Alleged obstruction of deposition and Epstein‑funded legal representation for key associates

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

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.) an Edwards alleges Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering substantive questions, creati The motion cites a “Holy Grail” journal allegedly listing underage victims and high‑profile contac

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 1 of

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 1 of 40 EXHIBIT 16 EFTA00081180 Case 9:08-cv-807m091349pept Z91-15 _EriterM ocp WERocisstifolf/E15 Page 2 of roio-< uoc 16q0,3 e 0 EXHIBIT C Epstein vs. Edwards Undisputed Statement of Facts EFTA00081181 Case 9:08-cv-807ailaVs kigsyffigt 28415-c1p6Arger phri N 7NRocieatgfe)10/§815 Page 3 of IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXKMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY I EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on wh

EFTA Document EFTA01296720

Extensive court filing outlines alleged Jeffrey Epstein abuse network, non‑prosecution deal, and potential ties to high‑profile figures (Clinton, T...

The document provides a dense compilation of alleged facts, emails, deposition excerpts, and discovery requests that link Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual‑abuse operation to a “pyramid” recruitment scheme, a Epstein allegedly ran a “pyramid” scheme paying underage victims $200‑$300 per recruited girl. A 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office allegedly shielded Epstein fr Ema

Epstein Drop One

January 3, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska, Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until c

Alleged obstruction of deposition and Epstein‑funded legal representation for key associates

The passage alleges that Jeffrey Epstein financed legal counsel for multiple close associates—including a known trafficker (Jean‑Luc Brunel) and his own alleged procurer—while also misleading a court Edwards sought Brunel’s deposition in New York; Brunel’s attorney falsely claimed he left the countr Brunel was actually staying with Epstein in West Palm Beach during the deposition period. Epstein