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

rnment deny that it sent "victim" notification letters to Jane Doe 2, both before it negotiated the NPA and after. See, e.g., DE 407 at 12,11 93-95 (Gov't Resp. to Victims' Statement of Undisputed Facts) (conceding a victim notification letter was sent to Jane Doe 2 in Jan. 2008). As the Court is well awar

cts were needed. On August 14, 2008, a hearing was held, during which a stipulated set of facts was discussed: THE COURT: So if I can hear from Mr. Edwards or Mr. Cassell first what the Plaintiffs' position [is] as far as where we stand on the record in terms of whether I need additional facts, evidenc

eed additional facts, evidence, or there's going to be a stipulation submitted to me upon which I can rely. MR. EDWARDS: Sure. Your Honor, this is Brad Edwards. I believe that you do have a sufficient record, in that I don't think that -- I think that we're in agreement that additional evidence does not ne

EFTA00208033 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05)02'2011 Page 11 of 12 DATED: May 2. 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jan

ed by evidence in the record." The Government has briefly recounted a few facts in opposition to a small sliver of the victims' proposed facts. See Gov't Resp. to Victims' Motion to Have Facts Accepted at 11-13. But none of these facts are supported by any evidence at all. The Government should have at le

uld choose the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be

an appropriate briefing schedule and hold a hearing on the appropriate remedy for those violations. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, 27 EFTA00178083 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 28 of 29

eed additional facts, evidence, or there's going to be a stipulation submitted to me upon which I can rely. MR. EDWARDS: Sure. Your Honor, this is Brad Edwards. I believe that you do have a sufficient record, in that I don't think that -- I think that we're in agreement that additional evidence does not ne

against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

ce while we conduct a thorough investigation." The referenced letter made no disclosure about the NPA. Id. at 33, 1 99. In mid-June 2008, attorney Brad Edwards contacted the line prosecutor handling the case to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I. On June 27, 2008, Brad Edwards further informed the l

rm her that he represented Jane Doe I. On June 27, 2008, Brad Edwards further informed the line prosecutor that that he also represented Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet with the prosecutor to provide information about Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein, consiste

As an exhibit to their response to the Government's summary judgment motion, the victims have filed a detailed affidavit from the victims' attorney, Bradley J. Edwards, about the nature of the calls that he had with the line prosecutor. See Edwards Aff. of Aug. II, 2017, at IN 11.25. If the Government fails to disp

ims' S.J. Mot."), DE 361 at 7-47 (listing 157 proposed undisputed facts). The Government has responded by contesting some facts, but not others. See Gov't Resp. to 2 EFTA00597319 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 417 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 3 of 33 Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Mater

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

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

appropriate equitable remedy."). And the CVRA is obviously "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its remedial purposes. Edwards. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008). A good illustration of the broad power of district courts to remedy CVRA violation

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, UT \Ill A Tile UTOTAO 0. T M.TDIN A XT Tip T and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Ja

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

October 10. 2011 25 EFTA00205752 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 26 of 27 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.

26 of 27 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, ED

2). Epstein's lawyers, To be sure, as the Government points out, effective defense counsel should always explore plea bargaining opportunities. See Gov't Resp. at 7 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.C.t 1473, 1485 (2010)). But this is a far cry from proving there is a "right" to plea bargaining or that p

ings in this matter, except for the portions that the victims have agreed should remain under seal. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 'ICAtT 1. A • ^I and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice ir% T el •

e agreed should remain under seal. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 'ICAtT 1. A • ^I and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice ir% T el • !I If Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 8

arding the correspondence, consistent with an earlier order of the magistrate judge. In response, the Government "takes no position" on the motion. Gov't Resp. at 1. Accordingly, this part of the victims' motion should be granted. II. NONE OF THE MATERIALS IN THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE BARRED FROM DISCLOSUR

uld choose the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be ex

an appropriate briefing schedule and hold a hearing on the appropriate remedy for those violations. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, 5/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER. JAFFE. WLETSSINrk 17 EFTA00208010 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 28 of 2

gainst Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

order to that effect was attached with the victims' original motion, which the Court should enter. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jan

ion, which the Court should enter. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 conversations with the Government, it has bee

ernment also cites several cases in which district courts have declined to turn over to crime victims their own confidential pre-sentencing reports. Gov't Resp. at 3-4. These cases about judicial obligations say nothing about prosecutorial obligations under the CVRA "best efforts" provision. It is unsurpri