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 |
082.pdf
This document is a Reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2009 requesting a permanent order for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The filing highlights that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including about 13 boxes related to Epstein cases, amidst concerns of 'serious ethical and potentially criminal issues' at the firm. The document also argues against delaying the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
080.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by third-party witness Igor Zinoviev, requesting a protective order to prevent his deposition in the case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Zinoviev, who worked as a driver and bodyguard for Epstein since November 2005, argues he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment began after the alleged events and he never discussed the criminal or civil cases with Epstein.
064.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.
038.pdf
This document is a Motion to Reschedule Hearing filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert C. Josefsberg, representing Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and 102, requests to move a hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, because he will be attending his 50th College Reunion in Hanover, New Hampshire. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal teams associated with Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and various plaintiffs in related cases.
035.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs argue for the right to proceed anonymously, citing fears of harassment, public humiliation, and Epstein's alleged intent to intimidate victims by exposing their identities. The document lists numerous related cases and provides a service list of attorneys representing various parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
010.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Striking Docket Entry' filed on May 4, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., notifies the court that a previous docket entry was filed without a signature and has been re-filed correctly. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing numerous attorneys involved in this case and related cases against Epstein, including Bruce Reinhart (defense), Jack Scarola, and Brad Edwards.
008.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 101 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009. The plaintiff agrees to the court's order to consolidate ten separate cases filed by various Jane Does and C.M.A. against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery. The document includes a service list detailing the contact information for attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and the defendant.
EFTA00037937.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2019 involving attorneys from Edwards Pottinger LLC and likely federal authorities (references to 'HQ'). The emails discuss coordinating interviews for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, specifically mentioning four additional victims ready to speak. The attorneys propose meetings in New York on October 23 or 24, coinciding with a 'victim briefing'.
EFTA00037173.pdf
This document is a screenshot of an email sent via Proton Mail to attorney Brad Edwards. The sender (whose name is redacted) congratulates Edwards on a legal victory involving Deutsche Bank, asking if it is a class action and if he is satisfied with the settlement figure. The sender also inquires about Edwards' thoughts on the ongoing JP Morgan lawsuit. The document bears the Bates number EFTA00037173.
EFTA00032792.pdf
This document contains an email thread from April 2021 between an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) and attorneys Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson regarding the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'. The correspondence discusses scheduling for an in-person arraignment before Judge Nathan and a remote bail appeal before the Second Circuit, and inquires about the attendance of Edwards' client.
EFTA00031397.pdf
This document is an internal DOJ email chain from October 30, 2019, coordinating a response to an urgent request from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG). ODAG required statistics regarding victim attendance and notification at the August 27, 2019, Epstein hearing to respond to a mandamus petition filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). USANYS officials discussed the number of victims present (17 present, 7 statements read by others) and the statements made by attorney Brad Edwards regarding clients who could not attend.
EFTA00030765.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2021 involving the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) and the law firm Edwards Pottinger. The correspondence concerns 'Touhy Requests' related to a client identified as '[Redacted] Doe'. Paralegal Maria Kelljchian forwarded an attachment from attorney Brad Edwards to the USANYS. The content of the internal USANYS discussion is largely redacted.
EFTA00030231.pdf
This document is an email dated June 26, 2019, forwarding a Law360 article titled 'Gov't Says Epstein Victims Can't Scrap Nonprosecution Deal.' The article details the federal government's response to a lawsuit by Epstein's victims (Doe v. U.S.), where prosecutors argued that while the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) was violated by Alexander Acosta in 2008, the nonprosecution agreement cannot be undone. The government proposed a meeting and a public hearing for victims to be heard, a remedy the victims' lawyer Brad Edwards criticized as insufficient.
EFTA00029499.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated October 2020, discussing a press inquiry from the NY Daily News. The reporter, Stephen Rex Brown, provides details of a story alleging that in 2016, SDNY prosecutors (specifically an AUSA named Kramer) met with victims' lawyers but declined to pursue new charges against Jeffrey Epstein or perjury charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. The internal SDNY response suggests they have no record of the second meeting mentioned and decide not to push back against the story.
EFTA00029458.pdf
This document consists of an exchange of letters between Paul G. Cassell of the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law and an Assistant Commissioner at New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police). In the first letter (July 31, 2015), Cassell follows up on previous correspondence regarding allegations of international sex trafficking against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, offering his client's assistance in the investigation. In the response (August 10, 2015), the Metropolitan Police confirm they are progressing with the matter and request formal written confirmation that Cassell is legally authorized to represent the specific client involved.
EFTA00029457.pdf
A letter dated July 31, 2015, from Paul G. Cassell (University of Utah College of Law) to an Assistant Commissioner at New Scotland Yard. Cassell is following up on a previous correspondence from May 2015 regarding an investigation into international sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. He reiterates his client's (name redacted) offer to assist with the investigation.
EFTA00029100.pdf
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
EFTA00028929.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
EFTA00028850.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court hearing held on April 21, 2016, before Judge Robert W. Sweet in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The proceedings cover motions to admit attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell pro hac vice, which the defense contested citing potential conflicts from related Florida litigation. The hearing also addresses discovery disputes, including the production of the plaintiff's medical records, tax returns, employment history, and communications with law enforcement. No flight logs or aircraft data are contained in this document.
EFTA00027949.pdf
This document is an email chain between attorney Jack Scarola and an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Scarola identifies a victim who was molested in Florida beginning at age 14 and received lingerie gifts from Epstein. The correspondence coordinates a potential meeting between federal investigators and the victim in Florida.
EFTA00027912.pdf
This document is an email chain from November and December 2019 between the administrators of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (Jordy Feldman) and legal counsel for the victims (Roberta Kaplan's firm). The correspondence centers on the victims' counsel challenging the independence of the program, arguing that because the administrators were hired and paid by the Epstein Estate, they cannot be neutral. Kaplan's team proposes adding a fourth administrator selected by the plaintiffs to ensure fairness.
EFTA00027881.pdf
An email chain from December 2019 involving attorneys from Kaplan Hecker & Fink, Troutman Sanders, and Boies Schiller Flexner regarding The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence involves the forwarding of attached letters between counsel, with Roberta Kaplan forwarding the thread to an undisclosed recipient noting, 'I assume you have this.' The thread indicates ongoing legal coordination or dispute resolution concerning the Epstein Estate.
EFTA00026678.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2019 between attorney Paul Cassell (representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein) and a redacted government official (likely a federal prosecutor). Cassell invokes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to request that Epstein be detained for the safety of the victims and to oppose any 'private jail' arrangement for Epstein's release. The recipient confirms they will convey these concerns to the Court.
EFTA00025398.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 2020 between the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). OPR is seeking to interview 32 individuals regarding their historical contacts (2005-2008) with the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and FBI Miami concerning the Epstein case. SDNY agrees to the interviews but requests that OPR avoid discussing the substance of the underlying criminal scheme or interactions with Epstein to avoid interfering with SDNY's active investigation, noting that any relevant statements must be handled as '3500 material' (Jencks Act). The correspondence lists the legal representation for the 32 individuals, noting the majority are represented by Brad Edwards.
EFTA00024248.pdf
This document is an email dated October 28, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) to attorneys Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson. The email serves to transmit a redacted version of a defense memorandum regarding a Federal Rule of Evidence 412 motion filed under seal. It discusses upcoming deadlines, including a November 1 response date and pretrial conference, and a tentative in-camera hearing on November 5.
| 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 |
Response to Proposed Facts
Response to proposed facts and request for NPA and interview report.
Proposed Undisputed Facts
Government's proposed set of stipulated facts.
Notification of Identified Victim (S.R.)
Notifying attorney that client S.R. is an identified victim under the non-prosecution agreement terms.
Victim Notification
Referenced letter regarding notification to Jane Doe #1.
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
Informing counsel that client is identified as a victim for NPA purposes
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