HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532.jpg
2.29 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book excerpt / evidence document (house oversight committee)
File Size:
2.29 MB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' (pages 190-191), marked as House Oversight evidence. It details the legal aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 guilty plea and the secret non-prosecution agreement signed in September 2007. The text focuses on attorney Bradley Edwards' pro bono lawsuit filed in July 2008, which argued that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by concealing the agreement from victims.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Pled guilty in court; urged government to enter into the non-prosecution contract.
|
| Bradley Edwards | Victims' Rights Attorney |
Attorney in Fort Lauderdale working pro bono who filed a lawsuit in July 2008 citing the CVRA.
|
| Charles Dickens | Author |
Referenced metaphorically regarding his novel 'Bleak House' to describe the complexity of the legal case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532'.
|
|
| Federal Government / Prosecutors |
Accused of violating the CVRA rights of victims by keeping them in the dark about the non-prosecution agreement.
|
Timeline (3 events)
July 2008
Bradley Edwards filed a lawsuit citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
Fort Lauderdale
September 24, 2007
Non-prosecution agreement signed and concealed from victims.
Unknown
Federal Prosecutors
Jeffrey Epstein
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where attorney Bradley Edwards is based.
|
Relationships (2)
Bradley Edwards, a victims' rights attorney... filed [lawsuit]
government, urged by Jeffrey Epstein, had entered into a contract
Key Quotes (3)
"This case is currently under investigation."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532.jpg
Quote #1
"victims of federal crimes have rights, including the right to be heard in court, and most particularly, not to be precluded from court proceedings, and the right to be treated fairly."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532.jpg
Quote #2
"It has all the earmarks of a modern-day Bleak House—the Charles Dickens novel about a legal case that is so massive and so complex that it drags on forever and drags everyone involved into the mire."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,197 characters)
CHAPTER 50
secution agreement, a fifty-three-
ederal prosecutors had prepared
—one that claimed he'd abused
never was filed.
enting Epstein's victims were con-
ims were not consulted about the
as inexcusable. The "government
'in the dark' so that it could enter
ned to prevent the victims from
ould argue, in documents filed on
onths, the lawyers claimed, from
signed, on September 24, 2007,
in's bidding, [had] concealed the
" and continued to do so until the
ederal prosecutors had prepared
—one that claimed he'd abused
never was filed.
enting Epstein's victims were con-
ims were not consulted about the
as inexcusable. The "government
'in the dark' so that it could enter
ned to prevent the victims from
ould argue, in documents filed on
onths, the lawyers claimed, from
signed, on September 24, 2007,
in's bidding, [had] concealed the
" and continued to do so until the
190
FILTHY RICH
moment that Epstein had to plead guilty in court, which he finally did June 30, 2008.
In the interim, according to their lawyers, Epstein's victims were only told, "This case is currently under investigation."
A lawsuit that Bradley Edwards, a victims' rights attorney in Fort Lauderdale, filed in July of 2008 cited the Crime Victims' Rights Act, or CVRA (title 18, section 3771, of the US Code), which states that "victims of federal crimes have rights, including the right to be heard in court, and most particularly, not to be precluded from court proceedings, and the right to be treated fairly."
According to him, prosecutors had violated the CVRA rights of the victims. Edwards, who said he was working pro bono, knew that this suit against the government would not allow for monetary recovery of any sort (including lawyers' fees). But he also knew that if the government, urged by Jeffrey Epstein, had entered into a contract that improperly or illegally violated the rights of Epstein's victims, then that contract, by nature, would have been improper in and of itself—in which case, the only remedy would have been to have the contract invalidated. And while it is difficult to know what, exactly, would happen if the contract is overturned, one possibility is that the government could prosecute Epstein for crimes against his victims, if the statute of limitations on those crimes has not expired.
At the time of this writing, that case is winding its way through the courts. It has all the earmarks of a modern-day Bleak House—the Charles Dickens novel about a legal case that is so massive and so complex that it drags on forever and drags everyone involved into the mire.
In the interim, according to their lawyers, Epstein's victims were only told, "This case is currently under investigation."
A lawsuit that Bradley Edwards, a victims' rights attorney in Fort Lauderdale, filed in July of 2008 cited the Crime Victims' Rights Act, or CVRA (title 18, section 3771, of the US Code), which states that "victims of federal crimes have rights, including the right to be heard in court, and most particularly, not to be precluded from court proceedings, and the right to be treated fairly."
According to him, prosecutors had violated the CVRA rights of the victims. Edwards, who said he was working pro bono, knew that this suit against the government would not allow for monetary recovery of any sort (including lawyers' fees). But he also knew that if the government, urged by Jeffrey Epstein, had entered into a contract that improperly or illegally violated the rights of Epstein's victims, then that contract, by nature, would have been improper in and of itself—in which case, the only remedy would have been to have the contract invalidated. And while it is difficult to know what, exactly, would happen if the contract is overturned, one possibility is that the government could prosecute Epstein for crimes against his victims, if the statute of limitations on those crimes has not expired.
At the time of this writing, that case is winding its way through the courts. It has all the earmarks of a modern-day Bleak House—the Charles Dickens novel about a legal case that is so massive and so complex that it drags on forever and drags everyone involved into the mire.
191
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010532
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document