Skip to main content
Skip to content
Empty House Oversight Filing DocumentPersonal travel coordination emails with no substantive investigative content
Case File
d-35832House OversightOther

Defendant’s aggressive subpoena tactics in Florida defamation case involving former federal judge Paul Cassell

The passage outlines a procedural dispute over a subpoena targeting a non‑party witness in a defamation suit. While it names a former federal judge and an attorney, it provides no concrete evidence of Former federal judge Paul Cassell and attorney Brad Edwards filed a defamation suit against an unnam Defendant is alleged to have launched a national media campaign labeling the lawyers unethical. De

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015601
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines a procedural dispute over a subpoena targeting a non‑party witness in a defamation suit. While it names a former federal judge and an attorney, it provides no concrete evidence of Former federal judge Paul Cassell and attorney Brad Edwards filed a defamation suit against an unnam Defendant is alleged to have launched a national media campaign labeling the lawyers unethical. De

Persons Referenced (2)

Paul Cassell

“...OUND The underlying action before this Court is a defamation case filed by a former federal judge, Paul Cassell, and his colleague Brad Edwards, who represent various sexual trafficking victims in a case pending...”

Bradley Edwards

“...is Court is a defamation case filed by a former federal judge, Paul Cassell, and his colleague Brad Edwards, who represent various sexual trafficking victims in a case pending in the Southern District of Flo...”

Tags

sexual-trafficking-victimssubpoena-abusedefamationlegal-intimidationharassmentcourt-strategylegal-exposurehouse-oversightcourt-procedure
View on oversight.house.gov
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #015601

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.
BACKGROUND The underlying action before this Court is a defamation case filed by a former federal judge, Paul Cassell, and his colleague Brad Edwards, who represent various sexual trafficking victims in a case pending in the Southern District of Florida, specifically case no. 08-cv-80736- KAM, hereinafter (““CVRA case”). As a result of an affidavit filed in the CVRA case, Defendant went on a national media defamation campaign calling, among other things, former federal judge Paul Cassell and attorney Brad Edwards, “unethical lawyers” who should be “disbarred”. See Exhibit 7, Today Show, January 5, 2015. In response to this national slander campaign by the Defendant, Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards filed a defamation case against Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Case No. CACE 15- 000072, hereinafter “Florida Defamation Action”). Defendant’s statements against Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards are statements about their character as lawyers and do not directly involve non-party Jane Doe No. 3. Despite this fact, Defendant is abusing the subpoena power in this case by seeking documents from a non-party that are irrelevant to the defamation issue before this Court. Defendant is determined to find a way to harm non-party Jane Doe No. 3 and anyone who braves to represent her. Jane Doe No. 3 has good cause to be fearful of the Defendant in this matter based on Defendant’s repetitive threats. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. This Court should not allow Defendant to abuse the subpoena power to further abuse this non-party. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide a vehicle for this Court to protect a non-party from a harassing, burdensome and unnecessary subpoena. As explained below, non-party Jane Doe No. 3 should be protected from having to be deposed in this matter or produce documents. Defendant’s campaign of threats and intimidation should not be condoned by this Court and Defendant’s subpoena should be quashed in its entirety.

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Prince Andrew Sex Abuse Allegations Prompt Legal Request for Oath Interview

The passage reveals a civil lawsuit in Florida alleging sexual contact between Prince Andrew and a 17‑year‑old, includes a formal request for an oath‑bound interview, and mentions specific attorneys a Civil motion filed Dec 30, 2016 in U.S. District Court (Southern Florida) naming Prince Andrew as a Affidavit dated Jan 19, 2017 alleges three sexual encounters, including an orgy, when the woman wa

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

22p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Dershowitz’s Unproduced ‘Absolute Proof’ Documents and Media Claims in Epstein‑Related Defamation Litigation

The filing reveals that Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted on national TV that he possessed travel, credit‑card and other records proving he never met Jane Doe #3, yet has failed to produce any such Dershowitz claimed on Fox Business (Jan 7 2015) and CNN (Jan 5 2015) to have "all kinds of records" Despite a 45‑day deadline, he produced no documents and responded only with boilerplate objections

26p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

EXHIBIT Q

EXHIBIT Q EFTA00097394 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X INNIErt INIMINME, Plaintiff, v. GHISLATNE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. EFTA00097395 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 11 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(aX2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limita

12p

Forum Discussions

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

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