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 |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013374.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing, specifically the 'Argument' section regarding a summary judgment motion. It argues that Edwards is entitled to judgment against Epstein's claim because there are no disputed material facts under Florida law (Rule 1.510(c)). The text cites various legal precedents (Snyder v. Cheezem, Holl v. Talcott, etc.) to establish that Epstein cannot rely on bare assertions to avoid summary judgment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013373.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing, likely a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by attorney Edwards. It argues that Edwards properly represented three victims of sexual assault against Jeffrey Epstein and that Epstein's subsequent lawsuit against Edwards is a baseless, retaliatory tactic by a 'serial pedophile' to avoid accountability and public disclosure. The text characterizes Epstein as using his wealth to manipulate the legal system and attacks the credibility of Epstein's 'Second Amended Complaint.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013371.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing defending attorney Edwards against a lawsuit brought by Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's complaint alleged that Edwards conspired with Scott Rothstein (of the RRA law firm) to use sexual assault lawsuits against Epstein to 'pump' a Ponzi scheme by preventing settlements. The document refutes these claims as false, noting that Edwards was simply providing competent representation to victims (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe) whom Epstein had sexually abused.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013353.jpg
This legal document page details allegations of witness tampering and harassment by Jeffrey Epstein against a victim identified as Jane Doe. It describes a specific incident on July 1, 2010, where a private investigator hired by Epstein stalked Jane Doe and flashed lights into her home, forcing her to flee to a secure location with a retired police officer. The text also references multiple exhibits regarding indictments and no-contact orders.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013351.jpg
This document, page 33 of a House Oversight report, details legal strategies involving attorney Edwards and his client Jane Doe. It discusses the use of flight logs to prove a federal nexus of interstate commerce for sexual abuse to counter Epstein's summary judgment motion. The text highlights allegations from Jane Doe No. 102 regarding the abuse of minors as young as 12 and mentions a Fall 2009 interview where Epstein denied wrongdoing and showed no remorse.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013350.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing arguing that the discovery of pilot and flight logs was legally proper in civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. It explains that this evidence was necessary to support a federal RICO claim depicting Epstein's operation as a criminal enterprise dependent on air travel, as well as to establish a 'federal nexus' for claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 regarding interstate commerce and telephone usage. The text documents the legal team's strategy despite Judge Marra's dismissal of the RICO claim.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013349.jpg
This page from a legal filing discusses the justification for seeking depositions from high-profile individuals connected to Jeffrey Epstein. It details allegations against magician David Copperfield, citing testimony from Epstein's housekeeper that Copperfield was a frequent guest and an allegation from a victim regarding improper touching. It also addresses former Governor Bill Richardson as a relevant witness, citing pilot testimony that he visited Epstein's New Mexico ranch and noting that Richardson returned campaign donations from Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013348.jpg
This document appears to be page 30 of a legal filing arguing that attorney Edwards had a reasonable basis to depose Alan Dershowitz. It cites testimony from housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez placing Dershowitz at Epstein's home when minors were present, flight logs showing Dershowitz on Epstein's plane between 2002-2005, and a $30 million donation from Epstein to Dershowitz's university. It also references Jane Doe No. 102's allegations regarding Epstein's 'adult male peers.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013344.jpg
This document details legal obstruction in the Epstein case, specifically concerning Jean Luc Brunel, who evaded a deposition by falsely claiming to be in France while actually staying at Epstein's West Palm Beach home. It further alleges that Epstein paid for the legal representation of a vast network of associates—including pilots, house staff, Ghislaine Maxwell, and his brother—making it nearly impossible for plaintiffs to secure independent testimony.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013343.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing detailing allegations against Jean-Luc Brunel and his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. It alleges that Brunel, who runs the Epstein-funded MC2 modeling agency, visited Epstein 67 times in jail and procured underage girls (as young as eight) for abuse. The document cites a sworn statement by MC2 employee Maritza Vasquez confirming that Epstein's NY condos were used to house international models charged rent to live as 'underage prostitutes.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013342.jpg
This legal filing details attorney Edwards' attempts to depose Ghislaine Maxwell, noting that Epstein paid her legal fees. It highlights Maxwell's evasion tactics, specifically lying about her mother's illness to avoid a 2010 deposition while actually attending Chelsea Clinton's wedding in New York. The document also reveals a disturbing message from Jean Luc Brunel to Epstein dated April 1, 2005, offering a '2x8 years old' (16-year-old) girl for 'Russian lessons'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013340.jpg
This document is page 22 of a legal filing (likely a motion) detailing attorney Edwards' attempts to depose Jeffrey Epstein and his associates in 2010. It highlights that Epstein refused to answer questions on advice of counsel, and that associates Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adriana Mucinska Ross all invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination regarding the procuring of young girls. The document specifically notes that Bruce Reinhart represented Sarah Kellen during her deposition.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013334.jpg
This document outlines the timeline surrounding the violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case during June and July 2008. It details how AUSA Villafaña withheld critical information from victims' attorney Brad Edwards regarding the finality of the plea agreement and its impact on federal prosecution. Consequently, Edwards filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida to enforce the rights of victims E.W. and L.M., who only learned the plea deal was finalized during a hearing on July 11, 2008.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013328.jpg
This document page outlines the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein starting in 2005 regarding the abuse of minors. It specifically details allegations of witness tampering, citing a 2007 incident where Epstein instructed his personal assistant, Leslie Groff, not to cooperate with FBI agents serving a subpoena at her home. The document also briefly mentions Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in the context of phone listings in an evidentiary journal.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013324.jpg
This document details multiple instances of sexual assault by Epstein against minor females, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, who were 13 or 14 years old at the time. It highlights Epstein's repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment during depositions when questioned about these activities, and notes that the victims were brought to his home by another underage victim. The United States Attorney's Office recognized L.M. as a victim.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013315.jpg
Page 12 of a legal filing opposing Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment in a civil case (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). The document argues that Epstein cannot rely on public filings he knows to be untrue while simultaneously invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to refuse answering questions about criminal activity. The filing asserts that his refusal to testify creates 'adverse inferences' that should preclude him from winning a summary judgment or prosecuting an abuse of process claim against Edwards.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013314.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing titled 'Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment.' It argues that Epstein's voluntary dismissal of previous claims against Edwards constitutes a 'bona fide termination' of proceedings, supporting Edwards' counterclaim for malicious prosecution. The text asserts that Epstein dismissed his claims on the eve of a hearing because he knew he lacked probable cause and verifiable evidence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013313.jpg
This is page 10 of a legal filing titled 'Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment.' It argues that Epstein committed an 'abuse of process' by using his vast financial resources to file baseless lawsuits intended solely to extort and intimidate his molestation victims and Edwards into settling for less than their claims are worth. The document lists specific damages suffered by Edwards, including injury to reputation and fear of physical injury to himself and his family.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013312.jpg
Page 9 of 15 from a legal filing in the case of Edwards vs. Epstein (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). The document argues that the 'litigation privilege' should not protect Epstein from claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process because his actions were malicious, unfounded, and targeted the Plaintiff's counsel without a legitimate judicial goal. It distinguishes Epstein's actions as an individual party from legal precedents involving attorneys.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013311.jpg
Page 8 of a legal filing in the case Edwards v. Epstein (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). The document is a legal argument opposing a summary judgment motion, specifically arguing that 'litigation privilege' does not protect a defendant from claims of 'malicious prosecution.' The text cites numerous Florida case precedents (Wright v. Yurko, Olson v. Johnson, etc.) to support the claim that malicious prosecution is a viable tort even in the context of judicial proceedings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029320.jpg
This legal document, dated September 12, 2013, outlines attorney Edwards' defense against Epstein's claims of improper litigation tactics. Edwards asserts he had a sound legal basis to pursue discovery and depositions from high-profile individuals—including Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, David Copperfield, and Bill Richardson—believing they possessed relevant information regarding Epstein's alleged sexual assaults. The document argues these individuals were identified as Epstein's 'close friends' and that seeking their testimony met the legal standard for discovery.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029319.jpg
This document, dated September 12, 2013, is a legal defense of attorney Edwards against claims made by Jeffrey Epstein. It argues that Edwards did not 'pump' cases to investors, noting that he filed complaints against Epstein long before meeting Scott Rothstein or joining RRA. The text highlights that Epstein settled three cases (including one for 'Jane Doe') in July 2010 for significant sums via court-ordered mediation presided over by Judge Kenneth A. Marra, and that the Florida Bar dismissed Epstein's ethics complaint against Edwards.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029316.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated September 12, 2013, likely a brief supporting attorney Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment against Jeffrey Epstein. The text argues that Epstein cannot sue Edwards for damages while simultaneously asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege ('sword and shield' doctrine) to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of minors, including specific allegations by victims L.M. and Jane Doe. It also reveals that Epstein settled three cases handled by Edwards for confidential amounts that were not of 'minimal value,' contradicting his own claims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014047.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (Vol. 104) discussing the federal case 'Does v. United States' and the controversial nonprosecution agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The text details how, despite evidence that Epstein molested over 30 girls between 2001 and 2007, he was allowed to plead to lesser state charges after a 'year-long assault on the prosecution' by his defense team. The page includes footnotes citing court documents, media reports connecting Epstein to Prince Andrew, and a letter from former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the pressure faced by prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021717.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article dated August 19, 2011, detailing a court hearing regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Judge Marra heard arguments from victims' lawyers (Edwards, Cassell) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee concerning whether the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The judge also set a schedule for Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, to submit arguments regarding the unsealing of correspondence between the defense and federal prosecutors.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Edwards | Epstein | $0.00 | Epstein is attempting to force Edwards to pay '... | View |
Case status
Villafaña spoke to Edwards but did not inform him specifically of the signed NPA.
Motion for Contempt
Details harassment events in Jane Doe v. Epstein
Deposition Notices
Notices regarding depositions of Mattola and Copperfield.
Second Amended Complaint
Allegations that Edwards 'should have known' about the Ponzi scheme.
Interview
Edwards did not respond to OPR's request to interview him.
Plea hearing notification
Villafaña told Edwards the hearing was 'important' but did not disclose the global resolution.
Notice of possible deposition
Legal notice
Deposition of David Copperfield
Notice of intent to take deposition.
Counterclaim
For malicious prosecution.
Requests for admissions, production, and interrogatories ...
Standard discovery requests regarding sexual abuse of minor girls.
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