HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318.jpg
2.36 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / summary of proceedings
File Size:
2.36 MB
Summary
This document, dated September 12, 2013, appears to be a legal filing or summary defending attorney Bradley Edwards against claims made by Jeffrey Epstein. The text refutes Epstein's allegations that Edwards was involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein, noting that Epstein failed to provide evidence during deposition and instead invoked attorney-client privilege. It also details that Edwards represents three victims (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe) in civil suits against Epstein for sexual abuse.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Accused / Plaintiff |
Described as a 'serial child molester'; making claims against Bradley Edwards regarding a Ponzi scheme.
|
| Bradley Edwards | Attorney |
Accused by Epstein of involvement in a Ponzi scheme; attorney representing victims L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe.
|
| Scott Rothstein | Ponzi Scheme Operator |
Ran a Ponzi scheme; Epstein alleged Edwards was involved with him.
|
| L.M. | Victim / Client |
Client of Bradley Edwards; filed civil suit against Epstein for sexual abuse while a minor.
|
| E.W. | Victim / Client |
Client of Bradley Edwards; filed civil suit against Epstein for sexual abuse while a minor.
|
| Jane Doe | Victim / Client |
Client of Bradley Edwards; filed civil suit against Epstein for sexual abuse while a minor.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SDBS |
Logo appears at the bottom of the page, likely the law firm producing the document.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
N/A
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of 'unsuspecting Florida investors'.
|
Relationships (3)
Epstein filed claims against Edwards; Edwards represents victims suing Epstein.
Epstein alleged involvement; document states Edwards had no knowledge or involvement.
Edwards represented three young women... by filing civil suits against Epstein.
Key Quotes (4)
"It was his last ditch effort to escape the public disclosure by Edwards and his clients of the nature, extent, and sordid details of Epstein’s life as a serial child molester."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318.jpg
Quote #1
"Edwards was simply not involved in any Ponzi scheme."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318.jpg
Quote #2
"Q. I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that Bradley Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan... A. ...With respect to my personal knowledge... today I’m going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318.jpg
Quote #3
"Epstein alleged that Edwards somehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil cases he had filed against Epstein."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,815 characters)
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Page 4
Page 4
claims. It was his last ditch effort to escape the public disclosure by Edwards and his clients of the nature, extent, and sordid details of Epstein’s life as a serial child molester.
The bulk of Epstein’s claims against Edwards hinge on the premise that Edwards was involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Edwards were scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations provided any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he “knew or should have known” of its existence all failed for one straightforward reason: Edwards was simply not involved in any Ponzi scheme. He provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in support of that assertion, and there was not (and could never be) any contrary evidence.
Edwards was deposed at length in this case. As his deposition makes crystal clear, he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein may have been involved. See, e.g., Edwards Depo. at 301-02 (Q: “. . . [W]ere you aware that Scott Rothstein was trying to market Epstein cases . . . ?” A: “No.”).
Edwards supplemented his deposition answers with an extremely detailed Affidavit that declared in no uncertain terms his lack of involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein. In view of this clear evidence rebutting all allegations against him, Epstein was required to “produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact.” Epstein could not meet this obligation. Indeed, when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence of Edwards’s involvement, Epstein declined to answer, purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds:
Q. I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that Bradley Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were sold purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement? . . .
A. I’d like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect to my personal knowledge, I’m unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to at some point being able to disclose it, today I’m going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege.
A. I’d like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect to my personal knowledge, I’m unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to at some point being able to disclose it, today I’m going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege.
Epstein alleged that Edwards somehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil cases he had filed against Epstein. Edwards represented three young women – L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe – by filing civil suits against Epstein for his sexual abuse of them while they were minors. Epstein purported to find a cause of action for this by alleging that Edwards somehow was involved in “‘pumping’ these three cases to
SDBS
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029318
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document