Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
full pdf 2024 PAGES
Page
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .........................................................................................1
II. UNDISPUTED FACTS.......................................................................................................4
A. It is an Undisputed Fact That Multiple Witnesses Deposed in This Case Have
Testified That Defendant Operated as Convicted Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s
Procurer of Underage Girls......................................................................................4
1. It is an undisputed fact that Joanna Sjoberg testified Defendant lured
her from her school to have sex with Epstein under the guise of hiring
her for a job answering phones....................................................................4
2. It is an undisputed fact that Tony Figueroa testified that Defendant
would call him to bring over underage girls and that Defendant and
Epstein would have threesomes with Ms. Giuffre.......................................6
3. It is an undisputed fact that Rinaldo Rizzo testified that Defendant
took the passport of a 15-year-old Swedish girl and threatened her
when she refused to have sex with Epstein. ................................................8
4. It is an undisputed fact that Lyn Miller testified that she believed
Defendant became Ms. Giuffre’s “new mama”...........................................9
5. It is an undisputed Fact that Detective Joseph Recarey testified that he
sought to investigate Defendant in relation to his investigation of
Jeffrey Epstein. ............................................................................................9
6. It is an undisputed fact that Pilot David Rodgers testified that he flew
Defendant and Ms. Giuffre at least 23 times on Epstein’s jet, the
“Lolita Express” and that “GM” on the flight logs Stands for Ghislaine
Maxwell.....................................................................................................10
7. It is an undisputed fact that Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and
Jeffrey Epstein invoked the fifth amendment when asked about
Defendant trafficking girls for Jeffery Epstein..........................................10
8. It is an undisputed fact that Juan Alessi testified that Defendant was
one of the people who procured some of the over 100 girls he
witnessed visit Epstein, and that he had to clean Defendant’s sex toys. ...11
9. It is an undisputed fact that Defendant is unable to garner a single
witness throughout discovery who can testify that she did not act as the
procurer of underage girls and young women for Jeffrey Epstein. ...........12
Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page2 of 74
ii
B. Documentary Evidence also Shows that Defendant Trafficked Ms. Giuffre and
Procured her for Sex with Convicted Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein while She Was
Underage................................................................................................................12
1. The Flight Logs .........................................................................................12
2. The Photographs ........................................................................................13
3. The Victim Identification Letter................................................................15
4. New York Presbyterian Hospital Records.................................................15
5. Judith Lightfoot Psychological Records....................................................16
6. Message Pads.............................................................................................17
7. The Black Book .........................................................................................22
8. Sex Slave Amazon.com Book Receipt......................................................23
9. Thailand Folder with Defendant’s Phone Number....................................24
10. It is undisputed fact that the FBI report and the Churcher emails
reference Ms. Giuffre’s accounts of sexual activity with Prince
Andrew that she made in 2011, contrary to Defendant’s argument that
Ms. Giuffre never made such claims until 2014........................................25
C. Defendant Has Produced No Documents Whatsoever That Tend to Show That
She Did Not Procure Underage Girls For Jeffrey Epstein.....................................26
III. LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................27
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................27
A. Defendant is Liable for the Publication of the Defamatory Statement and
Damages for Its Publication ..................................................................................27
1. Under New York Law, Defendant is liable for the media’s publication
of her press release. ...................................................................................28
2. Defendant is liable for the media’s publication of the defamatory
statement....................................................................................................32
B. Material Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment...........................................34
1. The Barden Declaration presents disputed issues of fact. .........................34
Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page3 of 74
iii
a. The Barden Declaration is a deceptive back-door attempt to
inject Barden’s advice without providing discovery of all
attorney communications...............................................................34
b. Defendant’s summary judgment argument requires factual
findings regarding Barden’s intent, thereby precluding
summary judgment. .......................................................................35
c. There are factual disputes regarding Barden’s Declaration...........36
C. Defendant’s Defamatory Statement Was Not Opinion as a Matter of Law. .........38
D. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Does Not Apply to Defendant’s Press Release .......40
1. Defendant fails to make a showing that the pre-litigation privilege
applies........................................................................................................40
2. Defendant is foreclosed from using the pre-litigation privilege because
she acted with malice.................................................................................43
3. Defendant cannot invoke the pre-litigation privilege because she has
no “meritorious claim” for “good faith” litigation. ...................................46
V. DEFENDANT HAS NOT - AND CANNOT - SHOW THAT HER DEFAMATORY
STATEMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE..................................................................47
VI. 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...........................................................................................................49
VII. THE COURT NEED NOT REACH THE ISSUE, AT THIS TIME, OF WHETHER
MS. GIUFFRE IS A LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE........................................51
VIII. THE JANUARY 2015 STATEMENT WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE,”
AND MS. GIUFFRE HAS PRODUCED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
OF ITS FALSITY..............................................................................................................55
A. When Ms. Giuffre Initially Described Her Encounters With Defendant and
Epstein, She Mistakenly Believed the First Encounter Occurred During the
Year 1999. .............................................................................................................57
B. Defendant’s January 2015 Statement Claiming as “Untrue” and an “Obvious
Lie” the Allegation That She Regularly Participated in Epstein’s Sexual
Exploitation of Minors and That the Government Knows Such Fact is Not
Substantially True But Instead Completely False. ................................................58
Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page4 of 74
iv
C. Defendant’s January 2015 Statement Claiming as “Untrue” or an “Obvious
Lie” That Maxwell and Epstein Converted Ms. Giuffre Into a Sexual Slave is
Not Substantially True...........................................................................................60
D. Any Statement of 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’s Statement Was
Substantially True..................................................................................................61
E. Contrary to 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 Same. ........................................................................62
F. Defendant Did Act as a “Madame” For Epstein to Traffic Ms. Giuffre to The
Rich and Famous. ..................................................................................................63
IX. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................65