Epstein’s 2013 Lawsuit Against Attorney Edwards Raises Fifth Amendment Shield and Confidential Settlement Concerns

Thursday, September 12, 2013 Page 2 42(h)), and Edwards’s refusal to force his clients to accept modest settlement offers was claimed to breach some duty that Edwards owed to Epstein. Interestingly, Epstein never states that he actually made any settlement offers. Even more interestingly, Epstein was never able to explain how a scheme to defraud third party investors ever caused any legally cognizable damage to Epstein himself. The supposed “proof” of the Complaint’s allegations against Edwards included Edwards’s alleged contacts with the media, his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile persons with whom Epstein socialized, and use of “ridiculously inflammatory” language in arguments in court. Remarkably, Epstein filed such allegations against Edwards despite the fact that Epstein had sexually abused each of Edwards’s clients and others while they were minors. Indeed, in discovery Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer questions about the extent of the sexual abuse of his many victims. Even more remarkably, after filing his suit against Edwards, Epstein settled the three cases Edwards handled for an amount that Epstein insisted be kept confidential. Without violating the strict confidentiality terms required by Epstein, the cases did not settle for the “minimal value” that Epstein suggested in his Complaint. Because Epstein elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self incrimination to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at the center of his claims, he was barred from prosecuting his case against Edwards. Under the well-established “sword and shield” doctrine, Epstein could not seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. Here, Epstein tried to do precisely what the “well settled” law forbids. Specifically, he tried to obtain “affirmative relief’ — 1.e., forcing Edwards to pay money damages — while simultaneously precluding Edwards from obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the allegations that form the basis for the relief Epstein was seeking. As recounted more fully in the statement of undisputed facts filed in support of Edwards’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Epstein has refused to answer such basic questions about his lawsuit as: e “Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?” e “Well, which of Mr. Edwards’ cases do you contend were fabricated?” e “Ts there anything in L.M.’s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?” e “I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?” HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029316