What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.

In this episode, we're going to continue talking about the Virginia Roberts response to Glenn Maxwell's attempt to get a summary judgment.

Number three.

Defendant cannot invoke the pre litigation privilege because she has no claim for good faith litigation.

Finally, defendant cannot prevail in asserting this qualified privilege because in order to invoke this privilege, she must have a Meredith claim for good faith anticipated litigation.

Khalil specifically states that for the qualified privilege to apply, the statements must be made pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation, and it does not protect attorneys asserting Holly On Meridith claims unsupported in law and fact in violation of Council's ethical obligations.

Khalil, twenty four and y Dot three d at seven eighteen seven twenty Defendant has neither Emeritis claim nor good faith anticipated litigation.

Defendant cannot have a Emeridis claim for good faith anticipation litigation against the press or Miss Roberts because Miss roberts reports of her sexual abuse are true.

Defendant knows that they are true, and Defendant made a knowingly false statement when she called Miss Roberts a liar.

Under these circumstances, defendant has no claim to make in good faith relating to either Miss Roberts's statements or their coverage in the press, thereby making her defamatory statements wholly outside the protection of this qualified privilege.

At the very least, the issue of whether defendant has claims against the press on the grounds that she did not abuse Miss Roberts is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Number five.

Defendant has not and cannot show that her defamatory statement is substantially true.

Defendant's next claims that her press release calling Miss Roberts a liar about her past second abuse was somehow substantially true.

Here again, this is a highly disputed claim on its face.

To determine whether it's substantially true or not requires extensive fact finding, such as weather defendant recruited Miss Roberts as a minor child for sex with defendants live in boyfriend and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Accordingly, some rejudgment is not appropriate.

See Metre Sports International Limited, Verus Home Box Office Incorporated, twenty two f dot su Pp Dot three D two forty two fifty five SDNY twenty fourteen, denying some re judgment because it would require the court to decide disputed facts to determine whether the statement at issue was substantially true.

The Silver versus Time Incorporated nine O eight f one eighty four, one eighty seven sdn Y nineteen ninety five, denying motion for some rejudgment because there was a genuine issue of material act as to whether defamatory photo and caption were not true.

Stating in the instant case of the Silva's contention that she was a reform prostitute at the time of photography and publication provides a rational basis upon which a FactFinder could conclude that the photograph was not substantially true.

Additionally, defendant has remarkably not submitted any evidence that she did not recruit Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein.

Nora's defendant offered any evidence that her role in Epstein's household was not to recruit girls and young women for Jeffrey Epstein.

Accordingly, some rejudgment is inappropriate.

Ce Stern versus Cosby six forty five f two D two fifty eight two seventy seven SDNY two thousand and nine, because defendant had not submitted any evidence to show that statement eleven is substantially true, her motion for some rejudgment as to statement eleven is denied.

Further, much of the purported evidence upon which defendant relies to allege the truth of her defamatory statement is merely hearsay, including inadmissible hearsay statements made by Alan Dershowitz, who defendant did not depose in this case and whom Miss Roberts has not had the opportunity to cross examine.

Hearsay cannot establish the truth of a defamatory statement as a matter of law at some rejudgment Lopez versus Univision Communications Incorporated.

Forty five f Dot two dot D three forty eight three fifty nine SDNY, nineteen ninety nine, denying some rejudgment and holding Defendant's evidence as to what they were told by representatives of NYU and Keene College to the extent offered for the truth of the matters asserted, is admissible hearsay and an insufficient basis upon which to grant some rejudgment of dismissal on the grounds that the statements were substantially true.

Finally, Many of the facts upon which Defendant bases her argument that her defamatory statement was true are a wholly aimes made against Miss Roberts and the defamatory statement.

For example, Defendant supports her contention that she did not recruit Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein based on the fact that Miss Roberts lived independently of her parents before meeting Epstein and Maxwell.

Of course, the child outside the supervision of her parents makes it much more likely she would be recruited by defendant into sex trafficking, but that is for the jury to decide.

The fact does not go to whether or not the defendant statement calling Miss Roberts a liar is true because Miss Roberts never made any claims relating to where she lived prior to meeting defendant.

Moreover, it is immaterial with whom she was living.

The fundamental and overarching fact remains that defendant recruited Miss Roberts for sex with Epstein when she was a minor child.

Defendant next profers Miss roberts limited high school enrollment and short term jobs that she held as evidence that she and Epstein did not abuse her.

The logic of this position is on ces The fact that Miss Roberts worked at Taco Bell for a few days hardly establishes she was not abused by defendant and Epstein.

Indeed, if anything, it shows the vulnerability of Miss Roberts to enticements that a billionaire and his wealthy and powerful girlfriend could offer.

In any event, what to make of such fact is something for the jury to consider.

They are irrelevant for the same reason as above.

Miss Roberts never made any claims about her studies or her prior employment.

Indeed, neither Miss Robert's statement about being recruited by defendant as a child, nor defendants refusion even mentions Miss Roberts's lack of schooling or a lack of a stable home as a child, purported facts that have nothing to do with Miss roberts claims of sexual abuse against the defendant and nothing to do with the defendant calling Miss Roberts a liar for such claims, and they do not establish the substantial truth of the defendant statement.

Tellingly, defendant sites to no case in any jurisdiction that even suggests otherwise.

Six Plaintiff does not need to establish malice for her defamation claim, but in the event, the court rules.

Otherwise, there is more than sufficient record evidence for a reasonable jury to determine defendant acted with actual malice.

Defendants next, and again quite a remarkable argument is that Miss Roberts somehow will be unable to establish actual malice.

In this case.

One would think that a sex trafficker calling one of her victims a liar would be quintessential example of actual malice.

Defendant spurious case citations and misplaced argument do not detract from this core effect.

Though defendant does not mention the legal standard for actual malice until she is forty eight pages into her sixty eight page brief, the legal definition of actual malice, as defined by the United States Supreme Court and reiterated by the Second Circuit, should be the light by which all of defendants purported facts and argument should be viewed.

Actual malice means that a statement was published with knowledge and the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Biola versus Disson six oh seven f appx eighteen twenty Second Circuit, twenty fifteen, quoting New York Times Company versus Sullivan three seventy six US two fifty four two eighty eighty four Supreme Court, eleven L.

Dot ed Dot two D.

Six eighty six, nineteen sixty four.

Defendant argues that Miss Roberts is a limited purpose public figure, while Miss Roberts disputes that claim.

The issue is entirely irrelevant here because Miss Roberts will prove at trial with overwhelming evidence that Defendant mat hers statement calling Miss Roberts a liar with malice, fully knowing as a sex trafficker that it was false.

Put another way, defendant knew that Miss Roberts was telling the truth when she described how defendant recruited her for sex as an underage girl and sexually trafficked with her then boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein.

The Second Circuit instructs that on a motion for some rejudgment, a court cannot try issues of fact.

It can only determine whether there are issues to be tried.

If, as to the issue on which some rejudgment is sought, there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non moving party, some rejudgment is improper.

Chambers versus TRM Copy Centers Corporation, forty three f.

Dot three d.

Twenty nine thirty seven, Second Circuit nineteen ninety four.

As the moving party, Defendants have the burden of demonstrating an absence of clear and convincing evidence substantiating Plaintiff's claims.

The Soul versus Noedler Gallery LLC one thirty nine f Dot supp Dot three D six eighteen six forty SDNY twenty fifteen, Citing Chambers, defendant fails demeter burden of demonstrating an absence of clear and convincing evidence substantiating Miss Roberts' claims that defendant acted with actual malice.

Miss Roberts will easily be able to meet any trial burden of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice telling Lee, defendant does not even attempt to address the documentary evidence nor the testimonial evidence showing she was a recruiter of girls for Epstein, as shown above, far beyond showing that a reasonable inference could be drawn in her favor, which is all that is required at this point to defeat defendant's motion.

Miss Roberts will easily be able to meet her trial burden of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

Of course, a plaintiff need only show actual malice on the part of a defendant if that plaintiff is a public figure or a limited public figure, which Miss Roberts is not.

As explained Infra Part number seven, the Court need not reach the issue at this time of whether Miss Roberts is limited purpose public figure.

For the reasons just explained, Miss Roberts will easily be able to prove actual malice at the trial.

In this case, defendant argues that Miss Roberts is a public figure who must prove actual malice msj at forty nine.

Given the overwhelming proof of the second part of the statement, the court need not spend time considering the first.

If the Court wishes to nonetheless consider the issue at this time, it is not appropriate for disposition.

At the summary judgment stage of the case.

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure.

C Luherman versus Flint Distribution Company, seven for five f Dot two D one twenty three, one thirty six through one thirty seven, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty four.

Defendant correctly articulates the legal test for finding that a plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure, but losses over the fact that all prongs of the test must be met in order for a court to make that finding.

C e g.

Contemporary Mission Incorporated versus New York Times Company eight forty two, F Dot two D six twelve six seventeen, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty eight.

This Court set forth a four part test for determining whether someone is a limited purpose public figure Herbert versus Lando, five ninety six, F Dot supp.

Eleven seventy eight, eleven eighty six, sdn Y nineteen eighty four.

The Second Circuit recently summarized the criteria FI David in part revised in part seven eighty one F Dot two d two ninety eight, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty six.

Nels versus.

Hillsdale College one seventy eight, F Dot supp Dot two d seven seventy one, seven seventy eight, E dot d.

Michigan two thousand and one, finding plaintiff was not a limited public figure for a failing one element of the Lureman test, and thus denying defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant has proven all of the elements but the third Affidavid at sixty five F.

Appendix nine eighty four six Circuit two thousand and three.

Of course, proof that Miss Roberts or anyone else is a limited purpose public figure requires proof of a set of facts from which Miss Roberts believes Defendant has not shown in satisfaction of the four part test.

Significantly, this Court should pause here to note that the details of Jane Doe number three's sexual exploitation and abuse, as anonymously set forth in her CVR A joined her motion, causes the defendant to identify with certainty Jane Doe number three as Miss Roberts.

Yet at her deposition defendant claim to barely remember her at all.

Defendant's ability to immediately and positively identify the anonymous individual making claims of sexual abuse, if anything, should the defendant was intimately aware of Miss roberts sexual exploitation, and to be sure, Miss Roberts never asked to be sexually abused or trafficked by Defendant or the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein when she was a child.

Legally she did not even have the capacity to consent.

Defendant cannot recruit a minor child for sexual exploitation, and that afterwards argue that her victim injected herself into the public controversy when coming forward about the abuse that she has suffered.

Moreover, the defendant has not made a sufficient showing that Miss Roberts has regular and continuing access to the news media.

The policy rationale behind this prong is that the public figures generally enjoy significant access to the media.

One reporter wrote some articles on Miss Roberts in twenty eleven.

Thereafter, it was not until twenty fifteen that Miss Roberts spoke to someone in the news about these issues, and that the interview was granted after the defendants defamatory remarks.

Such limited contacts precludes a finding that Miss Roberts is a limited public figure.

See Hutchinson versus Proxmire, four forty three US one eleven, ninety nine.

Supreme Court twenty six seventy five sixty one L dot Ed two D four eleven, nineteen seventy nine, finding plaintiff maintained no regular and continuing access to the media and thus was not a public figure.

It is also unclear how defendant plans to show that Miss Roberts successfully invited public attention to reviews.

To be sure, Miss Roberts decided to start.

Victims Refuse Silence a not for profit organization whose mission is to change the landscape of the war on sexual abuse and human trafficking.

Our goal is to undertake an instrumental role in helping survivors break the silence associated with sexual abuse.

To fulfill this mission, we aim to enhance the lives of women who have been victimized.

The website the National Trafficking Hotline and provides a state by state resource for local organizations where victims can seek help.

Unsurprisingly, Defendant sites no cases that hold that maintaining a website makes one a public figure.

See me Tre Sports International Limited vers Home Box Office Incorporated.

Twenty two f DOT supp Dot three D two forty two fifty two SDNY twenty fourteen.

Finding plaintiff was not a limited public figure and denying Defendant's motion for some rejudgment.

Corporate policy denouncing child labor on its website does not show that Metre aim to influence the public's views on the controversy.

More important, Defendant does not explain how Miss Roberts was using the website to influence public views on whether she had been abused by Defendant, The subject at issue in this lawsuit.

Interestingly, defendant has spent seventeen thousand, eight hundred and seventy five dollars and forty nine cents on an expert witness to tell the court and the jury that hardly anyone searches on the Internet using search terms such as victims refuse silence sex slave.

One of the defendants six briefs raising Dawbird issues specifically argues that Doctor anderson estimates on the cost of remediating Miss Roberts's online reputation are improper because doctor Anderson included nearly unused search phrases when evaluating Internet content can rebuttal report states there seems no reason to believe that such a person would use this item.

Indeed, these are terms unlikely to be used by anyone unfamiliar with this litigation by for instance, would it be necessary to push down offending web pages in the results that the search engines provide for the term victims refuse silent sex slave when this term is likely never used.

CEE McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty five can Report at ten and thirty three.

Defendant cannot argue to the court that Roberts has successfully invited public attention to her views through her VRS website, while simultaneously filing a Daubert motion that argues the search terms such as victims, refuse, silent, sex slave are likely never used, thus making the website unsuccessful and inviting public attention.

In any event, Defendant has failed to set forth with precision the allegedly undisputed fact and supporting evidence she uses the support her argument.

Moreover, it is preferable to reduce the public figure question to a more meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an individual's participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation.

Greenberg versus.

CBS Incorporated.

Sixty nine A Dot D Dot two D six ninety three, seven O four four nineteen NYS two D nine eighty eight nine ninety five, nineteen seventy nine, citing Gertz versus.

Robert Welch Incorporated.

Four eighteen US three twenty three three forty five three point fifty two ninety four Supreme Court, twenty nine, ninety seven forty one L Dot ed dot two D seven eighty nine.

The context here is highly significant.

Miss Roberts never chose to participate in Defendant and Epstein's under age sex ring, a controversy that gave rise to Defendant's defamation.

In arguing that Miss Roberts thrust yourself into the public spotlight, Defendant conveniently leaves out the fact that it is by her doing that Miss Roberts is in this controversy in the first place.

No minor child willingly becomes a participant in sexual abuse, and it is perverse for the abuser to argue that her victim deliberately became a subject of public attention when speaking out about that abuse for the purpose of advancing justice and helping other victims.

For all these reasons, the court should simply decline to decide the public figure issue at this juncture.

But if it chooses to reach the issue, it should reject defendant's unsupported argument.

Section eight.

The January twenty fifteen statement was not substantially true, and Miss Roberts has produced clear and convincing evidence of its falsity.

As a final argument, defendant argues that her January twenty fifteen statement was substantially true.

Given that the statement argues that Miss Roberts lied when she said she was sexually trafficked by the defendant, The reader of Defendant's motion might reasonably expect to see some evidence presented showing that defendant was not a sex trafficker.

Instead, the reader is treated to technical quibbles.

For example, the lead argument show the substantial truth of defendant statement is the argument that Miss Roberts was not fifteen years old but all of sixteen or seventeen years old when she was trafficked.

As the court knows and can take judicial notice of, Florida law makes age eighteen the age of consent.

Accordingly, it is no moment that Miss Roberts may have been mistaken about the exact year the sex trafficking started.

Call this the yes, I'm a sex trafficker, but only of sixteen year old girls defense.

To even describe the defense is to show how meritless it is.

More broadly, at issue are the statements Miss Roberts made regarding Defendant's involvement in and knowledge of the sexual abuse and sex trafficking of Miss Roberts and other minor girls through a recruitment scheme executed by defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.

In response to those various statements, Defendant publicly claimed that the allegations made by Miss Roberts against Glen Maxwell are untrue.

Defendant continued that Miss roberts claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such.

Defendant, through her statement, intended to convey that Miss Roberts was lying about everything she had said against defendant in the allegations in some and at since those statements made by Miss Roberts about which Defendant released a public statement to exclaim were untrue and obvious lies were One the defendant approach Miss Roberts while Miss Roberts was an underage miner working at mar A Lago country club and recruited the then minor Miss Roberts to the house of Jeffrey Epstein under the pretense of providing a massage to Jeffrey Epstein for money.

Two that Miss Roberts followed Defendant's instructions and was driven to Jeffrey Epstein's house, where she was greeted by defendant and later introduced to Jeffrey Epstein.

Three that Miss Roberts was led upstairs to be introduced to Jeffrey Epstein in his bedroom, and while there, Defendant demonstrated how Miss Roberts should provide a massage to Jeffrey Epstein.

Four, Defendant and Epstein converted the massage into a sexual experience, requesting that Miss Roberts remover clothing, after which time a sexual encounter was had.

Five.

Defendant and Epstein expressed approval for Miss Roberts and offered her money in exchange for this erotic massage turned full sexual encounter.

Six the defendant and Epstein offered Miss Roberts the promise of money and the better life in exchange for Miss Roberts acting sexually compliant and subservient to their demands.

Number seven that Miss Roberts, after that first sexual encounter, was repeatedly requested to service Epstein and or defendant sexually or others.

Eight that Miss Roberts was taken on Epstein's private planes on numerous occasions and trafficked nationally and internationally for the purpose of servicing Epstein and others, including the defendant, sexually.

Number nine The defendant was Epstein's primary manager of the recruitment and training of females who Epstein paid for sexual purposes.

Ten Defendant participated in sexual encounters with females, including Miss Roberts, and eleven that Miss Roberts and other recruited females were encouraged by Defendant at Epstein to bring other young females to Epstein for the purpose of servicing him sexually.

Defendant, by way of her January twenty fifteen statement, declared that Miss Roberts lied about each and every one of these allegations regarding the defendant.

In fact, Defendant clarified further this position in her deposition when she said repeatedly that everything Miss Roberts said about defendant was totally false.

The clarification in her deposition is identical in intention to the reasonable interpretation of her statement that Defendant made publicly, which has formed the basis of this defamation action, that Miss Roberts was lying about everything she said about the defendant, and that the defendant was not at all involved in this activity that she is accused in engaging in.

While her public statement could not have been more clear, as her deposition testimony further underscored, Defendant intended the world to believe that nothing Miss Roberts said about the defense was true and that the defendant was not at all involved with any of the things she was accused of.

Defendant has decided in this motion to minutely dissect the nuance of Miss Roberts's various statements to cause the court to reach a far fetched conclusion the defendant insidiously a false statement was somehow substantially true.

Ironically, this repositioning amounts to nothing more than an admission by the defendant of the defamatory nature of her statement.

A When Miss Roberts initially described her encounters with a defendant and Epstein, she mistakenly believed the first encounter occurred during the year nineteen ninety nine.

Discovery has resulted in the production of records, including Miss Roberts employment records from mar A Lago, which she did not possess at the time she was recounting her interactions with a defendant.

Those records established that the initial encounter wherein defendant recruited Miss Roberts, occurred during the year two thousand and not Nina ninety nine.

Miss Roberts was sixteen years old before August ninth, two thousand and turned seventeen on that date.

It is unclear from the limited records available whether the defendant approached and recruited Miss Roberts before or just after Robert's seventeenth birthday.

However, what has now been established through numerous witnesses, is that defendant approached and recruited a minor child for the purposes of enticing that miner over to the house of Jeffrey Epstein, a currently registered sex offender.

The exact lure of Miss Roberts by defendant enticement of being paid money to give a billionaire a massage at his mansion was used by Epstein and as many associates and employees to recruit dozens and dozens of other underage girls.

There is no doubt that the crux of Miss Robert's statements on this point is that the defendant recruiteder when she was only a minor child unable to consent to sex, not precisely how far under the age of consent she won.

Defendant's public claim that Miss Roberts account of this approach and recruitment element was untrue and obvious lies is not substantially true, but is itself an obvious lie.

As Miss Roberts will approve to the jury trial b defendants January twenty fifteen statement claiming as untrue and an obvious lie, the allegation that she regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation of miners, and that the government knows such fact is not substantially true but instead completely false.

Defendant next argues that she accurately denied that she irregularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation on miners, and that the government knows such as a fact MSJA at fifty eight.

It's not clear whether defendant is nitpicking this statement by contesting whether she regularly participated in Epstein's sexual exploitation or whether she did participate but the government was unaware of the extent of her involvement.

Call this the yes, I'm a sex trafficker but only on Tuesdays and Thursday's defense here again, to simply recount the claim is to see its absurdity.

Contrary to Defendant's misleading cherry pick fragments of information that she has chosen to use the support her point, there is an abundance of evidence clearly linking defendant to Epstein's sexual exploitation of miners.

As the Court is aware, numerous message pads were recovered from Epstein's home, indicating Defendant's involvement in and knowledge of Epstein's illegal exploitation.

Additionally, numerous employees and others have testified about Defendant's high ranking position in the hierarchical structure of the sexual exploitation scheme.

In fact, multiple individuals in addition to Miss Roberts, have testified about Maxwell's involvement in the exploitation of miners, including Miss Roberts.

Defendant also argues that one government investigator, Palm Beach, Florida, Detective Riccari, may not have been aware of her involvement in the sex trafficking.

Defendant failt to cite another passage in Detective Ricarrey's deposition where he noted that he was aware of Defendant's involvement with Epstein and the sexual exploitation of children.

But even assuming Riccary was unaware, which Miss Robert strongly disputes, defendant would have at most a yes, I'm a sex trafficker, but I successfully hit it from one of the cops defense, again not a likely claim.

More broadly, Miss Robert's statement about what the government knew about sex trafficking was made in pleadings filed in a federal court case attacking the decision of the U.

S.

Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to offer Jeffrey Epstein immunity from prosecution for federal sex trafficking crimes.

Accordingly, to present an even arguable claim for some rejudgment, defendant would have to show that the US Attorney's Office and its investigators from the FBI today not know about defendant sex trafficking.

This proof would need to include, for example, evidence that the FBI did not learn about defendant sex trafficking when, among other things, Miss Roberts told FBI agents about it when she met them in Australia in twenty eleven.

Here, again, the defendant has no evidence to even begin making such a showing see defendants January twenty fifteen.

Statement claiming as untrue or an obvious lie that Maxwell and Epstein converted Miss Roberts into a sexual slave is not substantially true.

Defendant next argues that she accurately disputed Miss Roberts's statement that the defendant held her as a sex slave, relying on dictionary definitions of slave that define the term to refer to a confined person who is the legal property of another MSJA at fifty nine, citing Merriam, Webster, etc.

Defendant claims Miss Roberts was not confined to the property of the defendant.

Call this the yes, I'm a sex trafficker, but I didn't use Chain's defense, and once again, to even describe the defense is to refute it.

Defendant does not explain why the jury would be required to use the held in Chain's definition of slave in evaluating her statement Merriam Webster, eleventh edition, two thousand and six.

It also defined slave as one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence, a definition that fits Miss Robert's circumstances to a t.

As Miss Roberts has explained in detail, she was recruited as a minor child by the defendant, who then dominated her and used her for sexual purposes.

That testimony alone creates a genuine issue of fact on this point.

From the context of all of Miss Robert's statements about the defendant, Miss Roberts has never said or implied that she was physically placed in a cage.

Instead, she has described the vast disparity of power and the influence of defendant and Epstein, the fear of disobedience, the typical locations of the abuse being in a private plane, a huge mansion man with Epstein's employed servants, a private island or some inescapable place abroad in the presence of the defendant, in addition to the continued and fraudulent promise of a better future, as those things that kept her attained in a situation of sexual servitude.

While not physical chains, miss Roberts was groomed as a miner and trained, and these factors became her invisible chains.

Indeed, as Miss Roberts expert on sex trafficking Professor Coonan has explained, popular understanding of the term sex slave might still connote images of violent pimps, white slavery, or a victim's chained to a bed and a brothel in the minds of some people.

To call Miss Roberts a victim of sex trafficking would, however, very accurately convey the reality that she, along with a great many other victims of contemporary forms of slavery, are off often exploited by the invisible chains of fraud and psychological coercion.

C.

McCauley Declaration at Exhibit twenty three.

Coonan Expert Report at twenty If this Court takes as true, which it must for the purpose of this motion, that Miss Roberts was trafficked and used exclusively for sexual purposes by the defendant at Epstein.

Then the court must also reach the conclusion at this stage that Maxwell's assertion that Miss roberts description of being a sex slave is untrue or obvious lies is not substantially true.

There undoubtedly remains a genuine issue of material fact on this point, and in fact, Defendant's position taken in this motion is tantamount to an admission of the truth of plaintiff statement about defendant.

On this point, d any statement misdirection regarding Professor Alan Dershowitz is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction to the facts of this case and matters not on the defense of whether defendant statement was substantially true.

Defendant next contends that she accurately recounted that Alan Dershowitz had denied having sex with Miss Roberts MSJ at sixty call this the yes, I'm a sex trafficker, but she was not trafficked to the professor defense.

While it is accurate that Miss Roberts made allegations against Professor Dershowitz, those allegations are not at issue in this case.

Defendant, in her defamatory statement, claim that the allegations made by Miss Roberts against Glai Maxwell are untrue.

C.

McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty six GM zero zero zero sixty eight.

In her deposition, Defendant maintained the position that she cannot speculate on what anybody else did or didn't do.

C.

McCauley declaration at Exhibit eleven, Maxwell for twenty two, twenty sixteen.

In fact, regarding Miss Roberts's claims about others, Defendant unequivocally stated, I can only testify to what she said about me, which was one hundred percent false.

CE McCaulay declaration at eleven.

Defendant Maxwell makes additional misstatements about Dershowitzz production in a defamation action filed against him in her desperate attempt to have Dershowitz jump aboard and help bail out her sinking canoe.

Miss Roberts can and if necessary, will refute Dershowitz's claim he was not a beneficiary of Epstein and defendant sex trafficking that is not relevant at this stage.

Whatever may or may not have happened with Dershowitz and Miss Roberts.

Warren statement that he sexually abused hers alone enough to create disputed facts on the issue of whether defendant statements about him are substantially true has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of the statements Miss Roberts made about the defendant.

This case is not about whether Miss Roberts has ever made untruthful allegations against anyone, which he contends she is not, but about whether her allegations about defendant were true, or whether those specific allegations were untrue obvious lies.

As defendant publicly proclaimed, These issues are disputed and must go to the jury.

E Contrary to the defendant's position, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she created or distributed child pornography, or whether the government was aware of the same.

Defendant next argues that she did not create child pornography and that the government knew.

This call this the until you find the photos on innocent defense, of course, is noted earlier.

Defendant's claim requires that she showed the government in context, the FBI and the U.

S.

Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida knew that she had no child pornography.

Yet defendant has offered no such evidence, much less evidence so powerful as to warrant some rejudgment on this point.

This point is disputed from the simple fact that as Roberts herself testified that defendant took many photographs of her naked cee McCauley declaration at Exhibit five, Robert's deposition at two thirty two, three through nine, two thirty three, seven through nine.

This is consistent with the Palm Beach butler Alfredo Rodriguez testimony that he personally saw photos of naked children on the defendant's computer see McCauley declaration at Exhibit twenty one.

Rodriguez deposition at one fifty ten through seventeen, three oh six, one through three oh six, and twenty four.

Another housekeeper, Juana Lessi, also saw photos of young nude females on the defendant's computer, although he wasn't aware or sure whether to consider it pornography see McCauley declaration at exhibit one.

Finally, Detective Rickerri found a collage of nude photos of young females in Epstein's closet and turned the photos over to the FBI and the US Attorney's office.

While the US Attorney's Office will not share the photos obtained from Riccari's investigation.

It is thus undisputed that the government possesses photos of nude young females confiscated from Epstein's Palm Beach mansion.

Indeed, the police video disclosed through a Freedom of information request shows naked images of women throughout the house, including a full nude of the defendant.

At a minimum, there is a clear genuine issue of material fact in this regard.

F defendant did act as a madam for Epstein to traffic Miss Roberts to the rich and the famous.

Defendant next argues that she did not act as a madam for Epstein msj At sixty three.

The gist of the argument seems to be that the defendant believes trafficking one girl to Epstein does not a madam.

Make call this Yes, I was Virginia's madam, but no one else's defense.

This argument fails linguistically on the very dictionary definitions that defendant sites elsewhere but not here see Merriam Webster eleventh addition to two thousand and six, defining madam as the female head of prostitution.

Once again, defendant conceals the relevant facts on this issue.

First, multiple witnesses have testified two defendants recruiting, maintaining, harboring, and trafficking girls for Epstein.

In fact, Defendant herself was unable to deny procuring Miss Roberts for Epstein.

While Defendant as attempted to fumble her way through explaining some plausible reason for bringing a sixteen or seventeen year old to Epstein, her explanations are, to put it blandly unpersuasive.

As with other issues, the jury will have to decide who'll believe one of the individuals Miss Roberts was trafficked to was Prince Andrew.

Trafficking that took place in the defendant's own townhouse in London.

There exists flight logs evidencing Miss Roberts flying to London alongside defendant and Epstein on Epstein's private plane, and the photo of Miss Roberts, Defendant and the Prince, without Defendant ever offering a eagle reasonable explanation for that photo being taken or for a traveling with a year old girl overseas.

Defendant begins to meanders somewhat aimlessly on this point, shifting plaintiff's burden to substantiate Plaintiff's claim that defendant was Epstein's madam, which, at this point at issue into whether or not plaintiff has conclusively proven the identities and accurate job titles of the other men to whom plaintiff was lent for sex by Epstein.

No matter how hard defendant tries to reframe the case drag other people in or split hairs, she is unable to contest the facts fact showing she was more than a madam but a full fledged sex trafficker.

Miss Roberts told the truth when she said the defendant recruitter as a miner under the pretense of giving her a massage, and converted her into a traveling sex slave, consistent with defendant and Epstein's pattern of practice.

As the court astutely acknowledged early on, at the center of this case is the veracity of a contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly defamatory statements.

Either transgressions occurred or it did not.

Either Maxwell was involved or she was not.

If defendant was involved, then her January twenty fifteen statement was defamatory.

Miss Roberts will prove to the jury through overwhelming evidence, her prior allegations about Defendant's involvement the Court should give Miss Roberts that opportunity and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment conclusion for the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny defendant's motion for somemary judgment in all respects.

This was signed by Sigurd McAuley and it was dated January thirty first, twenty seventeen.

All Right, folks, that's going to conclude our look at Virginia Roberts' response to Glad Maxwell's attempt to get a summary judgment.

And if you're not disgusted yet, just wait.

Plenty more is on the way.

All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.