HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308.jpg
1.79 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (opposition to motion for summary judgment)
File Size:
1.79 MB
Summary
This legal document is page 5 of Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment. It details that Epstein settled three cases on July 6, 2010, following court-ordered mediation, with confidential terms. The text argues against Epstein's claims that he was a victim of a scheme involving Edwards and Rothstein (RRA), noting Edwards had severed ties with Rothstein prior to the settlements, and highlights a telephone interview with Virginia Roberts as significant evidence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Defendant/Plaintiff in countersuit |
Paid settlements in July 2010; filed lawsuit against Edwards alleging abuse of process.
|
| Edwards | Attorney/Defendant |
Bradley Edwards; filed Opposition to Epstein's Motion; accused by Epstein of abuse of process.
|
| Rothstein | Associate/Figure in Ponzi Scheme |
Associated with RRA; ran a Ponzi scheme; Edwards severed ties with him in Dec 2009.
|
| Virginia Roberts | Witness/Victim |
Her telephone interview was submitted as evidence in support of Edwards' Motion for Punitive Damages.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| RRA |
Law firm (Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler) that Edwards left in December 2009.
|
|
| Federal Court |
Ordered the mediation process resulting in settlements.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the footer stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (3)
Edwards filed cases against Epstein; Epstein filed lawsuit against Edwards.
Edwards left RRA and severed connection in December 2009.
Interview submitted in support of Edwards' motion.
Key Quotes (5)
"On July 6, 2010 Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards had filed against him"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308.jpg
Quote #1
"At Epstein’s request, the terms of the settlement were kept confidential."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to pump the cases against him because he never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308.jpg
Quote #3
"Epstein could not have suffered any damage as a result of the perpetration of the Ponzi scheme by Rothstein because he was not an investor in the scheme."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308.jpg
Quote #4
"Perhaps the most significant evidence presented ... is the telephone interview of Virginia Roberts submitted in Support of Edwards’ Motion for Punitive Damages"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,414 characters)
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 5 of 15
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 5 of 15
Federal Statute providing for compensation to victims of child abuse.. (Exhibit “A” – Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 41-43).
On July 6, 2010 Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards had filed against him (Exhibit “A” – Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 84-85). At Epstein’s request, the terms of the settlement were kept confidential. The sum that he paid to settle all these cases in therefore not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for in camera review. Epstein chose to make this payment as a result of a Federal Court ordered mediation process which he himself sought. Epstein entered into the settlements in July 2010 more than seven months after he filed his lawsuit against Edwards and before he filed his Second Amended Complaint alleging abuse of process on August 22, 2011.
Further, Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to pump the cases against him because he never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA and severed all connection with Rothstein in December 2009 (Edwards’ Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit “N,” paragraph 20). Moreover, Epstein could not have suffered any damage as a result of the perpetration of the Ponzi scheme by Rothstein because he was not an investor in the scheme.
Perhaps the most significant evidence presented in opposition to Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment is the telephone interview of Virginia Roberts submitted in Support of Edwards’ Motion for Punitive Damages (Exhibit “D”). In addition to the specious claims against Edwards relating to his alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme, Epstein, in asserting his claims, primarily relied upon the pursuit by Edwards of testimony from his close friends and associates (See Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 32, pp. 11-13). Reliance on these assertions is also threaded through Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment in his citation to the public documents referencing the pursuit of such discovery. But as set forth in detail in Edwards’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Exhibit “B”) at pages 14-16, that discovery was entirely appropriate and Epstein knew it. Specifically, as reflected in the statement of
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013308
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document