Jack Scarola
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
[Redacted Plaintiff]
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Professional counsel for |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial defendant vs counsel for victims |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Edwards
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Thomas E. Scott
|
Opposing counsel co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
No prior communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brad
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
James E. Hill
|
Professional press |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert C. Josefsberg
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witnesses who testified
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Questioning of Attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman by the defense. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Upcoming trial in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. | Palm Beach County Circuit C... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Malicious prosecution suit against Epstein likely to go to trial. | Palm Beach County Circuit C... | View |
| N/A | Legal request and opposition | The defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, made a request to call Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert G... | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Representation/bringing to government | Jack Scarola represented Carolyn and brought her to the government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Jack Scarola talked to other witnesses. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The witness, Carolyn, filed a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The witness filed a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-04 | N/A | Case in state court pitting Bradley Edwards against Epstein | Palm Beach County | View |
| 2021-05-03 | N/A | Issuance and distribution of an Order regarding the trial date in United States v. Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-01-26 | N/A | Conference between Jack Scarola and the witness regarding testimony. | Florida (presumed) | View |
| 2021-01-21 | N/A | Approximate date of AUSA's trip to Florida to meet Jack Scarola (referenced as 'last week' in Jan... | Florida | View |
| 2020-07-17 | N/A | Scheduled WebEx interview/meeting with the witness at Jack Scarola's office. | Jack Scarola's Office | View |
| 2020-07-17 | N/A | Video interview/meeting with witness, Jack Scarola, Mike, and FBI/Prosecutors via WebEx. | Jack Scarola's Office (Conf... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal action | Carolyn, through her lawyer, responds and gets in touch with the government, right after the vict... | N/A | View |
| 2019-08-07 | N/A | Jack Scarola informs SDNY prosecutors about a victim willing to testify regarding molestation and... | Email correspondence | View |
| 2019-03-05 | N/A | Miami federal prosecutors sent a letter recusing themselves from the case. | Miami | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal action | Carolyn's lawyer, Jack Scarola, contacted the government. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place between attorneys for accusing witnesses and SDNY prosecutors concerning or r... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2016-08-01 | N/A | Scarola put Trump on the witness list. | Palm Beach | View |
| 2016-07-07 | N/A | Filing of Motion to File an Over Length Reply by Bradley J. Edwards. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2016-07-07 | N/A | Filing of Motion to Seal Bradley J. Edwards' Motion to Quash Subpoena. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2016-04-08 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Withdrawal in Edwards & Cassell v. Dershowitz. | Broward County, Florida | View |
| 2016-02-03 | N/A | Electronic filing and service of legal documents through the Clerk of Broward County | Broward County, Florida | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place where certain attorneys for accusing witnesses met with SDNY prosecutors to a... | Southern District of New York | View |
EFTA00010240.pdf
Email exchange between attorney Jack Scarola and an Assistant US Attorney regarding a motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense. The defense is seeking to subpoena information from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund regarding a specific (redacted) individual. The AUSA states their intention to file a motion to quash this subpoena to protect the victim's information.
DOJ-OGR-00030279.tif
This document is a page from a court filing, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, dated September 17, 2009, listing multiple attorneys and their respective law firms, contact information, and the specific related cases they represent plaintiffs in. It details legal counsel for various plaintiffs, including 'Jane Doe' and 'C.M.A.', across several related case numbers, providing contact details for each attorney and their firm.
DOJ-OGR-00008383.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 15, 2021, regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government is requesting permission to redact portions of the defendant's motion seeking testimony from Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman to protect the privacy of a Minor Victim.
DOJ-OGR-00008381.jpg
This legal document presents an argument to the Court to preclude the testimony of Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman. The core argument is that Glassman's settlement negotiations with an entity called EVCP cannot be used to impeach a witness named Jane, because she testified she was unaware of these negotiations. Allowing this testimony would be improper impeachment and more prejudicial than probative.
DOJ-OGR-00008376.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Document 545) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 15, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to call three attorneys for victims (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) as witnesses, stating such testimony would be irrelevant, duplicative, or improper impeachment. Specifically regarding Jack Scarola, the document notes he represented victim 'Carolyn' in a 2008 lawsuit and before the Epstein Victims Compensation Program, facts which Carolyn already admitted during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008374.jpg
This legal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 14, 2021, opposes defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request to call three attorneys for victims (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) to testify. The Government argues that their testimony about privileged client conversations or discussions with the Government would be irrelevant and an improper attempt to circumvent privilege, as the victims themselves have already testified.
DOJ-OGR-00008365.jpg
This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the Court should permit the testimony of three witnesses—Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman—to establish motive and bias of Maxwell's accusers, after the government refused to stipulate. The document details the proposed testimony of attorney Jack Scarola, including his prior representation of an accuser named 'Carolyn' in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and his communications with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00008364.jpg
A letter dated December 13, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter informs the court of the defense's intention to question attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman and argues that these questions do not violate attorney-client privilege. The document cites legal precedents regarding the burden of proof for privilege claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020704.jpg
This document is a court docket report from the Southern District of New York for the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering proceedings between December 11 and December 15, 2021. It details various filings including letters regarding witness orders, privilege stipulations, and expert testimony, as well as a significant Memorandum Opinion denying a defense motion to allow witnesses to testify anonymously. The document lists the legal teams for both the prosecution (USA) and the defense, along with Judge Alison J. Nathan's rulings during this trial period.
DOJ-OGR-00020459.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from December 12 to December 16, 2021. It details various legal filings including letters regarding witness lists, privilege stipulations, and expert testimony, as well as orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan denying defense motions for witness anonymity and setting deadlines for responses regarding witnesses Dr. Loftus and Alexander Hamilton. The document also references the placement of sealed documents in a vault.
DOJ-OGR-00018777.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning covers Carolyn's past, including a 2008 lawsuit she filed against Epstein and Sarah Kellen, her move from Florida to Georgia in 2003, and her legal representation by Jack Scarola for a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund.
DOJ-OGR-00015200.jpg
This is a court filing from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated October 28, 2009. Attorneys Jack Scarola and Jack P. Hill, representing an unnamed (redacted) Plaintiff, filed a notice confirming they served 'Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories' to the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document notes that the original interrogatories were propounded by Epstein on January 16, 2009. It is marked as Defendant's Exhibit C-9 in a later criminal case (20 Cr. 330).
DOJ-OGR-00015196.jpg
This legal document is a 'Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories' filed in the Southern District of Florida on February 18, 2009. It certifies that the Plaintiff (whose name is redacted) has provided answers to questions (interrogatories) previously asked by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein on January 16, 2009. The document lists Sarah Kellen as a co-defendant and was prepared by attorney Jack Scarola of the firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. The document was later used as Defendant's Exhibit C-8 in the criminal trial S2 20 Cr. 330 (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00017143.jpg
This document is a summation from a legal case, discussing inconsistencies and issues related to witness testimony and evidence. It questions the government's ability to corroborate stories, highlights missing diary entries from Annie Farmer, and details the interactions between various lawyers (Boies Schiller firm, Brad Edwards, Jack Scarola) and witnesses (Ms. Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Jane, Kate, Carolyn), suggesting potential 'contamination of memory' due to their communications with each other, family, and media. The document concludes by mentioning Annie Farmer's statement to the FBI regarding her story and a 'money piece' not being sexualized.
DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge is ruling on a defense request to call victims' attorneys (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) as witnesses during the defense's case-in-chief to establish bias or motive. Specifically, the text highlights an issue regarding whether Mr. Glassman told a victim named 'Jane' that cooperating with the prosecution would 'help her case,' while noting the complexities of attorney-client privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00013192.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning establishes that Carolyn filed a lawsuit against Epstein and Sarah Kellen in 2008 and was represented by lawyer Jack Scarola in a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The transcript also mentions that Carolyn moved from Florida to Georgia in 2003 after being told by someone named Sarah that Epstein wanted to take her photograph.
DOJ-OGR-00002725.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a request for the production of documents related to defense motions in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It seeks all communications concerning the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, including those between various government agencies and Epstein's lawyers. The request also demands communications from meetings in 2016 and 2018 where attorneys for Epstein's victims urged the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to launch a criminal investigation into both Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00014530.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Menninger, arguing that a witness named Carolyn's testimony is financially motivated. Menninger claims Carolyn, after receiving a settlement from Mr. Epstein and remaining silent for 12 years, only came forward through her lawyer in 2019 after Epstein's death and the opening of a victims' compensation fund, suggesting her cooperation is tied to a potential claim.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031428.jpg
This document is an email chain forwarding a Miami Herald article titled "Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office recuses itself from Jeffrey Epstein case." The article reports that the Justice Department reassigned the Epstein victims' rights case to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta following the recusal of Miami federal prosecutors. It also references a video of Attorney General nominee William Barr pledging to review the handling of the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031407.jpg
This document is an email chain from March 5, 2019, between attorney Lilly Sanchez and 'J' (likely Jeffrey Epstein via the address jeevacation@gmail.com). The emails contain significant redactions under privilege, but the visible content is a forwarded Miami Herald article by Julie K. Brown. The article details the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office recusing itself from the Epstein case and the Department of Justice reassigning the victims' rights case to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031403.jpg
This document is an email chain dated March 5, 2019, between attorney Lilly Sanchez and a recipient identified as 'J' (jeevacation@gmail.com). The correspondence is marked 'Privileged' with significant redactions in the message bodies. The visible content consists of a pasted Miami Herald article by Julie K. Brown reporting that the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office recused itself from the Jeffrey Epstein case and reassigned it to Atlanta, following scrutiny involving Attorney General nominee William Barr.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022148.jpg
Pages 250-251 of the book 'Filthy Rich' (Chapter 65), marked as a House Oversight exhibit. The text juxtaposes a fictional 'Law & Order: SVU' plot—where a character named Jordan claims he was raped by a 12-year-old girl to avoid prosecution—with the real-life legal battles surrounding the Epstein case. Specifically, it details an October 15, 2015, deposition where Alan Dershowitz alleged a 'criminal extortion plot' involving Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell's clients during defamation litigation in Broward County, Florida.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012107.jpg
This document is a transcript of a teleconference from April 7, 2011, between attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards, and Virginia Roberts. Scarola establishes consent to record the call and identifies himself as Edwards' lawyer, stating the purpose is to gather information for a potential jury regarding the case 'Edwards adv. Epstein'. Virginia Roberts confirms her identity and maiden name, though her married surname is redacted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012103.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Filing' submitted to the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County on May 17, 2011, in the case of Jeffrey Epstein vs. Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards, and L.M. Attorney Jack Scarola, representing Bradley Edwards, filed a transcript of a telephone interview with Virginia Roberts to support a motion for punitive damages against Epstein. The document includes a certificate of service indicating it was mailed to opposing counsel.
Edwards adv. Epstein Interview
Discussion regarding Virginia's comfort level in naming names and her travel history with Jeffrey Epstein.
[EXTERNAL] Re: EXTERNAL Rule 17(c) subpoena
Discussing privacy concerns regarding files and disclosures made to the Fund under confidentiality assurances.
Re: EXTERNAL Rule 17(c) subpoena
Informing Jack about a motion filed by Maxwell's counsel to subpoena the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and stating intent to file a motion to quash.
Local Criminal Rule 23.1
Notification regarding a recent order from Judge Nathan concerning Local Criminal Rule 23.1, clarifying its application to attorneys associated with a case, such as attorneys for witnesses.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Notification regarding an attached order concerning the trial date for the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
RE Request for information
Sender provides a picture of a victim taken around the time of her abuse by Epstein. Mentions the victim recalls topless photos were taken which would be critical evidence.
Re: [Redacted]
Jack accepts the news and pledges support.
Funding Confirmation
Confirms SDNY can pay for the witness, husband, and three minor children to travel to NY and for a hotel suite.
RE: [Redacted]
AUSA thanks Jack and confirms they will work with FBI Victim Services to figure out funding logistics.
Follow up
Asking for an update, noting steps needed to expand the case to include the witness's testimony.
Re: [Redacted]
Confirms witness is willing to testify but requires her husband and children to travel with her. Requests government commitment for funding travel.
Re: [Redacted]
Jack confirms he is scheduled to conference with the witness tomorrow afternoon.
Checking in
AUSA checking if the witness has made a decision about testifying. Mentions a recent trip to Florida.
RE: [Redacted] - Discovery Responses
Attached please find the Discovery Responses filed on [Redacted] behalf in her civil matter against Epstein.
RE: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Discussing contact with Epstein Estate attorneys (Weinstein and Tomback) regarding the release of the transcript. Confirms limited details were shared about Scarola's client.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Jack confirms he is available right now.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Asking about protective orders in the civil suit that might govern disclosure.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Stating he is unaware of any protective order relating to the CMA case.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Jack states he is unaware of any protective order relating to the case.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Inquiry about whether a protective order exists in the civil suit that would govern disclosing materials.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Stating they will likely reach out to the adversary in the deposition to ask for a copy.
RE: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Acknowledging receipt of email; mentioning they will reach out to the adversary to ask for a copy of the deposition.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Asking if USANYS was able to locate the transcript.
Fwd: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Forwarding confirmation that the deposition transcript cannot be found. Attaching notes from paralegal Mike Danchuk instead.
Fwd: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Informing USANYS that the original deposition transcript and video are lost; attaching paralegal notes instead; commenting on the nature of the testimony regarding Epstein's victims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity