DS9 Document EFTA00594390

152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT VOLUME II, PAGES 152 to 335 Saturday, October 17, 2015 8:32 a.m. - 12:14 p.m. 425 North Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Theresa Tomaselli , RMR ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594390 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL On behalf of the Plaintiffs: SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY. P.A. BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Reach. Flprida 33409 Tel : Fax: E-mail : On behalf of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP BY: SIGRID STONE McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lau ida 33301 Tel : Fax: E-mail : On behalf of the Defendant: WILEY REIN LLP BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON. ESQUIRE AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON. ESQUIRE 1776 K Street Northwest Washington 20006 Tel : Fax: E-mail : Also on behalf of the Defendant: COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR. , ESQUIRE 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 Miami , Fl Tel : Fax: E-mail: ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594391 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES CONTINUED Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE. PLLC BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 575 Lexington Avenue 4th Floor New York, 0022 Tel : Also Present: DON SAVOY, Videographer BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ (Telephonically) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594392 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX OF EXAMINATION WITNESS PAGE PAUL G. CASSELL CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 160 BY MR. SIMPSON EXHIBIT INDEX TO EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION PAGE Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. produced by the witness 4 - document 203 Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. address book 5 - copy of 229 Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 309 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the original transcript.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594393 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL Saturday, October 17, 2015 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video record. Today is Saturday, the 17th day of October, 2015. The time is 8:32 a.m. We are here at 425 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell . The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli , and the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please announce their appearances for the record. MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola on behalf of the Plaintiffs. MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein on behalf of the Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Alan Dershowitz. With me is my colleague, Nicole Richardson, and Thomas Scott of Cole, Scott & Kissane, also for Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz. MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the deposition, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594394 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we were informed for the first time yesterday morning of the existence of a recording of a telephone communication between Alan Dershowitz and a woman identified only as Rebecca. That information was conveyed to us subsequent to Professor Dershowitz's sworn testimony that no recording existed, but now that we know that the recording existed and that it was obviously made according to the representations given to us, prior to the completion of the responses to our earlier discovery requests, I would like to know whether it is the Defendant's position that it is necessary for us to propound a new discovery request to get information that clearly should have been disclosed in response to the earlier discovery request. Is that the position that you're taking? MR. SIMPSON: First, Mr. Scarola, I believe you have mischaracterized Professor Dershowitz's testimony. You didn't ask the question whether he made a recording. Yesterday morning, he provided that information in response to a different question. MR. SCAROLA: His exact testimony was: I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594395 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 never thought to record it, but that's fine. MR. SIMPSON: We don't -- we don't need to make that -- MR. SCAROLA: We don't need to discuss that. The question is -- MR. SIMPSON: What you're saying does -- MR. SCAROLA: -- are you going to produce the recording without the necessity of a new request to produce, or will it be necessary for us to file a new request to produce? MR. SIMPSON: As Mr. Scott indicated yesterday, we will respond to you to the discovery request. We will confer at a break and respond to that question. I don't want to take time on the record debating it. After Mr. Scott and I have conferred at a break, we will respond further to your question. MR. SCAROLA: All right. So that the record is clear, it is our position that the recording itself, any evidence of any communication between Mr. Dershowitz and Rebecca and/or Michael , any notes with respect to any such communications, text messages, e-mails, and an accurate privilege log as to everything that is being withheld is responsive to the earlier request to produce, and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594396 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the obligation was to have provided it to us previously and is to provide it to us now. We understand that you're considering that and you will respond, so we can proceed with the deposition. MR. SIMPSON: Yes. And we disagree about that, and as you know, we have a motion to compel regarding your inadequate privilege log. MS. McCAWLEY: Just before we begin, I'm sorry, I didn't announce my appearance for the record. Sigrid McCawley from Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and I have a standing objection that I'd just like to repeat on the record. MR. SCOTT: Feel better that you got that off your chest? MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to -- excuse me. With respect to my client, she is asserting her attorney/client privilege with her attorneys and is not waiving it through any testimony here today, and that I object to any testimony elicited that would be used as a subject of waiver for her attorney/client privilege. MR. SIMPSON: Would you reswear the witness, please? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594397 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thereupon, PAUL G. CASSELL, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: I do. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Good morning -- A. Good morning. Q. -- Mr. Cassell. As of December 30th, 2014, had you ever met with in person? A. Yes. Q. And how many times had you met with her in person? A. Once. Q. When was that? A. Approximately May 2014. Q. May of 2014? A. Yes. Q. Who was present for that meeting? A. I'm just pausing for a second because I don't -- I think we're -- Q. I -- I'm not -- A. -- clearly not trying to get into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594398 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorney/client communication. Q. I'm not asking you for what was said at this point. I'm just asking you who was present. I'm going to ask you where it was, those kind of questions. A. Sure. Yeah. The main person who was present was Bradley J. Edwards, my Co-Plaintiff in this case. Q. Okay. And obviously was present? A. Yes. Q. Anyone else present? A. You know, there were -- this was at the Farmer, Jaffee office here, and so persons who were associated with the law firm were assisting, but those were the main people. Q. Okay. Do you remember any of those other people associated with the law firm who were present? A. Present for, you know, coming in and assisting, I believe Brad's assistant, , was there, and perhaps others at the firm, but it was -- it was basically Brad and I. Q. Was there anyone else who attended for the entire meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? A. No. Q. Okay. How long did the meeting last? A. Approximately all day. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594399 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And when you say "all day," what time period are you referring to? A. 9:00 to 5:00. Q. 9:00 to 5:00. Okay. And was that through lunch; you just stayed through eight hours; is that -- what's your recollection of that? A. Yeah, I remember we were working very hard on -- on it, so I think we had, if I recall correctly, had lunch brought in and worked straight through that. Q. Any other meetings in person with before December 30th of 2014? A. No. Q. Any telephone calls with her that you -- you had, obviously, before December 30th, 2014? A. I believe there were a couple of -- of telephone calls. Q. And can you tell us when those were? A. Let's see. Roughly September 2014. Give or take a month. I mean, you know, sometime after May and before December 30th. Q. Okay. And were those telephone calls between just you and or was anyone else on the line? A. No. It was just the two of -- just and I. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594400 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. And are you able to distinguish the calls in your mind as two separate telephone calls? A. I -- I think there were either one or two calls. I think there may have been two, but it -- it would not have been more than two that I can recall. Q. Okay. How long did each of the telephone calls last? A. Less than five minutes. Q. I'm going to ask you a question now, but before you answer it, pause, because I believe you will be instructed not to answer it -- A. Okay. Q. -- but want to -- I think -- we disagree on the privilege -- A. Sure. Q. -- we believe it's been waived. My question is: During the meeting, did you discuss Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to any discussion of what my client told you during any situation where you were representing her as an -- an attorney. MR. SIMPSON: So -- and I think we had an agreement yesterday, if you follow your own counsel's instruction on not answering, are you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594401 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions on not answering on behalf of -- MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Cassell will follow the instructions of counsel. It is not his privilege to waive, and he is ethically obliged to respect the direction coming from counsel. MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I'm -- I'm simply, Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can assume the same way I have authorized you to assume that Professor Cassell will follow my instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow all instructions concerning the assertion of attorney/client privilege expressed on the record by Miss McCawley on behalf of MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume that if I ask you what you recall the discussion being at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that you're not going to answer those questions; is that correct? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594402 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm going to respect. Q. All right. So we'll -- we'll take that up later with the judge. As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken about this case with David Boies, and the question is just: Had you spoken -- MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- not what the discussion was. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. It's the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not to answer that. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the position that the fact of whether or not -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also trying to get into the timing of communications, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594403 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and all that goes into the advice that they were giving her and surrounding that advice, so I would object to that. MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read back? (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify what case as well that you're referring to. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the question, and -- and I will note for the record that yesterday, the witness testified that the fact that Mr. Boies was representing was significant to him. So it's sort of being used as a sword and a shield here, but I have only asked the question. I'll clarify. MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet. MR. SIMPSON: Well , the -- the witness volunteered. Shall I put it that way? And we have a waiver. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken with David Boies about ' allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594404 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting into the substance of any such discussions, you can answer that question. THE WITNESS: My recollection is no. MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not spoken with him? A. My recollection -- MR. SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a ruling, so -- MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that actually. MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed. THE WITNESS: Let me go back -- MR. SCOTT: In the context of criminal lawyers. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I wrote any opinions on that one when I was a judge. My -- I don't recall , but -- I don't recall . I -- my recollection is I had not personally spoken to David Boies before December 30th, 2014. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594405 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 spoken with any other lawyers at Mr. Boies' firm? A. My recollection is, no. Q. And after December 30th of 2014, have you spoken with Mr. Boies about allegations against -- MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry. I will let you finish. I'm objecting to this. I think it gets into the substance of conversations under the common-interest privilege, whether there was a conversation, but you're getting into the substance of what the conversation was about, and I think that is a violation of her -- her privilege. MR. SCAROLA: And just so that I can clarify our position on the record, I think that we can identify the general subject matter in order to support our position that it falls within the common-interest privilege. So we are willing to answer the question about the general subject matter to support our assertion of common-interest privilege, but not get into the substance of the communications beyond that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594406 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: And I believe it's the same question that was answered a moment ago for a different time period, and again, I'm not asking for any substance. I'm just asking whether, since December 30th, 2014, you have discussed the allegations by against Professor Dershowitz. THE WITNESS: I would like to confer with my counsel on that question. It gets into a complicated legal issue that I'm not sure I can -- MR. SIMPSON: You want to confer on a privilege issue; is that right? THE WITNESS: I want to confer with my counsel before answering that question anyway. MR. SIMPSON: I just want to clarify -- MR. SCAROLA: With respect to privilege. MR. SIMPSON: All right. As long as it's with respect to privilege, you're entitled to do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 8:45 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594407 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record, 8:47 a.m. MR. SCAROLA: As it turns out, while we may reach some issue of privilege at some point in this discussion, the answer to your pending question is, no, so there's no privilege concern. MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'll -- I'll ask the witness for the -- MR. SCAROLA: Sure. MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- the answer. I'll move to -- I'll reask the question. THE WITNESS: Sure. That will be good. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: I believed you had already answered the question as to before December 30th, 2014, you had discussed IIII ' allegations against Professor Dershowitz, and you said, no; is that right? MR. SCAROLA: David Boies. MR. SIMPSON: David Boies. I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Before December 30th, no discussions that I can recall with David Boies. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. After December 30th, 2014, did you have any discussions with David Boies about Professor Dershowitz? A. Can I -- MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594408 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You did. A. Yes. Q. What was the substance of those communications? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that. You -- it's under the common-interest privilege and it's privilege to waive, and she's not waiving it. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: We -- we assert the common-interest privilege with regard to the substance as well. MR. SIMPSON: All right. And that -- that will be -- that will be asserted as to all questions about the substance of the discussions with Mr. Boies; is that right? MR. SCAROLA: I can't say that for sure. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask my question then. MR. SCAROLA: And let -- maybe this -- maybe this will help you and maybe it won't. But, obviously, there have been some public statements with regard to this general area. If the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594409 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 communications were not considered to be privileged at the time that they were made, we can answer questions about that. If they were considered to be privileged at the time they were made, we can't answer questions. So I can't tell you that there's a blanket assertion. We need to hear the question. THE WITNESS: I need the question back. MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Boies about the allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: And that is common-interest privilege information and we do assert a privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any discussions he had had with Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any documents that Mr. Boies had reviewed? MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me -- again, I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594410 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want to be asserting a privilege to questions as to which the answer is no, so you can answer generally as to whether the subject matter was covered in any discussion that you had with Mr. Boies. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. If the answer is no. If the answer -- as I sink down in this chair, if the answer may be yes, you can't respond. MR. SIMPSON: I -- I -- that's a new version. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm afraid -- yeah, I want to -- I'm sorry. I want to confer on that because I have an objection. THE WITNESS: I have to say I want to confer, I'm confused, too, so let's take a short break. MR. SIMPSON: Again, you're conferring on the privilege now, not the substance? THE WITNESS: That's right. MR. SCAROLA: Can we go off the record? MR. SIMPSON: Yes. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video record, 8:48 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 8:52 a.m. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594411 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Because of concern about a an inadvertent potential waiver of the work-product privilege, while it is not our intent to assert a privilege with regard to nonexistent communications, any effort to identify the subject matter of communications in the questions that you asked will require that we assert work-product privilege with regard to those questions. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We disagree, obviously, on that position. MR. SCAROLA: We understand. MR. SIMPSON: So I will ask some additional questions and we will see if the witness answers them. MR. SCAROLA: If it begins: "Did you talk about," the answer is going to be an assertion of privilege. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Okay? MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the questions. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any meetings Mr. Boies had had with Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594412 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the credibility of MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any allegations about sexual misconduct by Les Wexner? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: That's the same question you allowed to be answered. Did you -- let me ask it a different way. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss, in any way, Les Wexner with Mr Boies? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: He's instructed not to answer whether that topic was discussed? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594413 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you discuss former Prime Minister Barak with Mr. Boies? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that one of the reasons that supported your conclusion that it -- you had an adequate basis to allege in the joinder motion that the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was that Mr. Boies was representing -- yes, ; do you recall that testimony? A. Yes. Q. And you said that because of how highly regarded Mr. Boies was, I think you mentioned the Bush v. Gore case; is that right? A. Yes. Q. I used to work for his opponent in Bush v. Gore case. They are both very good. A. I'm trying -- I was trying to remember. I'm sorry to take time, but who was the other lawyer? Q. Ted Olson. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594414 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ted, that's right. That's... Q. But that's a side note. My question is: Given your high regard for Mr. Boies, would you -- would his views as to the credibility of be something that would be important to you in evaluating the case? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SIMPSON: Are you instructing him not to answer? MS. McCAWLEY: I mean, is it a hypothetical? MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm just asking whether his views -- those views -- I'm not asking what the views are. I'm simply asking whether those views would be important to him. MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that question. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And if I -- I may have asked this already, but did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the credibility of MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594415 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussed ' allegations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz with Bob Josefsberg? A. Me personally? Q. Yes, you personally. A. No. Q. After December 30th of 2014, had you -- did you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg ' allegations against Professor Dershowitz? A. Not personally, no. Q. You say not personally. Are you aware of someone else who had those discussions of -- with Mr. -- had any discussions on that topic with Mr. Josefsberg? MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that that question would call for any information that was communicated to you in the context of the common-interest privilege, you should not answer. THE WITNESS: All right. I'm not going to... MR. SCAROLA: So you -- you can answer it if any such communication came to you outside the context of the common-interest privilege, but you may not include in your response any information derived from the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And my question right now is not the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594416 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 substance. We will get to that. But, to your knowledge -- put -- let me rephrase that. Did someone tell you that they had discussed with Mr. Josefsbergs Josefsberg, the allegations made by against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: You may only answer that question to the extent that you had any communication regarding that subject matter with someone outside the common-interest privilege, or the attorney/client privilege for that matter. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm simply -- I'm not asking for substance, just the name if you did. MR. SCAROLA: Well , I understand that, but following along the same lines as before, you are asking us to identify the subject matter of a communication that is privileged. We won't answer questions regarding the subject matter of privileged communications, but if Professor Cassell had a conversation with Sam Smith standing on the street corner about Bob Josefsberg, he can answer that question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you have a conversation with anyone -- just narrow question: Did you have a conversation with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594417 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anyone who told you that they, that person, had discussed the subject matter of allegations against Professor Dershowitz with Mr. Josefsberg? Just did you discuss it with anyone? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: If you want to rephrase the question to ask him whether he had such a conversation with anyone outside the attorney/client or work-product privilege, that's a question that we are obliged to answer. The question, as you phrased it, is a question that we are precluded from answering. MR. SIMPSON: That's a very strange notion of privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But let me ask it this way: Did you discuss with anyone who is not an attorney -- let me rephrase it a different way. You testified yesterday about your understanding of the scope of the alleged common-interest privilege, correct? A. Yes. Q. Putting aside the people within the scope of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594418 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that privilege -- A. Yes. Q. -- that you identified -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- your definition of it -- A. Right. That's right. Q. -- did you discuss the topic did anyone tell you they had discussed the topic of allegations against Professor Dershowitz with Mr. Josefsberg? MR. SCAROLA: You may not answer that question to the extent the question still encompasses attorney/client privileged communications. If you want to rephrase the question to exclude both common-interest privileged communications and attorney/client privileged communications, that's a question we are prepared to answer. Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering the question as phrased as a consequence of it encompassing privileged communications. MR. SIMPSON: As he defined the common-interest privileged group, it included attorney/client, but I think at this point the explanations you're providing aren't really ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594419 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 helpful. So please just instruct him to answer or not answer, and we will let the judge decide. MR. SCAROLA: Well , the instruction -- I only gave the explanation in the hope that it might facilitate the examination and allow you to move to areas where you can get substantive information. I apologize if you consider it a waste of time. So I will simply instruct Professor Cassell not to answer the question as phrased. If you ever want an explanation as to the basis of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to you MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. That -- that's a helpful way to proceed. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you -- well, let's start this way: Have you discussed with any of the attorneys within what you described as the common-interest attorney/client group, whether that person had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594420 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you discussed with anyone who is not an attorney for IIII whether -- strike that. Has anyone who is not an attorney for told you that they had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg the allegations against -- by against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you personally spoken with anyone else at Mr. Josefsberg's firm, other than him, about allegations against Professor Dershowitz? A. Not to my knowledge. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you read that back? MR. SCAROLA: Was a communication with anyone else in Bob Josefsberg -- Bob Josefsberg's firm, personal communication between Professor Cassell and any firm member of Bob Josefsberg. MS. McCAWLEY: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And the answer was, not that you recall? A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know all the members of his firm, but I certainly have no ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594421 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recollection of talking to, you know, anyone who is -- who was in his firm. Q. Okay. A. I -- I think the record should be clear, I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with -- with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the ones that I'm interacting with on -- on this case. MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a very regular basis. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell -- MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that the fact that Mr. Josefsberg's firm had filed a complaint against IIII , who is also your client, to be significant to your evaluation of the case? A. Yes. Q. And if it -- if that was significant to evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he represent -- at one point, represent the same client? A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594422 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be speaking with -- at least within the realm of something one might expect for you to speak? A. If I were a solo representative of , that would be the case, but I think you're obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and there are other attorneys who are also participating in this matter. So I think it would be obvious that if there's a division of labor, it might not be along the lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any further without going into work product and other issues surrounding IIII ' representation. Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes was mistaken in her accusations against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: I'd like to confer with my counsel on a attorney/client privilege issue in connection with that question. MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just write down the question and -- MR. SIMPSON: I'll -- I'll rephrase it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594423 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question. Have you ever discussed with Mr. Boies his views as to whether or not IIII is mistaken in her allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been referred to in the testimony in this case? A. All right? Q. My only question is whether you personally reviewed them. A. Yes. Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would you describe them? A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday. Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and 7-- A. Okay. Q. -- but can we agree that flight logs were marked as exhibits? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594424 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Right. The two composite exhibits of flight logs I had examined previously. Q. Okay. So the same documents that Professor Dershowitz was shown at his deposition; is that right? A. That's my recollection, yes. Q. Okay. When did you review those? A. So one of the reviews was in May 2014. There may have also been an earlier review at an earlier -- earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them in May -- approximately May 2014. Q. Would -- do you -- isn't it true that those flight logs support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was never on a plane with IIIIIII? A. No. Q. How do they not? What is -- what is the explanation for your conclusion in that regard? A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so I'll incorporate to speed things up some of the testimony that I gave yesterday. What the flight logs showed was, to my mind, evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request, apparently what I understood to be the -- the -- I understood that he had been requested by a law ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594425 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to this investigation. And rather than providing all the flight logs that were available at that time, he appears to have provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an October -- I may be off by one month here -- but on an October 2005 flight log. So that, to my mind, had indicated that Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information to law enforcement. Those concerns -- this is, you know, there's -- there's more to it. The other problem was that the flight logs that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to be surprising that during the period of time where was involved, Mr. Dershowitz was not appearing on those flight logs. Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on those flights. But given all of the information -- and I won't take your time this morning to go through -- all ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594426 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the information I had about this international sex trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was also possible that the sex trafficking organization, which was represented by, you know, vast resources and the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other information that would -- would cover up the existence of this organization, had gone through the flight logs and had made necessary alterations to -- to conceal the scope of -- of the -- of the operation. In addition to that, when I started to compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David excuse me. I am going to get a drink. When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm sorry. I should be looking at the camera. When I started -- when I started to compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the Dershowitz -- which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which were the logs that he had produced, there were inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there were these inconsistent flight logs. The other thing that I noticed is, I don't believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I had a concern that the flight logs that -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594427 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that covered the jet were not just the David Rogers' flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other pilots which were not apparently being produced. And so, in light of all that, what I was seeing was a -- a production of flight logs that was incomplete. And then I started to hear from Mr. Dershowitz that, well , these records prove conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to an absolute certainty, that the records were inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had apparently carefully produced these records, to represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate information. So that was -- those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Q. Mr. Cassell , is it your testimony -- MR. SIMPSON: Well , first of all, I move to strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , is it your testimony that you have sufficient information to conclude and allege that Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave falsified documents to a prosecuting authority? A. It is my belief that Professor Dershowitz ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594428 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provided incomplete production to law enforcement agencies. Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have sufficient information to allege that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided false information to a prosecuting authority? A. It is my position that he provided incomplete information to a prosecuting authority and inaccurate information to a prosecuting authority. Now, as to precisely what his state of mind was when he was producing the incomplete and inaccurate information, that remains to be this -- you know, that was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time. Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -- you gave a long answer in which you described reasons you apparently believe that these flight logs were not merely incomplete, but that someone had false -- falsified them. And did I understand you correctly? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that was asked was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. The answer that was given was limited to the time period prior to December 30th. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594429 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Are you now asking for an expansion of that response to include information that's been gathered since December 30th? MR. SIMPSON: I will take your objection to the form. Can we have the question back? (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MR. SCAROLA: And I object. The question is vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify the time period about which you are inquiring. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , as you sit here today, are you prepared, based on the information you have available to you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally provided misleading or doctored documents to a prosecuting authority? A. So based on all the information I have today? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. What do you base -- what is the basis for that conclusion, and include information up until today? A. All right. So, obviously, that's an open-ended question. Q. I -- just answer the question, please, as ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594430 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 best you can. A. Sure. All right. Well , let me just -- that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get into on that. Let's start with the events of the last two days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by Mr. Dershowitz. Let's begin with the overarching point about the deposition of the last two days. I've been practicing law -- law since about 1986. And in my experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out the clock so that detailed questions could not be asked by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple questions; where were you on this day; or what's the name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, you know, giving an -- an immediate answer, he ended up giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do with answering the question. So I drew the inference from that that Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the last two days. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594431 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Another thing that happened during the deposition, and I will not repeat what was said in the deposition, because there was immediately an objection from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the deposition where Mr. Dershowitz made representations about what a New York Attorney David Boies would say, and I'm not going into any -- Q. I -- I just want to say if he starts talking about it -- MS. McCAWLEY: No, I -- I object to any reference -- MR. SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the questions if he should say anything. MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's just acknowledging that -- I'm sorry. I think he's acknowledging that that occurred. I object to any -- any discussion of any settlement communications in the context of that privilege. MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any settlement discussions. We are not going to repeat the substance of the objected-to testimony. MR. SIMPSON: My point, I just want it to be on notice -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594432 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: -- is if this witness starts saying anything about his communications or why he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting that forth as a basis, he has opened the door. You can't put it forth and park and not let me ask for all the discussions. MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and you know not to include privileged -- THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: -- communications. THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that reported -- a Florida business newspaper that promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Boies had made certain representations, a Florida -- respected Florida business newspaper immediately reported that David Boies had said, that was a false statement. And in light of that, I now had David Boies saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false statements under oath during the -- the deposition that occurred over the last two days. In addition to that, I had -- again, during the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that Attorney Bob Josefsberg had said that -- words to the effect that he, Josefsberg, did not believe ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594433 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I knew Josefsberg was an attorney who had represented IIII based on public information, and I knew that that would be a gross violation of Mr. Josefsberg's attorney/client obligations. And as a result of that, it seemed to me that, once again, Mr. Dershowitz was giving false information under oath in an effort to exculpate himself from the sex trafficking that he had been involved with. In addition to that, I learned during the deposition on Thursday that it had, quote, not crossed my mind, close quote -- I believe that's a direct quote from Mr. Dershowitz -- to record a conversation with a woman allegedly named Rebecca who had allegedly made certain statements. That was on Thursday. And then yesterday, Friday, I learned that Mr. Dershowitz, not only had it crossed his mind to make a recording, he had, in fact, made such a recording; and in fact, had it transcribed; and in fact, turned it over to his attorneys. So, once again, I had what appeared to be a false statement under oath by Mr. Dershowitz in an attempt to exculpate himself from the -- the sex ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594434 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trafficking that we -- we have evidence he has been involved with. The false statements or certainly misleading statements continue. I suppose, some of these could be a matter of judgment. The -- they raise grave concern to me. One of them was that we had propounded an interrogatory requesting the basis for Mr. Dershowitz's statements that had a criminal record. And he said that, well , she's admitted that she had sex with various people, so that renders her a criminal , and something along those lines, which I didn't think was very accurate. But in any event, that was the answer he gave. And then I learned during the deposition in the last two days, that Mr. Dershowitz had received information that he says shows that had stolen money from a restaurant and had been criminally charged with that. That was not produced to us during discovery, even though it would have been obviously relevant, and it was directly called for in the discovery that we were provided with. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594435 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You know, I also have -- I would like to refresh my recollection and if -- if counsel -- that's -- MR. SCAROLA: You can refresh your recollection on anything you need to. THE WITNESS: All right. I'd like to refresh my recollection by looking at -- MR. SIMPSON: Actually, I -- I object to this answer as nonresponsive. I haven't heard anything about flight logs once. MR. SCAROLA: You can continue. THE WITNESS: These -- you know, these all go to the statements. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You're looking at a document? A. Yeah. Let's mark it as an exhibit if you'd like. This is a memory aid to me. Q. Did you prepare it? A. Yes, I did. All right. Let's see. At page 114 of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of Thursday's testimony, Mr. Dershowitz was asked. Quote: You know that is not the only person who has sworn under oath that you were present at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with young girls, right? Answer: No. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594436 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That seemed to me to be false or at the very least misleading testimony given that Mr. Dershowitz knew that Juan Alessi, among potentially other people, had identified him as having been in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion and, indeed, had identified a photograph of At page 164 of the transcript, Mr. Dershowitz was asked, quote: All of the manifests that have been produced in this litigation, the ones that you say corroborate your testimony and exonerate you, demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane in the company of your wife, correct? Answer: No, that's not true. I don't know that. And, again, in the context of this litigation where the flight logs have been, as this question that I'm answering tends to show, are so central for Mr. Dershowitz to testify under oath that he didn't know whether his wife was depicted on the flight log, struck me as, at the very least, misleading information, but I concluded in my opinion was actually deliberately false information, particularly, given this litigation where he has produced, not only his own personal travel record, but all of his wife's travel records for the relevant period of time. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594437 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I thought that was, again, a deliberate false statement under oath designed to exculpate him from his criminal involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. At another point in the transcript, he was asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I challenge you to find any statement where I said I have never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close quote, representing that there would be no such statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, again, you know, this -- I understand sometimes people may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer was, obviously, on January 15th, 2015, asking about: Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in situations where you might have interacted with And that was the answer that he gave to the American Lawyer. And based on -- on my review of the flight logs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to obscure and try to exculpate himself from his involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. The -- he also said yesterday: Nobody knows ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594438 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about Prince Andrew and , except for the two of them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, deliberately mis -- misleading information and more likely deliberately false information, because Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew with his arm around , standing next to a beaming Glenn Maxwell who has been involved in this international sex trafficking organization. And in the circumstances of that photograph, it seems quite likely that the photographer who took that picture was the head of the international sex trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to say that only two people knew what went on was, again, deliberately false information, because I know he is the attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get into my communications with my client about what he was doing with Prince Andrew. But instead he said, no one knows what happened, other than those two people in circumstances where it was quite clear that there would have been others who would have been aware of that. Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594439 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 logs. And I could refresh my recollection here by looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our pleading that we presented on January 21st to Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers' flight log and the -- again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight log information. And when you see those inconsistencies, it becomes very hard to believe that all of the information that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So when I take all of that information, put it together, I believe that there's sufficient -- I have a sufficient basis for believing at this point in time, that Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate information to -- to law enforcement agencies, or at a minimum has provided -- has produced inaccurate information through circumstances beyond his control. But when he continually represents that the information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe that that is a deliberately false statement. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer the nonresponsive portion of the answer. MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that? MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594440 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the end, we got to the flight logs. I move to strike the nonresponsive portion. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , you came here today looking for an opportunity to give that statement; did you not? A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving, yes. Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came here today looking for a question to which you could respond with that prepared statement? A. I was prepared to give that -- I anticipated that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a question where that would be relevant. And if that question were asked and I was given the opportunity to make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it in the most accurate way that I could. MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 -- Exhibit 4, the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to. I'll let the reporter do that. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document produced by the witness was marked for identification.) MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part of the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594441 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Before Wednesday of this week, you had none of the information that you just described about Professor Dershowitz's testimony, correct? A. Correct. Q. I'm trying to look at my notes here of your long answer, but one thing you indicated that -- was the fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers is somehow indicative of false answers or perjury MR. SCAROLA: That is BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- is that right? MR. SCAROLA: That is an absolute mischaracterization of the statement that Professor Cassell made. He did not refer to the length of the answers, but rather their nonresponsiveness. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me -- let me ask a different question. Go back to the flight logs themselves. A. Okay. Q. My initial question that got us going down this line was: Isn't it true that the flight logs themselves support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was never on a plane with , the face ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594442 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the flight logs support that proposition? A. The face of the flight logs for the relevant period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. Q. Okay. So during the period -- well, actually, there's no flight log that shows and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, correct? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. And -- MR. SCAROLA: By name. You're -- you're -- MS. McCAWLEY: And it -- MR. SCAROLA: -- asking whether she was there identified by name? BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. To your knowledge, isn't it correct that there is no flight log that's been produced in this case by any party that reflects Professor Dershowitz and on the same plane, as you read the flight log? MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you asking whether those same names appear on the flight log together? MR. SIMPSON: My question, I think, is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594443 206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 perfectly clear. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed the flight logs, correct? A. Correct. Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines -- that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and on the same plane? A. No. Q. And so your testimony about questions about the completeness and accuracy of those flight logs goes to whether the logs are -- let me rephrase that. The answer that you gave about your question as -- your views as to the completeness of the flight logs and whether they may have been changed in some ways, goes to whether those logs are conclusive, not whether they, in fact, support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was not on a plane with logs MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form of the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't understand it. THE WITNESS: And I won't give a long answer, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594444 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but I -- I think, as I previously indicated, you can't just look at the face of these documents without -- with -- you know, against the context of an international sex trafficking ring that's trying to cover up what it's doing. You can't just look and documents and assume that they are 100 percent accurate without that -- having that context in mind. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And so am I right, that on the face of the flight logs, there's nothing showing and Professor Dershowitz on the same plane? A. That's correct. Q. And -- go on. And so do I understand correctly that your position is that the flight logs may not be complete or may have been changed, but you do not dispute, that on their face, they support Professor Dershowitz's testimony? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Compound. THE WITNESS: Could you just aggregate that? BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. You follow the objections very well. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594445 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I was thinking of that as well. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me -- A. I wasn't -- Q. Let me -- A. -- following their answer. Q. Let me -- let me just ask a different question. A. Sure. Thanks. Q. You testified that you have -- at some length, about why you question the accuracy of the flight logs, correct? A. Correct. Q. But I may be redundant, but you don't question that what they show on their face supports Professor Dershowitz's testimony -- MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- that he was not on a plane with A. The -- you know, the -- the sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight logs that appear to show that -- that Dershowitz and are not on the plane, so... Q. So the answer to my question is, yes? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594446 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Which question now? MR. SIMPSON: The question you just -- could you read back my -- my question and the answer? BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me ask it again. A. Okay. Q. That's fine. A. I mean, I thought I was MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What were you about to say? A. I was about to say that the records that they produced -- I'm -- I'm sorry... Q. The records -- the records that were produced -- A. On -- on their face, I cannot give you a flight log that has and Alan Dershowitz sitting next to each other, yes. Q. And you also -- you also testified a moment ago that Professor Dershowitz in his testimony in the last couple of days, had testified that had been arrested for stealing cash; do you refer -- do you recall that? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594447 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I recall his testimony to that effect, yes. Q. And you testified that no support for that had been produced in discovery; is that correct? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. Isn't it true that in Mr. Alessi's deposition, he describes that under oath and says that it happened? A. I don't have a recollection of criminal charges having been discussed in the Alessi deposition. Q. Is it -- well , let me -- let me ask you: Is it your testimony that you understood that, in fact, had been accused of stealing money from her employer? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent it gets into any conversations that you had with on any of these issues. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm trying to -- if your question is about the Alessi depo, I don't -- don't immediately recall him discussing -- discussing them. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. If I represent to you that Mr. Alessi, in his deposition, referred to a police report and an arrest of , do you have any reason to question that? MR. SCAROLA: Could we -- could we pull out ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594448 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the deposition? And if you have got a reference in the deposition, let's take a look at it. MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking for his recollection right now. The document will speak for itself. But I want to -- MR. SCAROLA: Yes, it will . MR. SIMPSON: He -- he made a very serious accusation. I would like to get an answer to my question. Does he recall whether, in that deposition that all the parties in this case have, Mr. Alessi said under oath, that she had been arrested and charged with stealing from her employer. THE WITNESS: When you -- the question built in a serious accusation, the -- the -- the -- the statement I was making is that we had propounded an interrogatory to Mr. Dershowitz saying: What's the basis for your assertion that had a criminal record? And that answer didn't refer to an Alessi depo. If it this is one of the problems that I'm having. When -- when -- you know, when you come into a deposition, both sides are supposed to turn everything over. And then if I get a question about, well , what if -- you know, we're relying ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594449 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on this piece of the Alessi depo and it's not in the answers to interrogatories, it's hard for me to -- to give an answer to that. So -- so that's the -- that's the concern I have. MR. SIMPSON: I move -- I move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question went to whether -- let me back up. If -- if I'm -- unless I misunderstood you -- MR. SCAROLA: The question was: Did he recall the contents -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking the question. MR. SCAROLA: -- of the Alessi deposition. MR. SIMPSON: I'm withdrawing it. I will ask a new question. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I understood you in your -- the long answer that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to provide relevant information on which he was basing his testimony about IIII arrest; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that assertion would be incorrect if there's a deposition in this case that all the parties ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594450 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have that include that information? MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Simpson, there was an express reference to an answer to interrogatory, and the absence of any reference to an arrest for theft in your client's sworn answer to interrogatory. That's -- MR. SIMPSON: We -- we -- MR. SCAROLA: -- exactly what the testimony was. MR. SIMPSON: If you object to the form, please just object to the form. I think it's a proper question -- MR. SCAROLA: I -- I object -- MR. SIMPSON: -- in our discovery response. MR. SCAROLA: -- I object to your misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm calling it to your attention so that we don't go down a rabbit trail. MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going down any rabbit trail. I'm really -- objection to the form will preserve it. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is whether you were aware at the time that Professor Dershowitz testified that, in fact, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594451 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Alessi had also testified previously about the arrest of IIII for stealing from her employer? A. I didn't recall that. If that's in there, you're -- you're making a representation, and I know you're a fine lawyer, so I'll accept your representation. I didn't recall that when he was testifying a a day or two ago on that subject. MR. SCAROLA: We have been going for about an hour. Is it time to take a break? Is that convenient for you? MR. SIMPSON: We can take a break now. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 9:35 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 9:47 a.m. THE WITNESS: I need to take two minutes, if I may, and just supplement the long answer that I gave about the series of things. By looking over my checklist, I noticed that item 5 of the 12 items was not given during my testimony. I'm -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I don't -- I'm not going to ask about item 5. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594452 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's in the record as part of your -- your -- your -- A. I would like to just supplement -- MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. That's fine. If you don't want to hear it, that's okay. THE WITNESS: I'd like -- MR. SCAROLA: Just as long as it's noted that there was an inadvertent omission. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As part of -- I'm going to go back actually to -- A. Sure. Q. -- the questions I was asking. One question about the -- the flight logs again. A. Okay. Q. It's true, is it not, that you have no personal knowledge as to whether Professor Dershowitz or some other member of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team prepared those logs for production to the government? A. I don't have personal knowledge of -- of that, that's right. Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it's the duty of a defense counsel to represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law, correct? A. Correct. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594453 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. In fact, I think you testified yesterday about your duty with respect to IIII along those lines, correct? A. That's right. Q. And so with respect to Professor Dershowitz's representation of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been acting unethically if he didn't attempt to negotiate the best resolution for his client that he could, consistent with the law; is that correct? A. Right. Consistent with the law, yes. Q. And so you wouldn't -- A. I'm sorry. Let me just -- consistent with the law and with the ethical obligations of attorneys. Attorneys cannot make, for example, false representations when they are negotiating those kinds of things. Q. Right. The duty as a defense counsel, Professor Dershowitz's duty was to attempt to obtain the best resolution he could for Jeffrey Epstein consistent with the law and legal ethics, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact, if he had not done that, he would have been acting unethically, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And would you agree that it would be ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594454 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inappropriate, totally inappropriate, to infer anything negative about an attorney because the attorney represented someone accused of heinous crimes? A. Just the fact of representation alone? Q. Yes. A. Yeah, that's right. Sure, of course, everyone is entitled to a defense. Q. As -- before December 30th of 2014, had you reviewed the Palm Beach Police report? A. Portions of it, yes. Q. Had you reviewed the entire report? A. I think I reviewed most of it, but I don't think I've gone through it page by page. Q. When did you do that? A. Well, let's see. Before December 30th, 2014, Brad and I filed the case in about July 2008, so it was about a six-year period of time, and I remember I'd been to Florida a couple of times on this case, once in 2010 and I think another a year or two later. And I remember, at least on one of those times, reviewing the report here with -- I don't know if I can... MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I wouldn't go into anything. THE WITNESS: To the -- right So we just -- we just want to know -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594455 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: The location is fine. THE WITNESS: The location, once personally -- once here in Florida, and then in my office in -- while in Salt Lake City. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And are you able to place in time when you reviewed these portions of the police report, other than before December 30th of 2014? A. Not precisely, no. Q. And do I understand correctly from your testimony yesterday that that police report is one of the things you relied on to support making the allegations against Professor Dershowitz that are included in the joinder motion? A. That's right. Q. It's also true, is it not, that that police report includes an interview with an adult woman who was retained to provide massages at Jeffrey Epstein's residence for guests, among others; isn't that correct? A. I believe that's correct. Q. And based on that, is it your testimony that it's fair to presume that a reference that a guest got a massage is a code word for abusing a minor sexually? MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you -- are you isolating -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594456 219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: I don't -- I don't want a speech, Mr. Scarola. If you object to the form, object to the form, and I -- if it's not a proper question -- MR. SCAROLA: I want a clarification of the question, please. Are you isolating only that piece -- MR. SIMPSON: I -- the question -- MR. SCAROLA: -- of information? MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I am asking a question that's perfectly clear. If you think it's objectionable, it won't -- it will stand. MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. It is unclear whether you're asking for him -- MR. SIMPSON: Please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: -- to isolate -- to isolate his focus to that single piece of evidence. MR. SIMPSON: I object on the coaching of the witness. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: Is it reasonable, considering that the police report on its face shows evidence -- let me back this up. Ask another question to you. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594457 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Are you aware that the police report reflects that the woman I referred to who was hired to give massages, told them that she never touched anyone inappropriately? A. I think that there are -- there is information along those lines in the police report, yes. Q. Okay. And so do you acknowledge that the police report, on its face, reflects both reports of massages that involved improper sexual contact -- contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate? A. Yes, but not in the same proportion. Q. My question wasn't proportion. The -- the report on its face, you understood, reflected that there were massages given at Mr. Epstein's residence that were perfectly legitimate? A. Some -- it was basically a few isolated examples from what I could see. Q. So you would characterize what was said in the police report as "a few isolated examples"? A. Well, given the backdrop that they had -- Q. No. My question -- it's a yes or no question. Is that how you would characterize it? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The witness is not confined to answering yes or no, if yes or no would be misleading. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594458 221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. It's a different position than was taken previously, but -- A. I mean, I was just going to give one sentence, and the one sentence would be, in the context of this whole police report where they had 24, approximately, minor girls who were -- who were being sexually abused, the references to legitimate massages I would view as isolated. Q. So you're coming to the conclusion, looking at the police report, that they are isolated; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And do you think a fair-minded reader of the police report would reach that conclusion? A. Absolutely. Q. And were you aware that the police report, to give a bit more detail, reflected that a woman who was described as having tattoos was hired to give deep-tissue Swedish massages. Do you recall that being in the -- in the police report? A. Something along those lines, yes. Q. And she also -- that woman also told the police that she was not Jeffrey Epstein's type, that she wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit his type? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594459 222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That sounds accurate with the information I have, yes, she doesn't sound like she would fit his type. Q. And so do you agree with me then -- A. And she's over the age of 18, which is another reason why wouldn't fit his type, so... Q. But you acknowledge that -- that this woman -- that the police report reflects a woman over -- well over the age of 18, being hired to give perfectly legitimate massages, correct? A. Yeah. That was cover for the sex trafficking that was going on. Q Okay. So you're now -- does the police report say "it was cover" -- A. That was -- Q. -- "for the sex trafficking"? A. That was my conclusion when I reviewed the materials. Q. Okay. So your inclusion is that a fair-minded reader of the police report would come to that conclusion? A. December 30th of 2014, knowing what we know now, yes. Q. Do you consider yourself a very suspicious person? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594460 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Do you consider yourself a conspira having a conspiratorial view? A. Absolutely not. Q. Do you consider yourself a crusader? A. Well, crusader for justice, I would say, yes. Q. If -- let me put it this way: In your view, is evidence that a person, any person, any guest at Mr. Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that person engaged in criminal sexual conduct, contact with minors, because of the fact of having a massage? A. You'd have to look at the context. Q. On its own, is it any evidence -- doesn't it -- is it any evidence at all, in your view? A. It would be some evidence, yes. Q. Notwithstanding that the report, on its face, reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages? A. The report on its face, let's be clear, reflects a lot of illegitimate sag -- massages and a sporadic or isolated, you know, legitimate massages. So the fact that somebody gets a massage in that context, I -- I think is -- is -- raises, you know, the concerns we have been talking about. Q. Did you, before December 30th of 2014, yourself personally, review what I think you referred to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594461 224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in your testimony yesterday as the holy grail , an address book of Mr. Epstein? A. Pieces of it, yes. Q. Did you review the entire document? A. No. Q. Did I understand yesterday that you testified -- did I understand correctly yesterday, that you testified that the fact that names were circled indicated that those persons likely engaged in illegal sexual contact with minors? A. My -- my impression is the names that were circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez when he was busted by the FBI for involvement, and he was asked to identify those who would have information about the sex trafficking organization. And my -- based on all the evidence I have, I believe the names that were circled were those who would have that kind of information. Q. So is it your testimony that if the name is circled, it indicates that they have information, or that they are criminals? A. That they would have information about the sex trafficking organization, and that would probably mean that they were part of the organization. It may mean that they were witnesses to what the organization was doing. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594462 225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But they would have information that the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies, should be following up on, if they are trying to piece together what the sex trafficking organization was doing. Q. Would you agree that a fair-minded person, with that background that you just described, would not go to the conclusion that the fact that a name is circled indicates that that person has engaged in criminal conduct? A. They -- what it would indicate is that they had information relevant to criminal activity. Now, would they on the -- just the fact that a name was circled, standing alone, reach that conclusion? Well, that's a hypothetical question because obviously in this case, there's lots of other information. Q. Did you understand -- it is true, is it not, that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? A. That's true. Q. And is it not also true that the people who are circled are famous people? A. I'd have to refresh my recollection as to exactly who was circled, but I know that some famous people were circled and some famous people were not circled. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594463 226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Would it be a reasonable inference, or a possible reasonable inference to draw, that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would be of interest to the Press for purposes of selling the book? A. No, because he was not talking to the Press. He was talking to an FBI agent who had busted him for criminal activity. And so I was assuming that what he was trying to do, as many criminals do when they are apprehended, was give information to law enforcement agency that would be helpful so that they can catch other "bigger fishes" is the phrase that's sometimes used, so that the little fish would -- would get off or get a cooperation deal from the law enforcement agency. He was talking -- let's be clear. He was talking to somebody he understood was an FBI agent at the time, and so that was the context of the conversation. Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that it's in the context of talking to the FBI that Mr. Rodriguez circled those names? A. I have reviewed -- I know I could refresh my recollection here, but there's an FBI 302, a report of interview of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rodriguez's arrest, and I believe I reviewed that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594464 227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 302. Q. Do you know whether the FBI, at any point, contacted Professor Dershowitz to discuss any evidence he might have after his name was circled on this document? A. I don't have personal knowledge of what the FBI did to follow up after that. Q. Okay. One of the names that's circled in the book is Courtney Love. Do you know who she is? A. Not off the top of my head, no. Q. If I mention to you or if I represent that she's a famous actress, any reason to question that? A. No. Q. In your view, was Courtney Love involved in sex trafficking? A. I don't know. Q. In your view, was Courtney Love a witness to sex trafficking? A. If -- is there a way -- are you representing her name is circled? Q. Her name is circled on the book. In fact, we can show it -- A. Okay. Yeah. Q. It is circled on the book. A. Okay. Sure. Yeah, I mean, my -- my ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594465 228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understanding would be that if her -- and this is -- could I ask a question about the circling -- or your representation? Is the circling the same type of circling that is done for Mr. Dershowitz, for example? Is it the same, you know, handwriting, same ink, same -- same appearance? You know, if it's consistent with the circling -- are you representing it's consistent with the circling? Q. Mr. Cassell , we have a document produced in discovery that has various names circled. Looking at the document, I don't see any difference among the circles. Are you aware of any document -- MR. SCAROLA: Could we have a look -- could we see the document? MR. SIMPSON: Take a -- go off the record for one moment. THE WITNESS: We are going off the video record, 10:03. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 10:08 a.m. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Back on the record. I'm going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 5, a multi-page document. It's a copy of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594466 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the address book we have been speaking about, and ask that Doc -- Mr. Cassell to take a look at this, and I'm going to ask him about certain of the entries. (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of address book was marked for identification.) MR. SIMPSON: And I will note, I put a few flags on here -- THE WITNESS: Sure. MR. SIMPSON: -- to direct your attention -- THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. MR. SIMPSON: -- which we can -- I'll note the pages for the record just so we have them. 38, 76, and 85. THE WITNESS: Okay. I just -- I just want to take two minutes or so -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Yeah. Take -- take a moment to look at it. A. Okay. I want to make a few notes, if that's all right, just to get them in -- Q. You're going to mark on the -- A. No, not on the exhibit. I'm just going to make notes to refresh my recollection so we don't have to take time. I'm just -- I'm just making notes of the context here. This will just take another minute is ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594467 230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all . Q. Take as long as you want to look at the document. A. Super. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. I think I'm -- I'm oriented now. But I haven't looked at the Love entry. Q. My -- my first -- A. I want to look at the Love -- Q. -- question is: Is this a copy of the address book that you referred to in your testimony? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And if you would take a look at the I've marked the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look at that one. A. All right. I see it. Q. Okay. And then if you look at the last entry, there's an entry for Professor Dershowitz that's also circled. It should be on the flag. It's two-sided. A. Oh, yeah. Q. Do you see that one? A. I see it Q. And then also the other one I marked is Donald Trump. A. Yes. Got it. I see those entries circled. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594468 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So am I right -- I'm right, am I not, that among the others circled are: Courtney Love, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, correct? A. Correct, among the others, yes. Q. And they are all circled in the same way; are they not? A. Yeah. It's kind of a -- a box is what I would say. Some, yes. Q. Is there anything on the face of that document that leads you to conclude that the circling the significance of the circling is any different for one person than another? A. No. Q. So based on the document, do you infer that Courtney Love was involved in some kind of sexual abuse of minors? A. I would infer that if I were running a criminal investigation through the FBI and I'm trying to find people who would have relevant information, she would be one of the people I'd want to talk to. I mean, the names that are circled here, Glenn Maxwell, one of the identified traffickers, Epstein is circled, the pilot -- one of the pilots is circled. So it's these people that all seemed to be connected are -- are all being marked here, and -- and the number of people that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594469 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are circled is, I would say, you know, 5 to 10 percent of the -- of the names ball -parking in the dark. Q. Do you know whether this address book was Jeffrey Epstein's address book or Glenn Maxwell's address book? A. I'm not certain exactly whose book it is. I actually thought it was Alfredo Rodriguez maintaining a copy of records in case he was worried that Epstein might try to have him killed at some point, and so this was his insurance policy, I think he said, against that happening. MR. SIMPSON: Object to the nonresponsive portion of the answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Is the answer to my question: You don't know whether it was Jeffrey Epstein's or Glenn Maxwell's address book? A. I don't know. And the reason I don't know that is because I actually believe it is neither -- neither of their -- that's -- is it one or the other? Actually, I think it's a third possibility. I think this was Alfredo Rodriguez's insurance policy against getting knocked off by Jeffrey Epstein. Q. So that's the view you have of the significance of this document? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594470 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. In part. I mean, there are other reasons it's significant, as we have been talking about, names are circled who appear to have relevant information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. Q. Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; is that not correct? A. I really don't -- my understanding is, yes, but I -- I don't have a lot of information about Trump. Q. It's true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's residence? A. I -- I know that he visited frequent. I -- I don't have a lot of information about Trump. Q. And his name is circled in this book; is it not? A. I believe it is. Q. Based on him -- assuming he's a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's home, and that he's a friend of Mr. Epstein's, and that his name is circled in this book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal sexual abuse of minors? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent that your answer would reveal anything that my client has told you. THE WITNESS: No. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594471 234 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But based on your testimony previously, you would consider all of those facts to be evidence that he may have been? A. They are, you know, certainly things that I would want to follow up on. Q. And -- A. If I were running an -- we were in the context, I take it, of your question, you know, if somebody is running an investigation into the organization, so... Q. Did you, in the course of your representation of IIII or any of the other Jane Doe clients you have had who have had claims against Mr. Epstein, make any effort to find out whether Mr. Trump had abused any of them? MR. EDWARDS: I would just object to this being work-product privilege as it relates to other cases that I'm working on with Paul that Jack is not involved in. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. EDWARDS: With respect to what we did during our investigation on behalf of other clients. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594472 235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I object on that to the extent that it reveals anything you did on behalf of MR. EDWARDS: I don't think Jack would know to object to this, but because I know of another case that we work on, that's protected by our work-product privilege, who I talked to and who I did not. THE WITNESS: I'd like to -- MR. SCAROLA: In that case, I instruct you not to answer. THE WITNESS: All right. MR. SIMPSON: All right. You're here, Mr. Edwards, as a client, not an attorney, correct? MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's my primary role in being here, but I'm going to protect the privilege to the extent that it's not being protected by others who don't recognize that the privilege needs to be protected on other matters. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , as of December 30th of 2014, were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited Mr. Epstein's home and stayed as a guest for a week in ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594473 236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the company of his grandchildren, among other family members? A. I'm sorry. Which residence? Which Epstein residence? Q. Palm Beach. A. Can you -- can you restate? Q. Yes. A. I mean that's kind of a compound question. I mean... Q. Well, let me rephrase it. I will be clear. A. Yeah. Q. Were you aware as of December 30th of 2014 -- let me back up a moment. A. Sure. Q. You indicated yesterday that part of the basis for your conclusion that this pleading -- it was appropriate to file this pleading accusing Professor Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest at the Palm Beach house, correct? A. No. It was more than that. He was a frequent guest, a frequent overnight guest. Q. My question is: As of December 30th, 2014, were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent a week at the Palm Beach house with family members, including his grandchildren? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594474 237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Okay. Do you think it's reasonable -- would it be reasonable to believe that someone who is committing criminal sexual abuse of minors at a home where such abuse, as you understand it, is a daily occurrence would bring his grandchildren to stay for a week? A. It would depend on the circumstances. I mean, you know, so -- you know, it would depend on the circumstances. MR. SCAROLA: Are you representing that Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time? MR. SIMPSON: I'm not answering questions. I'm asking questions. MR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, in your view, you can -- let me -- let me rephrase that. You say it would depend on the circumstances -- A. Sure. Sure. Q. -- that's your answer? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So that you don't find it incongruous that someone who knows that a particular home is the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594475 238 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors, and who himself, has engaged in that criminal abuse, would bring his grandchildren to stay there for a week? A. It would depend on the circumstances. Q. When you say that Professor Dershowitz was a regular guest at the mansion, at the Palm Beach house, it's correct, is it not, that you're referring to a period after had left for Thailand? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any evidence -- let me back that up. Are -- during the period that contends she was sexually abused, which I understand to be middle of 1999 to middle of 2002 -- is that consistent with your understanding? A. Approximately, yes. Q. -- how many times did Professor Dershowitz visit the Palm Beach mansion during that period? A. My understanding is in the neighborhood of -- what was it? Three to five times a year, staying two to three nights at a time. Q. And was that your understanding as of December 30th of 2014? A. Yes. Q. What was the basis for your understanding, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594476 239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what pieces, what documents, or testimony? A. Right. The information, you know, I gave a long presentation yesterday. So it was that information. Q. I want to focus now specifically -- I'm not looking for a full answer on your entire views A. Yeah, right. Q. -- on the case. A. I appreciate that. Q. I just want to say, you've testified that you understood as of December 30th, 2014, that Professor Dershowitz had -- was a visitor at the Palm Beach mansion three to five times during this relevant period of 1999 to -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. What was the basis on December 30th of 2014, for just that fact? A. Right. I mean, I will take about a minute here because there are a few things I want -- Q. Okay. And I want to make sure my question is clear. A. Sure. Q. I'm not asking you about any of your inferences about anything else. Just, what's the basis for your belief that he visited three to five times during that two-year period? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594477 240 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Could I ask for a clarification? Are you looking only for direct evidence and you want to exclude the circumstantial evidence? Is that the way you want to -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking. You can object to the form. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: What was -- what were you -- what did you have in mind as supporting your conclusion or belief that he -- that Professor Dershowitz visited three to five times during that relevant period? MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm sorry. Can I just place an objection on the record. I'm going to object to the extent that -- so that you do not reveal attorney/client privileged communication, unless it's something that's already public that she's revealed. THE WITNESS: Okay. Right. So I'm going to just exclude -- I take it your question isn't asking about any communications. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is asking about that, but I understand you're going to refuse to provide it. MS. McCAWLEY: Unless it's already public. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594478 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. So as of December 30th, I'm going to exclude any communications from from -- MR. SCAROLA: Except to extent that they have already been made public. That is, if she has given express permission to make disclosures, these were not confidential communications, but communications intended to be communicated to third parties, then you are permitted to include information from in your response to that extent. And I -- go ahead. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As of December A. Right. Q. -- 30th, 2014 -- A. Right. Q. -- correct? So -- A. Yeah, that's right. Q. -- any -- any public statements by her after December 30th, 2014 would not be included in the answer. A. Okay. MS. McCAWLEY: But let me be clear. Let me be clear about my objection. To the extent that she revealed something to you in a nonprivileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594479 242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 context, in other words, information that was going to be disclosed, not for advice, but factual information that she intended to disclose, that's no -- that's not privileged. But if it's something that she communicated to you in confidence with respect to getting legal advice, then that would be privileged. THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So Juan Alessi's deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, and then considerable circumstantial evidence which we don't have to rehash here involving the close personal association between Epstein and Dershowitz. I mean, again, we can rehash all of that, but those were -- those are -- that's kind of a quick -- because I know you want to get to a lot of questions -- that's a quick sort of highlight film, if you will. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , isn't it true that Mr. Rodriguez was not hired until several years after the Summer -- A. 2004. Q. Let me ask it again. -- until well after 2002? A. Yeah, about 2004. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594480 243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And Mr. Rodriguez would have no personal knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited during a period two years or three years before he was hired; isn't that true? A. So, look, this is -- this is why I was trying to speed up the answer to the question. We have a sex trafficking organization that is running a common scheme and plan that is continuing on until it was interrupted by law enforcement about 2005 and 2006. So what the -- the criminal organization is doing in 2004, unless I have some significant evidence that it's different than what was going on in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the same sort of criminal activities are going on later. So if -- if you want -- if you want me to get into the -- the full scope of the criminal organization, we can get into it. But the fact that somebody in 2004 sees this going on, leads me to conclude that it's probably the same thing going on in the absence of other information in 2001. Q. So from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about what was going on, so to speak -- and my question related, what was going on the number of times that Professor Dershowitz visited. That's the topic. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594481 24,1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Right. Q. That because he visited, according to Mr. Rodriguez, several times a year in 2004, 2005, he must have visited several times a year in 2000 -- 19- -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. A. I didn't say must have. I said that that's going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan, and then, in the absence of, you know, some falling out between people or somebody becoming, you know, more associated or less associated with a criminal organization. I mean, if you want to get into the circumstantial evidence, in 2003, there's an article on which, you know, Dershowitz identifies himself -- Q. Let me interrupt you because I'm asking -- A. Okay. Q. -- about -- my only question is evidence of how -- not anything, whether engaged in conduct or didn't engage in conduct, just how many times he came during this period. A. Right. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. That's the reason why I asked you to clarify whether you want to limit this to direct evidence or whether you want all of the evidence including circumstantial evidence, because as we both know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594482 24.; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 circumstantial evidence is good evidence. A well-connected chain of circumstance can be -- MR. SIMPSON: We really don't need a speech. MR. SCAROLA: -- a well-connected -- MR. SIMPSON: We really don't -- MR. SCAROLA: -- chain of circumstance may be as compelling proof as direct evidence of a given fact. That's the law. If you don't want -- MR. SIMPSON: Really, sir. MR. SCAROLA: -- the circumstantial evidence MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola -- MR. SCAROLA: -- tell us that. MR. SIMPSON: -- please don't make speeches, and please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: Just tell us that. I'm not coaching the witness. I'm asking you -- you're asking ambiguous questions. MR. SIMPSON: There's nothing ambiguous -- MR. SCAROLA: If you want only direct evidence, we will give you only direct evidence. If you want a full and complete answer, it's got to include circumstantial evidence, so don't cut him off when he's giving you that. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594483 246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: Really, objecting to the form of the question preserves all of any problems there may be with the question. MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. MR. SIMPSON: We don't need a speech. MR. SCAROLA: It doesn't. It doesn't. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , is it your testimony that, from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says Professor Dershowitz visited in a 2004/2005 time frame, it's fair to draw an inference about how often he visited in an earlier -- three-year earlier time frame? A. In the circumstances of this case, absolutely. Q. And would it be fair to infer from the number of times that Donald Trump visited three years later, how often he visited at an earlier period? A. I did not investigate the circumstances involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up. Q. Were you aware on December 30th of 2014 that Donald Trump was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying: "I've known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- oh, I'm sorry. It was a New Yorker Magazine, not Vanity Fair. That he was quoted as saying: "I've known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- "for 15 years. Terrific guy. And he's a lot ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594484 247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of fun to be with." It even said that: "He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys the social -- social life"? Were you aware of that on December 30th, 2014? A. Possibly. I mean that sounds vaguely familiar. Trump has just not been somebody that -- that I've paid much attention to in this case. Q. Based on that statement, and the facts we discussed earlier about Mr. Trump visiting and being a friend, and the other circumstances we discussed, are you suspicious about whether he engaged in sexual misconduct with minors? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent that you can't reveal anything that my client has informed you of. THE WITNESS: Right. If we set aside that information, I'm not -- I'm not suspicious, no, not given the information I have. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So notwithstanding that his name is circled in the address book, he was a good friend, he visited often, and he was quoted as saying that Jeff was a terrific guy who liked young women almost as much as Trump did, you're not even suspicious? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594485 248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Not -- you know, let's break that down in a couple pieces. The fact that his name is circled, if I were running an FBI investigation, I'd go send somebody to see what he knew about it, but no, it would take a lot more for me to become suspicious that somebody is involved in -- in sexual activity like that. Q. Okay. So you would agree with me then, that the fact that a person often visited the mansion, the person -- the fact that a person was a friend of Mr. Epstein for 15 years, the fact that the person had stated publicly that: "Mr. Epstein liked young women almost as much as I do myself," and the fact that the name is circled in the address book is not sufficient to raise a suspicion that that person engaged in sexual misconduct? A. So... Q. Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. A. It requires -- MR. SCAROLA: You're not required to answer yes or no, if a yes or no response alone would be misleading. THE WITNESS: The problem is the word "suspicion." I'm not particularly suspicious on those facts, but it -- you know, what do you mean ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594486 249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by "suspicion"? If I -- if I were running an FBI investigation and somebody circled a name as -- as saying, look, this fellow may have some information, I'd go follow up on that. If you say that's suspicion, then the answer would be, yes. But I -- you know, based on that information alone, no. I mean that -- that wouldn't -- wouldn't be enough for me to, you know, invest time and energy into that particular possibility. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So none of those facts are sufficient even to justify spending time and energy, correct? A. Unless -- if I'm running -- this is -- again, what do you mean by "suspicion"? Time and energy in the context of somebody who is running a pro bono case with limited resources to try to figure out what the sex trafficking ring's going to do, I'm not going to chase after that rabbit. It seems farfetched. I'm going to focus my efforts on the people who appear to be more directly involved. Q. Okay. So based on the facts that I gave you a moment ago, you think it's farfetched that Donald Trump was engaged in abusing minors? A. If that's all I had, I would not invest time ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594487 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and energy in that, right. Q. And you referred to your pro bono case. What is your best estimate of how much money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein? A. In which case are we talking about now? Q. Any -- any case representing a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. A. I need to confer with -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I'm going to object. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And that -- that's a fact -- that's not a privileged question. That's a factual question. A. Factual. Well, there are -- there are -- Q. Just how much money? You don't have to tell me who the clients are. Just how much money? A. Okay. I need to -- MR. SIMPSON: There's a question pending. I object to a break. There's no possible privilege. MR. SCAROLA: He has a privilege -- he has a privilege question. He wants to consult with counsel. MR. SIMPSON: Well , really? My question is how much money, and that's privileged? MR. SCAROLA: It may be. I don't know. We ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594488 251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need to talk. THE WITNESS: That's why I need to -- MR. SCOTT: There's no federal law or state law that supports that financial information and fees is privileged. MS. McCAWLEY: We can argue about that because that's in my motion, so we can argue about that. MR. SIMPSON: Well , can -- can -- MR. SCOTT: That one, I know all about. MR. SCAROLA: You're objecting to our taking a break -- MR. SIMPSON: I am objecting -- MR. SCAROLA: -- while this question is pending? MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. MR. SCAROLA: It is our position that the witness has a legal question about privilege. We are going to take a break. We are going to talk about it. It may turn out that it's not a problem at all. I don't know. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 10:38. MR. SIMPSON: With my note, we are taking a break over my objection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594489 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:38. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 10:49 a.m. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Back on the record. My question, Mr. Cassell, was: What is your best estimate of how much money you have made representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein? A. In which case are we talking about? Q. In -- in any case. Combined total. A. Okay. With regard to the CVRA case, that's pro bono, no money there. With regard to the other cases, I'd like to answer your question, but due to confidentiality obligations that have been imposed upon me by Jeffrey Epstein, in the course of negotiating those cases, I'm not permitted to answer that question. MR. SCAROLA: We are certainly willing to respond appropriately to a court order in that regard, but it requires a court order to release us from the contractual confidentiality obligations that we are under. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell , that there are confidentiality agreements with Mr. Epstein that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594490 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preclude you from giving the total amount paid without breaking it down into particular cases? A. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. Q. Oh, maybe that wasn't clear. Let me do it this way so we avoid -- A. Yeah. Q. -- the confidentiality issues. In how many cases have you been counsel for a person suing Mr. Epstein alleging that she was a victim? A. Counsel of record? Q. Put it this way. How -- well, start with that, counsel of record. A. I believe three. Q. Okay. And in addition to those three, have you assisted other counsel in some way without becoming counsel of record in cases by women suing Mr. Epstein alleging that they had been abused? A. I believe there's one other case in addition to the counsel of record case. Q. And without telling me -- A. I'd -- I'd have to go double-check my record. This is an approximate best recollection. Q. All right. A. It's about four. Q. To the best of your recollection, you were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594491 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 counsel of record in three cases and you were involved in another case -- at least one other case in which you did not appear -- A. That's right. Q. -- as counsel of record; is that correct? A. That's -- that's my recollection right now, yeah. Q. All right. How many of those cases have been resolved at this point? A. All . All -- of the four, I recall all four have been resolved. Q. Okay. Without telling me the amount, did you receive -- all four were settled; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Without telling me the amount, is it correct that in all four of those cases, you received a legal fee? A. I think that starts to call for a question I need to consult with my attorney about. Q. Simply the question of whether in each of them you received a fee? A. I just want to... THE WITNESS: Is -- is there any problem -- MR. SCAROLA: You can respond to that. You can answer yes or no to that question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594492 255 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I received something. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Was the fee -- and if it's different for the -- the cases, tell me, but was it a contingent fee or some kind of hourly fee? MR. SCAROLA: That -- that does get into attorney/client privileged matters. The terms -- MR. SIMPSON: You're instructing him not to answer? MR. SCAROLA: -- the terms of the representation are attorney/client privilege. I instruct him not to answer. MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. In addition to these four cases that have been resolved, are you representing any other clients who are alleging, in a case seeking monetary damages, that they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein? A. I -- MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent that this seeks any information related to that could be deemed privileged or confidential. THE WITNESS: So what's the... ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594493 256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm -- I'm trying to close a loop here. A. Yeah. Q. I'm asking whether you were involved in any other cases in which claims have been made against Jeffrey Epstein for damages that are still active; they have not been resolved? A. So we are talking civil cases, unresolved civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein right now? Q. Unresolved cases seeking money from Jeffrey Epstein. MR. SCAROLA: And to the extent that that question calls for matters that are of public record, then, obviously, you can respond. THE WITNESS: Right. Yeah. None. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Are there -- and I'm not asking for the name. Are there any not of public record that -- A. What would be a "not"? Q. Well, if you had made a claim that's not in suit, for example. A. Oh, against Jeffrey Epstein? Q. Yes. A. Yeah. No, I don't -- I don't think there's anything. Yeah, no -- no claims against Epstein, right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594494 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And -- and it's true, is it not, that if you're successful in the CVRA case, in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement, you expect to get other clients who will have claims against Jeffrey Epstein? A. If we -- in civil claims? Q. Claims for damages, claims for money from Jeffrey Epstein. A. That -- I mean, that starts to -- if the nonprosecution agreement is set aside? Q. Yes, if you're successful. A. I haven't really -- that sounds pretty speculative. I haven't really thought about the civil -- the focus of the CVRA case is criminal. I haven't thought about, you know, whether, civil claims could somehow arise out of that. I mean, we are talking about, you know, events that took place long ago. There would be statute of limitations issues, you know. Whether they are viable civil claims at this point has not been something that I have, you know, given much thought to. Q. So is it your testimony then that you have not thought about the question of whether success in the CVRA case may or result in you obtaining additional clients with claims for money damages against Jeffrey Epstein? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594495 258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yeah. That hasn't been something that I have focused on, no. I mean... Q. It is -- it is correct, is it not, that you anticipate that if you are successful in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement, that the names of additional victims will become known; didn't you testify to that yesterday? A. I -- I'm not -- I must be confused here. I don't remember. Q. Well, wait -- I don't want to -- you know, let me ask the question -- A. Yeah. Q. -- rather than my recollection. A. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm not... Q. My question is: Do you anticipate that if you're successful in setting aside the nonprosecution agreement, that the names of additional victims will become known? A. Additional Epstein victims at this point? Q. Yes. A. Again, it's pretty speculative. The -- the issue -- you know, the case, you know, the events were roughly a decade ago. I mean, we are always hoping that there might be somebody additional that would come forward, but that hasn't been the focus of the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594496 259 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 litigation. Q. Whether -- A. And you always hope that there are -- yeah, I mean, any time you file a case, ah, I hope some more, you know, witnesses will come forward to support that case, but that hasn't been the focus, trying to secure additional -- additional witnesses. That is a possibility, though. I mean, I think in fairness to your question, that is a possibility that, you know, if -- if the case attracts attention and -- and somebody, you know, says, you know, gosh, now that I -- I -- I -- you know, I moved away to escape Epstein and now it's safe for me to come back, or -- or now I realize I have a claim, that's always a possibility. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that, you know, we are ruling that possibility out. Q. And for the same reason that additional witnesses might become available -- known, additional clients might become known, correct? A. That is a theoretical possibility, yes. Q. In these four cases that you mentioned, the three that were, which you were counsel of record and one in which you were not, did you meet at any time in person with the clients? And if it's different as to some than others, tell me that, but -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594497 260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. In all four, you met with the clients? A. In three of the four. Q. And were those three the three in which you were counsel of record? A. Yes. Q. As of December A. I believe I was counsel of record on all three of those. I would have to double-check. I know I was counsel of record in the federal case. The two of them are state cases, I believe, that it was pro hac in the state cases. Q. Okay. I won't ask you the names, but in the four cases, what are the initials of your clients? A. Okay. So the -- the -- Q. Put it this way: How are they identified in the caption that you filed? A. Well, also the three that were filed, one was -- one was the initials S.R. I referred to S.R. yesterday. That was the Jane Doe case in Federal Court in front of Judge Marra. There were two state claims. I'll -- I'll identify the clients as E.W. and L.M. Q. And then the fourth one? A. The fourth one, I believe -- the initial M. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594498 261 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I believe the last initial was B., but I may be wrong about the B. First initial M. Q. At the -- okay. At the time that you filed the joinder motion -- A. Yes. Q. -- in the federal case, so December 30th of 2014, you knew that naming Prince Andrew would generate substantial publicity, correct? A. I knew it would attract a lot of attention. Yeah, I mean, "substantial" we could debate, but, sure, I knew that that was going to -- you know, once you start exposing the extent of this criminal activity, obviously, there were going to be a lot of people interested, yes. Q. And you also knew that naming Professor Dershowitz would attract publicity? A. Well, when you say "naming," one of the things you've got to understand is the names were already in the case, both Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. We had pending discovery requests for information about both of them. So when you say "naming them," you know, they were already named in the case. Now, would the additional allegations have attracted additional attention? Sure. Q. Mr. Cassell , it's true, is it not, that the ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594499 262 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 filing on December 30th of 2014, was the first time that you had ever, yes, ever on behalf of or any other client, accused Professor Dershowitz or Prince Andrew of sexual abuse in a public filing? A. If you're talking about direct allegation, that's correct. Q. Had you ever public -- well, at no other time that -- you expected when you filed the pleading on December 30th, 2014, that it would be -- be something of public record that would generate publicity, correct? A. Public record, the focus was not generating publicity. Of course, when you file an allegation like that, there certainly would have been -- we would anticipate there would have been publicity, absolutely. Q. And before December 30th of 2014, to the best of your knowledge, neither you, nor anyone else, had told Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations that he personally had engaged in sexual misconduct? A. Um... MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that date if that reveals anything that would be privileged between something that would have been communicated by the client. MR. SIMPSON: No. These are communications to Professor Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594500 263 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. And that could very well include attorney/client privileged communications. MR. SIMPSON: Let me -- I'll ask my question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is: Did you ever advise Professor Dershowitz that there were allegations that he had engaged, himself, in sexual misconduct with minors? A. Not me personally, no. Q. Are you aware of any e-mail, letter, other communication from anybody that went to Professor Dershowitz that told Professor Dershowitz that he had been accused of engaging in misconduct himself? A. Well, there -- I mean, I'm aware that there was a deposition request in 2009. There was a deposition request in 2011. That was accompanied by an exchange of correspondence that said, for example, numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underaged girls. It didn't then go on to say, and you were committing sexual abuse of them, but it said numerous witnesses had -- had done that. And I think a reasonable inference would be that, you know, you're verily sure that a witness and then that also raises the possibility of -- well, I mean, I think Professor Dershowitz mentioned yesterday, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594501 264 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that if you're in the presence of a convicted sex offender, or a sex offender and sex abuse is going on, you would have obligations, for example, at a minimum to report that, and it raises the possibility of other criminal activity as well . Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Cassell , that telling a person that multiple people have identified you as a witness to some activity is fair notice that you, yourself, are accused of engaging in criminal misconduct? A. So -- so you, I think, recharacterized the letter that went to Mr. Dershowitz in 2011. The letter, as I recall, doesn't say he is a witness. It says, if I recall -- we can double-check the language -- but I believe the language says: Numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein, underaged girls, and Epstein. Then, you know, so at that point, given what we know in this case, given that at that point in 2011, there had been an ongoing set of allegations against Mr. Epstein, I -- I think your question doesn't -- doesn't take into account this surrounding context. Not to mention the fact there had been a 2009 deposition request and a 2013 document request. Q. Okay. I think you accurately characterized ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594502 265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the communication about the deposition request that multiple persons have placed you in the presence -- A. Right. Q. -- of minors -- A. Right. Q. -- correct? A. I believe that's my recollection. Numerous witnesses have placed you in the presence of sex offend -- at that point, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sexually abusing underaged girls, and underaged girls, and those are the subjects we would like to question you about. And rather than getting a response that says, well, let me clear that all up, the response that's received was, something along the lines of, give me more information and -- and, quote: I'll decide whether I want to cooperate, close quote, or something along those lines. Q. Mr. Cassell , let me -- I'm going to read to you -- A. Good. Q. -- from the letter itself -- A. Okay. Q. -- and tell me if it's consistent with your recollection. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594503 266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. You were right, yes. MR. SCAROLA: Can you just show it to him? MR. SIMPSON: I'll read it, and then if he wants to look at it, that will be fine. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. This is a letter from Mr. Scarola to Mr. Dershowitz dated August 23rd, 2011. The second sentence says -- well, I'm going to read the whole thing. MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. "We do not" -- MR. SCAROLA: It's short, so it would be helpful if you just read the whole thing. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Yeah. "We do not intend to inquire about any privileged communications or attorney work product. We do, however, have reason to believe that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females, and we would like the opportunity to question you under oath about those observations. Thank you for ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594504 267 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your anticipated cooperation. Signed, Jack Scarola." If you would like to -- A. Sure. Q. -- take a look at the letter to refresh yourself, you're welcome to. A. Great. Thanks. Okay. Q. Now, first, you're aware, are you not, that Professor Dershowitz answered that letter and said the assertion that he had observed Mr. Epstein in the presence of underage -- MR. SCAROLA: Females. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- females was not true? A. Something along those lines, yeah. Q. Yeah. And I will read it from that letter -- A. Okay. That would be good. Yeah, that would be great. Q. And "I have never" -- this is a letter from Mr. Dershowitz to Mr. Scarola, August 29th, 2011. "Dear Mr. Scarola, I have never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females. I do not believe you have any reasonable basis for believing that I have. If you have -- if you claim to have reason to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594505 268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe, please provide me with any such reason. I am certain I can demonstrate to you that it is false." Is that consistent with your recollection of the response? A. That sounds about right, yeah. Q. So Mr. Dershowitz did not ignore the letter; he responded to it, correct? A. I think that's right. Q. And go back to the first letter. A. But, now, if we are -- if we're talking about -- yeah, there's that one letter and now there's a response letter, right. Q. My question to you is: Does the statement to a person that "we have reason to believe that you have personally observed another person in the presence of underage females and we would like to ask you about your observations," put the recipient on notice that you, yourself, are accused of criminal conduct in abusing minors? A. Well, it puts you on notice that you're a potential, obviously, witness to this and then therefore you could have potential involvement. Let me give you a simple illustration. It'll take about 20 seconds. If somebody says -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594506 269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Well, let me back up. My first question, though, if you can answer the question. MR. SCAROLA: No. I'm sorry. The witness is entitled to complete his response. If you don't -- if you believe it to be unresponsive, you can move to strike it, but he's entitled to complete it. MR. SIMPSON: He -- MR. SCAROLA: So go ahead and complete your response. MR. SIMPSON: Can we have a -- you can give an explanation, but a yes or no with an explanation. MR. SCAROLA: You already got that. Could we now have the completion of the response? THE WITNESS: Here's the simple illustration I think makes it pretty clear: If somebody says, we have observed you in the presence of a kilo of cocaine, we would like to question you about the presence -- about your observations of this, that doesn't directly state that you are a drug user or a drug dealer, but it certainly puts you on notice that you're associated with that criminal activity and somebody is going to question you about it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594507 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the context of this case, to say, you have been observed in the -- in -- by numerous witnesses in the presence of a convicted sex offender and underage girls, and we would like to talk to you about those observations, I think that puts you on notice that you're in -- in -- in jeopardy of -- of criminal activity, particularly when you combine that with the fact that there is a duty to report child abuse in many states in this country, including the State of Florida. And so that if those observations were such that they would give rise to a reasonable inference that sex abuse was -- of children was going on and you'd be obligated to report it, as I think Mr. Dershowitz conceded yesterday, yes, you -- I think that puts you on notice that -- that those kinds of things are being alleged. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, first, the letter itself, the letter from Mr. Scarola simply says, you were -- you were personally -- you personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underaged females, correct? A. Correct. Q. It does not say, you witnessed abuse of any ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594508 271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 minor; we have reason to believe you observed abuse of minors? A. If those words do not appear there, but come on, we -- we know -- we know in the context of this case, when somebody is asking to take a deposition about your observation of young girls, they weren't talking about preparations for birthday parties. They were talking about sexual abuse of children. And that was what Mr. Dershowitz was going to be asked about. And he did not -- he did not take that opportunity to try to clear the record; instead, we are, you know, here today, because among other reasons, he -- he -- he wasn't deposed then. Q. I want -- I want to comment. I'm just a little bit non -- nonplussed, so I want to come back to this again. A. Well, I'm -- I have to tell you, I'm a little bit nonplussed that somebody would say that letter doesn't put you on notice that you're potentially involved in criminal activity. I mean, come on. Q. I -- my question wasn't potentially involved in criminal activity. We disagree about whether it does that. A. Okay. I think it does. Q. I suspect you -- that's how you read it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594509 272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I think it puts you on notice in the context of a country which has required people to report the sexual abuse of children, and somebody wants to talk to you about your observations of a convicted sex offender with underage girls, that that's going to be one of the subjects that's going to be discussed, yes. Q. My question was -- my initial question was: Does -- do the statements in this letter put the reader on notice that you, personally, are accused of abusing minors yourself, not that you have in some knowledge or evidence that someone else did it, but that you, yourself, did it; is that a way to give fair notice? A. Well, in fair notice in what context? You know, is he on notice that a lawsuit is going to be filed the next day? Simply from that piece of -- that letter alone, they are on notice, you know -- I mean, I think that puts you on notice that there are serious allegations afoot and it would be in your best interest if you hadn't done anything, to show up, attend a deposition, let all the facts come out so that everybody can know them. Q. Would you agree that accusing someone of themselves abusing a minor is different than accusing someone of having knowledge that somebody else did it? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594510 273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. And to accuse someone of abusing a minor is a serious, serious accusation of criminal conduct, personal criminal conduct, not just failing to report somebody else, but you, yourself, are abusing people? A. Oh, yeah. MR. SCAROLA: Are you suggesting that that's not criminal conduct? MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm -- my question stands. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What is the answer to that? A. It is a very serious charge, I agree. That's why we are all here today. Q. Okay. And -- and if you wanted to put someone on fair notice that they are accused themselves of being a sex offender, a criminal who has abused children, wouldn't you tell them that? A. That's a speculative question because that letter was designed to try to collect information about an international sex trafficking organization. And so as to -- you know, I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Scarola wrote it that way. But my sense, based on the public record is, that he was trying to get as much information as he could about what Jeffrey Epstein and ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594511 274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his criminal associates were doing. And he thought that Mr. Dershowitz would have information and was trying to collect that. Now, whether the -- the -- the tentacles of the organization would extend so that they wrapped around Mr. Dershowitz himself, I guess was the subject that -- that Mr. Scarola, I am assuming, was hoping to explore. But Mr. Dershowitz prevented that opportunity. Q. And Mr. Dershowitz, you knew, had been Mr. Epstein's attorney, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you knew, just as we have seen here today with multiple assertions of privilege, that he could not testify about anything he learned as an attorney? A. He could testify, and the letter itself says, we are not going to ask you about any communications; we are going to ask you about observations of sex abuse by a convicted sex offender, and your personal knowledge of that. That would not have erased in the -- and Mr. Scarola's a very good attorney, and I'm sure all of his questions that we saw the last couple of days would have been very narrowly focused on observations about what this criminal organization was doing. Q. And so to the bottom line is that your view, your sworn testimony, this letter of August 23rd, 2011, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594512 275 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 put Mr. Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz, on fair notice that he was being accused of being a sex offender himself? A. We -- we have gone over this. I think it put him on fair notice that there were serious questions being raised about what he knew about this criminal organization, what the potential criminal responsibility he had for failure to report sexual abuse of a child, as well as other possibilities. MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. My question is a very narrow one, whether this letter, in your opinion, under oath, fairly put Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz on notice that he himself was accused of abusing minors. A. Again, that's a vague question. I've tried to give the best answer I can. That was certainly a potential area of questioning. I think that puts him on notice that it would have been in his best interest to appear to answer those questions. MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to object to the answer again as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. It's a really simple question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594513 276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Does that letter put Mr. Dershowitz on fair notice that he's accused of being a sex offender himself? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Repetitious. To the extent that you can improve upon the answer, you can improve upon the answer. If you can't, all you need to do is say that. THE WITNESS: I -- and I'll try to obviously, I want to be responsive -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let -- let me ask -- A. -- to your question. Q. I'll ask you a different question. A. I don't think that's a yes or no question because of -- of you're including vague terms like fair notice and -- and those sorts of things. So -- but go ahead and ask your questions and I'll -- I mean, go ahead. Q. You're a former federal judge? A. Right. Q. A former Supreme Court law -- law clerk? A. Yes. Q. Professor at a law school? A. Yes. Q. Reading as -- reading the language of this ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594514 277 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 letter, in your opinion, does the language itself put the recipient on notice that the recipient is accused of abusing minors himself? A. It puts him on notice that that is going to be a potential subject of inquiry at the -- at the -- the deposition. Q. So your answer then is, yes, it puts the -- the -- the person on notice; that's your reading? A. You're -- I think you're putting words in my mouth. You're -- you're trying to ask, you know, a question that on the one hand, you're suggesting is narrow, and on the other hand is broad. It -- I mean, this is probably the simplest way to answer that question. If I had gotten that letter, I would have said, schedule the deposition in the next 24 hours, and come on down here now, and I will be available for a week. That's what I would have said if I had gotten that letter. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Is it your testimony you can't answer yes or no whether that letter, on its face, puts the recipient on notice that the recipient is accused himself of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594515 278 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 having abused minors? Can you answer that: Yes or no? A. No. I think a yes-or-no answer would be misleading, given the context of this case. Q. You referred in your earlier testimony to -- strike that for a moment. You referred in your earlier testimony to an article that appeared today regarding Professor Dershowitz's deposition testimony, correct? A. I don't think so. Q. Okay. Are you aware that -- well , perhaps it was IIII McCawley who referred to it. Do you recall there being a reference this morning to an article being published about Professor Dershowitz's testimony? MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. It was me. I objected to the extent -- only to the extent it revealed something public that had been stated in public. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. And I -- you recall that? A. Yeah, I recall the objection. I think there's an article that came out yesterday or a communication. I -- I -- you know, I can't remember the -- exactly where I -- I know that I received a communication, either through publication or in some ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594516 279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other way from the -- from the -- you know, I became aware that there was a statement that the -- what's the name of the outfit? It's the Business Investor -- MR. SCAROLA: Daily Business Review. THE WITNESS: Daily Business Review that was stating that David Boies was saying that the representations made by Mr. Dershowitz were false. MR. SCAROLA: I did just coach the witness. I apologize. THE WITNESS: Yeah. And, I'm sorry, just for the name of that, so... BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And you -- in your earlier testimony, you referred to it -- you didn't recall the name, but you referred to it as a reputable -- A. That's right. Q. -- publication? A. That's right. That's the one we are talking about, right. Q. Right. And in that article it states: "McCawley," referring to our colleague, "later issued a statement on Boies's behalf saying, because the discussions that Mr. Boies had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594517 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is not true." A. That's the one. Q. You read that? A. Yeah. I -- I learned of it -- yeah, I don't remember whether I read or how I got it, but yeah, that's the one. Q. In light of that statement by Mr. Boies, would you agree that any privilege has been waived? A. I would not. Q. So -- A. That's -- that's a newspaper article. Q. It's a pub -- it's a quote. Let me clarify. That's a statement -- quoting a statement issued by Ms. McCawley and quoting Mr. Boies as saying, Mr. Dershowitz's description of what was said is not true, so that's a public statement by Mr. Boies saying that Mr. Dershowitz's testimony is not true; is that a waiver in your view? A. No. And that would require -- I'm with -- I'm just putting you on notice, talking about notice, if you want me to, I could give you the law professor ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594518 281 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer as to why that's not a waiver. Off the top of my head, I can start talking about that. Q. No. I don't -- I don't need that. A. Right. That's why I just wanted to let you know, so... Q. But I really wanted to clarify -- and what I wanted to clarify was -- A. I do not -- let me just be clear, so the record is clear: I absolutely do not believe that's a waiver and I could give you an extended answer, but I know time is drawing short -- Q. All right. A. -- so... Q. But you -- what I want to clarify is that, notwithstanding that statement, you will continue to answer all my questions about the substance of discussions with Mr. Boies; you're continuing not to answer, you're continuing -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes -- MR. SCAROLA: You just said you -- MS. McCAWLEY: -- I believe -- MR. SCAROLA: -- continue to answer. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. MS. McCAWLEY: Continue not to answer. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594519 282 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Why don't you start over again? MR. SIMPSON: No. I just want -- MS. McCAWLEY: We disagree with your characterization of that as a waiver. It was a statement that was issued in order to stop the waivers that Mr. Dershowitz was trying to engage in, and we -- we don't agree that's a waiver and we will not allow any testimony regarding those communications. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I disagree with the position and the characterization, but I just wanted to clarify on the record, I didn't have to ask those questions again. MR. SCAROLA: Sure. MS. McCAWLEY: I understand. MR. SIMPSON: And, obviously, our position is that if it hadn't already been -- if it hadn't already been waived -- either it wasn't privileged or hadn't been waived, it's now waived. THE WITNESS: And my -- just -- MR. SIMPSON: I don't have a question. THE WITNESS: I know, but I -- but I think now in light of, since the record has these characters, I just want to put one sentence into ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594520 283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the record, which is: It doesn't seem to me that an attorney can inject into a deposition confidential settlement proceedings, have somebody deny that, and then say, aha, they're no longer confidential settlement proceedings, so that's -- MR. SIMPSON: There's no question pending. I move to strike the comments. THE WITNESS: Right. I just didn't want your comments to -- to reflect back on my earlier answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want to go back, Mr. Cassell, get back to yesterday's exhibits. I'm going to hand you what was marked yesterday as Cassell Exhibit Number 2, which is the joinder motion, and when you have that in front of you -- A. Got it. Q. Do you have that in front of you? A. I do. Q. All right. Would you -- find my copy of it -- if you would turn to page -- bottom of page 3, part of -- top of page 4; do you have that? A. Got it. Q. All right. I'm going to read it. Tell me if ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594521 284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I've read it correctly. A. Okay. Q. "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe" -- and that's correct? A. Yes. Q. -- "making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein's purposes in lending Jane Doe, along with other young girls, to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal , political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information." Did I read that correctly? A. You did. Q. What did you mean by "obtain potential blackmail information"? A. Okay. Let me just double-check. Once the criminal organization had put the bait out, so to speak, to various people, and they took the bait that -- you know, I'm -- I'm speaking colloquially here. These are -- these are young girls who are being sexually abused. Once the criminal organization had gotten people to sexually abuse these -- these young girls, at that point, they had ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594522 285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information that they could use to blackmail those people and -- and then get favors in exchange. And that's Epstein at the head of the organization would be the one who would benefit most directly from the black -- the blackmail information. Q. And by "blackmail information," do you mean that Mr. Epstein then had information that he could threaten to disclose if the other person didn't do what Epstein asked them to do? A. Precisely. Q. As of December 30th, 2014, if IIII had access to publicity, she had exactly the same ability to blackmail people; isn't that true? A. Absolutely not. A billionaire has far more resources than a victim of child sex abuse, particularly one that has been forced into hiding in Australia to escape the criminal organization. So for you to suggest that had the same ability to blackmail somebody as Jeffrey Epstein is, I think, preposterous. Q. As of -- IIII IIII had the same ability as Jeffrey Epstein to reveal publicly the names of the people who she says sexually abused her, as did Mr. Epstein; isn't that true? A. You're talking about physical ability to ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594523 286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 speak words. They both have the same physical ability to speak the English language, yes. Q. And, in fact, before, at least three years before December 30th, 2014, she had the ability to be quoted in an article, more than one article, in the Daily Mail in London about her experiences, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And am I correct that as of December 30th, 2014, you didn't know whether she was paid for that interview or not? A. I wasn't sure. That's right. Q. And after December 30th, 2014, the references to Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz generated international publicity; isn't that true? A. Okay. Which -- yes, I mean, in a general sense, I could ask which allegations, but these allegations did generate publicity, certainly. Q. Yes. The allegations in your joinder motion that Prince Andrew and Professor Dershowitz had abused , then known as Jane Doe Number 3, generated a firestorm of publicity; did it not? A. It generated a lot of publicity, yes. Q. And within days of that, you were -- you were participating in attempting to arrange an interview with ABC News; isn't that true? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594524 287 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That -- within days of -- the chronology is important here: The allegations were filed in this pleading on December 30th. Several days after that, Mr. Dershowitz then took to the airwaves to denounce, not only Brad and me, but -- but particularly of concern to me was , this victim of sex trafficking. And, at that point, as one of -- as one of her attorneys, I was looking for a way to respond to that media assault on her by Mr. Dershowitz. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did -- within 24 hours of this pleading being filed, there was publicity about the allegations against Prince Andrew and Mr. Dershowitz -- Professor Dershowitz; isn't that correct? A. I don't know the exact time frame, but that -- you know, roughly that time frame sounds about right. Q. If Mr. -- if Professor Dershowitz had never said anything, wouldn't you expect that these allegations as to Prince Andrew, in particular, and Professor Dershowitz would get substantial publicity? A. There was -- there was -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594525 288 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent the question calls for speculation, I object. MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm asking for his state of mind when he filed this document. THE WITNESS: There's no doubt that -- MR. SCAROLA: So the question is: At the time of the filing -- MR. SIMPSON: Please -- please don't coach the witness. MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm not coaching him. I just want to understand the question. You're asking what his state of mind was at the time of filing? MR. SIMPSON: Did he -- did he anticipate -- MR. SCAROLA: Because the other question was: What do you -- what's your position today. MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola, really. MR. SCAROLA: That's -- that's a different question. So I just want to know which one you're asking. Do you want to know his state of mind then, or his state of mind today? MR. SIMPSON: I will take that as an objection to the form of the question. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594526 289 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As of -- MR. SCAROLA: It's a request for a clarification of an ambiguous question. MR. SIMPSON: It's coaching the witness. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As of -- A. Yeah, I don't need any coaching. I mean... Q. Let me ask the question. As of December 30th -- that's true -- as of -- A. Right -- Q. -- we agree that's coaching. A. -- but that wasn't coaching. That wasn't coaching, so the suggestion that it's coaching is -- is not fair. Q. Okay. We disagree. As of December 30th, 2014, did you anticipate that naming Prince Andrew in a public filing as having abused would generate substantial publicity? A. "Substantial" is a debatable word, but certainly, it's going to generate publicity, yes. Publicity about the allegations. Q. Yes. And -- and the allegations are that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594527 290 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prince Andrew had sexually abused correct? A. That was one of the allegations in here, sure. Q. And the allegations that Professor Dershowitz had sexually abused , correct? A. That's right. It was in a -- what we were -- what we were starting to document and allege here was that terrible things that Epstein's criminal organization had done. Q. Let me refer you to page 6 -- A. Okay. Q. -- of your filing. It's the first full paragraph. A. Yep. Q. I'm going to read it. "Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men." A. Okay. Q. "Including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders. Jane -- Epstein required Jane Doe Number 3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them." ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594528 291 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Did I read that correctly? A. You did. Q. With respect to blackmail, the ability to blackmail, is that the same potential we talked about a moment ago in your testimony? A. Sure. Q. And you're referring there to -- A. Roughly, yeah. I mean, if there's something that you want clarified, go ahead and clarify it. Q. I just -- I just wanted to make sure I understand correctly that when you refer that -- to Epstein requiring to describe these events so that he could potentially blackmail them, what you had in mind was, Epstein wanted to know what did with these men so that he had the ability to threaten to disclose it if they didn't do what he wanted them to do? A. That was -- that was part of it, yes. Q. And isn't it true you could have accomplished -- in terms of furthering legal interests, you could have accomplished exactly the same thing by saying Epstein also trafficked -- trafficked Jane Doe Number 3 for sexual purposes to other well-known men, period? A. No, I don't think so. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594529 292 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. You felt that it furthered her legal interests to specify American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister and other world leaders; that was your you -- you believe that furthered her legal interest? A. Yes. Q. Did you also anticipate that that would titillate the Press, so to speak, that there would be a lot of speculation on who these people are? A. That wasn't the -- that wasn't the focus of the -- those comments, no. Q. You said it wasn't the focus. Did you realize it would happen? A. Sure. I mean, this was a case that had been already -- this litigation had been going on at that point for seven years and lots of people were following it. This is -- this case is one of the most egregious examples of a violation of Crime Victims' Rights in the history of this country. And so against that context, yes, there were going to be people interested in every word that was going into this pleading. Whether we had gone more broadly or more narrowly than what we did, people were going to be interested in this. Q. And as of December 30th of 2014, IIII ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594530 293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had the same ability to disclose who these individuals were publicly, as did Jeffrey Epstein, correct, because she had personal knowledge of who they were? A. She had the ability to speak the words, but, again, I think it's preposterous to say that a victim of sex trafficking has the same power as the sex trafficker to disclose information. For example, could be attacked, and I think as we were talking about yesterday, we have seen evidence of the kind of attack that powerful people can mount against the victims of sex trafficking. So to say that the young women in sex trafficking schemes have the same power as their traffickers to do this -- I'm sorry. I'm going to have to take a break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 11:32 a.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 11:36 a.m. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Had you finished your answer, Mr. Cassell? A. I think I had. Q. Okay. A. Thank you. Thank you for letting me take a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594531 294 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 break. I appreciate that. Q. Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Could you just read back the last question for me? I just want to orient myself as to where we are. Thank you. (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I didn't I think the answer was -- THE WITNESS: I guess I was mid-sentence, so think I will just stick with the same word, preposterous. And one -- one thing that occurred to me during the break, in the context of this case, is that there had been allegations that Epstein was part of the -- the sex trafficking organization, had video cameras mounted throughout many of his -- his mansions. And so, whereas a young woman could say, or a young girl could say, look, I was a victim of sex abuse, people would attack her; people wouldn't believe her, that unless she had, you know, corroborating evidence, people would say, well, look, it didn't happen. And so Epstein had managed to collect apparently a lot of videotapes and other kinds of ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594532 295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information that would have been -- given him the ability to make the blackmail kinds of charges that the girls that he was trafficking would -- would not have had the ability to do. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , didn't you testify yesterday that any videotapes from Mr. Epstein's house had been destroyed? A. I -- when I used the word "destroyed," I probably should have been more precise. They had been concealed from law enforcement, is what I meant. That when Palm Beach Police Department went up to the Epstein mansion, they found surveillance cameras and other cameras. I can't remember exactly where the cameras were, but they found surveillance cameras, and when they looked for the tapes associated with those cameras, I used the word "destroyed"; and as I say, I probably should have said they were missing. And so they were never able to locate those -- those missing videotapes. Q. So as of December 30th of 2014, to your knowledge, there were no videotapes available? A. There were no videotapes available to law enforcement or to Brad and his pro bono crime victim attorneys to help document our case. We were trying to get those and we are continuing to try to get those, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594533 296 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but, obviously, Epstein and his criminal associates have had the ability to -- to destroy the evidence that's been -- that we have been trying to gather. Q. And in -- in your answer a couple of questions -- A. I -- I'm sorry. I shouldn't say "destroyed." They have been able to conceal would probably be a more accurate term, the -- the evidence that we are trying to gather. Q. In my answer -- in my answer -- A. Yeah. Q. -- in the question and answer, your answer to my question a couple of questions ago, you talked about whether Mr. Epstein and would have the same or equal ability to disclose -- A. Right. Q. -- what these prominent politicians, et cetera, had done, correct? A. Correct. Q. Without attempting to make any comparison, you would agree, would you not, that as of December 30th, 2014, IIII had the ability to name the names of the people who are referenced in this document? A. Physical ability, yes. Q. And -- well , let me ask this: You say a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594534 297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well-known prime minister. Is that Prime Minister Barak? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm gonna instruct you not to reveal any attorney/client communications you had with on the specifics of her counsel to you about these individuals. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Is one of the other -- one of the powerful business executives, Les Wexner? MS. McCAWLEY: Again, same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned yesterday -- well , a moment ago, you testified that these -- in your view, these allegations about other powerful men furthered ' legal position in the case, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's also your position, I assume, that the allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz and Prince Andrew furthered IIII ' legal position; is that right? A. Absolutely. Q. Does the fact that Judge Marra struck those allegations as impertinent, scandalous, and completely irrelevant to the case, cause you to reassess? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Is that -- is that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594535 298 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intended to be a direct quote? MR. SIMPSON: Back up. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. What is your understanding of Judge Marra's ruling with respect to these allegations about Professor Dershowitz and Prince Andrew? A. That they were premature. Q. That's your understanding of his order? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And I -- maybe I should -- I see some skepticism there, so let me explain why I think those allegations -- Q. Yeah. Well , we can pull -- A. -- are appropriate. Q. -- we will pull out the order itself -- A. Sure. Q. -- at the appropriate time, but first, your understanding is that the judge didn't find that those allegations, at the time they were made, were so irrelevant to the case, that they should be stricken from the public record? A. In that pleading at that time, remember, we had in our -- our brief -- let me explain the -- the nine reasons why we thought that those allegations were ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594536 299 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relevant to the case, since I think your question calls for that. Q. Are those the nine reasons you gave yesterday? A. No, I didn't have a chance to. Q. Are they the nine reasons that are set forth in your -- in your brief? A. They are. Those are the nine reasons that are set forth in the brief. Q. Okay. And -- and Judge Marra had that brief in front of him when he held that, these allegations were so not relevant to the issues before the court, that they would be stricken and not part of the public record? A. At that time, in that particular pleading -- I think you're mischaracterizing Judge Marra's ruling in its entirety. He specifically said that the allegations could be reasserted, if they were relevant to issues that are -- that were coming up. And so, in following that ruling, we went to the U.S. Attorney's Office, propounded discovery requests and said, look, we believe you're sitting on information that Dershowitz was, you know, connected with the -- with the criminal trafficking here; we would like you to produce those documents. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594537 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And rather than say, hey, we don't have any such documents, the U.S. Attorney's Office gave us the response indicating, to our view, that there were such documents, and as you know, since you're one of Mr. Dershowitz's attorneys, we have drafted a pleading now to try and collect that information, that law enforce -- federal law enforcement agencies have collected, and -- and to figure out the appropriate way to litigate that so that we can get that information and move forward with the case. That's just one example of -- of how the allegations, if they were premature at that point, are no longer going to be premature as the case moves along. Q. Is it or is it not your understanding that Judge Marra ruled that the allegations in this pleading in front of you were so irrelevant to the pleading in which they were stated, that they should be stricken from the public record? A. In that particular pleading at that particular time, that's right. Q. Does that cause you to reassess, in any way, having filed this document? A. Well, I think certainly as a tactical matter, we should have reserved the -- the allegations for -- for another motion. I -- I think that's -- you know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594538 301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certainly, with the -- you're -- now, we are now sort of speculating, would we have done something different if we knew that? And the answer to that is, sure, we would have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought was the appropriate way to handle it, so... Q. And Judge Marra also reminded counsel of their Rule 11 obligations; didn't he? A. That's right. Yeah. Q. And did it cause you to question, not tactics, but whether you were acting properly in filing this? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking if it caused him to reassess. MR. SCAROLA: I understand what you're asking, and you're asking him about his mental processes in connection with pending litigation. That's work product. I instruct you not to answer that question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. All right. You testified yesterday that one reason that you found the filing of the complaint on behalf of Jane Doe 102, who is , by the -- Bob Josefsberg and -- and why that was significant was that Bob Josefsberg had been selected by ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594539 302 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to represent victims, correct? A. Yes. Through the -- through the NPA, yeah, there was an apparatus that led to his selection. Q. And does that answer reflect holding the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in that office in high regard? A. Sure. Q. Do you contend that at the time the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz, himself, had been involved in abuse of minors? A. I don't know exactly what information they had. I do know that we have been propounding discovery requests on all of these subjects, including Professor Dershowitz's involvement, when the U.S. Attorney knew. They are asserting privilege over that. I would wish they would waive the privilege or at least provide the information to pro bono crime victims' attorneys that they have, so we can get to the bottom of this. But there have been, you know, a nonstop series of assertions of privilege and other barriers interposed against us in this case, and I think inappropriately so, and -- and we have been arguing that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594540 303 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now for a number of years. Q. Would you agree with me that if the United States Attorney's Office had been aware that Professor Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, or himself had observed Mr. Epstein do so, that it would have been improper and unethical for them to let Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with them? A. If they had direct personal knowledge of that, sure. I mean, the -- the -- but the realities are a little bit more complicated in that Professor Dershowitz, over the last couple of days as frequently -- has frequently used the word "continuum," and so if they were certain of that, it absolutely would have -- would have been unethical. The question is: Well, what if they had a suspicion or what if -- you know, a reasonable suspicion or a possible suspicion. Those are the kinds of dimensions that you've got to, you know, take into account in the real world about, you know, what they -- what they would have done. I mean, it seems pretty clear, for example, that at some point, you know, later on, they got a black book in which Professor Dershowitz's name had been circled. Now, what they did with that information, I -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594541 304 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I don't know. Q. And what they did with the fact that Courtney Love and Donald Trump were circled, you don't know also, correct? A. That's right. Fair point. Q. But somehow it's suspicious as to Mr. Dershowitz, but not as to anyone else? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentative. THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I'm glad to argue on that point, let me, because they -- MR. SIMPSON: I'll withdraw the question. THE WITNESS: All right. Because I would have a -- MR. SIMPSON: Let -- THE WITNESS: -- a substantial argument on that. MR. SIMPSON: I -- I will withdraw the question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. With respect, again, to the -- MR. SCAROLA: And I'll withdraw the objection. MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. At the time that you filed this joinder ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594542 305 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motion, Exhibit 2, you knew that the United States Attorney's Office had denied having any contact -- any documents reflecting any contact with Prince Andrew; isn't that true? A. They had -- there were -- there were various discovery requests that had been propounded, and I think with regard to one, they had denied, and my recollection is with regard to another, where there had been an assertion of privilege. Q. Is it not true, that before December 30th, 2014, in response to a request asking the government: Are there any documents reflecting contact with -- by Prince Andrew regarding the NPA, the government represented, there were none? A. That -- with regard to the -- you're talking about RFPs, request for production of documents, I believe that's -- I believe that's correct. Q. And on December 30th, 2014, knowing that, you named Prince Andrew in this motion, correct? A. Correct. Q. And is it your testimony that you believe that Prince Andrew somehow attempted to influence the negotiations of an NPA in the United States as to Mr. Epstein? A. I don't have direct evidence of that, but I ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594543 306 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certainly believe I have a good-faith basis, along with my co-counsel, to explore that subject, and try to see how someone who is fifth in line to the British Throne might have been able to use the contacts and power that he has to influence a -- a -- a disposition in this -- in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case that it would have been favorable to one of his friends and potentially favorable to himself. Q. And -- and you have that view, notwithstanding that the government had represented they have no record of that? A. They didn't -- no, no, no, no. Let's not -- not -- let's not slip and try to get me to admit something that is not what the record reflects. The government said they did not have documents. They did not say that they didn't have any information along those lines. To the contrary: They asserted a whole series of privileges every time we tried to get information along these lines. So the fact that they didn't have a letter, signed Prince Andrew, saying, please do the best you can for this convicted sex offender is one thing. That's the request for production of documents. But they never said that they -- they -- that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594544 307 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something along these lines had never happened and, to the contrary, we were faced with assertions of privilege over roughly, if I remember correctly, about 10,000 pages of documents where a whole host of privileges were being asserted. Q. Do you think it's credible that the United States Attorney's Office would be discussing an NPA with a member of the British Royal Family? A. Not directly, but there certainly are possibilities of surrogates. I -- my -- somebody who is that powerful certainly wouldn't go out at it directly. What they would probably do is try to find the best lawyers they could around the United States and -- and, you know, and some of the, you know, big-named lawyers and try to bring them in there to -- to work a deal. That's, I think, how, you know, we're -- you're asking -- your question is asking for speculation and I'm saying that -- that based on, how would you influence a deal in an American criminal justice system? You go try to get the best defense lawyers you could and see -- you know -- you know, figure out which political party was in power; and try to get people who are well-connected to that political party, things like that. So that's the way that I think somebody might ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594545 308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have gone about trying to -- to put pressure for a -- a favorable plea deal . Q. And that's what you just referred to as speculation, correct? A. Well, your question said: Well , how would they go do this? And I -- I -- I gave you my answer as to how I think somebody could well do that, yes. Q. And -- and your pleading doesn't allege how someone would do it; it alleges that they did it; isn't that correct? A. Did what? Q. Let me -- let me rephrase it. A. No. I -- I -- the -- Q. I -- I withdraw the question. A. Yeah. Q. We only have about ten minutes here. There are a couple of things that I -- A. Sure. Absolutely. Q. -- wanted to get before we -- we will come back to these when we resume. We have a lot more questions. A. Great. I look forward to it. MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit -- what are we up to -- 6, Exhibit 6, a document bearing Bates stamp numbers ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594546 309 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BE-510 through -514. (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514 was marked for identification.) BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I will give that to the witness. And to identify the document further, it's a series of e-mails, the most -- the latest one in date being at the top, which appears to be an e-mail from Paul Cassell to Jacqueline S. Jesko on Sunday, January 4th, 2015 at 12:48 p.m. A. Right. Q. My first question is whether you, in fact, sent this e-mail that -- that this -- had this exchange of e-mails with Miss Jesco? A. Yes. Q. And Miss Jesko -- who is Miss Jesko? A. She works for -- which -- which -- oh, Nightline. She works for Nightline, yes. Q. So she's with ABC News? A. I believe that's right, yes. Q. And -- A. I mean, I -- I can't remember. The network wasn't significant to me, but she's with the Nightline program. I knew that was a major program. I don't ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594547 310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know -- I can't recall sitting here today whether Nightline, is that an ABC program or NBC or -- or some other network. Q. If you look at the exhibit, the e-mail in the second -- the bottom half of the first page, it has her e-mail address. Does that -- @abc.com? A. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's good. Thank you. Q. So ABC. So in this e-mail on January 4th of 2015, you told Miss Jesko of CBS News [sic] that -- MS. McCAWLEY: ABC. I'm sorry. You said CBS. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: There you go. MS. McCAWLEY: Now, we are really confused. MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry. Let me start again, and thank you. MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. In this e-mail on January 4th, 2015, you told Miss Jesko of ABC News, quote: I represent, along with Brad Edwards in Florida, the young woman who was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz, period, close quote. Have I quoted that correctly? A. You have. Q. So is it fair to say that in this e-mail, you ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594548 311 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have told ABC News that Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz, in fact, had abused A. No. I think it says that I'm the lawyer who is representing someone who has -- has made those allegations. Q. That's how you read this e-mail? A. Yes. Q. In the e-mail you identified - "The young woman who was sexually abused by Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz." That doesn't read to you as a statement that she was abused? A. In context, I think it was understood that I was the attorney representing her with that claim. MR. DERSHOWITZ: Move on. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Who -- THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What was that? Who -- who was that? MR. SIMPSON: Who is speaking? THE WITNESS: I heard somebody say "move on" or something. Could somebody identify themselves, please? Did I -- MR. SIMPSON: In any event, I -- I will move on. as: ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594549 312 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Well -- well , who -- I'm sorry. Who was that? The speaker? I want to know who is on the line here. Could somebody identify themselves, please? If somebody is eavesdropping in my deposition, I would like to know who it is. MR. SIMPSON: No one has the call -in number other than counsel and parties. THE WITNESS: So -- MR. SIMPSON: To my knowledge MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, but that -- THE WITNESS: But who is that person? MR. SCAROLA: -- that doesn't preclude someone from sharing that call -in number. And it is appropriate that anybody on the line identify themselves. And if the people on the line refuse to identify themselves, then it's our intention to cut off the line, and the people who are authorized to be on the line can call back in. MR. SCOTT: I agree with that. MR. SIMPSON: Could -- could the people on the line identify themselves? MR. SCAROLA: Okay -- MR. DERSHOWITZ: Alan Dershowitz. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594550 313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: -- cut it off. MS. McCAWLEY: He just -- he just -- THE WITNESS: So he -- MR. SIMPSON: Alan Dershowitz. Anyone else? MR. SCAROLA: So the only person on the line is Alan Dershowitz, and it was Mr. Dershowitz who made the comment "move on"; is that correct? MR. SIMPSON: Well , he's the only one on the line. I know -- I've only got three minutes left here. MR. SCAROLA: Well , I'll give you three more minutes. I want to know: Was it Mr. Dershowitz who made that comment "move on" because if it wasn't, there's somebody else on the line -- MR. WEINBERG: I -- I -- MR. SCAROLA: -- that refuses to identify themselves. MR. WEINBERG: Marty Weinberg for Epstein. I've been on the line on occasion. I have a mute button and have said nothing and just kept on going with no statements on my end. MR. DERSHOWITZ: It was me who said it. I I -- I thought my mute button was on. THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. I can't hear. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594551 314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I -- THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. MR. SIMPSON: I heard it and I'll -- I'll repeat it. MR. SCAROLA: "It was me who said it." MR. SIMPSON: "And I thought my mute button" -- MR. SCAROLA: "I thought my" MR. SIMPSON: "was on." MR. SCAROLA: "mute button was on." And that was Mr. Dershowitz making that comment? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, it was. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. MR. DERSHOWITZ: I was trying to instruct my attorney. MR. SCAROLA: Then we are ready to move on. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you told any -- all right. Putting aside counsel who are working with you, and putting aside those who you identified as being within the common-interest privilege -- A. Right. Q. -- so not those people -- A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594552 315 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. -- have you told anyone that Professor Dershowitz abused or any other minor? A. No. I've -- what I have tried to say is that I'm representing a young woman who has made those allegations. As an attorney, I'm proud to represent her, proud to present her case in court, proud to present arguments to whoever will listen that she's been sexually abused by various people. Q. Okay. And you have spoken with representatives of the News Media on the record and off the record about this case; isn't that -- is that not correct? A. Well, on the record, yes; with regard to off the record, there have been some communications that I think now have been turned over to the -- to the defense. So I don't -- I'm not sure if there still remain any off the record -- I suppose probably there are a few, but I would -- I think most of the -- what were originally off-the-record communications have now been provided to -- to the defense time. Q. Mr. Cassell , is it not true -- true, that you have spoken with reporters on what you referred to as quote, background, close quote? A. Yeah. I mean that's different than -- your earlier question was off the record and on the record. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594553 316 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There is an intermediate category of background information as well , and I have spoken to some reporters in that capacity, yes. Q. And -- and -- and background means that it's not for attribution, correct? A. Right. The background means the reporter can use the information, but shouldn't attribute it to a particular person. Q. And, in fact, you have -- A. Or let me -- let me just clarify. Some time -- well, background, I think, you know, we are now talking about sort of -- when I use the term "background," it would generally mean that this is something maybe that you want to investigate and see if you can confirm in other ways, but it shouldn't be sourced to -- that I shouldn't be quoted directly because they are going to have to find other -- other sources that confirm that same information. Q. Okay. And so my question is that it is true that you have spoken with a number of reporters on background about allegations in this case, correct? A. Well, a number -- a few, I would say, is probably a more accurate characterization. Q. And in any of those background conversations, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594554 317 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 did you ever identify IIII as someone who had been sexually abused by Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz? A. I tried to identify myself as the attorney representing someone who said that she had been sexually abused by Dershowitz. I think you've received -- you know, we can go through -- you know, we have produced, I think, 2,500 pages of discovery. Many of those pages are media communications. And, you know, we can go through, and I think you know that there are a number of examples, many examples, where I have said, I represent a woman who has alleged that... Some verbal formulation along those lines. I mean, attorneys represent victims all the time and -- and I don't think people generally understand when an attorney makes a statement, that the attorney is adopting and vouching for that statement. They are -- they are serving in a representative capacity. Q. Have you finished your answer? A. I have. Q. Okay. Do you -- are you a party to any fee agreement of any kind that would relate to a possible recovery from Les Wexner? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection to the extent that it reveals any confidential communications with ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594555 318 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your client, my client, or any joint defense communications. You can't reveal that. THE WITNESS: All right. So I'm going to follow that instruction and not answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. With respect to the -- what's now still Exhibit 2, the motion for limited intervention -- MR. SCAROLA: Let me just observe for the record that it's 12:02. I don't think we used the three minutes that I said I was going to give you, but we will go to 12:03 anyway. MR. SIMPSON: This line of questioning will take a little -- a little time, so -- MR. SCAROLA: Well , what's a "little"? Oh, so you -- MR. SIMPSON: Five minutes. MR. SCAROLA: So you prefer to wait then? MR. SIMPSON: Let me ask -- I can ask you a few questions here. THE WITNESS: Sure. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm going to keep going. On the -- this is your brief actually -- A. Which -- Q. -- Exhibit 1. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594556 319 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Which -- let me just make sure which one is it. I have Exhibit 2, but I don't think I have Exhibit 1. Q. Oh, I probably have Exhibit 1. Let me give you Exhibit 1. I will give you 2 back so we don't lose it -- A. Okay. Q. -- or keep it in front of you with the others. A. Okay. So, now, let's see. Okay. Yeah. I have it. Q. In preparing this brief, did you personally review the citations to the record that were given to support the factual assertions? A. As opposed to somebody else on the legal team? Q. Yes. I'm trying to ascertain whether you, yourself, reviewed citations -- I'm going to be asking you about a deposition transcript -- citations to the record evidence that are cited as representing to the court as supporting the factual assertions? A. I mean, I reviewed some, and others. You know, maybe I need to -- this is starting to get into work product. If you're asking, you know, what did Brad do, what did you do, what did the paralegals do -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594557 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Let -- let me ask you a different question then. A. Okay. Q. By -- by submitting this brief with your name signing it, you were representing that the factual allegations, factual assertions, were support -- are supported by the record citations that are given for those, correct? A. Yeah. I mean, obviously, when you write a brief, you're -- you're -- you know, you're trying to represent that this is the best product I can come up with. Now, you know, in a 40-page brief did -- did -- is there some, you know, error in citation or something like that? I have to -- I'm not perfect. I'm sure that's a possibility, but, you know, I worked hard to try to put together the best product that I could on behalf of when I filed this brief. Q. And -- and in general, when a lawyer signs a brief, it's a representation to the court that the citations to the record support the factual -- A. Yeah, to the -- Q. -- propositions given to the court? A. Yeah, that's right. To the best of, you know, your ability, sure. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594558 321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Take a look if you would at page 29 -- A Okay. Q. -- the top of the page -- A. Okay. Q. -- the statement: "Jane Doe number 3 came to the house when Dershowitz was there." And then it's "Id." which is a citation to the Alessi deposition, page 73, line 18 to 20. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. So that sentence if I -- do you agree with me that sentence is representing to the court that came to the Palm Beach house when Professor Dershowitz was there? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to read you what's cited for that proposition. I can show it to you if you like. A. I would like to see it because, you know, it's possible I'm off. Q. Let me read it for the record. A. Sure. Q. And I will read what is cited. It's page 73, lines 22 to 25. Actually -- I'm -- yeah, I'm sorry. 73, 18 to 20. Line 18: "Not sure. When Mr. -- Mr. Dershowitz was ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594559 322 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 visiting? "Uh-huh. Answer. "Question: How often did he come? "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often. I would says as least four or five times a year." And that's what is cited as the support for the proposition -- A. I'd -- I would like to look at the document. Q. I'm going to give you the document before I ask you to comment on it. A. Sure. Q. I will -- I will go beyond what was cited to the court -- A. Okay. Q. -- to put it in context. A. But I mean, there's -- this is a large well, that's what I'm saying. I would like -- my recollection is that there are number of parties to the Alessi depo -- Q. No. My -- my only question is in this brief, the lawyers signing it represented to the court that this citation supported that factual assertion. A. But that's true, yes. Q. Okay. I will read it. "Do you have any recollection of V.R., ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594560 323 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , coming to the house when Prince Andrew was there? Question. "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not sure. "Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting? "Uh-huh. "How often did he come? "He came pretty -- he pretty often. I would says at least four or five times a year." A. Okay. Q. Do you want to take a look at that? A. Yeah. MS. RICHARDSON: Page 73. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Page 73, line -- it's right here (indicating) if it helps you find it. A. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's what those lines say, yes. Q. Okay. So my -- my question is: In your view, as an attorney, does that quotation -- does that testimony support the assertion that Professor Dershowitz and were in the house at the same time? A. Those -- those lines 18 to -- Q. And if you want to put it in the context of a ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594561 324 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 couple of lines above it that do refer to , put it in the context. My question is: Does that, fairly read, constitute testimony that and Professor Dershowitz were in the house at the same time? A. Those three sentences, three lines. Q. What -- yes, what the brief cites. A. Those -- those three lines: "Not sure When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting. Uh-huh. How often did he come?" Those -- those three lines, I agree, that looks like a miscitation there. I agree with you on that. Q. And isn't it true that -- first of all , nothing else is cited in the brief or elsewhere to support -- put -- put aside. Other than own testimony, this is the only evidence that you cited to the court to support -- A. No, no, no, no, no. That would require a 30-minute answer. Q. Okay. I won't ask you a 30-minute answer -- MR. SCAROLA: How about -- how about wrapping it up then because it's now 12:10. MR. SIMPSON: I will wrap it up. I have one more -- one more question. THE WITNESS: Okay. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594562 325 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And that is: I just want to confirm that you do agree with me that what was cited to the court for the proposition that they were together, in this sentence, doesn't support that proposition? A. I will agree with you that there appears to be a miscitation of the line number -- of the lines 18 through 20. Now, you're saying that there is not information outside of 8 -- lines 18 through 20 to support the allegation, and that's going to require a much longer answer. Q. I don't want a long answer, but I do want to clarify. When you say "outside" -- MR. SCAROLA: You also said one more question. MR. SIMPSON: Well , I -- let me just finish this, so we are not going to have this hanging, because I want to make sure we are communicating. THE WITNESS: Okay. Sure. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I understand you're -- you're saying that there -- there may be evidence A. Yeah. Q. -- elsewhere? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594563 326 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The lawyer -- look, this is not the first time Q. I'm not asking the -- A. -- a lawyer has cited the wrong line number on a transcript or something, and if you're suggesting that -- you know, I will concede that I cited the wrong line number for that particular assertion. Q. And this is what I want to clarify: When you say the wrong line number, if you look at the quotation, there is, up above -- you cited 18 to 20 -- 22 to 25 -- no, 18 to 20. I'm sorry. You cited 18 to 20 which is -- do you see that? A. I do see 18 to 20, yes. Q. And those lines don't refer to coming to the house, correct? A. Lines 18 to 20 do not refer to -- oh, no, wait a minute. Now, this is -- because when I look at it here, line 15: "Do you have any recollection of V.R., , coming to the house when Prince Andrew was there?" Answer: "It could have been. I'm not sure. "Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting?" So now when I read it, actually, I'm now ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594564 327 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to withdraw my earlier answer, I would -- because you know, it's getting late in the day. I'm getting a little fuzzy here. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting, uh-huh, could be an affirmative answer read in context to saying, I don't recall about Prince Andrew, but I do recall being there. And I think when we unpack the entirety of the deposition, which we don't have time right now, that the context that I'm suggesting now would be accurate. So I am not prepared to say, as I sit here right now, that those were the wrong line numbers. Perhaps those are the correct line numbers, but what I think I should have done was to cite additional parts of the transcript that would have, in context, made clear that the assertion was correct. MR. SCAROLA: With that -- MR. SIMPSON: I -- I just need to finish this one or two questions, but this is the topic, so let me finish it. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Did you ever watch the video -- MR. SCAROLA: Running out of tape -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. -- of the transcript? MR. SCAROLA: We are also running out of tape ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594565 328 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right now. MR. SIMPSON: I've got -- THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Two minutes. MR. SIMPSON: Two minutes. All right. That won't take -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want you to look at the video of that -- that testimony. Would you play it, please, for the witness? This is from the videotape of the deposition. THE WITNESS: I do not want to watch just -- I want to watch -- what -- what I'm seeing here as I dive into this, I would -- if you're going to ask me questions about what's in these particular lines, I want to see -- I want to go back. I want all of the -- the relevant parts of testimony played. And I believe there are approximately four points in the transcript where she's mentioned, so can we play all four of those? MR. SCAROLA: We are not going to do that. We have run out of time. Per agreement, this was supposed to stop at noon. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: It is now 12:12, so this deposition is ended. There were a lot of things ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594566 329 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I would have like to have finished with Professor Dershowitz and wasn't permitted to do that. So by agreement, this deposition is now over. MR. SIMPSON: It -- it's -- it's ending over my objection and the witness's -- MR. SCAROLA: I -- I understand that. MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- I'm going to make my record. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. SIMPSON: -- the witness's refusal to look at the videotape of the portion of the deposition that he just characterized in his testimony as suggesting an affirmative answer to the question of whether and Professor Dershowitz were there at the same time, and I will represent -- MR. SCAROLA: That record is clear. MR. SIMPSON: -- and anyone looking at that videotape would know, to a moral certainty, that that was false. THE WITNESS: Okay. And I -- I want to make clear that I would be happy to look at everything. We will do that at another time perhaps. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594567 330 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Right. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 12:14 p.m. (Witness excused.) (Deposition was adjourned.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594568 331 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Assignment no: 220190 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the entire transcript of my deposition/examination under oath taken in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me, and the same is true and accurate, save and except for changes and/or corrections, if any, as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the understanding that I offer these changes as if still under oath. 2015. Signed on the day of PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594569 332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: SIGNATURE: DATE: , 2015 PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594570 333 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: Page No. Line No. Change to: Reason for change: SIGNATURE: DATE: , 2015 PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594571 334 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF BROWARD ) I, the undersigned authority and Notary Public certify that PAUL G. CASSELL personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on Saturday, the 17th day of October, 2015. 2015. Sworn to before me this 19th day of October, Theresa Tomaselli, RMR Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission No. FF 226528 2 My20190 Commission Expires 8/27/2019 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS EFTA00594572 335 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, THERESA TOMASELLI, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said deposition. I further certify that said deposition was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and that the taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out. I further certify that I am not an attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter. DATED this 19th day of October, 2015. THERESA TOMASELLI 220190 EFTA00594573