Bradley J. Edwards
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
23
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
person
Jane Doe
|
Client |
17
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
L.M.
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Alan M. Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
E.W.
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jessica Cadwell
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Jacquie Johnson
|
Business associate |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL G. CASSELL
|
Co authors |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jessica Cadwell
|
Business associate |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
6 | |
|
person
Tony Figueroa
|
Deponent examiner |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Henderson
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Nathanael J. Mitchell
|
Co authors |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jacquie Johnson
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
|
Employee |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Does
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
E.W., L.M., Jane Doe
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Witness evidence source |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul G. Cassell
|
Co plaintiffs |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Epstein voluntarily dismissed all claims brought by him against Bradley J. Edwards. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Civil action against Epstein represented by Edwards. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bradley J. Edwards provided notice of intent to depose Donald Trump. | Legal proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Publication of legal article regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act. | Northwestern University Sch... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of Fourth Amended Counterclaim | Palm Beach County Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein filed a Second Amended Complaint against Bradley Edwards. | Palm Beach County, Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Motion for Summary Judgment | Court (likely Florida) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Publication of legal article regarding Crime Victims' Rights Act | Journal of Criminal Law & C... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual assault cases against Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Edwards on the eve of a summary judgment hearing. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of a motion for joinder in the CVRA action on behalf of Jane Doe 3 and 4. | Unknown | View |
| 2022-06-26 | N/A | Filing of Document 681-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | US Court System | View |
| 2020-11-02 | N/A | Stipulation signed by attorneys for both parties | N/A | View |
| 2020-02-11 | N/A | Case management conference | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-01-28 | N/A | Filing of Joint Stipulation and Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-12-27 | N/A | Filing of Proposed Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Bradley J. Edwards. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-12-09 | N/A | Filing of this letter notifying the court of Plaintiff's intent to stand on the current complaint. | Court | View |
| 2019-12-09 | N/A | Plaintiff notified Court she would not file amended pleading | New York | View |
| 2019-10-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 24 in case 1:19-cv-07625 | New York, NY | View |
| 2017-06-09 | N/A | Supreme Court of Florida order denying discretionary review in Epstein v. Edwards. | Florida Supreme Court | View |
| 2017-05-30 | N/A | Deadline for Respondent to serve a reply | Supreme Court of Florida | View |
| 2017-03-20 | N/A | Filing of Defendant's Sur-Reply to Supplemental Reply | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2017-03-16 | N/A | Original scheduled date for hearing on Edwards Subpoena | New York, NY | View |
| 2016-12-22 | N/A | Order transferring Motion to Quash Subpoena to Southern District of New York (Giuffre v. Maxwell) | Southern District of Florid... | View |
| 2016-07-07 | N/A | Filing of Motion to Seal Bradley J. Edwards' Motion to Quash Subpoena. | Southern District of Florida | View |
014.pdf
This document is a Court Order and Joint Stipulation filed on January 28, 2020, in the Southern District of New York regarding the case of Anastasia Doe v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The order, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, establishes strict protocols to maintain the plaintiff's anonymity, including requirements for sealing documents and executing non-disclosure agreements for any parties privy to her identity. It also documents the agreement between the Plaintiff's counsel (Bradley J. Edwards) and the Defendants (Executors Indyke and Kahn) to adhere to these anonymity protections.
003.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on December 27, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. Attorney Bradley J. Edwards seeks permission to represent Plaintiff Anastasia Doe in her lawsuit against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahan, the co-executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. Edwards attests to his good standing with the Florida and New York bars and lack of disciplinary history.
003-02.pdf
This document is a proposed Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on December 27, 2019, in the Southern District of New York case of Anastasia Doe vs. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants attorney Bradley J. Edwards of Edwards Pottinger LLC permission to represent the plaintiff, Anastasia Doe, in this action.
002.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet (Form JS 44) filed on December 27, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, using the pseudonym Anastasia Doe, is suing Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. The nature of the suit is listed as 'Other Personal Injury' and jurisdiction is based on diversity.
045.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff lists 23 specific interrogatories regarding Epstein's finances, properties, travel, and alleged sexual abuse of minors, all of which Epstein refused to answer by invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The motion argues that Epstein's blanket refusals are improper and requests the court force him to answer or provide a privilege log.
044.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, requesting the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein had previously asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse answering questions regarding his net worth (alleged to be over $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of foreign property, and specific allegations of sexual assault, battery, and sex trafficking of minors. The plaintiff argues that the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as a blanket refusal in a civil case and demands Epstein answer or provide specific justification for his silence.
043.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The motion argues that Epstein has improperly asserted blanket Fifth Amendment privileges in response to sixteen specific requests for production of documents, including telephone records, appointment books, financial records, and correspondence. The Plaintiff requests the Court to order Epstein to answer the requests, provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocations, and produce a privilege log.
040.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe (represented by Bradley Edwards). The motion requests the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer a set of interrogatories regarding his financial assets, net worth, foreign travel, property ownership, and alleged interactions with the plaintiff and other minor females. Epstein refused to answer nearly all questions (except for providing the name/address of the person answering), invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
039.pdf
This legal filing is a Motion to Compel submitted by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission regarding his net worth, asset transfers, and allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of minors, which he had previously refused to answer by asserting Fifth Amendment privileges. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket assertion of the privilege is improper and that he must provide a particularized justification for each refusal or face an adverse inference.
061.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The motion seeks to force Epstein to answer 23 specific Requests for Admission regarding his net worth (specifically if it exceeds $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of Caribbean property, and specific allegations of sexual battery, assault, and sex trafficking of minors. Epstein had previously refused to answer these questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
060.pdf
This is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The motion seeks a court order requiring Epstein to answer 16 specific requests for production of documents (including telephone records, photos, tax returns, and passport copies) or to provide a privilege log, as Epstein has refused to produce documents by asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's boilerplate objections are invalid, violate local rules requiring a privilege log, and that he must provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation for each request.
012.pdf
This document is an Emergency Motion filed on June 14, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team to quash a subpoena and prevent the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, scheduled for the following day. Epstein's lawyers argue that the subpoena issued by C.L.'s counsel (Spencer Kuvin) is premature under Rule 26(d) and that the cross-notice by Jane Doe's counsel (Brad Edwards) is invalid because discovery in the Jane Doe case had already concluded on May 31, 2010. The document includes the motion, a subpoena exhibit, and a cross-notice exhibit.
EFTA00027776.pdf
This document is a legal filing by Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and 2 in May 2019, arguing for specific procedures to determine a remedy after the court ruled the Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The petitioners argue the Government should immediately announce its proposed remedy, specifically the rescission of the NPA's immunity clauses, and request limited discovery including depositions of key figures like former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz regarding a secret 2007 'breakfast meeting.' The filing includes correspondence between victims' counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office, highlighting the Government's delay tactics and the recent recusal of the Southern District of Florida office.
EFTA00022960.pdf
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team objecting to the unsealing of specific docket entries (143, 173, 199, 164, and 230) in the civil case brought by Virginia Giuffre. The defense argues that these documents contain sensitive information regarding non-parties ('Does'), inadmissible hearsay, and prejudicial materials such as flight logs and police reports that were improperly filed to bias the court. The filing emphasizes the need to protect the privacy of non-parties and the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct.
EFTA00022546.pdf
This document is a Reply Brief filed by victims Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's intervention brief regarding remedies for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The victims argue for the partial rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed in 2007, specifically the immunity provisions, on the grounds that the agreement was illegally concealed from victims in violation of the CVRA. The brief refutes Epstein's arguments regarding due process, contract law, estoppel, and separation of powers, asserting that the NPA is unenforceable due to its illegal formation and the government's failure to confer with victims.
EFTA00020703.pdf
This document is a Notice of Filing containing a transcript of a telephone interview conducted by attorneys Bradley Edwards and Jack Scarola with a former employee/victim of Jeffrey Epstein. The witness details Epstein flying in 12-year-old girls from France for his birthday, his claims that powerful people 'owed him,' and an attempt by Epstein and his lawyers to silence her in 2007 with offers to be 'looked after.' The witness also describes a 'sick proposition' where Epstein offered to pay her to bear a child that he and Ghislaine Maxwell would raise, before she eventually escaped his control by marrying a man she met in Thailand in 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00021434.jpg
This legal document details conflicting accounts regarding the notification of victims for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008, state plea hearing. It focuses on communications between prosecutor Villafaña, investigator Reiter, and victim's attorney Edwards, particularly concerning a list of victims that was created and subsequently destroyed. The document highlights discrepancies in recollections from various depositions and declarations about what information was shared and with whom, forming a key part of the CVRA litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00010743.jpg
This is the final signature page (page 7 of 7) of a court document filed on June 26, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists attorneys Bradley J. Edwards and Brittany N. Henderson of the law firm Edwards Pottinger, LLC as the submitters, including their contact information in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031792.jpg
This document is an email chain from August 2009 regarding the 'Jane Doe' case, involving the law firm Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman. The correspondence discusses scheduling conflicts between a proposed hearing on August 20th and a pre-existing deposition. Additionally, a paralegal is seeking contact information for a 'Dr. Rishard' and the 'Office of Palm Beach Doctors' mentioned by a person identified as 'LM', noting that they have been unable to locate either entity.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012021.jpg
This document is an email dated September 18, 2009, from legal assistant Jacquie Johnson (working for Bradley Edwards at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler) to Tama Kudman. The email serves to confirm the scheduling of a deposition for 'Mr. Bruhnel' (likely Jean-Luc Brunel) regarding the Epstein case, set for November 3rd at 10:00 a.m. The document is marked as 'Exhibit L' and contains a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017604.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2014 legal article published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, co-authored by Bradley J. Edwards (a key attorney for Epstein victims). The article argues that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply during criminal investigations before charges are filed, explicitly referencing a 'notorious federal sex abuse case' (the Epstein case) where victims were deprived of rights due to the DOJ's narrow interpretation. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp and the name David Schoen, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017490.jpg
Cover page for the deposition of Scott Rothstein taken via video conference on June 14, 2012. The deposition is part of a civil lawsuit (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG) filed by Jeffrey Epstein against Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The document bears a House Oversight stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017489.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing titled 'Notice of Filing Transcript In Supplemental Support of Bradley Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment' in the case of Edwards adv. Epstein (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). It contains a 'Counsel List' providing the contact information (firm name, address, phone, and fax) for five attorneys: Bradley J. Edwards, Jack A. Goldberger, Marc S. Nurik, Tonja Haddad Coleman, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. The document is Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017489.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-06-13 | Paid | Bradley J. Edwards | Court | $46.00 | Filing fee for Petition/Motion (Complaint) RE: ... | View |
| 2016-05-27 | Received | EST | Bradley J. Edwards | $45.00 | Check #31834, Memo: Menninger. Likely a witness... | View |
Epstein Case
Epstein alleges Edwards had contacts with media to publicize cases.
Responses to solicitation
Responses received by Edwards from the solicitation letters.
No Subject
Email address listed as Brad@pathtojustice.com
Request for evidence/information
Request for collected info regarding sexual abuse of clients. Request was declined.
No Subject
Email address listed as Brad@pathtojustice.com
Solicitation for assistance
Form solicitation letters requesting assistance as a witness in the case, allegedly attempting to 'guilt' witnesses.
Witness solicitation / Investigation
Maxwell alleges these are 'witness solicitation letters' containing a 'skewed version of allegations'. Edwards argues they are protected work product.
Case Status Update and Discovery Schedule
Letter informing the court that plaintiffs do not wish to stay their cases despite the Compensation Program and outlining an agreed discovery schedule.
VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN)
Request for extension of time to file Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss until December 18, 2019.
VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN)
Request for extension of time to file Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Re: VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN)
Notification that Plaintiff VE does not intend to file an amended pleading and will defend her current First Amended Complaint against the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN)
Opposition to Defendants' request for extension of time to respond to complaint.
VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN)
Notice of supplemental authority bringing a decision by Judge Castel in a related Epstein case to the court's attention regarding proceeding anonymously.
Subpoena to Produce Documents
Legal command to produce documents related to Virginia Giuffre, previous litigation, and media communications.
Service of court documents
Service of foregoing document
Stipulation of Dismissal
Filing of stipulation of dismissal with prejudice via CM/ECF.
Motion for Limited Appearance
Request to admit Paul G. Cassell as co-counsel
Certificate of Service
Service of motion via US Mail or other authorized manner
Notice of Striking Certificate of Service
Filing of document striking previous certificates DE 5 and DE 6
Service of Process
Edwards advised Knight that Plaintiff M.J. had service on Mr. Epstein at his building in New York.
Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for Modification of Order
Request to modify settlement conference rules to prevent contact between Doe and Epstein.
Plaintiff Jane Doe's Protective Response
Filing of protective response and service to parties via CM/ECF
Deposition Testimony
Edwards testified regarding his lack of knowledge of the scheme and lack of discussion regarding Epstein cases with Rothstein.
Certificate of Service (L.M. case)
Service of documents via US Mail and Facsimile
Jane Doe
Requesting a HIPAA release signature from Jane Doe to obtain records from the Milton Center (DJJ facility). Also asking for a one-week extension on responses to 'Net Wirth ROGS'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity