Utah
LocationRelationship Network
032-02.pdf
An official Certificate of Good Standing from the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, dated February 17, 2017. Interim Clerk Lisa Collins certifies that attorney Paul G. Cassell has been a member of the Utah Bar in good standing since his admission on May 27, 1992. This document was filed as an exhibit in federal case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS on March 13, 2017.
013.pdf
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
010-16.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court hearing on April 21, 2016, in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The hearing addresses motions to admit Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell as counsel for the plaintiff, which the defense opposes citing conflicts with other litigation (Florida cases) and their status as potential witnesses. The judge also rules on various discovery disputes, including the production of Giuffre's medical records (limited to 1999-2002), tax returns (15 years ordered), and statements made to law enforcement (to be reviewed in camera).
010-05.pdf
This document is a civil complaint filed on January 6, 2015, in Broward County, Florida, by attorneys Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell against Alan M. Dershowitz. The plaintiffs allege that Dershowitz defamed them in media interviews (specifically on CNN) by accusing them of misconduct and lying after they filed court pleadings alleging Dershowitz participated in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct. The complaint asserts that Dershowitz's statements were false, malicious, and intended to distract from his own alleged involvement in Epstein's crimes and the negotiation of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
EFTA00032623.pdf
This document is a New York Law360 newsletter email dated November 21, 2018. It summarizes various legal news stories, including a forgery suit against Greenberg Traurig, a doping settlement involving Vijay Singh, and the sentencing of lawyers John Chambers and Michael Little. The document is likely included in the dataset due to a keyword hit for 'Epstein Becker & Green, PC' (a law firm) in the job listings section on the last page; it does not appear to reference Jeffrey Epstein personally.
EFTA00028850.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court hearing held on April 21, 2016, before Judge Robert W. Sweet in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The proceedings cover motions to admit attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell pro hac vice, which the defense contested citing potential conflicts from related Florida litigation. The hearing also addresses discovery disputes, including the production of the plaintiff's medical records, tax returns, employment history, and communications with law enforcement. No flight logs or aircraft data are contained in this document.
EFTA00021202.pdf
This June 26, 2019 edition of The Daily 202 newsletter highlights Robert Mueller's upcoming congressional testimony regarding his report on Russian interference and potential obstruction of justice. It also covers significant national news including the humanitarian crisis at the US-Mexico border, tensions with Iran, the 2020 Democratic primary debates, and various political developments involving the Trump administration. The document provides analysis, key quotes, and links to further reading on these topics.
EFTA00015560.pdf
In this July 14, 2019 email, attorney Paul Cassell contacts a redacted recipient (likely a prosecutor) regarding the legal representation of Jane Doe 1 and 2. Cassell discusses a forthcoming brief responding to Jeffrey Epstein's claims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically arguing that the NPA is limited to the Southern District of Florida. He offers to share the draft with the recipient's office prior to filing to ensure coordination and avoid interference.
EFTA00000525.pdf
This document is an evidence photograph showing a shelf of black three-ring binders labeled with various names, locations, and events spanning roughly 2002-2007. The labels reference Jeffrey Epstein ('JE'), Little St. James ('LSJ'), Zorro Ranch ('Zorro'), and Palm Beach ('PB'), along with associates like Jean Luc Brunel, Walter Cronkite, and possibly Ghislaine Maxwell ('GM'). Several labels explicitly mention 'girls', 'nudes', 'kids', and 'chix', suggesting the binders contain photographic evidence related to Epstein's trafficking activities.
DOJ-OGR-00022418.tif
This document is a transcript page from a legal proceeding, likely a deposition, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. She discusses her role in identifying real estate for 'him' (likely Jeffrey Epstein), specifically mentioning trips to Montana, Utah, and New Mexico, and the purchase of a ranch in New Mexico around 1994 from individuals possibly connected to a governor. Maxwell states she was tasked with visiting many states to look at property and was involved in dealing with the ranch acquisition.
DOJ-OGR-00000645.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing where the speaker argues that a court must independently evaluate a government's motion to dismiss and is required to consider the victims' views before making a decision. The speaker cites the case of United States v. Heaton and the expert opinion of former Judge Paul G. Cassell, who concluded that the Crime Victims' Rights Act gives victims broad rights in such matters. The speaker expresses full agreement with this viewpoint, despite some factual differences between the current case and the Heaton case.
DOJ-OGR-00010701.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from June 25, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to hear from individuals during sentencing, even if they do not strictly meet the definition of a 'victim' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It cites various legal precedents to support the admission of statements from 'affected individuals,' specifically mentioning 'Sarah' at the very end of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010698.jpg
This legal document argues that victims, specifically Sarah and Elizabeth, have a right under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to deliver in-court statements at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. It cites legal precedents and legislative intent to support the importance of these "victim impact statements," asserting they are crucial for ensuring victims are heard and for determining an appropriate punishment based on the harm caused.
DOJ-OGR-00020063.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing entitled 'Table of Authorities' from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 18, 2020. It lists numerous legal precedents cited in the filing, primarily 'United States v. [Defendant]' cases. Notably, the list includes two citations for 'United States v. Epstein' (one from 2001 in E.D. Pa. and one from 2019 in S.D.N.Y.) and one for 'United States v. Madoff'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019545.jpg
This document appears to be page 57 of a book proof (likely 'How America Lost Its Secrets' by Edward Jay Epstein, based on the file footer 'Epst_9780451494566') produced during a House Oversight investigation. It details Edward Snowden's activities in Hawaii, specifically a 'CryptoParty' he organized featuring Tor Project developer Sandvik, and his communications with activist Parker Higgins. The text also discusses the NSA's internal 'open culture' and security vulnerabilities identified by former CIA Deputy Director Morell.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016545.jpg
This document is page 36 of 42 from a legal filing or research file belonging to David Schoen (attorney), specifically an excerpt from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103, p. 844). The text consists of footnotes (163-177) discussing federal jurisdiction (Travel Act, honest services fraud), discrepancies in sexual assault reporting statistics between the FBI and CDC, and criticism of law enforcement clearance rates for sexual crimes, including specific references to the LAPD and LA Sheriff's Department. The document appears to be part of a larger collection produced to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016534.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review discussing the enforcement of public corruption laws, highlighting the federal government's aggressive role compared to state efforts. It details the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and the FBI's prioritization of corruption cases, noting that federal enforcement often targets broad interpretations of misconduct like "honest services" fraud. The footnotes provide citations related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act and various case laws concerning prosecutorial discretion and victim rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017751.jpg
This document is page 37 of 52 from a legal filing, specifically an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues for victims' rights to access presentence reports and be heard at sentencing, countering arguments made by the 'Practitioners' Group' (defense attorneys). The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen at the bottom and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017748.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and federal sentencing procedures. It details the rights of victims to access presentence reports and be heard regarding sentencing guidelines, citing Senator Kyl and various legal precedents. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as a legal exhibit or research material during congressional inquiries related to the Epstein case (Schoen was one of Epstein's attorneys).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017738.jpg
This document analyzes the legal issues surrounding the subpoena of victim records without notice, using the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case as a key example. It argues that current rules fail to protect victims' privacy rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Constitution, highlighting the risks when third-party custodians release sensitive information.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017737.jpg
This document is page 23 (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017737) of a legal text, specifically from the 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review, bearing the name David Schoen. It outlines proposals and rationales for modifying Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 15 and 17 to enhance victims' rights, specifically regarding their right to attend pre-trial depositions and their right to receive notice before their confidential information is subpoenaed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017735.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (indicated by the Bates stamp). The text discusses legal precedents and statutes (specifically the CVRA and state laws in Utah, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas) regarding a prosecutor's ethical obligation to inform the court of a victim's request to be heard during plea bargain proceedings. This is likely part of an argument regarding the violation of victims' rights in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017734.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, seemingly authored or submitted by David Schoen, discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the obligation of prosecutors to inform the court of victim objections to plea agreements. It cites Senator Feinstein and the case *State v. Casey* (Utah 2002), in which Schoen notes he represented the victim. The document argues for a rule change requiring disclosure of victim objections in open court, relevant to the broader context of the Epstein case regarding the secret Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017733.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 11. It argues for a rule change requiring prosecutors to notify victims of plea negotiations and for courts to consider victims' views before accepting plea agreements. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of an investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement, which was criticized for violating these exact principles of victim notification.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity