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 |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017662.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.3 and 15. The text argues for protecting victims' rights, specifically regarding witness disclosure in public-authority defenses and allowing victims to attend pre-trial depositions. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee as part of their investigation, marked with Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017662.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017658.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 23 of 78 in the file) discussing Rule 12.1 and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It analyzes the legal requirements for disclosing a victim witness's address and telephone number to the defense, specifically in the context of an alibi defense, and highlights the tension between defendants' discovery rights and victims' safety/privacy. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017657.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 22 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing legal procedure rules (Rule 12.1 and 12.3) concerning the disclosure of witness information in criminal trials. It specifically focuses on the balance between a defendant's right to information and the protection of victims' addresses and telephone numbers. The document was produced by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, as indicated by the footer and Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017656.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, included in a legal filing by David Schoen (likely related to the House Oversight investigation). It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the ethical obligation of prosecutors to inform the court of a victim's objection to a plea deal, citing the 'Casey' case. It also proposes amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1 to protect victim contact information during alibi defense disclosures.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017655.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 11(c)(2) regarding plea agreements. It argues that prosecutors should be required to inform the court if a victim objects to a plea deal, citing Senator Feinstein and the case State v. Casey. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was produced as part of a congressional investigation, likely regarding the handling of victims' rights in the Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017651.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely written by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing amendments to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to explicitly include fairness to victims. It critiques the Advisory Committee's refusal to adopt these amendments. The document bears the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to an investigation, likely involving Epstein's plea deal and victims' rights violations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017648.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, produced as part of a House Oversight investigation (likely related to the Epstein case given David Schoen's name at the footer). The text analyzes the history of the Advisory Committee's amendments to Federal Criminal Rules and critiques the lack of support for crime victims' rights, specifically the failure to appoint counsel for indigent victims or clarify their role in plea processes under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It highlights the disparity between defendants, who are guaranteed counsel, and victims, who are not.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017645.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 874) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critically analyzes the 'Advisory Committee's' narrow interpretation of the Act, contrasting it with the broad legislative intent expressed by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to ensure victims are treated with fairness and due process. The document appears to be part of a production to the House Oversight Committee from the files of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein, likely relevant to arguments regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017625.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee) citing a law review article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology). It presents a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victims' rights should 'attach' during the investigative phase before formal charges are filed. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) opposition to this view and cites the case *United States v. Rubin* (2008) to define the logical limits of when these rights begin.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018031.jpg
Affidavit of David S. Stone in the case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Alan Dershowitz, filed April 16, 2019. Stone details his professional relationships with both Dershowitz and David Boies and describes facilitating meetings between them in May 2015 regarding sexual abuse allegations against Dershowitz. Stone explicitly refutes Dershowitz's claim that Boies stated during a May 19th meeting that Giuffre (referred to as Roberts) was 'mistaken' about the abuse.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018025.jpg
This document is a printout of a Law.com interview with Alan Dershowitz, filed as an exhibit in a 2019 court case (Case 1:19-cv-03377). In the interview, Dershowitz vehemently defends himself against 'heinous crimes' (implied to be related to the Epstein case), calling the situation the 'fight of my life' and citing his constant travel with his wife as evidence against the accusations. The document includes a footer indicating it is part of a House Oversight Committee production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011937.jpg
This document, likely a page from a news report contained within House Oversight files, details the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's initial plea deal. It discusses his properties, philanthropic efforts (Harvard, AI), and allegations that he used assistants to recruit underage girls for sex. The text highlights the legal battle over the Crime Victims' Rights Act, noting that victims were kept in the dark about plea negotiations, and features defense attorney Roy Black arguing that the non-prosecution agreement was not a 'sweetheart deal.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015653.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 4) arguing that Defendant Alan Dershowitz must produce witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, if he wishes to pursue issues regarding Bill Clinton's travel. It highlights that Dershowitz invoked attorney-client privilege during his January 2016 deposition when asked if Virginia Roberts was lying about Clinton socializing with Epstein. It also notes Epstein's refusal to be deposed despite court orders.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015633.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal response in the case of Edwards vs. Dershowitz (Case No. CACE 15-000072). It contains a transcript excerpt from a deposition where Alan Dershowitz questions Ms. McCawley's standing, followed by legal commentary regarding a statement released by Ms. McCawley on behalf of David Boies concerning privileged settlement discussions. The document references depositions of Alan Dershowitz from 2015 and 2016.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal response filed by Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell against Alan Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The text outlines legal exceptions for confidentiality under Florida Judicial Administration rules, arguing that none apply because the case is a defamation action where disclosure is inherent to the proceedings. The filing cites precedents such as Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers and Carnegie v. Tedder to support the argument that defamatory material cannot be sealed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015614.jpg
This email from Susan Moss, Judicial Assistant to Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV, conveys court rulings in the case of Edward & Cassell v. Dershowitz. The judge quashed a subpoena against the law firm Boies Schiller but granted parts of a subpoena regarding 'Jane Doe #3,' while establishing strict protocols for a future deposition, including a 4-hour limit and the requirement of a Defendant-paid special master to rule on objections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015592.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal motion filed by Alan Dershowitz requesting a modification to a Confidentiality Order. Dershowitz argues he must be allowed to contact witnesses to verify or disprove allegations made by Virginia Roberts (Giuffre), asserting that the Plaintiffs (represented by Edwards and Cassell) may not have conducted a reasonable investigation before filing suit. The text references a previous filing from November 23, 2015, and cites case law regarding the benefits of openness in court proceedings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015545.jpg
This document contains responses to legal interrogatories (questions 13-16) provided by attorneys Edwards and Cassell regarding their client, Jane Doe #3. It details that Jane Doe #3 began informing Brad Edwards of abuse allegations involving Dershowitz via phone calls starting in 2011 and filed a public affidavit in 2015. The attorneys state they have not seen photographic evidence of Jane Doe #3 with Dershowitz but are attempting to obtain such materials from the U.S. Attorney's Office.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015030.jpg
This document is page 3 of 4 of a printed web article from the Palm Beach Post, dated September 27, 2017. It details legal arguments by attorneys Edwards and Cassell, who are urging Judge Marra to rule that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The document discusses potential remedies, including restitution and legal fees, while Cassell emphasizes that the effort is about justice rather than money. The page also includes unrelated local news sidebars about the Wellington council and a cold-case arrest.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015029.jpg
This document is a printout of a news article (likely Palm Beach Post) dated September 27, 2017, discussing the potential reopening of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the legal arguments by victims' lawyers Edwards and Cassell that the 2008 non-prosecution agreement was illegal because federal prosecutors (including Alex Acosta and Marie Villafana) failed to confer with victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The text highlights the secrecy of the deal, the alleged deception of victims via letters claiming the investigation was ongoing, and the involvement of high-profile figures like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013412.jpg
This document is page 2 of a printout from the Palm Beach Daily News archives, dated April 7, 2011. It contains the conclusion of an article discussing legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and a 'Doe case,' specifically noting a discovery deadline of May 31 and a trial date of July 14. The page is predominantly filled with unrelated web advertisements and bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014086.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) arguing that Alan Dershowitz has failed to produce exculpatory documentary evidence in court despite publicly claiming on Fox News that such evidence exists to disprove Jane Doe No. 3's sexual misconduct allegations. The filing references a parallel state defamation case (*Edwards v. Dershowitz*) where Dershowitz also allegedly refused discovery requests. It suggests the court should infer the evidence does not exist and that the accuser's allegations are true.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014083.jpg
This document is a single, nearly blank page from a larger legal or congressional production (specifically page 104 of Volume 104). It features the header 'CASSELL ET AL.' and the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014083', suggesting it is part of the House Oversight Committee's review of the Epstein case, likely involving attorney Paul Cassell.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014081.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal article (Vol. 104), likely authored by Paul Cassell ('CASSELL ET AL.'), discussing the legal precedent for crime victims' rights attaching before formal charges are filed. It analyzes statutes and case law from states including South Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan, arguing that victims are entitled to notification and consultation during the investigation phase. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of the congressional investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding the failure to notify victims of the non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014077.jpg
This document is page 98 of a legal text or law review article (Vol. 104) authored by 'Cassell et al.' (likely Paul Cassell). It discusses the statutory rights of crime victims across various U.S. states, specifically focusing on the requirement for prosecutors to confer with victims regarding plea negotiations and charging decisions. The text cites various state statutes (Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana) and legal studies to argue that victims' rights often attach prior to the formal filing of charges, a relevant legal argument in the context of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement controversy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity