Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00221.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 24 of 64 23 H2G8GIUC THE COURT: I don't care about that. What I am trying to figure out is what claims are we talking about. MR. GEE: Your Honor, I think that is the problem with the plaintiff's case. Is that we have no idea what we are talking about. Because if we listen to what Mr. Barton is intending, he is not trying to focus -- THE COURT: His intent, it seems to me -—- I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know that his intent matters. There is no question but that Ms. Maxwell authorized the issuance of the statement. So it seems to me it's her statement. MR. GEE: Your Honor, in fact, why don't we just set aside Mr. Barton's declaration for purposes of discussion of this second point about republication. The Rand point is that you cannot take a statement, an excerpt from a statement; you, the republisher, cannot choose which part of a statement to extract from and then republish it and then have the plaintiff choose to sue the person whose statement was extracted. That's the Rand v. New York Times point, Judge. And we don't need Mr. Barton's support there because it is uncontested that what happened in this case is that every single one of the republications were excerpts from that quotable statement. The only point I was trying to make, and I don't need Mr. Barton to make this for me, is that that quotable statement sets up a legal argument that says, she lied here, she lied SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300