Cassell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
OLC
|
Adversarial critical |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Advisory Committee
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Simpson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Rule 44.1
|
Proposer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Advisory Committee
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OLC
|
Critic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
University of Utah
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Litigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Co plaintiffs co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Critic |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Professional advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Schoen
|
Citation |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Settlement of case brought by Edwards and Cassell | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Cassell | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery efforts to obtain photographic materials regarding Jane Doe No. 3 held by federal agenc... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2017-09-27 | N/A | Article print date; ongoing legal arguments regarding reopening the Epstein case. | U.S. Court (Implied) | View |
| 2016-01-01 | N/A | Settlement of suits and countersuits involving Dershowitz, Edwards, and Cassell. | Unknown | View |
| 2015-11-23 | N/A | Plaintiffs filed a response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality. | Court | View |
| 2015-10-15 | N/A | Deposition of Alan Dershowitz | Unknown | View |
| 2011-08-19 | N/A | Court hearing regarding the violation of victims' rights via the non-prosecution deal. | Court | View |
| 2011-05-31 | N/A | Deadline for discovery in the Doe case. | Court | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Publication of Utah Law Review article regarding victims' rights and Rule 2 amendments. | Utah | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Publication of the Utah Law Review article discussing victims' rights. | Utah (Publication) | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Publication of BYU Law Review article | Unknown | View |
EFTA00038941.pdf
This document is a 'Relativity Searches' report dated November 18, 2021, listing document control numbers relevant to four redacted search targets. The results include references to Epstein's 'black book', lists of girls' names, masseuses, phone records, bill logs, and interview transcripts from 2007 and 2018. It serves as an index of evidence rather than a primary source of the evidence itself.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022169.jpg
This document is a scanned book excerpt (page 272), stamped by House Oversight, detailing events surrounding Alan Dershowitz. It describes a 2015 speech he gave at Johns Hopkins University that was protested by a feminist group labeling him part of 'rape culture' due to his defense of Jeffrey Epstein. The text also references 2016 legal settlements involving Dershowitz and attorneys Edwards and Cassell, as well as a mention of a plot to blackmail 'Les W' (likely Les Wexner).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012033.jpg
This document, marked as Exhibit R, details allegations from a court filing stating that Jeffrey Epstein forced a minor, Jane Doe #3, to have sexual relations with Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. It includes denials from Dershowitz, who threatens legal action against the accuser's lawyers, and a denial from Buckingham Palace regarding Prince Andrew's involvement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017763.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the victim's right against unreasonable delay in proceedings. It cites Senators Feinstein and Kyl, along with various state statutes, to argue that delays should not occur merely for the convenience of the court or parties. The document bears the name of David Schoen (a known attorney for Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017756.jpg
This document is page 42 of 52 from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (vol. 835) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and its interaction with Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure (specifically Rule 615 and Rule 43). The text argues for explicit procedural rules to protect a victim's right to attend trials, referencing the Oklahoma City bombing trial as a failure of the previous system. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Jeffrey Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a legal file produced during congressional investigations into the handling of the Epstein case, likely regarding the violation of victims' rights under the CVRA.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017728.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 14 of 52 in the specific filing) discussing proposals to amend legal rules to incorporate the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues for amending Rule 2 to ensure fairness to victims and adding a Rule 10.1 regarding notice of proceedings. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as part of a legal argument or evidence file regarding victim rights and notification procedures in the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017727.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article included in a House Oversight Committee production (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017727), bearing the name of attorney David Schoen. The text analyzes the legal definition of a "Victim" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposes amending Rule 1 to align with the CVRA's broad definition. It cites various case laws (Hughey, Follet, Moore) and legislative acts (MVRA, VWPA) to support the rationale that the definition of a victim should be standardized and broadly interpreted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017941.jpg
This document is page 7 of a civil complaint filed on April 16, 2019, in the lawsuit between Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) and Alan Dershowitz. It outlines allegations that Dershowitz publicly challenged his accusers to sue him while simultaneously avoiding legal determinations of facts in previous instances. The text establishes jurisdiction and venue in New York City based on diversity jurisdiction and Dershowitz's residency.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017718.jpg
This document is page 4 of 52 from a production to the House Oversight Committee, stamped with the name David Schoen. The content is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the history of the victims' rights movement, specifically the 1982 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime and subsequent state constitutional amendments (highlighting Arizona). The text analyzes the legal shift towards protecting victims' rights to be present and heard during criminal proceedings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017706.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 71 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that the Advisory Committee's proposed rules improperly limit the venue for asserting victims' rights to cases where prosecution is already underway, potentially failing to protect victims during the investigation phase (pre-charge) when rights to fairness and dignity might be violated by federal agents. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of an investigation file, likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704.jpg
This document is page 69 of 78 from a House Oversight Committee file (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704) associated with attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing 'Rule 60. Victim's Rights,' specifically regarding enforcement, limitations on relief, and the inability to request a new trial based on rights violations. The text includes a discussion section criticizing the Advisory Committee for deviating from the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in ways that reduce victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017702.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to legal rules regarding a victim's right to be heard in court proceedings. It specifically critiques the 'Advisory Committee' for having too narrow a scope for when victims can be heard (bail, plea, sentencing) versus a broader approach advocated by the author (likely Paul Cassell). The document was produced by attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) to the House Oversight Committee, likely as part of research or evidence regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017701.jpg
This document is page 66 of 78 from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on the necessity of providing notice to victims regarding court proceedings and the funding allocated to the DOJ for notification systems. The text argues that failure to notify victims of proceedings renders their rights useless and discusses proposed rules for how courts should handle situations where a victim was not notified.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017700.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 65 of 78) submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It argues legally and ethically for the inclusion of specific victim notification requirements in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referencing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text critiques the Advisory Committee for failing to incorporate a rule requiring victims be notified of their rights, drawing parallels to Miranda rights for defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017697.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal filing, appearing to be an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It discusses proposed amendments to Federal Rules (specifically Rule 53) to allow closed-circuit transmission of proceedings for victims and critiques the Advisory Committee for failing to adopt these changes. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017696.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted as evidence by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The text provides a legal analysis of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that victims should have the right to be heard by the judiciary when charges are dismissed (Rule 48) and proposing amendments to Rule 50 to ensure victims' rights to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. It critiques the Advisory Committee's resistance to formalizing these rights in the federal rules.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in files produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal arguments regarding the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 60 and 48) specifically concerning the rights of victims to be heard during release hearings and case dismissals. The text critiques the Advisory Committee's approach as an 'empty gesture' and advocates for stronger requirements for courts to consider victims' views.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 58 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the legal rights of crime victims, specifically the appointment of counsel and the right to be heard regarding a defendant's release. It cites the case *United States v. Stamper* and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The document bears the name David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as evidence or background material in a congressional investigation, likely related to the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case given Schoen's involvement as Epstein's lawyer.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017692.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article or legal filing, produced as part of a House Oversight investigation (likely related to the Epstein case given David Schoen's involvement). It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and argues for a new rule (Rule 44.1) allowing courts discretionary authority to appoint counsel for victims. The text analyzes Judge Kenna's interpretation of the CVRA and cites various legal precedents and statutes supporting the inherent authority of courts to appoint counsel.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017689.jpg
This document is page 54 of 78 from a submission to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of Epstein's attorney, David Schoen. The content is a reproduction of a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on victim impact statements, sentencing guidelines, and the split between different Circuit courts regarding notice requirements for upward departures in sentencing. This legal context is highly relevant to the Epstein case, as the violation of CVRA rights (failure to notify victims of the plea deal) was a central point of contention in the scrutiny of his Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017685.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, signed or submitted by attorney David Schoen, which excerpts a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims have a broad right to be heard during sentencing proceedings, including the right to review presentence reports and make sentencing recommendations regarding Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It cites legislative history from Senators Kyl and Feinstein to support the argument that victims should be able to provide information influencing the sentence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684.jpg
This document is page 49 of a larger 78-page filing produced to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from the 2007 Utah Law Review proposing or discussing legal rules related to sentencing recommendations, specifically emphasizing the rights of victims to object to presentence reports and participate in sentencing hearings. The text outlines procedural steps for objections, the role of probation officers, and court determinations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 46 of 78 in the exhibit) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681). The text analyzes the legal rights of crime victims to attend trials and have input on venue transfers, citing Supreme Court precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It specifically discusses the New Jersey case *State v. Timmendequas* as an example of prioritizing victims' convenience by importing a jury rather than moving the trial location.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017679.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that prosecutors should be required to inform the court of a victim's objection to transferring a case (Rule 20/21 transfers) and criticizes the Advisory Committee for not explicitly requiring this. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely in the context of examining the handling of the Epstein case and the violation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017671.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen, who later served as an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. The text is a legal analysis of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, arguing for strict adherence to the 'Nixon factors' (specificity, relevancy, and admissibility) when issuing subpoenas to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' The document includes extensive legal footnotes citing various precedents and was produced as part of a House Oversight Committee investigation (likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity