Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-27868House OversightFinancial Record

Law firm executive discusses in‑house investigators, police detail, and use of Epstein case files for investor fundraising

The passage provides a vague but potentially actionable lead that a law firm (identified as “Jaw firm”) employed former police and FBI personnel as in‑house investigators and maintained a private poli The speaker admits both legitimate and “illegitimate” dealings with law enforcement while working at Former police officers and ex‑FBI agents were hired as salaried staff for investigative and other

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017499
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a vague but potentially actionable lead that a law firm (identified as “Jaw firm”) employed former police and FBI personnel as in‑house investigators and maintained a private poli The speaker admits both legitimate and “illegitimate” dealings with law enforcement while working at Former police officers and ex‑FBI agents were hired as salaried staff for investigative and other

Tags

police-misconductlaw-firmfinancial-flowforeign-influence-via-epstein-ponzi-schemefinancial-fraudinvestigative-misconductepstein-caseprivate-securitylegal-exposurehouse-oversightinvestigative-services

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
OnrAnD oO B® WDNR DADO HB WNH EH A. He had had significant -- as you know, he also had significant political connections and everyone who is not living under a rock knows I was doing everything | could to garner significant political power. Q. J] think many people miss your parties. But, with respect to Mr. Jenne and his politica] connections, were you hiring him to utilize him with respect to any of the police department investigations? You had stated earlier you had dealings with police departments. | don't want -- again, | don't want to put words in your mouth. You said you had dealings going on with various police agencies? A. I had -- ] mean, we had a criminal defense section in the Jaw firm, so we had legitimate dealings with law enforcement. But ] also had significant illegitimate things with law enforcement that had nothing to do with Ken Jenne. Q. And how about with respect to former FBI agents you were hiring? A. They were all people that were operating in a legitimate fashion within the law firm. Q. In what role was that? A. The investigative roles and the alcoho] beverage roles and anything else Ken or other staff could think of to have them do. Q. Let's talk about the investigative roles for a minute. What kind of investigations were these teams running? A. I] donot know. You have to speak to lawyers that were actually utilizing them. ] put it out there and Ken put it out there, that they were available to lawyers in the firm for use like in-house investigators. And what people did with them ultimately was up to them. Q. Were they on salary or were their costs and fees associated with utilizing them within a specific practice group? A. They were all on salary with me. The ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that could bill the Jaw firm and have the clients at least defray some of the cost. ] don't recall whether or not we ever got to that level or not. Q. With all that in-house police action, why did you have police security surrounding you all] the time? A. J guess the best answer was I was paranoid, but 1 mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You Page 355 st US RRR YP NEI ESSA ART TE TINE EI pe fete ppm a ig eet rn Seppe eet ettae aetna St HS AS RE a ep ie SRT TN SD RN SR SUE Ra NNR AT t po 4 } Otm®WNH COwWoO WAI A USF WHR DWM WAI DO B® WMH PH NNNNMONNFEPEPP RPE Pe EE know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For example, ] -- are you talking about my Fort Lauderdale police detail? Q. Yes. You had it at the office and at your home, correct? A. Yeah. There's a myriad of facts that motivated me to do that. One was that ] really wanted the security for the office. Two was, I was paranoid and this is in no particular order. Three was the Melissa Lewis murder that shook the entire law firm and shook me terribly. 1 didn't want that to ever have to happen again. And four was, I wanted -- the more law enforcement you have around, the more legitimacy it adds to you and your appearance to the community. So there were a multitude of reasons. ] mean, I hired certain Jaw enforcement to work for me that were just friends of mine that were -- that needed additional money, so 1 wanted to make sure that they had money, both guys that did the illegal stuff for me and guys that didn't do anything illegal for me. Q. Let's go back to the Epstein case and when you decided to utilize it -- to use for the investors for your Ponzi scheme. Do you recall approximately when it was that Page 36 ne ee ee t Spe pt NoF WNHrP OW Dn DO & WW NDY FP bt ~~ these investors were coming that you decided to use the files? A. My best recollection it was_in 2009, sometimes after April of 2009, but ] don't have a specific recollection beyond that. Q. What makes you think it was after April of 2009? A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the Clockwork Group came in towards the middle of 2009. When I say Clockwork, that's an umbrella term that ] use to mean the Von Allmen, AJ Discala, and other investors that came in through that feeder fund. Q. So that was around April 2009? A. No, it was after, to the best of my recollection. ] mean, you can tell because all you have to do is look and see when the first, very first Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint it even closer. Look for the very first settlement deal that we did that was related to the Epstein case, within 60 days prior to that would have been when ] was meeting with those due diligence people, 30 to 60 days before that, Q. So when you decided to use that case, take me through exactly what you did to familiarize yourself with that case. Page 37 10 (Pages 34 to 37) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941 df

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone305-371-6677

Related Documents (6)

House OversightNov 23, 2015

Plaintiffs seek to unseal court filings alleging sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz in [REDACTED - Survivor] defamation case

Plaintiffs seek to unseal court filings alleging sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz in [REDACTED - Survivor] defamation case The passage reveals a motion to keep certain filings confidential that contain allegations of sexual abuse by a high‑profile attorney, Alan Dershowitz, on behalf of [REDACTED - Survivor]. While it identifies a potential lead—unsealing these records could provide evidence of misconduct—it lacks concrete details such as dates of alleged abuse, financial transactions, or direct links to powerful political figures. The controversy is moderate, and the novelty is limited given the public nature of the Dershowitz‑Giuffre allegations. Key insights: Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell filed a response to Dershowitz’s motion to keep records confidential.; The contested records are three filings that recount [REDACTED - Survivor]’s allegations of sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz.; Plaintiffs argue the filings are not confidential and should be part of the public record in the defamation case.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Law firm executive discusses in‑house investigators, police detail, and use of Epstein case files for investor fundraising

Law firm executive discusses in‑house investigators, police detail, and use of Epstein case files for investor fundraising The passage provides a vague but potentially actionable lead that a law firm (identified as “Jaw firm”) employed former police and FBI personnel as in‑house investigators and maintained a private police security detail. It also hints that the firm used files from the Jeffrey Epstein case to attract or reassure investors for a purported Ponzi scheme in 2009. While specific names (e.g., Ken Jenne, Melissa Lewis) are mentioned, the details are sparse, lacking concrete transaction data or dates beyond a general 2009 timeframe. The claim ties a legal services firm to possible illicit investigative work and financial fraud, which is moderately controversial and could merit follow‑up, but the lack of verifiable specifics limits its immediate investigative utility. Key insights: The speaker admits both legitimate and “illegitimate” dealings with law enforcement while working at a law firm.; Former police officers and ex‑FBI agents were hired as salaried staff for investigative and other roles.; A private police detail was maintained at the firm’s office and the speaker’s home for security and image purposes.

1p
House OversightJan 17, 2014

Bradley Edwards’ Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein’s Summary Judgment Motion – Claims of Abuse of Process, Witness Tampering, and Links to High‑Profile Figures

Bradley Edwards’ Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein’s Summary Judgment Motion – Claims of Abuse of Process, Witness Tampering, and Links to High‑Profile Figures The filing enumerates numerous specific leads that, if verified, tie Jeffrey Epstein to a wide network of powerful individuals (Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, etc.) and to alleged obstruction of federal investigations, witness intimidation, and a non‑prosecution agreement. It also references concrete documents (exhibits, deposition excerpts, flight logs, FBI emails) that could be pursued for forensic analysis, discovery requests, or FOIA requests. The combination of high‑profile actors, alleged criminal conduct, and detailed procedural allegations makes this a strong investigative lead. Key insights: Edwards alleges Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering substantive questions, creating adverse inferences.; The motion cites a “Holy Grail” journal allegedly listing underage victims and high‑profile contacts (Trump, Clinton, etc.).; Claims that Epstein’s attorneys (including Alan Dershowitz) may have helped suppress victim testimony and influence the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

1p
House OversightUnknown

House Oversight Document IMAGES-001-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012197

House Oversight Document IMAGES-001-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012197 The file contains only a title and no substantive content, providing no leads, names, dates, or allegations to investigate.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Rothstein Deposition Reveals Use of Jeffrey Epstein Case to Fuel Ponzi Scheme and Possible High‑Profile Name Manipulation

Rothstein Deposition Reveals Use of Jeffrey Epstein Case to Fuel Ponzi Scheme and Possible High‑Profile Name Manipulation The transcript provides multiple concrete leads: (1) Rothstein admits the firm used the Epstein case to attract investors for a Ponzi scheme; (2) mentions specific high‑profile individuals (Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew) allegedly on flight manifests used to impress investors; (3) identifies Russell Adler, Ken Jenne, and a former federal agent (Cara Holmes) as key conspirators; (4) cites a filed federal complaint on July 24 2009 signed by Brad Edwards, linking him directly to the scheme; (5) details internal surveillance, fund‑raising, and financial commingling practices. These points suggest actionable investigative steps—reviewing the July 24 complaint, tracing the alleged flight manifest, examining financial records for commingled funds, and interviewing the named officials. The involvement of a billionaire, former politicians, and law‑enforcement contacts makes the lead both controversial and potentially explosive. Key insights: Rothstein confirms the Epstein case was leveraged to lure investors into a Ponzi scheme.; Reference to a flight manifest allegedly listing Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, used as a sales tool.; Russell Adler identified as a co‑conspirator who supplied case details and connections.

1p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Rothstein Deposition Reveals Use of Jeffrey Epstein Case to Fuel Ponzi Scheme and Possible High‑Profile Name Manipulation

The transcript provides multiple concrete leads: (1) Rothstein admits the firm used the Epstein case to attract investors for a Ponzi scheme; (2) mentions specific high‑profile individuals (Bill Clint Rothstein confirms the Epstein case was leveraged to lure investors into a Ponzi scheme. Reference to a flight manifest allegedly listing Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, used as a sales too Russell A

71p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.