direction, on January 2, 2015, Mr. Gow sent numerous representatives of British media organizations an email containing a quotable statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, Exhibit F, Exhibit G at 33A. 23. The email was sent to more than 6 and probably less than 30 media representatives. See Exhibit G at 33, 8 through 34 and 3. It was not sent to non media representatives.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

See id. At 31, 2, 35, 21.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

19among the media representatives were Martin Robinson of the Daily Mail, P. Peachey of the Independent, Nick Summerland of the Mirror, David Brown of the Times, and Nick Always and Joanne Pugh of the BBC and David Mercer of the Press Association.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

CEG Exhibit F. These representatives were selected

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

based on their request after the joinder motion was filed for a response from Ms. Maxwell to plaintiff's allegations in the motion CEG Exhibit G at 30, 23, 35, 21 and deposition example 3. 20.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

The email to the media member is

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

read To Whom it May Concern, Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. No further communication will be provided by her on this matter. Thanks for your understanding. Best Ross Roscow, acuity reputation Jane Doe 3 is Virginia Roberts so not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. Each time the story is retold, it changes with new salacious details about public

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

figures and world leaders.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

And now it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, with which he denies. Ms. Roberts claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news as they are defamatory. Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and the defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of unsavory nature which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere, and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of of such old defamatory claims. All right, we're gonna wrap up this episode here and then the next episode will pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. We're gonna dive right back into the memorandum supporting Ghislaine Maxwell and the summary judgment. Ugh.

[Bretzky]

I have had no luck lately. Wait.

[Spinquest Player / Advertiser]

Lady Luck Bretzky. I got you. I've had so much on spinquest.com they have all of my favorite games, slot games, live, blackjack, craps and bubble craps. You can even get a 30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Bretzky]

10 bucks for 30. I'm headed over to spinquest.com right now.

[Spinquest Announcer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Grow Therapy Advertiser]

We're halfway through the year and a lot of people are running on empty without fully realizing it. Grow Therapy helps you find care before burnout hits. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They connect you with thousands of independent licensed therapists across the US offering both virtual and in person sessions including nights and weekends. You can search by insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And you can cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. No subscriptions, no long term commitments, just pay per session. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com trynow today to get started. That's growtherapy.com trynow availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[Sherwin Williams Advertiser]

Big color, bigger savings. Sherwin Williams Super Sale is here. Get 40% off paints and stains June 5th with prices starting at 30 89. Whether you're refreshing your interior or exterior, we've got the colors to bring your vision to life. And with delivery, getting everything to your door is easier than ever. Shop online to have it delivered or visit your neighborhood Sherwin Williams store. Click the banner to learn more. Retail sales only some exclusions apply. See Store for details. Delivery available on qualifying orders.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

21 Mr. Barden, who prepared the January 2015 statement, did not intend it as a traditional press release solely to disseminate information to the media. So he intentionally did engage a public relations firm such as Ms. Gow's firm acuity reputation to prepare the statement. 22 the January 2015 statement served two purposes. First, Mr. Barton intended that it mitigate the harm to Ms. Maxwell's reputation from the press republication of Plaintiff's false allegations. He believed this could be accomplished by suggesting to the media that that, among other things, they should subject plaintiffs allegations to inquiry and scrutiny. For example, he noted in the statement that Plaintiff's allegations change dramatically over time, suggesting that they are obvious lies and therefore should not be publicized as news. 23 Second, Mr. Barton intended the January 2015 statement to be a shot across the bow of the media, which he believed had been unduly eager to publish plaintiffs allegations without conducting any inquiry of their own. Accordingly, in the statement, he repeatedly noted that Plaintiff's allegations were defamatory. In this sense, the statement was intended as a cease and desist letter to the media recipients, letting the media recipients understand the seriousness with which Ms. Maxwell considered the publication of Plaintiff's obvious false allegations and the legal indefensibility of their own conduct. 24 Consistent with those two purposes, Mr. Gao's emails prefaced the statement with the following Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, emphasis the statement was intended to be a single, one time only, comprehensive response, quoted in full, to plaintiff's December 30, 2014 allegations that would give the media Ms. Maxwell's response. 19 the purpose of the prefatory statement was to inform the media recipients of this intent. 25 Plaintiff's activities to bring light to the Rights of Victims of Sexual Abuse Plaintiff has engaged in numerous activities to bring attention to herself, to the prosecution and punishment of wealthy individuals such as Epstein, and to her claimed interest of bringing light to the rights of the victims of sexual abuse. 26 Plaintiff created an organization, Victims Refuse Silence Incorporated, a Florida corporation directly related to her alleged experience as a victim of sexual abuse. 27 the goal of victims refused silence was and continues to be to help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Towards this end, Plaintiff has dedicated her professional life to helping victims of sex trafficking. 28 Plaintiff reportedly has sought out media

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

organizations to discuss her alleged experience as

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

a victim of sexual abuse. 29 as discussed above, on December 30, 2014, plaintiff publicly filed an entirely unnecessary joinder motion laden with what Judge Merritt described as unnecessary lurid details about being sexually abused as a minor victim by wealthy and famous men and being trafficked all around the world as a sex slave. 30 the plaintiff alleged purpose in filing the joinder motion was to vindicate her rights under the CVRA exposed. The government's secretly negotiated non prosecution agreement with Epstein shed tremendous public light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would undermine the agreement and support the CVRA plaintiff's request for documents that would show how Epstein used his powerful political and social connections to secure a favorable plea deal and the government's motive to aid Epstein and his co conspirators. 31 Plaintiff has written the manuscript of a book she has been trying to publish detailing her alleged experience as a victim of sexual abuse and of sex trafficking in Epstein's alleged sex scheme.32 Republication alleged by plaintiff plaintiff was required by interrogatory no. 6 to identify false statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell that were published globally, including within the Southern District of New York, as Plaintiff alleged in paragraph 9 of count 1 of her complaint. In response, plaintiff identified the January 2015 statement and 9 instances in which various news media published portions of the January 2015 statement in news articles or broadcast stories. 33 in none of the nine instances was there any publication of the entire January 2015 statement. 34 Ms. Maxwell and her agents exercised no control or authority over any media organization, including the media identified in Plaintiff's response to interrogatory no. 6 in connection with the media's publication of portions of the January 2015 statement

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

Exhibit J, Exhibit K. 35 plaintiff's defamation

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

action against Ms. Maxwell eight years after Epstein's guilty plea, Plaintiff brought this action, repeating many of the allegations she made in her CVRA jointer motion. 36 the complaint alleged that January 2015 statement contained the following deliberate a. That Robert's sworn allegations against Maxwell are untrue B. That the allegations have been shown to be untrue C. That Robert's claims are obvious lies Summary Judgment standard Court should not be reluctant to grant summary judgment in appropriate cases. One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually insupportable claims, thereby permitting courts to avoid protracted, expensive, and harassing trials. Don King Productions, Inc. V. Douglas, 742 F. Supp. 778, 780 S.D.N.Y. 1990 quoting Celatex Corp. Vs. Catret, 477 U.S. 317, 323 n.24, 1986 and Mary vs. Dakin, 759 F.2d 989, 998 2nd Circuit 1985 where summary judgment is sought under Article 1, Section 8 of the New York Constitution, the New York Court of Appeals has declared, we reaffirm our regard for the particular value of summary judgment where appropriate and Libel cases Amuno AG vs Moore Jankowski, 567 NE2d 1270, 1282 NY 1991 particularly when, as here, a defendant is challenging a defamation claim under the independent state law approach articulated in Immuno ag. That might make summary disposition more likely than under a federal approach. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The relevant inquiry on application for summary judgment is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 251 and 52. The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. The requirement is that there be no genuine issues of material fact, ID 247 and 248 the substantive law determines that facts are material. IDEA 248 only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. Idea dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non moving party in the face of the properly supported summary judgment motion. The plaintiff may not rest on the allegations in her complaint. The trial court's function is to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial and there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. The plain language of Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Selatex Corps vs. Caderate, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 1986. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issues as to any material fact since a complete failure or proof concerning an essential element of the non moving party's case necessarily renders all the other facts immaterial. The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the non moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

See Fedr.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

Siv. P. 56 Advisory Committee's Notes, 2010amendments Restoration of Shell Grant summary judgment was intended to express the direction to grant summary judgment and avoid the unintended consequences of any other word. 1. Ms. Maxwell is not liable for republications of her January 2015 statement that she did not authorize her request and by entities she did not control. A summary judgment is warranted to the extent plaintiff seeks to impose liability on any media's republication of all or a portion of the January 2015 statement. Barton and Gao, acting on behalf of Maxwell, caused the January 2015 statement to be transmitted published to various individuals employed by media organizations. The question presented in this argument one is whether Ms. Maxwell is liable for for any republication of all or a portion of the January 2015 statement by the media under New York law. The answer is no. Liability for a republication must be based on real authority to influence the final product. Davis v. Costa Gavres, 580fsupp 1082, 1096 SDNY 1984, emphasis added. Where a defendant had no actual part in composing or publishing, he cannot be held liable without disregarding the settled rule of law law that no man is bound for the tortious act of another over whom he is not master of power control. Idaho quoting Falwell vs. Miller, 145 F. 495, 497 2nd Circuit 1906 Cgarachi vs. Props, 938 N. E.2d 917, 927 holding that defendant was not liable for republication in part because there is no indication that probes that any control over whether or not Newsday published the article conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority is sufficiently dispositive that the trial court has no option but to dismiss the case.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

Id.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

Quoting Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc. 420 NE2d 377, 382 NY 1981. As the new York Court of Appeals held in Guarachi, it is too well settled to now be questioned that one who prints and publishes a libel is not responsible for its voluntary and and unjustifiable repetition without his authority or request by others over whom he has no control, and who thereby make themselves liable to the person injured and that such repetition cannot be considered in law a necessary, natural, and probable consequence of the original slander or libel. 938 NE2D at 9. 21. With the goal of garnering maximum publicity and defaming Ms. Maxwell, Ms. Roberts filed an entirely unnecessary jointer motion with lurid details about sexual facts for the purpose of attracting the attention of the public which was curious, titillated, or intrigued about sexual acts and relationships among the rich and famous. In defense of Ms. Maxwell's reputation, Bardon and Gao responded with the January 2015

[Spinquest Player / Advertiser]

statement hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at spinquest. Over a thousand games, including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this summer special new players get $30 coin packs for 10

[Spinquest Announcer]

at spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Grow Therapy Advertiser]

We're halfway through the year and a lot of people are running on empty without fully realizing it. Grow Therapy helps you find care before burnout hits. Grow it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They connect you with thousands of independent, licensed therapists across the US Offering both virtual and in person sessions, including nights and weekends. You can search by insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And you can cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. No subscriptions, no long term commitments, just pay per session. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com trynow today to get started. That's growtherapy.com trynow. Availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

All right folks, we're going to wrap

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

this one up here and then the next episode will pick back up with this unredacted version of the memo supporting Maxwell's summary judgment. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back into the court documents and we're gonna continue taking a look at the unredacted memorandum in support of Galayan Maxwell's attempt to get herself a summary judgment. 35 Plaintiff's defamation against Ms. Maxwell Eight years after Epstein's guilty plea, Plaintiff brought this action repeating many of the allegations she made in her CVRA joinder motion. 36 the complaint alleged that the January 2015 statement contained the following deliberate falsehoods A. That Robert's sworn allegations against Maxwell are untrue.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

B.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

That the allegations have been shown to be untrue. See that Robert's claims are obvious lies. 37 Plaintiff lived independently from her parents with her fiance long before meeting Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. After leaving the Growing Together Drug rehabilitation facility in 1999, plaintiff moved in with the family of a fellow patient. There she met and became engaged to her friend's brother, James Michael Ostrich. She is an ostrich. Thereafter rented an apartment in the Fort Lauderdale area with another friend and both worked at various jobs in that area. Later, they stayed briefly with Plaintiff's parents in the Palm Beach Loxahatchee, Florida area before Ostrich rented an apartment for the couple on Bentoak Drive in Royal Palm Beach. Although Plaintiff agreed to marry Ostrich, she never had any intention of doing so. 38 Plaintiff re enrolled in high school from June 21, 2000 until March 7, 2002. After finishing the ninth grade at Forest Hills High School on June 9, 1999, Plaintiff re enrolled at Wellington Adult High School on June 21, 2000, again on August 16, 2000, and on August 14, 2001. On September 20, 2001, Plaintiff then enrolled at Royal Palm Beach High School. A few weeks later, on October 12, 2001, she matriculated at Survivors Charter School. Survivors Charter School was an alternative school designed to assist students who had been unsuccessful at more traditional schools. Plaintiff remained enrolled at Survivors charter school until March 7, 2002. She was present 56 days and absent 13 days. During her time there, Plaintiff never received her high school diploma or ged. Plaintiff and Figueroa went back to school together at Survivors Charter School. The school day there lasted from morning until early afternoon. 39 during the year 2000, plaintiff worked at numerous jobs. In 2000, while living with her fiance, plaintiff held five different jobs at Aviculture Breeding and Research Center, Southeast Employment Management Company, the Club Mar a Lago Oasis outsourcing and Neiman Marcus. Her taxable earnings that year totaled $9,000. Plaintiff cannot now recall either the Southeast Employment Management Company or the Oasis Outsourcing Jobs. 40 Plaintiff's employment at the Mar A Lago Spa began in fall of 2000. Plaintiff's father, Sky Roberts, was hired as a maintenance worker at the Mar A Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida beginning on April 11, 2000. Mr. Roberts worked there year round for approximately three years and after working there for a period of time, Mr. Roberts became acquainted with with the head of the spa area and recommended Plaintiff for a job there. Mar A Lago closes every Mother's Day and reopens on November 1st. Most of employees Mar a Lago, including all employees of the spa area, such as spa attendants, are seasonal and work only when the club is open, that is between November 1st and Mother's Day. Plaintiff was hired as a seasonal spa attendant to work at the Mar A Lago Club in the fall of 2000 after she had turned 17. 41 plaintiff represented herself as a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein. While working at the Mar A Lago Spa and reading a library book about massage, plaintiff met Ms. Maxwell. Plaintiff thereafter told her father that she got a job working for Jeffrey Epstein as a masseuse. Plaintiff's father took her to Epstein's house on one occasion around that time and Epstein came outside and introduced himself to Mr. Roberts. Plaintiff commenced employment as a traveling masseuse for Mr. Epstein. Plaintiff was excited about her job as a masseuse, about traveling with him, and about meeting famous people. Plaintiff represented that she was employed as a Masseuse beginning in January 2001. Plaintiff never mentioned Ms. Maxwell to her then fiance, Ostrich. Plaintiff's father never met Ms. Maxwell. 42 Plaintiff resumed her relationship with convicted felon Anthony Figueroa in spring 2001. While living with Ostrich, Plaintiff lied to and cheated on him with her high school boyfriend, Anthony Figueroa. Plaintiff and Ostrich thereafter broke up and Figueroa moved into the Bent Oak apartment with Plaintiff. When Ostrich returned to the Bent Oak apartment to check on his pets and retrieve his belongings, Figueroa and Plaintiff's presence punched Ostrich in the face. Figueroa and Plaintiff fled the scene before police arrived. Figueroa was then a convicted felon and a drug abuser on probation for possession of a controlled substance. 43 Plaintiff freely and voluntarily contacted the police to come to her aid in 2001 and 2002, but never reported to them that she was Epstein's sex slave. In August 2001, at age 17, while living in the same apartment, Plaintiff and Figueroa hosted a party with a number of guests. During the party, according to Plaintiff, someone entered Plaintiff's room and stole $500 from her shirt pocket. Plaintiff contacted the police. She met and spoke with police officers regarding the incident and filed a report. She did not disclose to the officer

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

that she was a sex slave.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

A second time, in June 2002, plaintiff contacted the police to report that her

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

former landlord had left her belongings by

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

the roadside and had lit the mattress on fire. Again, Plaintiff met and spoke with law enforcement officers but did not complain that she was the victim of any sexual trafficking or abuse or that she was being held as a sex slave. 44 From August 2001 until September 2002, Epstein and Maxwell were almost entirely absent from Florida on documented travel unaccompanied by plaintiff. Flight logs maintained by Epstein's private pilot, David Rogers evidence the substantial number of trips away from Florida that Epstein and Maxwell took unaccompanied by plaintiff. Between August 2001 and September 2002, Rogers maintained a log of all flights on which Epstein and Maxwell traveled with him. Epstein additionally traveled with another pilot who did not keep such logs, and he also occasionally traveled via commercial flights. For substantially all of the 13 months. Of the 22 months from November 2000 until September 2002 that plaintiff lived in Palm beach and New Epstein, Epstein was traveling outside of Florida but unaccompanied by plaintiff. During the same period of time, Plaintiff was employed at various jobs, enrolled in school, and living with her boyfriend. 45 Plaintiff and Figueroa shared a vehicle. During 2001 and 2002, plaintiff and Figueroa shared a 1993 white Pontiac. In 2001 and 2002, plaintiff freely traveled around the Palm beach area in that vehicle. In August of 2002, plaintiff acquired a Dodge Dakota pickup truck from her father. Figueroa used that vehicle in a series of crimes before and after plaintiff left for Thailand. 46 Plaintiff held a number of jobs in 2001 and 2002. During 2001 and 2002, plaintiff was gainfully employed at several jobs. She worked as a waitress at Menino's Restaurant at TGIF Friday's Restaurant, AKA CCI of Royal Palm Incident at the Roadhouse Grill. She also was employed at Courtyard Animal Hospital aka Mark Pinkwasser, DVM. 47 In September 2002, plaintiff traveled to Thailand to receive massage training and while there met her future husband and eloped with him. Plaintiff traveled to Thailand in September 2002 to receive formal training as a masseuse. Figueroa drove her to the airport. While there, she initially contacted Figueroa frequently, incurring a phone bill of $4,000. She met her husband while in Thailand and decided to marry him. She thereafter ceased all contact with Figueroa from October 2002 until two days before Mr. Figueroa's deposition in this matter in May of 2016. 48 Detective Ricari's investigation of Epstein failed to uncover any evidence that Ms. Maxwell was involved in sexual abuse of minors, sexual trafficking, or production or possession of child pornography. Joseph Recari served as the lead detective from the Palm Beach Police Department charged with investigating Jeffrey Epstein. The Investigation commenced in 2005. Reckari worked only on the Epstein case for an entire year. He reviewed previous officers reports and interviews, conducted numerous interviews of witnesses and alleged victims himself, reviewed surveillance footage of the Epstein home, participated in and had knowledge of the search warrant executed on the Epstein home, and testified regarding the case before the Florida State Grand Jury against Epstein. Detective Recari's investigation revealed that none of the alleged Epstein victims ever mentioned Ms. Maxwell's name and she was never considered a suspect by the government. None of Epstein's alleged victims said they had seen Ms. Maxwell at Epstein's house, nor said they had been recruited by her, nor paid any money by her, nor told what to wear or how to act by her. Indeed, none of Epstein's alleged victims ever reported to the government they had met or spoken to Ms. Maxwell. Maxwell was not seen coming or going from the house during the law enforcement surveillance of Epstein's home. The arrest warrant did not mention Ms. Maxwell and her name was never mentioned before the grand jury. No property belonging to Maxwell, including sex toys or child pornography, was seized from Epstein's home during execution of the search warrant. Detective Ricari, when asked to describe everything that you believe you know about Ghislaine Maxwell's sexual trafficking conduct, replied, I don't. He confirmed he has no knowledge about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking anybody. Detective Ricari Edgment 49 no nude photograph of plaintiff was displayed in Epstein's home. Epstein's housekeeper, Juan Alessi, never saw any photographs of Virginia Roberts in Mr. Epstein's house. Detective Recari entered Epstein's home in 2002 to install security cameras to catch a thief and did not observe any child pornography within the home, including on Epstein's desk in his office. 50 plaintiff intentionally destroyed her journal and dream journal regarding her memories of this case in 2013 while represented by counsel, Plaintiff drafted a journal describing individuals to whom she claims she was sexually trafficked,

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

as well as her memories and thoughts about her experiences with Epstein.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

In 2013, she and her husband created a bonfire in her backyard in Florida and burned the journal together with the other documents in her possession. Plaintiff also kept a dream journal regarding her thoughts and memories that she possessed in January 2016. To date, plaintiff cannot locate the dream journal. 51 plaintiff publicly peddled her story. Beginning in 2011, plaintiff granted journalist Sharon Churcher extensive interviews that resulted in seven widely distributed articles. From March 2011 through January 2015, Churcher regularly communicated with Plaintiff, Ender attorneys, or other agents. From early 2011 to the present day, plaintiff received approximately $160,000 for his stories and pictures that were published by many news organizations. 52 Plaintiff drafted a 144 page purportedly autobiographical book manuscript in 2011, which she

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

actively sought to publish.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

In 2011, contemporaneous with her Churcher interviews, Plaintiff drafted a book manuscript which purported to document Plaintiff's experiences as a teenager

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

in Florida, including her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell. Plaintiff communicated with literary agents, ghostwriters, and

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

potential independent publishers in an effort to get her book published. She generated marketing materials and circulated those, along with book chapters to numerous individuals associated with publishing and the media. 53 plaintiffs publicly filed lurid CVRA pleadings, initiated a media frenzy, and generated highly publicized litigation between her lawyers and Alan Dershowitz. On December 30, 2014, plaintiff, through counsel, publicly filed a joinder motion that contained her lurid allegations about Ms. Maxwell and many others, including Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel. The joinder motion was followed by a corrected motion and two further declarations in January and February 2015 which repeated many of Plaintiff's claims. These CVRA pleadings generated a media maelstrom and spawned highly publicized litigation between Plaintiff's lawyers Edwards and Cassell and Alan Dershowitz. After plaintiff publicly alleged Mr. Dershowitz of sexual misconduct, Mr. Dershowitz vigorously defended himself in the media. He called Plaintiff a liar and accused

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

her lawyer of unethical conduct.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

In response, attorneys Edwards and Cassell sued Dershowitz, who counterclaimed. This litigation in turn caused additional media attention by national and international media organizations. 54 Plaintiff formed a non profit. Victims refused silence to attract publicity and speak out on public controversy.

[Bretzky]

Oh, I have had no luck lately. Wait.

[Spinquest Player / Advertiser]

Lady Luck Bretzky. I got you. I've had so much luck on spinquest.com they have all of my favorite games, slot games, live blackjack, craps and bubble craps. You can even get a 30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Bretzky]

10 bucks for 30. I'm headed over to spinquest.com right now.

[Spinquest Announcer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

In 2014, plaintiff, with the assistance of the same council, formed a non profit organization. Victims Refused Silence According to Plaintiff, the purpose of the organization is to promote

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

Plaintiff's professed cause against sex slavery.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

The stated goal of her organization is to help survivors surmount the shame, silence and intimidation typically experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Plaintiff attempts to promote Victims Refused Silence at every opportunity. For example, Plaintiff participated in an interview in New York with ABC to promote charity and to get her mission out to the public. Dated January 6, 2017 and this was signed by Laura Menninger alright folks, that's gonna do it for this one. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna dive right back in to the brief in support for a summary judgment for Ghislaine Maxwell. The broader setting surrounding the statement, including conventions that might signal to readers that the statement is likely opinion and not fact. It is undisputed that the January 2015 statement was sent exclusively to more than six and fewer than 30 media representatives, each of whom expressly had requested from Mr. Gow that he provide them with Ms. Maxwell's reply to the new joint motion allegations document 5427 example K8 and 10. As was obvious from the statement, it was not a traditional press release, as such press releases does not explain lawyer like why new allegations, when measured against previous allegations, lack credibility. Nor does a traditional release threaten to sue the media to whom the release is sent. The media representatives, upon receiving the January 2015 statement, would have understood it was presenting an opinionated argument that Plaintiff was not credible because of her inconsistent and shifting sex abuse story and her increasingly lurid allegations against more and more prominent individuals. And they would have understood that these characteristics of a storyteller undermine her credibility and ergo the credibility of her new allegations. In its 12B6 order, the court said the three sentences have the effect of denying Plaintiff's story, but they also clearly constitute fact to the reader. The ruling is affected in two ways by the Rule 56 record. Based on the foregoing discussion of the evidence, the three sentences clearly constitute argumentative opinions of Mr. Barton on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. Though the court did not discuss who is the reader. This is important in Steinhilber factor. 4 under settled defamation opinion law and allegedly defamatory statement is to be viewed from the perspective of the audience to whom it is addressed. Dibella V. Hopkins, 11779 DC 2002 WL 3142, 7362 SDNY October 30, 2002. Here the reader is 6:30 journalists. They could not have read the July 2015 statement or the three allegedly defamatory sentences the same way it was read by these journalists audience that is the general public. This is because, as Plaintiff implicitly concedes, these journalists only republish excerpts and not the entirety of the statement which would have given context to the three sentences. It's axiomatic that an out of context republication of the three sentences without the rest of the statement would deprive the reader of the logic and reasoning behind the opinionated conclusion that plaintiff was making untrue allegations and telling obvious lies. 3. The pre litigation privilege bars this action A. The privilege applies to the January 2015 statement. Statements pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation made by attorneys or their agents under their direction before the commencement of litigation are privileged and no cause of action for defamation can be based on on those statements. Front Incorporated vs Khalil, 28 NE3d 1516 NY 2015. The facts that must be established therefore are a statement and b that is pertinent to a good faith anticipation litigation and c by attorneys or their agents under their direction. We did this see Memo of Law 6 through 8, 33, 38 document 542 and 547. Example K. For example, Mr. Barton a drafted the vast majority of the January 2015 statement and approved and adopted all of it, directed Mr. Gow to send it to the media representatives who had requested Ms. Maxwell's reply to Plaintiff's joint motion. Allegations in the statement threaten legal action against these media representatives and D at the time of the statement was contemplating litigation against the press recipients. Id. Example K 1016 and 17, 28 and 30. Plaintiff argues without citation to authority Ms. Maxwell herself did not testify she intended to sue. She hasn't offered any witnesses to testify she intended to bring a lawsuit. She didn't in fact sue and this one is a non sequitur. The statement was an attempt to continue to conceal her criminal acts response at 41 and 42. These arguments fail. The privilege exists without regard to whether Ms. Maxwell testifies she intended to sue, whether she has witnessed to say she intended to sue, or whether she in fact sued. It refers to anticipated litigation, not guaranteed litigation. Indeed, the point of pre litigation privilege is to promote communications that avoid litigation. See Khalil, 28 N.E. 3d at 19. When litigation is anticipated, attorneys and parties should be free to communicate in order to reduce or avoid the need to actually commence litigation. It applies when there is a good faith basis to anticipate litigation. Mr. Barden, Ms. Maxwell's lawyer who drafted and caused the statement to be sent out actually was anticipating litigation. Document 542, 547 example K, at 28. The argument that the statement was an attempt to conceal Ms. Maxwell's criminal acts is incorrect. It would be hard to post facto conceal alleged criminal acts that plaintiff luridly and salaciously described in an earlier public filing, that is the CVRA case in which the United States government was the defendant. Citing no record evidence, plaintiff argues the record evidence shows Mr. Barden did not make the January 2015 statement response at 42. That argument is easily disposed of by Mr. Barton's uncontested testimony. B. Malice Is Irrelevant to the Pre Litigation Privilege Citing the New York Court of Appeals decision in Khalil, we pointed out that malice is not relevant to the pre litigation Privilege. Memorandum of Law 34, 35. To prevail on the pre litigation privilege, the defendant need only establish one element. The allegedly defamatory statement at issue was pertinent to a good faith anticipation litigation.

[Legal Reader / Court Document Narrator]

Id.

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

Quoting Khalil, 28 N.E. 3d at 16. Plaintiff disputes this and, without discussing Khalil or citing authorities, simply argues that pre litigation privilege is foreclosed because Ms. Maxwell acted with malice. Response at 43 as suggested by her inability to find any law to support her. Plaintiff is wrong. Under general New York defamation law, the shield provided by a qualified privilege may be dissolved if plaintiff in rebuttal can show that the defendant spoke with malice. Lieberman v. Gelstein, 605 NE2d 344, 349 New York, 1992. According to Kahlil, 28 NE3d at 19, malice means two spite or ill will and knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of falsity. Lieberman, 605 NE2d at 349, plaintiff relies on this general qualified privilege law. The problem for plaintiff is that in Khalil, the New York Court of Appeals held that general rule does not apply to the pre litigation privilege. Khalil worked for a company named Front. After eight years, he resigned and began working for eoc, one of Front's competitors. Front's lawyer, Kimmel sent a demand letter to Khalil alleging he had committed criminal tortoise and ethical misconduct. Kimmel sent another demand letter to EOC and others stating Khalil had conspired with EOC to breach his fiduciary duty to Font. Six months later, Front sued Khalil. Khalil brought a third party claim against Kimmel for libel per se. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the letters were absolutely privileged under the litigation privilege and that it therefore did not need to reach the question of malice. 28 NE3d 17 the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the litigation privilege absolutely protected the letter because they were issued in the context of prospective litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed but altered the law on the litigation privilege. It observed, although it is well settled that statements made in the course of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege, this court has not directly addressed whether statements made by an attorney on behalf of his or her client in connection with prospective litigation are privileged. Some Appellate Division departments had held that absolute privilege applies to statements made in connection with prospective litigation, but other departments had held such statements were entitled only to qualified privilege. The answer to whether pre litigation statements should be absolute or qualified, the Court of Appeals held, is driven by the rationale for protecting pre litigation statements. When litigation is anticipated, attorneys and parties should be free to communicate in order to reduce or avoid the need to actually commence litigation. Attorneys often send cease and desist letters to avoid litigation. Communication during this pre litigation phase should be encouraged and not chilled by the possibility of being the basis for a defamation suit idea. 19 however, the court recognized that extending privilege status to communication made prior to anticipated litigation has the potential to be abused. Extending an absolute privilege to this context, the Court said, would be problematic and unnecessary.

[Bluff]

What's going on everyone? It's bluff here and we're driving through the states in the Bluff Mobile and the best thing that we can do is play our favorite casino style games on Spin Quest. They have over a thousand games including live dealer blackjack and craps. With tons of slots and unlimited options, you can get a $30 coin pack for just $10 for new users. Sign up today. Go to spinquest.com right now.

[Spinquest Announcer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

The court held it would recognize only a qualified privilege for pre litigation communications. Crucially to the case at Barr, the court held that the traditional privilege rebuttal malice was inapplicable to the pre litigation privilege. Rather than applying the general malice standard to this pre litigation stage, the privilege should only be applied to statements pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation. This requirement ensures that privilege does not protect attorneys who are seeking to bully, harassment or intimidate their client's adversaries by threatening baseless litigation or by asserting holy unmeritous claims unsupported in law and fact in violation of counsel's ethical obligations. Therefore, we hold that statements made prior to the commencement of an anticipated litigation are privileged and that the privilege is lost where a defendant proves that the statements were not pertinent to a good face anticipated litigation. Accordingly, the only question is whether the January 2015 statement Mr. Barden caused to be issued to the six to 30 journalists was pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation. The undisputed evidence establishes that the answer is yes. Mr. Barden anticipated litigation. He fully complied with his ethical obligation as a lawyer. He was hardly bullying, harassing, or intimidating the six to 30 journalists since he caused a press agent, Mr. Gow, to issue a statement and he believed he had affirmative duty in representing Ms. Maxwell to prepare the statement and cause it to be delivered to the journalists. Plaintiff argues that when Mr. Barden issued the January 2015 statement on Ms. Maxwell's behalf, he had only wholly unmerited claims unsupported in law and fact, in violation of counsel's ethical obligations, and did not have good faith anticipated litigation response at 46 quoting Khalil 28 NE3d 19 plaintiff's rationale because she was telling the truth and so media would only be reporting the truth, that is nonsensical frivolous arguments. Whether Mr. Barden, who represents Ms. Maxwell, had a Meredith or good faith basis for anticipating defamation litigation has nothing to do with whether the media believe plaintiff was telling the truth and surely not whether the plaintiff believed or said she was telling the truth. Based on this knowledge of plaintiff's history, Mr. Barden in good faith believed that plaintiff had been making false allegations for years and that the falsity of the allegations should have been obvious to the media. Document 542, 547 example K13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 28, and 30. Accordingly, at the time he caused the statement to issue, Mr. Barden had a good faith basis to anticipate litigation against any of the media that republished plaintiff's false allegations. It hardly matters for purpose of pre litigation privilege whether the media republished or did not republish plaintiff's allegations or whether Mr. Barden ultimately did or did not sue any of the media for republication as the Khalil Court recognized, attorneys often send cease and desist letters to avoid litigation and such letters have a valid purpose protected by the Pre litigation privilege. Mr. Barden testified that the January 2015 statement in fact served as a cease and desist letter. See document 542, 547, example K and 17 alright folks, we're gonna wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we'll pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back into the Ghislaine Maxwell brief in support for her to get a summary judgment. Part 4 Ms. Maxwell's January 4, 2015 statement is non actionable Plaintiff did not respond to our argument that Ms. Maxwell's January 4, 2015 statement to a reporter is non actionable. See Memo of Law 38 and 39. We respectfully submit plaintiff has confessed this point. See Cowan, 95 F. Suppp. 3d at 6, 45 and 46. 5. Summary judgment is warranted because plaintiff cannot establish falsity or or actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiff is a public figure. See Memo of Law 16 and 1749. 54. Therefore, she must prove falsity and actual malice under New York law. A public figure defamation plaintiff must go beyond the federal constitutional minimum and prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence. Blair vs Inside Edition Production, 7 F. Supp. 3d 348, 358 and n.6 SDNY 2014 citing Dibella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102, 111 Second Circuit 2005. She must also prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Kuratis v. Ackerley Group, Inc. 425 F.3d 107, 114 2nd Circuit 2005 quoting Philadelphia Newspapers vs. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 773, 1986. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established evidence so clear, direct, and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue Blair, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 358. Plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence a the material falsity of three sentences in the context of the January 2015 statement and b Ms. Maxwell's actual malice, I.e. knowledge of the falsity of the three statements or reckless disregard of whether they were false. The three sentences in the first paragraph of the statement Plaintiff's allegations are untrue. In the same paragraph, the original allegations have been shown to be untrue. In the third paragraph, Plaintiff's claims are obvious lies. Plaintiff cannot prove the falsity of the three sentences, let alone actual malice. If Rule 56 Record establishes that two of plaintiff's CVRA joined her motion allegations are false and two of her original allegations are false, this defamation action collapses on itself. This is because the statement does not specify how many of Plaintiff's allegations are false. It certainly does not say all plaintiff's allegations are false. It uses the plural of allegation. The plural of allegation literally means more than one. See Memo of Law at 21, sentence number 1. Since the sentence does not specify any particular allegation, and since Plaintiff made a plethora of allegations against Ms. Maxwell, plaintiff would be required to prove the truth of every one of the plethora of allegations and that Ms. Maxwell knew each one of the allegations was true. Conversely, if there are at least two allegations that Plaintiff cannot prove to be true, or if there was good reason for Ms. Maxwell to believe at least two of the allegations to be false, then summary judgment should enter against Plaintiff. There are at least two allegations by plaintiff against Ms. Maxwell that are untrue. In the CVRA joinder motion, Plaintiff alleged that in Plaintiff's first encounter with Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell took her to Mr. Epstein's bedroom for a massage that Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell turned into a sexual encounter. Document 542, 544, example D at 3. This allegation contradicted her allegation in the Sharon Churcher article that a woman other than Ms. Maxwell took her to Mr. Epstein's bedroom and during the massage, that woman gave instructions to Plaintiff and the massage quickly developed into a sexual encounter. A second allegation pertaining to plaintiff's Entire story about Ms. Maxwell's introduction to Plaintiff of Prince Andrew is untrue. In the joinder motion, plaintiff alleged Ms. Maxwell served an important role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring, namely connecting Mr. Epstein to powerful individuals who would sexually abuse Plaintiff.

[Narrator / Legal Analyst]

Id.

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

Example D at 5. Plaintiff alleged that in this role, Ms. Maxwell introduced Plaintiff to Prince Andrew and she was forced to have sexual relations with this prince in three separate geographical locations, including Ms. Maxwell's London apartment, I.D. example D at 5. These allegations directly contradicted her earlier allegations in the 2011 Churcher article that a There never was any sexual contact between Plaintiff and Prince Andrew and b Prince Andrew did not know Epstein paid her to have sex with Epstein's friends, ID example A at 6. Mr. Barton, on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, said in the first sentence that plaintiff's allegations against Ms. Maxwell are untrue. We have just established through plaintiff's own contradictory words that it would be fair to characterize at least two of her allegations to be untrue, having spent significant time with Ms. Churcher in 2011 and having substantial incentive to disclose all important details of her sex abuse story. See Menninger Declaration Exhibit 00. Plaintiff in 2011 presented a story that exculpated Ms. Maxwell and Prince Andrew of the very misconduct that in 2015, after securing a lawyer and seeing her story as a profit vehicle, she inculpated them. For in the face of her contradictory allegations, plaintiff cannot possibly prove by clear and convincing evidence that all her joinder motion allegations are true or that when Ms. Maxwell said they were untrue, she knew each one of the allegations was true, or that she recklessly disregarded whether each one was true. Under New York law, a defendant's allegedly defamatory statement is held to a standard of substantial not literal accuracy. Law Firm of Daniel P. Foster, 844 F.2d at9.59. Here, Ms. Maxwell's first sentence literally is true. More than one of plaintiff's allegations are untrue. Accordingly, there is no defamation sentence. Number two. The second sentence at issue in the action states the original allegations are not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. Plaintiff alleges the sentence is defamatory to the extent that it asserts the original allegations were shown to be untrue. Document 1 at 30 plaintiff cannot prove this statement's falsity. It is a matter of pure opinion whether any given allegation was shown to be untrue. Some people require more proof than others to conclude that a fact has been shown to be untrue. We discussed above various examples of this climate change here. Ms. Maxwell via Mr. Barden in March 2011 issued a statement denying plaintiff Churcher's story allegations as all entirely false document 542 and 543. Example C plaintiff did not respond to this statement, let alone claim it was defamatory. Her non response reasonably could be seen as a concession that Ms. Maxwell's denial was righteous. See document 542. 547. Example K Mr. I would have been remiss if I had sat back and not issued a denial and the press had published that Ms. Maxwell had not responded to inquiries and had not denied the new allegations. The public might have taken the silence as an admission there was some truth in the allegations. Regardless, we easily can show two of Plaintiff's original allegations are untrue. Many of Plaintiff's original allegations are contained in the two Churchills 5421 and 542 2. The article contained numerous allegations by Plaintiff relating to her alleged sexual abuse. In her deposition, Plaintiff was shown Deposition Exhibit seven, a collection of some of her allegations. In the articles, plaintiff placed check marks by those allegations she admitted over the course of 20 pages of testimony were not true. See Manager Declaration Exhibit PP. At 4, 35, 7, 455 and 6. Deposition example 7 what's going on everyone?

[Bluff]

It's bluff here and we're driving through the states in the Bluff Mobile and and the best thing that we can do is play our favorite casino style games on Spin Quest. They have over a thousand games including live dealer blackjack and craps. With tons of slots and unlimited options. You can get a $30 coin pack for just $10 for new users. Sign up today. Go to spinquest.com right now Spin Quest

[Spinquest Announcer]

is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more.

[Legal Analyst / Court Document Narrator]

These include her claims that one she was 17 when she flew to the Caribbean with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter referring to former President Bill Clinton 2 her conversation with Mr. Clinton about Ms. Maxwell's pilot skills and 3 Donald Trump was a good friend of Mr. Epstein's and he flirted with me. Plaintiff's admissions on the falsity of her original allegations are fatal to her defamation claim. As to the second sentence, the 11 admittedly false original allegations axiomatically would warrant the second sentence. Plaintiff has no possible way to prove the second sentence is false. Indeed, like Ms. Maxwell's first sentence, the second sentence literally is true. More than one plaintiff's original allegations are untrue. A statement that literally is true cannot be defamatory as a matter of law. Sentence 3 Defamation as to the third sentence is foreclosed to begin with. As discussed above, whether Plaintiff has uttered obvious lies is a matter of opinion in the face of Plaintiff's gratuitous and lurid allegations of Ms. Maxwell's years long participation at the center of a child sex trafficking ring. For the journalist recipients of the July 2015 statements, the phrase was anticipated fiery rhetoric or hyperbole. Steinhilber, 501 NE2D at 556 C Telsystems International, 2003-222-32908 add two observing court's previous holdings in Rizzuto, that defendants use of phrases cond, ripoff and lying in advertisements were not actionable as libel and were rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered themselves unfairly treated and sought to bring what they alleged were true facts to the readers. Even if arguendo the third sentence, Plaintiff's claims are obvious lies cannot be considered opinion. The Rule 56 record forecloses a defamation claim. The sentence does not specify which of plaintiff claims that is allegations or obvious lies. It could refer to the original claims, the new CVRA claims, the claims against Ms. Maxwell, the claims against anyone, including Dershowitz who was mentioned in the preceding sentence, or any two or more of all the claims Plaintiff has ever made about her alleged experiences as the alleged victim of a child sex trafficking ring. Regardless of what is being referred to, there is no defamation, as demonstrated in the discussion above the first and second sentences, the Rule 56 record establishes that at least two of plaintiff's original allegations are untrue, at least two of her CVRA allegations are untrue, at least two of her allegations against Ms. Maxwell are untrue, at least two of her allegations against anyone, e.g. maxwell, Andrew Dershowitz, are untrue, and at least two of her allegations about her alleged sex trafficking experiences are untrue. Moreover, the untruthfulness, the falsity of the allegation certainly is obvious. After all, Plaintiff herself admitted under oath that a multitude of her original allegations are untrue and she implicitly admitted some of her CVRA allegations are untrue because they were contradicted by her original allegations. The court should grant summary judgment in favor of Ms. Maxwell. This was dated on February 10, 2017 and it was signed by Laura Menninger. Alright folks, that's a wrap for this document. But have no fear, there are plenty more where those came from and we're gonna keep it rolling. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Bluff]

What's going on everyone? It's bluff here and we're driving through the states in the bluffmobile and the best thing that we can do is play our favorite casino style games on Spin Quest. They have over a thousand games including live dealer, blackjack and craps with tons of slots and unlimited options. You can get a 30 coin pack for just $10. For new users sign up today, go to spinquest.com right now.

[Spinquest Announcer]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.