Judge Sweets Order Denying Maxwell's Request For Summary Judgement Against Virginia (Part 1)

0:00You know what they say. Early bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with Burbo. Because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore, or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks, well, whatever you want it to. So you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with Burbo's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Advert savings $141, select homes only. Every day the world gets a little weirder, and a lot more awesome. Cool stuff daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for cool stuff daily as we take a quick look at science, tech, and the, wait, what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to cool stuff daily now because the future is happening fast and it's way too

1:03fun to miss. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a look at the opinion of Judge Sweet when it comes to Galen Maxwell and her attempt to get a summary judgment from Virginia Roberts. And this all dovetails into the documents that we've been going over the past few days, the ones that have to do with rule 56. So let's wrap this whole rule 56 argument up with a nice bow and finish it off. The opinion of Judge Sweet. The defendant Galen Maxwell, Maxwell or Maxwell has moved pursuant to rule 56 fed.r.cvp for a summary judgment, dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Virginia Roberts, alleging defamation. Upon the facts and conclusions at fourth below, that motion is denied. Prior proceedings. Since the filing of the complaint on September 21, 2015, setting forth Roberts claim of defamation

2:06by Maxwell, this action has been vigorously litigated as demonstrated by the 704 socket entries as of March 8, 2017. At issue is the truth or falsity of a January 2015 statement issued by Maxwell. Discovery has proceeded, a joint pre-trial order has been filed and the action is set for trial on May 15, 2017. The instant motion was heard and marked fully submitted on February 16, 2017 to the facts. The facts have been set forth in Maxwell's memorandum of law in support of Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, Southern District of New York local rule 561, Robert statement of contested facts and undisputed facts and Maxwell's reply to Robert statement of contested facts and Robert's undisputed facts pursuant to local civil rule 561. They are not indisputed except as noted below one.

3:06In the early 2011, Roberts in two British tabloid interviews made numerous false and the family allegations against Maxwell. In the articles, Roberts made no direct allegations that Maxwell was involved in any and proper conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, who had pleaded guilty in 2007 to procuring a minor for prostitution. Nonetheless, Roberts suggested that Maxwell worked with Epstein and may have known about the crime for which he was convicted. Roberts has denied that the allegations she made against Maxwell were false and the family. She noted that she did give an interview to journalist Sharon Churchill, in which she described Maxwell's role as someone who recruited or facilitated the recruitment of young females for Epstein, that she was interviewed by the FBI in 2011, and that she discussed Maxwell's involvement in the sexual abuse, too. In the article, Roberts alleged that she had sex with Prince Andrew, a well-known businessman, a world-renowned scientist, a respected liberal politician, and a foreign

4:09head of state. Roberts did not contest this statement, but noted it is irrelevant. Three, in response to the allegations, Maxwell's British attorney, working with Ross Gao, Maxwell's public relations representative, issued a statement on March 9, 2011, denying the various allegations about Maxwell that have appeared recently in the media. These allegations are all entirely false. Roberts has denied that Maxwell's British attorney, Philip Barton issued a statement, noting that it appears to have the contact, Gao, and a reference to Devonshire solicitors. Four, the March 9, 2009 statement read in full, statement on behalf of Glenn Maxwell, by Devonshire solicitors. Glenn Maxwell denies the various allegations about her that have appeared recently in the media. These allegations are all entirely false. It's unacceptable that letters sent by Maxwell's legal representatives to certain newspapers, pointing out the truth, and asking for the allegations to be withdrawn have simply been

5:12ignored. In the circumstances, Maxwell is now proceeding to take legal actions against those newspapers. I understand that newspapers need to sell copies. It is well known that certain newspapers live by the adage, while at the truth, get in the way of a good story. However, the allegations made against me are abhorrent, and entirely untrue, and I asked that they stop, said Glenn Maxwell. A number of newspapers have shown a complete lack of accuracy in their reporting of this story and a failure to carry out the most elementary investigation or any real due diligence. I am now taking action to clear my name, she said. Five, in 2008, two alleged victims of Epstein brought the action under the Crime Victims Rights Act, the CVRA Action, against the United States Government, purporting to challenge Epstein's plea agreement. They alleged that the government violated their CVRA rights by entering into the agreement. Six, Roberts moved to join the CVRA Action on December 30, 2014, claiming she, too, had

6:17her CVRA rights violated by the government. On January 1, 2015, Roberts filed a corrected jointer motion, see Jane Doe number one, Jane Doe number two, versus the United States. Number eight, CV, 80736, KAM, docket number 280, Roberts joined her motion in this unrelated action, included gratuitous and lurid accusations, Roberts has denied the final sentence fragment. Seven, the issue presented in the joineder motion was narrow, whether Roberts should be permitted to join the CVRA's action as a party under a federal rule of civil procedure 21, specifically whether she was a known victim of Mr. Epstein and the government owed them CVRA duties. Jane Doe one and Jane Doe two, versus the United States. Number nine, zero eight, CV, 80736, KAM, docket number three, twenty four. Yet the bulk of the motion consists of copious factual details that Ms. Roberts and her

7:21co-movement would prove if allowed to join. Roberts gratuitously included provocative and lurid details of her alleged sexual activities and an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. Roberts has denied that the issue presented in her joineder motion were narrow and has noted that the issues presented by the joineder motion and related pleadings were multiple and complex, requiring numerous details about Roberts' sexual abuse and listing of the perpetrators of her abuse. In a pleading explaining why the motion was filed, see Jane Doe one and Jane Doe two versus the United States, Roberts lawyers specifically listed nine separate reasons why Jane Doe three's allegations that Alan Dershowitz had sexually abused her were relevant to the case and appropriately included in the relevant filings. Additionally, Robert states that Judge Mara's ruling concluded that certain allegations were not necessary at this juncture in the proceedings. Adding that Jane Doe number three is free to reassert these factual details through proper

8:24evidentiary proof should petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the court's litigation. CVRA motion at five and six, Roberts notes that the CVRA litigation continues and no trial has been held as of the filing of this motion so that the extent to which these factual details will be used at trial has not yet been determined. Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz, I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a long time reporter and an on-air contributor to CNBC and if you're like me you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it. Including where this is all going, they come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast or ever you get your podcasts.

9:24Hey I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast Lunatic in the Newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that drifts into my old panic, wild overthinking and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, Lunatic in the newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic button, you'll laugh, you'll cry and gasp and horror as the show spirals completely out of control. It's not just news, it's emotionally unstable. Lunatic in the newsroom, listen today. Number eight. At the time they filed a motion, Roberts and our lawyers knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal case and the CVRA action. While they deliberately filed the motion without disclosing Roberts' name, claiming the need for privacy and secrecy, they made no attempt to file the motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion publicly. Roberts has noted her denial as set forth to the statement above. Nine. As the district court noted in ruling on the jointer motion, Roberts named several individuals

10:26and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place. The court ruled that these lurid details are unnecessary. Explaining that the factual details regarding whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent, especially considering that these details involve nonparties who are not related to the respondent government. Accordingly, these unnecessary details shall be stricken. The court then struck all of Roberts' factual allegations relating to her alleged sexual activities and her allegations of misconduct by nonparties. The court said that the striking of the lurid details was a sanction for Roberts' improper inclusion of them in the motion. Roberts has noted her denial as set forth in statement above. Ten. The district court in the CVRA action found not only that the lurid details were unnecessary, but also that the jointer motion itself was entirely unnecessary, ID at seven.

11:27Roberts and her lawyers knew the motion with all its lurid details was unnecessary because the motion itself recognized that she would be able to participate as a fact witness to achieve the same result that she sought as a party. The court denied Roberts' jointer motion. Roberts has noted her denial as set forth in statement seven above. Eleven. One of the nonparties Roberts named repeatedly in the jointer motion was Maxwell. According to the lurid details of Roberts, included in the motion, Maxwell personally was involved in a sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein. Maxwell approached Roberts in 1999 when Roberts was 15 years old to recruit her into the scheme. Maxwell was one of the main women Epstein used to procure underage girls for sexual activities. Maxwell was a primary co-conspirator with Epstein in his scheme. He persuaded Roberts to go to Epstein's mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children.

12:30At the mansion when Roberts began giving Epstein a massage, he and Maxwell turned it into a sexual massage. Epstein with the assistance of Maxwell converted Roberts into a sex slave. Maxwell also was a co-conspirator and Epstein sexual abuse. Maxwell appreciated the immunity that she acquired under Epstein's plea agreement because the immunity protected her from prosecution, from any crime she might have committed in Florida. Maxwell participated in the sexual abuse of Roberts and others. Maxwell took numerous sexual explicit pictures of underage girls, involved in sexual activities, including Roberts. She shared the photos with Epstein. As part of her role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring, Maxwell connected Epstein with powerful individuals so that Epstein could traffic Roberts to these persons. Roberts was forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew in Maxwell's apartment in London. Maxwell facilitated Roberts sex with Prince Andrew by acting as a matum for Epstein.

13:30Maxwell assisted in internationally trafficking Roberts and numerous other young girls for sexual purposes. Roberts was forced to watch Epstein, Maxwell, and others engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Roberts has denied the reference to lurid details and has noted her denial as set forth in statements number six and seven above and that the testimony from numerous witnesses has corroborated the statements made in her jointer motion. Joanna Schoberg, Anthony Figueroa, Ronaldo Rizzo, Lynn Miller, Joseph Riccari, David Rogers, Harper did Roger's deposition, Nadia Marcincova, Sarah Kellan, Epstein deposition, Wanda Lessie's deposition, U.S. attorney, victim notification letter, July 2001, New York Presbyterian hospital records, Judith Whitefoot, psychological records, message pad, evidenceing Maxwell arranging to have underage girls and young women come to Epstein's home, the black book in which

14:31Maxwell and other household staff maintained a roster of underage girls who were minors at the time and the Palm Beach police investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, sex slave books Epstein ordered from Amazon.com, the folder Maxwell sent to Thailand with Roberts bearing Maxwell's phone number, the Palm Beach police report showing that Epstein used with women and girls to collect underage girls for his abuse Epstein's flight logs showing that Maxwell flew with Roberts 23 times. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up the first episode 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.