Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Edwards

Person
Mentions
211
Relationships
36
Events
55
Documents
105
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
36 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Jeffrey Epstein
Adversarial
5
1
View
person Cassell
Business associate
5
1
View
organization GA
Preacher audience
1
1
View
person SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
Professional former
1
1
View
person L.M., E.W., Jane Doe
Client
1
1
View
person ALAN DERSHOWITZ
Legal representative
1
1
View
person Villafaña
Contacted corresponded
1
1
View
person Paul Cassell
Co counsel
1
1
View
person The Office (US Attorney)
Legal representative
1
1
View
person Wild
Legal representative
1
1
View
person Villafaña
Spoke with misled by
1
1
View
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_021352.jpg

This document appears to be page 106 of an academic or theological text discussing anthropomorphism in religion, specifically analyzing Jonathan Edwards's sermon 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and the philosophy of Hugo Grotius. While the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021352' indicates it is part of a government document production (likely related to an investigation), the page content itself is purely literary/theological analysis and contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein, flight logs, or financial transactions on this specific page.

Academic text / literary analysis
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021351.jpg

This document appears to be a single page (Page 105) from an academic book or paper discussing the psychological mechanisms of anthropomorphism, referencing scholars like Tanya Luhrmann and theological concepts. It distinguishes between 'weak' and 'strong' anthropomorphism using examples of pet ownership and nature. While the document contains a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer indicating it is part of a congressional investigation file (possibly related to the Epstein investigation), the text itself is theoretical and contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or specific criminal activities.

Academic text / evidence attachment
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg

This document is page 4 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm SDBS to Thomas E. Scott, Jr., regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The letter aggressively challenges the defense's discovery responses, accusing them of 'word play and gamesmanship' regarding document production, metadata, and definitions. The sender demands immediate production of documents and rejects the defense's attempts to limit discovery to a narrow timeframe, arguing that Dershowitz's alleged defamation and public denials were broad and unrestricted by time.

Legal correspondence / court filing exhibit
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg

This document is page 3 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, addressed to Thomas E. Scott, Jr. regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The text outlines legal arguments concerning discovery abuses, specifically arguing that one cannot claim privilege or undue burden for documents that do not exist, and providing a broad legal definition of 'control' over documents to include those held by third parties like attorneys or accountants. The document was entered on the FLSD Docket on March 24, 2015, and bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.

Legal correspondence / court filing exhibit
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014112.jpg

This document is a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley P.A. to attorney Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr. regarding the case 'Edwards and Cassell vs. Dershowitz.' The letter addresses discovery disputes, specifically criticizing the recipient's use of 'general objections' and 'subject to' responses as improper tactics that shield information from discovery. It cites federal court precedents disapproving of such objections.

Legal correspondence / court exhibit
2025-11-19
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
1 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
1 total transactions
Date Type From To Amount Description Actions
N/A Paid Edwards Epstein $0.00 Epstein is attempting to force Edwards to pay '... View
As Sender
10
As Recipient
10
Total
20

Motion for Contempt

From: Edwards
To: Court

Details harassment events in Jane Doe v. Epstein

Legal motion
N/A
Communication Source

Plea hearing notification

From: Villafaña
To: Edwards

Villafaña told Edwards the hearing was 'important' but did not disclose the global resolution.

Conversation
N/A
Communication Source

Notice of possible deposition

From: Edwards
To: ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Legal notice

Legal notice
N/A
Communication Source

Interview

From: OPR
To: Edwards

Edwards did not respond to OPR's request to interview him.

Request for interview
N/A
Communication Source

Deposition of David Copperfield

From: Edwards
To: Legal Counsel

Notice of intent to take deposition.

Notice of deposition
N/A
Communication Source

Counterclaim

From: Edwards
To: Jeffrey Epstein

For malicious prosecution.

Legal filing
N/A
Communication Source

Second Amended Complaint

From: Epstein
To: Edwards

Allegations that Edwards 'should have known' about the Ponzi scheme.

Legal complaint
N/A
Communication Source

Requests for admissions, production, and interrogatories ...

From: Edwards
To: Jeffrey Epstein

Standard discovery requests regarding sexual abuse of minor girls.

Discovery requests
N/A
Communication Source

Deposition Notices

From: Edwards
To: Epstein/Counsel

Notices regarding depositions of Mattola and Copperfield.

Legal notice
N/A
Communication Source

Case status

From: Villafaña
To: Edwards

Villafaña spoke to Edwards but did not inform him specifically of the signed NPA.

Call
N/A
Communication Source

Case transfer

From: Edwards
To: Media/Public

Comments on fresh eyes reviewing the case and adversarial posture with Miami office

Statement
2025-11-18
Communication Source

Investigation status/concerns

From: Edwards
To: Villafaña

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'.

Email|telephone calls
2025-06-01
Communication Source

Maxwell's Deposition

From: Brett Jaffe
To: Edwards

Informed Edwards that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and she was flying to England.

Attorney communication
2010-06-29
Communication Source

Cancellation of Deposition

From: Brett Jaffe (Maxwell's...
To: Edwards

Informed Edwards that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was flying to England with no intention of returning to the US.

Legal correspondence
2010-06-29
Communication Source

Delay deposition

From: Tama Kudman
To: Edwards

Request to delay Brunel's deposition date.

Communication
2009-01-01
Communication Source

Brunel's location

From: Tama Kudman
To: Edwards

Claimed Brunel had left the country and was back in France with no plans to return (later proven false).

Communication
2009-01-01
Communication Source

State Plea

From: Villafaña
To: Edwards

Informed Edwards about state plea but omitted NPA details.

Conversation
2008-08-01
Communication Source

Case Status on behalf of Wild

From: Edwards
To: ["Villafaña"]

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.

Contact
2008-01-01
Communication Source

Complaints against Epstein

From: Edwards
To: Court

First filing of complaints containing allegations against Epstein.

Legal filing
2008-01-01
Communication Source

N/A

From: Villafaña
To: Edwards

Villafaña spoke to Edwards on the telephone but did not inform him specifically of the signed NPA.

Telephone call
2008-01-01
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search