DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 42022
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1276

Post by Addie »

WaPo: Epstein accuser alleged in newly unsealed deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was his partner in abuse


A woman who has accused deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein of years-long abuse that began when she was a teenager alleged in a newly unsealed deposition that his former partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, was both his chief accomplice and a participant in the sexual abuse.

Maxwell, who was arrested earlier this month and charged with trafficking minors, had fought unsuccessfully to keep the court documents under seal. She has pleaded not guilty.

The unsealed court documents stem from a defamation suit she settled for an undisclosed sum in 2017 with the woman, Virginia Giuffre, who has alleged that she was forced to have sex with Epstein and his friends. She has claimed that Maxwell recruited her to serve as a traveling masseuse for Epstein after spotting her working a summer job as a locker room attendant 20 years ago at Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s private estate.

Giuffre’s deposition was among several hundred pages of records unsealed by judicial order late Thursday. ...

The unsealed documents also included emails exchanged between Epstein and Maxwell in January 2015. The timing of the missives appear to contradict a claim from her lawyers earlier this month, who in seeking to have released from jail on bond, told a judge that she’d had no contact with Epstein in a decade. ...

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have alleged that Maxwell recruited and groomed victims and participated in abusing them with Epstein. She was also charged with lying in a deposition in her lawsuit with Giuffre about whether she knew Epstein was having sex with minors. A judge has ordered that deposition also be made public, but Maxwell has appealed the decision.
Adding:
Newsweek: Bill Clinton Went to Jeffrey Epstein's Island With 2 'Young Girls', Virginia Giuffre Says
"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 13076
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1277

Post by Whatever4 »

Reading the Miami Herald story.


What does this mean?
Her lawyers have argued that the perjury charges come from protected depositions in the civil lawsuit, but they have not provided proof that they were shared and not the product of a subpoena.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/ ... rylink=cpy
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
HST's Ghost
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:58 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1278

Post by HST's Ghost »

Hopefully the media will finally stop referring to her as the "socialite"... :madguy:
Either give me more wine or leave me alone. - Rumi

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28926
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1279

Post by bob »

Whatever4 wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:38 am
Reading the Miami Herald story.


What does this mean?
Her lawyers have argued that the perjury charges come from protected depositions in the civil lawsuit, but they have not provided proof that they were shared and not the product of a subpoena.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/ ... rylink=cpy
It is bad writing (or editing) trying summarize a creative legal argument. Bad journalism on top of bad lawyering.

I haven't read Maxwell's briefing, but it reads like her argument was that her lying wasn't perjury because the deposition was voluntarily given and therefore she had no intent to deceive during a legal proceeding. In other words, her lying was just for funsies and not a crime.

Again, I'm trying to infer without reading the actual argument. But it sounds like a weak attempt (that we know was unsuccessful) to find a technical, legalistic argument that it was impossible for her to have committed the crime of perjury. And therefore her deposition was irrelevant and therefore should remain sealed.

Some expensive lawyers dazzle because of their brilliance. And some attempt to dazzle with the resources to produce volumes in an effort to overwhelm.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 42022
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1280

Post by Addie »

"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 29308
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1281

Post by Volkonski »

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
1m
Reminder: Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys are currently asking the Second Circuit to delay the release of her allegedly incriminating deposition by the close of business today.

Just now, lawyers for
@MiamiHerald
and
@jkbjournalist
told the court to deny a stay.
@CourthouseNews
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 13076
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1282

Post by Whatever4 »

bob wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:44 am
Whatever4 wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:38 am
Reading the Miami Herald story.


What does this mean?
Her lawyers have argued that the perjury charges come from protected depositions in the civil lawsuit, but they have not provided proof that they were shared and not the product of a subpoena.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/ ... rylink=cpy
It is bad writing (or editing) trying summarize a creative legal argument. Bad journalism on top of bad lawyering.

I haven't read Maxwell's briefing, but it reads like her argument was that her lying wasn't perjury because the deposition was voluntarily given and therefore she had no intent to deceive during a legal proceeding. In other words, her lying was just for funsies and not a crime.

Again, I'm trying to infer without reading the actual argument. But it sounds like a weak attempt (that we know was unsuccessful) to find a technical, legalistic argument that it was impossible for her to have committed the crime of perjury. And therefore her deposition was irrelevant and therefore should remain sealed.

Some expensive lawyers dazzle because of their brilliance. And some attempt to dazzle with the resources to produce volumes in an effort to overwhelm.
Perfect, thanks!
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1283

Post by Notorial Dissent »

If you are giving a deposition, are you NOT under oath to tell the truth???? Same as if you were in court? Otherwise, what is the point?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 9071
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1284

Post by neonzx »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:49 am
If you are giving a deposition, are you NOT under oath to tell the truth???? Same as if you were in court? Otherwise, what is the point?
IANAL, but that sounds correct. I think that is bob's point, too -- It's a bullshit argument. If someone submits to a deposition, "voluntarily" :roll: or not, they are sworn in and are under oath. The fact that it was a civil case and not criminal (at the time) doesn't change anything. Thus, bob pointing out the BS of the Maxwell team's legal gymnastics argument that it was just "funsies and not a crime".

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1285

Post by Notorial Dissent »

What I thought, but sometimes I 'm a bit slow on the uptake.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Uninformed
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:52 am
Location: England

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1286

Post by Uninformed »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:34 am
What I thought, but sometimes I 'm a bit slow on the uptake.
You are not alone. There are so many occasions when legal technicalities surprise me. :smoking:

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 17006
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1287

Post by Kendra »


"I never saw [Epstein] in the presence of a young woman," he says. If true, that would make him unique among all of Epstein's guests and interlocutors. Is it plausible Epstein made this singular exception?
:confused:

Wasn't there some massage he got where he kept his undies on given by a young woman?

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8602
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am
Location: Home to gators, pythons and now trump. trump is the only one that scares me.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1288

Post by Slim Cognito »

He said it was an old, unattractive woman *pinocchio emoji*.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 9071
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1289

Post by neonzx »

He said he would have "turned him in" :fingerwag: -- okay, the rest of his comments are lies too, also.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28926
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1290

Post by bob »

neonzx wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:10 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:49 am
If you are giving a deposition, are you NOT under oath to tell the truth???? Same as if you were in court? Otherwise, what is the point?
IANAL, but that sounds correct. I think that is bob's point, too -- It's a bullshit argument. If someone submits to a deposition, "voluntarily" :roll: or not, they are sworn in and are under oath. The fact that it was a civil case and not criminal (at the time) doesn't change anything. Thus, bob pointing out the BS of the Maxwell team's legal gymnastics argument that it was just "funsies and not a crime".
Eggsactly, sorry I wasn't more clear. I haven't read Maxwell's argument, but I inferred it was an attempt to say it wasn't perjury based on some hypertechnical argument of trying to differentiate between under oath and lying under oath for the purposes of perjury.

A lot of forms submitted to the government are completed under penalty of perjury. As if you could say, "I voluntarily went to the DMV and there's no legal proceeding pending, so my intentional, material lies on this driver's license application aren't crimes!"
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 10126
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1291

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

bob wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:44 am
Whatever4 wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:38 am
Reading the Miami Herald story.


What does this mean?
Her lawyers have argued that the perjury charges come from protected depositions in the civil lawsuit, but they have not provided proof that they were shared and not the product of a subpoena.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/ ... rylink=cpy
It is bad writing (or editing) trying summarize a creative legal argument. Bad journalism on top of bad lawyering.
:snippity:

Some expensive lawyers dazzle because of their brilliance. And some attempt to dazzle with the resources to produce volumes in an effort to overwhelm.
:clap: Ima stealing that.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 13076
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1292

Post by Whatever4 »

Kendra wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:45 am
"I never saw [Epstein] in the presence of a young woman," he says. If true, that would make him unique among all of Epstein's guests and interlocutors. Is it plausible Epstein made this singular exception?
:confused:

Wasn't there some massage he got where he kept his undies on given by a young woman?
An underage female isn’t a “young woman”, she’s a CHILD.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 10126
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1293

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

neonzx wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:00 pm
Kendra wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:53 pm
Kayleigh McEnany on Trump’s “I wish her well” comment:

“What the president was noting is that the last person who was charged in this case ended up dead in a jail cell and the president wants justice to be served for the victims in this case.”
:confused:
Nope, still makes no sense.
Maybe it was a signal to Barr not to send in the death squad a la Epstein.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 10126
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1294

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Slim Cognito wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:59 am
He said it was an old, unattractive woman *pinocchio emoji*.
He saw him in the presence of many young women. - Gotta know how to read evasive lawyer speak.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 17006
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1295

Post by Kendra »

Whatever4 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:40 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:45 am
"I never saw [Epstein] in the presence of a young woman," he says. If true, that would make him unique among all of Epstein's guests and interlocutors. Is it plausible Epstein made this singular exception?
:confused:

Wasn't there some massage he got where he kept his undies on given by a young woman?
An underage female isn’t a “young woman”, she’s a CHILD.
Point well taken. I was unclear if the age of the female who have him the massage.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 13076
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1296

Post by Whatever4 »

Kendra wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:02 pm
Whatever4 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:40 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:45 am



:confused:

Wasn't there some massage he got where he kept his undies on given by a young woman?
An underage female isn’t a “young woman”, she’s a CHILD.
Point well taken. I was unclear if the age of the female who have him the massage.
Oh, that wasn’t directed at you, it was at the weasel lying in plain sight. He said he never saw young women knowing they weren’t young women they were underage, therefore children.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 17006
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1297

Post by Kendra »

Whatever4 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:16 pm
Kendra wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:02 pm
Whatever4 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:40 pm


An underage female isn’t a “young woman”, she’s a CHILD.
Point well taken. I was unclear if the age of the female who have him the massage.
Oh, that wasn’t directed at you, it was at the weasel lying in plain sight. He said he never saw young women knowing they weren’t young women they were underage, therefore children.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I suspected if I called the *masseuse* a child and it turned out she wasn't...

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28926
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1298

Post by bob »

Variety: Alan Dershowitz Demands Apology for ‘The Good Fight’ Jeffrey Epstein Episode:
Alan Dershowitz, legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor emeritus, is a fan of “The Good Fight.”

But the famed attorney is preparing to sue ViacomCBS and the producers of the CBS All Access legal drama for referring to him in the final episode of the show’s fourth season as a “shyster” in connection with his representation of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein, who was convicted of soliciting sex with underage girls in 2008, committed suicide last year while in federal prison as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges.

* * *

In the episode “The Gang Discovers Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein,” which debuted May 27, fictional criminal defense attorney character Benjamin Dafoe (played by guest star David Alford) is depicted as having previously represented Epstein before Dershowitz.

* * *

“Probably about the time he ditched me for Dershowitz. At least I didn’t get a massage, like that shyster. And for the purposes of any potential lawsuit ‘shyster’ is just my opinion not a statement of fact,” the Dafoe character states.

* * *

“Clearly, the dialogue and the context in which it is made, with words loaded with innuendo such as ‘massage,’ ‘Epstein,’ the ‘Virgin Islands,’ in combination with the word ‘shyster,’ falsely suggests that Professor Dershowitz engaged in sexual conduct, i.e. a ‘massage,’ with an underage girl associated with Epstein, and is crooked, unscrupulous and lying about it, i.e. a ‘shyster,’ ” [Deshowitz's lawyer, Imran] Ansari wrote.

Jonathan Anschell, ViacomCBS Media Networks executive VP and general counsel responded with a letter sent July 28 that outlined CBS’ defense of the episode and its references to Dershowitz.

“In other words, as one might explain to a small child, the Series, its characters and the things they say are all make-believe. People don’t watch the Series for factual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else,” Anschell wrote.

* * *

“We’re confident that no viewer would conclude that Professor Dershowitz is a shyster based on one line of opinion from a fictional character on the Series, as opposed to the real-life, factual publications that have called him exactly that,” Anschell wrote.

* * *

“I’m an honest and honorable lawyer who represents controversial clients that people don’t like,” Dershowitz said. “Nobody’s going to call me a shyster and get away with it. If the people at CBS are decent people they will issue an apology and withdraw the episode or that part of the episode. If they don’t I’ll see them in court.”
The nastygrams: Sekrit Stuffs!
Dersh's lawyer wrote:Please be advised that this firm is litigation counsel for Alan Dershowitz (“Professor Dershowitz”). We have been retained to address defamatory statements made during an episode of CBS All Access’ The Good Fight, titled “The Gang Discovers Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein,” which originally aired on May 28, 2020 (Season 4, Episode 7). Professor Dershowitz requests that CBS promptly retract the defamatory content, and issue a public apology to Professor Dershowitz.

In the episode, a character intended to be Jeffrey Epstein’s fictious prior attorney “Benjamin Dafoe” played by actor David Alford, makes the following statement:

“Probably about the time he ditched me for Dershowitz. At least I didn’t get a massage, like that shyster. And for the purposes of any potential lawsuit shyster is just my opinion not a statement of fact.”

The statement, in whole and in part, is tortious and constitutes both defamation per se and defamation by implication. The episode in question is centered on the criminal allegations made against Jeffrey Epstein and his ultimate death. Clearly, the dialogue and the context in which it is made, with words loaded with innuendo such as ‘massage,’ ‘Epstein,’ the ‘Virgin Islands,’ in combination with the word ‘shyster,’ falsely suggests that Professor Dershowitz engaged in sexual conduct, i.e. a ‘massage,’ with an underage girl associated with Epstein, and is crooked, unscrupulous and lying about it, i.e. a ‘shyster.’ The language of the whole piece can be “reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference.” (See e.g. Watson v NY Doe 1, 439 F Supp 3d 152 [SDNY 2020]; Agbimson v Handy, 17 CV 9252 [SDNY Aug. 14, 2019]).

Furthermore, use of the term “shyster” to describe Professor Dershowitz is defamation per se. The term “shyster” is defined as follows: “a person who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law…” and “a rascally” lawyer; one that is “shrewdly dishonest.” Some even attribute an anti-Semitic connotation to the term. CBS’s use of the term “shyster” to describe Professor Dershowitz is a direct attack on his professional reputation as an attorney and professor of law. A statement that is a “direct attack upon the business, trade or profession of the plaintiff is considered defamation ‘per se.’ ” (Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 180 [2d Cir. 2000] [quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 112, at 791 [5th ed. 1984] “[It] is actionable without proof of damage to say … of an attorney that he is a shyster … since these things discredit [one] in his chosen calling.”)

Lastly, rather than absolve the defamatory statements, the line that the statement regarding Professor Dershowitz is an “opinion” , has the opposite effect: it is indicative that CBS knew the statements were defamatory, yes sought, albeit weakly, to skirt liability, and it is akin to a showing of “consciousness of guilt”. (See e.g., Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 242-43 [1991]; Alianza Dominicana, Inc., v. Luna, 229 A.D.2d 328 [1996]) Therefore, with this evidence of knowing and/or reckless disregard for the truth, Professor Dershowitz will easily be able to prove actual malice in connection wit the publishing of this defamatory content. (See e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 [1964])

We are extended an opportunity to resolve this matter without litigation. Professor Dershowitz requests that CBS promptly retract the defamatory content, cease and desist from further airing the defamatory content, and issue a public apology to Professor Dershowitz. Please have your legal representative contact our office to discuss further.
CBS' lawyer wrote:Your letter of July 17 to Laura Franco and others (including Michelle and Robert King) has been forwarded to me for response. If we understand your letter correctly, you are complaining about a line spoken by a fictional character, in an episode of the fictional series “The Good Fight” (the “Series”). You make this complaint on behalf of Professor Alan Dershowitz, a public figure who has long been associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and who has admitted on television to receiving a massage from a woman at Epstein’s mansion. In the non-fictional world, these factors require us to decline your request that we withdraw the episode, and our correspondence could end right here. Nevertheless, out of respect for Professor Dershowitz, we explain more fully below.

The Series is a highly-acclaimed scripted drama that streams on CBS All Access, a subscription-only streaming service that offers episodes of shows on an on-demand basis. By every measure, the Series is a work of fiction, and it has been praised for “its playful embrace of surrealism,” (The Guardian, May 14, 2019) and as an example of “full-bodied entertainment: brainy, gutsy, a little love crazy.” (Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2017). The character whose lines you cite in your letter is made-up as well. Benjamin Dafoe is not a real lawyer; on the Series, he’s Epstein’s “fictitious prior lawyer,” as your letter acknowledges. In other words, as one might explain to a small child, the Series, its characters and the things they say are all make-believe. People don’t watch the Series for factual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else.

Although the Series is a work of fiction, its writers strive for accuracy when referring to people or events from the real world. When it comes to Professor Dershowitz getting a massage at Epstein’s house, the writers were spot-on. In a televised interview broadcast on WPLG-TV in Miami on April 17, 2019, Professor Dershowitz admitted on camera that he got a massage from a woman at an Epstein mansion. In fairness, Professor Dershowitz claimed that he “kept [his] underwear on during the massage.” A more benign mental image than what the mind might otherwise conjure, so at least there’s that.

With the Professor’s massage at Epstein’s place now beyond dispute, we’re left with one word you don’t like – “shyster,” spoken by a fictional character and expressly phrased as opinion. As your own case authority holds, the law does not impose liability for expressions of opinion, in contrast to verifiably true or false statements of fact. Immuno AG v. Moor Jankowski, 77 NY2d 253, 254 (1991). For this reason, the court in Immuno AG affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the context of a letter to the editor in a trade journal contained protected opinion. Id.

The same is true in the context of a comment on a fictional show. De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal. App 4th 845 (2018) (dismissing Olivia De Havilland’s false light claim, because “[v]iewers are generally familiar with dramatized [shows] in which scenes, conversations, and even characters are fictionalized and imagined.”) We’re confident that no viewer would conclude that Professor Dershowitz is a shyster based on one line of opinion from a fictional character on the Series, as opposed to the real-life, factual publications that have called him exactly that. See, e.g.., “From Scholar to Shyster, Alan Dershowitz Does Revisionist Law, Disowns His ‘1998 Off-the-Cuff Interview’” (PolitiZoom, January 21, 2020).1

We appreciate your bringing Professor Dershowitz’s concerns to our attention, and we hope our explanation puts those concerns to rest. Of course, this is not intended as a full statement of our position or as a waiver of any rights, remedies or defenses, all which we respectfully reserve.

* * *

1. Although nobody takes “shyster” as a compliment, we cannot agree with your assertion that the word is anti- Semitic. The same allegation has been debunked elsewhere, including in the New York Law Journal’s review of the history of the term, which concluded that “shysters come in different religions.” (“Is ‘Shyster’ Anti-Semitic,” New York Law Journal, May 21, 2003).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11058
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1299

Post by Chilidog »

Pedowitz is toast.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 10126
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY; Ghislaine Maxwell

#1300

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Chilidog wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:01 pm
Pedowitz is toast.
:winner:
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”