Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00236.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 39 of 64 38 H2G8GIUC don't see how anyone could look at that sentence, "these are obvious lies," and not see an opinion here. Because what is an obvious lie? That is purely subject to opinion. It certainly can't be proven true or false what is obvious. I would suggest to the Court that the hand-out that I gave titled "Two examples of Plaintiff Giuffre's original and new allegations" is an example of where there are obvious lies. Now, moving back to this question of what the plaintiff's heavy burden is, they have to prove by clear and convincing evidence —-- and we set out what the standard is in the Southern District of New York in our papers what clear and convincing is —- they have to prove falsity and they have to prove actual malice, actual malice being that Ms. Maxwell, when that January 2015 statement was issued, knew that those three sentences were false or had been published anyway through Mr. Gow with reckless disregard to whether they were false or not. For the Court's benefit, what we tried to do to make this point more salient is, rather than have the Court wade through the hundreds of pages of materials the plaintiff submitted, we look at it from the converse angle, and that is, are there at least two allegations? I use two because am trying to follow the Foster case, and I am trying to show literal truth or literal falsity, and allegations plural means two or more. So if I can find two occasions when this plaintiff has told falsehoods, or has said something that would SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300