DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00077.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page28 of 77 defamatory are indefinite and ambiguous. The first says plaintiff's “allegations” against Ms. Maxwell are “untrue.” But plaintiff has made many dozens of allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and some are provably false. See This Motion, at §{] 37-50. The statement does not specify which of the allegations are untrue. The second statement is that the “original allegations” have been “shown to be untrue.” The “original allegations” were first revealed in the 2011 Churcher articles. Plaintiff made many dozens of allegations “originally.” The statement does not specify which of the “original” allegations were shown to be untrue. Some have been shown to be untrue. See This Motion, at 53-65. The third statement is that plaintiffs “claims” are “obvious lies.” This too is indefinite and ambiguous. Plaintiff has made many dozens of claims. The statement does not specify which ones are being referenced. More importantly, it does not say how or why some of the claims are “obvious” lies. Regardless, some of plaintiffs claims are “obvious lies.” See This Motion, at 53-65. Whether the three sentences in the January 2015 statement are capable of being objectively characterized as true or false. Can the three sentences be characterized as true or false? They cannot, because the statement does not specify which of the many dozens of allegations plaintiff has made are “untrue” and “shown to be untrue,” and which of plaintiff's many dozens of “claims” are “obvious lies.” It is axiomatic that the plural form of a word, e.g., “allegations” and “claims,” universally denotes—only—“more than one,” People v. Kocsis, 28 N.Y .S.3d 466, 471 (App. Div. 2016) (emphasis supplied). See, e.g., Lehman Bros. Commercial Corp. v. Minmetals Int’l Non-Ferrous Metals Trading Co., No. 94 CIV. 8301(JFK), 1995 WL 380119, at *6 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1995). So for Steinhilber purposes it is dispositive of the fact versus opinion question if we can 21