Epstein Secrets

ew salacious details about public figures." Even Judge Marra noted in his April 7 Order that Plaintiff's lates

ous lies" immediately follows the sentence: "Each time the story is retold it changes, with new salacious details about public figures." Even Judge Marra noted in his April 7 Order that Plaintiff's latest story involves Plaintiff's reference to Brach v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Saimar, Inc., 696 N.Y.S

duct, not an attack on plaintiffs."); McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[G]eneral denials aren't actionable."); Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262, 271-72 (N.Y. 2014). Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to analogize the subject Statement to those in Boeheim and Clemens. Yet in bo

14 Let me turn then to point number 19. Here again, we 15 have a narrow issue presented to your Honor. We are asking 16 that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. 17 As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case 18 was when Ms. , then known as Jane Doe Numbe

o your Honor. We are asking 16 that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. 17 As your Hono

5 H3VOGIU1 alleged to have defamed someone based on facts, not opinions. THE COURT: Agreed. Agreed. MS. MENNINGER: And so she can -- the Davis v. Boeheim case is a perfect example of that, your Honor. She can only speak to facts about which she has personal knowledge. If plaintiff goes and proves th

you already. Let me turn then to point number 19. Here again, we have a narrow issue presented to your Honor. We are asking that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case was when Ms. Giuffre, then known as Jane Doe Number 3,

ed to your Honor. We are asking that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. As your Honor is

5 H3VOGIU1 alleged to have defamed someone based on facts, not opinions. THE COURT: Agreed. Agreed. MS. MENNINGER: And so she can -- the Davis v. Boeheim case is a perfect example of that, your Honor. She can only speak to facts about which she has personal knowledge. If plaintiff goes and proves that