Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
In this episode, we're going to continue taking a look
at Glaine Maxwell's response to Virginia Roberts Contested Facts and
the Plaintiff's Undisputed Facts Number thirty eight. Plaintiff re enrolled
in high school from June twenty first, two thousand, until
March seventh, two thousand and two. After finishing the ninth
grade high school year at Forest Hills High School on
June ninth, nineteen ninety nine, Plaintiff re enrolled at Wellington
Adult High School on June twenty first, two thousand, again
on August sixteenth, two thousand, and August fourteenth, two thousand
and one. On September twentieth, two thousand and one, Plaintiff
then enrolled at Royal Palm Beach High School. A few
weeks later, on October twelfth, two thousand and one, she
matriculated at Survivor's Charter School. Survivor's Charter School was an
alternative school designed to assist students who had been unseed
sucessful at more traditional schools. Plaintiff remained enrolled at Survivor's
Charter School until March seventh, two thousand and two. She
was present fifty six days and absent thirteen days during
her time there. Plaintiff never received her high school diploma
or ged. Plaintiff and Figueroa went back to school together
at Survivor's charter school example p At twenty three through
twenty seven. The school day there lasted from morning until
early afternoon id at twenty three through twenty seven. Plaintiff argues,
again without evidentiary support, that the codes on the school
records indicate semester's start and end dates rather than dates
plaintiff was in school. Her misreading of the records is
a parent from their face. One column is labeled entry
date and the next withdrawal date. Neither say semester start
date or semester end date. Moreover, the codes simply prove
the point if entered school codes EO one and EA
one on the designated entry date, and withdrew either prior
to completion to enter another training program or who will
continue in the class program the next term or school
year on the dates designated with dawel. The school records
display entry and withdrawal dates for Wellington High School Adult
Program from June twenty first two thousand through August fifteenth,
two thousand, from August sixteenth, two thousand through August thirteenth,
two thousand and one, and from August fourteenth, two thousand
and one through September twentieth, two thousand and one, and
then an entry that same day, September twentieth, two thousand
and one, at Survivor's charter school. Plaintiff would have one
belief that the records show a school on Plaintiff's official
transcript that she never went to Wellington High School Adult
program that indicates that she withdrew the very day she
concededly entered Survivor's charter school. Her intention misreading of the
record is yet another attempt to offuscate plaintiff's lack of
memory regarding where and when she went to school, just
like she failed to remember eight jobs that she held
in two thousand, whereas she claimed to have none. The
test is admissible evidence to the country, and plaintiff offers none.
The flight logs which show trips in early two thousand
and one do not contradict the evidence because they are
during the period of time she was enrolled in adult
high school, a place where night classes were taught. And
where one might circumstantially infer careful attendance records were not
kept Fact number thirty nine. During the year two thousand,
Plaintiff worked at numerous jobs. In two thousand, while living
with her fiance, Plaintiff held five different jobs at Aviculture
Breeding and Research Center, Southeast Employee Management Company, the Club
mar A Lago, Oasis Outsourcing, and Neiman Marcus. Her taxable
earnings that year totaled nearly nine thousand dollars. Plaintiff cannot
now recall either the Southeast Employment Management Company or the
Oasis Outsourcing jobs example at Q at four seventy and
four seventy one reply. Plaintiff does not dispute the facts
as presented, merely argues regarding their significance. The Social Security
Administration records detail the five jobs at which she worked
in two thousand. The month and day of the jobs
are irrelevant for purposes of this recitation of facts. Likewise,
plaintiff does not dispute the taxable earnings she made that year,
or that she does not remember the jobs associated without
Southeast Employment Management Company or Oasis Outsourcing, whether they were
payroll or not. Where she made three thousand two hundred
and twelve dollars and two thousand, thirty seven dollars that year.
She also forgot about the job at Neeman Marcus, where
she made four hundred and forty dollars in two thousand,
until she was confronted with the SSA Records Colleigue declaration
a example five number forty undisputed fact forty. Plaintiff's employment
at mar A Lago SPA began in the fall of
two thousand. Plaintiff's father, Sky Roberts, was hired as a
maintenance worker at the mar A Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida,
beginning on April eleventh, two thousand. Miss Roberts worked there
year round for approximately three years. After working there for
a period of time, mister Roberts became acquainted with the
head of the spy area and recommended plaintiff for a
job there. Mar A Lago closes every Mother's Day and
reopens on November first. Example you at mar A Lago
zero two one two. Most of the employees who work
at mar A Lago, including all employees of the SPA
area such as SPA attendants, are seasonal and work only
when the club is open. I e November one and
Mother's Day. Example t at seventy two and seventy three,
plaintiff was hired as a seasonal SPA attendant to work
at at the mar A Lago Club in the fall
of two thousand, after she had turned seventeen the reply.
Plaintiff's response is misleading. First, she does not dispute that
Miss Roberts and her father began working at mar A
Lago in April of two thousand, nor that he worked
there for some time, became acquainted with the head of
the Spy Are You, and recommended his daughter for a job. Second,
plaintiff contends that job postings in job descriptions from two
thousand and two and later are irrelevant. There are no
such job posting cited. Rather, the job posting cited was
from October two thousand, the same time the plaintiff was hired.
Compare example v posting for Saturday October fourteenth and Sunday
October fifteenth with calendar for year two thousand showing Saturday
and Sundays in October corresponding to those dates. Finally, plaintiff
points to her own recollection as contrary proof. Her recollection
about when she worked at mar A Lago has shifted
dramatically over time. First she aimed it was nineteen ninety
eight see Jane do one O two complaint. Then it
was nineteen ninety nine see document number one. Now in
this response she has changed her answer to two thousand.
Her vague recollections about what year have been off base.
No credit should be given to her newfound recollection of
which month that she worked there. In any event, she
presents no admissible, credible evidence to contradict mar A Lago's
own records. Even Plaintiff's father, a longtime employee of mar
A Lago, admitted that the plays closed down in the summer.
Plaintiff simply is not credible in her testimony that she
recalls it being a summer job, and the fact that
she did not work at the spa until at least
November two thousand at the age seventeen, should be deemed
admitted undisputed. Fact forty one. Plaintiff represented herself as a
messuse for Jeffrey Epstein, while working at mar A Lago's
spa and reading a library book about massage, met Miss Maxwell.
Plaintiff thereafter told her father that she got a job
working for Jeffrey Epstein as a messus. Plaintiff's father took
her to Epstein's house on one occasion around that time,
and Epstein came outside and introduced himself to mister Roberts.
Plaintiff commenced employment as a traveling messuse for mister Epstein.
Plaintiff was excited about her job as a messuse, about
traveling with him, and about meeting famous people. Plaintiff represented
that she was employed as a massuse beginning in January
of two thousand and one. Plaintiff never mentioned Miss Maxwell
to her then fiance, Ostrich. Plaintiff's father never met Miss Maxwell.
Reply Plaintiff does not actually refute any of the facts
set forth above, but rather spends her time discussing different facts.
Plaintiff's father testified to what she told them that she
was going to learn massage therapy. She does not contest
her father's testimony that Epstein came out of the house
and greeted her, and that her father never met Miss Maxwell.
See a reply to Undisputed Fact number forty one. Whether
someone can receive a massage license under Florida law without
a high school equivalency diploma is of no moment. Plaintiff
does not dispute she represented herself as the masseuse to
others in her own handwriting beginning in January two thousand
and one. Examples M and N. These facts should be
deemed admitted. Number forty two Plaintiff resumed a relationship with
convicted felon Anthony Figaroa in the spring of two thousand
and one. While living with Ostrich, Plaintiff lied to and
cheated on him with her high school boyfriend, Anthony Figaroa.
Plaintiff and Ostrich thereafter broke up, and Figaroa moved into
the Bento compartment with plaintiff. When Ostrich returned to the
Bento compartment to check on his pets and to retrieve
his belongings, Figaroa, in Plaintiff's presence, punched Ostrich in the face.
Figaroa and plain fled the scene before police arrived. Figueroa
was then a convicted felon and a drug abuser on
probation for possession of a controlled substance. Reply. Plaintiff argues
relevance regarding these facts, but contests none of them they
should be deemed admitted. Plaintiff's slies cheating and association with
a convicted felon and known drug abuser are all relevant
in this defamation case concerning her reputation, purported damage to
such reputation, and whether she was a known liar. As
the January twenty fifteen statement contends, Number forty three, plaintiff
freely and voluntarily contacted the police to come to her
aid in two thousand and one and two thousand and two,
but never reported to them that she was an Epstein's
sex slave. In August two thousand and one, at age seventeen,
while living in the same apartment, plaintiff and Figueroa hosted
a party with a number of guests. During that party,
according to the place plaintiff, someone entered Plaintiff's room and
stole five hundred dollars from her shirt pocket. Plaintiff contacted
the police. She met and spoke with police officers regarding
the incident, and filed a report. She did not disclose
to the officer that she was a sex slave. A
second time, in June two thousand and two, plaintiff contacted
the police to report that her former landlord had left
her belongings by the roadside and had lit her Mattress
on fire. Again, plaintiff met and spoke with law enforcement,
but did not complain that she was the victim of
any sexual trafficking or abuse or that she was being
held as a sex slave. Reply, Plaintiff again presents no
admissible evidence to contradict these facts, instead arguing their relevance
they should be deemed admitted. Forty four From August two
thousand and one until September two thousand and two, Epstein
and Maxwell were almost entirely absent from Florida on documented
travel unaccompanied by planingf Flight logs maintained by Epstein's private pilot,
David Rodgers evidenced the substantial number of trips away from
Florida that Epstein and Maxwell took unaccompanied by plaintiff between
August two thousand and one and September two thousand and two.
Rogers maintained the log of all flights on which Epstein
and Maxwell traveled with them. Epstein additionally traveled with another
pilot who did not keep such logs, and he also
occasionally traveled via commercial flights. For substantially all of the
thirteen months of the twenty two months from November two
thousand until September two thousand and two, the plaintiff lived
in Palm Beach and New Epstein. Epstein was traveling outside
of Florida unaccompanied by Plaintiff. During this same time period,
Plaintiff was employed at various jobs, enrolled in school, and
living with her boyfriend. Reply, Plaintiff goes to great lengths
to dispute facts other than those presented as undisputed fact
forty four. Competitive recitation of the flights that plaintiff was
on do nothing to demonstrate the thirteen months of flights
from July two thousand and one until August two thousand
and two that Epstein and Maxwell were on without Plaintiff,
as reflected in the logs. Her assertions regarding the other
flights that she took commercial or any other plane do
nothing to establish all of the many flights she was
not on during thirteen of the twenty two months period
during which Epstein and Maxwell were away from Palm Beach.
Plaintiff does not dispute that Epstein and Maxwell were on
the flights without her. The facts as presented by defendant
should be deemed admitted. Forty five. Plaintiff and Figeroa shared
a vehicle during two thousand and one and two thousand
and two, Plaintiff in Figeroa shared a nineteen ninety three
Pontiac in two thousand and one and two thousand and two.
Plaintiff freely traveled around the Palm Beach area in that vehicle.
In August of two thousand and two, night if acquired
a Dodge Dakota pickup truck from her father example p
At sixty seven and sixty eight. Figaroa used that vehicle
in a series of crimes before and after plaintiff left
for Thailand. Reply again, the response has nothing to do
with the fact stated, as plaintiff concedes, she and mister
Figaroa had one car that they both used. In fact,
they traveled to and from school together example p At
sixty seven and sixty eight. She does not dispute that
she traveled freely around the Palm Beach area in that vehicle,
or that her car was used in a series of
thefts while she was in Thailand. All that should be
deemed admitted forty six undisputed fact forty six. Plaintiff held
a number of jobs in two thousand and one and
two thousand and two. During two thousand and one and
two thousand and two, Plaintiff was gainfully employed at several jobs.
She worked as a waitress at Menino's Restaurant, at TGIF's
Friday's Restaurant, and at Roadhouse Grill. She also was employed
at Courtyard Animal Hospital. Reply. Plaintiff admits all of the
facts at fourth above, aside from the use of the
word gainfully, they should be deemed admitted forty seven. In
September two thousand and two, plaintiff traveled to Thailand to
receive massage training, and while there met her future husband
and Elope with them. Plaintiff traveled to Thailand in September
of two thousand and two to receive formal training as
a massuse. Figaroa drove her to the airport. While there,
she initially contacted Figaroa frequently, incurring a phone bill of
four thousand dollars. She met her husband while in Thailand
and decided to marry him. She thereafter ceased all contact
with Figaroa from October two thousand and two until two
days before mister Figaroa's deposition in this matter in May
of twenty sixteen. Reply Again, Plaintiff does not refute the
facts at fourth. She simply offers her own interpretation of
those facts. In the absence of any country evidence, they
should be deemed admitted forty eight undisputed fact Number forty eight.
Detective Riccarry's investigation of Epstein fell to uncover any evidence
that Miss Maxwell was involved in sexual abuse of miners,
sexual trafficking, or production or possession of child pornography. Joseph
Riccary served as the lead detective from the Palm Beach
Police Department charged with investigating Jeffrey Epstein example GG AT ten.
That investigation commenced in two thousand and five. Riccary worked
only on the Epstein case for an entire year. He
reviewed previous officer's reports and interviews, conducted numerous interviews of
witnesses and alleged victims, himself, reviewed surveillance footage of the
Epstein home, participated in and had knowledge of the search
warrant executed on the Epstein home, and testified regarding the
case before the Florida State Grand Jerry against Epstein. Detective
Rickerrey's investigation revealed that not one of the alleged Epstein
victims ever mentioned Miss Maxwell's name, and she was never
considered a suspect by the government. None of Epstein's alleged
victims said they had seen miss Maxwell at Epstein's house,
nor said they had been recruited by her, nor paid
any money buyer, nor told what to wear or how
to act buyer. Indeed, none of Epstein's alleged victims ever
reported to the government they had ever met or spoken
to Miss Maxwell. Maxwell was not seen coming or going
from the house during the law enforcement surveillance of Epstein's home.
The arrest warrant did not mention Miss Maxwell, and her
name was never mentioned before the grand jury. No property
belonging to Maxwell, including sex toys or child pornography, was
seized from Epstein's home during execution of the search warrant
IDEA two fifty seven. Detective Roccari, when asked to describe
everything that you believe you know about Klene Maxwell's sexual
trafficking conduct, replied, I don't IDEA two seventy eight. He
confirmed that he had no knowledge about Miss Maxwell's sexually
trafficking anybody. Detective Raccari also has no knowledge of Plaintiff's
conduct that is subject of this lawsuit. Reply. Plaintiff offers
several misleading contrary facts, none of which actually address the
facts presented herein namely, whether Miss Maxwell was ever mentioned
by any of Epstein's alleged victims, whether she was the
target of their investigation, and whether any of her property
was seized from Epstein's home. Plaintiff cites to numerous inadmissible
pieces of evidence on facts other than those. Mister Rodriguez,
a convicted felon for obstructing justice related to the Epstein case,
is dead and his deposition testimony is the subject of
emotion in le Mean because Miss Maxwell has never had
the opportunity to cross examine them Document five p. Sixty
seven at five fourteen. Miss Rebello, likewise, is not a
witness who has been deposed in this case, and therefore
her testimony is not admissible against Miss Maxwell. The message
pads are not authenticated by anyone, as will be the
subject of a forthcoming motion in le Mean, and there
is not one shred of evidence that any child pornography,
as opposed to a topless photo of a very adult
Miss Maxwell, wherever found in Epstein's home. The fact should
be deemed admitted, as those proffered by defendant are based
on admissible evidence. Number forty nine undisputed Fact forty nine.
No nude photograph of plaintiff was displayed in Epstein's home.
Epstein's housekeeper, Juana Lessi, never saw any photographs of Virginia
Roberts in mister Epstein's house. Detective Raccari entered Epstein's home
in two thousand and two to install security cameras to
catch a thief, and did not observe any child pornography
within the home, including on Epstein's desk in his office. Reply,
plaintiff offered no evidence that a nude photograph of her
was displayed in Epstein's home. All of the testimony she
submits has nothing to do with the nude photograph of herself.
The fact should be deemed admitted fifty undisputed Fact fifty.
Plaintiff intentionally destroyed her journal and dream journal regarding her
memories of this case. In twenty eleven, while represented by council,
Plaintiff drafted a journal describing individuals to whom she claimed
she was sexually trafficked, as well as her memories and
thoughts about her experiences with Epstein. In twenty thirteen, she
and her husband created a bonfire in her backyard in
Florida and burned the journal together with other documents in
her possession. Plaintiff also kept a dream journal regarding her
thoughts and memories that she possessed in January twenty sixteen.
To date, Plaintiff cannot locate the dream journal. Reply. Tiff
offers no contrary, admissible evidence regarding her destruction of her journal,
and it should be deemed admitted. Fifty one undisputed fact
Number fifty one. Plaintiff publicly peddled her story beginning in
two thousand and one. Plaintiff granted journalist Sharon Churchier extensive
interviews that resulted in seven widely distributed articles. From March
twenty eleven through January twenty fifteen, Churcher regularly communicated with
plaintiff and her attorneys or other agents. From early twenty
eleven to the present day, Plaintiff received approximately one hundred
and sixty thousand dollars for her stories and pictures that
were published by many news organizations. Reply, Plaintiff offers no
evidence to contradict the facts asserted, and they should therefore
be deemed admitted. Plaintiff's unsupported spin of those facts should
be stricken undisputed Fact fifty two. Plaintiff drafted a one
hundred and forty four page, reportedly autobiographical book manuscript in
twenty eleven, which she actively sought to publish. In twenty eleven,
contemporaneous with her Churcher interviews, Plaintiff drafted a book manuscript
which purported to document plaintiff's experiences as a teenager in Florida,
including her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell. Plaintiff communicated with
literary agents, ghostwriters, and potential independent publishers in an effort
to get her book published. She generated marketing materials and
circulated those, along with book chapters to numerous individuals associated
with publishing and the media. Reply Plaintiff sites in admissible
evidence and attorney argument in contradiction of these facts, they
should be ignored. The victim notification letter is inadmissible hearsay.
The psychologist's record likewise are inadmissible hearsay. The FBI interview
is inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff's council then flatly misrepresents to the
court her own client's characterizations of the book manuscript, calling
it a fictionalized account. Plaintiff contradicting her council testified that
the book manuscript is ninety nine percent true. Question is
there anything Well, first of all, did you author the
entire manuscript? Answer? Yes, I did. Question did anyone else
author part of that manuscript? Answer? Do you mean did
anyone else write this with me? Question? Right? Answer? No, question,
that's all you're writing. Answer this is my writing. Question okay,
to the best of your recollection as you sit here today,
Is there anything in that manuscript about Glenn Maxwell that
is untrue? Answer? I don't believe so. Like I said,
there is a lot of stuff that I actually left
out of here. Question mm hmm. Answer, So there is
a lot more information I could put in there, But
as far as Glean Maxwell goes, I would say that
there is ninety nine percent of it would be the
correct knowledge. Question all right, is there anything that you
and I understand that you're doing this from memory? Is
there anything that you recall as you're sitting here today
about Glayton Maxwell that is contained in the manuscript that
is not true? Answer? You know, I haven't read this
in a very long time. I don't believe that there's
anything in there about Glayne Maxwell that is not true.
Plaintiff clearly now would like to spin the book manuscript
as fictionalized, because she is well aware that the facts
presented by her in that manuscript are contradicted by many
other documentary and testimonial records. Yet she offers no admissible
evidence that plaintiff intended the manuscript to be fictional. Citations
the social scientists, who have not testified in this case
and whose work has not been cited by any expert
in this case, is wholly improper and should be stricken.
Number fifty three. Plaintiff publicly filed lurid cvra pleadings, initiated
a media frenzy and generated highly publicized litigation between A
lawyers and Alan Dershowitz. On December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, Plaintiff,
through Council, publicly filed a jointerer motion that contained her
Lurid allegations about Miss Maxwell and many others, including Alan Dershowitz,
Prince Andrew, and Jean lu Brunel. The joined Her motion
was followed by a corrected motion and two further declarations
in January and February twenty fifteen, which repeated many of
Plaintiff's claims. These cvra pleadings generated a media maelstrom and
spawned highly publicized litigation between plaintiff's lawyers Edwards En Cassel
and Alan Dershowitz. After plaintiff publicly alleged mister Dershowitz of
sexual misconduct, mister Dershowitz vigorously defended himself in the media.
He called plaintiff a liar and accused her lawyers of
unethical conduct. In response, attorneys Edwards En Cassel sued Dershowitz,
who counterclaimed. This litigation in turn caused additional media attention
by national and international media organizations. Reply, plaintiff offers no
contrary facts and so they should be deemed admitted. Number
fifty four undisputed Fact fifty four Plaintiff formed non profit
Victims Refuse Silence to attract publicity and speak out on
a public controversy. In twenty fifteen, Plaintiff, with the assistance
of the same council, formed the non profit organization Victims
Refuse Silence. According to plaintiff, the purpose of the organization
is to promote Plaintiff's profess cause against sex slavery. The
stated goal of her organization is to help survivors surmount
the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of
sexual abuse. Plaintiffs attempts to promote victims refuse silence at
every opportunity. For example, plaintiff participated in an interview in
New York with ABC to promote the charity and to
get our mission out to the public. Reply Plaintiff offers
no contrary evidence, and the facts should be deemed admitted. Two,
the court should strike plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts. The
summary judgment procedure is well established. When the summary judgment
non movement bears the burden of proof at trial, as
in the case at Bar, the movement may show a
prima facie entitlement for summary judgment in one of two ways.
The movement may point to evidence that negates the non
movement's claims, or two, the movement may identify those portions
of its opponent's evidence that demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact salahudin versus Gored four sixty
seven f. Dot three D two sixty three, two seventy
two and seventy three, Second Circuit, two thousand and six.
If the movement makes the showing in either manner, the
burden shifts to the non movement to identify record evidence
creating a genuine issue of material fact. Local Civil Rule
fifty six dot one A carries out this summary judgment
procedure by requiring the summary judgment movement to set forth
material facts as to which she contends that there is
no genuine issue to be tried. Subsection B of the
rule requires the party opposing some rejudgment to set forth
the statement of additional material facts as to which it
is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried.
Miss Maxwell has moved for some rejudgment. Plaintiff has not
as movement. Miss Maxwell is required under Local Civil Rule
fifty six y one to enumerate the fact she is
asserting as undisputed. As the party opposing some rejudgment, Plaintiff
is permitted if she can to introduce admissible evidence creating
a genuine issue a material fact see fed R Siev
fifty six C. And one plaintiff is confused. Plaintiff believes
she the party opposing some rejudgment, must enumerate facts she
is asserting as undisputed, and so she has submitted her
own rule fifty six to one statement of undisputed facts
that gets a summary judgment procedure exactly backwards. Plaintiff's undisputed
facts are irrelevant. Plaintiff cannot avoid some rejudgment by proposing
undisputed facts. She may only do so by creating a
genuine issue of material fact as to Miss Maxwell's statement
of undisputed facts. Accordingly, this Court should strike Plaintiff's statement
of undisputed facts. Although Miss Maxwell, as a summary judgment movement,
has no duty to respond to plaintiffs alleged undisputed facts,
we hasten to add that Miss Maxwell in fact opposes
and disputes most of Plaintiff's alleged undisputed facts. For example,
defendants undisputed Fact forty includes the statement Miss Roberts is
hired as a seasonal SPA attendant to work at the
mar A Lago club in the fall of two thousand,
after she had turned seventeen. Yet Plaintiffs sets forth in
our own Undisputed Fact fifty eight that Vergil Guina got
a job at mar A Lago in two thousand, either
months before or just after her seventeenth birthday. Plaintiff has
done nothing more than set forth her dispute with defendant
undisputed fact forty as her own undisputed fact, it makes
no sense. See also Plaintiff's undisputed fact sixty three. The
other alleged undisputed facts are simply plaintiff's assertion of her
deposition testimony and hearsay of her statements to other witnesses
couched as undisputed facts. Miss Maxwell strenuously disputes almost all
of the alleged undisputed facts, claiming that she engaged in
any sort of sexual acts, misconduct, or communication with plaintiff
or others. Indeed, over the course of two days and
thirteen hours of deposition, Miss Maxwell disputed all such allegations.
Because none of Plaintiff's undisputed facts have anything to do
with the issues raised by Defendant's motion for some rejudgment,
Miss Maxwell moves to strike Plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts
conclusion for the foregoing reasons. Miss Maxwell requests that the
Court deem her undisputed facts admitted, and that the Court
strikes plaintiff statement of undisputed facts. This was signed on
February tenth of twenty seventeen, and it was signed by
Laura Meninger. All right, folks, that's going to do it
for this one. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box