Epstein Secrets

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

d Epstein held accountable the same way anyone else would be. I spoke about this with one of my friends around May 2008. I then called an attorney, Brad Edwards, around June 2008, understanding that he was hired to get the prosecutors to talk to us and hear the truth from me. That was especially important t

y other young teenagers to Epstein for the purpose of getting paid by Epstein. I wanted to assist the prosecutors in the investigation. I hired Mr. Edwards to let them know that I was cooperative and ready to tell them all of the helpful information I had. I understood that Mr. Edwards did that. I aut

ecutor disclosed the existence of the agreement, attorney Edwards could have taken steps to challenge the consummat

was relieved of its CVRA obligations. Of course, an agency's own "'interpretation' of the statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Whatever the Attorney General may have said in his Guideline, the ultimate issue in this case remains what the

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

stitutional principle of separation of powers. Attorneys and Law Firms *1198 Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

her. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to conceal the existence of the NPA from all the victims for months to come. In mid- June *1233 of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and

for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and, later, Jane Doe 2. AUSA Villafana and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed against Epstein in the future. Edwards was led to believe that federal charges could stil

on, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486, 2497, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (holding that an agency's "interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede

istrict of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CTY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, Edwards Pottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

ted. During that meeting, however, the federal prosecutors and FBI agents still did not disclose the Agreement to Wild. Then, in mid-June of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Wild and several of Epstein's other victims, discussed with AUSA Villafafia the possibility of federal charges being filed agains

18 months' imprisonment in the county jail. Having still not been informed of the resolution of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office communicating the victims' wishes that federal charges be filed against Epstein. II. PROCEDURAL HISTOR

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

eading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text ...."); cf. also Mohasco Corp. v. Silver. 447 U.S. 807, 826, 100 S.Ct. 2486.65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (rejecting interpretation that would "giv[e] the word 'filed' two different mean

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00040769 Cas

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00794152 Cas

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00081363 Cas

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00083596 Cas

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at ¶ 100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00098444 Cas

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at 11100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00027696 ---

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone : (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G.

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and