Epstein Secrets

cuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA

UST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA, Interven

otion as moot. 5 The stricken allegations, however, quickly found their way into the press, and several media outlets published articles repeating Giuffre's accusations. In response to the allegations, on January 3, 2015, Maxwell's publicist issued a press statement declaring that Giuffre's allegation

v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-

ist issued a press statement declaring that Giuffre's allegations "against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that her "claims are obvious lies. "6 B. Giuffre Sues Maxwell On September 21, 2015, Giuffre filed the underlying action against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Giuffre alleged that

ial system would be well served were our common law courts to revitalize this crucial qualification to the litigation privilege. " Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982)). 49 Richmon

0 Instead, the District Court made generalized statements about the record as a whole.30 This too was legal error. 19 Id. at 124. 20 See. e.g., Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 445 (summarily concluding that all "[t]he Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these allegations [o

lobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73, 100 S.Q. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, the media do

ributes to public understanding of the rule of law" and "validates [its] claim of functioning as surrogates for the public."J9 48 Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73

is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brough

oose his Fifth Amendment rights, he will expose himself to an adverse inference at the summary-judgment stage and at trial. See generally. Wehlingl. Columbia Broad. Sys., 611 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1980) (observing that "invocation of the privilege would be subject to the drawing of an adverse inference by