3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
9 / 3
Mentions
Prince Andrew, and it's actually not his denial, as I 24 understand it, Buckingham Palace's denial of the allegation of 25 my client. But again, Prince Andrew is not on the witness SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794570 16 H3V0GIU1 1 list, we're not able to cross examine him,
U1 1 list, we're not able to cross examine him, so what they want to 2 do is introduce triple hearsay of Buckingham Palace saying what 3 Prince Andrews said in a news article without the reporter 4 against my client without our ability to cross examine him on 5 that. 6 So your Honor, they've tr
who has put her reputation 14 at issue. Having the Duke of York and Buckingham Palace issue 15 denials is not h
it is not what the defendant said about the 17 plaintiff that causes her reputation to suffer but what others 18 said." 19 Plaintiff also cites Sack of Defamation. He supports 20 our position, your Honor. Here, we have a statement by 21 Buckingham Palace that was issued on the internet and widely 22 circu
s about Prince Andrew, and it's actually not his denial, as I understand it, Buckingham Palace's denial of the allegation of my client. But again, Prince Andrew is not on the witness SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011318 10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21
16 H3VOGIU1 list, we're not able to cross examine him, so what they want to do is introduce triple hearsay of Buckingham Palace saying what Prince Andrews said in a news article without the reporter against my client without our ability to cross examine him on that. So your Honor, they've tried to argu
rse, who has put her reputation at issue. Having the Duke of York and Buckingham Palace issue denials is not hearsa
onstrate that it is not what the defendant said about the plaintiff that causes her reputation to suffer but what others said." Plaintiff also cites Sack of Defamation. He supports our position, your Honor. Here, we have a statement by Buckingham Palace that was issued on the internet and widely circulated. There
ld not be an issue relevant to this trial. Next, your Honor, they also seek to include statements, hearsay statements and newspaper articles about Prince Andrew, and it's actually not his denial, as I understand it, Buckingham Palace's denial of the allegation of my client. But again, Prince Andrew is not o
3VOGIU1 16 list, we're not able to cross examine him, so what they want to do is introduce triple hearsay of Buckingham Palace saying what Prince Andrews said in a news article without the reporter against my client without our ability to cross examine him on that. So your Honor, they've tried to ar
rse, who has put her reputation at issue. Having the Duke of York and Buckingham Palace issue denials is not hears
strate that it is not what the defendant said about the plaintiff that causes her reputation to suffer but what others said." Plaintiff also cites Sack of Defamation. He supports our position, your Honor. Here, we have a statement by Buckingham Palace that was issued on the internet and widely circulated. There
Entities connected to both Prince Andrew and Sack of Defamation

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON
Bill Clinton
PERSON
Alan Dershowitz
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Alfredo Rodriguez
PERSON
Colorado
LOCATIONJeffrey Pagliuca
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSON
David Boies
PERSON
Robert Mueller
PERSON
Bernie Sanders
PERSONSigrid McCawley
PERSONScott Rothstein
PERSON
Al Gore
PERSON