Edwards
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
L.M.
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Wild
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
E.W.
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Wild
|
Representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
|
Professional later |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edwards' clients
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Litigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA Villafaña
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 1 & 2
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mazzuca
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
|
Former professional connection |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Three Victims
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
minor girls
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Delivery of the sermon 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' to the Enfield congregation. | Enfield | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Florida Bar complaint against Edwards. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Edwards. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Edwards filed a Motion for Contempt regarding the false information about Brunel. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of CVRA petition by Edwards. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Settlement of three cases filed by Edwards against Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Unfounded filing of claims against Edwards by Epstein. | Legal proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of civil complaints by Edwards for three clients. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery efforts to obtain photographic materials regarding Jane Doe No. 3 held by federal agenc... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Edwards' Summary Judgment hearing (Epstein dismissed case morning of). | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Villafaña informed Edwards about Epstein's state plea but did not mention the NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Civil lawsuits filed against Epstein by Edwards and others. | Florida (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of complaint by Epstein | Florida Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein refused to answer basic discovery questions regarding the lawsuit. | Legal Discovery Proceedings | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Edwards filed a CVRA petition after learning of the state plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein filed a summary judgment motion regarding federal nexus. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | In-camera disclosure of settlement amounts. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal Discovery/Depositions | Legal proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cases filed by Edwards against Epstein | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of CVRA action and subsequent Motion to reopen. | S.D. Fla. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Settlement of previous lawsuits | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of Second Amended Complaint | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of Motion for Summary Judgment | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery/Depositions pursued by Edwards | Litigation process | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of RICO claim | Federal Court | View |
EFTA00014131.pdf
This document is an internal email chain dated November 4-5, 2008, among unidentified officials (likely DOJ/US Attorney's Office) discussing how to respond to a letter from attorney Edwards dated October 15, 2008. The participants discuss the risks of providing a written response that could be used in civil suits or the press, with one official proposing a minimal response stating the Office is not party to civil suits but will review evidence of any breach of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00023315.tif
This document analyzes legal conduct related to the Epstein case, focusing on prosecutor Villafaña's alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards in early 2008. It discusses whether her actions violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) concerning false statements and dishonest conduct, referencing the Eleventh Circuit's findings on the government's handling of victim notifications. The text cites several Florida Bar legal cases to support its analysis of attorney conduct and intent.
DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif
This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023268.tif
This document details interactions between prosecutor Villafaña, attorney Edwards, and victims' attorneys concerning the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña provided Edwards with the impression of an ongoing, expansive federal investigation but did not disclose the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or other specific case details, citing prosecutorial challenges and grand jury confidentiality. The document also highlights difficulties victims' attorneys faced in obtaining information from Villafaña and notes a government admission that federal charges and the NPA were discussed between Villafaña and Edwards.
DOJ-OGR-00018152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions Alessi about a prior deposition answer concerning when a person named Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and "Glen Maxwell". Alessi clarifies his previous testimony, stating he confused Jane, whom he met in 1994 as a minor, with another girl he met around 2001-2002.
DOJ-OGR-00008380.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 15, 2021, discusses the defendant's attempt to introduce statements from Robert Glassman to impeach a witness named Jane. The document details Jane's evolving testimony about a trip to New York with Epstein and the defendant to see 'The Lion King,' noting that her corrected recollections were communicated to the Government by her lawyer. The prosecution argues that Glassman's testimony on these same points is unnecessary and that questions about Jane's conversations with him were met with sustained objections.
DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
DOJ-OGR-00022043.jpg
This document is the concluding page of a legal motion (Document 33, Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 9, 2020. Attorney Montell Figgins, representing defendant Michael Thomas, requests that the court grant their Motion to Compel, arguing that requested reports are subject to Brady disclosure and should be produced within 45 days of the court's order.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg
This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.
DOJ-OGR-00021480.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report (DOJ-OGR-00021480) analyzing whether Prosecutor Villafaña committed professional misconduct by omitting information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) when speaking with victims and attorney Edwards. OPR concluded that her conduct did not amount to making affirmative false statements, noting that she believed the investigation was ongoing until Epstein's June 2008 state plea and had advocated for charging him. The text cites Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) and related case law regarding candor and omissions.
DOJ-OGR-00021479.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing whether prosecutor Villafaña violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) by failing to disclose the existence of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards. It references specific interviews conducted by Villafaña on January 31 and February 1, 2008, where she allegedly stated the matter was 'under investigation' despite knowing the NPA was signed. The text cites the Eleventh Circuit's concern that the government's actions moved from passive nondisclosure to active misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.
DOJ-OGR-00021465.jpg
This document details the continued federal investigation into Epstein after the signing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines specific actions taken by prosecutor Villafaña, the FBI, and CEOS between late 2007 and mid-2008, such as interviewing new victims and preparing for trial, to demonstrate that the investigation remained active. The document asserts that communications to victims stating the case was 'currently under investigation' were accurate, despite potentially being misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00021434.jpg
This legal document details conflicting accounts regarding the notification of victims for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008, state plea hearing. It focuses on communications between prosecutor Villafaña, investigator Reiter, and victim's attorney Edwards, particularly concerning a list of victims that was created and subsequently destroyed. The document highlights discrepancies in recollections from various depositions and declarations about what information was shared and with whom, forming a key part of the CVRA litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021433.jpg
This document outlines the internal DOJ communications in June 2008 regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement and the handling of victim notifications. It details how prosecutor Villafaña was instructed by superiors Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman to avoid direct victim notification, instead delegating that task to PBPD Chief Reiter. The text also confirms that the Deputy Attorney General had deemed federal prosecution appropriate just days before the plea deal deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00005862.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents the prosecution's (Government's) argument that using the term "victim" to refer to witnesses is not prejudicial to the defendant's rights. The argument is supported by citing numerous legal precedents from various U.S. courts which have previously ruled on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00023228.jpg
This document is a timeline graphic from a Department of Justice report detailing key events surrounding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) analysis in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It tracks internal DOJ communications, victim notifications, and court actions from 2006 to 2008, with an additional sidebar covering legal developments up to 2020. Key events include the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the deferral of victim notification regarding the plea deal, and subsequent court rulings finding that the U.S. violated the CVRA.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Edwards | Epstein | $0.00 | Epstein is attempting to force Edwards to pay '... | View |
Motion for Contempt
Details harassment events in Jane Doe v. Epstein
Plea hearing notification
Villafaña told Edwards the hearing was 'important' but did not disclose the global resolution.
Notice of possible deposition
Legal notice
Interview
Edwards did not respond to OPR's request to interview him.
Deposition of David Copperfield
Notice of intent to take deposition.
Counterclaim
For malicious prosecution.
Second Amended Complaint
Allegations that Edwards 'should have known' about the Ponzi scheme.
Requests for admissions, production, and interrogatories ...
Standard discovery requests regarding sexual abuse of minor girls.
Deposition Notices
Notices regarding depositions of Mattola and Copperfield.
Case status
Villafaña spoke to Edwards but did not inform him specifically of the signed NPA.
Case transfer
Comments on fresh eyes reviewing the case and adversarial posture with Miami office
Investigation status/concerns
Edwards shared 'information and concerns' and asked 'very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in'. Villafaña responded she could not answer and gave the impression of an 'on-going active investigation'.
Maxwell's Deposition
Informed Edwards that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and she was flying to England.
Cancellation of Deposition
Informed Edwards that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was flying to England with no intention of returning to the US.
Delay deposition
Request to delay Brunel's deposition date.
Brunel's location
Claimed Brunel had left the country and was back in France with no plans to return (later proven false).
State Plea
Informed Edwards about state plea but omitted NPA details.
Case Status on behalf of Wild
In mid-June 2008, Edwards contacted Villafaña on Wild's behalf and was told the case was under investigation, with no mention of the NPA.
Complaints against Epstein
First filing of complaints containing allegations against Epstein.
N/A
Villafaña spoke to Edwards on the telephone but did not inform him specifically of the signed NPA.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity