E.W.
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial victim |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Abuser recruiter |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged contact |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Alleged abuser victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Berger
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
William J. Berger
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney Edwards
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Perpetrator victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
Epstein's home
|
Visited |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Civil action against Epstein represented by Edwards. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual assault of three minor girls | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of state and federal court actions against Jeffrey Epstein. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein settled three cases handled by Edwards. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged sexual abuse of three clients (L.M., E.W., Jane Doe). | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of civil suits against Epstein | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein sexually abused three clients of Edwards (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe). | Unknown | View |
| 2013-10-01 | N/A | Bradley Edwards represented L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe in civil action against Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| 2010-07-06 | N/A | Epstein settled civil suits filed by L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe rather than face trial. | Unknown | View |
| 2010-05-06 | N/A | Deposition of E.W. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-09-11 | N/A | Brad Edwards files civil suit (E.W. v. Epstein). | Court | View |
| 2008-07-11 | N/A | Hearing on the CVRA action where victims learned the plea deal was finalized. | Court | View |
| 2008-07-07 | N/A | Edwards filed action in U.S. District Court seeking to enforce rights of E.W. and L.M. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2008-07-07 | N/A | Edwards filed an action in U.S. District Court alleging violation of the CVRA. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2008-06-13 | N/A | Attorney Edwards agreed to represent E.W. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-04-01 | N/A | Bradley J. Edwards agrees to serve as legal counsel for L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. | Florida | View |
| 2008-01-10 | N/A | Victims received letters suggesting ongoing investigation and promising future contact. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Victims express concern regarding secret plea bargain negotiations by FBI/US Attorney. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Bradley J. Edwards agrees to represent L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. | Florida | View |
029.pdf
A Notice of Hearing filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County regarding the case State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008-CF9381 AXX). The hearing, scheduled for May 29, 2009, before Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath, concerns a motion by a redacted non-party (represented by Bradley J. Edwards for client 'E.W.') to vacate an order sealing records and to unseal said records. The file path in the footer references 'Wild v. Epstein', suggesting the redacted party may be named Wild.
027.pdf
A court order from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, setting a hearing for May 29, 2009. The hearing concerns a motion by a redacted nonparty to vacate an order sealing records and to unseal records in the case of State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein. Copies were sent to the Assistant State Attorney, Epstein's lawyer Jack Goldberger, and William J. Berger, attorney for an individual identified as E.W.
020.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on June 16, 2010, in the case of L.M. v. Epstein. Epstein's lawyers argue the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to serve the complaint within the required 120 days (Rule 4(m)). Furthermore, the motion alleges that the complaint filed by L.M. (represented by Bradley Edwards) was used as a prop in Scott Rothstein's massive $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to lure investors with fabricated settlement agreements. The document cites depositions where L.M. contradicts allegations made in her complaint regarding sexual acts and travel.
069.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and employee of Jeffrey Epstein, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the civil case 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein'. Zinoviev claims he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began in November 2005, after the period of the alleged misconduct, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him.
016.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by third-party witness Igor Zinoviev, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Zinoviev, a driver and bodyguard for Epstein since November 2005, claims he has no relevant information regarding Epstein's criminal or civil cases, particularly concerning events prior to September 2005. The motion cites legal precedents regarding the scope of discovery and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) to argue against the deposition.
055.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and Jeffrey Epstein's driver/bodyguard since November 2005. Zinoviev seeks to prevent or limit his deposition, arguing he has no knowledge relevant to the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began after the alleged events, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him. The motion cites legal precedents on the scope of discovery and includes a list of attorneys involved in various related cases.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010604.jpg
This document is page 39 of a House Oversight report detailing a deposition where Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The questions Epstein refused to answer concern his personal relationship with Bill Clinton, allegations of fabricated claims by attorney Mr. Edwards, the destruction of evidence in his garbage, sexual assaults on private planes, and the contents of his flight logs regarding celebrities and dignitaries.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010600.jpg
This document page details allegations that Jeffrey Epstein violated judicial no-contact orders by hiring a private investigator to harass and intimidate a witness ('Jane Doe') prior to a scheduled civil trial in July 2010. It describes a specific incident where an investigator stalked Jane Doe and flashed lights into her home, forcing her to be moved to a secure location by a retired police officer. It also notes that attorney Edwards filed civil cases on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe regarding sexual abuse of children.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010583.jpg
This page from a legal filing details the judicial orders prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein from contacting his victims following his 2008 guilty plea. It outlines specific no-contact orders issued by Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo and the federal court. Furthermore, it documents two civil lawsuits filed by attorney Brad Edwards against Epstein in August and September 2008 on behalf of victims 'Jane Doe' and 'E.W.,' alleging sexual assault and a RICO conspiracy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010581.jpg
This page from a House Oversight report details the timeline between June 27 and July 11, 2008, regarding the violation of victims' rights (CVRA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that AUSA Villafaña failed to inform victims' attorney Edwards that Epstein's state plea would preclude federal prosecution. Consequently, victims E.W. and L.M. only discovered the plea deal was finalized during a hearing on July 11, 2008, after Edwards had filed a federal action to enforce their rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010579.jpg
This document, page 14 of a legal filing produced by the House Oversight Committee, details the retention of attorney Bradley J. Edwards by victims L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe in April 2008. It outlines the victims' desire to pursue civil damages against Epstein and their specific concerns that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office were secretly negotiating a plea deal without consulting them, despite previous assurances. The text highlights the failure of federal authorities to notify the victims about the plea agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010578.jpg
This document page details the terms of a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, which included immunity for co-conspirators like Nadia Marcinkova. It also highlights that victims E.W. and L.M. were misled by the FBI regarding the status of the investigation after a plea deal had already been reached.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010567.jpg
This document outlines allegations that Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted over 40 young girls between 2002 and 2005 in West Palm Beach, citing deposition testimony from victims and Epstein himself invoking the Fifth Amendment. It details specific instances of abuse against minors identified as Jane Doe, L.M., and E.W., and notes that L.M. was paid to recruit other underage girls. The footer contains legal citations regarding the invocation of constitutional privileges in civil settings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013468.jpg
This document is an affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards detailing his representation of victims of Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Edwards outlines his interactions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña, alleging that the prosecution failed to inform him of a secret non-prosecution agreement and withheld evidence despite admitting to having proof of Epstein molesting at least 40 minors. The affidavit highlights the timeline of the plea deal and the subsequent revelation that federal prosecution would be blocked.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013398.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal motion in the case Edwards adv. Epstein. It details Epstein's allegations that attorney Brad Edwards conspired with Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein to 'pump' the value of sexual assault cases against Epstein for investors. The text highlights the irony that while Epstein claimed these cases had 'minimal value' and sued Edwards for aggressive litigation tactics, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding the abuse and ultimately settled the three cases for a confidential amount.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013397.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal motion titled 'Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages' in the case Edwards adv. Epstein. The text argues that Epstein's lawsuit against attorney Bradley J. Edwards was baseless, filed out of malice to intimidate Edwards and his clients (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe), and that Epstein has voluntarily dismissed his claims. It explicitly states that Epstein sexually abused these three clients and refutes allegations that Edwards was involved in a 'Ponzi Scheme' against Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013390.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that Edwards is entitled to summary judgment against Jeffrey Epstein. The argument relies on adverse inferences drawn from Epstein's invocation of the Fifth Amendment and his documented history of harassing and intimidating witnesses (who are also referred to as victims and potential accomplices). The document cites Florida case law to support the admissibility of witness tampering evidence as proof of consciousness of guilt.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389.jpg
This page from a legal document argues that a fact-finder should draw adverse inferences from Jeffrey Epstein's refusal to answer specific deposition questions. It lists several unanswered questions regarding sexual assault allegations, contact with minors (L.M., Jane Doe, E.W.), and claims of fabricated cases by Mr. Edwards, proposing that his silence implies admission of guilt.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013387.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013387) arguing for the dismissal of Epstein's claims against a party named Edwards. It lists specific unanswered discovery questions regarding physical contact with individuals identified as L.M., Jane Doe, and E.W., and cites Florida case law to argue that Epstein's refusal to answer these questions violates discovery rules and deprives Edwards of a fair defense.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013384.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely by attorney Brad Edwards) argues that discovery efforts targeting Jeffrey Epstein's friends were necessary and valid. It highlights that Epstein and his household staff—who helped recruit minor girls—pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about activities at the West Palm Beach mansion. The document asserts that evidence of other sexual abuse is admissible to prove modus operandi or motive.
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_013370.jpg
This document is the first page of a Renewed Motion for Final Summary Judgment filed by Bradley J. Edwards in a civil lawsuit brought by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County, Florida (Case No. 50 2009CA 040800...). Edwards argues that there is no evidence he participated in fraud against Epstein and asserts that his actions were legitimate legal representation of three clients (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe) whom Epstein sexually abused. The document is marked as Exhibit B and bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013364.jpg
This page of a legal affidavit, likely by attorney Brad Edwards, addresses allegations that his lawsuits against Epstein were used to fuel Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The author denies knowledge of the scheme and defends the strategy of deposing Epstein's high-profile friends. The document asserts that Epstein paid the legal fees for key associates including Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and pilots like Larry Visoski to ensure they refused to testify (pleading the Fifth) regarding daily sexual abuse of minors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013363.jpg
This document is an affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards detailing his representation of three victims (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe) against Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Edwards describes his interactions with AUSA Marie Villafaña, alleging that the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld critical information regarding a plea agreement that blocked federal prosecution, despite admitting they had evidence of Epstein molesting at least 40 minors. The affidavit outlines the timeline of the plea deal revelation in June and July 2008.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Mr. Epstein | E.W. | $200.00 | Payment for each other underage female brought ... | View |
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | E.W. | $0.00 | Reference to E.W.'s claim having 'substantial a... | View |
| 2017-10-01 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | E.W. | $2,000,000.00 | Settlement payment. | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity