Virginia Roberts Responds To Maxwell's Summary Judgement Request (Part 8)
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 pick up where we
left off with Virginia Roberts and her response to Ghislaine
Maxwell's attempt to get a summary judgment. So let's dive
right back in. Part number seven. The court need not
reach the issue at this time of whether Ms. Roberts
is a limited purpose public figure. For the reasons just explained, Ms.
Roberts will easily be able to prove actual malice at
the trial In this case, defendant argues that Ms. Roberts
is a public figure who must prove actual malice. MSJ
at 49. 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. See Lerman v. Flint Distribution Company, 745 F. 2D, 123, 136-137,
2nd Circuit, 1984. Defendant correctly articulates the legal test for
finding that a plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, but
glosses over the fact that all prongs of the test
must be met in order for a court to make
that finding. CEG Contemporary Mission Incorporated v. New York Times Company,
842 F. 2D, 612-617 Second Circuit, 1988. This court set forth
a four-part test for determining whether someone is a limited-purpose
public figure. Herbert v. Lando, 596, F.SUPP, 1178, 1186 SDNY, 1984,
The Second Circuit recently summarized the criteria. Affidavit in part,
revised in part, 781, F. 2D, 298, Second Circuit, 1986, Nels v.
Hillsdale College, 178, F.SUPP.2D, 771, 778, E.D., Michigan, 2001. finding
plaintiff was not a limited public figure for failing one
element of the Lerman test and thus denying defendant's motion
for a summary judgment. The defendant has proven all of
the elements but the third. Affidavit at 65F, Appendix 984,
6th Circuit, 2003. Of course, proof that Ms. Roberts or
anyone else is a limited purpose public figure requires proof
of a set of facts from which Ms. 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 No. 3's sexual exploitation and abuse, as
anonymously set forth in her CVRA joined her motion, caused
the defendant to identify with certainty Jane Doe No. 3
as Ms. Roberts. Yet, at her deposition, defendant claimed to
barely remember her at all. Defendant's ability to immediately and
positively identify the anonymous individual making claims of sexual abuse,
if anything, shows the defendant was intimately aware of Ms.
Roberts' sexual exploitation. And to be sure, Ms. 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 then
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 Ms.
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 Ms. Roberts in 2011. Thereafter, it
was not until 2015 that Ms. Roberts spoke to someone
in the news about these issues and that the interview
was granted after the defendant's defamatory remarks. Such limited contacts
precludes the finding that Ms. Roberts is a limited public figure.
See Hutchinson v. Proxmire 443, U.S. 111, 99 Supreme Court, 2675,
61 L.E.D. 2D 411 1979. 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 Ms. Roberts successfully invited public attention to
her views. To be sure, Ms. 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 lists the
National Trafficking Hotline and provides a state-by-state resource for local
organizations where victims can seek help. Unsurprisingly, Defendant cites no
cases that hold that maintaining a website makes one a
public figure. See Mitre Sports International Limited v. Home Box
Office Inc. 22 F.SUPP.3D 240-252 SDNY 2014. Finding plaintiff was
not a limited public figure and denying defendant's motion for
summary judgment. Corporate policy denouncing child labor on its website
does not show that Mitre is aimed to influence the
public's views on the controversy. More important, defendant does not
explain how Ms. 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 $ 17, 875. 49 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 Daubert issues, specifically
argues that Dr. Anderson estimates on the cost of remediating Ms.
Roberts' online reputation are improper because Dr. Anderson included nearly
unused search phrases when evaluating internet content. Kent 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. Why, for instance,
would it be necessary to push down offending webpages in
the results that the search engines provide for the term
victims refuse silent sex slave when this term is likely
never used? See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 25, Kent Report
at 10 and 33. Defendant cannot argue to the court
that Ms. 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
silence 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 to 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 v. CBS Inc. 69 A.D.
2D 693 704 419 NYS 2D 988 995 1979 citing
Goertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323-345-352-94 Supreme Court, 2997-41-L.ED.2D-789.
The context here is highly significant. Ms. Roberts never chose
to participate in defendant and Epstein's underage sex ring, a
controversy that gave rise to defendant's defamation. In arguing that Ms.
Roberts thrust herself into the public spotlight, defendant conveniently leaves
out the fact that it is by her doing that Ms.
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 8. The January
2015 statement was not substantially true and Ms. Roberts has
produced clear and convincing evidence of its falsity. As a
final argument, defendant argues that her January 2015 statement was
substantially true. Given that the statement argues that Ms. 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 Ms. Roberts was not 15 years old,
but all of 16 or 17 years old when she
was trafficked. As the court knows and can take judicial
notice of, Florida law makes age 18 the age of consent. Accordingly,
it is no moment that Ms. 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
16 year old girl's defense. To even describe the defense
is to show how meritless it is. More broadly at
issue are the statements Ms. Roberts made regarding defendant's involvement
in and knowledge of the sexual abuse and sex trafficking
of Ms. 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 Ms. Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. Defendant continued
that Ms. Roberts' claims are obvious lies and should be
treated as such. Defendant, through her statement, intended to convey
that Ms. Roberts was lying about everything she had said
against defendant in the allegations. In sum and essence, those
statements made by Ms. Roberts about which defendant released a
public statement to exclaim were untrue and obvious lies were, 1.
The defendant approached Ms. Roberts while Ms. Roberts was an
underage minor working at Mar-a-Lago Country Club and recruited the
then-minor Ms. Roberts to the house of Jeffrey Epstein under
the pretense of providing a massage to Jeffrey Epstein for money. 2.
that Ms. 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 Ms. Roberts was
led upstairs to be introduced to Jeffrey Epstein in his bedroom,
and while there, defendant demonstrated how Ms. Roberts should provide
a massage to Jeffrey Epstein. Four, defendant and Epstein converted
the massage into a sexual experience, requesting that Ms. Roberts
remove her clothing, after which time a sexual encounter was had. 5.
The defendant and Epstein expressed approval for Ms. Roberts and
offered her money in exchange for this erotic massage turned
full sexual encounter. 6. The defendant and Epstein offered Ms.
Roberts the promise of money and a better life in
exchange for Ms. Roberts acting sexually compliant and subservient to
their demands. 7. That Ms. Roberts, after that first sexual
encounter was repeatedly requested to service Epstein and or defendant
sexually and or others. 8. That Ms. 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. 9. The defendant was Epstein's primary
manager of the recruitment and training of females who Epstein
paid for sexual purposes. 10. Defendant participated in sexual encounters
with females, including Ms. Roberts and Eleven, that Ms. Roberts
and other recruited females were encouraged by defendant Ann Epstein
to bring other young females to Epstein for the purpose
of servicing him sexually. Defendant, by way of her January
2015 statement, declared that Ms. Roberts lied about each and
every one of these allegations regarding the defendant. In fact,
defendant clarified further, this position, interdeposition, when she said repeatedly
that everything Ms. 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 Ms.
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 Ms. Roberts said about the defendant 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 Ms.
Roberts' various statements to cause the court to reach a
far-fetched conclusion the defendant insidiously 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. Alright folks,
we're going to wrap up right there, and in the
next episode we're going to pick up where we left off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box.