HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013310.jpg
1.87 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (opposition to motion for summary judgment)
File Size:
1.87 MB
Summary
This document is a page from Brad Edwards' Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment. It lists questions Epstein refused to answer regarding sexual assaults on private planes and the procuring of minors (L.M., E.W., Jane Doe) for prostitution, arguing that the court should draw adverse inferences of guilt from his silence. The document also begins a legal argument stating that 'Litigation Privilege' does not protect Epstein from claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant/Movant |
Accused of sexual assault, procuring minors, and attempting to intimidate/extort Brad Edwards.
|
| Brad Edwards | Plaintiff/Attorney |
Filing the opposition; alleges Epstein tried to intimidate and extort him and his clients.
|
| L.M. | Victim/Complainant |
Filed a complaint in September 2008 alleging Epstein sexually assaulted her while she was a minor.
|
| Jane Doe | Victim/Complainant |
Referenced in a federal complaint alleging physical contact with Epstein while a minor.
|
| E.W. | Victim/Complainant |
Alleged minor victim; Epstein refused to answer regarding physical contact with her.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Third District Court of Appeal |
Florida court cited in the legal argument regarding Wolfe v. Foreman.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the document footer stamp.
|
Timeline (2 events)
July 17, 2013
Decision rendered in Wolfe v. Foreman case.
Florida (Third District)
Wolfe
Foreman
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where sexual assaults allegedly took place.
|
|
|
Implied jurisdiction via the citation of Florida case law (Fla. 3d DCA).
|
Relationships (3)
Edwards is opposing Epstein's motion; text claims Epstein tried to intimidate and extort Edwards.
Text states Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted L.M. while she was a minor.
Text infers 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_013310.jpg
Quote #1
"Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013310.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages as a result."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013310.jpg
Quote #3
"A jury could conclude... that he had no basis for the pursuit of his efforts to intimidate and extort Edwards and his clients"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013310.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,549 characters)
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 7 of 15
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 7 of 15
• 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.
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.
(See Exhibit "A" – Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 93-120 for page references.)
A jury could conclude, therefore, from the adverse inferences drawn against Epstein that he was liable for the claims brought by Brad Edwards and that he had no basis for the pursuit of his efforts to intimidate and extort Edwards and his clients in the pursuit of those claims.
The Litigation Privilege Does Not Bar the Claims of Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution
Epstein contends he is entitled to absolute immunity pursuant to the litigation privilege as to both claims asserted by Edwards because all actions taken by him occurred during the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecution cause of action. Wolfe is still
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013310
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document