Fragmented testimony about alleged unethical conduct and witness coordination

The excerpt contains vague references to an unethical act by Paul Cassell and mentions a potential witness (Virginia) but lacks concrete details, dates, transactions, or high‑level actors. It offers l Mentions Paul Cassell acting unethically Reference to a person named Virginia (last name Rob‑?) providing information Discussion of a phone call request to speak with a spouse (Rebecca) and possible

Date

November 11, 2025

Source

House Oversight

Reference

House Oversight #022156

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Persons Referenced (1)

Paul Cassell

“...into doing so by her law- 5 versation, the impression you had 4 ss who could provide information” Paul Cassell had acted unethically” ovide the information becausé s ne forward. She didn’t want 10 © 258 Fitt...”

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

TTERSON my recollection. That’s my best ersation that you had with this a indicating that this person was Edwards had engaged in unethi- xat she said to me. She said to me sctly by her friend Virginia Rob- vernight for a period of time, that n me in any of the pleadings. And ie pleadings, or her lawyers who red her into including my name o you that the details sworn to by a at, yes. She mentioned to me that % er, ever mentioned [me to her], 4 hat she had had any contact with, ressured into doing so by her law- 5 versation, the impression you had 4 ss who could provide information” Paul Cassell had acted unethically” ovide the information becausé s ne forward. She didn’t want 10 © 258 Fittuy Ricu involved. But I knew she had provided me with information, yes, but I didn’t know, and | still don’t know, whether she is prepared to be a witness. I don’t know the answer to that question. 11:08 a.m. Q: Was any request made by you for a meeting? A: Yes. Q: Let me back up then, if I could, please. Because what I want you to do, based upon your superb memory, is to tell us in as much detail as you possibly can recall everything that was said.... A: I'm not sure the request for the meeting came in the first call or the second call....The first call was basically, I'd really like to talk to your wife [Rebecca] about this. ’'m happy to fly down. I’m happy to talk to you on the phone. And we left it that they would think —that she would—that he would ask her to think about it. And that I could call back in a—in a few days and find out what her—what her current feelings were. 7 Q: Where were you when you received this phone call—or when you made this phone call? Sorry. i A: I think I was in New York. E Q: Do you know whether that phone call was made on a cell phone or a landline? A: I don’t remember. : Have you attempted to gather your telephone records for pur- poses of responding to discovery requests in this case? 259

Related Documents (6)

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

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now?

From: To: Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:58:02 +0000 Importance: Normal I did. She was driving and her phone was cutting out. I just sent her an emailing explaining how this all intersects and told her to hold off about making anymore contact wit o as to try to keep criminal vs. civil cases as separate as possible. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) (Ann.Marie.C.Villafana©usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 12:35 PM To: Pryor, Christina Jo Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? Did you tell her that is not a victim? Eshould only be classified as a witness. Assistant U.S. Attorne 500 E. Broward Blvd, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394 From: Pryor, Christina Jo (FBI) Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:53 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? I just talked with She said had identified=as a victim and per procedure, she made an initial contact introduci

House OversightUnknown

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition The passage references a claim that Alan Dershowitz disclosed a criminal extortion scheme involving unnamed clients during a deposition, and mentions related defamation lawsuits. While the details are vague and unverified, the involvement of a high‑profile attorney and a federal courtroom provides a concrete lead (date, location, parties) that could be pursued. The claim is moderately controversial and potentially sensitive, but it lacks clear novelty and specific financial details, limiting its score. Key insights: Dershowitz allegedly told lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell that "your clients were involved" in a criminal extortion plot.; The statement was made on October 15, 2015, during a deposition in Broward County, Florida.; Bradley and Cassell had sued Dershowitz for defamation, and Dershowitz had filed a countersuit.

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

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown