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_014073.jpg
This document is a page from a legal academic article (Vol. 104, likely by Paul Cassell) analyzing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details that the FBI found abuse allegations against Epstein credible and presented the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida, which then negotiated a non-prosecution agreement in 2007. The text argues that victims should have been notified and allowed to confer with prosecutors once substantial evidence was developed, rather than being excluded from the plea negotiation process.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067.jpg
This document is page 88 of a legal text (likely a law review article by Cassell et al., Vol 104) included in a House Oversight Committee production. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) and the Department of Justice's interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding when a 'prosecution' officially begins and when victims can assert their rights. The text argues that the OLC's narrow interpretation—that prosecution only begins at indictment rather than complaint—is 'twisted' and contradicts standard criminal procedure definitions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014065.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a law review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in a House Oversight Committee production regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victims' rights should apply during the investigative stage (pre-charging) to prevent 'secondary victimization.' This legal argument is central to the controversy surrounding the Epstein non-prosecution agreement, where victims were not notified during the federal investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014063.jpg
This document is page 84 of a law review article (Vol. 104) by Cassell et al., criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The authors argue that the OLC's interpretation effectively nullifies victims' rights in non-prosecution agreements, explicitly citing the 'Epstein case' as a notable example where this occurred. The footnotes highlight that the OLC opinion was released on May 20, 2011, shortly before the Government filed its response in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014061.jpg
This page from a legal publication (likely by Paul Cassell) critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that the OLC deceptively quoted Senator Jon Kyl to suggest victim rights only apply after charging. The text cites a June 6, 2011 letter from Senator Kyl to Attorney General Eric Holder where Kyl clarifies that the CVRA was intended to provide rights to victims even before an indictment is filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014059.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal analysis (likely by Paul Cassell) included in House Oversight materials (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014059). It critiques an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against the OLC's position that victim rights only apply after formal charges are filed. The text outlines specific rights that logically apply pre-charging (protection, conferencing with government attorneys, and fairness/dignity) and cites case law (US v. Rubin) and legislative history to support a broader interpretation of the Act.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014057.jpg
This document appears to be page 78 of a legal article or brief, likely authored by Paul Cassell (a lawyer for Epstein's victims), arguing for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to the filing of formal criminal charges. It explicitly criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that sought to limit these rights. The text cites various legal precedents (Turner, Searcy) to argue that victims should be treated fairly and allowed to confer with prosecutors during the investigation phase, not just after charges are filed. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation, likely into the handling of the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014055.jpg
This document is page 76 of a legal article (Vol. 104) by Cassell et al., produced to the House Oversight Committee. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text contends that the OLC incorrectly asserts that victim rights only attach after formal charges are filed, arguing instead that the Department of Justice is required by statute (VRRA) and policy to identify victims earlier, such as during the 'target letter' phase of an investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014051.jpg
This document is page 72 of a legal analysis (likely by Paul Cassell) labeled with a House Oversight Bates number. It argues that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) applies during the investigative phase of a case, before formal charges are filed. The text cites specific statutory language regarding 'detection' and 'investigation' obligations of the DOJ and venue provisions for pre-prosecution situations to support this interpretation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014049.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Cassell et al., Vol 104) submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. It argues for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to formal charges being filed. The text specifically cites the Epstein case as a negative example, noting that prosecutors made a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein regarding sex offenses against dozens of victims (including Jane Does 1 and 2) without victim participation, effectively shutting them out of the justice process.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014047.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (Vol. 104) discussing the federal case 'Does v. United States' and the controversial nonprosecution agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The text details how, despite evidence that Epstein molested over 30 girls between 2001 and 2007, he was allowed to plead to lesser state charges after a 'year-long assault on the prosecution' by his defense team. The page includes footnotes citing court documents, media reports connecting Epstein to Prince Andrew, and a letter from former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the pressure faced by prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014045.jpg
This document is a page from a legal text or law review article (authored by 'Cassell et al.') included in House Oversight records. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), detailing the legislative intent to ensure victims are treated with fairness, dignity, and privacy, and to make them independent participants in the criminal justice process. The text cites U.S. Code and Congressional Records, specifically quoting Senators Feinstein and Kyl regarding the systemic neglect of victims prior to the Act.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014041.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal article (Cassell et al.) included in House Oversight records. It argues that Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) rights should attach before formal charges are filed, explicitly using the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement in Florida as a case study where victims were denied consultation because charges were not formally filed. The text critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) position and references a 2011 letter from Senator Jon Kyl to Attorney General Eric Holder supporting the broader interpretation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014039.jpg
This document is page 60 of a legal article (Vol. 104) authored by Cassell et al. It contains an abstract and a Table of Contents discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The article critiques the Justice Department's interpretation of when victims' rights attach during criminal investigations, specifically using the Jeffrey Epstein case as a primary illustration of pre-charging issues.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021918.jpg
A page from a rough draft deposition transcript involving Mr. Simpson, Mr. Scarola, and a witness. The discussion centers on the introduction of a one-page document (partially typed with handwriting) into evidence, which is subsequently marked for identification as 'Cassell Exhibit 3'. The witness mentions a timeline involving 'December 30th'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021839.jpg
This is page 16 of a rough draft deposition transcript involving a witness named Cassell and an attorney named Mr. Simpson. The attorney introduces two exhibits into the record: Exhibit 1, which is a Plaintiff's Response to a Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. Dershowitz, and Exhibit 2, a motion for joinder by Jane Doe Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021717.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article dated August 19, 2011, detailing a court hearing regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Judge Marra heard arguments from victims' lawyers (Edwards, Cassell) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee concerning whether the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The judge also set a schedule for Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, to submit arguments regarding the unsealing of correspondence between the defense and federal prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm SDBS to Thomas E. Scott, Jr., regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The letter aggressively challenges the defense's discovery responses, accusing them of 'word play and gamesmanship' regarding document production, metadata, and definitions. The sender demands immediate production of documents and rejects the defense's attempts to limit discovery to a narrow timeframe, arguing that Dershowitz's alleged defamation and public denials were broad and unrestricted by time.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, addressed to Thomas E. Scott, Jr. regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The text outlines legal arguments concerning discovery abuses, specifically arguing that one cannot claim privilege or undue burden for documents that do not exist, and providing a broad legal definition of 'control' over documents to include those held by third parties like attorneys or accountants. The document was entered on the FLSD Docket on March 24, 2015, and bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014112.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley P.A. to attorney Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr. regarding the case 'Edwards and Cassell vs. Dershowitz.' The letter addresses discovery disputes, specifically criticizing the recipient's use of 'general objections' and 'subject to' responses as improper tactics that shield information from discovery. It cites federal court precedents disapproving of such objections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014096.jpg
This document is page 6 of a Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed by Bradley Edwards against Alan Dershowitz in March 2015. The plaintiffs argue that Dershowitz failed to produce documents proving he never met Jane Doe No. 3, despite claiming to the media he possessed such proof, and failed to file a privilege log while asserting blanket privileges. The motion requests the court to order immediate production of materials, declare privileges waived due to the lack of a log, and award attorneys' fees.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014095.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 'Motion to Compel Production of Documents' in the case of Bradley Edwards vs. Alan Dershowitz (Case No. CACE 15-000072), filed in federal court on March 24, 2015. The text details a dispute over discovery delays, noting that on February 11, 2015, Dershowitz's legal team (specifically a paralegal from Cole, Scott & Kissane) promised documents that were then retracted by an attorney. By February 23, 2015, Dershowitz had produced zero documents, offering only 'evasive' standard responses objecting to requests for the 'absolute proof' he referenced in a sworn declaration.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity