DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00082.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page33 of 77 allegations that would give the media Ms. Maxwell’s response. Jd. The purpose of the prefatory statement was to inform the media-recipients of this intent. Jd. We note that plaintiff in her Complaint makes the same mistake as the Steinhilber plaintiff—extracting words and phrases from their opinion context so that she can claim the assertion of a “defamatory” fact. See Doc.1 §] 30. That is not permissible. See Steinhilber, 501 N.E.2d at 555 (“The sentence which plaintiff selects from the message and claims is “factually laden”—impugning her as lacking in “talent, ambition, and initiative”°—is preceded and followed by statements which are clearly part of the attempt at humor prevailing throughout... .”). The broader social context or setting surrounding the communication, including the existence of any applicable customs or conventions which might signal to readers that what is being read is likely to be opinion, not fact. This factor is concerned with “the factual background” leading up to the preparation of the statement. It is a critical factor here. In December 2014, plaintiff and her lawyers had timed for maximum effect—during the slow news cycle between Christmas and New Year’s Day—the public filing of a superfluous motion filled with salacious and provocative allegations of “sexual abuse” and “sexual trafficking” involving wealthy and prominent Americans. Plaintiff deliberately placed Ms. Maxwell in the middle of the abuse and trafficking, alleging that she recruited plaintiff into the sexual abuse/trafficking scheme and engaged in numerous criminal acts. Importantly, three years earlier when plaintiff was interviewed extensively by Churcher for two lengthy articles published in March 2011, plaintiff's allegations concerning Ms. Maxwell 9919 were very much different. In the articles discussing plaintiffs “shocking account”’” of being MEXHIBIT A, at 2. 26