Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00517.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 11 “circumstances.” See Complaint. Ms. Maxwell denied the allegations made stating they were “untrue” and “obvious lies.” Plaintiff claims these statements are defamatory because she has been called a “liar.” “A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that ‘the statements ... complain[ed] of were (1) of and concerning [the plaintiff], (2) likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual malice.’” Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 622 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015). If Ms. Maxwell’s statements are essentially true — Plaintiff lied — Plaintiff cannot establish her claim, and it is an absolute defense.° Further, if Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice by Ms. Maxwell, her claim fails. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842 F.2d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 1988) (limited purpose public figure must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with actual malice, “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. 241, 280 (1964)). That is, Plaintiff must prove that Ms. Maxwell permitted the publication of the statement knowing it to be untrue. None of the witnesses identified are listed as having discoverable information regarding any of the elements of this claim. None is claimed to have direct knowledge to confirm the truth of Plaintiff's claims about what happened fo her, that the acts she claims she participated in > There is only one public statement that existed on January 2, 2015 to which Ms. Maxwell was responding in the statement by her press agent. The document is the Joinder Motion filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case on behalf of Plaintiff by her attorneys, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 4. The very first line describing Jane Doe #3 Circumstances is false, as Plaintiff now concedes. It read: “In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell,” and continuing that “Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe # 3 (who was only fifteen years old) to come to Epstein's mansion . . .” Plaintiff now concedes that she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein in 1999, and she was not 15 years old. Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 26-29. No amount of “circumstantial evidence” can overcome the fact that Ms. Maxwell’s statement was correct and that statements in the Joinder Motion were untrue.