Mega Edition: Peter Mandelson's Epstein Denials Vs. The Record (6/5/26)

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 1-3) (6/21/26)

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack. The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified. to contact me: EFTA00594390.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00594390.pdf]

Mega Edition: Courtney Wild And The 2017 Deposition (Part 7-10) (6/20/26)

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 1027.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Epstein%20v.%20Rothstein,%20No.%2050-2009-CA-040800-XXXX-MB%20(Fla.%2015th%20Cir.%20Ct.%202009)/1027.pdf]

Mega Edition: Courtney Wild And The 2017 Deposition (Part 4-6) (6/20/26)

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 1027.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Epstein%20v.%20Rothstein,%20No.%2050-2009-CA-040800-XXXX-MB%20(Fla.%2015th%20Cir.%20Ct.%202009)/1027.pdf]

Mega Edition: Courtney Wild And The 2017 Deposition (Part 1-3) (6/19/26)

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: 1027.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Epstein%20v.%20Rothstein,%20No.%2050-2009-CA-040800-XXXX-MB%20(Fla.%2015th%20Cir.%20Ct.%202009)/1027.pdf]

Marie Villafana And Her Defense Of The NPA (Part 3)

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government’s formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims’ Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA’s notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims’ rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government’s position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case. Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein’s victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims’ rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims’ advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña’s filing stood as the DOJ’s most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf]