Virginia Roberts Responds To Maxwell's Summary Judgement Request (Part 4)
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 only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.
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 only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)
Speaker 1: 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 Maxwell's motion for a summary judgment.
Number 7. The Black Book Palm Beach police confiscated an
extensive list of contacts with their phone numbers from defendant
and Epstein's residence. 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 of Epstein or the defendant. Prior
to being terminated by defendant, The Palm Beach House butler
Alfredo Rodriguez printed a copy of this document 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 redacted, redacted and redacted, 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. Sex Slave Amazon.com
Book Receipt Detective Ricari authenticated an Amazon.com receipt that the
Palm Beach police collected from Jeffrey Epstein's trash. The books
he ordered are titled 1. SM-101, A Realistic Introduction by
Jay Wiseman. 2. Slavecraft, Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude, Principles, Skills,
and Tools by Guy Baldwin. 3. Training with Miss 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 Ann 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 he
was ordering books on how to use sex slaves. However,
record evidence contradicts that testimony. Number 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 bring her back to the U.S. 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 redacted on Virginia's travel documents. In this case, Virginia
also produced the hard copy records from her hotel stay
in Thailand paid for by Epstein. See McCauley'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 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, Mail 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. See Macaulay Declaration at Exhibit 34,
Roberts 003678. Accordingly, there is documentary evidence that refutes defendant's
meritless argument that Ms. Roberts did not allege she had
sex with Prince Andrew in until 2014. To the contrary,
two sources, including the FBI, show Ms. Roberts made these
claims in 2011. C. 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 2000 through 2002 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 with actual malice.
The jury should hear all of the evidence and then
render its verdict on Ms. Roberts' complaint. Part 3. Legal
Standard Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that a motion for summary judgment may be granted
only when there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that all moving parties is entitled to
a judgment 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. Sweet J. citing Brady,
Burst Town of Colchester, 863, F. 2D, 205, 210, 2nd 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
in the non-moving party's favor. In Agent Orange, Product Liability, 5.17, F. 3D, 76, 87,
2nd Circuit, 2008. Stern v. Cosby, 645. F.SUPP, 2D, 258, 269, SDNY, 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. C. NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC, LLC, 537.
Defendant's 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. SAC 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. 1.
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. 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. NYS. 3D 438, 439, 132, A.D.3SD 961, 962,
and 963. NYAD 2nd Department 2015. Generally, one who makes
a defamatory statement is not responsible for for its re-communication
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. v.
Casa Publications, Inc. 914 NYS. 2D 120-123 79 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 re-communicate his statements. See
also Restatement 2nd of Tort's 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.
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 effort 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 cases defendant cites contradict
her argument. She first cites Geraci 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. I.D. at 340.
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 statement 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 established that the media published her press
release with defendant's authority and by her request. Question. When
you sent that email, were you acting pursuant to Ms.
Maxwell's retention of your services? Answer. Yes, I was. Question.
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? Answer, 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-Gavris involved a libel claim against a book author 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. 580F. SUPP. 1082. 1094. SDNY 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 Cara Duman v. Newsday, Inc., 416 N.E.2D 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 N.E.2D 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 the cases 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.