From: Paul Cassell <I
Summary
From: Paul Cassell <I To: (USAFLS)" ctl Cc: Paul Cassell (USAFLS)" •, Maria Kelljchian Subject: Re: Representation in Epstein's Response to our Motion to Dismiss Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:38:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Maria - can you send a copy of Epstein's response to the motion to dismiss, filed yesterday in the CAll, to n Thanks! Paul Cassell Sent from my iPhone On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM,' Paul, (USAFLS)" < wrote: I have not seen Mr. Epstein's response to your motion to dismiss in the Eleventh Circuit. When was it filed? Could you provide me with a copy? Thank you. From: Paul racspil [mato ] Sent: Tuesda July 16, 2013 2:12 AM To: USAFLS); Brad Edwards; . (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Maria Kelljchlan Subject: RE: Representation In Epstein's Response to our Motion to Dismiss Dear You will have seen Epstein's response to our motion to dismiss, in which he states: "Intervenors have also contended that the correspondence was privileged and confidential, a posi
Persons Referenced (2)
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
From: Paul Cassell •ci
From: Paul Cassell •ci To: "IN (USAFLS)" ' Cc: , • (USAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:56 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: ORDER-omnibus-wrapup.pdf [tried to send this earlier, but it may not have gone out] Dear We haven't seen the sealed order granting the Government's motion for stay either. (Have you?). But, in any event, Judge Marra's order on June 19, 2013 (DE 190) specifically stated that "The petitioners' motion to compel discovery from the Government [DE 130] is GRANTED. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of entry of this order, the Government shall . . . [produce various discovery]." For your convenience, I attach a copy of DE 190 ordering the Government to produce discovery within 30 days. So we are expecting to see you produce the bulk of our discovery on July 19, 2013, as specifically directed in DE 190 which granted our mo
James Patterson claims false charges were fabricated by attorney Bradley Edwards and professor Paul Cassell, linking them to Scott Rothstein’s fraud scheme
James Patterson claims false charges were fabricated by attorney Bradley Edwards and professor Paul Cassell, linking them to Scott Rothstein’s fraud scheme The passage provides a specific allegation that attorneys involved in the Epstein case fabricated charges, and it ties them to a known fraudster (Scott Rothstein). It names several high‑profile figures (Prince Andrew, Bradley Edwards, Paul Cassell, Scott Rothstein) and suggests a coordinated smear campaign, which could merit further investigation. However, the claims are vague, lack concrete dates, transaction details, or documentary evidence, limiting immediate investigative utility. Key insights: Patterson alleges that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell fabricated false sexual assault charges against him.; He asserts that Cassell misused his former federal judge title and university affiliation to lend credibility.; Edwards is described as a partner of convicted fraudster Scott Rothstein.
To: "Paul Cassell"
From: To: "Paul Cassell" Cc: ' "Brad Edwards" Subject: : ovemments osition on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:56:28 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, 1. Yesterday, I provided you with the name and phone number for OPR Acting Associate Counsel, who received your December 10, 2010 letter to Mr. Ferrer, asking for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. 2. The government will not be making initial disclosures to plaintiffs, because we do not believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies to this matter. 3. The CVRA applies to the criminal case which has been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which may be initiated to enforce those claimed rights. We do not believe there is any right to discovery in this case. Moreover, we do not believe that whatever Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann Sanchez may have said to this office, or what this office said to Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann S
Subjec
Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message along with any/all attachments is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message
From: Brad Edwards
From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judg
Alleged Links Between Bradley Edwards, Rothstein’s Ponzi Scheme, and Jeffrey Epstein’s Non‑Prosecution Agreement
The passage suggests a chain of actors—Bradley Edwards, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and the late financier Rothstein—who may have leveraged Epstein’s alleged non‑prosecution agreement for extortion or bla Bradley Edwards joined Rothstein’s firm in April 2009 and allegedly showed Epstein‑related documents Rothstein’s wealth is claimed to stem from a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme running since 2005. Edwards
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.