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

scheme for enforcement of congressionally-created rights, the courts must give "appropriate judicial deference toward the will of Congress . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Congress is "in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest

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

tions. Federal courts have had broad authority to fashion equitable remedies after petitioners have proven a violation of statutory provisions. It Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004); Nichols v. Ho per 173 F.3d 820, 824 (11th Cir. 1999); C e Ala. Hosp Ass'n v Beasley, 702 £2d 955, 962 (1 I

is raising, the Court must "take the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs." Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11ih Cir. 2010). In the current posture of this case, the victims have pending a motion for "summary judgment"

ity to review this case. CONCLUSION The Court should deny the Government's motion to dismiss. DATED: December 5, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Te

:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 6 of 25 historically had broad authority to fashion equitable remedies . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). The Eleventh Circuit has expressly required district courts to fashion appropriate equitable remedies when p