BRAD EDWARDS
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Courtney Wild
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Three young women
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AK
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witnesses who testified
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Several young women (victims)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Previous communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 1
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
E.W.
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SCAROLA
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Questioner (Q)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Meeting | A meeting where Kate asked the Government to look into sponsoring her for a U-Visa. Brad Edwards ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein filed a lawsuit against the affiant, Brad Edwards, and Scott Rothstein alleging conspirac... | Court (implied) | View |
| N/A | Proffer session | Brad Edwards provided a U-Visa application to the government on behalf of Kate. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal consultation | Kate reached out to attorney Brad Edwards to report the abuse she suffered. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A trial that the author indicates might not have happened without her attorneys. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | New court filing submitted asking for Jane Doe #3 and another woman to join a pending case. | West Palm Beach, Fla. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Questioning of Attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman by the defense. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Fundraisers and parties at witness's home | Witness's Home | View |
| N/A | N/A | Start of Brad Edwards' investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Win/Settlement with Deutsche Bank | Legal Court/Settlement | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting and Contacts with Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards by AUSA [REDACTED]. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of Florida Defamation Action (Case No. CACE 15-000072). | Broward County Circuit Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lawsuit brought by Epstein against Brad Edwards. | Florida | View |
| 2025-10-01 | N/A | Brad Edwards called the FBI. | N/A | View |
| 2025-08-01 | N/A | Alfredo Rodriguez's second deposition. | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-01 | N/A | Alfredo Rodriguez's first deposition. | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-01 | N/A | Alfredo Rodriguez's first deposition where he mentioned handwritten notes/journal. | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-01 | N/A | Brad Edwards had access to 'the list'. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-09 | Legal proceeding appearances | Listing of appearances by legal counsel and other personnel for the Plaintiff and Defendant in ca... | N/A | View |
| 2021-11-20 | N/A | Discussion regarding trial order and witness testimony logistics. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-23 | N/A | Plea Hearing | SDNY Court | View |
| 2020-07-17 | N/A | FBI received a USB drive containing photographs from Brad Edwards. | New York Office | View |
| 2020-06-12 | N/A | Filing of Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Action | New York, New York | View |
| 2020-06-12 | N/A | Joint Stipulation dated by counsel | New York, New York | View |
| 2020-02-06 | N/A | Filing of Joint Proposed Discovery Schedule | New York, New York | View |
066.pdf
This document is a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying Action from June 2020 in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff 'VE' and the defendants (Epstein's estate executors Indyke and Kahn, and associated entities) agreed to pause the litigation to allow the plaintiff to participate in the 'Epstein Victims' Compensation Program,' a non-adversarial alternative. Judge Debra Freeman signed the order, staying the case and requiring a status report by August 14, 2020.
065.pdf
This document is a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order filed on June 12, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-07625). The plaintiff, identified as 'VE', and the defendants (Executors of the Epstein Estate and associated entities) agreed to stay the lawsuit to allow the plaintiff to participate in the 'Epstein Victims' Compensation Program', a non-adversarial alternative for resolving sexual abuse claims. The document is signed by attorneys Brad Edwards (for the plaintiff) and Bennet J. Moskowitz (for the defendants).
054.pdf
This document is a Joint Proposed Discovery Schedule filed on February 6, 2020, in the case of VE v. Indyke et al. It outlines the agreed-upon timeline for the exchange of evidence, including initial disclosures, medical records, and expert reports. The filing identifies the key subjects of discovery as Epstein's alleged torts against the plaintiff, the liability of the corporate defendants, and the plaintiff's damages.
036.pdf
This document is a transcript of a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein held on July 15, 2019, in the SDNY. The government argued for detention based on flight risk (citing wealth, foreign ties, and a fake passport found in a safe) and danger to the community, while the defense argued for release on house arrest, citing his 14-year record of appearing for court and lack of recent convictions. Two victims, Annie Farmer and Courtney Wild, spoke in court opposing bail.
032.pdf
This document is a Decision & Order by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman denying Jeffrey Epstein's request for pretrial release and granting the Government's motion for remand (detention). The Court concludes that the Government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Epstein poses a danger to the community, citing testimony from victims and evidence of potential witness tampering and non-compliance with sex offender registration. Additionally, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Epstein is a flight risk due to his vast wealth, international ties, and the potential for a lengthy prison sentence, and determines that the defense's proposed bail package is inadequate to mitigate these risks.
089.pdf
Court minutes from a June 25, 2009 hearing presided over by Judge Jeffrey Colbath regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case (Nos. 2006CF009454AXX / 2008CF009381AXX). The proceedings involved motions to unseal records and intervene, argued by attorneys for the Palm Beach Post and unidentified parties (likely victims), with the Judge granting the motions to unseal and intervene. Defense counsel Jack Goldberger moved to stay disclosure.
059.pdf
An exhibit list from the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, dated June 25, 2009, for the case State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008CF4351). The document lists three exhibits submitted by the defense: two orders involving attorney Jack Goldberger and a copy of a 'Victims Petition for enforcement of Crime Victims Rights Act' associated with attorney Brad Edwards. The hearing type is noted as a 'Motion to Unseal records'.
055.pdf
This document is a transcript of court proceedings from June 26, 2009, regarding State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The hearing concerns a 'Motion to Stay' filed by Epstein's defense to prevent the immediate release of sealed documents, specifically a Non-Prosecution Agreement (MPA) and grand jury materials, pending an appeal. The Judge denies the indefinite stay and the request for a bond but grants a short delay until the following Thursday to allow the defense time to file with the appellate court. The document also touches on potential redactions of children's names, which the Judge notes were not actually found in the documents in question.
049.pdf
A court disposition form from the State of Florida vs. Jeffrey E. Epstein case (No. 502008CF009381AXXXMB) dated June 26, 2009. The hearing addressed a 'Motion to stay' which was denied by Judge Colbath, with a written order to follow. Handwritten notes indicate that documents are delayed until July 2, 2009, and a motion to compel the defendant to post bond was denied; attorney Brad Edwards was present representing a redacted party.
020.pdf
This document is a Reply in Support of a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2010. The defense argues that the plaintiff failed to properly serve Epstein because the papers were left with an individual named 'Mark' at Epstein's New York home (9 East 71st St), but the plaintiff failed to prove 'Mark' resided there or was of suitable discretion. The filing also seeks to strike allegations regarding obstruction of justice in prior litigation and opposes sanctions against Epstein.
017-17.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on June 30, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in the civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein seeks permission to redact specific portions of his tax returns regarding investment vehicles, claiming they contain trade secrets and confidential business information. The motion argues that Plaintiff's counsel, Brad Edwards, has a history of sharing discovery material with media and investigators, specifically citing an instance involving Alfredo Rodriguez's journal.
017-15.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on June 28, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion requests that the court issue an order of confidentiality regarding information Epstein was compelled to produce, specifically his tax returns, passport, and information provided by the federal government during prior criminal proceedings. The defense seeks to prevent this information from being disclosed to third parties or the media and to limit its use strictly to the current litigation.
017-12.pdf
This document is an appeal by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein against a Magistrate's Order compelling him to produce discovery materials, including correspondence with prosecutors, tax returns, and passport/travel records. Epstein argues that producing these documents violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he still faces a real threat of federal prosecution outside the Southern District of Florida, despite his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing also details privacy concerns for third parties (alleged victims), claims attorney work-product privilege over files selected by his defense counsel, and argues that his offer to stipulate to a high net worth renders the production of his tax returns unnecessary.
017-09.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in February 2010, arguing against a Magistrate's order compelling him to produce sensitive documents. The motion relies heavily on Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, arguing that despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein faces real risks of prosecution in other jurisdictions. Attached exhibits include the Plaintiff's 2009 requests for production of massage logs, photos of Epstein's Palm Beach home, financial records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander, to which Epstein consistently objected.
017-02.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 6, 2009, opposing a Motion to Compel discovery filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse the production of photographs of his Palm Beach home (specifically massage rooms), financial records, tax returns, passport/travel records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander. The defense argues that despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the threat of federal prosecution remains real and substantial, particularly in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that the act of producing these documents would be testimonial and incriminating.
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
019.pdf
A Notice of Appearance filed on June 16, 2010, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-CIV-81092-Marra/Johnson). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP formally enter their appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a certificate of service to Brad Edwards, counsel for the Plaintiff.
018.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on June 16, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-CIV-81092 (L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein). The law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP, specifically attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike, formally enters their appearance as legal counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a certificate of service indicating that the notice was electronically served to Brad Edwards, attorney for the plaintiff.
017.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, regarding the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The filing, submitted by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin on behalf of Plaintiff 'C.L.', serves to withdraw a subpoena and cancel the scheduled deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which was set for the following day, June 15, 2010. The document also includes a certificate of service listing various attorneys representing different parties in related cases against Epstein.
014-01.pdf
This document is a Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition and a Subpoena issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. It commands Jean Luc Bruhel to appear for a deposition on September 22, 2009, at Esquire Court Reporters in New York City. The subpoena was issued by Brad Edwards, attorney for the plaintiff.
010.pdf
This is a motion filed by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a court order to allow him to attend mediation, deposition, and trial in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion notes that a prior no-contact order involving Carolyn Andriano might technically preclude this, but states that Plaintiff's counsel and Ms. Andriano have no objection. The document includes a certificate of service listing numerous attorneys involved in related cases.
009.pdf
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys argue for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), noting that the DOJ has seized boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to Epstein. The document also disputes delays in the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
008.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Protective Order filed by Igor Zinoview and Jeffrey Epstein to limit the scope of depositions in a civil case. Zinoview asserts via affidavit that he only began working for Epstein in November 2005, after the alleged events, and thus has no relevant knowledge. The filing also includes excerpts from the depositions of Epstein's pilots, Larry Visoski and Larry Eugene Morrison, where they are questioned about their personal beliefs regarding the sexual abuse allegations and whether they would trust Epstein with their own daughters. Flight logs and passenger manifests are referenced in the deposition indexes ('PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT LOG BOOK' and 'JEGE, Inc., Passenger Manifest') but the actual log content is not present in these specific pages.
010-16.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court hearing on April 21, 2016, in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The hearing addresses motions to admit Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell as counsel for the plaintiff, which the defense opposes citing conflicts with other litigation (Florida cases) and their status as potential witnesses. The judge also rules on various discovery disputes, including the production of Giuffre's medical records (limited to 1999-2002), tax returns (15 years ordered), and statements made to law enforcement (to be reviewed in camera).
010-06.pdf
This document is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's second amended supplemental response to discovery requests from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 29, 2016. It details Giuffre's legal representation history from 2009 to 2016, listing specific attorneys and cases including actions against Jeffrey Epstein, the US Government, and Alan Dershowitz. The document also contains objections to requests for financial records regarding payments from Epstein or media organizations, asserting attorney-client privilege and irrelevance.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Firm/Ponzi Scheme | BRAD EDWARDS | $0.00 | Potential bonuses discussed regarding work on c... | View |
Proposed Stipulated Facts for In Re Jane Doe
Discusses stipulation of facts, requests plea agreement copies, disputes government narrative regarding victim notification.
Proposed Undisputed Facts
Government's proposed set of stipulated facts.
Notification of Identified Victim (C.W.)
Notifying attorney that client C.W. is an identified victim under the non-prosecution agreement terms.
Notification of Identified Victim (S.R.)
Notifying attorney that client S.R. is an identified victim under the non-prosecution agreement terms.
Notification of Identified Victim
Informing counsel that client is identified as a victim for NPA purposes
Victim Notification
Referenced letter regarding notification to Jane Doe #1.
Service of Petition
Service of the Victim's Petition via US Mail and Facsimile.
Urging Prosecution
Urged vigorous enforcement of federal laws against Epstein.
Federal Prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein
Urges federal indictment of Epstein, citing abuse of >100 girls and inadequacy of state plea.
Request for Prosecution
Urging vigorous enforcement of federal laws and indictment of Epstein.
Plea Hearing Notification
Notifying counsel that the state plea hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 30, 2008.
Jeff Epstein
Edwards requests a meeting to share information and concerns. States he will be in the area meeting a client next week.
Representation
Edwards informed AUSA he represented victims; discussed potential federal charges; AUSA did not disclose NPA.
Representation of Jane Doe #1 and #2
Edwards informed AUSA of representation and asked to provide info for federal charges; was not told of existing NPA.
Representation
Called to hire him to get prosecutors to hear the truth.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity