Epstein Secrets

at Improperly and Without Foundation Claims Misconduct by Counsel The now sealed exhibits have never been deemed "apparently stolen" by my court. (Joinder, p. 1.) And neither Epstein nor his counsel has taken the "position that he need not immediately comply because of this Court's recent stay." (Joind

necessary intervention appearance below by E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe, while never reduced to any written By order of this Court dated March 16, 2018, Paul G. Cassell, Esq.'s request to appear pro hac vice in order to appear on behalf of the non-parties was appropriately denied pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicia

he Extraordinary Documents Remain Under Seal and No Partial Relieffrom Stay (or Relinquishment) is Necessary It is indeed curious how arduously Mr. Cassell works to ignore Epstein's continued cooperation, once a "claim" of privilege was raised, with Edwards' efforts to seal the exhibits, the disc from

er- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") April 3, 2018, Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order', and the Intervenors' April 7, 2018, Joinder and states: INTRODUCTION In order to justify his Motion for Sanctions, Edwards concocts a patently absurd construction of this Court's verbal ruli

(3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar r

t representation, as Mr. Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well. (3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar representation be made by Fowler White. In response, the Court referenced a "blanket confidentiality

er- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") April 3, 2018, Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order', and the Intervenors' April 7, 2018, Joinder and states: INTRODUCTION In order to justify his Motion for Sanctions, Edwards concocts a patently absurd construction of this Court's verbal ruli

t representation, as Mr. Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well. (3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar representation be made by Fowler White. In response, the Court referenced a "blanket confidentiality

(3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar r

re same 03/17/18 SJL C( ) I Edwards' Response to ,r1 mus and Motion to 03/18/18 TLC W )esponse to our Pe s, Request for Oral '. Cassell's Joinder; fo work on it ital Appendix; work or 03/18/18 RJG R ' second round of edits tc ng 03/18/18 SJL W -sell's Joinder; work or 'o 'se to o

P • • to Petitoner's Motion 0.30 0.00 fo ld Costs 03/19/18 TLC C. • Edwards' Response 9.80 2,205.00 to mus, Request for O. P. Cassell's Joinder at rk on Motion for tinue working on cl. .very . oduction issues; work on 03/19/18 SJL W Zesponse to our 8.20 6,150.00 Pr Request for O

ed to Support J. Epstein's Claims Against B. Edwards; work on Emergency Motion for Writ of Mandamus; telephone conferences with P. Cassell; review Cassell's filings and follow up on issues raised by same; communications with P. Cassell and J. Scarola re production of disc; communications with D. Indy

witz"), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action (the "Joinder Motion"), filed as of record at DE 279. Having no remedy in this proceeding for the harm to his reputational interest, P

ecember 30, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwardk Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LE RMA , P.L. And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hoc Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 12 EFTA00188712 EFTA00188713 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30

attacked her in the media as a "serial perjurer." He also repeatedly named and attacked her attorneys — i.e., undersigned legal counsel Edwards and Cassell — branding them, among other disparaging names. "two sleazy. unprofessional. disbarable lawyers." Dershowitz repeated his attacks on numerous world

late to opposing counsel for review in advance of hearing; work on Response to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause in bankruptcwork on Response to Joinder filed by Intervenors ., E.W. and Jane Doe 04/03/18 SJL Work on insurance demand to Fowler White; work on Motion for In Camera Review; review pro

in appellate proceedings; communications with P. Cassell re proposed sealing order and no authority to ad

:44 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, VS. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. / DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWI

howitz has repeatedly referred to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015621 --- PAGE BREAK --- Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 2 of 20 these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadc

the Court need look no further than Dershowitz’s counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz’s Counterclaim (styled as “False Allegations in the Joinder Motion”) contends that Edwards and Cassell should pay him damages because they “filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled ‘Jane Doe #3 and Jane D

e defense attorneys’. Moreover, because the first time Jane Doe #3 made these contemptible allegations against Prof. Dershowitz was in her Motion for Joinder in December 2014, those allegations are irrelevant as to the inquiry of whether Jane Doe #3’s rights under the CVRA were violated at the time the NPA

(561) 820-8777 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: Dexter. [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] and Attorneys for the Government Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585

sdoj.gov and Attorneys for the Government Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the U

dale, FL 33301, By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH,' 383 University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C., 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, By: Laura A. Menninger, Es

ty Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: H

ion (the "Joinder Motion") included numerous details about sexual abuse and listed the perpetrators of her abuse. repeatedly named Maxwell in the Joinder Motion as being personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein. *2 On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued