Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00232.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 35 of 64 34 H2G8GIUC Now, when we are talking about that second Steinhilber element, whether something can be characterized as true or false, of course, we are applying the second factor to the January 2015 statement and, specifically, to those three sentences: The allegations are false, the original allegations were shown to be untrue, and the third sentence is, the claims are obvious lies. Now, when the Court issued its 12(b) (6) order, it did not have the benefit, of course, of Exhibits A and B, the Sharon Churcher articles to our memorandum of law; it did not even have the benefit of the full January 2015 statement; it didn't have the benefit of the original allegations proven to be a true statement from March of 2011, because all that it had before it was what the plaintiff chose to select, excerpt, and put into paragraph 30 of the complaint. In that context, it was fairly easy for the Court to say, well, accepting these allegations as true, and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, I, the Court, can see how this idea of an opinion defense doesn't fly, because it says here that the allegations are false. I could see how the Court would say, well, either the allegations are true or they are false. When we place into context the statement, however, we now see all kinds of problems with the plaintiff's case. The one problem this Court already identified was this question of, What does it mean allegations, plural? What does SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300