This document is page 13 of Bradley Edwards' legal opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment in a civil case (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). Edwards argues that Epstein cannot seek affirmative relief (damages/summary judgment) while simultaneously invoking the Fifth Amendment to refuse discovery, citing the 'sword and shield' legal doctrine. The document concludes by requesting the denial of Epstein's motion.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Plaintiff/Movant |
Seeking Summary Judgment; accused of using the Fifth Amendment as a 'sword and shield' to avoid discovery.
|
| Bradley Edwards | Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff |
Opposing Epstein's motion and arguing that Epstein cannot seek relief while refusing discovery.
|
| Griffin, J. | Judge |
Judge cited in case law (Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. J.A.).
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (indicated by footer stamp).
|
|
| Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. |
Cited in legal argument regarding silence vs. lawsuit.
|
|
| Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York, Inc. |
Cited in legal argument regarding civil litigants' Fifth Amendment rights.
|
|
| Bankers Insurance Co. |
Cited in legal argument.
|
|
| Euroclassic Limited, Inc. |
Cited in legal argument.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by case citations (Fla. 5th DCA, Fla. 4th DCA).
|
"“[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit.”"Source
"Epstein could not seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery."Source
"Epstein has done precisely what well-established law prohibits."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,199 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document