All data sourced from public U.S. government records. Appearance of any name does NOT imply guilt or wrongdoing. Full disclaimer →
The document analyzes a defamation claim by the plaintiff against Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the claim fails because Ms. Maxwell's statements were essentially true and the plaintiff cannot prove actual malice. The document references the legal standards for defamation under New York law and highlights the falsity of statements made in a Joinder Motion filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
Source
DOJ
Release Date
—
Pages
1
Jurisdiction
—
Case
2019-03339
3 individuals identified
Ghislaine Maxwell (alleged perpetrator mentioned in the Joinder Motion): This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal standards for a defamation claim under New York law and argues that the plaintiff cannot establish her claim due to the truth of Ms. Maxwell's statements and lack of evidence of actual malice.
Bradley Edwards (plaintiff's attorney): This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal standards for a defamation claim under New York law and argues that the plaintiff cannot establish her claim due to the truth of Ms. Maxwell's statements and lack of evidence of actual malice.
Full-Text Search — Phase 2
In-document keyword search is coming when OCR/text ingestion is complete.
Paul Cassell (plaintiff's attorney): This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal standards for a defamation claim under New York law and argues that the plaintiff cannot establish her claim due to the truth of Ms. Maxwell's statements and lack of evidence of actual malice.