Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-28807House OversightFinancial Record

Edwards’ Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Claims No Involvement in Rothstein Fraud

The passage repeats known allegations about Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal conduct and attempts to distance Brad Edwards from alleged fraud involving Scott Rothstein. It provides no new factual leads, spe Edwards asserts he had no communication with investors and filed cases before joining RRA or knowing The opposition argues Epstein’s cited public materials do not implicate Edwards. References to Eps

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #013307
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage repeats known allegations about Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal conduct and attempts to distance Brad Edwards from alleged fraud involving Scott Rothstein. It provides no new factual leads, spe Edwards asserts he had no communication with investors and filed cases before joining RRA or knowing The opposition argues Epstein’s cited public materials do not implicate Edwards. References to Eps

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinfinancial-flowattorney-misconductlegal-filingscott-rothsteincourt-oppositionsex-crimeslegal-exposurehouse-oversightsexual-misconduct

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Edwards’ Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Page 4 of 15 None of the public materials identified by Epstein in his Motion make reference to any wrongdoing by Brad Edwards. Rather, Epstein seeks to pyramid one impermissible inference upon another from his citation to these materials to support his otherwise unsubstantiated and non-verifiable conclusion that he had sufficient evidence to proceed with claims of wrongdoing against Edwards. In truth, as reflected in Edwards’ deposition and his supplemental affidavit, he has no involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein (Edwards’ deposition of March 23, 2010 at 301-302; Edwards Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit “N” at paragraphs 8-10, paragraph 20, paragraphs 22-23; Exhibit “H” — Deposition of Scott Rothstein at pp. 62-63, 114, and 121-124). Therefore, any allegations relating to Rothstein’s activities simply have no bearing on the legitimacy of any of the claims against Edwards. Edwards could not have possibly “pumped” cases to investors when he never participated in any communications with investors. Rather, Edwards had a duty to his clients to zealously pursue discovery to achieve a maximum recovery against Epstein. Edwards cannot be liable for taking appropriate action that his ethical duties as an attorney required. The evidence also reflects that Edwards filed all three of his cases almost a year before he was hired by RRA or even knew Scott Rothstein (Edwards’ Affidavit, Exhibit “N” attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts). The language set forth in his Complaints remain virtually unchanged from the first filing in 2008 and, as the evidence shows, the claims asserted against Epstein from the outset were true. The citation to public documents is a convenient ruse; Epstein was not only liable for the molestation of the clients of Brad Edwards, he was also a serial molester of minors — even as young as twelve years of age (Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts paragraphs 1-43; Exhibit “D” — Statement of [REDACTED] pp. 16-17). Epstein entered a plea of guilty to felony charges involving prostitution and the solicitation of a minor for the purposes of prostitution (Exhibit “E” — Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, March 17, 2010, pp. 101-103). Epstein also entered into an agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office acknowledging that approximately 34 other young girls could receive payments from him under the

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Wire Refreference
Wire Refreflected

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.