← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Maxwell's Summary Judgement Request (Part 4-6) (6/7/26)
00:50:32
Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not...
Loading summary
Transcript114 lines
- [00:01]
Lady Luck
Hey guys, Lady Luck here. Are you going on any road trips this summer? I know I'm going to be going on a bunch of road trips and being that I'm going to be passenger Princess, I Love playing on Spinquest.com Spinquest has all of my favorite slot games. Live blackjack, live craps. Head on over to Spinquest right now and get yourself a 30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [00:24]
Spinquest Disclaimer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [00:30]
Olivia Culpo
Hey everyone, it's Olivia Culpo and I can't wait to tell you all about Abercrombie's new summer collection. All their new dresses in colorful swim feel perfect for a Euro summer. And Abercrombie has a new 100% linen collection. It's the perfect mix of looking put together and elevated with the lightness and comfort of linen shop Abercrombie this summer in the app, online and in stores.
- [00:58]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to continue looking at Virginia Roberts response to Ghislaine
- [01:08]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Maxwell's motion for a summary judgment.
- [01:12]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
7. The Black Book Palm beach police confiscated
- [01:16]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
an extensive list of contacts with their phone numbers from Defendant and Epstein's residence.
- [01:22]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Ghislaine Maxwell maintained a contact list in an approximately 100 page long hard copy which was openly available to other house employees. It consisted primarily of telephone numbers, addresses or email addresses for various personal friends, associates, employees or personal or business connections
- [01:43]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
of Epstein or the defendant prior to being terminated by Defendant.
- [01:49]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
The Palm Beach House butler Alfredo Rodriguez printed a copy of this document and and ultimately provided it to the FBI. This document reflects the numerous phone numbers of Defendant Epstein as well as staff phone numbers. Additionally and importantly, there are several sections entitled Massage alongside a geographical designation with names of females and corresponding telephone numbers. These numbers included those of underage females with no training in massage therapy, including identified during the criminal investigation of Epstein. This document is an authentic reflection of the people who were associated with Epstein, defendant and the management of their properties and the knowledge each had of the contents of the document. 8. Sexslave Amazon.com Book Receipt Detective Ricari authenticated in Amazon.com receipt that the Palm Beach
- [02:47]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Police collected from Jeffrey Epstein's trash.
- [02:50]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
The books he ordered are 1. SM 101 A Realistic Introduction by J. Wiseman 2. Roadmaps for Erotic Principles, Skills and Tools by Guy Baldwin and 3. Training with Ms. Abernathy A workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners by Christian Abernathy as shown below this disturbing 2005 purchase corroborates Ms. Roberts account of being sexually abused and exploited by Defendant and Epstein, not to mention the dozens of underage girls in the Palm beach police report. Additionally, Defendant testified that she was not with Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and 2006 when when he was ordering books on how to use sex slaves. However, record evidence contradicts that testimony. 9. Thailand folder with defendant's phone number. Defendant also was integral in arranging to have Virginia go to Thailand while Epstein had paid for a massage therapy session in Thailand. There was a catch. Defendant told Virginia she had to meet young girls in Thailand and and bring her back to the US For Epstein and Defendant indeed, on the travel records and tickets Defendant gave to Virginia, Defendant wrote on the back the name of the girl Virginia was supposed to meet and she was also instructed to check in frequently with Defendant as it was further signified by the words call Ms. Maxwell 917 on Virginia's travel documents. And in this case, Virginia also produced the hard copy records from her hotel stay in Thailand paid for by Epstein. See Macaulay's declaration at Exhibit 1. 10. It is undisputed fact that the FBI report and the churcher emails Reference Ms. Roberts accounts of sexual activity with Prince Andrew that she made in 2011 contrary to the defendant's argument that Ms. Roberts has never made such claims as until 2014. Based on the FBI's interview of Ms. Roberts in 2011, they wrote a report reflecting Ms. Roberts claims concerning her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew. Additionally, 2011 correspondence with Sharon Churcher shows that Ms. Roberts disclosed her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew. But Churcher had to check with the publisher's lawyers on how much can be published from Sharon Churcher Mel on Sunday to Virginia Roberts hi there. Been up all night writing. Won't have an opinion from our lawyer on how much can be published until London wakes up. The lawyers wanted internal FBI documents but I think the Justice Department letter is all you have from the Feds. Anyway. I can give you a call early afternoon, maybe have a late lunch. Some Macaulay Declaration at Exhibit 34 Roberts 003678 accordingly, there is documentary evidence that refutes Defendants meritless argument that Ms. Roberts did not allege she had sex with Prince Andrew until 2014. To the contrary, two sources including the FBI show Ms. Roberts made these claims in 2011. Defendant has not produced no documents whatsoever that tend to show that she did not procure underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant has produced no documents that even tend to show that she did not procure underage girls for sex with Epstein and no documents that tend to show that she did not participate in the abuse. Indeed, Defendant refused to produce any documents dated prior to 2009, which includes the 20002002 period during which she abused Ms. Roberts. Against this backdrop of an avalanche of evidence showing the defendant sexually trafficked Ms. Roberts, summary judgment on any of the issues advanced by Defendant is inappropriate. While we discuss the particulars of the individual claim below, the larger picture is important too. Ms. Roberts will prove at trial that Epstein and Defendant sexually trafficked her. And yet, when Ms. Roberts had the courage to come forward and expose what Defendant had done to the world in a court pleading trying to hold Epstein accountable, Defendant responded by calling her a liar in a press release intended for a worldwide publication. Such heinous conduct is not a mere opinion, but rather a defamation executed deliberately and and with actual malice. The jury should hear all of the evidence and then render its verdict on Ms. Roberts complaint. Legal Standard Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
- [07:46]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
motion for summary judgment may be granted
- [07:50]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that all moving parties is entitled to a judgment. And as a matter of law, the Second Circuit has repeatedly held that all ambiguities and inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial should be resolved against the moving party. Swan Brewery Co. Ltd. V. U.S. trust Co. Of New York, 832 F. Supp. 714, 717 S.D.N.Y. 1993. Sweet J. Citing Brady Burst, Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205, 210 Second Circuit 1988. In other words, in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non moving party and draw all reasonable inferences and in the non moving parties favor. In Agent Orange Product Liab. Litig. 5.17 F.3d 7687 Second Circuit 2008 Stern v. Cosby, 645 F. Su. Pp. 2d 258, 269 S.D.N.Y. 2009, summary judgment should be denied if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non moving party. See NetJets Aviation, Inc. V. LHC LLC, 537 F.3d 168, 178. 79 Second Circuit 2008, Part 4 Legal Argument Defendant is liable for the publication of the defamatory statement and damages for its publication. Defendants lead argument is that when she issued a press release attacking Ms. Roberts to members of the media, she somehow was not responsible when the media quickly published her attacks. If accepted, this remarkable claim would eviscerate defamation law as it would permit a defamer to send a defamatory statement to the media and then stand back and watch, immune from liability when, as in this case, the defamatory statements are published around the world. This absurd position is not the law, particularly given that the defendant released a statement to the media asking them to please find attached and quotable statements on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to make her claim seem plausible. Defendant cites older cases, some dating back as far as 1906. This presents a distorted picture of the case law on these issues, as a leading authority on defamation explains. With regard to liability for republication by another of statement by defendant, two standards have evolved. The older one is that the person making the defamatory statements is liable for a republication only if it occurs with his or her express or implied authorization of consent. The more modern formulation adds responsibility for all republication that can reasonably be anticipated or that is the natural and probable consequence of the publication Sack on defamation section 2.7.2, at 2.113 and 2.114, 4th edition, 2016. In this case, however, the nuances of the applicable legal standards make little difference because defendants so clearly authorized, indeed desired, and did everything possible to obtain publication of her defamatory statements attacking Ms. Roberts. One under New York law, defendant is liable for the media's publication of her press release. Given the obvious purposes of defamation law, New York law unsurprisingly assigns liability to individuals for the media's publication of press releases. In indeed, New York appellate courts have repeatedly held that an individual is liable for media publishing that individual's defamatory press release. See Levy V. Smith, 18 N.Y.S.3d 438, 439, 132A.D.3sd 961, 962 and 963 NYAD, 2nd Department, 2015. Generally, one who makes a defamatory statement is not responsible for its recommunication without his authority or request to another over whom he has no control. Here, however, the appellant intended and authorized the republication of the allegedly defamatory content of the press releases in the news articles National Puerto Rican day Parade, Inc. Vs Casa Publications, Inc. 914 N.Y.S.2d 120, 12379 A. D.3d 592, 595 NYAD 1 Department 2010 affirming the refusal to dismiss defamation counts against a defendant who submitted an open letter that was published in a newspaper and that the defendant paid to have the open letter published, and finding that the defendant authorized the newspaper to recommunicate his statements. See also Restatement, Second of Torts, Section 576, 1977 the publication of a libel or slander is a legal cause of any special harm resulting from its repetition by a third person, if the repetition was authorized or intended by the original defamer, or the repetition was reasonably to be expected.
- [13:43]
Lady Luck
Hey everybody, Lady Luck here and we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now all summer long I'm going to be celebrating by playing on spinquest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [14:08]
Spinquest Disclaimer
Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [14:13]
Grow Therapy Advertiser
We are 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.
- [15:15]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Defendant deliberately sent her defamatory statement to major news media publishers for worldwide circulation because Defendant wanted the public at large to believe Ms. Roberts was lying about her abuse. Defendant even hired a public relations media specialist to ensure the media would publish her statement. Her efforts succeeded. Her public relations agent instructed dozens of media outlets to publish her quotable defamatory statements. And they did. Despite this deliberate campaign to widely publicize her defamatory statement, Defendant now claims any responsibility for the media publishing her press release. If we understand defendant's position correctly, because she somehow lacked control over what major newspapers and other media finally put in their stories, she escapes liability for defamation. This nonsensical position would let a defamer send a false defamatory letter to major media and then, when they publish the accusation, escape any liability. Such an argument is not only an affront to logic, but is contrary to prevailing New York case law cited above. Perhaps even more important, in the context of the pending summary judgment motion, it would require a defendant to convince the jury that she did not authorize or intend for the major media to publish her press release. Obviously, the disputed facts on this point are legion, and summary judgment is accordingly inappropriate. Even the case's defendant cites contradict her argument. She first cites Jarachi v. Propst, in which a defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire Commissioners, and years later, a newspaper published the letter. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the belated publication made years later without his knowledge or participation. By contrast, defendant not only authorized the defamatory statement, but paid money to her publicist to convince media outlets to publish it promptly. Actions taken with both her knowledge and consent. Defendant's statements was thus not published without her authority or request, as in Jirachi, but by her express authority and by her express request. Defendant's publicist testimony and documents produced by defendant's publicist unambiguously establish that the media published her press release with defendant's authority and by her request. When you sent that email, were you acting pursuant to Ms. Maxwell's retention of your services?
- [17:51]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Yes, I was.
- [17:53]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
The subject line does have fw, which to me indicates it's a forward. Do you know where the rest of this email chain is? My understanding of this is it was a holiday in the UK, but Mr. Barton was not necessarily accessible at some point in time. So this had to be sent to him originally by Ms. Maxwell, and because he was unavailable, she forwarded it to me for immediate action. I therefore responded, okay, Ghislaine, I'll go with this. It is my understanding that this is the agreed statement, because the subject of the second one is urgent. This is the statement. So I take that as an instruction to send it out as a positive command. This is the statement. Similarly, another case cited by defendant, Davis v. Costa Gavres, involved a libel claim against the book authority who wrote an account of the 1972 military coup in Chile. Years later, the plaintiff attempted to ascribe defamation liability to a third party publishing house decision to republish the book in paperback form and a third party filmmaker who released a movie based on the book. The Court held that a party who is innocent of all complicity in the publication of a libel cannot be held accountable, but that a deliberate decision to republish or active participation in implementing the republication resurrects the liability. 580 F. Supp. 1,082, 1094 S.D.N.Y. 1984. Here, defendant made a deliberate decision to publish her press release and actively participated in that process. At the very least, the jury must make a determination of whether the defendant was innocent of all complicity for a libelous statement contained in her press release. Finally, Defendant cites Kara Duman v. Newsday, Inc. 416 N. E2d 557, 1980, which held that reporters of a series of articles on narcotics trade cannot be held personally liable for injuries arising from its subsequent republication in book form absent a showing that they approved or participated in some other manner in the activities of the third party republisher. Id. 416 and E2D at 559 and 560. Again, the injury could reasonably find that Defendant both approved of and even participated in the media's publication of her press release. Indeed, it is hard to understand how any jury could find anything else. Defendant was obviously active in influencing the media to publish her defamatory press release. She both approved of and pushed for the publication of the press release. Accordingly, she is liable for its publication. Therefore, disclaiming responsibility for the media's publication of a statement for which she hired a publicist for the purpose of influencing the media to publish that statement is contrary to both prevailing case law and and the case is cited by the defendant. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up there. In the next episode, we'll pick up where we left off with. The Defendant is liable for the media's publication of the defamatory statement. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone?
- [21:15]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with Virginia Roberts response to the Ghislaine Maxwell attempt to get a summary judgment in their defamation case.
- [21:31]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
So let's get right back to it. 2.
- [21:34]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Defendant is liable for the media's publication of the defamatory statement after arguing, contrary to the New York law that she is not liable for the media's publication of her own press release. Defendant next argues the that she is not liable for the media's publications of the defamatory statement contained within her press release if the media chose to make even the tiniest of editorial changes. If we understand Defendant's argument correctly, any omission of any language from a press release is somehow a selective, partial publication
- [22:08]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
for which she escapes liability.
- [22:10]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Motion at 14. Once again, this claim is absurd on its face. It would mean that a defamer could send to the media a long attack on a victim with one irrelevant sentence, and when the media quite predictably cut that sentence, well, they escape liability for the attack. Moreover, even on its face, the claim presents a jury question of what changes would be in context viewed as selective or partial publications, something that only a jury could determine. And after hearing all of the evidence in support of this meritless argument, Defendant cites RAND v. New York Times company For the proposition that a defendant cannot be liable for a publisher's editing and excerpting of a statement. 430 N.Y.S.2d 271, 274, 75 A. D.2d 417, 422 N. Y A D. 1980. This argument fails for several reasons. First, there is no republication by the
- [23:13]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
media as a matter of law.
- [23:15]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Defendant issued a defamatory statement to the press and its publication as Defendant intended is not a republication under the law as discussed above. Second, there was no editing or paraphrasing or taking the quote out of context of the core defamatory statement in the press release that Ms. Roberts is a liar.
- [23:36]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
The obvious lies passage is the heart
- [23:38]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
of the message Defendants sent to the press that Ms. Roberts was lying about her past sexual abuse.
- [23:44]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Even in isolation.
- [23:45]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Defendants quote stating that Ms. Roberts claims are obvious lies does not distort or misrepresent the message Defendant intended to convey to the public that Ms. Roberts was lying about her claims. As this court explained in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, the this case involves statements that explicitly claim the sexual assault allegations are false. Roberts v. Maxwell, 165 F. Su pp. 3d 147, 152 SDNY 2016. Furthermore, the facts at issue here make the RAND holding in opposite in rand, a newspaper paraphrased and sanitized Defendants words. No such changing, sanitizing or paraphrasing occurred in the instant case. The media quoted Defendant's statement accurately. Further, the phrase at issue in RAND was that certain people screwed another person. The speaker newspaper used the term screwed in reference to a record label's dealings with a performing artist and did not mean screwed in the literal sense, but
- [24:50]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
as rhetorical hyperbole and as such is
- [24:53]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
not to be taken literally. By contrast, there is no hyperbole in Defendant's defamatory statement, and it was never distorted or paraphrased by any publication known to Ms. Roberts. A jury could reasonably conclude that defendant's statement that Ms. Roberts claims of child sex abuse or obvious lies is not
- [25:12]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
a rhetorical device nor hyperbole, but a
- [25:16]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
literal and particular affirmation that Ms. Roberts lied. Accordingly, there is no support in the factual record that the media reporting what defendant stated that Ms. Roberts claims of
- [25:28]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
childhood sexual abuse are obvious lies is
- [25:31]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
a distortion of the Defendant's message or hyperbole. Even a cursory review of the press release would lead to that conclusion. Moreover, to the extent that there is any dispute that Defendant's statement had a different meaning outside of the context of the remainder of the press release, such a determination of meaning and interpretation is a question of fact for the jury to decide and is inappropriate for determination upon summary judgment. Material issues of fact preclude summary judgment. 1. The Barden Declaration presents disputed issues of fact. The primary basis of Defendant's motion for summary judgment is her attorney self serving post hoc affidavit wherein he sets forth his alleged intent. With regard defendant's defamatory statement, Ms. Roberts disputes defendant's attorney's alleged and unproven intent, not to mention Defendant's intent, not only because Defendant refuses to turn over her attorney's communications, but also because questions of intent are questions of fact to be determined by a trier of fact. Furthermore, ample record evidence contradicts the claimed intent.
- [26:42]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
A.
- [26:43]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
The Barden Declaration is a deceptive backdoor attempt to inject Barden's advice without providing discovery of all attorney communications. In her brief, Defendant discloses her attorney's alleged legal strategy and alleged legal advice. However, she deliberately states that her attorneys intended instead of her attorney advised when discussing her attorney's legal strategy and advice, using that phrase at least 37 times and using phrases such as Barton's beliefs, purposes, goals, and contemplations 25 other times. All the while Defendant has claimed privilege as to her communications with Barton. Defendant attempts to convince the Court that she only granted GAO permission to publish the defamatory statements as part of Mr. Barden's deliberated and carefully crafted MSJ at 16 legal strategy and advice.
- [27:35]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Yet she still refused to turn over
- [27:37]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
her communications with Barton under the auspices of attorney client privilege. Such gamesmanship should not be permitted. If the Court were to consider the Barden Declaration, which it shouldn't, it would be on a ruling on less than complete record because based on this declaration, it is necessary that defendant disclose all communications with him and possibly others. Ms. Roberts doesn't have those communications. The court doesn't have those communications. Therefore, defendant is asking for summary judgment on an incomplete record.
- [28:10]
Lady Luck
Hey guys, Lady Luck here. Are you going on any road trips this summer? I know I'm going to be going on a bunch of road trips and being that I'm going to be Passenger Princess, I Love playing on Spinquest.com Spinquest has all of my favorite slot games. Live Blackjack, Live craps. Head on over to Spinquest right now and get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [28:33]
Spinquest Disclaimer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [28:39]
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, GrowTherapy 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.
- [29:39]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
The court should also not consider the Barden declaration because it will be inadmissible as unduly prejudicial. It is a self serving declaration by a non deposed witness made without turning over the documents that are relevant to the declaration. CEG Rubins v. Mason, 387 F.3d 183, 185 Second Circuit 2004. We find that the district court predicated its grant of summary judgment as to liability on an affidavit from the arbitrator who presided over the underlying arbitration, the
- [30:15]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
probative value of which was substantially outweighed
- [30:17]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
by the danger of unfair prejudice. The affidavit therefore should not have been admitted. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on liability and remand to the District Court.
- [30:31]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
B.
- [30:31]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Defendant Summary judgment arguments require factual findings regarding Barton's intent thereby precluding summary judgment. Even were the court to consider this declaration and representations therein, which it should not, the declaration itself demonstrates that the court would have to make factual findings as to what Mr. Barton's intent really was. Finding about intent are appropriate at the summary judgment stage, as this Court and the Second Circuit Court have recognized. This Court has explained if it is necessary to resolve inferences regarding intent and summary judgment is not appropriate. Sweet J, citing Patrick vs. Lafay, 745 F.2d 153, 159 2nd Circuit 1984 Friedman v. Myers, 482 F.2d 435, 439 2nd Circuit 1973. There are factual disputes regarding Barden's declaration. Finally, there are material disputes over the statements in the Barden Declaration because they are directly refuted by record evidence. For example, the instant motion and the Barden Declaration describe the press release merely as a document expressing his opinion in the form of a legal argument as
- [31:49]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
a lawyer would be, as opposed to
- [31:51]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
a press release for dissemination by the
- [31:54]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
media to the public record.
- [31:56]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Evidence refutes this claim as 1 the press release was sent to journalists 2 two media publishers or in house counsel.
- [32:04]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
2.
- [32:04]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
The press release instructed the journalists to publish the defamatory statement. Please find attached a quotable statement on
- [32:12]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
behalf of Ms. Maxwell. 3. It was issued by a publicist on
- [32:16]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Defendant's behalf and not an attorney without any reference to attorneys or laws. Indeed, Gow testified that Barton was unavailable to approve the statement and four GAO testified that he issued the statement only after he understood Defendant to have signed off on it, in understanding he formed based on Defendant's positive command to him. This is the agreed statement. When you sent that email, were you acting pursuant to Ms. Maxwell's retention of your services? Yes, I was. When you say agreed statement, can you tell me more about what you mean who agreed to the statement? I need to give you some context,
- [32:55]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
if I may, about that statement.
- [32:57]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
So this is on New Year's Day I was in France. So the email time here is 21:46 in French time and 22:46 and I was getting up early the next morning to drive my family back to the south of France to England, which is a 14 hour journey door to door. So on the morning of the 2nd of January, bearing in mind that Ms. Maxwell I think was in New York then, she was five hours behind.
- [33:21]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
So there was quite a lot of
- [33:22]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
sort of time difference between the various countries here, I sent her an email I believe, saying parsing this. Forwarding this email to her saying, how
- [33:31]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
do you wish to proceed?
- [33:32]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
And I was on the telephone. I had two telephones in the car. I received in excess 30 phone calls from various media outlets on 2 January, all asking for information about how Ms. Maxwell was looking to respond to the
- [33:46]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
the latest court filings which were filed
- [33:48]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
on 30 December, as I understand, and by close towards close of play on the second, I received an email forwarded by Ms. Maxwell containing a draft statement which my understanding was the majority of which had been drafted by Mr. Barton
- [34:03]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
with a header along the lines of
- [34:05]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
this is the agreed on statement at close of play on the second.
- [34:10]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
So I was.
- [34:11]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
I had gone under the channel tunnel and. And I was sitting on the other side. And that email, which my understanding was that it had been signed off on by the client effectively was then sent out to a number of media, including Mr. Ball and various other UK newspapers. Question, Mr. Gow, when you say end of play and close of play, are you referring to sending the email that is Exhibit 2? Yes, I am. The subject line does have FW, which to me indicates it's a forward. Do you know where the rest of the email chain is? My understanding of this is it was a holiday in the UK, but Mr. Barden was not necessarily accessible at some point in time. So this had been sent to him originally by Ms. Maxwell, and because he was unavailable, she forwarded it to me for immediate action.
- [34:59]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
I therefore responded, okay, Ghislaine, I'll go with this.
- [35:02]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
It is my understanding that this is the agreed statement because the subject of the second one is urgent.
- [35:08]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
This is the statement.
- [35:09]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
So I take that as an instruction to send it out as a positive command.
- [35:13]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
This is the statement.
- [35:15]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Accordingly, record evidence shows that the press release was intended as press release and not as a legal argument. Record evidence also establishes that defendant circulated the press release to Barden and GAO and then gave a positive command to
- [35:29]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
GAO to publish it.
- [35:30]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Additionally, there is no indica that that
- [35:33]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
the press release is a legal opinion. To the contrary, it was issued by and specifically attributed to a woman who
- [35:39]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
has personal knowledge of whether Ms. Roberts claims of sexual abuse are true and
- [35:44]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
she states that Ms. Roberts is a liar. At the very least, all of these
- [35:49]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
factual issues must be considered by a jury. Another example is that defendant states that GAO served only as Mr. Barden's conduit to the media and Mr. Barton was directing the 1-2-15 statement to a discrete number of media representatives. Barton wasn't directing anything. He wasn't even in the loop when
- [36:08]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Defendant decided to publish the statement and the documents prove it.
- [36:12]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Indeed, the press release itself states that it is on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, not Barton. It was the defendant who gave the positive command to go to publish it.
- [36:22]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
These are just a couple of examples among many of the of the purported
- [36:26]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
facts asserted in Defendant's motion and Barden's
- [36:29]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
declaration that are directly refuted by facts in the record.
- [36:33]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Finally, neither the media nor the general
- [36:35]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
public could have known that the statement
- [36:38]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
should be attributed to Barton. His name was nowhere in it.
- [36:41]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Nor is there any reference to counsel
- [36:44]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
Defendants argument that the context is the media knowing Barden's intent or involvement is
- [36:49]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
unsupported by the record.
- [36:51]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
The significant factual disputes about Barton alone prevent summary judgment.
- [36:55]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Alright folks, we're gonna wrap up right
- [36:57]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
there and then in the next episode
- [36:59]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
we'll pick up where we left off.
- [37:01]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
All of the information that goes with
- [37:03]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. We're gonna pick up where we left off with Virginia Roberts Response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt to get a Summary judgment C. Defendant's Defamatory Statement Was Not Opinion As a Matter of Law as this Court previously held correctly, defendants stating that Ms. Roberts claims of sexual assault or lies is not an expression of opinion. First, statements that Roberts claims against Defendant are untrue have been shown to be untrue and are obvious lies have a specific and readily understood factual meaning that Roberts is not telling the truth about her history of sexual abuse and the defendant's role, and that some verifiable investigation has occurred and come to a definitive conclusion proving the fact. Second, these statements, as they themselves allege, are capable of being proven true or false and therefore constitute actionable fact and not opinion. Third, in their full context, while Defendant's statements have the effect of generally denying Plaintiff's story, they also clearly constitute fact to the reader. Roberts v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d 147, 152 S.D.N.Y. 2016. The court further explained, Plaintiff cannot be making claims shown to be untrue that are obvious lies without being a liar. Furthermore, to suggest individual is not telling the truth about her history of having been sexually assaulted as a minor constitutes more than a general denial. It alleges something deeply disturbing about the
- [38:49]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
character of an individual willing to be
- [38:51]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
publicly dishonest about such reprehensible crimes. Defendant's statements clearly imply that the denials are based on facts separate and contradictory to those that Plaintiff has alleged. Defendant argues that somehow the context of
- [39:07]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
the entire statement tested against the understanding
- [39:10]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
of the average reader should be the press release as a whole being read only by journalists. This is an unreasonable construct because the ultimate audience for a press release is the public. Indeed, the purpose of a press release is to reach readers. Unsurprisingly, Defendant cites no case that holds that journalists might somehow believe that statements of fact are opinion while others do not. This court has previously covered this ground when it clearly stated sexual assault of a minor is a clear cut issue. Either transgression occurred or it did not. Either A Maxwell was involved or she was not. The issue is not a matter of opinion and there cannot be differing understandings of the same facts that justify diametrically
- [39:55]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
opposed opinion as to whether defendant was
- [39:58]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
involved in Plaintiff's abuse as Plaintiff has claimed. Each Plaintiff is telling the truth about her story and defendant's involvement, or the defendant is telling the truth and she was not involved in the trafficking and ultimate abuse of the plaintiff. Roberts vs Maxwell, 165 F. Su. Pp. 152, SDNY 2016. The same conclusion applies now at the motion to dismiss stage. Defendant had not yet produced the statement she issued to the press. The statement is now in evidence, so there is no ambiguity as to what defendant released to the press. The absurdity of Defendant characterizing his statement calling Ms. Roberts a liar as mere opinion is revealed by the fact that the defendant was the one who was sexually trafficking and otherwise abusing Ms. Roberts. No reasonable person in any context would construe that as defendant's mere opinion on the subject since defendant knew she was abusing Ms. Roberts. And indeed this argument is contradicted by the defendant's own deposition testimony. Do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused minors? I can only testify to what I know. I know that Virginia is a liar and I know what she testified is a lie. So I can only testify to what I know to be falsehoods and and half those falsehoods are enormous and so I can only categorically deny everything she has said. And that is the only thing that I can talk about because I have no knowledge of anything else. See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 11. Maxwell deposition, April 17, 2016.
- [41:37]
Bluff
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spin Spin Quest exclusives, Blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks.
- [41:59]
Spinquest Disclaimer
Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to play social casino. Void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [42:08]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Defendant slyly contends in her motion this that Mr. Barden's arguments in the press release constitute pure opinion attempting to disclaim any involvement in making the defamatory statement. However, it is not Mr. Barden's statement nor his opinion that is at issue here. At issue here is Defendant's statement, a statement attributable to her that she approved whose publication she commanded and for which she hired a public relations representative to disseminate to at least 30 journalists for publication. While Mr. Barton could possibly have had his own opinion as to whether or not his client abused Ms. Roberts, defendant cannot express an opinion on a binary yes or no subject where she knows the truth. As this Court previously articulated, statements that Robert's claims against Defendant are untrue, have been shown to be untrue, and are obvious lies have a specific and readily understood factual meaning. Roberts v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d at 152. Again, at the very least, the jury must pass on such issues. The pre litigation privilege does not apply to Defendant's press release. One Defendant fails to make a showing that the pre litigation privilege applies. Defendant's next argument seeks refuge in their pre litigation privilege. If we understand the argument correctly, Defendant seems to be saying that because she was contemplating an unspecified and never filed lawsuit involving the British press, she somehow had a green light to make whatever defamatory statement she wanted about Ms. Roberts to prove such a remarkably claim, Defendant relies on case law involving such mundane topics and as cease and desist letters sent to opposing parties and the like. Obviously, such arguments have no application to the press release that Defendants sent out worldwide attacking Ms. Roberts veracity. The problems with the Defendant's argument are legion. For starters, there is no record evidence, not even Defendant's own testimony suggesting that she was contemplating litigation against Ms. Roberts or that her press release was related to to contemplated litigation against Ms. Roberts. Tellingly, the only evidence Defendant cites of any alleged contemplated litigation is the self serving post hoc partial waiver of attorney client privilege found in the Barton Declaration. As discussed above, the Declaration fails to establish that there was good faith anticipated in litigation between her and Ms. Roberts, particularly when evidence in the record contradicts such assertions. At the very least, it is a matter of fact for the jury to decide in another case in which a Defendant attempted to claim pre litigation privilege applied to statements made to the press, this Court denied summary judgment and held to prevail on a qualified privilege defense, Defendant must show that his claim of privilege does not raise triable issues of fact that would Defeat it. Block vs. First Blood Associates, 691 F. Su P. 685, 699 and 700 Suite J. SDNY 1988, denying summary judgment on the pre litigation qualification privilege affirmative defense because there was a genuine issue as to malice and appropriate purpose, Defendant's claim here likewise fails. First, Defendant's testimony makes no mention of any contemplated lawsuit, much less any contemplated lawsuit against Ms. Roberts. Second, defendant has offered no witnesses who will testify that she intended to bring any lawsuit. Third, she did not in fact bring any such lawsuit. The only evidence is a post hoc declaration written by her attorney. Finally, it must be remembered as explained at length above, the defendant had sexually trafficked Defendant and was attempting to continue to conceal her criminal acts. Whether her statements had an appropriate purpose block, 691 F. Supp. At 699, 700 Sweet.
- [46:16]
Legal Counsel / Attorney
J.
- [46:16]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Or were rather, efforts by a criminal organization to silence its victims is obviously contested. Accordingly, obvious issues of fact exist as to whether or not Defendant contemplated litigation distorting reality. Defendant further argues statements pertinent to a good faith and anticipated litigation made by attorneys or their agents under their direction before the commencement of litigation or privileged the record evidence shows that defendant attorneys did not make the defamatory statement. Further, Defendants attorney's agents did not make the defamatory statement the defendant did, and there was no statement made by anyone before the commencement of litigation because litigation never commenced. Accordingly, the case defendant cites where attorneys are making statements or where clients are making statements to their attorneys regarding judicial proceedings including malpractice are wholly in opposite as detailed below. Similarly, in Black vs. Green Harbor Homeowners Association Incorporated, 19 A. D dot 3d. 962, 963, 798 N. Y. S. 2d 753, 754 and 2005 cited by defendant. The court held the privilege applied to a letter sent by a homeowners Association Board of Directors to the Association's members informing them of the status of litigation to which the association was a party and to the association's letter to the State Attorney General sent to discharge its duties to the association. In this case, litigation was actually pending. The communication was sent by a party to that litigation as part of its duties and the communication itself concerned the litigation. The defendant's press release fits none of those descriptions Unsurprisingly, Defendant cites no case in which a court has held that this or any qualified privilege extends to internationally disseminated press releases defaming a non party to the purported anticipated litigation, regardless of whether or not Barton had a hand in drafting the statement. Another disputed issue of fact for the jury. Defendant issued the statement, instructed that it be published, and the statement she issued was attributed to her and not her attorney or his agents. Accordingly, all the case law defendant cites about attorney making a statement or a client making a statement to their attorney or malpractice carrier is and in opposite two, Defendant is foreclosed from using the pre litigation privilege because she acted with malice. In any event, because Defendant acted with malice, she cannot avail herself of the pre litigation privilege. As this court has explained, denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, there is no qualified privilege under New York law when such statements are spoken with malice, knowledge of their falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth. Roberts vs Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d 155, citing block 691 F. Supp. J. SDNY 1988. There is ample record evidence that Defendant acted with malice in issuing the press release, thereby making the litigation privilege inapplicable. See block 691F. Supplement at 700. Here sufficient evidence has been adduced to support the inference that Defendant acted with malice and may not therefore claim a qualified privilege under New York law. A genuine issue as to malice and appropriate purpose has properly been raised and is sufficient to preclude summary judgment. For example, Ms. Shuberg testified that Defendant recruited her for sex with Epstein, thus corroborating the Ms. Roberts own account of Defendant's involvement in abusing her with Epstein. For another example, Jeffrey Epstein's pilot testified that defendant flew with Ms. Roberts on at least 23 flights, thus corroborating Ms. Roberts claims against the defendant. See McCauley's declaration at Exhibit 15. Roberts deposition at 34, 3:10. For another example, Tony Figueroa testified that Defendant asked him for assistance in recruiting girls for Epstein. More testimony that corroborates Ms. Roberts claims against the defendant. And again, just to interject, this is why we went through that Virginia Roberts deposition. All of these court documents dovetail into each other and when you put them all together, you begin to see the true scope of what Jeffrey Epstein was up to. Defendant statements that Ms. Roberts was lying and her claims of sexual abuse, where obvious lies were not pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation, but instead they were made for inappropriate purpose, that is to bully, harass, intimidate, and ultimately silence Ms. Roberts. As the record of evidence shows, defendant knew the statements were false because defendant engaged in and facilitated the sexual abuse of this minor child. Therefore, they were made for the inappropriate purpose of bullying, harassment and intimidation. See Front vs Khalil, 24 NY3D 713, 720, 2015. Simply put, defendant sexually trafficked Ms. Roberts and then tried to silence Ms. Roberts to keep her crime secret. Circumstances that prevent her from using privileges designed to shield legitimate legal disputes from court interference. New York case law fully confirms that pre litigation quote disqualified privileges do not apply to this case. Historically, statements made in the course of litigation were entitled to privilege from defamations claims so that those discharging a public function may speak freely to zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard. Court of Appeals case somewhat extended this privilege by holding that statements made by attorneys prior to the commencement of the litigation of are protected by a qualified privilege if those statements are pertinent to a good faith anticipation litigation. Although it is well settled that statements made in the Court of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege, the 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 to advance the goals of encouraging communication prior to the commencement of litigation. We hold that statements made prior to the commencement of an anticipated litigation are privileged, and that the privilege is lost when a defendant proves that statements were not pertinent to a good faith anticipation litigation. The Court of Appeals reason for allowing this qualified privilege could not be more clear. When litigation is anticipated, attorneys and parties should be free to communicate in order to reduce or avoid the need to to actually commence litigation.
- [53:18]
Bluff
Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest, and there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10 all the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N
- [53:38]
Spinquest Disclaimer
Q U-E S-T.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spin benquest.com for more details.
- [53:48]
Narrator / Legal Analyst
Attorneys often send cease and desist letters to avoid litigation. Applying privilege to such preliminary communication encourages potential defendants to negotiate with potential plaintiffs in order to prevent costly and time consuming judicial intervention. IDEA 719 and 20 under this rationale, the Khalil Court found that an attorney letters to the potential defendant were privileged because they were sent in an attempt to avoid litigation by requesting, among other things, that Khalil return the alleged stolen propriety information and cease and desist in his use of that information. Here, quite unlike Khalil, the Defendant's statements were 1 made by a non attorney defendant through GAO 2 concerning a non party to an alleged anticipated litigation 3 knowingly false statements and 4 contained in a press release directed at and and disseminated to the public at large. The defendant's statements cannot be considered pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation such that the qualified privilege should apply. Finally, though, it strains credulity to even entertain the prospect. If defendant could make even colorable showings on these basic issues, it would remain an issue of fact for the jury to determine whether or not Defendant's Press release calling Ms. Roberts sex abuse claims obvious lies was any type of cease and desist statement or a statement that acted to reduce or avoid or resolve any anticipated litigation. Summary judgment is obviously inappropriate here as well. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right there 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.
- [55:31]
Bluff
What's going on everyone? 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.
- [55:54]
Spinquest Disclaimer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more.