Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-22863House OversightOther

Allegations of Suborned Perjury Involving Judge Paul Cassell, Bradley Edwards, and [REDACTED - Survivor]

The passage hints at possible misconduct—suborning perjury—by a judge and a private investigator, with a third party ([REDACTED - Survivor]) allegedly pressured to make false statements. It provides some n Judge Paul Cassell and investigator Bradley Edwards are accused of encouraging false affidavits. [REDACTED - Survivor] allegedly pressured to include false allegations against an unnamed individual. Claim

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #022151
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage hints at possible misconduct—suborning perjury—by a judge and a private investigator, with a third party ([REDACTED - Survivor]) allegedly pressured to make false statements. It provides some n Judge Paul Cassell and investigator Bradley Edwards are accused of encouraging false affidavits. [REDACTED - Survivor] allegedly pressured to include false allegations against an unnamed individual. Claim

Tags

court-misconductlegal-ethicsinvestigative-oversightperjury-subordinationperjurylegal-exposurehouse-oversightaffidavit-fraud

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
JaMEs PATTERSON * * * 10:18 a.m. Q: Which of my clients are you swearing under oath encour- aged [REDACTED] to include allegations of an encounter with you at the New Mexico ranch? : Both of them—both of your clients, both Judge Cassell and Mr. Edwards—were both involved in encouraging [their] client to file a perjurious affidavit that they knew or should have known was perjurious recently when they sought to file another defamatory allegation in the federal proceeding. : Was the arrangement such that what you are charging Brad- ley Edwards and Professor Paul Cassell with doing was sub- orning perjury? : Absolutely. If you ask me the question, I am directly charging Judge Cassell and Bradley Edwards with suborning perjury. | have been advised that [REDACTED] did not want to mention me, told her friends that she did not want to men- tion me. And was, quote, pressured by her lawyers into including these totally false allegations against me. Yes, your clients are guilty of suborning perjury. : Who told you that Bradley Edwards pressured Virginia Rob- — : erts into falsely identifying you? A friend of [REDACTED] who called me out of the blue ~ and told me that she was horrified by what was happening to 7 me and that she recently had meetings with [REDACTED] © and [REDACTED] had told her that she never mentioned § me previously. That the lawyers pressured her into mention 254 ing me. And mentioni me, yes. 10:20 a.m. Q: What was the name of A: Her name is—her first Q: ‘Yes. A: I don't know the last na Q: Did you attempt to find A: Ihave her last name wr Q: Where? A: It’s in my—in my notes Q: When did you write Ret A: When she—when she f since you've asked me tk At first her husband ; would not give me their n had a series of phone cc please, to tell me their na they told me the story in g her name. She asked me her identity without her E her. Called her as recently I want to recall—I dc I called her twice last ni reveal her complete name and I will be happy to giv: top of my head.

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subjec

Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message along with any/all attachments is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Paul Cassell •ci

From: Paul Cassell •ci To: "IN (USAFLS)" ' Cc: , • (USAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:56 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: ORDER-omnibus-wrapup.pdf [tried to send this earlier, but it may not have gone out] Dear We haven't seen the sealed order granting the Government's motion for stay either. (Have you?). But, in any event, Judge Marra's order on June 19, 2013 (DE 190) specifically stated that "The petitioners' motion to compel discovery from the Government [DE 130] is GRANTED. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of entry of this order, the Government shall . . . [produce various discovery]." For your convenience, I attach a copy of DE 190 ordering the Government to produce discovery within 30 days. So we are expecting to see you produce the bulk of our discovery on July 19, 2013, as specifically directed in DE 190 which granted our mo

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 35429605 E-Filed 12/11/2015 10:08:04 AM

26p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

To: "Paul Cassell"

From: To: "Paul Cassell" Cc: ' "Brad Edwards" Subject: : ovemments osition on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:56:28 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, 1. Yesterday, I provided you with the name and phone number for OPR Acting Associate Counsel, who received your December 10, 2010 letter to Mr. Ferrer, asking for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. 2. The government will not be making initial disclosures to plaintiffs, because we do not believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies to this matter. 3. The CVRA applies to the criminal case which has been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which may be initiated to enforce those claimed rights. We do not believe there is any right to discovery in this case. Moreover, we do not believe that whatever Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann Sanchez may have said to this office, or what this office said to Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann S

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Brad Edwards

From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judg

3p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.