Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-37389House OversightFinancial Record

Deposition excerpts suggest alleged link between attorney Bradley Edwards and Scott Rothstein fraud scheme, with Jeffrey Epstein possibly withholdi...

The passage provides a specific allegation that Epstein was questioned about knowledge of attorney Bradley Edwards' involvement in a structured settlement fraud tied to Scott Rothstein, and that Epste Jeffrey Epstein was deposed on March 17, 2010 and was asked about Bradley Edwards' possible particip Epstein declined to answer, citing attorney‑client privilege. Bradley Edwards filed an affidavit d

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #013376
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a specific allegation that Epstein was questioned about knowledge of attorney Bradley Edwards' involvement in a structured settlement fraud tied to Scott Rothstein, and that Epste Jeffrey Epstein was deposed on March 17, 2010 and was asked about Bradley Edwards' possible particip Epstein declined to answer, citing attorney‑client privilege. Bradley Edwards filed an affidavit d

Tags

potential-obstruction-of-evidefinancial-flowepsteinattorney-misconductfinancial-fraudlegal-exposuremoderate-importancestructured-settlementshouse-oversightlegal-proceedings

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
involved. See, e.g., Edwards Depo. at 301-02 (Q: “...[Wlere you aware that Scott Rothstein was trying to market Epstein cases... ?” A: “No.”), Edwards has supplemented his deposition answers with an Affidavit that declares in no uncertain terms his lack of involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein. See, eag., Edwards Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as Exhibit “N” at 8-10, 420, 422-23. Indeed, no reasonable juror could find that Edwards was involved in the scheme, as Edwards joined RRA well after Rothstein began his fraud and would have been already deeply in debt. In fact, the evidence of Epstein’s crimes is now clear, and Edwards’s actions in this case were entirely in keeping with his obligation to provide the highest possible quality of legal representation for his clients to obtain the best result possible. In view of this clear evidence rebutting all allegations against him, Epstein must now “produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact.” See Bryant v. Shands Te caching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. Ist Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Epstein cannot do this. Indeed, when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence of Edwards’s involvement, Epstein declined to answer, purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds: Q. I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that Bradley Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were sold purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement? .. . A. Id like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect.to my personal knowledge, I’m unfortunately going to, today,.but I look forward to at some point being able to disclose it, today I’m going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege. See Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010 (hereinafter “Epstein Depo.”) at 67-68. Therefore summary judgment should be granted for Edwards on all claims involving any Ponzi scheme by Rothstein.

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.