Epstein Secrets

him. Afterwards, Carlos Sires ("Sires"), a partner at the Firm's Fort Lauderdale office, emailed Dershowitz saying Jeffrey Epstein's compatriot, Ghislaine Maxwell. that Defendant had a "very strong appearance on the (Schiller Decl. Ex. I2 at ¶ 8). Today [S]how" and informing him, "If there is anythi

ards, Carlos Sires ("Sires"), a partner at the Firm's Fort Lauderdale office, emailed Dershowitz saying Jeffrey Epstein's compatriot, Ghislaine Maxwell. that Defendant had a "very strong appearance on the (Schiller Decl. Ex. I2 at ¶ 8). Today [S]how" and informing him, "If there is anything I Sir

his is a subject on which reasonable men may differ." Reynolds v. Pegler 223 F.2d at 433. In M. MtucwelMas she does here, alleged that defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's statements in that case were made "with malice and knowledge of their falsity." 165 F. Supp. 3d at 155. This was a sufficient pleading to defeat a

Court:] You argue at page 5 of your reply that if Ms. Maxwell's simple denials destroyed the plaintiffs reputa

5, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. But a court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. lqbal, 55

ugh facts "to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' lqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (auoting / *570 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable infere

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 25 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: I5-cv-07433-RWS REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Laura A. Menninger HADDON,

INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLAUSIBLY PLEAD DEFAMATION A. Plaintiff Failed to Adequately Plead a Defamation Claim 1 B. Ms. Maxwell's Statement In Context Is Not Defamatory 3 II. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE 6 A. Qualified Privilege May Form the Basis f

OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: I5-cv-07433-RWS

ed to Adequately Plead a Defamation Claim 1 B. Ms. Maxwell's Statement In Context Is Not Defamatory 3 II.

he court noted that the truth of defendant's letter was irrelevant. Instead, the letter was privileged because it amounted 5 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). 6 Not surprisingly, Plaintiff does not cite to a single federal authority post Twombly

/15 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X PLAINTIFF, V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, DEFENDANT. X 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Ave

r CO 80203 Tel: Dated: November 30, 2015 EFTA00595583 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 15 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 29 Table of Contents I. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED 9 A. The Self-Defense Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell's Statements 9 B. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Protects Ms. Maxw

attributed statement responds directly to allegations and claims made by Plaintiff. Compl. 1 31. Likewise to the extent the claimed statement that "Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same" (Compl. 1 32) refers to an earlier statement describing Plaintiff's "factual

led 12/01/15 Page 2 of 29 Table of Contents I. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED 9 A. The Self-Defen

2013) 7 Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 625 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1995) 7 Ashcroft v. lqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) 7 Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F.Supp.2d 441, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 7, 12 Caplan v. Winslet, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153 (1st Dep't 19

OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, v. 17 Civ. 616 (JGK) JEFFERY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, and Defendants. Before: x New York, N.Y. August 7, 2018 2:30 p.m. HON. JOHN G. KOELTL District Judge APPEARANCES BOIES SCHILLER &

ERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00285631 I877DOEC APPEARANCES (Continued) HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell BY: LAURA MENNINGER 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: ALEXANDER LORENZO SOUTHERN DIS

mises made by the defendants, plaintiff returned to New York City, in the Southern District of New York, and was promptly ordered by the defendant Maxwell to have sex with defendant Epstein. Defendants Maxwell, and Epstein each fraudulently promised plaintiff again that her sexual compliance would be

not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). "A claim has SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00285671 42 I877DOEC facial plausibility when the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS EFTA00307096 ARGUMENT 1 A. Allegatio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS EFTA00307096 ARGUMENT 1 A. Allegations Regard

raud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a claim. As

st, the allegations of coercion are unspecific and wholly conclusory, as exemplified by the allegations in paragraph 45 that "Defendants Epstein and Maxwell intimidated, threatened, humiliated and verbally abused Plaintiff in order to coerce her into sexual compliance. These Defendants threatened Plaint

78 Brad Edwards, Esq. May 15, 2017 Page 3 Steptoe ccc ot a toottsiTto tto statutes it is relying on. Finally, the Complaint fails to meet the Twombly/Iqbal standard for pleading any claim in federal court. A. The Complaint Fails to Plead Fraud Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants used "fraud" t

ere she held citizenship and where her parents resided, Epstein and Doc. # DC-1008444ki v.8 EFTA00298459 Brad Edwards, Esq. May , 2017 Page 6 Maxwell told her that "she would not be permitted to return to the United States to receive her promised education unless she lost weight." Plaintiff does n

fraud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a claim. As