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

of what Was going on in bankruptcy • I was a personal participant with the lawyers for a court, connunicaced co Judge Carney, • This subpoena 1 Conrad Scherer, and an agreement was reached with 10 was issued in my case. While I respect you and the 10 the 'aware for Conrad Scherer because, as we have It

Did the Special Magistrate Carney a Scherer tiro was involved in chat litigation, and 3 or Judge Ray over hold a hearing to deternine Che a the Conrad Scherer firm wag alto interested in 4 nature of the privilege? Was that over called up 0 getting to take a look at whatever relevant e -nails 5 for a he

- 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

of what Was going on in bankruptcy • I was a personal participant with the lawyers for a court, connunicaced co Judge Carney, • This subpoena 1 Conrad Scherer, and an agreement was reached with 10 was issued in my case. While I respect you and the 10 the 'aware for Conrad Scherer because, as we have It

Did the Special Magistrate Carney a Scherer tiro was involved in chat litigation, and 3 or Judge Ray over hold a hearing to deternine Che a the Conrad Scherer firm wag alto interested in 4 nature of the privilege? Was that over called up 0 getting to take a look at whatever relevant e -nails 5 for a he

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

Yeah. I heard of Bill Scharer. Bill Scherer 1 defendants? 4 is a prominent Fort Lauderdale attorney who wa➢ a 0 A Sure. 3 client. His firm Conrad Scherer -- yeah, I've 1 Q And before you would file that complaint, 10 practiced here since 1975. And I had a number of cases 10 you would make sure

hought were very, very high-caliber -- extremely high-caliber. I got to know more people there, of course. One of the clients of the firm was the Conrad Scherer firm. The Conrad Scherer firm was 20 ran by Bill Scherer. Bill Scherer la one of most 21 prominent lawyers in South Florida, certainly in 32 Se

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

years ago (for whatever expedient or economic reason) to voluntarily give away the allegedly attorney-client privileged and work product e-mails to Conrad Scherer in the Razorback litigation triggered section 90.507. After taking steps inconsistent with the maintenance of privileges in confidential information