HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309.jpg
1.72 MB
Extraction Summary
9
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (opposition to motion for summary judgment)
File Size:
1.72 MB
Summary
This document is page 6 of Bradley Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment. It argues that Edwards was justified in seeking discovery from high-profile figures like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew (implied by context of others listed) based on Virginia Roberts' testimony. Furthermore, it highlights Epstein's refusal to answer questions during 2010 and 2012 depositions regarding his allegations against Edwards, invoking the Fifth Amendment, which Edwards argues should lead to negative inferences against Epstein.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bradley Edwards | Attorney/Plaintiff |
Filing opposition to Epstein's motion; accused by Epstein of fabricating cases.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Refused to testify based on Fifth Amendment privilege; accused Edwards of misconduct.
|
| Donald Trump | Potential Witness |
Edwards believed he had relevant and discoverable information.
|
| Allen Dershowitz | Potential Witness |
Edwards believed he had relevant and discoverable information.
|
| Bill Clinton | Potential Witness |
Edwards believed he had relevant and discoverable information.
|
| Tommy Mattola | Potential Witness |
Edwards believed he had relevant and discoverable information.
|
| David Copperfield | Potential Witness |
Edwards believed he had relevant and discoverable information.
|
| Bill Richardson | Potential Witness |
Governor; Edwards believed he had relevant and discoverable information.
|
| Virginia Roberts | Witness/Victim |
Her testimony reinforced Edwards' belief that the named high-profile individuals had relevant information.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Document footer indicates possession by House Oversight (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309).
|
Timeline (2 events)
January 25, 2012
Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein where he refused to testify based on Fifth Amendment privilege.
Unknown
March 17, 2010
Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein where he refused to testify based on Fifth Amendment privilege.
Unknown
Relationships (3)
Edwards filed the opposition to Epstein's motion; Epstein accused Edwards of fabricating cases.
Roberts' testimony reinforced the belief that Trump (and others) had relevant information.
Roberts' testimony reinforced the belief that Clinton (and others) had relevant information.
Key Quotes (4)
"Edwards had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309.jpg
Quote #1
"Epstein’s depositions of March 17, 2010 and January 25, 2012 were replete with refusals of Epstein to testify based upon his Fifth Amendment privilege."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309.jpg
Quote #2
"Question not answered: '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?'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309.jpg
Quote #3
"Reasonable inference: No knowledge that Brad Edwards ever participated in the Ponzi scheme."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,283 characters)
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 6 of 15
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 6 of 15
undisputed facts submitted by Mr. Edwards in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Edwards
had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy
Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information
(Exhibit "A" – Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, paragraphs 69-81). That belief was reinforced
by the testimony of Virginia Roberts (Exhibit "D" pp. 10-17, 21-23). Epstein’s assertion of impropriety
in the pursuit of this discovery clearly evidences his bad faith attempts to attribute wrongdoing to
Edwards when he knew, in fact, that the pursuit of that discovery was entirely appropriate under the
circumstances of this case.
had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy
Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information
(Exhibit "A" – Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, paragraphs 69-81). That belief was reinforced
by the testimony of Virginia Roberts (Exhibit "D" pp. 10-17, 21-23). Epstein’s assertion of impropriety
in the pursuit of this discovery clearly evidences his bad faith attempts to attribute wrongdoing to
Edwards when he knew, in fact, that the pursuit of that discovery was entirely appropriate under the
circumstances of this case.
Finally, any attempt by Epstein to rely upon what he claims are undisputed facts to support his
Motion for Summary Judgment are undermined by his refusal to provide any testimony on the key issues
and evidence which would demonstrate the validity and strength of each of the claims brought against
him by Brad Edwards. Epstein’s depositions of March 17, 2010 and January 25, 2012 were replete with
refusals of Epstein to testify based upon his Fifth Amendment privilege. Questions that Epstein refused
to answer in his depositions and the reasonable inferences that a fact finder would draw and which would
otherwise bear on the arguments submitted by Epstein in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment
are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment are undermined by his refusal to provide any testimony on the key issues
and evidence which would demonstrate the validity and strength of each of the claims brought against
him by Brad Edwards. Epstein’s depositions of March 17, 2010 and January 25, 2012 were replete with
refusals of Epstein to testify based upon his Fifth Amendment privilege. Questions that Epstein refused
to answer in his depositions and the reasonable inferences that a fact finder would draw and which would
otherwise bear on the arguments submitted by Epstein in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment
are as follows:
• Question not answered: "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?" Reasonable
inference: No knowledge that Brad Edwards ever participated in the Ponzi scheme.
that Bradley Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were
sold purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement?" Reasonable
inference: No knowledge that Brad Edwards ever participated in the Ponzi scheme.
• 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.
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.
fabricated?" Reasonable inference: No cases filed by Edwards against Epstein were
fabricated.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013309
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document