HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015631.jpg
1.76 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (response to motion)
File Size:
1.76 MB
Summary
This document is page 11 of a legal response in the case of Edwards vs. Dershowitz (Case No. CACE 15-000072). Attorneys Edwards and Cassell argue against sealing court records, claiming that Alan Dershowitz selectively reveals confidential information to misrepresent facts while trying to prevent them from correcting the record. The text specifically cites a deposition where Dershowitz allegedly brought up an affidavit by Virginia Giuffre regarding him watching her perform oral sex on Jeffrey Epstein, and subsequently misrepresented settlement discussions involving attorney David Boies.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bradley Edwards | Plaintiff/Attorney |
Attorney arguing against sealing records; party in the case Edwards vs. Dershowitz.
|
| Paul Cassell | Attorney |
Attorney arguing against sealing records; co-counsel with Edwards.
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant |
Accused of misrepresenting confidential records and testifying about Ms. Giuffre's affidavit.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Witness/Victim |
Mentioned in relation to an affidavit describing sexual acts with Epstein.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Perpetrator |
Subject of sexual acts described in Ms. Giuffre's affidavit.
|
| David Boies | Attorney |
Involved in settlement discussions which Dershowitz allegedly misrepresented.
|
| Jack | Attorney |
Attorney questioning Dershowitz (likely Jack Scarola, though text cuts off after first name).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. |
Cited in case law reference.
|
|
| Palm Beach County |
Cited in case law reference.
|
|
| 4th DCA |
Fourth District Court of Appeal (legal citation authority).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (indicated by footer stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in legal citation.
|
Relationships (3)
Reference to affidavit about Dershowitz watching Giuffre perform sex acts.
Allegation that Dershowitz watched Epstein receive oral sex.
Parties in the lawsuit Edwards vs. Dershowitz.
Key Quotes (3)
"EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015631.jpg
Quote #1
"Dershowitz’s recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a portion of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on Epstein."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015631.jpg
Quote #2
"placing the documents under seal would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those records"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015631.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,916 characters)
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 11 of 20
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 11 of 20
party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v.
Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4th DCA 2002) (“In order for res judicata to apply four
identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action;
(3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or
against whom the claim is made.”).
Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4th DCA 2002) (“In order for res judicata to apply four
identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action;
(3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or
against whom the claim is made.”).
III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE
BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE
DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM
WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT.
BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE
DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM
WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT.
Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and
Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal
would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those
records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations.
Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to
do so – treating the records as not confidential in any way. One clear example comes from
Dershowitz’s recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a
portion of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on
Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try
to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions – but did so by misrepresenting what
another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may
have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack
Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal
would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those
records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations.
Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to
do so – treating the records as not confidential in any way. One clear example comes from
Dershowitz’s recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a
portion of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on
Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try
to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions – but did so by misrepresenting what
another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may
have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015631
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document