Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Mr. Simpson

Person
Mentions
97
Relationships
13
Events
25
Documents
47
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
13 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person MR. SCAROLA
Opposing counsel
9 Strong
5
View
person Mr. Dershowitz
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Alan Dershowitz
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Cassell
Legal representative
5
1
View
person THE WITNESS
Legal representative
5
1
View
person the witness
Legal representative
5
1
View
person MR. CASSELL
Interviewer witness
5
1
View
person MR. CASSELL
Legal representative
5
1
View
person the witness
Examiner deponent
5
1
View
person the witness
Professional adversarial
5
1
View
person ALAN DERSHOWITZ
Business associate
5
1
View
person MR. SCAROLA
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Mr. Indyke
Legal representative
1
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Legal deposition/testimony Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition of Cassell Unknown View
N/A N/A Marking of Cassell Exhibit 1 Deposition room View
N/A N/A Marking of Exhibit 2 Deposition room View
N/A N/A End of deposition session / Break Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition testimony regarding legal strategy and factual basis for allegations. Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition of Professor Cassell Deposition Room View
N/A N/A Deposition of Mr. Cassell Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition/Hearing interruption where phone participants are identified. Deposition Room View
N/A N/A Marking of Cassell Exhibit 3 Deposition setting View
N/A N/A Marking of 'Exhibit 3' (Cassell 3) Deposition/Hearing Room View
N/A N/A Recess in deposition proceedings Deposition room (unspecifie... View
N/A N/A Deposition testimony regarding privilege and common interest agreements Unknown View
N/A N/A Legal proceeding involving testimony where Alan Dershowitz is present and accused of disrupting t... Unspecified legal venue View
N/A N/A Deposition of Paul G. Cassell by Mr. Simpson regarding previous legal filings. Unknown View
N/A N/A Legal deposition or hearing where a witness is questioned about evidence concerning Professor Der... Unknown View
N/A N/A Video Record Recess Deposition Room (Time: 4:01... View
N/A N/A Deposition/Testimony of Professor Cassell Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition of an unnamed witness regarding an investigation. Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition/Legal Proceeding Unknown View
N/A N/A Deposition/Hearing Testimony Unknown View
2020-05-01 N/A Deposition/Testimony Unknown View
2017-07-26 N/A Legal Deposition Unknown View
2015-10-16 N/A Deposition of Paul G. Cassell Unknown (facilitated by Esq... View
2009-01-01 N/A Deposition Testimony Unknown View

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021887.jpg

This document is page 64 of a rough draft legal transcript, likely from a House Oversight Committee investigation given the Bates stamp. It features an exchange between attorneys Mr. Simpson and Mr. Scarola, and an unnamed witness. The witness denies that Professor Dershowitz abused other minors, and the ensuing dialogue concerns the procedural rules for the witness referring to notes and documents to refresh their recollection versus testifying from memory.

Legal transcript / deposition (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021879.jpg

This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript involving an interrogation by Mr. Simpson. The questioning focuses on establishing the factual basis for allegations concerning 'other minors' known by the witness as of December 30, 2014. Attorney Mr. Scarola interrupts to instruct the witness not to answer based on privilege, leading to a debate about separating privileged legal strategy from non-privileged factual information.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021878.jpg

Page 55 of a rough draft deposition transcript stamped by House Oversight. Attorney Mr. Simpson questions a witness about what they would have told a judge (specifically Judge Marra). The witness, likely an attorney themselves, objects that the question is speculative and involves attorney-client privilege, but asserts they would have provided an 'ample factual basis for those allegations.' Professor Cassell is mentioned in an objection regarding expert witnesses.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021875.jpg

This document is page 52 of a rough draft deposition transcript, likely from a House Oversight investigation. It features a witness (presumably a lawyer) being questioned by Mr. Simpson about the rationale for including allegations of sexual abuse against Alan Dershowitz involving 'other minors' alongside Virginia Roberts in a legal pleading. The witness asserts that the inclusion was based on the expectation that other victims would testify under oath.

Deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021872.jpg

This document is page 49 of a rough draft deposition transcript marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp. Attorney Mr. Simpson questions a witness about whether, as of December 30, 2014, they were aware of any specific person alleging that Alan Dershowitz abused other minors. The witness responds that while they did not have a specific named person at that time, they had a 'pool of persons' they understood would be potentially available to provide such information.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021868.jpg

This document is page 45 of a rough draft deposition transcript bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. Attorney Mr. Simpson asks a witness if, as of December 30, 2014, anyone (other than Virginia Roberts) had told them that Alan Dershowitz abused minors. Attorney Mr. Scarola objects and instructs the witness not to answer, citing attorney-client and work product privileges.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021867.jpg

Page 44 of a rough draft deposition transcript involving a witness identified as Professor Cassell. Attorney Mr. Scarola instructs Cassell not to answer questions to preserve the attorney/client privilege of Virginia Roberts. Mr. Simpson questions whether the witness will consistently follow these instructions, to which the witness agrees.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021865.jpg

This document is page 42 of a rough draft deposition transcript, likely from a House Oversight investigation. Attorney Mr. Simpson asks a witness if they knew of anyone (as of Dec 30, 2014) who could testify that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor. Attorney Mr. Scarola objects and instructs the witness not to answer, asserting that even the names of potential witnesses are protected under attorney-client and common interest privilege if that information was communicated confidentially.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021864.jpg

This is a page from a deposition transcript marked as a rough draft. An attorney, Mr. Simpson, questions a witness about whether they knew of any witnesses other than Virginia Roberts who could testify that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor at the time the witness signed a pleading on December 30, 2014. The witness asserts they were proud to sign the pleading and believed further discovery would identify witnesses, while Ms. McCawley interjects with a privilege objection.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021863.jpg

This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021863). It involves questioning by Mr. Simpson regarding the timeline of a written agreement relative to December 30, 2014, and references a 'motion for joinder' (Exhibit 2) that concerns 'other minors' in addition to Virginia Roberts. The text lists several legal entities involved in Virginia Roberts' representation, including Boies Schiller, Bradley J. Edwards, and the Utah Attorney General's office.

Deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021862.jpg

This document is page 39 of a rough draft deposition transcript marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp. Attorney Mr. Simpson questions a witness regarding the existence of a written 'common interest agreement' as of December 30, 2014. The witness confirms a written agreement exists and states that the parties involved include Virginia Roberts and her attorneys.

Deposition transcript
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021861.jpg

This document is page 38 of a rough draft deposition transcript (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021861). It details a legal argument regarding attorney/client privilege concerning communications with 'Miss Roberts' (likely Virginia Roberts Giuffre). Attorneys Mr. Simpson, Mr. Scott, and Ms. McCawley discuss the assertion of privilege and the existence of a 'common interest agreement,' with Ms. McCawley objecting to questions seeking details of said written agreement.

Legal deposition transcript
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021860.jpg

This document is page 37 of a rough draft deposition transcript stamped by House Oversight. The witness is being questioned by Mr. Simpson regarding which attorneys they held a 'common interest privilege' with as of December 30, 2014. The witness identifies Brad Edwards, attorneys from Boies Schiller (representing Virginia Roberts), and Mr. Scarola (representing Brad Edwards).

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021859.jpg

This is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript involving an inquiry related to Virginia Roberts. The witness (likely an attorney for Roberts) requests a break to consult with counsel to avoid inadvertently waiving attorney/client privilege. After a 12-minute recess (2:13 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.), attorney Mr. Scarola places on the record that they are asserting both attorney/client and common interest privilege regarding the source of information in question.

Deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021858.jpg

This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021858). Attorney Mr. Simpson is questioning a witness about legal agreements existing as of December 30, 2014, specifically regarding a 'common interest privilege' with other attorneys in the 'CVRA case' (Crime Victims' Rights Act). Attorneys Mr. Scarola and Ms. McCawley interject to clarify the scope of the question and assert privilege, with McCawley specifically objecting to revealing information about an agreement (transcribed as 'accountant interest agreement', likely a typo for 'common interest agreement').

Deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021856.jpg

This document page is a rough draft of a deposition transcript. A witness is questioned by Mr. Simpson about whether anyone had told them that Professor Dershowitz abused minors. Ms. McCawley objects based on attorney/client privilege regarding Virginia Roberts, and Mr. Scarola instructs the witness not to answer, to which the witness agrees.

Deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021852.jpg

This document is page 29 of a rough draft legal transcript (Bates stamped House Oversight). A witness discusses the difficulty of investigating Jeffrey Epstein's crimes due to a lack of cooperation and the inability to identify the names of the girls he trafficked. Attorneys Mr. Simpson and Mr. Scarola discuss procedural objections regarding the witness's answer.

Legal transcript / deposition
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021840.jpg

This document is a page from a rough draft deposition transcript of Paul G. Cassell, questioned by Mr. Simpson. They discuss a 'motion for joinder' filed in a previous 'CVRA action' on behalf of Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. The document confirms that Cassell and attorney Bradley J. Edwards were co-signatories on this motion.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

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.

Legal transcript / deposition (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021837.jpg

This document is page 14 of a rough draft deposition transcript from a House Oversight investigation. Mr. Simpson is questioning a witness, initially instructing them to look at the camera for the benefit of a future jury, a point clarified by the witness's counsel, Mr. Scarola. The questioning then pivots to the 'scope of investigation,' specifically asking if serious misconduct allegations require more investigation than lesser allegations, to which the witness agrees.

Legal deposition transcript (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021832.jpg

Page 9 of a rough draft transcript from a House Oversight investigation. Mr. Scarola and the Witness request access to communications involving 'Rebecca' and Professor Dershowitz before proceeding. Mr. Simpson argues the documents are unnecessary as he intends to avoid questions specifically about those communications, noting the Witness was present for Dershowitz's prior testimony.

Legal transcript / deposition (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021826.jpg

This document is page 3 of a rough draft transcript from the deposition of Paul G. Cassell. The text covers the swearing-in of the witness and the beginning of the direct examination by Mr. Simpson. Cassell confirms his background as a former United States District Judge who served from 2002 to November 2007, appointed by the second President Bush (George W. Bush).

Legal transcript / deposition (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
15
As Recipient
3
Total
18

Scope of Investigation / Videotaping Protocol

From: Mr. Simpson
To: the witness

Discussion regarding where the witness should look during videotaping, followed by a question regarding the necessity of investigation for serious allegations of misconduct.

Deposition testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Evidence and Recollection

From: Mr. Simpson
To: the witness

Questioning regarding evidence relied upon and the process of recalling information.

Deposition/hearing
N/A
Communication Source

Direct Examination

From: Mr. Simpson
To: PAUL G. CASSELL

Initial questioning establishing the witness's background as a former US District Judge.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Questioning regarding Tatiana and Epstein

From: Mr. Simpson
To: witness

Dialogue regarding the age of Tatiana during a flight and the legality of age-gap relationships involving Epstein.

Deposition/hearing
N/A
Communication Source

Objection check

From: Mr. Simpson
To: Mr. Indyke

Checking if there was an objection on the phone.

Verbal
N/A
Communication Source

N/A

From: Alan Dershowitz
To: Mr. Simpson

Excited whispering during testimony

Whispering/in-person communication
N/A
Communication Source

N/A

From: Mr. Simpson
To: Unnamed Co-counsel

Agreement to pass notes instead of whispering to avoid distraction

Note passing
N/A
Communication Source

Timing of written agreement execution

From: Mr. Simpson
To: THE WITNESS

Questioning regarding whether a written agreement was executed before or after December 30th, 2014.

Deposition testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Questioning regarding memory of events

From: MR. CASSELL
To: Mr. Simpson

Mr. Cassell defends his detailed answer against a perceived accusation of filibustering, stressing the importance of the subject to Miss Roberts. Mr. Simpson apologizes for a joke.

Deposition testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Courtroom Conduct

From: MR. SCAROLA
To: Mr. Simpson

Discussion regarding Alan Dershowitz interrupting proceedings by standing up.

Verbal argument
N/A
Communication Source

Allegations against Professor Dershowitz

From: Mr. Simpson
To: THE WITNESS (Deponent)

Questioning regarding whether the witness was told about abuse committed by Dershowitz.

Depostion questioning
N/A
Communication Source

Legal Pleading and Allegations against Dershowitz

From: Mr. Simpson
To: THE WITNESS (Deponent)

Questioning regarding the basis for including 'other minors' in a motion to join and allegations against Alan Dershowitz.

Deposition
N/A
Communication Source

Marking a prepared summary as an exhibit

From: Mr. Simpson
To: MR. CASSELL

Discussion regarding a document prepared by Cassell to summarize his knowledge, to be marked as Exhibit 3.

Legal proceeding
N/A
Communication Source

Questioning regarding relationships

From: Mr. Simpson
To: MR. CASSELL

Discussion about the legality of a romantic relationship with a 24-year-old and procedural arguments between lawyers.

Deposition/legal proceeding
N/A
Communication Source

Questioning regarding willingness to answer

From: Mr. Simpson
To: Professor Cassell

Simpson asks if the witness will refuse to answer; Scarola instructs witness not to answer based on privilege; Witness confirms he will follow instructions.

Deposition/testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Questioning regarding Josefsburg and Dershowitz

From: Mr. Simpson
To: witness

Questioning whether the witness asked Josefsburg if 'academicians' included Alan Dershowitz.

Testimony/deposition
N/A
Communication Source

Knowledge of abuse allegations

From: Mr. Simpson
To: THE WITNESS (Deponent)

Questioning whether the witness knew of anyone claiming Professor Dershowitz abused other minors as of Dec 30, 2014.

Legal questioning context
2014-12-30
Communication Source

Witnesses to abuse allegations

From: Mr. Simpson
To: THE WITNESS (Deponent)

Question regarding knowledge of witnesses who could testify that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor.

Legal questioning
2014-12-30
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search