Epstein Data Wiki

Brad Edwards

Properties2
tagsperson, lawyer, victims-counsel, florida, cvra, palm-beach
aliasesBradley J. Edwards, Bradley James Edwards, Brad Edwards

23 min read

PracticePlaintiffs’ trial lawyer, Fort Lauderdale, Florida1
FirmsRothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (to 2009); Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.; Edwards Pottinger LLC213
Role in the Epstein matterCounsel for accusers of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida civil suits and, with Paul G. Cassell, in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case14
Litigation as a partyEpstein v. Rothstein and Edwards, No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Cnty.); Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cnty.)56
BookRelentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell7

Bradley J. Edwards is an American plaintiffs’ trial lawyer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who from 2008 acted for women who accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing them as minors.28 With Paul G. Cassell he brought the Crime Victims’ Rights Act petition Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.), which argued that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida had violated 18 U.S.C. § 3771 by failing to confer with victims before signing the 2007 non-prosecution agreement; On February 21, 2019 Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted the petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment “to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated”, and denied the Government’s cross-motion; Law360 and The New York Times reported the ruling the same day.9 On September 16, 2019 Marra denied the remaining relief the petitioners had sought, including sanctions, restitution and fees, entered judgment and directed the clerk to close the case.10111213 Epstein sued Edwards in December 2009, alleging that he had taken part in the Ponzi scheme run by his then law partner Scott Rothstein; Epstein later dropped the suit, Edwards’s counterclaim for malicious prosecution was settled by an agreement dated November 29, 2018 annexing an apology in which Epstein said that the allegations he had made against Edwards were false, and the clerk’s minutes for December 4, 2018 record that Epstein’s counsel addressed the court that morning and an apology was announced.14151617 The order added that the court was “not ruling” that the decision not to prosecute was improper, only that on the facts of the case the victims’ rights under the Act had been violated.9

Practice and firms

Edwards appeared for plaintiffs identified as Jane Doe 3 through Jane Doe 7 in Jane Doe, et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), at a hearing before Judge Marra on June 12, 2009, then practicing at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale.2 After that firm collapsed he practiced at Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, the address and firm given for him in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act service list of January 24, 2012.1 His email address in court records of the period prints in the docket record and is not reproduced here.18 By 2019 he practiced as Edwards Pottinger LLC at the same Fort Lauderdale address, the firm by which Law360 identified him as counsel for the petitioners in February that year.313

Representation of Epstein’s accusers

The declaration of the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the Epstein investigation, filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case, records that in 2008 Edwards contacted the office on behalf of clients he represented and asked to meet to provide information about Epstein, and that the prosecutor invited him instead to send anything he wished the office to consider.8 The declaration records that the office gave Edwards notice of the state-court change of plea, and that it later provided victim notifications through him.8 It also records the office’s own conduct toward the victims as a group: that individual victims were not consulted about the agreement, that the notification letter drafted after it was signed was never sent, and that the office deferred the question of notice of the change of plea to the State Attorney’s Office.8 A stipulation later filed in the case, signed for the petitioners by Edwards, records the same course of dealing.4

The New York Post reported on October 12, 2009, in an item preserved in a JPMorgan Chase due-diligence report, that Edwards represented three of the “Jane Does” then suing Epstein and that Ghislaine Maxwell had been served with a subpoena on September 22 as she left a Clinton Global Initiative event at the Sheraton Hotel; the item quoted Edwards saying Maxwell would be questioned about her knowledge of how Epstein procured the girls.19

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act case

The Palm Beach Daily News reported that on Friday, August 12, 2011 Edwards and Cassell argued in federal court in West Palm Beach that the government had violated their two clients’ rights under the Act by failing to confer with them before signing the non-prosecution agreement, and that they sought to have the agreement nullified and the unredacted plea-deal correspondence unsealed.12 The paper reported that an Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge Marra that notification is triggered only by an indictment, that the judge questioned that reading, and that the judge gave the criminal defense lawyer Roy Black two weeks to explain why the letters should not be turned over, Black having argued that the correspondence was protected by attorney-client privilege.12 The Associated Press reported on June 4, 2014 that the two women had won an appeals court ruling entitling them to see the documents from the plea-bargain discussions.20

Certificates of service in the case list Edwards, at Farmer Jaffe in Fort Lauderdale, and Cassell, at the University of Utah, as counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2.1 The order of February 21, 2019 granted partial summary judgment “to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated”.9 Law360 reported the ruling the same day as a holding that prosecutors violated the Act by failing to tell the victims they intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute, and quoted it that “[w]hen the government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading.”13 Law360 quoted Edwards calling the decision a “clear victory and long-overdue vindication for all of the victims” and saying the primary remedy sought was invalidation of the agreement; the Department of Labor said the office’s actions had been defended by the Justice Department across three administrations, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida declined to comment.13

Epstein’s suit against Edwards, 2009–2018

Epstein sued Edwards and Scott Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County in December 2009, in an action captioned Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG; a third defendant is identified in the pleadings only by initials.145 An affidavit prepared for Epstein’s signature in support of his own motion for summary judgment states that he had filed the action in the good-faith belief that Edwards, Rothstein and other partners at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler had engaged in misconduct connected with the firm’s Ponzi scheme, and that the civil cases Edwards was then litigating against him were being used to defraud investors.14 Edwards counterclaimed for abuse of process and malicious prosecution; a notice of filing served in May 2011 by his counsel Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley attached a transcript in support of a motion for leave to assert punitive damages.5

The competing accounts were set out side by side in September 2016, when Darren Indyke sent Epstein the parties’ proposed statements of the case for the pre-trial stipulation.15 Edwards’s proposed statement said that after the Rothstein fraud was disclosed Epstein arranged for a suit alleging that Edwards was a knowing participant in it, that Epstein dropped all claims shortly before the court was to rule on Edwards’s challenge, and that Edwards then sued for malicious prosecution.15 Epstein’s proposed statement said he had learned from pleadings in suits against the firm that Edwards’s Epstein case files were shown to investors to persuade them of the value of fictitious settlements, that this supported a reasonable belief in his claims, and that he had dismissed his case without prejudice because of difficulty obtaining discovery, adverse discovery rulings and the ongoing federal investigation of the firm.15 Replying to Indyke the same evening, Epstein wrote: “I think we should start with not 20 girls but two charges”.15

A draft settlement proposal Edwards sent Epstein on September 21, 2015, expressly labeled a discussion draft and not an offer, recorded that the trial court had granted summary judgment in Epstein’s favor and that the Fourth District Court of Appeal was reviewing that ruling.21 The Palm Beach Post reported on July 6, 2017 that the appeals had been resolved by the Florida Supreme Court the previous month, that Circuit Judge Donald Hafele had set the malicious prosecution claim for jury trial; the article was forwarded to Epstein by his public relations advisers.22

The 2018 settlement and apology

In an exchange of emails on the morning of November 20, 2018, Edwards put terms to Epstein directly: seven million dollars, an end to personal litigation between them, a public apology, and confidentiality as to the amount; Epstein replied within the hour with a counter-proposal at the same figure.23 Edwards wrote the following day that a “major component to any resolution is the sincere public apology I understand you are willing to give.”24

The Settlement Agreement and Release exists in two executed versions a day apart, one entered into “as of this 28 day of November, 2018” and one “as of this 29 day of November, 2018”, and the apology annexed to each is worded differently; the later of the two is the operative instrument and is the one described here.1625 It recites that Edwards was the counter-plaintiff and Epstein the counter-defendant on a counterclaim pending before Judge Hafele, and that Epstein had sued Edwards making allegations that he was engaging in tortious conduct in his law practice.16 Epstein agreed to pay $7,000,000 by wire to the Searcy Denney trust account on January 7, 2019, the parties agreed the payment represented recovery of the cost of preserving Edwards’s professional reputation, and Epstein agreed that he or a representative would read a public apology in open court on Tuesday, December 4, 2018, and would not retract it in response to media requests.16 Epstein’s acknowledgment was completed and notarized by Lesley K. Groff, a notary public of the State of New York qualified in New York County; the instrument gives no employer and no other description of her.26 That notary is Epstein’s New York executive assistant Lesley Groff, who had written in March 2015, “I am a notary and so is Bebe”, and offered to type a form letter at the office and notarize it.27

The apology, Exhibit A to the operative agreement, has Epstein say that he filed a lawsuit against Edwards “in which I made allegations about him that the evidence conclusively proves were absolutely false”, that the suit was “my unreasonable attempt to damage his business reputation and cause Mr. Edwards to stop pursuing cases against me”, that it did not work because Edwards continued to act for his clients and held him responsible, and that he had been wrong: “I sincerely apologize for the false and hurtful allegations I made and hope some forgiveness for my acknowledgment of wrongdoing.” It does not say that Epstein knew the allegations to be false when he made them, and the same instrument provides that the parties do not intend to make and shall not be deemed to have made “any admission of liability of any kind whatsoever”.16

The clerk’s minutes of the jury trial record the court in session at 9:28 on the morning of December 4, 2018 before Judge Hafele, the settlement announced on Edwards’s behalf at 9:31, and at 9:34 “Atty Link addressed the court obo CDFT Epstein/apology announced”; the judge addressed the court at 9:37 and the court adjourned at 9:45, seventeen minutes after it convened.17 Scott Link is listed in those minutes among the attorneys for Epstein, so the apology was announced through counsel rather than by Epstein personally, which is what the agreement had allowed for.1716 A minute sheet is a clerk’s contemporaneous record of the events of a session and not a verbatim record of speech: it establishes that an apology was announced that morning, and it does not establish what words were spoken. Law360 reported that the trial had been expected to include testimony from Epstein’s accusers and that it was settled as jury selection was about to begin.13

Dealings with Epstein

Epstein wrote to a private correspondent on January 27, 2011 that “Brad edwards just produced a privlege lo[g] that only had bate stamp numbers and claimed a blanket privelege.”28 On July 28, 2011 Lesley Groff told Epstein she had spoken to an assistant in Edwards’s office to arrange a breakfast meeting between the two men the next morning at a restaurant of Edwards’s choosing in Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale.29

On August 2, 2011 Groff passed Edwards a message from Epstein proposing that they resume direct talks and asking him to call Epstein’s secretary or Darren Indyke.30 Edwards replied the next evening, again through Groff, insisting that his own claim and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case be kept apart: “Discussions regarding my case cannot be linked to the resolution of the CVRA case for obvious ethical reasons.”31 He wrote that he had given Jack Scarola complete discretion over his own abuse of process claim, that Epstein was not a party to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case and that it was not about money, that his clients did not wish to settle it, and that any resolution of it would consist only of the formation and funding of a crime-victims foundation, with no payment to any individual and no attorney’s fees.31 Groff asked Epstein on August 4 whether to tell Edwards he would call that afternoon; Epstein told her to do nothing.32

Edwards emailed Epstein on October 6, 2015 that Scarola had sent him a settlement agreement, that it had to go through lawyers because all parties were represented, and that it was not confidential; Epstein had written earlier that day that he was “doing my best, with dersh language not r[e]solved.”33 In February 2016 Epstein circulated to Jean-Luc Brunel and to another correspondent a screenshot of a document with the note “This was filed by Brad Edwards”; the thread continued in May 2016.34

Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz

Edwards and Cassell sued Alan M. Dershowitz for defamation in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, No. CACE 15-000072, and Dershowitz counterclaimed against them.6 The parties settled on April 8, 2016 through a court-appointed mediator and issued a joint statement in which Edwards and Cassell said they had filed their client’s allegations in good faith and had produced documents detailing their diligence, Dershowitz denied any misconduct and relied on travel and other records, Edwards and Cassell acknowledged “that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz” and withdrew them, and Dershowitz withdrew his accusations that they had acted unethically.35 See the Dershowitz litigation.

Other records, 2013–2021

Edwards was deposed on video on October 10, 2013 at Empire Legal Support, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400, Fort Lauderdale, according to a calendar alert in Epstein’s files.36 Edwards was among the victims’ counsel listed for a briefing by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General held at the FBI’s Miami Field Office on November 12, 2020, alongside Cassell, Scarola, Sigrid McCawley and others.37 Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion of October 13, 2021 for individual sequestered voir dire listed Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, credited to Bradley Edwards, among the books it cited as pretrial publicity.7

Coverage

  • New York Post, October 12, 2009: “Heiress Quizzed in Sex Suits,” by Richard Johnson.19
  • Palm Beach Daily News, August 12, 2011: “Sides argue whether Jeffrey Epstein’s nonprosecution deal violated alleged victims’ rights,” by David Rogers.12
  • Associated Press, June 4, 2014: “Epstein’s accusers press to reopen sex abuse case.”20
  • Palm Beach Post, July 6, 2017: “Trial date set for lawsuit against billionaire sex offender Epstein,” by Jane Musgrave.22
  • Law360, February 21, 2019: “Prosecutors Broke Law In Epstein Plea Deal, Fla. Judge Says,” by Carolina Bolado.13
  • The New York Times, February 21, 2019: “Prosecutors Broke Law in Agreement Not to Prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, Judge Rules,” by Patricia Mazzei.11
  • Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, credited to Bradley Edwards and listed among the books cited as pretrial publicity in Ghislaine Maxwell’s voir dire motion of October 13, 2021.7

Footnotes

  1. Respondent’s reply and certificate of service, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 140, filed January 24, 2012. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01810304 pp.1, 7. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Transcript of motion hearing, Jane Doe, et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), June 12, 2009, appearances page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00014192 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Signature block of Edwards Pottinger LLC, 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, on correspondence of October 3, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01649990 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  4. Stipulation, Jane Does #1 and #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), signature block “BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. / Attorney for Plaintiffs Jane Does #1 & 2.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659741 pp.1-5, a 5-page run. On the cited copy the “SO STIPULATED AND AGREED” block carries two blank “Dated:” rules, one above Edwards’s name and one above “R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY … By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY”. ⚠⚠ CORRECTED 2026-09-18: this footnote previously said “the copy in the corpus is undated and unexecuted”, which asserts both that there is one copy and that nobody signed it. Neither is established. There are FOUR copies (EFTA01659741 p.5, EFTA00191264 p.26 of a 132-page run, EFTA00235266 p.5, EFTA00235323 p.3), located by the signature-block string with live controls ("SO ORDERED" returns 1,635 documents; a nonsense token returns 0). Two of them print DEXTER LEE in the government block where the others truncate. ⚠ And a text layer can never show ink. The blank “Dated:” rules are what the extraction renders; whether any of the four carries a manuscript signature has NOT been checked at a page image. The page therefore says the block is undated and unsigned as the produced text shows it, and claims nothing more. This is the shape that produced tonight’s nolle-prosequi error and its over-correction: a single copy of a court instrument is a stage, not the instrument, and only the image settles a signature. Flagged for an image check. ↩ ↩2

  5. Notice of filing served by Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., as attorney for defendant/counter-claimant Edwards, May 2011, with counsel list. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657711 pp.1–2. A second copy, attached to an email of July 4, 2011, is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657683 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Defendant/counterclaim plaintiff Alan M. Dershowitz’s motion regarding privilege log, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell v. Alan M. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cnty.), e-filed September 10, 2015. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00608894 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  7. Memorandum of law in support of Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for individual sequestered juror voir dire, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), filed October 13, 2021. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00011115 pp.1, 6. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Declaration of the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the Epstein investigation, Jane Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), July 2008. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659763 pp.1–5. The declarant’s name is redacted in this copy. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Opinion and Order, Document 435, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered February 21, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 pp.32-33 (the sentence runs across the page break). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Opinion and Order, Document 478, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered September 16, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩

  11. Patricia Mazzei, “Prosecutors Broke Law in Agreement Not to Prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, Judge Rules,” The New York Times, February 21, 2019, printout produced to the Southern District of New York. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01265910 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  12. David Rogers, “Sides argue whether Jeffrey Epstein’s nonprosecution deal violated alleged victims’ rights,” Palm Beach Daily News, posted 7:14 p.m. Friday, August 12, 2011; printout dated August 19, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01689016 pp.9–10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. Carolina Bolado, “Prosecutors Broke Law In Epstein Plea Deal, Fla. Judge Says,” Law360, February 21, 2019, 5:58 p.m. EST, circulated by email within a U.S. Attorney’s Office on February 22, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00032506 pp.1, 2, 3, 4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  14. Affidavit prepared for the signature of Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for summary judgment on Edwards’s fourth amended counterclaim, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir.), paragraphs 3–7. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01733722 pp.1–2. The jurat is pre-dated September 25, 2013, and the signature and notary lines are blank in the copy in the release, read from the page image; the document is a prepared affidavit and not an executed one. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. Email from Darren Indyke to Jeffrey Epstein, September 22, 2016, enclosing the proposed short plain statements of the case for the pre-trial stipulation, and Epstein’s reply the same evening. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02450684 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  16. Settlement Agreement and Release between Bradley J. Edwards and Jeffrey Epstein, entered into “as of this 29 day of November, 2018”, paragraphs 1–4 and 9 and Exhibit A, headed “EPSTEIN’S APOLOGY TO EDWARDS”. Read at the page image at 350 and 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 pp.1–3, 6, 11, 12, 13. The instrument carries a single manuscript signature crossing both signature rules, and Epstein’s acknowledgment below it is completed and notarized, while the line and acknowledgment for Edwards carry no separate signature and are blank. ⚠ The extraction of this sheet renders “for” as “fbr” in the apology’s closing sentence, so a checker will not locate that span on the exhibit sheet; the quotations are given as the page image prints them and nothing else is repaired. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  17. Clerk’s notes of the jury trial in this action, headed “THE HONORABLE DONALD HAFELE, PRESIDING” and dated Tuesday, December 4, 2018; one sheet under the Clerk and Comptroller’s filing stamp of that date, read at the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02768954 p.1. A minute sheet is the clerk’s contemporaneous record of the events of a session, being the times, who addressed the court and on whose behalf, and is not a verbatim record of speech: these minutes record that an apology was announced and do not give its wording, which is quoted above from the instrument itself. The sheet carries a watermark stating that it is not a certified copy. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. CourtLink docket record listing Bradley James Edwards of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman PL, with his firm e-mail address, which is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01355619 p.1. ↩

  19. Richard Johnson, “Heiress Quizzed in Sex Suits,” New York Post, October 12, 2009, reproduced in a confidential due-diligence report held by JPMorgan Chase. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01582798 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  20. “Epstein’s accusers press to reopen sex abuse case,” Associated Press, June 4, 2014, newspaper clipping. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01733962 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  21. Draft settlement proposal emailed by Brad Edwards to Jeffrey Epstein, September 21, 2015, marked “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY” and “not a binding commitment, or even an offer, to settle any dispute on the terms listed herein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00718009 p.1. ↩

  22. Jane Musgrave, “Trial date set for lawsuit against billionaire sex offender Epstein,” Palm Beach Post, July 6, 2017, forwarded to Epstein by Hiltzik Strategies on July 7, 2017. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02645843 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  23. Email thread between Brad Edwards and Jeffrey Epstein, November 20, 2018. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01016145 pp.1–2. ↩

  24. Email from Brad Edwards to Jeffrey Epstein, November 21, 2018, 8:44 p.m., marked “Confidential - settlement purposes only.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02614562 p.1; Epstein’s reply the same evening is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01016022 p.1. ↩

  25. The earlier of the two instruments: Settlement Agreement and Release between the same two parties, entered into “as of this 28 day of November, 2018”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804067 pp.1, 13, read at the page image at 350 dpi. Its Exhibit A is worded differently from the operative one: it has Epstein say he “made absolutely false allegations about him” and calls the suit his “vindictive attempt to damage his business reputation”. Each instrument is executed in the same way, so execution does not separate them. The later one is taken as operative on two grounds: it is the later of the two, and on November 29, 2018 Edwards wrote to Epstein “I will agree to this -” above the revised opening sentence, which is the sentence the later instrument carries and the earlier one does not. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015113 p.1, read at the page image at 350 dpi. No transcript of the hearing of December 4, 2018 was found in the material read for this page. ↩

  26. The notarial block completed beneath Epstein’s acknowledgment on each of the two instruments, printing “LESLEY K. GROFF” above the lines giving the office of notary public, the state, the commission and the county of qualification. The block gives no employer and says nothing of the notary’s relationship to either party. Read at the page image at 400 dpi on both instruments. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 p.12; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804067 p.12. ↩

  27. Email from Lesley Groff, March 14, 2015, 5:15 p.m., subject “Re: visa rus JE”, in which she wrote “I am a notary and so is Bebe” and offered to type out and notarize a form letter at the office the following Monday. Read at the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02084985 p.1. ↩

  28. Email from Jeffrey Epstein to a private correspondent, January 27, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01801914 p.1. ↩

  29. Email from Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, July 28, 2011, 2:06 p.m., subject “Brad Edwards.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01987705 p.1. ↩

  30. Message from Jeffrey Epstein passed to Brad Edwards by Lesley Groff, August 2, 2011, 5:15 p.m., marked “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS ONLY.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01856703 p.4. ↩

  31. Letter from Brad Edwards to Jeffrey Epstein sent through Lesley Groff, August 3, 2011, 10:16 p.m., marked “CONFIDENTIAL — FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY.” Quotations checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01856703 pp.2–3. ↩ ↩2

  32. Email thread, Lesley Groff and Jeffrey Epstein, August 4, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01856703 p.1. ↩

  33. Email from Brad Edwards to Jeffrey Epstein, October 6, 2015, 8:14 p.m., replying to Epstein’s message of 4:03 p.m. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01797181 p.1. ↩

  34. Email thread beginning with Jeffrey Epstein’s message of February 1, 2016 to Jean-Luc Brunel, subject “filed by Brad Edwards who titone says you want to meet with,” continued May 12–23, 2016. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01738486 p.1; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01738331 p.1. ↩

  35. “Lawyers Acknowledge Mistake In Filing Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Professor Dershowitz,” press release of April 8, 2016 containing the mediator’s announcement and the Joint Statement of Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz. Quotations checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01186699 pp.1–2. ↩

  36. Calendar alert, “Thursday, October 10, 2013 at 10 AM Video Deposition of Brad Edwards at Empire Legal Support, Inc., 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301,” sent October 16, 2013. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02123940 p.1. ↩

  37. Email thread on logistics for a briefing at the FBI Miami Field Office on November 12, 2020, with an attendee breakdown listing counsel including Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Jack Scarola and Sigrid McCawley. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01651588 pp.1–2. ↩

Backlinks