Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00229.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 32 of 64 31 H2G8GIUC and it's certainly not ambiguous when Ms. Maxwell says in March of 2011 that these allegations are "all entirely false." It is ambiguous and it is indefinite when she fails to say "all entirely false." The second issue is whether these three sentences identified in paragraph 30 of the complaint are capable of being characterized as true or false. Now, this is a kind of binary question that the Steinhilber factor two has us look at. But recognizing at the same time that there are some statements that appear factual, but are not when looked at in context -- and now we are jumping to factor number three in Steinhilber, the contextual issue. On the question of whether it could be proved true or false, well, the plaintiff has taken to chasing this windmill of trying to prove whether the allegations are true or false. What I suggest to the Court is that you can't prove whether the, quote unquote, allegations are true or false because they are not identified. You can't prove whether the, quote, claims are obvious lies because they are not identified. If you broke down every single allegation made by the plaintiff into constituent sentences, discrete constituent sentences, you might have over a thousand statements. These plaintiffs have chosen to go on this adventure of trying to prove each one of these allegations is true, and, conversely, that there was no good faith basis for Ms. Maxwell to say that any of them were SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300