I'm tired of having to repeatedly give sources to the truth to people who persist in being dishonest. So, here is the suit by former Trump employee and Jeffery Epstein victim Virginia Guiffe. The document is the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...fre-unseal.pdf
For those who don't know, a motion for summary judgement, different from a motion to dismiss, is after there has been discovery (each side exchanges documents and takes depositions), one side or the other tells the court "Even if we accept all of the other sides alleged facts as true, you should rule in my favor because..."
I am copying and pasting the text from pages 2 and 3.
Defendant’s primary argument in support of her contention that she did not abuse and traffic Ms. Giuffre as a minor child is that employment records show that Ms. Giuffre was either sixteen or seventeen when Defendant recruited her from her job at Mar-a-Lago for sex with Epstein, not fifteen-years-old as Plaintiff originally thought. Call this the “yes-I’m-a-sextrafficker-but-only-of-sixteen-year-old-girls” defense. Defendant does not explain why sexual abuse of a fifteen year old differs in any material way from sexual abuse of a sixteen or seventeen year old. All instances involve a minor child, who cannot consent, and who is protected by federal and state laws. The fact remains that Defendant recruited Ms. Giuffre while she was a minor child for sexual purposes and then proceeded to take her all over the world on
convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet, the “Lolita Express,” as well as to his various residences, and even to her own London house. Flight logs even reveal twenty-three flights that Defendant shared with Ms. Giuffre – although Defendant claims she is unable to remember even a single one of those flights. Inconsequential details that Ms. Giuffre may have originally remembered incorrectly do not render her substantive claims of abuse by Defendant false, much less deliberate “lies.” At most, these minor inaccuracies, in the context of a child suffering from a troubled childhood and sexual abuse, create nothing more than a fact question on whether
Defendant’s statement that Ms. Giuffre lied when she accused Defendant of abuse is “substantially true,” thereby precluding summary judgment. See Mitre Sports Int’l Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 240, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Because determining whether COI is substantially true would require this court to decide disputed facts ... summary judgment is not appropriate”).
So. Here are the undisputed facts.
- Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend recruited a teenager who worked at Mar-A-Lago for sex.
- Jeffrey Epstein abused young girls at places other than just "orgy island." (Important because that means that just because someone didn't go to orgy island with Epstein doesn't mean he didn't abuse underage girls with Epstein).
Here's what is in dispute.
- Whether the teenaged Trump employee was 15, 16 or 17 at the time of the recruitment.
- Some of the details of the teenager's initial encounter with Epstein.
- Whether Ms. Maxwell participated in the sexual abuse herself.
- Whether Ms. Maxwell remembers all of the details of the "Lolita Express" flights she was on with the teenage girl.
So there you go @Swordsmyth. The source right from the court documents. And sometime after this recruitment of a teenage employee, Donald J. Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago and revoked his membership but only because Epstein hit on a rich guys daughter!
Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us