Epstein Web
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Epstein Web
@epsteinweb.bsky.social
6 followers 1 following 1.5K posts
Creating an app that will allow people to browse and search the Epstein Files in a scrolling feed. Create videos about the files.
Posts Replies Media Videos
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011411.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011411
108 H3vlgiu2 1 reply was also filed yesterday. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Yes. 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, these reports, that are 4 loosely described as police reports, encompass a one-year 5 purported investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department 6 into the affairs of Mr. Epstein roughly beginning I think in 7 2005 and going through 2006. The detective initially assigned 8 to the case was a woman named Michelle Pagan, and then 9 Detective Recarey took over the investigation from Ms. Pagan. 10 There were a number of things, according to the reports -- ide although we don't really have any actual witness testimony, 12 with current knowledge. The police did a number of things. 13 They surveiled Epstein's house, they did trash pulls, and 14 ultimately they executed a search warrant at Mr. Epstein's 5 house. And that's sort of the totality of the investigation. 16 I give you that as the backdrop, your Honor, because a then next what seems to happen is very curious, in my 18 experience, and was testified to by Detective Recarey. The 18 police get crossways with the state attorney's office in 20 Florida, and there is a complete distrust between the two Pal agencies. As a result of that -- and there's a bunch of 22 in-fighting that goes on between these two agencies. The 23 police make the decision to, in some fashion, turn over 24 everything that they have to the FBI. And as best I can figure 29 it out, the FBI issued a grand jury subpoena, or the U.S. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011411
February 7, 2026 at 1:19 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011410.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011410
107 H3vlgiu2 1 Oh, Ms. Menninger reminds me, your Honor -- and I 2 think the Court and I are on the same page on this as well -- a the tax argument made by Mr. Cassell. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell and 4 the plaintiff are not on the same footing in this case with 5 regard to who put their reputation at issue, who is claiming 6 emotional distress damages, and plaintiffs are in a much 7 different position than defendants when it comes to 8 cross-examinations about these issues, particularly in 9 defamation cases, because as Ms. Menninger pointed out earlier, 10 under Rule 405, everything that impacts the plaintiff's ide reputation in the community, including the failure to follow 12 laws, is the subject of cross-examination. So the argument 13 that what is good for the goose is good for the gander ina 14 defamation case simply doesn't apply when you're talking about 5 damage issues and reputational issues. 16 Thank you, your Honor. a MR. CASSELL: Could I just have 15 seconds, your 18 Honor? 18 THE COURT: No. 20 MR. CASSELL: All right. Thanks. 21 THE COURT: Next. 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we could next take up the 23 issue relating to the police reports which I have as 24 defendant's motion in limine to exclude police reports and 29 other inadmissible hearsay at 677, response at 747, and then SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011410
February 7, 2026 at 1:19 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011409.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011409
106 H3vlgiu2 1 The last point I want to make, your Honor, on this 2 issue of consciousness of guilt relates to the one case that a they cite for the proposition that there is some ability to 4 have a consciousness of guilt theory in a civil case. They 5 cite a Second Circuit criminal case in which the defendant was 6 aman named Amuso. This is at 21 F.3d 1251, and it's a 1994 7 case. Mr. Amuso was a leader in the Lucchese crime family who, 8 over a course of time, ordered 14 murders and then absconded G from the jurisdiction during the trial of a number of 10 co-defendants. And it was called "The Windows" case here in aL, New York, and you may remember it, your Honor, because it was 12 the Lucchese crime family that was controlling the replacement 13 window unions in the city of New York. So Mr. Amuso goes to 14 trial, and the government requested and received an instruction 5 to the jury that said not only his flight was consciousness of 16 guilt but the length of the absence of his flight was a consciousness of guilt. And in fact, the Second Circuit 18 reversed that instruction and disapproved it in that criminal 19 case but didn't reverse his conviction because the evidence of 20 guilt was overwhelming. So the one case that they cite for Pal this proposition in fact is inapposite to the position that 22 they're taking here today. 23 So I think your Honor and I are indeed on the same 24 page here, and I'd ask that the Court simply apply the law in 25 Tillery. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011409
February 7, 2026 at 1:19 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011408.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011408
105 H3vlgiu2 1 townhome, and she said part of it was a loan from Mr. Epstein 2 that had been paid back, and that's going to be years ago, a before any of the defamatory allegations arose in this case. 4 That's my understanding of the factual basis here. 5 So we can I think deal with that particular issue, you 6 know, if and when it comes up, but what I'm saying to the 7 Court -- I mean, the Court and I are on the same page -- the 8 sale of the townhome, the amount of the sale of the townhome, 9 you know, what did or didn't happen to the money from the sale 10 of the townhome, those are all off limits during the liability ide phase of the trial. 12 THE COURT: Well, correct me if I'm wrong. We don't 13 have any evidence as to what happened to the proceeds of the 14 sale. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: We don't. 16 THE COURT: Oh, okay. a MR. PAGLIUCA: There is none. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: And the notion that this money went 20 outside of the jurisdiction of the court is pure fiction. Pal Frankly, unless it went to some country that I'm unfamiliar 22 with, I think the jurisdiction of this court extends pretty 23 far. 24 THE COURT: I think that's for another day. 235 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011408
February 7, 2026 at 1:18 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011407.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011407
104 H3vlgiu2 1 change it. 2 But first of all, let's talk about this consciousness a of guilt issue. And not only the supposed facts behind this 4 but the law that they cite. There are references to a New York 5 Post article that is the -- 6 THE COURT: Well, that's no good, obviously. 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Of course. And then there's a 8 reference to Radar Online. That's their entire evidentiary 9 basis for the proffer that they just made to you, your Honor, 10 about this townhome. It doesn't fly. And I don't need to ide spend -- 12 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. There was a little 13 bit more. There was Maxwell saying she got a loan, they say, 14 from Epstein to buy the house. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: What she said, your Honor -- and I 16 wrote it down because I looked at the deposition transcript a last night. 18 First of all, I think it's important for this 18 discussion, we allowed questions relating to anything financial 20 with Mr. Epstein. So the one instruction that I gave to Pal Ms. Maxwell during this deposition was, anything they ask you 22 about Epstein is fine. I'm not going to let you talk about 23 your own personal financial information because it's not 24 discoverable at this point. And so they had fair opportunity 25 to ask her questions. They asked her questions about the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011407
February 7, 2026 at 1:18 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011406.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011406
103 H3vlgiu2 1 transferring assets away from the jurisdiction of the court 2 because -- 3 THE COURT: She sold the house. 4 MR. CASSELL: Right. After she wrote an email that 5 Said, ley, I Gould get == 6 THE COURT: You can't argue, I don't think, that 7 that's an admission. 8 MR. CASSELL: We believe it goes to consciousness of 9 guilt, and we've cited a case in our brief to that effect. 10 But I think if you have a difficulty with that small aL, piece of our argument, I mean, I think the rest of it is 12 really, you know, the meat and potatoes here, so -- 13 THE COURT: Okay. Yes. 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to not try to 5 belabor this, but I have to respond to some of the points, just 16 so that the record is clear. a The language that we proposed to the Court about the 18 financial status comes from the very cases that are in the 19 Second Circuit, and that's the words that the Second Circuit 20 and district courts in the Southern District use. And I quote Pal from Tillery: No evidence as to defendant's financial status 22 may be presented to the jury during the first phase of the 23 trial by either of the parties to this action. And the Second 24 Circuit says that that's the preferred method. Mr. Cassell, I 25 think, knowing that he's losing this battle, then tries to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011406
February 7, 2026 at 1:18 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011405.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011405
102 H3vlgiu2 1 THE COURT: So that's part of her net worth. I mean, 2 that's part of the financial part. I don't see how that gets a into the liability case. 4 MR. CASSELL: Right. So Epstein was the one who 5 provided the loan to get that -- 6 THE COURT: Says who? 7 MR. CASSELL: Ms. McCawley, who took Maxwell's 8 deposition, is advising me that during Maxwell's deposition, i) she conceded that. 10 THE COURT: Well, all right. Okay. But that isn't ide financial information. That's the relationship between Maxwell 12 and Epstein. 13 MR. CASSELL: Right. I think you and I are on the 14 same page. My concern is that we may, as on other issues, may 5 not be on the same page with the defendant. 16 THE COURT: I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. a MR. CASSELL: There's one other point, if I can just 18 be heard on the townhouse. The townhouse was sold at a time 18 shortly after Ms. Maxwell is discussing with her advisers, hey, 20 I could get sued for libel. We believe that transferring Pal $17 million outside the jurisdiction of your Honor -- 22 THE COURT: Tell me about that after you've got a 23 verdict. 24 MR. CASSELL: All right. But we want to introduce it 25 during the trial to show consciousness of guilt, that she is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011405
February 7, 2026 at 1:17 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011404.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011404
101 H3vlgiu2 1 MR. CASSELL: All right. Well, we thought, when we 2 filed our response, they continued to oppose it. If they had a just stipulated, you know, I wouldn't be taking your Honor's 4 time. 5 But this is where I think they're taking a narrow 6 uncontested principle, that her net worth doesn't come in, and 7 are going to try to use it to exclude evidence that Ms. Maxwell 8 is making payments to the girls, that this mansion is a very -- 9 THE COURT: Well, okay. I don't think so. 10 MR. CASSELL: Let me just make sure that I have on the ide table the things that we want to introduce. 12 For example, Mr. Epstein purchased a helicopter for 13 Ms. Maxwell, and they might say, oh, well, that shows financial 14 status or something. We think that shows a very close 15 connection. 16 Well, the last one and perhaps the most controversial a one in connection with this case is the townhouse. It is our 18 belief that a =~ 19 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. What's the basis of 20 your belief? eal MR. CASSELL: The basis for our belief is, I believe 22 they've conceded that there was a sale of a $17 million 23 townhouse in 2016. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Is it the defendant's townhouse? 29 MR. CASSELL: Yes. So the question is -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011404
February 7, 2026 at 1:17 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011403.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011403
100 H3vlgiu2 1 compliance, if there is questions about that, could be 2 introduced. We think that there shouldn't be tax compliance a issues coming in with regard to Ms. Giuffre. They've said, 4 well, that goes to her credibility. What's good for 5 Ms. Giuffre should be good for the defendant. But again, to be 6 clear, we don't want to turn this into a tax trial; we want it 7 to be a defamation trial. But they've made an argument, tax 8 issues are relevant to Ms. Giuffre. Then we would like to have 9 a parallel opportunity then with respect to Ms. Maxwell. 10 The other thing we have, for example, we're alleging ide there's a organization that is paying girls to give sex to 12 Epstein. And who's making the payments? Well, Ms. Maxwell, 13 among others. We have her on bank records, at the Epstein 14 mansion, where she's in charge of the -- 15 THE COURT: Well, that's different. 6, MR. CASSELL: Yes, and that's exactly -- a THE COURT: That's not her financial status. 18 MR. CASSELL: Right. So that's not her financial 18 status. For example, we want to show those kinds of payments. 20 We also want to show more broadly that Ms. Giuffre and the Pal other girls were not coming into a bungalow in the middle of 22 Hoboken or whatever. They were coming into a mansion in one of 23 the most -- 24 THE COURT: Well, that's got nothing to do with her 25 financial status. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011403
February 7, 2026 at 1:17 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011402.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011402
99 H3vlgiu2 1 on the liability case. That's your position. 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is my position, your Honor. a THE COURT: I think that's correct. Tell me why 4 that's wrong. 5 MR. CASSELL: All right. Thank you, your Honor. 6 The problem, as usual, is, yeah, her net worth doesn't 7 come in at the liability stage, but I think the defendant is 8 trying to get the camel's nose under the tent and say, oh, if 9 financial issues don't come in, then you can't -- 10 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what financial issues ide you mean. He's saying no introduction of her finances -- that 12 is, how much money she's got or where it comes from or anything 13 like that comes in. 14 MR. CASSELL: As I understand the motion, it's with 15 reference to her "financial status." 16 THE COURT: Well, I just told you what I think that a means. 18 MR. CASSELL: Right. And I think, with the 18 construction that you were just giving, I'm not sure that we're 20 concerned about this, but let me be clear. Pal THE COURT: What would you like to present? 22 MR. CASSELL: There were three or so things we would 23 like to present. If your Honor rules that Ms. Giuffre's tax 24 compliance can go to her credibility, then we would like to be 25 able to reciprocally say, all right, then Ms. Maxwell's tax SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011402
February 7, 2026 at 1:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011401.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011401
98 H3vlgiu2 1 MS. SCHULTZ: So it goes to a material argument that 2 defendants have advanced. 3 THE COURT: So to the extent that becomes an issue, 4 and that's a whole other thing, as to whether she intended the 5 statement, I can see that. 6 Okay. All right. Anything else? 7 MS. SCHULTZ: Yes. I'm just going to say that this is 8 a motion in limine and there are no evidentiary problems with 9 this piece of evidence. This is the defendant herself on 10 camera, this is not hearsay, and there's no Federal Rule of aa. Evidence that should exclude this. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to add anything? 13 MS. MENNINGER: No, thank you, your Honor. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 15 What else? 6, MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we can take up the a bifurcation issue that's presented in 662 and 766, and then 18 there was a reply filed last evening. 18 THE COURT: Yes. 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think -- well, I don't Pal think. The law is very clear on this issue in this circuit. ae There, is' a, =~ 23 THE COURT: Well, I think we can shorthand this. 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. 29 THE COURT: Yes, yes. Maxwell's money doesn't come in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011401
February 7, 2026 at 1:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011400.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011400
977. H3vlgiu2 1 MS. SCHULTZ: Because it was denied, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: The motion was -- well, okay. 3 MS. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, even assuming, arguendo, 4 that this is not cause of action, it should still be admitted 5 as evidence. This is a motion in limine to exclude it as 6 evidence. 7 THE COURT: All right. Assume for the moment that the 8 case that counsel has given me is accurate, and then why would 9 it get in? What does it add? 10 MS. SCHULTZ: It adds state of mind, defendant's state ide of mind in issuing -- 12 THE COURT: The state of mind didn't change in two 13 days. 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Right. It says that she stood by her 15 statement and did not retract it. 16 THE COURT: Well, she certainly is standing by it a today. 18 MS. SCHULTZ: And your Honor, it shows one other 18 thing. Throughout this litigation defendant has tried to argue 20 that defendant had nothing to do with the defamatory Pal statements. In fact, just yesterday defendant's counsel was 22 saying that it was issued by her lawyer and by her press agent. 23 It's her statement, and in this video she is personally owning 24 it, and she can't hide behind her lawyer or her press agent. 29 THE COURT: Oh, okay, okay, okay. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011400
February 7, 2026 at 1:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011399.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011399
96 H3vlgiu2 1 THE COURT: Well, what do you say about the case 2 that's been cited? 3 MS. SCHULTZ: Well, about Adelson? I would say that 4 it's factually distinguished because here she is two days later 5 reiterating her defamatory statement. And I would also direct 6 you to the case in my brief, Wheelings v. Iacuone. 7 THE COURT: Let me just get the time frame right. 8 MS. SCHULTZ: Sure. 9 THE COURT: The initial statement is January, and when 10 is this? aL, MS. SCHULTZ: So, your Honor, the email that went to 12 the media, it was first issued on January 2, 2015; it was 13 published on January 3, 2015; and the statement took place the 14 next day, on January 4, 2015. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6, MS. SCHULTZ: A recent opinion in this district, the a Wheelings case, makes it clear that you can't reargue summary 18 judgment on a motion in limine and also makes it clear that you 19 can't say, oh, because one person -- 20 THE COURT: The issue is, was the second statement Pal defamatory? 22 MS. SCHULTZ: I think that was an issue at summary 23 judgment that Ms. Giuffre opposed in its entirety, and I think 24 that's already been resolved. 235 THE COURT: How? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011399
February 7, 2026 at 1:15 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011398.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011398
95 H3vlgiu2 1 its entirety. Accordingly it should be summarily denied as 2 moot. 3 This motion should also be denied because it advances 4 the exact same arguments defendant advanced in her summary 5 judgment motion. She is seeking rehearing on her summary 6 judgment motion, dressed up as a motion in limine. Many courts 7 in this district have summarily denied motions in limine that 8 seek to relitigate arguments from summary judgment, and I have 9 listed six such cases on pages 7 and 8 of our response in 10 opposition. You ordered nine defendant's motions for summary ide judgment. This Court rejects the argument that she should have 12 partial summary judgment on the January 4th statement. The 13 last sentence of that order states, "Because of the existence 14 of triable issues of material fact rather than opinion and 5 because the prelitigation privilege is inapplicable, the motion 16 for summary judgment is denied." Defendant's reiteration of a her defamatory press release confirming it two days later is 18 something that this Court did not rule that that is not 18 actionable. So she's seeking rehearing. 20 Also importantly, your Honor, Ms. Giuffre opposed Pal summary judgment on defendant's defamation in its entirety. 22 She opposed the motion for summary judgment in its entirety, 23 and this statement, as part and parcel of defendant's 24 defamation and part and parcel of defendant's motion for 25 summary judgment. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011398
February 7, 2026 at 1:15 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011397.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011397
94 H3vlgiu2 1 And so their failure to respond -- 2 THE COURT: What was the point, that that was not 3 another defamation? 4 MS. MENNINGER: Exactly. In the case of Adelson v. 5 Harris, just like in this case, there was one allegedly 6 defamatory statement afterwards. There was a press release 7 issued that stated, we stand by everything we said. Those 8 facts are very similar to ours, where there was a written 9 statement issued and then our client, did she or did she not 10 republish that, is that a separate defamatory event. ide THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Now, at least 12 in this little small part of this dispute, I know where I am. 13 Okay. Thanks. 14 MS. MENNINGER: And the Adelson case, your Honor, 5 controls and says that referring back to a statement, such as a 16 previous press release, is not actionable, and summary judgment a has been granted on such alleged republications. So now, in 18 this motion in limine, is not the time to be dealing with the 18 substantive point that plaintiff basically conceded during 20 summary judgment. Pal Thank you. 22 MS. SCHULTZ: Hi, your Honor. Meredith Schultz, 23 counsel for Ms. Giuffre. 24 This motion in limine has already been decided by this 29 Court's summary judgment order, thereby rendering it moot in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011397
February 7, 2026 at 1:15 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011396.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011396
93 H3vlgiu2 1 judgment motion. Your Honor ruled against us on a couple of 2 points, but your Honor was silent with respect to this a particular argument, argument No. 4 -- 4 THE COURT: Ah. 5 MS. MENNINGER: -- in your ruling. 6 THE COURT: And that was? 7 MS. MENNINGER: Our plaintiff's statement two days 8 after the -—- i) THE COURT: The one on the street. 10 MS. MENNINGER: Exactly. That in that statement, our ide client said, we stand by the statement, or, I am referring to 12 the statement that we made. 13 THE COURT: Yes, yes, yes. Okay. I'm just trying to 14 figure it out. So in a very nice, polite way, you're telling LS me I failed to deal with that motion of yours. 6, MS. MENNINGER: That's correct, your Honor. a THE COURT: So it's still out there. 18 MS. MENNINGER: Still out there. There was no 18 response by plaintiff to that argument is our point; that in 20 their response to summary judgment, they didn't mention it at 21 all. 22 THE COURT: Well, that's probably where I missed it. 23 MS. MENNINGER: Exactly. So I think the fact that 24 they failed to respond to it then, as your Honor has held in 25 other cases, has consequences; namely, it's a conceded point. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011396
February 7, 2026 at 1:15 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011395.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011395
92 H3vlgiu2 1 statement and later a press release which said, we stand by 2 everything we said. It's directly on point. Your Honor there a held that such republication is not actionable. We set forth 4 that clearly in our argument 4 of the summary judgment motion, 5 and plaintiff, in her response to summary judgment, made 6 absolutely no reference, no response, nothing with respect to 7 that argument. We, therefore, believe that she has conceded 8 the point and we would ask that no evidence regarding that i) statement be entered in the trial. 10 We predicted, and we were correct, that having not ide argued it in response to our summary judgment motion, they 12 would try to use the opportunity of their response to this 13 motion in limine to make substantive arguments. They should 14 not be permitted to do so, your Honor. In any event, their 5 arguments that they have set forth in response -- 16 THE COURT: I'ma little lost. Perhaps totally lost. a But the partial summary judgment, that's not been dealt with, 18 or has it? 18 MS. MENNINGER: It was not part of your Honor's 20 ruling, no. Pal THE COURT: Tell me the context of the summary 22 judgment. 23 MS. MENNINGER: Certainly, your Honor. There were a 24 number of things that we believed plaintiff had conceded 29 because they failed to respond to our requests in our summary SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011395
February 7, 2026 at 1:14 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011394.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011394
OL H3vlgiu2 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 1:30 pm. a THE COURT: Who's up? I think the defense? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. I think Ms. Schultz 5 requested that we take up No. 666 at this point, which we're 6 happy to do. 7 THE COURT: Oh, yes. Yes. 8 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this motion relates to our 9 request that we exclude evidence barred as a consequence of 10 plaintiff's summary judgment concessions. We asked in argument ide 4 of our summary judgment motion for partial summary judgment 12 with respect to the oral statement on January 4th to a 13 reporter. 14 THE COURT: Hold the phone. 15 MS. MENNINGER: Sure. 16 THE COURT: Sorry. Needless to say, I'm drowning. a Ah, okay. Okay. Sorry. Yes. 18 MS. MENNINGER: We asked for partial summary judgment 18 with respect to our client's statement on a New York street 20 that, "I am referring to the statement that we made." As we Pal set forth in our summary judgment brief, this Court's ruling in 22 Adelson v. Harris is directly on point, that a mere reference 23 to another writing that contains defamatory statements does not 24 constitute an actionable repetition or republication. In that 25 case, in Adelson, there was, first, an allegedly defamatory SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011394
February 7, 2026 at 1:14 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011393.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011393
90 H3vlgiu2 1 may be, your Honor. 2 (Discussion held off the record) 3 THE COURT: We'll resume at 1:30. 4 (Luncheon recess) 5 (Continued on next page) 6 7 8 G 10 ide 12 13 14 15 16 a 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 235 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011393
February 7, 2026 at 1:14 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011392.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011392
89 H3VOGIU1 1 name of it, but it was the plaintiff's motion, sort of omnibus 2 related to different acts either under 404(b) or 415. a The plaintiff wanted until 15 days before trial to 4 make whatever showing they wanted. It would make sense -- 5 well, in defendant's 404(b) motion, there are some of those 6 issues, as well. We certainly could argue part of that. The 7 Court may want to defer that to the entirety of when we have 8 whatever the supplement is to that motion yesterday. 9 Then we also, I believe, dealt with yesterday the 10 issue related to the Jane Doe 102 complaint. We have a ide competing motion on that. That's 663. It seems to me that was 12 argued yesterday, and we don't need to repeat those arguments, 13 which is the same argument we had yesterday. 14 So in my view, your Honor, that leaves the bifurcated 15 trial motion, which has been fully briefed, the Kellen and 16 Marcinkova issue, and the police report issue. So by my count, a we have those three. 18 I also have on my calendar that our motion to 18 preclude -- or the plaintiff's motion to preclude calling 20 attorneys as witnesses, which is 685 and 772, and by my Pal calendaring the reply was due yesterday. I think Ms. McCawley 22 has a different version of that, and so frankly, I don't care 23 whether we hear that today or some other time. 24 So that's my accounting of what we have ripe for 29 argument today, or shouldn't have argument today, as the case SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011392
February 7, 2026 at 1:13 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011391.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011391
88 H3VOGIU1 1 pretrial witness list. Maybe during a break I can confirm 2 that. But if she's not on the witness list, we've got double a hearsay and it can't come in. 4 The last point I would leave you with, your Honor, is 5 many of these issues are going to come down to balancing. 6 They're of minimal relevance for the reasons we've explained, 7 very significant prejudice, and we would ask that each of the 8 motions in limine we've asked today be granted. 9 THE COURT: Thank you. We'll resume at 1:30, and I 10 guess, unless you all think it's been covered, the Maxwell ide motions. What do you think? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I would -- 13 THE COURT: Would you rather catch your plane? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: No. I'm prepared to stay until 5 tomorrow, your Honor. I'm not leaving until tomorrow morning, 16 just in case you need me this afternoon. I'm sure you're a thrilled about that. 18 I think, your Honor, when I went through these, it 19 seems to me that we have dealt with number 679, 716, in 20 connection with 683, 742, and 774. That deals with the Pal Rodriguez, we call it the unauthenticated hearsay document from 22 a suspect source. They call it the black book. I think the 23 Court heard argument about all of that and, in my view, this 24 does not all need to be repeated today. 25 Yesterday, we talked about the -- I can't remember the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011391
February 7, 2026 at 1:13 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011390.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011390
87 H3VOGIU1 1 extremely patient. Let me just take two more minutes to cover 2 point 19. This is Judge Marra's ruling. a They say we want to put it in that she lost. Well, in 4 our view, actually, that was a victory. Our goal was to try to 5 get her into the case, and Judge Marra ruled that she could 6 participate by being a witness. 7 Now, are we really going to try the implications of 8 Judge Marra's ruling in a pro bono Crime Victims Rights Act 9 organization ruling? He ruled on this, but allowed this other 10 thing. It's highly, first, irrelevant, and obviously, highly ide prejudicial in the sense that it's going to divert the jury's 12 attention away from the facts at hand here. 13 And again, Judge Marra only ruled on the first of nine 14 reasons that we offered for putting those allegations in. He LS said point 1 doesn't work, the others we'll see how things play 16 out. a The litigation is moving forward. I can tell you the 18 government will be responding to our summary judgment motion, I 18 believe on May 15th. We'll be replying on July 15th, so the 20 litigation continues. Pal The last point that I'll make is Boylan. This is item 22 20. Remember, Dershowitz is going to say that Boylan says that 23 Ms. Giuffre said certain things. And we were told that, well, 24 maybe she will be a witness. 25 It's my understanding that Boylan is not on the final SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011390
February 7, 2026 at 1:13 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011389.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011389
86 H3VOGIU1 1 tell you that." So even the defense counsel when given an 2 opportunity to articulate the relevance failed to do so, in our 3 view. 4 She says -- then her next argument is, well, the 5 plaintiff's experts are using Dershowitz's statements. As you 6 know from the 702 pleadings, no, we're using Maxwell's 7 statements. We're only going to be proving a case about what 8 Maxwell's defamation did to Ms. Giuffre. 9 And then the last argument was that there was a 10 failure to mitigate damages by suing Dershowitz. Well, your aL, Honor knows, if a person A commits a defamation, you sue A and 12 you get your damages. Then if person B does something, you 13 sort that out in a separate proceeding in a separate way. 14 Sacks and others are very instructive on that. 5 The last point they made was that, well, look, these 16 statements were going on while Cassell and Edwards were a representing her. They've shown simultaneity in time, but not 18 simultaneity in the scope. 19 It is true that the lawsuit was settled, and I won't 20 refer to myself in the third person. Mr. Edwards and I settled 21 the lawsuit and made certain statements in connection with 22 that, but that was to take care of our own professional 23 reputation and the lawsuit associated with that, it had nothing 24 to do with representing Ms. Giuffre. 25 I believe I have two left, your Honor, and you've been SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011389
February 7, 2026 at 1:12 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011388.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011388
85 H3VOGIU1 1 X, fair enough, cross examine her about it, inconsistent 2 statement. We're not objecting to that aspect of that. 3 What we don't want is the lawsuit itself and the 4 circumstances surrounding the lawsuit to be paraded in front of 5 jury. If they simply want to put in a deposition statement to 6 stay it's inconsistent, and that's properly done, of course, 7 that would be appropriate. 8 Their second point is, she participated for a period 9 of time. I guess she participated if you're subpoenaed as a 10 witness and testified, but that wasn't -- you know, she wasn't ide a party to the case. 12 Their third point was that the reputational damages 13 somehow link into what Dershowitz was saying. Again, your 14 Honor already knows our point one is to keep out Mr. Dershowitz LS from the case, and you'll make a ruling one way or the other on 16 it. If he's kept out of the case then this becomes a moot a point. But even if you decide he's in the case, well, okay, 18 fine. Have him testify and do whatever else you think is 18 appropriate. We don't need to hear all about this unrelated 20 lawsuit. eal Their fourth point had to do with, I believe, you 22 know, damages suffered by Ms. Giuffre. Your question was, if 23 I'm -- I don't have the transcript in front of me -- I think 24 you said, well, how does the case itself go to damages? And I 25 believe this is a direct quote from Ms. Menninger. "I can't SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011388
February 7, 2026 at 1:12 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011387.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight011387
84 H3VOGIU1 1 of consent is at that point because you have a federal sex 2 trafficking crime that has been committed. a The same thing is true if you fly a 17-year-old into 4 London, or if you fly her into New York. All of those are sex 5 trafficking crimes, and Professor Conan is prepared to explain 6 both that particular aspect, I would describe it as a mixed 7 question of fact and law, and also some of the psychological 8 techniques that are used to create the -- I think he refers to i) them as the invisible chains of sex traffickers. 10 So we either have a crime in Florida, because she's aL, under the age of consent, or we have a federal or, in all 12 likelihood, state trafficking offense if she's flown to another 13 state. 14 Which regard to item 18, the Cassell and Edwards 5 litigation, I think your Honor asked some excellent questions 16 on that. a We were told that there are five reasons why 18 Ms. Giuffre's connection to that case has some relevance. The 19 first argument, I guess, is their strongest argument, was that, 20 well, she was a witness in that case. But, of course, that was Pal a confidential deposition, so it couldn't have anything to do 22 with reputational damages or something else. 23 Let me be clear. Ms. Giuffre made statements when she 24 was deposed, and if they say, ah-hah, you've said X from the 25 witness stand, but last year when you were deposed you said not SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011387
February 7, 2026 at 1:12 AM