HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322.jpg
1.86 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / motion summary (house oversight committee record)
File Size:
1.86 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 12, 2013, arguing that adverse inferences should be drawn from Jeffrey Epstein's refusal to answer questions during legal proceedings. It lists specific questions Epstein refused to answer regarding procuring minors for prostitution, sexual assaults on private planes, and assaults on victims L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. The document asserts that the reasonable inference is that these allegations are true and that Epstein's counter-claims against attorney Mr. Edwards were motivated by extortion and malice.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant/Subject |
Individual refusing to answer questions regarding sexual assault and procuring minors.
|
| Mr. Edwards | Attorney/Adversary |
Likely Bradley Edwards; accused by Epstein of 'ginning up' cases, which the document refutes.
|
| L.M. | Victim/Plaintiff |
Filed a complaint in Sept 2008 alleging Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor.
|
| Jane Doe | Victim/Plaintiff |
Referenced in a federal complaint alleging physical contact with Epstein while a minor.
|
| E.W. | Victim/Plaintiff |
Alleged physical contact with Epstein while a minor; claim stated to have substantial actual value.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SDBS |
Logo present at the bottom of the document.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where sexual assaults allegedly took place.
|
Relationships (3)
Discussion of Edwards filing cases against Epstein and Epstein's claims against Edwards.
Inference that Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted L.M. while she was a minor.
Inference that Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W.
Key Quotes (4)
"Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults were taking place."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322.jpg
Quote #1
"Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322.jpg
Quote #3
"motivation behind the filing of those claims was exclusively extortion and malice"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,194 characters)
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Page 8
Page 8
refused to answer and the reasonable inference that a reasonable finder of fact would draw:
• Question not answered: “Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?” Reasonable inference: No allegations against Epstein were ginned up.
• Question not answered: “Well, which of Mr. Edwards’ cases do you contend were fabricated?” Reasonable inference: No cases filed by Edwards against Epstein were fabricated.
• Question not answered: “Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?” Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults were taking place.
• Question not answered: “How many minors have you procured for prostitution?” Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution.
• Question not answered: “Is there anything in L.M.’s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?” Reasonable inference: Nothing in L.M.’s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false – i.e., as alleged in L.M.’s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages as a result.
• Question not answered: “I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?” Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as alleged in her federal complaint.
• Question not answered: “Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?” Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in her complaint.
• Question not answered: “What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?” Reasonable inference: E.W.’s claim against Epstein had substantial actual value.
Given all of the fatal flaws that infected Epstein’s claims against Edwards from the outset and the overwhelming evidence that the motivation behind the filing of those claims was exclusively extortion and malice, Epstein’s only hope of avoiding the full
SDBS
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029322
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document