Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 1-2) (3/28/26)

How to have fun, anytime, anywhere.

Step one, go to ChambaCasino.com.

ChambaCasino.com, got it.

Step two, collect your welcome bonus.

Come to Papa, welcome bonus.

Step three, play hundreds of Casino's dial games for free.

That's a lot of games, all for free.

Step four, unleash your excitement.

Woo-hoo!

Chamba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade,

so claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chamba Life.

Visit ChambaCasino.com.

No purchase necessary VGW group voidware prohibited by law

21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz.

I'm the host of Big Technology podcast,

a longtime reporter and an on-air contributor to CNBC.

And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out

how artificial intelligence is changing the business world

and our lives.

So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors

from companies building AI tech and outsiders

trying to influence it.

Asking where this is all going,

they come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon,

and plenty more.

So if you want to be smart with your wallet,

your career choices, and meetings with your colleagues

and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast

wherever you get your podcasts.

What's up, everyone?

And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.

In this episode, we're gonna dive right back into those core

documents and we're going to take a look

at the Southern District of New York local rule 56.1,

plaintiff statement of contested facts

and plaintiffs undisputed facts.

Defendants purported facts.

One.

Miss Maxwell's response to publication

of Miss Roberts false allegations

the March 2011 state of New York

was a case of the case number 15-cv-074-33-RWS.

For junior Roberts plaintiff,

Berschland Maxwell, the defendant.

Southern District of New York's local rule 56.1,

plaintiff statement of contested facts

and plaintiffs undisputed facts.

Defendants purported facts.

One.

Miss Maxwell's response to publication

of contested facts.

In early 2011, Miss Roberts

and two British tabloid interviews

made numerous false and defamatory allegations

against Miss Maxwell.

In the articles, Miss Roberts made no direct allegations

that Miss Maxwell was involved

in any improper conduct with Jeffrey Epstein

who pleaded guilty in 2007

to procuring a minor for prostitution.

Nonetheless, Miss Roberts suggested

that Miss Maxwell worked with Epstein

and may have known about the crimes

for which he was convicted.

Miss Roberts statement,

contributing defendant's facts.

Miss Roberts denies that the allegation

she made against Miss Maxwell or false.

Furthermore, Miss Roberts did give an interview

to journalist Sharon Churchill,

in which Miss Roberts accurately and truthfully

described defendant Maxwell's role

as someone who recruited

or facilitated the recruitment

of young females for Jeffrey Epstein.

See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 34.

Miss Roberts was also interviewed

by the FBI in 2011,

and she discussed defendant's involvement

in the sexual abuse.

See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 31,

FBI redacted 302.

Those statements were not false

and defamatory,

but instead truthful and accurate.

Defendants purported facts, too.

In the articles, Miss Roberts alleged she had sex

with Prince Andrew, a well-known businessman,

a world-renowned scientist,

a respected liberal politician,

and a foreign head of state.

Miss Roberts statement,

contributing defendant's facts.

Miss Roberts does not contest this fact,

but believes that it's irrelevant.

Defendants purported facts,

three.

In response to the allegations,

Miss Maxwell's British attorney,

working with Mr. Gallo issued a statement

on March 9, 2011,

denying the various allegations

about Miss Maxwell,

that have appeared recently in the media.

These allegations are all entirely false.

Miss Roberts statement,

contributing defendant's facts.

Miss Roberts denies that Mr. Barton issued a statement,

instead it appears to have the contact

as Ross Gallo and a reference

to Devonshire solicitors.

Defendants purported facts.

Four.

The statement, red and full,

statement on behalf of Glenn Maxwell

by Devonshire solicitors,

may or any Wednesday,

March 9, 2011.

Glenn Maxwell denies the various allegations about her,

that have appeared recently in the media.

These allegations are entirely false.

It is unacceptable that letters sent

by Miss Maxwell's legal representatives

to certain newspapers pointing out the truth,

and asking for the allegations to be withdrawn,

have simply been ignored.

In the circumstances,

Miss Maxwell is now proceeding

to take legal action against those newspapers.

I understand newspapers need stories to sell copies.

It is well known that certain newspapers

live by the adage,

while at the truth get in the way of a good story.

However, the allegations made against me

are abhorrent and entirely untrue,

and I ask that they stop,

said Glenn Maxwell.

A number of newspapers have shown a complete lack of accuracy

in their reporting of this story,

and a failure to carry out

the most elementary investigation

or any real due diligence.

I am now taking action to clear my name.

Miss Robert's statement,

Controverting Defendants' Facts,

the document speaks for itself.

Although it is unclear,

if the original included the italics

that are inserted by the defendant above.

Defendants purported facts, five.

Miss Robert's gratuitous and lurid accusations

in an unrelated action.

In 2008, two alleged victims of Epstein

brought an action under the Crime Victim Rights Act

against the United States government,

purporting the Challenge Epstein's plea agreement.

They alleged the government violated

their CVRA rights by entering into the agreement.

Miss Robert's statement,

Controverting Defendants' Facts,

while we would stipulate to the statement

in this paragraph,

starting with the words in 2008,

we do not stipulate to the opening sentence fragment

Maxwell places in bold.

Defendants purported facts, six.

Seven years later,

on December 30, 2014,

Miss Robert's moved to join the CVRA action,

claiming she too,

had her CVRA rights violated by the government.

On January 1, 2015,

Miss Robert's filed a corrected,

joined her motion.

Miss Robert's statement,

Controverting Defendants' Facts,

agreed.

Defendants purported facts, seven.

The issue presented in her joined her motion was narrow,

whether she should be permitted

to join the CVRA action

as a party under federal rule

of Civil Procedure 21,

specifically,

whether she was a known victim

of Mr. Epstein

and the government owed them CVRA duties.

Yet, the bulk of the motion,

consists of copious factual details

that Miss Robert's and her co-movement

would prove if allowed to join.

Miss Robert's gratuitously,

included for evocative and learned details

over alleged sexual activities

as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking.

Miss Robert's statement,

Controverting Defendants' Facts,

Miss Robert's denies that the issues presented in here,

joined her motion were narrow.

The issues presented by the joined her motion

and related pleadings were a multiple

and complex requiring numerous details

about Miss Robert's sexual abuse

and the perpetrators of her abuse.

In a pleading explaining why the motion was filed,

Miss Robert's lawyers specifically listed

nine separate reasons

why Jane Doe No. 3's allegations

that Dershowitz had sexually abused her,

were relevant to the case

and appropriately included in the relevant findings.

One, to establish that Jane Doe No. 3

had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein

and his co-conspirators,

including co-conspirator Alan Dershowitz,

which would make her a victim

of a broad sex trafficking conspiracy,

covered by the Federal Crime Victims Rights Act,

US Code 18, Section 3771,

and therefore entitled to participate in the case.

Two, to support her then pending discovery request

that asked specifically for information

related to the contacts by Dershowitz

with the government on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.

Three, to support the victim's allegation

that the government had a motive

for failing to afford victims

with their rights in the criminal process,

specifically pressure from Dershowitz

and other members of Epstein's legal defense team

to keep the parameters of the non-prosecution agreement

secret to prevent Jane Doe 3

and other victims from objecting to

and blocking judicial approval of the agreement.

Four, to establish the breadth

of the NPA's provision extending immunity

to any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,

and the scope of the remedy

that the victims, including not only Jane Doe 3,

but also other similarly situated minor victims

who had been sexually abused by Dershowitz,

might be able to obtain

per violations of their rights.

Five, to provide part of the factual context

for the scope of the interface

between the victims, the government,

and Epstein's defense team.

An interface that was relevant

under Judge Mara's previous ruling

that the government was entitled to raise

a fact-sensitive, equitable defense,

which must be considered in the factual context

of the entire interface between Epstein,

the relevant prosecutorial authorities

and the federal offense victims.

Six, to prove the applicability

of the crime fraud misconduct exception

to the attorney client privilege

that was being raised by the government

in opposition to the victim's motion

for production of numerous documents.

Seven, to bolster the victim's argument

that their right to be treated

with fairness, U.S. Code 18,

Section 3771AA had been violated

through the government's secret negotiations

with one of their abusers.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing,

another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Chamba.

Jump in at chambacasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary.

BTW Group, voidware prohibited by law.

CCNC, 21 plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino.

Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz.

I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast,

a longtime reporter and an on-air contributor to CNBC.

And if you're like me,

you're trying to figure out

how artificial intelligence is changing

the business world and our lives.

So each week on Big Technology,

I bring on key actors from companies

building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it.

Asking where this is all going.

They come from places like Nvidia,

Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more.

So if you want to be smart with your wallet,

your career choices,

and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties,

listen to Big Technology Podcast

or ever you get your podcasts.

Every day the world gets a little weirder,

and a lot more awesome.

Cool stuff daily takes a look at everything

from mining and space

to the latest in the fight against cancer

to how AI is basically changing everything.

It's all the cool stuff you didn't know

you needed to know.

Join us for cool stuff daily

as we take a quick look at science, tech,

and the wait what stories

that make you sound way smarter at dinner.

Subscribe to cool stuff daily now

because the future is happening fast

and it's way too fun to miss.

To provide notice and lay out the parameters

of potential witness testimony

for any subsequent proceedings or trial,

i.e. the scope of the testimony

that Jane Doe 3 was expected to provide

in support of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2,

the already recognized Ms. Roberts in the action,

and 9.

To support Jane Doe 3's argument

for equitable, e-stoppal to toll

the six year statute of limitation,

being raised by the government

in opposition to our emotion to join.

i.e. that the statute was told

while she was in hiding in Australia

due to the danger posed by Epstein

and his powerful friends,

including prominent lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

Jane Doe's No. 1 and No. 2,

United States,

No. 9-08-CV-80736-DE-291.

At 18-26 and N-17,

SD Florida 2015,

Ms. Roberts lawyers had attempted

to obtain a stipulation

from the government on point No. 1 above,

victim status,

but the government had declined.

Judge Mara's ruling concluded

that certain allegations were not necessary

at this juncture in the proceedings.

DE-324 at 5.

Judge Mara specifically added,

however, that Jane Doe 3 is

free to reassert these factual details

through proper, evidentiary proof

should petitioners demonstrate good faith,

basis for believing that such details

are pertinent to a matter presented

for the court's consideration,

DE-324 at 6.

The CVR litigation continues,

and O trial has been held

as of the filing of this brief.

As such, the extent to which

these factual details will be used

at trial has not yet been determined.

See, docket sheet,

Jane Doe's No. 1 and 2,

versus the US No. 9-08-CV-80736.

Alright folks, we're in a wrap-up part 1 here,

and in the next episode we'll pick up

with part 2.

All of the information that goes with this episode

can be found in the description box.

What's up everyone,

and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.

In this episode we're in a pick right back up

where we left off,

with Virginia's statement of contested facts

and plaintiffs undisputed facts.

Defendants purported facts.

Number 8.

At the time they filed the motion,

Ms. Roberts and her lawyers knew that the media

had been following the Epstein criminal case

and the CVRA action.

While they deliberately filed the motion

without disclosing Ms. Roberts' name,

claiming the need for privacy and secrecy,

they made no attempt to file the motion under seal.

Quite the contrary,

they filed the motion publicly.

Ms. Roberts' statement,

contributing defendants' facts.

See Ms. Roberts' response to 0.7 above.

Defendants purported facts.

Number 9.

As the district court noted in ruling on the joint remotion,

Ms. Roberts' name,

several individuals,

and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed,

and where they took place,

the court ruled that these lurid details are unnecessary.

The factual details regarding whom,

and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities,

are immaterial and impertinent,

especially considering that these details,

involved nonparties,

who are not related to the respondent government.

Accordingly, these unnecessary details shall be stricken.

The court then struck all Ms. Roberts' factual allegations,

relating to her alleged sexual activities,

and her allegations of misconduct by nonparties.

The court said the striking of the lurid details,

was a sanction for Ms. Roberts'

and proper inclusion of them in the motion.

Ms. Roberts' statement,

contributing the defendants' facts.

See Ms. Roberts' response to 0.7 above.

Defendants purported facts.

Number 10.

The district court found not only that the lurid details were unnecessary,

but also that the entire jointer motion was entirely unnecessary.

Ms. Roberts and her lawyers knew the motion,

with all of its lurid details was unnecessary,

because the motion itself recognized that she would be able to participate

as a fact witness to achieve the same result she sought as a party.

The court denied Ms. Roberts' jointer motion.

Ms. Roberts' statement,

contributing defendants' facts.

See Ms. Roberts' response to 0.7 above.

Defendants purported facts.

One of the nonparties Ms. Roberts' name,

repeatedly in the jointer motion, was Ms. Maxwell,

according to the lurid details of Ms. Roberts.

Included in the motion, Ms. Maxwell personally was involved

in a sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein.

Ms. Maxwell approached Ms. Roberts in 1999,

when Ms. Roberts was 15 years old,

to recruit her into the scheme.

Ms. Maxwell was one of the main women Epstein used to broker underage girls

for sexual activities.

Ms. Maxwell was a primary co-conspirator with Epstein in his scheme.

She persuaded Ms. Roberts to go to Epstein's mansion

in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein,

and his other co-conspirators, coerced dozens of other children.

At the mansion, when Ms. Roberts began giving Epstein a massage,

he and Ms. Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter.

Epstein, with the assistance of Ms. Maxwell,

converted Ms. Roberts into a sex slave.

Ms. Maxwell was also a co-conspirator and Epstein's sexual abuse,

Ms. Maxwell appreciated the immunity she acquired under Epstein's plea agreement

because the immunity protected her from prosecution

for the crime she committed in Florida.

Ms. Maxwell participated in the sexual abuse of Ms. Roberts and others.

Ms. Maxwell took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls

involved in sexual activities, including Ms. Roberts.

She shared photos with Epstein.

As part of her role in Epstein's sexual abuse ring,

Ms. Maxwell connected Epstein with powerful individuals

so that Epstein could traffic Ms. Roberts to these persons.

Ms. Roberts was forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew.

In Ms. Maxwell's apartment in London, Ms. Maxwell facilitated

Ms. Roberts' sex with Prince Andrew by acting as a Madame for Epstein.

Ms. Maxwell assisted in internationally trafficking Ms. Roberts

and numerous other young girls for sexual purposes.

Ms. Roberts was forced to watch Epstein, Ms. Maxwell,

and others engaged in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls.

Ms. Roberts' statement, contributing defendants facts.

See Ms. Roberts' response to point seven above?

Ms. Roberts contests the reference to elaborate details.

Moreover, the testimony from numerous witnesses

corroborates the statements Ms. Roberts made in her jointer motion.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 16.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 4.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 14.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 12.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 13.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 15.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 10.

See McColley Declaration at Exhibit 8.

In her joint promotion, Ms. Roberts also alleged she was forced to have sex with Harvard

Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Model Scout, Jean-Luc Brunel, and many other powerful men,

including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents,

a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting Defendants' Facts See Response to Point Number 7 and 11

Above

Defendants purported Facts Number 13

Ms. Roberts said, after serving for four years as a sex slave, she managed to escape to

a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting Defendants' Facts

Agreed that Ms. Roberts made this statement and has since discovered evidence that indicates

she was mistaken on the exact time frame of her abuse and was with Defendant and Jeffrey

Epstein from the years 2000 to 2002.

Defendants purported Facts

Ms. Roberts suggests the government was part of Epstein's conspiracy when it secretly

negotiated a non-prosycution agreement with Epstein, pre-cluding federal prosecution

of Epstein and his co-conspirators.

The government's secrecy, Ms. Roberts alleged, was motivated by its fear that Ms. Roberts

would raise powerful objections to the agreement that would have shed tremendous public light

on Epstein and other powerful individuals.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting Defendants' Facts

Roberts did not suggest that the government was part of Epstein's conspiracy to commit

sex offenses.

The CVRA case deals with whether the government failed in their responsibilities to the victims

to inform the victims that the government was working out an NPA.

And it is Ms. Roberts' belief that the government did fail to so inform the victims and intentionally

did not inform the victims because the expected serious objection from many of the victims

might prevent the government from finalizing an NPA with Epstein.

See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 50, Join Your Motion, Roberts 00319-00333.

The defendants purported Facts 15.

Notably the other Jane Doe, who joined Ms. Roberts' motion who alleged she was sexually

abused many occasions by Epstein, was unable to corroborate any of Roberts' allegations.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting the Defendants' Facts, This is untrue.

The other Jane Doe could corroborate many of Ms. Roberts' allegations based on the similar

pattern of abuse that she suffered by Epstein.

She did not know Ms. Roberts, though.

Redacted who was deposed in this case and who was the minor, corroborates the same pattern

of abuse.

See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 7.

Defendants purported Facts 16.

Although notably in our multiple and lengthy consensual interviews with Ms. Churcher, three

years earlier, Ms. Roberts told Ms. Churcher, a virtually none of the details she described

in the joineder motion.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting the Defendants' Facts, This is untrue.

Furthermore, Defendant does not offer any citation or evidence on this point.

Defendant's statement here is knowingly false.

Having read the articles and taken Ms. Roberts' deposition, Defendant knows that Ms. Roberts

did reveal details in 2011, consistent with those in the joineder motion.

See McCauley Declaration at Exhibit 31, FBI redacted 302.

Roberts 001-35-1246.

The Defendants purported Facts 17.

Ms. Maxwell's response to Ms. Roberts' lured accusation the January 2015 statement.

As Ms. Roberts and her lawyers expected, before Judge Mara in the CVRA action could strike

the lured details, the Ms. Roberts allegations in the joineder motion, members of the media

obtained copies of the motion.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting the Defendants' Facts.

See Ms. Roberts' response to point number seven above?

Defendants purported Facts 18.

At Mr. Barton's direction on January 3, 2015, Mr. Gao sent to numerous representatives

of British media organizations an email containing a quotable statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell.

The email was sent to more than six and probably less than 30 media representatives.

It was not sent to non-media representatives.

Ms. Roberts' statement, Controverting the Defendants' Facts.

Defendant falsely claims that Mr. Barton's direction on January 3, 2015, Mr. Gao sent

to numerous representatives of British media organizations an email containing a quotable

statement on behalf of Ms. Maxwell.

This is a blatant falsehood about the document that is at the heart of this litigation.

Record evidence shows that Gao sent that email at defendant's direction, not at Mr. Barton's

direction.

Indeed, on the evening, before his deposition, Mr. Gao produced an email, exchange he had

had with the defendant in which the defendant directs Mr. Gao to the press statement.

Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we?

Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps,

you know, all the mundane stuff, that is why I'm such a big fan of Chamba Casino.

Chamba Casino has all your favorite social casino-style games that you can play for free anytime

anywhere with daily bonuses.

So sign up now at chamba-casino.com, that's chamba-casino.com.

Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology podcast, a long time reporter

and an on-air contributor to CNBC, and if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how

artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives.

So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech

and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going, to come from places

like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more.

So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, and meetings with your

colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast wherever you get your

podcasts.

Grown-ups, try to see what I see.

You see a rain cloud, I see an elephant in the sky.

You see a motorcycle, I see a superhero on his way to save the day.

And if you can't tell he's a superhero like I can, you can see he's a person.

So be patient and give him space.

Keep your eyes out for motorcyclists, a message from the Virginia DMV.

Chronologically, this email comes at the end of various other email exchanges between

the defendant and Gao that discusses issuing a press release.

The subject line of this email, that defendant wrote to Gao State's urgent, this is the

statement, thereby instructing Gao to release this statement to the press.

Shortly after defendant sent this email to Gao, directing him to release the statement,

Gao distributed the statement to multiple media outlets.

Neither defendant nor Gao have produced any email in which Barton directed Gao to issue

this press release, nor can they.

Despite sending it herself and despite it being responsive to six court-ordered search

terms, defendant failed to reduce this email.

Her press agent, Gao, produced this the evening before this deposition on November 17, 2016,

at the deposition Mr. Gao authenticated this email and confirmed that the defendant

authorized the statement.

Question, when you sent that email, were you acting pursuant to Miss Maxwell's retention

of your services?

Answer yes I was.

Question, this also appears to be an email chain, with you and Miss Maxwell is that correct.

Answer, it does appear to be so.

Question, did you send the top email of the chain that says, okay, gee, going with this?

Answer, I did.

Question, and did you receive from Miss Maxwell the bottom email of that chain?

Answer, I believe so.

Well I believe yes, yeah, it was forwarded from Miss Maxwell, yes, Mr. Dyer, sorry, I don't

quite understand that answer.

The witness, I must spoke that.

I did receive it from Miss Maxwell, Mr. Dyer, okay, question, the subject line, does

that forward, which to me indicates it's a forward?

Do you know where the rest of that email chain is?

Answer, my understanding of this is, it was a holiday in the UK, but Mr. Barton was

not necessarily accessible at some point in time.

So this had been sent to him originally by Miss Maxwell, and because he was unavailable,

she forwarded it to me for immediate action.

I therefore responded, okay, Galein, I'll go with this.

It's my understanding that this is the agreed statement because the subject of the second

one is urgent, this is the statement.

So I take that as an instruction to send it out as a positive command.

This is the statement.

See McCauley declaration at Exhibit 6, together the email and Gau's testimony unequivocally

established that defendant, not Barton directed and commanded Gau to publish the defamatory

statement.

Interestingly, the first sentence of defendant's paragraph 18 is false, the second statement.

This email was sent to more than six and probably less than 30 media representatives omits

the fact that not only did Gau admit to emailing the statement to the press, but he also

read it to over 30 media representatives over the phone.

Question, do you recall reading the statement to the press or the media over the phone?

Answer, it's very possible that I would have done so.

Question, do you, do you remember discussing that with the guardian?

Answer, no, I don't, I'm not saying I didn't, but I don't recall.

You have to bear in mind if you'd be so kind that I've been speaking to over 30 journalists

and media outlets about this and I can't recall every single detail of every single conversation.

See McCauley declaration at Exhibit 6.

Thus, the second sentence of defendant's paragraph 18 is also false.

All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we'll pick

up where we left off.

All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, Victory Lane, yeah, it's even better with Chamba

by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com, let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group, voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus, sponsored

by ChambaCasino.

Grown-ups, try to see what I see.

You see a rain cloud, I see an elephant in the sky.

You see a motorcycle, I see a superhero on his way to save the day.

Even if you can't tell he's a superhero like I can, you can see he's a person, so be

patient and give him space.

Keep your eyes out for motorcycleists, a message from the Virginia DMV.