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

ly if they lost their CVRA case. Judicial estoppel applies when an inconsistent position is "calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006). But it "is difficult to impute an intent `to make a mockery of the judicial sy

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.

e complaining party was aware of the inconsistency in sufficient time and in a position to properly raise an objection in the original proceeding." Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, Epstein and the Government was well aware of both this CVRA action and th

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 Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only

e complaining party was aware of the inconsistency in sufficient time and in a position to properly raise an objection in the original proceeding." Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, Epstein and the Government was well aware of both this CVRA action and th