Subject: RE: schedule for the CVRA case
Summary
Subject: RE: schedule for the CVRA case Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:37:21 +0000 Importance: Normal I'm here today and tomorrow. Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:06 AM Subject: Re: schedule for the CVRA case Should we talk this afternoon or tomorrow? (Starting Wednesday, I'm out for a week.) On Aug 13, 2016, at 9:40 PM, FYI. Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Cassell <[email protected] edu> Date: August 12 2016 at 5:03:22 PM EDT scnenute for the case Brad is currently in trial, so he asked me a week or two ago to be ready for a call from you about scheduling for the CVRA case. I just wanted to check in informally to make sure I hadn't missed a call from you on this. Brad and I are obviously happy to work with your side of the case to come up with a schedule that works for everyone. Paul Paul G. Cassell EFTA00211293 CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If y
Persons Referenced (1)
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
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
Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now?
From: To: Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:58:02 +0000 Importance: Normal I did. She was driving and her phone was cutting out. I just sent her an emailing explaining how this all intersects and told her to hold off about making anymore contact wit o as to try to keep criminal vs. civil cases as separate as possible. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) (Ann.Marie.C.Villafana©usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 12:35 PM To: Pryor, Christina Jo Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? Did you tell her that is not a victim? Eshould only be classified as a witness. Assistant U.S. Attorne 500 E. Broward Blvd, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394 From: Pryor, Christina Jo (FBI) Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:53 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? I just talked with She said had identified=as a victim and per procedure, she made an initial contact introduci
Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition
Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition The passage references a claim that Alan Dershowitz disclosed a criminal extortion scheme involving unnamed clients during a deposition, and mentions related defamation lawsuits. While the details are vague and unverified, the involvement of a high‑profile attorney and a federal courtroom provides a concrete lead (date, location, parties) that could be pursued. The claim is moderately controversial and potentially sensitive, but it lacks clear novelty and specific financial details, limiting its score. Key insights: Dershowitz allegedly told lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell that "your clients were involved" in a criminal extortion plot.; The statement was made on October 15, 2015, during a deposition in Broward County, Florida.; Bradley and Cassell had sued Dershowitz for defamation, and Dershowitz had filed a countersuit.
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
Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM
Filing # 35429605 E-Filed 12/11/2015 10:08:04 AM
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.