Michael Fisten

Snapshot

Michael Fisten is a former law enforcement officer and private investigator whose work became part of the documentary record surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse investigation and subsequent survivor litigation.

Fisten worked with attorney Bradley J. Edwards, who represented people pursuing civil claims against Epstein after the controversial federal nonprosecution agreement and 2008 Florida state plea.

His name appears in sworn statements, discovery proceedings, attorney declarations, privilege logs, and contested litigation involving Epstein, Edwards, and Scott Rothstein’s former law firm.

Most significantly, a federal court filing contains Fisten’s sworn account of his efforts to protect a survivor who reported being followed by a private investigator during civil proceedings.

Fisten subsequently spoke publicly about the years he spent investigating Epstein, the survivors he interviewed, allegations of continued exploitation, and information he said he provided to federal authorities.

His history also includes two distinct legal disputes. Epstein named Fisten in a civil lawsuit challenging activities surrounding the investigation. Years later, Fisten pursued a separate contractual dispute against journalist Julie K. Brown involving a book project.

Those proceedings have different legal histories and must not be confused with one another.

Fisten’s significance lies in his work gathering evidence, supporting civil litigation, and documenting concerns about the treatment and protection of survivors.

Key Takeaways

• Fisten investigated Epstein for survivor counsel. Court records establish that he worked with Bradley Edwards and helped gather information for civil lawsuits.
• He had substantial law enforcement experience. In his sworn statement, Fisten described approximately 30 years of police work before becoming a private investigator.
• He interviewed witnesses and potential survivors. In 2019, Fisten publicly described interviewing numerous people reporting abuse by Epstein.
• He was involved in the Rothstein litigation. An amended complaint named Fisten as a defendant and advanced allegations concerning case files and investor presentations. Those allegations were not established criminal findings.
• He supported efforts to protect a survivor. A 2010 affidavit describes his response after a Jane Doe plaintiff reported being followed and feared for her safety.
• He documented contact with journalist George Rush. Sworn statements concern conversations about a recorded interview with Epstein and the associated dispute over journalistic material.
• He participated in deposition preparation. Court documents and expense records place him within the investigative and discovery process.
• He continued speaking about Epstein in 2019. CNN interviewed Fisten about survivor accounts, reported intimidation, and information he said he provided to federal investigators.
• He later disputed compensation with Julie K. Brown. The 2024 Florida appellate decision upheld confirmation of an arbitration award. That case concerned a publishing agreement, not whether Fisten had participated in Epstein’s criminal activities.

Who Is Michael Fisten?

Michael Fisten built his professional career in law enforcement before working as a private investigator in South Florida.

In his sworn statement filed in the Epstein civil litigation, Fisten identified himself as a Florida licensed investigator and described approximately 30 years in law enforcement.

He reported spending much of that career investigating homicides, robberies, and organized crime.

He also described retiring with the rank of lieutenant and spending his final three years assigned to the Miami Field Division of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Participation in a joint federal task force does not necessarily mean an individual was employed directly as a sworn FBI special agent. Fisten described his earlier career as law enforcement service and his later work as private investigation.

By 2009, he was working with attorneys representing people bringing claims against Jeffrey Epstein.

In a July 19, 2019 CNN interview, Fisten explained that the Epstein investigation had become a major focus of his private investigative career.

His work involved locating witnesses, interviewing survivors, evaluating accounts of abuse, and helping attorneys identify information relevant to civil claims.

That professional background explains why his name appears repeatedly in court documents. He was principally part of the legal investigation conducted on behalf of people bringing claims against Epstein.

Working With Attorney Bradley Edwards

Attorney Bradley J. Edwards pursued civil actions on behalf of people alleging sexual abuse by Epstein.

The litigation involved testimony, witness identification, investigative leads, depositions, document requests, and disputes concerning the confidentiality of survivor information.

Fisten became one of the investigators supporting that work.

In a deposition preserved in the released records, Edwards identified Mike Fisten as the primary investigator who worked on the Epstein matter during Edwards’s period at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler and afterward.

Edwards also described other investigators who assisted at various times, including Wayne Black, Patrick Roberts, and Patrick Diaz.

That testimony establishes Fisten’s substantial professional involvement without implying that he alone conducted the entire investigation.

The Importance of Independent Witness Interviews

Survivor litigation requires more than obtaining an initial allegation.

Investigators may need to identify people who can corroborate events, locate contemporary records, verify dates, preserve statements, and investigate possible intimidation or interference.

Fisten’s involvement became especially important because many of the claims concerned events years before the civil litigation proceeded.

In his 2019 CNN interview, Fisten described interviewing one potential survivor after another and discovering that the number of people reporting similar experiences was greater than he initially understood.

These were his accounts of investigative work. The exact number of independently corroborated victims cannot be established solely from an interview.

His testimony nevertheless provides direct evidence about the nature and scope of the work he said he performed.

The Rothstein Law Firm and the Epstein Investigations

During 2009, Edwards worked at the Florida law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, commonly referred to as RRA.

Scott Rothstein subsequently became notorious for operating a large Ponzi scheme involving fabricated legal settlements and representations to investors.

The Epstein civil cases became entangled in allegations concerning Rothstein’s use of legal files and supposed settlement opportunities to solicit investors.

This overlap created litigation about the relationship between legitimate survivor claims and Rothstein’s fraudulent investment activities.

Fisten and Kenneth Jenne

An amended complaint in the Rothstein and Edwards litigation identifies Michael Fisten and former Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne as investigators working on Epstein matters.

The pleading describes them as investigators assigned to Edwards and discusses their role in handling case materials.

It also alleges that Rothstein directed the presentation of Epstein case files to prospective investors.

The complaint describes as many as 19 boxes of documents being brought into a conference room during October 2009.

This is a significant allegation because survivor litigation materials could contain highly sensitive information.

However, it is essential to identify the source correctly. The description appears in contested civil pleadings. It does not establish that every disputed action was independently proven or that Fisten knowingly participated in Rothstein’s fraud.

Epstein’s Civil Lawsuit Against the Investigative Team

Epstein filed a Florida civil action against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards, and others in December 2009.

Subsequent versions of the complaint expanded the list of defendants.

One amended complaint names Michael Fisten individually, together with other lawyers, investigators, and litigation participants.

The pleading accused members of Rothstein’s operation of participating in improper activity surrounding settlement investments and investigative materials.

It alleged that Fisten and others helped provide case information to prospective investors.

The complaint also accused Fisten of improperly representing himself as an active law enforcement officer when contacting former Epstein associates.

Those accusations were positions advanced by Epstein in his civil lawsuit, not findings by a criminal court.

What the Litigation Established

The Epstein Data Wiki’s case reconstruction traces the complaint, amendments, procedural challenges, and later narrowing of Epstein’s claims.

The complaint originally advanced several theories, including civil racketeering, fraud, conspiracy, and abuse of process.

The racketeering and fraud allegations were not adjudicated as established facts. Epstein withdrew those counts before trial.

The remaining litigation centered on abuse of process and related counterclaims.

A procedural decision permitting a claim to proceed does not mean that the allegations supporting it have been proven.

The available records therefore require researchers to distinguish between Fisten being named in an adversarial civil complaint and any independently established wrongdoing.

A Separate Witness Account

Another record, EFTA01156549, contains an affidavit by former Epstein household employee Michael Friedman concerning contact with investigators in October 2009.

Friedman described an encounter involving someone he identified as Fisten and made statements about how that investigator represented his prior law enforcement background.

That affidavit provides a witness account relevant to the disputed investigative methods. It is not, by itself, a judicial finding that Fisten impersonated an active officer.

The competing statements must be evaluated alongside actual court rulings and the relevant law enforcement records.

George Rush and the Recorded Epstein Interview

One of the more significant evidence disputes involved New York Daily News journalist George Rush.

Rush had interviewed Epstein. Questions later arose about the availability of a recording, the information provided to other individuals, and whether the journalist could be compelled to produce materials.

The dispute appears in the federal proceedings concerning subpoenas served on the Daily News and Rush.

Rush’s Supplementary Affidavit

In EFTA00207294, Rush acknowledged that he had spoken with Michael Fisten about aspects of the Epstein interview.

Rush explained that the additional information refreshed his memory of the earlier conversation.

The affidavit identifies Fisten as a private investigator working with Bradley Edwards.

This is direct documentary evidence of contact between a journalist and the litigation investigator.

It does not independently establish that Fisten possessed the original recording, disclosed protected information unlawfully, or controlled the journalist’s source material.

Edwards’s Declaration

A separate declaration by Bradley Edwards describes Fisten’s interaction with Rush from the attorney’s perspective.

Edwards stated that Fisten had reported speaking with Rush shortly after the conversation occurred.

The declaration was submitted in litigation seeking access to information believed relevant to Epstein’s statements about allegations made against him.

The dispute demonstrates why legal investigators sometimes seek materials from journalists and why courts must also consider reporter protections, privileges, and the confidentiality of sources.

The existence of a subpoena or attorney request does not establish that the requested materials were ultimately produced.

June 15, 2010: Presence at a Sworn Statement

The June 15, 2010 sworn statement transcript in Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein lists Michael Fisten among those present.

Bradley Edwards appears as counsel for the plaintiff, while Fisten is separately identified as attending.

This distinction matters. Fisten was not the person whose sworn statement was being taken merely because his name appeared in the transcript.

The record shows his participation in the investigation and discovery process supporting the civil case.

Witness identities and sensitive details contained in such transcripts should be protected unless the individual has publicly identified themselves and authorized disclosure.

The relevant fact for Fisten’s profile is his documented investigative attendance, not the private identity of the person giving the statement.

July 2010: Sworn Account of Survivor Intimidation

A major record omitted from the earlier Michael Fisten profile is his affidavit concerning the reported surveillance and intimidation of a Jane Doe plaintiff.

The federal filing EFTA01155855 concerns an emergency request for protective relief in Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein.

It includes a sworn statement from Fisten describing his response after the plaintiff reported being followed by another investigator.

The Reported Surveillance

According to the affidavit, the survivor contacted Fisten in distress after observing a vehicle following her.

She described the driver remaining close to her, stopping when she stopped, and making his presence visible.

The alleged conduct caused serious concern about her safety during the civil proceedings.

Fisten stated that he went to assist the plaintiff and observed the individual and vehicle involved in the reported surveillance.

He also described confronting the investigator, explaining that the plaintiff feared for her safety, and warning against further pursuit.

Moving the Survivor to Safety

Fisten reported that he drove the plaintiff away from the location and that the vehicle attempted to follow them.

He stated that he used his law enforcement training to avoid continued surveillance and take the plaintiff to a safer location.

His account was provided under penalty of perjury.

The court filing therefore establishes that Fisten formally reported these events in sworn testimony.

However, the investigator’s affidavit, the plaintiff’s allegations, and the court’s eventual findings are different evidentiary categories.

The affidavit should not be described as an independent judicial finding that Epstein personally ordered the surveillance.

The Protective Order Dispute

The plaintiff’s attorneys sought emergency judicial intervention based on their allegation that the surveillance violated existing no-contact orders.

The filing requested additional protections and raised concerns about possible witness intimidation.

It also sought consideration of contempt proceedings and referral of possible violations to federal authorities.

Those requests demonstrate the seriousness with which plaintiff’s counsel treated the reported conduct.

The filing alone does not establish that every requested sanction was granted or that a criminal charge resulted.

The survivor’s identifying information and the sensitive residential details contained in the underlying records are intentionally excluded from this profile.

Deposition Disputes and Investigator Work Product

Fisten’s role also became an issue in discovery disputes brought by Epstein’s lawyers.

In a February 2011 privilege log, the law firm representing survivor plaintiffs identified communications involving Fisten and Edwards.

The entries include matters described as litigation strategy and investigative work concerning other potential victims and flight-related evidence.

Privilege logs typically identify withheld documents without disclosing their complete content.

They are useful for understanding what subjects attorneys and investigators addressed, but they do not reveal the underlying conclusions of privileged communications.

For example, an entry concerning flight research does not prove that the investigator established a particular passenger’s identity or presence on a specific aircraft.

Attempts to Depose Investigators

In the Florida litigation, Epstein’s lawyers sought testimony concerning the investigations performed by Fisten and other private investigators.

Protective-order proceedings argued that certain information was protected by attorney work-product doctrine.

Work product generally includes materials prepared by attorneys and their agents in anticipation of litigation.

The disputes were therefore about the limits of civil discovery and the protection of investigation materials.

They should not be converted into unsupported claims that a court determined Fisten’s investigative work was improper.

Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Preparation

Fisten also appears in records concerning preparations for a proposed deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell.

A June 29, 2010 invoice preserved as a litigation exhibit lists cancellation fees related to a deposition scheduled for July 1, 2010.

The document separately identifies expenses associated with Bradley Edwards and Michael Fisten.

The charges include $100 for airfare cancellation and $288.97 for hotel cancellation for Fisten.

The total invoice for Edwards and Fisten was $777.94.

The invoice demonstrates that travel arrangements had been made in connection with the planned deposition.

It does not prove that the deposition occurred on July 1 or that every invoiced amount was ultimately paid.

This is a useful example of the difference between evidence of preparation and evidence of a completed legal event.

2018: Epstein’s Settlement and Apology to Bradley Edwards

Years after Epstein initiated his lawsuit against Edwards and associated litigation participants, the surviving counterclaim between Edwards and Epstein moved toward trial.

The November 29, 2018 settlement agreement records a $7 million resolution of Edwards’s counterclaim.

The agreement included a public apology from Epstein acknowledging that his accusations against Edwards were false and that his lawsuit had been an attempt to damage Edwards’s professional reputation.

The record also contains earlier draft language with somewhat different wording. The final version must not be confused with the preliminary draft.

The apology was specifically directed to Bradley Edwards.

Although Fisten had appeared in amended pleadings within the wider litigation, the apology should not automatically be described as a separate judicial exoneration of every individual previously named in the case.

The agreement disposed of Edwards’s counterclaim. The released case history does not establish an adjudicated finding of criminal wrongdoing against Fisten.

Understanding the distinction between the earlier complaint, the narrowed litigation, and the later settlement is essential to accurately reporting Fisten’s legal history.

2019: Michael Fisten Speaks Publicly About Epstein

Following Epstein’s July 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Fisten became a public source for reporting about the earlier investigation.

On July 19, 2019, CNN aired an interview conducted by investigative correspondent Drew Griffin.

The CNN transcript records Fisten describing his interviews with survivors, the impact of the 2008 plea agreement, and his concerns about Epstein’s continuing access to young women.

Survivor Interviews

Fisten described meeting individuals who reported abuse and learning about their experiences through repeated interviews.

He spoke about the distress survivors experienced upon learning that Epstein had received a relatively limited state sentence despite the allegations against him.

He also described the emotional impact of hearing testimony from people who said they had been abused at very young ages.

These comments represent Fisten’s firsthand account of the investigation.

They should not be used to reveal the identities of individuals who remained anonymous or to assign unverified ages and histories to specific survivors.

Alleged Continued Abuse

Fisten stated that he remained concerned about conduct occurring after Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement.

He described observations of young women entering Epstein’s office during the period when Epstein was allowed work release from jail.

When asked whether he could identify those women as minors from his observations, Fisten acknowledged that he could not.

That qualification is important. Observing apparently young visitors does not independently establish their ages or prove criminal activity.

Fisten separately said that people had contacted the investigative team with allegations of more recent exploitation.

He stated that identifying information concerning those allegations had been provided to federal authorities.

The allegations required independent investigation and should not be reported as criminal findings merely because they were shared with investigators or journalists.

Alleged Witness Intimidation

Fisten also described concerns about private investigators allegedly following and intimidating people bringing claims against Epstein.

These statements were consistent with the issues previously raised in the 2010 protective-order litigation.

They provided a public account of conduct that had already appeared in sworn statements and legal filings.

Nevertheless, allegations of harassment, the existence of protective orders, and a finding that Epstein directed a specific incident must remain separate facts.

Information Fisten Said He Provided to Federal Authorities

During the renewed 2019 investigation, Fisten publicly stated that he had identified additional people who could possess information concerning Epstein’s alleged trafficking activities.

In a July 2019 Daily Beast interview, he discussed allegations involving two women whom sources claimed had helped arrange access to younger girls.

Fisten said he had shared their names with federal authorities.

CNN reported similar statements.

The distinction between an investigative lead and a proven allegation is critical.

The interviews establish what Fisten said he reported to law enforcement. They do not independently prove that the unnamed people committed trafficking offenses.

This profile therefore does not attempt to identify those individuals through speculation or reproduce unverified personal allegations.

It also does not imply that every lead Fisten reported resulted in charges or prosecution.

Epstein’s Work Release and Investigative Questions

Fisten’s public statements also contributed to renewed questions about Epstein’s 2008 and 2009 incarceration arrangements.

Epstein received work release privileges that allowed him to leave the county jail for designated periods.

A July 20, 2019 Guardian report described allegations that women visited Epstein during his work release periods.

The report attributed certain claims to people interviewed by Fisten and discussed the possibility of inadequate supervision.

Fisten said he had tried to obtain work release visitor logs but had not been able to locate the records he sought.

The existence of missing or inaccessible records does not independently prove that a particular visitor attended the facility or that a specific offense occurred.

The reporting nevertheless demonstrates how Fisten’s investigative work became relevant to later scrutiny of Palm Beach County’s supervision of Epstein.

The Julie K. Brown Contract Dispute

Another significant part of Fisten’s later public record concerns a dispute with investigative journalist Julie K. Brown.

Brown’s Miami Herald reporting helped bring renewed national attention to Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement and the experiences of survivors.

Fisten subsequently collaborated with Brown in connection with a proposed book project.

According to the Miami Herald’s December 2020 report, the two entered a collaboration agreement in May 2019 concerning proceeds from Brown’s Epstein book project.

Fisten later asserted that he was entitled to additional compensation from book and related deals.

Brown disputed the claim through her legal representatives and argued that the agreement did not entitle Fisten to the additional payments he sought.

These were competing contractual positions, not allegations that either individual participated in Epstein’s crimes.

The Arbitration

The disagreement proceeded through arbitration.

An arbitration award was issued on March 18, 2022.

Fisten sought to vacate that award, but the circuit court denied his motion and confirmed the arbitration decision.

Fisten then appealed.

The February 21, 2024 Appellate Decision

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal decision in Michael Fisten v. Julie Brown, case number 3D22-2028, affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The appellate court found Fisten’s motion to vacate the arbitration award legally insufficient.

Fisten argued that he should have been permitted to amend his filing rather than having the arbitration award confirmed.

The appellate court rejected that argument and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

The decision concerned the requirements for challenging an arbitration award. It did not constitute a comprehensive judicial evaluation of each party’s historical contribution to the Epstein investigation.

Bloomberg Law reported that the outcome prevented Fisten from obtaining an additional $350,000 he had sought in the dispute.

The case is relevant to Fisten’s public legal history, but it must remain analytically separate from his earlier investigative work and the survivor civil claims.

Why Michael Fisten’s Work Matters

The Epstein investigation did not consist solely of criminal investigations conducted by police and federal prosecutors.

Private investigators, attorneys, survivors, journalists, and independent researchers also developed records that later became important to public understanding of the case.

Fisten’s work belongs within that broader evidentiary history.

His documented activities include supporting witness interviews, participating in discovery, investigating potential leads, and responding to reported concerns about survivor safety.

The sworn statements and court filings show that these activities became part of contested legal proceedings rather than remaining informal private research.

His later public statements demonstrate how information gathered during earlier civil litigation resurfaced when the case returned to national attention in 2019.

At the same time, accuracy requires recognition of the limits of each source.

An investigator’s affidavit is testimony. An attorney’s motion is advocacy. A privilege log identifies withheld documents. A journalist’s interview records what a source said. An appellate decision establishes the outcome of the particular legal questions it decided.

These materials cannot responsibly be combined into conclusions that the underlying evidence does not support.

Documented Chronology

Evidence Appearances

The following records establish the principal documented appearances of Michael Fisten in the released Epstein files. The index distinguishes sworn testimony, contested pleadings, privilege logs, and later reporting.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

• Criminal involvement: The reviewed records do not establish that Fisten participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking activities.
• Validity of all litigation allegations: Epstein’s allegations in amended civil complaints were not automatically proven by their filing.
• Criminal wrongdoing in the Rothstein matter: Fisten’s name appearing in contested pleadings does not establish that he knowingly participated in Rothstein’s fraud.
• Personal responsibility for alleged intimidation: Fisten reported allegations of surveillance, but each specific allegation requires separate evidence and legal evaluation.
• Confidential investigative findings: Privilege logs identify topics of work without revealing every underlying finding.
• Unverified witness identities: Pseudonymous survivor identities and other private information are not established for public disclosure merely because records contain identifying details.
• 2019 investigative leads: Fisten’s statement that he provided names to federal authorities does not prove every allegation against those individuals.
• Complete disposition of every lawsuit: The settlement with Edwards and the later arbitration decision with Brown concern separate proceedings. Their outcomes cannot be applied to unrelated claims.

Related EpsteinWiki Investigations

• Scott Rothstein, the Ponzi scheme lawyer whose firm became entangled in Epstein litigation and disputed settlement financing.
• Julie K. Brown, investigative journalist whose reporting helped revive national scrutiny of the Epstein case.
• Operation Leap Year, the federal criminal investigation preceding Epstein’s 2007 agreement.
• Reading Epstein Files and Names, guidance on distinguishing documents, allegations, and verified evidence.

Conclusion

Michael Fisten’s role in the Epstein record is that of an investigator working within the legal effort to pursue civil accountability for Epstein’s abuse.

His participation is established by deposition records, witness statements, attorney declarations, privilege logs, contested pleadings, and his own sworn account of protective actions taken after a survivor reported being followed.

The documentary record also places him in disputes concerning the Rothstein law firm’s handling of investigative materials and the attempt by Epstein to challenge the actions of attorneys and investigators working against him.

Those proceedings contain serious competing allegations. Their existence does not convert every statement in a pleading into a verified fact.

Fisten’s public interviews in 2019 further document his view of the investigation, the survivors’ experiences, allegations of continued exploitation, and the difficulty of protecting witnesses against powerful defendants.

His later legal dispute with journalist Julie K. Brown is a separate matter involving a collaboration agreement, arbitration, and a Florida appellate decision.

Viewed together, the records provide a substantial profile of a private investigator whose work intersected with survivor litigation, the preservation of testimony, contested discovery, and renewed public attention to Epstein’s conduct.

The evidence supports documenting Fisten’s investigative role and legal history without misclassifying him as an Epstein associate or treating contested accusations as adjudicated findings.

Questions and Answers

Who is Michael Fisten?

Michael Fisten, also known as Mike Fisten, is a former South Florida law enforcement officer and private investigator who worked with attorney Bradley Edwards on Jeffrey Epstein survivor litigation.

Was Fisten employed by Jeffrey Epstein?

The records examined for this profile establish his work for survivor counsel, not employment by Epstein. He investigated claims against Epstein rather than working as a member of Epstein’s household or business staff.

Did Michael Fisten interview Epstein survivors?

Yes. Fisten publicly described interviewing numerous people who reported abuse, and court records identify him as an investigator assisting attorney Bradley Edwards.

Did Fisten help protect a survivor from alleged surveillance?

His 2010 sworn statement describes responding to a survivor’s report of being followed, confronting the person involved, and transporting the plaintiff to a safer location.

Was Fisten named in Epstein’s lawsuit?

Yes. An amended complaint in the Rothstein and Edwards litigation names Fisten individually. The allegations in that pleading were contested and do not, merely by being filed, establish criminal wrongdoing.

What was Fisten’s connection to Scott Rothstein?

Fisten worked as an investigator in litigation handled by Rothstein’s law firm. Later civil pleadings disputed how Epstein case files were handled during Rothstein’s fraudulent investment operations.

Did Fisten speak with New York Daily News reporter George Rush?

Yes. Rush acknowledged speaking with Fisten about aspects of an Epstein interview in a sworn supplementary affidavit filed during subpoena litigation.

Was Fisten present at survivor depositions?

Released transcripts and associated litigation materials establish his attendance and involvement in investigative and deposition-related proceedings.

Did Fisten identify additional alleged trafficking participants?

In 2019 interviews, Fisten said he had provided federal authorities with names of people described in investigative leads. Those statements do not independently establish the truth of every underlying allegation.

What happened in Epstein’s lawsuit against Bradley Edwards?

The litigation was narrowed over time. Edwards’s counterclaim was resolved through a November 2018 settlement agreement, which included a public apology from Epstein concerning false allegations he had made against Edwards.

Why did Fisten sue Julie K. Brown?

Fisten disputed compensation arising from a collaboration agreement involving Brown’s Epstein book project. Brown disputed his entitlement to the additional funds.

What was the outcome of Fisten v. Brown?

On February 21, 2024, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award in Brown’s favor.

Why does Michael Fisten belong in EpsteinWiki?

His records help document the private investigative work supporting survivor litigation, alleged witness intimidation, contested discovery, the Rothstein litigation, and the continued investigation of Epstein after the 2008 plea agreement.

Sources

• EFTA01155855, Jane Doe emergency protective-order filing and Michael Fisten affidavit.
• EFTA00587914, amended complaint in Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards.
• EFTA00621462, litigation pleading concerning Fisten, Jenne, and Epstein case records.
• EFTA00800508, Bradley Edwards deposition concerning investigative personnel.
• EFTA00181297, June 15, 2010 sworn statement transcript.
• EFTA00207294, supplementary affidavit of journalist George Rush.
• EFTA00728473, Bradley Edwards declaration concerning George Rush and related evidence.
• EFTA01156549, Michael Friedman affidavit concerning an October 2009 investigator encounter.
• EFTA00602835, attorney investigative privilege log.
• EFTA00600049, litigation witness and investigator index.
• EFTA01248647, civil litigation and deposition-related records.
• EFTA00081180, federal civil litigation evidence and declarations.
• EFTA00804054, November 29, 2018 settlement agreement between Epstein and Edwards.
• Epstein Data Wiki, Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards, case history and primary evidence index.
• CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, July 19, 2019 interview with private investigator Michael Fisten.
• The Daily Beast, Barbie Latza Nadeau, July 2019 reporting on Fisten’s investigative leads.
• The Guardian, July 20, 2019 reporting on Epstein’s work release and investigative allegations.
• Miami Herald, David Ovalle, December 2020 report on Fisten’s dispute with Julie K. Brown.
• Florida Third District Court of Appeal, Michael Fisten v. Julie Brown, No. 3D22-2028, February 21, 2024.
• Bloomberg Law, February 21, 2024 reporting on the Fisten v. Brown appellate decision.