Epstein Secrets

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 I UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar

United States 10 Attorney. And we have seated in the front row FBI 11 Special Agent Becker Kendall and Jason 12 Thank you, Your Honor. 13 MR. EDWARDS: Good morning, Your Honor. Brad 14 Edwards on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 the victim's reply, which was fil

fense was confirmed when she was interviewed by 'Attorney Edwards filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doc," without

nd JANE DOE No. 2 I UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I

reement; and IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of' the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, pr

Rothstein crimes, is now demanding over $2 million in legal fees. As a lawsuit brought by some of the investors' claims, Rothstein and his partner Edwards used Jeffrey Epstein as bait. The litigation strategy, media pronouncements, and investigatory initiatives of Rothstein and Edwards were calculated

spiracy created and run by Scott Rothstein has been exposed. On Monday, Mr. Epstein filed a state civil RICO lawsuit charging Rothstein, his partner Brad Edwards, and others with tortuous and fraudulent abuses of process that resulted in serious injury to Mr. Epstein. A copy of the Complaint is enclosed with

t to seek that particular sentence does not change the fact that the sentence was available to the State and rejected in its discretion. Therefore, Petite's presumption that the State of Florida's prior prosecution of Mr. Epstein has vindicated the federal interest cannot be said to have been overcome

secution Agreement stated: "after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the following procedure [contained in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement)." See e.g., September 17, 2007 email from M. Vill

cedures. I don't remember saying anything different in this case. I did not see any FBI letters in this case prior to collecting the FBI letters to Brad Edwards' clients in connection with the Jane Doe I United States litigation. I did not instruct the FBI to include the language about the case being under in

y Circuit Court (Exhibit B-41). I responded, acknowledging his representation (Exhibit B-42). On June 18, 2008, I liv received a call from attorney Brad ards, who told me that he represented Individual #43, who is also Jane Doe #1 in the Jane Doe United States lawsuit. Mr. Edwards expressed an interest

a call from attorney Brad ards, who told me that he represented Individual #43, who is also Jane Doe #1 in the Jane Doe United States lawsuit. Mr. Edwards expressed an interest in assisting with the case. We were still waiting to hear about whether we would be moving " On the State side, Lefkowitz has

e was insufficient evidence to charge him with any offense; (b) there was no basis for federal prosecution and that federal prosecution violated the Petite policy; (c) I had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the investigation and resolution of the matter; (d) Jeff Sloman had engaged in prosecu

United States litigation, asserting that his clients wanted to 4 1 few days after Jeffrey Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court, attorney Brad Edwards filed suit on behalf of one of the victims identified in the federal investigation (later expanded to include I second victim who had been identifie

ng aside the NPA would not benefit his clients, and he sued Epstein on behalf of I number of victims under the NPA. I did what I could to assist Mr. Edwards, other attorneys, including Mr. Josefsberg, the attorney selected by the Special Master, and the Court, to locate victims, provide signed copies of

e was insufficient evidence to charge him with any offense; (b) there was no basis for federal prosecution and that federal prosecution violated the Petite policy; (c) I had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the investigation and resolution of the matter; (d) Jeff had engaged inprosecutorial