Epstein Secrets

- and I think it nay have been the 14 De her 22 dace -- I'm not sure about that exact 13 la date -- but exhibits that were not specifically By PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE 14 IC disclosed would net be permitted CO be used at. 25 For Jeffrey Epstein: 17 trial. You nada it clear that catchall listings 16

ow all of S to whom have you distributed them? And those are 8 the lewyer0 involved. , questions that we still don't have answered. 9 And Hr. Cassell is going to address free the 10 what we get frog the other side is, 'Well, 10 perspective of the client. the concern that they 11 they could ha

k at the Fowler White files. Then there's 24 THE COURT: That was the litigation lad by :4 a two-week delay between looking at the Fowler 25 Mr. Scherer. ,5 White files and receiving the disk. Md then Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793837 17 19 I there's a tam-weak dela

114:6 114:12,15,24 115:8,20 116:18 117:6,9 118:1 119:15,24 Scarola's 36:9 scheduled 6:7 schedules 119:20 scheduling 43:22 scheme 17:9 95:9 Scherer 14:25 15:2 15:3,9,1018:18 18:20 19:2,11 Scope 3:12,17 score 94:1 I Scott 1:8 2:5 38:19 39:20 57:7 113:9 scrambling 73:4 screen 56:8 screenin

- and I think it nay have been the 14 De her 22 dice -- I'm not sure about that exact 13 la date -- bat exhibits that were not specifically By PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE 14 1a disclosed would net be penn/Lted CO be used at. 25 For Jeffrey Epstein: 17 trial. You rude it clear that catchall listings 16

ow all of S to whom have you distributed them? And those are 8 the lewyer0 involved. , questions that we still don't have answered. 9 And Hr. Cassell is going to address free the 10 what we get frog the other side is, 'Well, 10 perspective of the client. the concern that they 11 they could ha

k at the Fowler White files. Then there's 24 THE COURT: That was the litigation lad by :4 a two-week delay between looking at the Fowler 25 Mr. Scherer. ,5 White files and receiving the disk. Md then Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793790 17 19 I there's a tam-weak dela

114:6 114:12,15,24 115:8,20 116:18 117:6,9 118:1 119:15,24 Scarola's 36:9 scheduled 6:7 schedules 119:20 scheduling 43:22 scheme 17:9 95:9 Scherer 14:25 15:2 15:3,9,1018:18 18:20 19:2,11 Scope 3:12,17 score 94:1 I Scott 1:8 2:5 38:19 39:20 57:7 113:9 scrambling 73:4 screen 56:8 screenin

for very, very high number of -- in dollars 1 4 5 4 s * Is II 12 13 IS Is 14 17 Is Is 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 But you do recall Paul Cassell 's involvement. What about other local lawyers? Wore there other local lawyers who were participants in the prosecution of she cases against Jeffrey

cases after he joined ARA. Be had already filed these cases, I believe. I know ho had shoe -- the ladies as clients before he joined the firm. And Cassell was co-counsel with him on those. So in terns of attorneys that were co-counsel wish ua, he was a co-counsel representing the three young woman th

November of 23 2009. 24 Q Approximately 18 months -- about year and a 25 half? represented another law firm in a breakup of firma 2 And the Scherer firm waa owed over a million 4 5 4 7 • In Coos. And the client, the other law firm, was reneging on paying that. And Scherer won at the tria

even though the offices I worked II before you would file it, right? 12 out of wore in Miami. And I have heard of the Conrad 12 A Right. 13 Scherer firm throughout my practice. II Q Would you note every single fact that 14 4) You said one of the things in your direct 14 existed at the tim

02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hoc Vice 33 nc_..•L TALMUD IAA uo-umumet for riatnuji Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L Ackerman. Jr. Joseph L Ackerman, Jr. Fl

ctions and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hoc Vice 33 nc_..•L TALMUD IAA uo-

hat the Epstein case was a real case and ultimately invested money. A copy of the transcript of this hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Mr. Scherer's remarks appear on pages 17-22.2 On August 13, 2010, Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray ordered in response to a subpoena from Epstein the appointment of

ctions and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac flee 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 101

02,2010 Page 10 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac flee 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax Casselto(a)law.utakedu Co-Counselfor Pl

hat the Epstein case was a real case and ultimately invested money. A copy of the transcript of this hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Mr. Scherer's remarks appear on pages 17-22.2 On August 13, 2010, Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray ordered in response to a subpoena from Epstein the appointment of

ivilege" (only 19 were communications with a client as determined by the description in the privilege log). 17 EFTA00794293 Despite Edwards' and Paul Cassell's (counsel for the Intervenors) protestations to the contrary, this Court can plainly see that not a single one of the 30 e-mails are attorney-client

hat not a single one of the 30 e-mails are attorney-client privileged communications between Edwards (or any other co-counsel) and Edwards' and Mr. Cassell's three tort clients (L.M., E.W. or Jane Doe). Rather, the majority of the documents are e- mails among attorneys and staff within RRA, with Mr. Cass

ule applies here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were shared with Epstein's counsel by Mr. Scherer, counsel for Razorback. Thus, Edwards admits that he voluntarily furnished the e-mails to Mr. Scherer. Razorback sought these allegedly privileged

02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice • 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L Ackerm

ctions and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice • 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 1

hat the Epstein case was a real case and ultimately invested money. A copy of the transcript of this hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Mr. Scherer's remarks appear on pages 17-22.2 On August 13, 2010, Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray ordered in response to a subpoena from Epstein the appointment of

ase No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Page 12 of 15 reliance on public filings, including the Scherer Complaint against Rothstein is unavailing. As discussed above, the evidence warrants the finding that Epstein knew that Edwards was legitimately purs

greed to. represent these girls, along with attorney Jay Howell (an attomey in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I filed state court actions on behalf of L.M. and E.W. and a federal court action on beha

0, along with other attorneys at Farmer Jaffe and Professor Cassell, I reached favorable settlement terms for my thre