Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-24546House OversightDeposition

Testimony hints at possible witness intimidation and alleged misconduct by attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell

The passage suggests a potential effort to pressure a witness ([REDACTED - Survivor]) into naming a third party, implying possible unethical conduct by lawyers Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. However, th Witness claims she was pressured by her own lawyers to name a third party in pleadings. Allegations that attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell acted unethically and dishonestly. Possible intimid

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #022155
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage suggests a potential effort to pressure a witness ([REDACTED - Survivor]) into naming a third party, implying possible unethical conduct by lawyers Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. However, th Witness claims she was pressured by her own lawyers to name a third party in pleadings. Allegations that attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell acted unethically and dishonestly. Possible intimid

Tags

attorney-ethicslegal-misconductwitness-intimidationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightethical-misconductcourt-testimony

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 number and they called, is my recollection. That’s my best recollection. 10:45 a.m. Q: So from the very first conversation that you had with this person, you had information indicating that this person was informing you that Bradley Edwards had engaged in unethi- cal conduct, correct? A: Let me just be very clear what she said to me. She said to me that she had been told directly by her friend Virginia Rob- erts, who stayed with her overnight for a period of time, that she never wanted to mention me in any of the pleadings. And that her two lawyers in the pleadings, or her lawyers who filed the pleadings, pressured her into including my name and details. Q: Did’Rebecca ever suggest to you that the details sworn to by [REDACTED] were false? A: She certainly suggested that, yes. She mentioned to me that Virginia R yers, yes. Q: So from the very first conversation, the impression you was that this was a witness who could provide information ~ that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell had acted unethically q and dishonestly, correct? A: I wasn't sure she could provide the information b was very reluctant to come for 258 oberts had never, ever mentioned [me to her], among any of the people that she had had any contact with, 3 until she —until she was pressured into doing so by her law- © had ; ecause She” ward. She didn’t want to bey le involved. But I knew shi yes, but I didn’t know, < prepared to be a witne: question. 11:08 a.m. Q: Was any request made b A: Yes. Q: Let me back up then, if |] you to do, based upon yo much detail as you poss said.... A: I’m not sure the request f or the second call....Th like to talk to your wife [I down. I’m happy to talk that they would think—: her to think about it. An few days and find out wt were. Q: Where were you when ° when you made this phon A: I think I was in New York / Q Do you know whether tt phone or a landline? _ A: I don’t remember. ' Q: Have you attempted to gat poses of responding to dis

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.