Ghislaine Maxwell's Statement Of Contested Facts In Her Lawsuit With Virginia Giuffre (Part 1-2) (8/1/25)

In response to Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell’s characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell’s filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell’s framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell’s assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell’s denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell’s characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell’s filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell’s framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell’s assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell’s denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her defamation suit against Virginia Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a formal "Statement of Contested Facts" responding to Giuffre’s allegations under New York court Rule 56.1. Maxwell’s team outlined numerous “purported facts”—ranging from Giuffre’s interviews, allegations of recruitment, coverage in media outlets, and details of her own supposed intent—only to contest nearly all of them. For example, Maxwell denies language characterizing Giuffre’s descriptions as “lurid,” disputes any claim she issued cease-and-desist statements to the press, and rejects interpretations of media intent attributed to her counsel. The filing portrays Maxwell’s view that Giuffre’s public statements were false or misrepresented, and castigates her for alleged exaggerations and procedural missteps in her filings.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her defamation suit against Virginia Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a formal "Statement of Contested Facts" responding to Giuffre’s allegations under New York court Rule 56.1. Maxwell’s team outlined numerous “purported facts”—ranging from Giuffre’s interviews, allegations of recruitment, coverage in media outlets, and details of her own supposed intent—only to contest nearly all of them. For example, Maxwell denies language characterizing Giuffre’s descriptions as “lurid,” disputes any claim she issued cease-and-desist statements to the press, and rejects interpretations of media intent attributed to her counsel. The filing portrays Maxwell’s view that Giuffre’s public statements were false or misrepresented, and castigates her for alleged exaggerations and procedural missteps in her filings.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In early 2019, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas’ office began investigating claims from two or more survivors who said they were abused at Epstein’s ranch in southern Santa Fe County. Investigators interviewed victims and reviewed property records—including over 400 pages of state lease documents—before forwarding their findings to federal prosecutors in New York, with plans to assist, not lead, the case. At the time, the AG clarified that they had no intent to file state charges, and victims were not prosecuted within New Mexico.New Mexico faced intense criticism, particularly because Epstein never registered as a sex offender in the state. Under state law, his Florida conviction did not trigger registration requirements. Despite owning the ranch on leased public land, he was not legally obligated to register, a loophole Balderas later sought to close through reform legislation. Until those laws changed, New Mexico remained a jurisdiction where Epstein evaded both prosecution and registry obligations, even though allegations of underage abuse there were well-documented.source:https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/07/18/no-epstein-indictment-here-for-now/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2018, Ghislaine Maxwell—despite years of public allegations connecting her to Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation—was invited to and attended Jeff Bezos’s elite and secretive literary retreat known as Campfire. The event, hosted by Bezos annually, brings together top authors, tech moguls, and media power players at a private location for a weekend of discussions, panels, and informal networking. Maxwell’s presence at the retreat raised eyebrows, not only because of her reputation by that point, but also because it demonstrated how seamlessly she continued to move through the highest levels of elite society even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Her attendance revealed a stunning level of normalization and acceptance within powerful circles, despite her growing notoriety.Maxwell reportedly arrived at the Campfire event alongside entrepreneur Scott Borgerson, a figure later revealed to be in a close relationship with her, though he denied any romantic involvement at the time. Attendees included influential figures from Silicon Valley, publishing, and entertainment—none of whom publicly objected to her presence. The revelation of her invitation has sparked renewed scrutiny into how the world’s wealthiest and most influential people continued to welcome Epstein’s known enablers into their inner circles long after the broader public became aware of their roles. It serves as yet another example of how elite spaces often insulate their own, regardless of the crimes that surround them.source:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-was-guest-at-jeff-bezos-event.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Survivors’ attorneys, most notably Gloria Allred, led repeated public appeals asking Prince Andrew to cooperate with U.S. authorities investigating Jeffrey Epstein. Allred even organized a school‑bus demonstration outside Buckingham Palace, urging the Duke of York to “talk to the FBI” and give a sworn deposition. She bluntly stated that if he “has done nothing wrong then just talk to the FBI,” and if he had, “it’s time to confess and tell us what that is”Despite these appeals, Prince Andrew never agreed to be interviewed by FBI or U.S. prosecutors. In January 2020, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman confirmed that Andrew had provided zero cooperation with the federal investigation, despite earlier public claims of willingness to assist.to contact me:[email protected]://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1632627/prince-andrew-ghislaine-Maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffreBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Maria Farmer is an American visual artist who rose to public attention not for her artwork initially, but for being among the first whistleblowers to alert authorities about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. In 1996, while working for Epstein and Maxwell in New York, she was allegedly sexually assaulted by both. She went on to submit what is recognized as the first criminal complaint to the New York City Police Department and the FBI—a warning that would unfortunately go unheeded for years.Over the years Farmer has reemerged as a powerful advocate for survivors of Epstein’s exploitation. She filed an affidavit in federal court in 2019 supporting Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit, and in 2025, she sued the federal government for failing to act on her decades-old report. She has also publicly recounted a disturbing 1995 encounter with Donald Trump in Epstein’s Manhattan office, which she urged investigators to include in their probe of Epstein’s social circle.In this episode, we’re going back to April of 2022 for a conversation that’s as raw and revealing now as it was then—my interview with Maria Farmer. At the time, Maria was one of the only survivors publicly speaking out against the full machinery that protected Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She didn’t just name names—she challenged institutions, exposed failures, and pulled the curtain back on a cover-up that reached into finance, intelligence, and politics. This interview captures Maria at her most unfiltered, recounting her experiences, her warnings to the FBI that were ignored, and her insight into how deep the rot really goes.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell has been quietly moved from the low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida to a minimum-security facility in Bryan, Texas—a shift that has raised serious questions. The timing of her transfer, which occurred shortly after a closed-door meeting with senior officials at the Department of Justice, is especially suspect. That meeting, reportedly centered on Maxwell providing names connected to Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network, was followed by this abrupt relocation to a prison camp known for its lighter restrictions and more comfortable conditions. It’s not hard to see this for what it looks like: a reward, not a coincidence.The prison camp in Bryan, Texas is a far cry from even the modest constraints of Tallahassee. Dormitory housing, no perimeter fencing, minimal supervision—this is not where you send someone convicted of trafficking girls to billionaires. While survivors continue to fight for accountability and answers, Maxwell is being eased into a facility that resembles a quiet retreat more than a prison. Critics argue this reeks of backroom deals and institutional privilege—further proof that in the American justice system, those with connections can still trade secrets for comfort while the people they helped exploit remain invisible and unheard.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell quietly moved out of Fla. prisonBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump’s ever-changing narrative about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has grown increasingly incoherent, with his latest claim being that Epstein “stole” spa workers from Mar-a-Lago—including, allegedly, Virginia Giuffre. Instead of expressing outrage over Epstein’s crimes or sympathy for the survivors, Trump framed the fallout like a staffing dispute, saying Epstein took people who worked for him and that Giuffre “had no complaints.” The shifting timelines—from calling Epstein a “terrific guy” to suddenly claiming moral indignation or workplace betrayal—don’t inspire confidence in his account.Giuffre’s family responded critically to Trump’s comments, describing them as insensitive and reducing Virginia to an object rather than acknowledging her as a survivor. They emphasized that she was a person who endured serious trauma and should not be spoken about in such transactional terms. Their reaction raised broader concerns about the tone and framing of Trump’s statements—particularly the absence of empathy toward those harmed by Epstein. By focusing on staffing disputes and loyalty rather than addressing the abuse itself, Trump’s remarks were seen as overlooking the core human cost of the scandal.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.