DS9 Document EFTA00800508

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. VOLUME I VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BRADLEY EDWARDS Taken on Behalf of Plaintiff Friday, November 10th, 2017 10:02 a.m. - 6:16 p.m. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Examination of the witness taken before Sonja D. Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800508 2 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: For Plaintiff: LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A. 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE For Plaintiff: ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE For Plaintiff: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 By DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE For Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. ALSO PRESENT Visual Evidence, Incorporated 601 N. Dixie Highway, Suite A West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 By Andrew Mazoleny, Videographer Tina Campbell, Paralegal Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800509 3 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 Videotaped Deposition of BRADLEY EDWARDS Page No. Direct Examination by Mr. Link 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Scarola 310 Redirect Examination by Mr. Link 325 Certificate of Oath 340 Certificate of Reporter 341 Read & Sign Letter to Witness 342 No. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT INDEX Description Page No 1 Affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein 92 2 News Article 96 3 News Article 100 4 News Article 112 5 News Articles 145 6 Complaint 147 7 Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 171 8 Email 178 9 Complaint 179 10 Answer and Counterclaim 185 11 Letter 189 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800510 4 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 12 RRA Firm Directory 190 13 Email 190 14 Jane Doe motion 220 15 Email 231 16 Order 238 17 Fourth Amended Counterclaim 239 18 Email 259 19 Email 264 20 Email 267 21 Seventh Amended & Supplemental Witness List 268 22 Expert Witness Report (Jansen) 284 23 Brad Edwards Time 290 24 National Crime Victim Bar Association 297 25 Brad Edwards' Accolades 300 DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT INDEX (No exhibits were marked.) Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800511 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 10th day of November 2017. The time is 10:03 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Bradley Edwards, Esquire, in the matter of Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. This deposition is taking place at 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach 33409. My name is Andrew Mazoleny. I am the videographer representing Visual Evidence, Incorporated. Will the attorneys please announce their appearances for the record? MR. LINK: Scott Link on behalf of the plaintiff. MS. ROCKENBACH: Kara Rockenbach on behalf of the plaintiff. MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke on behalf of the plaintiff. MR. GOLDBERGER: Jack Goldberger on behalf of the plaintiff. MS. CAMPBELL: And Tina Campbell parallel on behalf of the plaintiff. MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola and David Vitale representing Bradley Edwards, who is Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800512 6 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the counter-plaintiff in this action; and for all practical purposes, the plaintiff in the claim against Jeffrey Epstein. THEREUPON, BRADLEY EDWARDS, being a witness in the notice heretofore filed, and being first duly sworn in the above cause, testified on his oath as follows: THE WITNESS: I do. MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the substantive questioning, I want to make it clear on the record as a consequence of an exchange of communications that has occurred with opposing counsel, opposing counsel has taken the position that Mr. Edwards is going to be deposed as if he had never been deposed before, that is, opposing counsel recognizes no restrictions on the scope of this deposition. The scope of the deposition was the subject of a lengthy hearing before Judge Hafele that took place on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017. During the course of that hearing the Court made it very clear that questioning Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800513 7 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be limited to four specific areas identified by the Judge: The filing of a federal lawsuit on behalf of LM, which was based upon facts that also supported the filing of a state court claim; interaction between Mr. Edwards and Mr. Rothstein and others at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt Adler that would relate to any potential knowledge that Mr. Edwards had or should have had with regard to the conduct of a Ponzi scheme by Mr. Rothstein; the filing of a motion seeking the posting of a $14 million bond and issues relating to damages. We are here for purposes of responding to questions in those specific areas as directed by the Court. It is our intention to allow opposing counsel broad latitude within those four areas. But we will raise appropriate objections to any inquiries that are outside those four areas, unless it can be demonstrated that in some manner I have misread, in spite of careful review, the transcript of that hearing and the ruling of the Court. So my suggestion is, if opposing Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800514 8 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 counsel continues to take the position that this deposition is going to be conducted as if Mr. Edwards had never been deposed before, that we should at least deal with those four areas as to which there is agreement for inquiry, then we will worry about whether any inquiry outside those four areas will be allowed. Thank you. MR. LINK: Obviously we disagree and we are ready to proceed. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LINK: Q Ready, Mr. Edwards? A Ready. Q Are you feeling anxiety today? A Sure. Q Tell me about it. What anxiety do you feel today? A I'm still -- I'm still being accused for committing crimes that I didn't commit, and this case is my only chance to finally set that record straight. Q So tell me about the anxiety, though. What are you feeling? Anxiety is an emotional reaction to something, correct? A Well, for today Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800515 9 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 Yeah. A -- I think that if you sit in this chair and I ask you questions, you would have anxiety as well. Q Okay. So you have anxiety today about my asking you questions. Is that what the anxiety is? A No. It's about getting this case over. Q So you have anxiety about the length of time the case has been pending? A Well, with everyday it's worse. I want the case over, and I want to right the wrong that's been done. So the fact that I have a whole team of lawyers over there -- I don't think Mr. Goldberger does it anymore -- but there's lawyers on that side who continue to falsely claim that I was part of a Ponzi scheme. In fact, Tonja Haddad just did it a month ago. Q So I don't see Tonja or her dad sitting here. Do you? A You are all together. You are all representing -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Pardon me. Would you please allow Mr. Edwards to complete his answer? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800516 10 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. LINK: Q Yes, sir. Go ahead. A You also decided to sign on and represent a serial child molester, so you have adopted that position. Q Okay. Anything else to add to that? A No. Q So you see the lawyers that are here. Ms. Rockenbach is with my new law firm, Link & Rockenbach, correct? A I got your card the other day. Thank you. Q How did it look? A Pretty good. Q Pretty good? How about really good? A I only looked at one side. Sorry. I will check it out. Q Ms. Rockenbach is with me. You see that. Mr. Goldberger is down at the end of the table, right? And Tina, who is a legal assistant at my firm. Tonja Haddad is not here, is she? A There isn't just a table long enough, I assume. But, no. Q Your lawyer hasn't shared with you -- you haven't seen -- heard that they are withdrawing from the case? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800517 11 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. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Has there been a notice of withdrawal? Because I haven't seen it either. MR. LINK: I think we represented it to Judge Hafele on Wednesday with the 8:45 when Kara was in front of them. MR. SCAROLA: I have seen no notice of withdrawal. So as we sit here today, there are a total of, I think, six law firms that are representing Mr. Epstein. BY MR. LINK: Q And one really good one. The one you saw the card on this week, right? Okay. So I want to focus on this anxiety. We all have anxiety in life, right? I wake up every morning with anxiety about something. How my kid's doing in college. Did he get home last night. Is my son going to get a hit today on the baseball team. I want to talk about a different kind of anxiety. The anxiety that you feel in November 2017 that relates back to the lawsuit that was filed in December 2009. Can you separate that anxiety that I am talking about? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800518 12 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 with. A Just an anxious feeling to get this over Q And you had that anxious feeling every single day from December 2009 through today November 10th, 2017? A The more reminders that I have of the case, and the fact that there still looms this false allegation over my head, that is clearly a trigger. Q You said it looms this false allegation. What is the false allegation looming over your head? A That I was a participant in a Ponzi scheme with one of the individuals that might be the most hated person in South Florida, especially amongst our profession. Q Mr. Rothstein? A Right. Q But why is there an allegation hanging over your head? The case against you was dismissed in 2012, correct? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Which case? BY MR. LINK: Q The case against you by Mr. Epstein was dismissed in 2012, was it not? A Right. The case was dismissed. Q Five years ago the case was dismissed, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800519 13 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 true? A Yes. Q So what I'm trying to understand is, you said that this was hanging over your head. Since 2012 there has not been a pleading that was alive in circuit court from Mr. Epstein directed at you, true? Since 2012? A Has there -- was there a pleading against me since 2012. Q Yes, sir. A The answer to that question is no. Q So 2012, this allegation, that you said was hanging over your head, has been removed, true? A The complaint was dismissed. Q Right. That was the allegation. And that complaint has been dismissed. MR. SCAROLA: Compound. THE WITNESS: You are asking two different things. BY MR. LINK: Q Well, you said -- A The allegation was made. Q In 2009. A -- and 9 million people read that allegation. And -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800520 14 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 We are going to get to all of that. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. THE WITNESS: If you don't want me to answer the question, then don't then ask a question, I will answer, and you can shape it however you want. If you want me to give you an answer, I'm willing to sit here and give you a full answer. BY MR. LINK: Q I do. And I asked you if there has been a pleading making those allegations since 2012. A That's not the question that you asked. But is that now the question that you are asking? Q Yes. A Sure. Pleadings have been filed, including by Mr. Epstein's long-time recruiter of girls for him, Ms. Maxwell. She made an allegation -- the same allegation as part of a motion to recuse me as trial counsel in a totally separate case. Q What case was that you just brought up? A versus Maxwell. Q Where was that case pending? A In New York. Q And you were counsel in that case? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800521 15 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 Are you admitted in New York? A I was pro hac. Q Who was the admitted lawyer in New York? A David Boies. Q So you and Mr. Boies worked on that case together? A Yes. Q How did Mr. Boies get involved? A We co-represented , who is also one of Mr. Epstein's victims. Q Okay. Talking about the case you just mentioned to me where you said Ms. Maxwell -- is that right? A Yes. Q -- filed a pleading. Was Mr. Epstein a party in that case? A He had a joint defense agreement with her, so he was -- he was basically advising her behind the scenes. So for lack of a better word, he was basically a party to the case. Q So you have been practicing how many years now? Fifteen? A Yeah. Q And you know what a party to a case is, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800522 16 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, in a civil lawsuit? A I do. Q Was Mr. Epstein a party in that lawsuit? A A party in the sense was he in the style of case, he was not. Q Do you know what a party is in a lawsuit? A Do you? Q Yes, sir, I do. A Okay. So right before trial we had an argument that I believe was going to go in our favor that we were going to be able to use his -- Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment invocation against Ms. Maxwell, because of the LiButti factors, and because he was basically a party and interest to the case. Was he in the style of the case? He was not. But because they were so tightly connected as conspirators, his interests were so intertwined with hers, that we were going to be able to use his Fifth Amendment invocation against her, which is a very unusual and atypical situation. Q Sounds like an interesting evidentiary issue. A Agreed. Q In that case, who brought the client to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800523 17 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 whom? Did you have the client and you went to Mr. Boies, or did Mr. Boies have it and he came to you? A I represented first. Q What made you go to David Boies? MR. SCAROLA: You don't need to answer that question. We object on the basis of work product. BY MR. LINK: Q Other than work product, was there a reason that you went to Mr. Boies for this what type of case is it, by the way? I'm sorry. The case that you filed. A When David Boies became involved with -- it's a complicated question, because as a client in the case that was brought the defamation case -- she was David Boies' client before mine. In a more general sense, in terms of who represented first, myself or Mr. Boise, I did. I represented her in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case. Q Here in Florida? A Here in Florida. Q Yes, sir. A David and David's firm filed the defamation Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800524 18 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 action and represented her in the defamation action before bringing me in. Q Who did Ms. Roberts sue in the defamation action? A Ghislaine Maxwell. Q They did not sue Mr. Epstein? A No. Q And they brought you into the case after it was filed to provide assistance? A Correct. Q So David Boies hires you in Florida to help him prosecute the case; is that right? A When you say the case, we are talking the defamation action? Q The defamation case, yeah. Dave Boise's firm -- A We are talking multiple cases, so I just want to make sure that we make the question and the answer clear. Yes, defamation case he brought me in. Q So David Boies filed the defamation action and made the decision to co-counsel with you in Florida to help him in New York; is that right? A He made the decision to co-counsel with me. Q In a New York case? A In a New York case. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800525 19 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Got it. Okay. In that case, Mr. Boies had represented in a prior proceeding other than a defamation action, or only in the defamation action? A I am trying get the timing. He represented her in another proceeding. Whether it was a prior proceeding -- Q What was the other proceeding? Then we will figure out the chronology. A He represented her as a witness. Q In what case was that? A In a defamation action I filed against Alan Dershowitz. Q You're right. It is completed. So the first action that gets filed is you sued Alan Dershowitz? A Right. Q For defamation? A Right. Q That case has been dismissed, right? A Right. Q In that case was a witness? A She was subpoenaed by Dershowitz to be a witness. Q And she hired David Boies to represent her? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800526 20 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 Correct. Q As a witness? A Right. Q And was she deposed in that case? A She was. Q And Mr. Boies was there to represent her? A Someone from his firm was there to represent her. Q Then as a result of that, he ended up representing -- Mr. Boies ended up representing her in her own defamation case? A Right. I'm not sure that the chronology is exactly that, whether her deposition came first or the defamation action came first. In fact, I think the defamation action was filed before her deposition in the other case, but that's why this just gets a little complicated. Q The chronology is complicated? A Right. Q I got it. Now, is that case still pending, the defamation case? A No. Q That case has been resolved? A Settled in May, I believe, of this year. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800527 21 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 2017? A Correct. Q So I want to get back to anxiety. And you understand what I've meant that I have anxiety every day. Everybody in life has levels of anxiety. You agree with that? A I suppose. Q I had a lot of anxiety when I took the bar exam. You may not have. A In some different form -- I think that's a word that's used that describes a bunch of different feelings. Q Absolutely. I agree. What I'm really trying to understand is I want to compartmentalize this. I'm focused now on 2012, once Mr. Epstein dismissed his claims against you in court. So from that date through today, that cloud is no longer hanging over your head. I would like to understand what your anxiety is that relates to the lawsuit filed in 2009. How it's impacting you on a day-to-day basis. A It's hard for me to answer your question, while along the way I'm disagreeing with the various statements that you're making. Q Tell me what you disagree with, sir. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800528 22 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 You're making a statement the cloud is no longer over my head. That's the basis -- that's the predicate for your ultimate question. That's just not true. Q So as you sit here today, there's a cloud over your head as a result of the 2009 lawsuit that was filed that was dismissed in 2012? A For sure. Q And how does it impact you? What I am trying to understand is, you are going to ask the jury to award money to you based on your level of anxiety, right? That's one of the things you want the jury to do, is to say, I have anxiety and I want to be compensated. A As lawyers, what we have is our reputation. That's what was destroyed. Q We are going to get to reputation. A That's -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Please -- MR. LINK: I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm just trying to streamline this. We will get to reputation. MR. SCAROLA: Well, what will streamline it is if you ask a question and Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800529 23 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 allow Mr. Edwards to complete his answer before you interrupt him. MR. LINK: I got it. Thank you. BY MR. LINK: Q So I want to make sure that I understand -- I want you to tell us -- you are asking the jury to award you an amount of money based on your having suffered every day anxiety as a result of the lawsuit that was filed in December 2009. Do I have that right? A Do you have that right? The anxiety is related -- directly related to the harm done to my reputation as a consequence of the filing of this false lawsuit making up that I am a criminal associated with who is known to be a terrible and horrible person. I mean, that is the -- the anxiety is related to that. Q I understand that generally. But I need to know specifically. Let me start by this. How much are you asking the jury to award you for your day-in-and-day-out anxiety from December 2009 through today? A An amount of money that fairly and fully would measure the magnitude of the harm done to my reputation, and any consequential feelings that have resulted or continue to exist because of the damage Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800530 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 done to my reputation. Q How much are you asking for, sir, as it relates to anxiety? A I just explained to you. Q There's not a dollar figure? A What six people believe will measure the magnitude of the harm that was done. If we want to talk about the harm that was done, and then me tell you how I would measure the magnitude of that damage, I will try to walk you through that. Q That would be great. But let's start here. I want you to start with telling me has the anxiety from 2009 through today increased or decreased? A Until -- until the truth is known and this case is behind me, it's the same. Q So the anxiety level you have been burdened with every single day since December of 2009 hasn't changed in a positive or negative way? A Well, there's no scale for anxiety. You know this. Like you said, you have anxiety every single day. It's not like you wake up and there's an anxiety meter. Now, when I was first served with the lawsuit and people were asking about it and people were talking about it all the time as, Hey, look, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800531 25 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-and-so is also saying this lawsuit was filed. There's these big-time lawyers that are behind it pushing this. People are now believing that you're part of this. Now, when you're hearing that all of the time and you're having to deal with that on a day-to-day basis, then your anxiety level, to use your word, is -- I wouldn't say higher, but it's aggravated on a more consistent basis. Q So -- A These days I hear it less. Q So from 2009 through today, what other events have happened, other than the December 2009 Epstein lawsuit against you, that have caused you anxiety? Anything? A Nothing that comes to mind. Q Any mortgage foreclosure actions against you during that time period? A Did I have a foreclosure action? I think I did, but not one that caused me anxiety. Q So having your house sold at sale didn't cause you any anxiety? A No. Q Ever get sued for not paying a credit card after 2009? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800532 26 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 Could you show me something to refresh my recollection? I don't remember that. Q Being sued for not paying a credit card, would that cause you anxiety? A No. I don't remember it, so it doesn't. Q Any other lawsuits filed against you for not paying your debts, for money that you owed to people or banks? A Talking about since 2009? Q Yes, sir. A Do you have anything that could refresh my recollection on this? Not that I recall. Q As you sit here, you don't remember being a defendant in a civil lawsuit where any entity has claimed you did not pay them money that you owed them? A Ever in my life? Q No. Since 2009, sir. A I had an action that resulted from a line of credit that I had prior to going to RRA, that I was told when I went to RRA was going to be paid, and it wasn't. And I resolved that at some point in time after suit was filed. Yeah, I believe that suit was filed and then I resolved the case. It's not something that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800533 27 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 caused me anxiety. Q So the three lawsuits that we just discussed where you were sued for not paying your debts back, that didn't cause you any anxiety; is that right? A Right. There was never a time where I wasn't going to pay my debt, so it didn't cause me anxiety. Q Well, your house was sold at a foreclosure sale, wasn't it? A The answer to your question is yes. Q That didn't cause any anxiety? A No. The circumstances of that did not cause me anxiety. Q And you said that Mr. Rothstein promised to pay off your $200,000 credit line that you took out in order to start your sole practice as a lawyer; is that right? A He promised to pay the credit line over the time that I was employed at RRA at some point. I don't remember it being $200,000. You are just throwing these facts into the question that I don't recall. Q So how much money did you borrow in order to start your sole practice law firm? A I don't remember that. Q Did Mr. Rothstein promise you during the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800534 28 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time that you were interviewing that he would make the monthly payments or he would pay whatever that amount was off? A My meeting with him was about 10 minutes. And what he said was, do you have a line of credit? Don't worry about it. It will be paid off at some point in time that you are at this firm. We are going to treat you fairly. That was it. There was no specifics about it. Nobody laid out the credit line. It wasn't that kind of meeting. Q I got it. Did you ever ask Mr. Rothstein to pay it off during the time that you were employed by him? A No. I hardly talked to the guy. Q My question wasn't whether you talked to him. It was whether you ever asked him to fulfill A In order to ask somebody you have to talk to them. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Doesn't asking involve talking? MR. LINK: You can do it by email or letter. Lots of different ways, Mr. Scarola. BY MR. LINK: Q But did you, in any form of communication, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800535 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ask Mr. Rothstein to fulfill his promise to you -- as an inducement to become an employee there -- that he would pay off whatever line of credit you had? A No. Q No. You did not? A Right. I answered the question. No. Q I just didn't hear you. A Still no. Q Were there any other financial incentives, other than paying off the line of credit, in the 10 minutes you spent with Mr. Rothstein, that made you decide that's the place you wanted to work? A No. Q Anything else since 2009 through today that has caused anxiety, other than the fact that Mr. Epstein filed his claim in December? A I think I told you. That word encompasses so many different feelings. Like you said, we all feel anxiety to some degree every single day. I mean, I try cases. I'm a trial lawyer, so there's anxiety. There's healthy anxiety. There's unhealthy anxiety. Do things cause anxiety? Everything causes some form of anxiety. Q So you get anxious before you try a case? A Sure. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800536 30 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 You have anxiety? A For sure. Q Have you communicated to any of the folks you've represented since 2009 that you are suffering from a high level of anxiety, an anxiety that should be compensated by a jury in describing for them whether you were fit to represent them? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Attorney-client privilege. Don't answer that question. BY MR. LINK: Q Have you not retained -- have you not been retained by any client since 2009 as a result of this compensable level of anxiety that you suffer every day? A Explain your question a little better. Q Are there any clients that you wanted to be your client that said, I'm not going to hire you, Mr. Edwards, because I can see you're manifesting some level of anxiety, that's not just a typical anxiety that we all go through, it's a heightened level, it's a compensable level, as a result of Mr. Epstein's lawsuit? A No. Q Any clients fire you as a result of this Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800537 31 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 heightened level of anxiety? A No. Q Have you made more money collectively each year from January 2010 forward to today than you did January 2010 back to when you started practicing law? You are staring at your lawyer. You want an objection. A I will answer the question if he wants me to answer the question. MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that question. BY MR. LINK: Q I'm asking big picture. A All right. Can you repeat the question? Q Let me do it again. It will probably be easier. The good news is, I never remember what just came out of my mouth. Here is the point. I want to look at this injury to your reputation and your embarrassment and all of these other things you are asking the jury to award money to you for, right? That's what you're asking the jury to do, to compensate you for the impact that the Epstein lawsuit had on your ability to practice law. True? MR. SCAROLA: No. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800538 32 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: I can't tell if you're talking or asking a question. MR. SCAROLA: There is no claim in this case for either lost earnings or diminished earning capacity. That's been made clear on the record previously. MR. LINK: I understand that, and that's not -- let me back up. That's a good point. Mr. Scarola, thank you for helping me with that. I appreciate it. BY MR. LINK: Q Is the reputation that was injured Bradley Edwards as an individual, or Bradley Edwards as a licensed practicing lawyer? A Both. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to object to the form of the question. It attempts to draw a distinction that makes no sense to me. BY MR. LINK: Q We all have a reputation as a person in our community, just as a father, as a husband, right? In our regular community we have a reputation, right? A Okay. Q Do you? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800539 33 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Do I have a reputation? Q Yes, sir. A Everybody has a reputation. Q Right. Then we have -- separate from that, we have a reputation. If we're lawyers, we have a reputation with judges. We have a reputation with opposing counsel. We have a reputation with our co-counsel. And we have what I will call a professional reputation. And we spend a lot of time and effort protecting our professional reputation. You agree with that statement? A Yes. Q What I'm trying to understand is, was it your are you seeking compensation from the jury for the filing of that complaint based on harm to your reputation in your professional capacity as a lawyer or in your personal capacity as a husband? MR. SCAROLA: And I object to the form of the question, because it leaves out the obvious third alterative, which is both. BY MR. LINK: Q You can answer my question. A Both. I answered the question the first time both. Q Can you separate for me -- and tell me from Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800540 34 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 compensatory standpoint money the jury should award to you, what has happened to your reputation from a personal standpoint? Give me an example. Do you have friends that will no longer talk to you since the filing of the complaint by Mr. Epstein? A Do I have friends who don't talk to me because of that? Q Yeah. Do you have friends that -- A You are talking about the people who knew me? The people who knew me? Q Yeah. A No. Q So in November of 2009, before the lawsuit was filed, I assumed you had friends, right? A Right. Q Do you still have those same friends today for the most part? A I still have friends today. Q Did anybody come up to you and say, Listen, Brad, you know, I used to like you and I used to like being your friend. You were a swell guy to hang out with, but geez, I see Epstein filed this claim against you and I don't want to be your friend anymore? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800541 35 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Are you talking now about lawyers or are you talking about -- Q No, personal. A People who are nonlawyers. Q Nonlawyers. Because you said both. A I'm just trying to get a category so I understand the question. So have nonlawyers come up to me and say I will no longer be your friend because of the lawsuit? Q Yeah. A No. Q Do you go to a church? A Not regularly. Q Did you go to a church in 2009? A Periodically. But nobody has come up to me at church and said I'm not going to be your friend anymore or associate with you because of this lawsuit. The people who know me don't do this. Q So from a personal standpoint anyone who knew you, your reputation really didn't take a hit as a result of Epstein filing his lawsuit in December 2009. A The lawsuit is not about -- about reputational damage that was caused to me by the people who know me well. The people who know me well know Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800542 36 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that those things are not true. The lawyers I practice with know that those things are not true. It's the rest of the world that -- Q Oh, okay. A Your reputation is made up of what society thinks of you. The people who don't know me and only got a snapshot of this person -- is Rothstein's co-conspirator in a Ponzi scheme and continue to spread that message from that point in time forward, whether it's 9 million people or 100 million people, my reputation right there suffered damages that, unless and until a jury returns a verdict in my favor, can't be undone. Q So these are the nameless, faceless folks that you don't know, that you have never met, never had conversations with, never interacted with, who are -- that have impacted your reputation. A Your question is way too extreme. Q So you told me it's anyone who knows you, knows for sure that there's nothing A I didn't tell you that. Q You didn't? A No. Who knows me well. Q They have to know you well, right? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800543 37 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Can I just finish my answer? Q Sure. A I let you finish every question. You refuse to let me finish the answer. Q Answer away, sir. A If it's an attorney who knew me well before this, who worked with me, knew my ethics, knew my abilities as a trial lawyer, they knew this to be false. If it were lawyers who did not know me or knew of me but didn't really know me well, then certainly this looks like where there's smoke there's fire, and it impacts your reputation in the minds of all of those people. Whether lawyers or nonlawyers, the same exact thing can be said for the rest of the 9 million or so people who saw these false allegations. Q So I like the where there's smoke there's fire. That's an interesting statement. Would the same thing be true about what Mr. Rothstein was doing that where there's smoke there's fire? A What does your question mean? Q Well, you used this analogy where there's smoke there's fire. You saw the press that was out Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800544 38 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 Mr. Rothstein in November -- the month of November 2009 describing all of the vehicles he owned and something about a pair of $1.5 million Lamborghinis or something, mansions and a million-dollar wedding, and $8 million home here, and a $7 million home there -- these numbers may not be exactly accurate, but close to that. And how the law firm was 70 lawyers, and a payroll of X dollars was surviving, and that there was a lot of speculation in the press about how Rothstein did it, whether he did it alone, and whether there were potential unnamed co-conspirators. Do you remember reading about that? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I am going to object to the question. It grossly compound, it lacks factual predicate, and is not capable of reasonably being responded to. BY MR. LINK: Q Give it a try. A Some of those things I believe I read about or was told about after the implosion of RRA. Some of those things don't sound familiar to me at all. But you strung together -- Q A lot of stuff. A -- a bunch of things, some of which I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800545 39 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 remember, some I don't. Q Let's pick it apart a little bit. When you worked at -- A I don't know what this has to do with smoke and fire, but Q You said where there's smoke there must be fire, and -- MR. SCAROLA: No, that's not what he said. BY MR. LINK: Q Well, maybe I misheard you. What did you say about smoke and fire? A That when someone reads the complaint about me, they are going to read this and believe that if these allegations are being made by this person, who is a wealthy person, who has lawyers that also have good reputations, and it details out like a criminal complaint, that if somebody is willing to make this type of detailed complaint it must be true Q Right and -- A -- about me. Q I got that. I understand that. By the way, you said somebody with this kind of money makes this complaint. So you were a Florida lawyer in December 2009, right? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800546 40 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 And what was Mr. Epstein, the person you just said if somebody makes these allegations everybody will believe they're true? What was his state in life at the time, December 2009? A He had a bunch of different states in life. Q What was it in December 2009? A I think he was out of jail. Q So he had served time, right -- jail time? A Right. Q And he was an admitted what? A Sex offender. Q Admitted sex offender who did jail time. A Right. Q And you are telling me that if somebody looked at the allegations made by the admitted sex offender who did jail time compared to you, that you think anybody who read them would say, We believe what Mr. Epstein says in here, and where there's smoke there must be fire so the allegations must be true? MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object as incomplete hypothetical. THE WITNESS: They are very detailed allegations. And when you read it in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800547 41 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 conjunction with what was going on at the time, how hated Mr. Rothstein was at the time, then, yeah, people are going to believe that those allegations are true. BY MR. LINK: Q All right. Good. A At least that's my perception as well, which is causes -- Q Can you tell me one person who came up to you after the lawsuit was filed and said, I believe, Mr. Edwards, that what Mr. Epstein's lawyers wrote in this complaint against you, that that's true? A What will typically happen at the courthouse would be lawyers would come up and say, Hey, so-and-so was just saying this complaint was just filed against you by Mr. Epstein, and that in reality there might have been real cases against Mr. Epstein, but you didn't have those, that you actually represented clients who had nothing to do with him. You fabricated cases with Rothstein, and they are speculating that you will be arrested with Mr. Rothstein for the fabrication of Epstein cases and pretending that you represented Epstein victims. That would happen with great frequency when it was hot, when it was hot in the press. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800548 42 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. I got that. And that makes sense. Did you have a concern that you might be arrested or indicted? A No. Q None at all? A Zero. Q Did you ever hire a criminal lawyer? A No. Q Never consulted with one? A No. Q So you said -- I think I heard you say in December 2009 everyone who knew your reputation about your level of ethics and professionalism would have known that the allegations were untrue. Did I get that close? A The people that knew me very well would have known that it was not true, yes. Q So before December 2009, did you ever have any ethical issues that you had to deal with? MR. SCAROLA: Let me object to the form of the question as vague. THE WITNESS: Such as what? Not that I remember. BY MR. LINK: Q Nothing that you remember. All right. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800549 43 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You graduated from law school in May or June 2001? A Somewhere around there, yeah. Q And you were admitted -- when did you take the bar exam? A In July of 2001. Q And did you pass the bar exam on your first try? A Yes. Q And then you were not admitted until March of 2002, correct? A Correct. Q Was there a holdup on your -- on your bar being admitted, something about your character and fitness evaluation? A There was -- there was a delay in the finalization of that. Q Based on their taking an extended look at your character and fitness to practice law in the State of Florida, right? A Right. There's two elements of it. There's the test and character fitness. Q Right. I understand. And the delay, which was almost a year from when you graduated, was the character and fitness part. You passed the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800550 44 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 test-taking part, right? A I got my -- we got our scores back in late September, and then I was admitted in March. So it's not almost a year. Q No. I said from when you graduated. A I know, but it just makes it seem longer than it is. I mean, I know you chose when I graduated. I would not have been admitted anyway until October. Q Did you file your application to join the bar before you graduated or -- and before you took the test, or did you wait to do that until after you took test? A No, I filed it before I graduated school. Q You filed it before you got out of law school, right? It's a long process. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. One question at a time, please. BY MR. LINK: Q So you filed the application before you got out of law school, right? A Yes. Q So that's close to a year since you filed the application before you were approved, based on their extended evaluation of your character and fitness to practice law? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800551 45 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. I don't quarrel with that. Q What were the incidents they were looking at that delayed them? Do you remember? A No. I don't remember the incidents that they were looking at. It was -- Q You really don't have any idea what they were looking at? What caused them concern? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Compound. THE WITNESS: I believe it related to when I was a juvenile. I think that was the first thing I had to answer about. BY MR. LINK: Q Okay. Was there more than one? A Do you have anything that can refresh my recollection so I know exactly what it was that I was doing back in 2000 or 2001? Q I'm asking you, sir, if you remember what the incidents were that were in your past that the bar examiners were looking at in evaluating your character and fitness. And if you're telling me you don't remember, then you don't remember. A It was incidents related to an arrest. And I think that one of them was when I was a juvenile. Q And the other arrest? A I believe it was an underage drinking arrest. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800552 46 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q That was the first arrest, right? Were there two arrests? A And the other one was a possession of prescription without a prescription. Q What was the prescription? A I don't remember the name of it right now. But if you showed it to me then I would know. If you said it, I would know. MR. LINK: So we have been going about an hour. Why don't we take a couple minute break if that's okay, because I need to take a break? THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:48 a.m. and we are going off the record. (A recess was had.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:58 a.m. We are back on the record. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, I got a little derailed. There was a question that I asked about, and then I meandered away from it. I was saying starting in December 2009 when the lawsuit was filed -- and I think I asked about January 1 just to make it simpler. So January -- let's talk about January 1, 2010 looking back to when you started practicing law Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800553 47 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in 2002, compared to January 1, 2010, forward through today. During those two separate time frames, in which one have you collectively in total made more money in your profession as a lawyer? A Since 2010? Q So January -- is it easy -- is January a good way to do it? Is it easier to think about the -- A That's fine. Q So in January 2010 through today, your income as a lawyer has been collectively greater than it was from January 2010 back to 2002 when you started practicing. A Right. Q Would you say it has doubled during that time period? MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the question and instruct you not to answer on the basis of economic privacy. The question is not relevant, material nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant material information. MR. LINK: And I take it, Mr. Scarola, any question I would ask like that -- not asking about the specific dollars, but just Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800554 48 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 parameters, you will have the same objection? MR. SCAROLA: Well, I don't know, because I did allow you to ask the one question -- MR. LINK: You did. MR. SCAROLA: -- that you asked that was answered. So you are going to need to ask your questions, and I will make a determination as to whether I will assert an objection and instruct Mr. Edwards not to answer based upon what the question is. MR. LINK: Fair enough. BY MR. LINK: Q So, Mr. Edwards in comparing those two time frames, 2002 through 2010 -- which was an eight-year time period of practice, right? A Right. Q I saw you counting on your fingers. compared to 2010 through 2017, which is a seven-year time frame, in the seven years A We are almost up to January 2018, though, so -- Q Let's make it '18. A We're about even. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800555 49 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Fair enough. Let's make it eight to eight so we're comparing apples to apples. A Yeah. Q Would you say that your income as a lawyer, as a professional, in the second half of your career, the past eight years, is significantly greater than your income was in the first eight years of your practice? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the question on the basis that it's vague. But can you go ahead and answer that question. THE WITNESS: The answer is yes. BY MR. LINK: Q Thank you for answering that. We were talking about some ethics issues and whether you had any, and I was asking you what you remember. Do you remember -- as we were talking about your reputation -- do you remember any incidents while you were working for the Broward State Attorney's office where anything that you did was called into question or there were any news reports or anything? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I am going to object. The question is vague and compound. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800556 50 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: What's the question? BY MR. LINK: Q When you -- you worked for the Broward State Attorney's office? A Basically three years. Q Three years, okay. During that three-year time period well, let me ask you this. Why did you leave? Was there -- why did you leave? A Just time to leave. Q What does that mean? Was there an offer on the table? Were you asked to leave? What was the reason? A I tried a bunch of case. I wanted to try civil cases. I wanted to try civil cases from the beginning. I wanted experience as a trial lawyer. I went to the state attorney's office. I got a lot of experience, and it was time to leave and do what I wanted to do. So that's it. Q So was there anything that happened shortly before you left that -- where anybody called into question anything you did as far as your representation of the State of Florida on behalf of the Broward State Attorney's Office? A My supervisors would have said that I was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800557 51 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably the best prosecutor there at the time, so that was not -- that was never something that happened. Q I wouldn't find any reports about a tampered-with video being placed into evidence or anything like that if I searched the Internet using your name? Is that true? A I know that case. But that case is not me tampering with anything. That case was me prosecuting somebody for what they did in a very effective, very fair way, the most fair way possible; him getting convicted, him going to prison, him getting upset, and suing me, the State Attorney Mike Satz, all of the police officers involved in the case. So that's what happened. I know -- that's Donald Baker. I know the Donald Baker case well. Q So you were sued? A Yeah. Q So Mr. Epstein's suit was not the first one against you that called into question something that you are doing as a lawyer; is that true? A I didn't know about that lawsuit when I was first sued, because the AG's office was representing me. I was no longer at the state attorney's office. So they picked up and represented the suit. And I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800558 52 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 heard it was dismissed right away. I didn't keep up with the case. Q I understand. But my question was so that you had, before Mr. Epstein sued you, been sued based on conduct, something that allegedly you did during your work as a lawyer, right? A True. Q Where was that lawsuit filed, sir? A If you can show me, I'm not going to quarrel with it. I just don't know that I have seen it -- in Florida. Q Were you served with a lawsuit? A I think I was served with a lawsuit. Q Did it cause anxiety when you were served? A No. Q Well, you were alleged to have done something that was unethical, correct? A He made these allegation before in court. We had hearings over it, over his 57 -- his 38 -- 3.850 motion for his ineffective assistance of counsel. I had heard this whole thing. It was -- it was such nonsense that was being made by a criminal that -- sour grapes. He lost a trial and had to go to prison. I didn't even want to recommend prison in the case. The fact is, he had committed a murder Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800559 53 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 previously in his life, so he was HOQ qualified, which necessitated a five-year prison sentence. I didn't think he deserved that for that crime, nor did I recommend it. It was just part of the guidelines by the state. So I knew it was a harsh sentence for the crime that he committed. He was upset about it, and he took it out on everybody. Q So you weren't -- you didn't suffer any anxiety or concern at all about a lawsuit that was filed in 2004 that related to allegations of unethical conduct in a proceeding that you were the lead trial lawyer? A Zero. Q Did anybody ask you about the alleged unethical conduct that was in that lawsuit? A No. Q Did you read the press that was involved with the filing of the lawsuit against you based on your work as a prosecutor? A I don't remember there being press about the lawsuit that was filed. Q You don't? A No. Q Anybody ask you -- assume for a minute there was some press. Did anybody ask you about it? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800560 54 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Object to the improper question. MR. LINK: It was a really bad question, wasn't it? MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. Terrible. MR. LINK: Thank you. I object. MR. SCAROLA: Good. BY MR. LINK: Q I don't even know how to follow up with that one it was so bad. A It's tough. Q You're right. Did anybody in your -- in the profession, lawyers that you dealt with from time to time or regularly, comment to you about the lawsuit that was filed against you in 2004? A No. Q Did the filing of that lawsuit have anything to do with your termination at the state attorney's office for Broward? MR. SCAROLA: Object. THE WITNESS: I wasn't terminated from the state attorney's office. BY MR. LINK: Q How about did it have anything to do with Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800561 55 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 decision to resign? A Absolutely not. Q Do you remember that the lawsuit alleged a 1983 violation? A No. Q How long was the lawsuit pending? A I have no idea. I never read the lawsuit. Q So you were served with a lawsuit, you were sued, and you don't even read it? Is that true? A I didn't even read it. That's true. I doubt Judge Gates read it. I doubt Mike Satz read it. Q You were a defendant. A So were they. We were all joined together. The police department. Everybody was defendants. Q No big deal? A It was a joke. Q How many associates were employed at Bradley Edwards & Associates? A I don't think I ever had associates. I had -- I had law clerks that the plan was always when they passed the bar that they would be associates, but that's just -- I didn't have the firm open long enough. Q Did you ever check with the Florida Bar to see if it was a violation of the bar ethics rules to call yourself Bradley Edwards & Associates if you had Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800562 56 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 no associates? A No. Q Are you familiar today with the ethical rule that involves your calling your law firm Bradley Edwards & Associates and whether that is proper under the bar rules? A No. Even if you plan to have associates in the near future? I have never read that rule, I don't believe. Q And when you left the state attorney's office, did you form Bradley Edwards & Associates then? A No. Q What did you do? A I worked for a law firm, Kubicki Draper. Q How long were you at Kubicki Draper? A Approximately three years. Q So three years at state attorney's office, right? A Just short of. Q Three years at Kubicki Draper? A Approximately, right. Q What type of firm was Kubicki Draper at the time? That would have been 2005-ish. A '04, '05, '06, '07. Insurance defense. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800563 57 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q So you left the state attorney's office and did insurance defense work? A Correct. Q What type of work did you do? Tell me the clients that you represented generally. A I represented individuals who were primarily car accident cases. Those are the types of trials that I tried. Again, my objective was get as many trials as I could at the firm. That -- it was primarily auto accident cases. Q So these are folks who were insured by insurance companies? A Right. Q And behalf of the insurance companies they would retain the law firm that you worked for to represent their insureds. A Right. Q And so the insureds were the folks that were being blamed for whatever the car accident was. Is that true? A For the most part. Q Did you have any plaintiff's cases on behalf of insureds? A I don't think so. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800564 58 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 they would have all been where an insured was being sued by somebody claiming that their car caused them some injury, I take it. Is that right? A Right. Q Anything there other than A That's why I made that caveat before. Sometimes it wasn't they were being blamed for causing the accident. They owned the car or something like that. Dangerous instrumentality or something. Q I understand. So they were all defendants. Not plaintiffs. A Correct. Q I know you said earlier you tried a lot of cases at the state attorney's office. I saw somewhere in your file roughly 60 cases there. A At least. Q At least 60. Were any of those cases involving -- you mentioned a murder what I would call dangerous criminals? A Yeah, of course. Q Tell me some of the more dangerous criminals that you prosecuted during a trial. A Armed robbers. Q Armed robbers with guns? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800565 59 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 Who else? A I mean, kidnappers. Any prosecuted cases where there were gang stabbings and -- plenty of violent criminals. Q Did any of those violent criminals, like the gang members and the murders and the kidnappers and the armed robbers, cause you to have any fear of physical injury to yourself? Were you afraid they were going to hurt you? A No. I don't believe so. It's hard to tap into old feelings like that and rewind time, but I don't think so. I never had any fear of them doing anything to me. Q I assume there were gang members that you were prosecuting and probably gang members you were not prosecuting within that category. A Sometimes you're prosecuting gang members and your best witness is also a gang member. That's the nature of that world. Q And you weren't afraid -- physically you weren't afraid of one of these gang members -- or prosecuting that case or being involved was going to come -- cause physical harm to you, were you? A No. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800566 60 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 What about the physical harm to your family, were you worried that -- I guess I should have asked. Were you married? A No. Predates all of that, so -- Q Fair enough. A Also, that's kind of a time period pre-family where you just generally have less responsibilities and less fears as a human being. Q When were you married? A 2005. Q Any of those folks ever get out of prison after you were married, people that you put away? A I assume. Q Were you worried that one of them was going to come back, since you prosecuted them, and hurt you or your family? You have that fear? A No. I never really put thought in my mind that their target was the prosecutor. I was just carrying out what my job was if there was evidence of a crime. Q You don't think they really liked you, do you -- the gang members and the murderers -- for you trying to put them in prison? A Assuming after they went to jail they didn't like me or the cops or the state attorney or the judge Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800567 61 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 or anybody else. Q What is it about Mr. Epstein you met Mr. Epstein in person, right? A Yes, several times. Q How tall is he, roughly? A Six-foot maybe. I have only read his sex offender profile. And I think it says six-foot on his flyer. Q How tall are you? A Five-ten. Q He's taller than you are? A I don't know that. I just remember seeing his sex offender -- that's what sticks out in my mind when I tell you the answer to that. I think it says six foot. Q Are you physically afraid of him, of Mr. Epstein? A Physically if I was in hand-to-hand combat with him would I be afraid of him? Q Are you in fear of him? Do you have a fear that he will cause a physical injury and he will hurt you? A In a fistfight? Q Generally, do you have a fear that he will cause you physical injury -- Mr. Epstein? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800568 62 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A In any sense of the word? Q Yes, sir. A If he personally? Q Yes, sir. A I don't fear that he personally is going to attack me at some point in time. I think I'm answering the question that you're asking. Q Do you think he's going to attack your family? A Do I think that Jeffrey Epstein is going to come to my house personally and attack me? No, I don't think that. Q Yes. You don't have that fear, do you? And this lawsuit was filed in December 2009. From 2009 through to today, has Mr. Epstein threatened you with any physical harm? A Has he threatened me with physical harm? He has certainly said things to make it known to me that me or my family could be harmed. But again, not that he personally would do it. Q Tell me what he said to you that makes you think that Mr. Epstein was threatening to harm you physically. A I can almost tell you verbatim. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800569 63 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 Please. A Brad, if you continue to prosecute these cases this way, somebody is going to get hurt. You are lucky that we are not litigating this in New York, because you know that I have a lot of friends, a lot of power. The fact that we are dealing with one another, I have so much more money than you and resources. This is not a fair fight. I could have you and your family under surveillance 24 hours a day. So think about that as you are prosecuting these cases. Those types of statements he made to me several times. Q When he said that, it sounds like he was talking about the disparity in economics. His ability to hire lawyers. But did you feel that he was physically threatening you? That he was going to physically hurt you? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to object to the form of the question. I object to the predicate. It's argumentive. If the question is, Did you feel he was physically going to hurt you, that question is repetition. And also in the context of the discussion that has occurred, vague and ambiguous, because you are failing to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800570 64 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 distinguish between what Mr. Epstein was or may have been threatening to do personally and what Mr. Epstein is capable of having been done. BY MR. LINK: Q So from December 2009 through today, have you been living in fear, sir, that Mr. Epstein personally, or otherwise, was going to cause physical harm to your body? A The "or otherwise," yes. The "personally," no. I don't think he's personally going to do any of the dirty work nor do I think he normally does. I think that he has people do those things for him. Q What do you think he has people do? A Whatever he wants done. Q I see. So you think that, based on your conversation with Mr. Epstein, that over the last eight years there was always this fear in your mind that somebody was lurking around and going to cause you physical harm, right? A The only problem with your question is based on your conversation. That's not the only reason that I think that. It's not based on my conversation with Epstein. It's based on the totality of the circumstances. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800571 65 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 mean, I had been involved in the investigation of Mr. Epstein and his conduct for many, many years. I know a lot about him. He knows I know a lot about him. I have talked to a lot of people about him, a lot of people who believe he's a very dangerous people. I believe he's a very dangerous person. He's made it pretty clear to me that he's a very dangerous person. Someone would be crazy not to have some form of fear that something could happen when you become a target of his. That lawsuit is a clear indication that I am a direct target of his. No doubt in my mind. Q I got it. So for the last eight years how many bodyguards have you hired? A Bodyguards? Q Yes, sir, to protect from you physical harm that Mr. Epstein is going to cause you or somebody else on his behalf. A I haven't hired bodyguards. But I don't think a bodyguard is going to do any good. Q So have you -- you never hired a bodyguard, right? MR. SCAROLA: That question was asked Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800572 66 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 answered. BY MR. LINK: Q For you -- no bodyguards for you? A Per se, I have not hired a bodyguard. Q How about for your family? Have you hired protection to keep Mr. Epstein or somebody he knows from causing physical harm to them? A No, with the exception of there were times where I had an investigator who would -- when I knew that Mr. Epstein had investigators following me, I would have an investigator to watch out during those periods of time. I think it only happened twice. Q Well, you had investigators working on the Epstein case long before he sued you, didn't you? A Of course. Q You had former law enforcement officers on the team at Mr. Rothstein's firm investigating Mr. Edwards (sic), didn't you? A I am Mr. Edwards. Q I'm sorry. Mr. Epstein. Maybe they investigated you too. Who knows at that firm, right? Let me try it again. BY MR. LINK: Q Did you at Mr. Rothstein's firm -- MR. SCAROLA: I move that Counsel's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800573 67 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 comments be stricken. MR. LINK: About the Rothstein's firm? That's fair. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. BY MR. LINK: Q I think there's all kinds of security and things at Mr. Rothstein's firm we will get to, but let me try it again. While you were employed by Mr. Rothstein, you had former police officers that were used to investigate Mr. Epstein, correct? A While I was at RRA, investigators were investigating issues related to the Epstein cases, yes. Q Some of them were former law enforcement employees, right? A That's true. Q One was a former sheriff? A If you're talking about Ken Jenne, I don't know how much he did in investigating anything, but he worked there. Q Mr. Jenne was a former sheriff? A Mr. Jenne was a former sheriff. Q Did he have any issues of his own with law enforcement? Any procedures before he started working at Mr. Rothstein's firm? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800574 68 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 believe that I know the same thing you do. Q What do you know? A He was arrested at some point in time when he was the sheriff. Q And you were aware of that when he was employed by Mr. Rothstein and working on the Epstein file? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Objection, compound. BY MR. LINK: Q You can answer. A I was. MR. SCAROLA: That assumes facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: I was aware that -- I was aware that he had been arrested when he was the sheriff. When I was working at -- at the time I was working at RRA, I knew that Ken Jenne at some time prior had been arrested while he was acting sheriff. BY MR. LINK: Q What other former law enforcement folks at Rothstein's firm were assigned as investigators on the Epstein matters? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800575 69 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 worked with Mike Fisten. That was the investigator I communicated with. Q Tell me about Mike Fisten. What was his former role before he worked at Rothstein? A He was a Miami-Dade homicide detective. Q Did he have any issues before joining Mr. Rothstein's firm? A I don't know. Q Don't know. Does he still work for you? A No. Q Did he work for you after you left Mr. Rothstein's firm? A He did. Q For how long did he work for you? A I don't remember. Q Before you -- and that was at your own law firm. You started a law firm after Rothstein, right? A We started Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman basically right -- RRA imploded. We started that firm. Q And the investigator went with you? A He was an employee of ours. Q Did you do any background check on him before hiring him as an employee at your law firm? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800576 70 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I knew his résumé. I mean, I knew that he was a Miami-Dade homicide detective. I knew that. I had talked to Pat Roberts, who also was an investigator, who had told me how highly credentialed Mike was. I had talked to Pat Diaz, who was also a Miami-Dade homicide detective. And all three of them did work for us after RRA. So these are all investigators that I knew and I still know them today. Q Did all of those investigators work on the Epstein matter? A To some degree, yes. Q How many investigators in total from the Rothstein firm and the subsequent firm, the Farmer firm, were involved in investigating Mr. Epstein? A Ever? Q Yes. A Over the course of time? Q Yes, sir. A The first investigator I used was Wayne Black. I don't know if Wayne did any work after we left RRA. The RRA period is -- you know, that's a six-month period that we are talking about. He definitely did work while I was at RRA. I don't know about after. He might have even done work before -- before I went to RRA. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800577 71 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 Mike Fisten was the primary person -- the investigator that worked on the case while I was at RRA and also the primary investigator after. Mike then delegated to other investigators other work. I know for a fact that Pat Roberts was one of those people. And I also know that Pat Diaz was. Q So that's four investigators that were retained to investigate Mr. Epstein? A Yeah. Not altogether. Not all working together, but yes. Wayne Black didn't work with them, but yes. Q I'm just talking about the number -- A Yeah. Q -- of investigators. So four -- MR. SCAROLA: When you say retained to investigate Mr. Epstein, you're suggesting that the purpose for which they were hired was to investigate Mr. Epstein, or are you only asking whether at some point in time during their employment they investigated Mr. Epstein? MR. LINK: That question. THE WITNESS: Yeah. At some point in time those four people investigated Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800578 72 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Epstein. BY MR. LINK: Q On your behalf? A What do you mean on my behalf? Q You were the lead lawyer in the Epstein files, right? A RRA paid them while there. They were just employees of RRA, same as me. And then afterwards, my next firm paid Mr. Fisten. He was our investigator after that. Q I asked a bad question. Let's go back to RRA for a minute. So you said these investigators, the three that you mentioned -- A Right. Q -- were employees of RRA? A I believe so. I don't know about Pat Diaz. He might have been contracted out by Mike Fisten for extra help. But Pat Roberts and Mike Fisten were employees for sure. Q So who was it at RRA that made the decision to bring in the first investigator, Mr. Wayne Black? A I think I did. I think I brought him in -- I think I was at least talking to him before I went to RRA. And then when I got to RRA, I don't believe there was already an investigative division in place. I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800579 73 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could be wrong about that. If memory serves me right, I don't remember there being -- Mike Fisten was the first investigator I communicated with there. I don't think he worked there yet. So I think that when I got there, I had already talked to Wayne Black, and he was initially retained by RRA, meaning, I think that they paid him. Q Let's see if I can help you with this -- the chronology. The lawsuits that -- the first three lawsuits that you filed against Mr. Epstein were filed by Bradley Edwards & Associates A Back in 2008. Q -- in 2008. A Right. Q Before you joined RRA in 2009, you did not use or pay for an investigator? A I don't know if that's right or wrong. It's right around that time where I was leaving one firm and starting another that I was talking to Wayne Black. I would have to look and see when his engagement letter was to know did I talk to him and then he was hired by RRA, or had I already hired him, you know let's say, March, and then I went to RRA in April. It's right in that time. I don't know. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800580 74 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 Do you remember Bradley Edwards & Associates ever paying an investigator related to the Epstein matters? A I don't remember one way or the other. Q So if you did, it would have been at the very tail end of the Bradley Edwards law firm? A Correct. Q And then once you started at RRA, there were at least four different investigators that did some amount of work on the Epstein cases? A Including Wayne Black, who may have carried over from my firm. Q Right. When you look at Bradley Edwards & Associates, as you sit here, you don't remember whether you retained Wayne Black or not, right? A Right. I can do it this way, which probably helps you. Even if I retained him beforehand, I don't think he did any work on the Epstein case until after I was at RRA. That's how close in time that was. So, yes, there were four people that were investigators, at least, who did work on the Epstein file during the period of time that I was at RRA. Q And during that period of time, was about six months, there were at least four investigators that were assigned to work on the Epstein matter? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800581 75 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 exclusively, but yes. Q And you said at least four. Can you think of anybody else that was assigned to work on the Epstein matters at RRA? A Well, no. And I'm even including Pat Roberts, who I'm not sure was an employee there. I think that Mike Fisten brought him in for additional help. Q Let's not -- A When you assign, it's not like I'm assigning people or anybody is -- you know, I don't know that. Q Let's go back and try and do this again. I think we are both missing each other here. A Okay. Q It doesn't matter to me whether they were employees of RRA or contracted for. What I'm really trying to understand is, in the six months that you were at RRA, the number of investigators that -- during that six-month period -- spent any amount of time working on the Epstein matters. And you have identified four for me so far. Right? A Right. Here is where I think we are missing each other. The four -- those were four investigators that were working Epstein-related cases on behalf of clients and Jane Doe. I'm sure -- although Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800582 76 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 -- that of the other 15, 16, 17 lawsuits that were filed by Bob Josefsberg or Mr. Herman or Mr. Scarola, there were probably also investigators also working on Epstein cases. Just had nothing to do with me. Q I'm only asking about you, sir. I don't care who Mr. Scarola -- A If you go back and read back the question, that's not how it reads. It reads: Were these the four people who were working on the Epstein investigation? Q So let me try -- it was not supposed to be a trick question at all. When you started at RRA, you had three pending lawsuits against Mr. Epstein. A Right. Q While you were at RRA you added a fourth lawsuit against Mr. Epstein. A Fourth client. Q I said a fourth lawsuit. A Which one? Q You do not remember filing a lawsuit while you were with Mr. Rothstein's firm? A I filed many lawsuits against Mr. Epstein. Q I'm talking about the six-month period of time while -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800583 77 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 represented three clients while I was at Epstein (sic) for sure. While I was at RRA I represented three different clients. Q So while you were with Mr. Rothstein's you represented three individual clients that had lawsuits against Mr. Epstein? A Right. Q You also filed a fourth lawsuit while you were employed by Mr. Rothstein against Mr. Epstein, correct? A On behalf of who already had a state case against Mr. Rothstein (sic). It wasn't a new client. Q I didn't ask about client. Lawsuit. So you filed one lawsuit at RRA and three lawsuits before joining RRA? A Sure. Q And for those four lawsuits that you -- and you were the lead lawyer on those four suits. A Yes. Q And you were the lead lawyer at Brad Edwards & Associates? A Yes. Q And you were the lead lawyer at Rothstein's firm? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800584 78 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's your entire question? Was I the lead lawyer at Rothstein's firm? No. Q You were not the lead lawyer at Rothstein's firm for the three individuals that you brought with you that had lawsuits against Mr. Epstein. A On those cases, I was the lead lawyer. Q That's what we're talking about. A You just asked the question, Were you the lead lawyer at Rothstein's firm? Q On the three cases -- okay. Fair enough. A You just refuse to add that in. It's not going to read back right on the record. We are both lawyers here, we know what -- playing with words is not what I want to do today. Q If there's any part of what I'm doing that makes you uncomfortable or if you think I'm playing with words, just like that, just let me know and we will fix it. How is that? A I will. Q So for the four pending lawsuits while you were a six-month employee of Mr. Rothstein, there were at least four investigators that spent some amount of time investigating Mr. Epstein? A Yes. Q Are there possibly more than four Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800585 79 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 investigators during the six-month window for those four lawsuits that were utilized to investigate Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the extent the question calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: There's possibly more investigators who investigated Mr. Epstein on behalf of either-or Jane Doe. BY MR. LINK: Q Can you tell me who those investigators were during the six-month period that you were employed by Mr. Rothstein? A I just told you the ones I recall. Is it possible there could have been more? There could have been. Q Who was it on the -- let me back up for a second. Was there a litigation team for the three clients that went from Bradley Edwards, PA to Mr. Rothstein's firm when you joined Rothstein's firm? Was there a team put together for those three clients? I know you were the lead lawyer for those clients at Rothstein's firm. MR. SCAROLA: The question included the phrase, When you joined the Rothstein firm. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800586 80 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'm trying to understand are you asking whether at that time a team was assembled -- MR. LINK: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: -- or whether at any time subsequent to that time a team was assembled. BY MR. LINK: Q Was there a team. When you went over there with the three lawsuits, was there a team that worked on those three matters. A I did not take a team over to the Rothstein firm. Q And when got to the Rothstein firm, who was assigned to help you with the three clients that were suing Mr. Epstein? A So the way that RRA was set up, there were divisions. And there was a tort division there. Q So were you assigned to the tort division? A I was one of the tort lawyers who was there. I primarily worked the cases. I also had other legal minds within the law firm that would bounce ideas around, cover hearings. The one that probably participated the most on an active basis was Bill Berger. I don't remember when he joined the firm. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800587 81 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 think he was there when I first got there, but I could be wrong about that. Actively involved in any of the -- Paul Cassell, who was not even at that firm, was the other person that I communicated with the most on those cases about what was actually going on and strategy and things like that. Q I want to focus on for the six months you were at Rothstein, okay. That's what I'm focused on. For the three clients that had lawsuits pending against Mr. Epstein, I'm just trying to have you tell me which lawyers -- we are focused on lawyers for the moment -- we've already covered investigators -- which lawyers worked with you, were part of your team. You said Bill Berger. A It's the work with you. Bill Berger did things. He went to hearings and things like that. Q Did you not consider that him working with you? A I did. He's in that category. Q Who else? A There were other people, like -- there was a former FBI agent. I don't remember her last name, but I think her name is Cara. She was a lawyer. And I would communicate with her about different aspects of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800588 82 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 investigation. Did she work with me? I don't think that she did anything. She could have attended a deposition. If she did, I don't necessarily remember. Q Let me pause for one second. Was she working as an investigator or as a lawyer when you would communicate with her? A A lawyer. Q Do you remember her last name? A No. Q Was it Holmes? A Than doesn't help to jog my memory. Sorry. Q Did she communicate with you about the claims against Mr. Epstein? A At times I believe she did. Q Did you discuss with her how to maximize the recovery against Mr. Epstein? A That's not something I would communicate to her. That could be something she might communicate to me. But I don't know about that. Q Tell me why she would do that. Why would she communicate to you as the lead lawyer for these A She may not. I mean, I'm just saying. I don't do that, hey, talk to somebody who doesn't -- who doesn't know as much as me about the case and say, How Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800589 83 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 do we maximize recovery. I would know that. That's what my job was. Q So you wouldn't need Cara to tell you how you should or how you could maximize recovery against Mr. Epstein? A I didn't need anybody to tell me how to do anything. But at that firm, there were a lot of lawyers with a lot of experience, and taking information from them that's helpful on any case -- as it still is today how I practice how you probably practice -- it's no different. Q So other than Mr. Berger and Cara -- somebody with a last name was there anyone else that was part of the team? MR. SCAROLA: At RRA or working together with -- MR. LINK: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: Just at RRA? MR. LINK: Just at RRA. Same topic we have been on. THE WITNESS: The team is me and any lawyer who wants -- any lawyer there who knows about the case who wants to tell me anything about their own opinions about the case. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800590 84 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. LINK: Q I guess let's try it a different way. Who drafted the papers that would get filed on behalf of the three clients while you were at RRA? A Ninety-eight percent of them would be me or Paul Cassell, if not 100 percent. I can't remember anybody else drafting anything, but I could be wrong. Q So if I look at papers that were filed during the period of time that you were with RRA in the three lawsuits against Mr. Epstein, 98 percent of those documents were probably drafted by you and/or Mr. Cassell, or the two of you together? A Yes. And probably more by Mr. Cassell doing the drafting than me. But yes. I mean, that's -- Q So if you wanted to hire a -- let me try that again. If you wanted to assign an investigator at RRA work to do on the Epstein matter, how would you do that? Who would you talk to? Was there a process involved? A I don't know what the initial process was. I don't remember that. But once I was introduced to Mike Fisten, I would just talk to Mike. I mean, that's who I talked to. Mike, this is what I think that we need to do next. Mike would say, Okay, let's get it done, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800591 85 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 or think about this. Q So any of the decisions that were made during the six months that you were at Rothstein were made, from a strategic standpoint, by you as the lead lawyer? A Yes. By me or by Paul Cassell. I mean, I think there was a time where we had pretty equal say in what we were doing next. Q Mr. Cassell was not an employee of Rothstein? A Right. Q You were the sole employee of Rothstein's firm that made decisions -- strategic decisions for the three clients? A Yes. Q Did you make the strategic decision to file the fourth lawsuit in federal court? A It wasn't my idea initially, but I quickly agreed with the idea. That was Paul's idea, and he was right on it, so I didn't -- I didn't come up with the idea, but I should have. Q It was Mr. Cassell's idea to file the federal court complaint for Plaintiffillill? A Right. Q Were there -- did you consider filing Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800592 86 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 federal court complaints for the other two plaintiffs that you represented? A Well -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Let me interrupt here for just a moment. Obviously, what Mr. Edwards considered, his mental processes, are clearly attorney work product. I am more than happy to have him answer that question, but I don't want him to answer that question if the argument is going to be made that, by responding to this particular question, he has broadly waived work-product privilege. If we can agree that the answer to this question will not constitute a waiver of attorney work-product privilege, generally I don't have a problem with his responding to it. MR. LINK: I will agree with that. MR. SCAROLA: And for shorthand purposes, there may be other questions that fall into the same category, and I will just say, can we have the same agreement as to no waiver, and you will know what I'm talking about, okay? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800593 87 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. LINK: You're giving me more credit than I'm due, but I think I will figure it out. THE WITNESS: So, I believe your question was did we consider filing federal lawsuits for the other clients, that being -- other than BY MR. LINK: Q Yeah. While you were employed at RRA. A Got it. So Jane Doe, we filed in federal court already. So her case was already in federal court. However, there was a time, during this same time, that we weren't -- we weren't completely satisfied with the way we had pled it, so -- and for the same reason that I'm going to tell you as to why we filedilill But there wasn't the need to file on the other cases that we saw coming up case. I'm trying to figure out the best way to say this without invading the attorney-client privilege. Let's -- let me back up and explain it this way. The non-prosecution agreement Q Let me just stop you, because I think I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800594 88 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 asked you a really simple question. I thought my simple question was did you consider doing it? And you haven't told me yes you did or no you haven't. And Mr. Scarola made an objection. I don't want you to just give a speech, and I don't think Mr. Scarola does. A In general terms, we thought about it being the best idea in general. Q Did you draft, in fact, while you were at Mr. Rothstein's firm, a federal complaint for the other state court plaintiffs? A We either did or we conceptually agreed that we were going to. We agreed that we should. Q Okay. While you were at Mr. Rothstein's firm, you and Mr. Cassell agreed that you would file a second complaint on behalf of one of your clients that was in state court, and that complaint would be filed in federal court, just like the complaint was? MR. SCAROLA: Same agreement. MR. LINK: Same agreement. THE WITNESS: I believe so. We may have actually drafted it. BY MR. LINK: Q And that complaint was not filed, true? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800595 89 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 complaint? Q The one that we just talked about. A Q Yes. So the complaint was drafted A We didn't file a separate Q So what you and Mr. Cassell decided while you were at Rothstein you would do was never filed, right? A We never filed a separate complaint for in federal court. Q And once you left Mr. Rothstein's firm, you didn't file a federal case on behalf of , right? A I did not. Q And you did not serve Mr. Epstein after you left the Rothstein firm with the lawsuit, did you? A I have come to know from hearing over the years that it was never served, but I don't recollect whether it was served or not. I do remember at some point in time saying we should serve this. I don't remember it never being served or it being served. I know that it was dismissed at the same time as the other cases were settled. Q Let me ask it this way. Do you know -- MR. GOLDBERGER: Excuse me, Scott. The Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800596 90 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 videographer says he has five minutes. THE WITNESS: We have five minutes. MR. LINK: Yeah. I think I can finish this up. BY MR. LINK: Q The . federal lawsuit -- like the lawsuit -- was, in fact, drafted while you were with Rothstein's firm. A We just went there through this. I don't remember whether it was drafted. I remember believing it should be drafted. Q And making the decision with Mr. Cassell to do that? MR. LINK: No waiver. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. We could do this. Just give me a continuing agreement that there's no waiver, and I will let him continue to answer questions about this federal lawsuit. MR. LINK: Agreed. THE WITNESS: Sorry. State that question again. BY MR. LINK: Q I just want to -- A We were talking about Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800597 91 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 I want to tie it together, all right? So a decision was made on behalf of by you and Mr. Cassell while you were an employee at RRA to bring a separate federal court action against Mr. Epstein. A And we did. Q And you did. Also while you were at RRA, you and Mr. Cassell made the decision that you would file a lawsuit in federal court for—, just like you had done for A Correct. Q After leaving the Rothstein firm, you never filed the federal lawsuit for A Correct. Q And after leaving the Rothstein firm, you never served Mr. Epstein with the federal case? A You're telling me that? Q Yes. MR. SCAROLA: I object to Counsel testifying. BY MR. LINK: Q Do you remember that being the case? You do not? A I don't remember it not being filed, but I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800598 92 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 heard that -- MR. SCAROLA: Served. THE WITNESS: Served -- but I have heard that enough to believe it to be true that it wasn't served on him. MR. LINK: Good place to take a break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:49 a.m. This concludes tape one. We are going off the record. (A recess was had.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:05 p.m. This is the beginning of tape two. We are back on the record. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, do you now have in front of you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 -- A Yes. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q -- which is the affidavit of Mr. Epstein? Have you seen this before? A I saw it when it was originally filed. Q Would you please -- MR. SCAROLA: For the record, we have Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800599 93 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 moved to strike this affidavit. We believe it to be inadmissible. It is violative of the sword-shield doctrine, and we object to its use. BY MR. LINK: Q You may look at the entire affidavit if you want, but I'm going to focus you on paragraph six at least to start with. Just take a moment to read paragraph six. A Okay, I read it. Q Looking at the first sentence, do you have any reason to believe that that first sentence is not true? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object. There are a wide variety of separate factual assertions contained within that first sentence, and therefore, the question is compound. THE WITNESS: This is -- purports to be statements made by Jeffrey Epstein, which is pretty interesting, given that he invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination every time I've ever asked him anything that was on the record. So his statement in early November 2009 -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800600 94 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 this is his statement about what stories were in the press at the time. BY MR. LINK: Q I'm asking you if this factual assertion in the first sentence is -- do you agree it's a true statement or not? MR. SCAROLA: And my objection is, there is not a factual assertion, but a multiplicity of allegations included in that first sentence, so the question is compound. THE WITNESS: Let me just read it out loud then I will try to answer your question. "In early November 2009, stories in the press, on the news, and on the Internet were legion about the implosion of RRA." BY MR. LINK: Q Let's just break it down statement by statement. Is that a true statement? MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to that question on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what legion means. THE WITNESS: There were stories in the news about the implosion of RRA. That's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800601 95 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 true. BY MR. LINK: Q Multiple stories? A Yeah. That's what the news cycle was about in Broward County at the time, was the implosion of RRA. Q Not just Broward, it was statewide news? A It was statewide news. Q It was national news? A The RRA implosion was -- Q Yes, sir. A -- was widespread news. I don't know -- yeah, I think it was national news. Certainly where we lived everybody knew about it. Q No question that in early November 2009 the press and the news was extensive relating to the implosion of the Rothstein firm? A Absolutely. Q And that press included information about the Ponzi scheme that was perpetrated at Rothstein, true? A I believe so. I mean, I don't know about November 2009, but at some point in time after -- pretty soon after it was -- there was news about it being a Ponzi scheme that Rothstein was running a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800602 96 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 Ponzi scheme. It could have been December. It could have been January. I don't know. Right after. Q Let's take a look at some of the November articles. A Okay. Q Let me show you what's marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Are you familiar with the Legal Junkies? A No. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q You see this is dated November 2nd, 2009? Upper left-hand corner. A Yes. Q Wall Street Journal Law Blog, do you see that? A Point me where. Q Upper left-hand corner. A Yes. Q Do you see that on November 2nd, that there was this article about the Rothstein law firm? A There was an article about the Rothstein law firm, yes. Q Including the investment scheme and the structured settlements. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800603 97 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Let me read it and I will tell you what I think it's about. Do you want me to read the updated -- Q No. I just want to make sure -- this is November 2nd. The statement we looked at was in early November 2009. And I'm showing you some of the articles to confirm that this statement in this affidavit that we are focused on, this one aspect of it, was true. MR. SCAROLA: For purposes of this line of questioning, since there has been no predicate laid with this witness as to the authenticity of this document, we will accept your representation that it is authentic. But we don't know that independently. So we are making that assumption for purposes of allowing this further line of questioning. THE WITNESS: And consistent with any answer, this is an article that confirms what I said, which is, there was news about the implosion of RRA. At this point in time -- you have given me an article from 11/2/09 -- there's nothing that identifies whatever Scott Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800604 98 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 Rothstein was alleged to have done as a Ponzi scheme at this time. BY MR. LINK: Q In this one article? A In this one I don't see it yet. I'm not saying it didn't happen. It could have. But what you're showing me doesn't say that. Q We're going to get there. We're going to take a look at these. So this one comes out November 2nd. And I see that your name is on the second page. Bradley J. Edwards as a lawyer at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler. You see that? MR. SCAROLA: Help me. MR. LINK: About maybe 10 down from the column. THE WITNESS: It's on the fourth page. BY MR. LINK: Q Fourth page, there's a list of -- A Yeah, I was a lawyer at RRA, so yes it lists looks like it lists every lawyer at RRA. There's a list that goes on for two pages, so yes. Q So in this article -- A My name is there. Q -- your name is there. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800605 99 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. LINK: Yes sir. MR. SCAROLA: You are referencing that as being part of this article. It, in fact, appears to be a blog-posted comment to the article, as opposed to part of the article itself. MR. LINK: I will take that representation. MR. SCAROLA: Somebody in response to the article posted a list of the lawyers in the firm. Fair? MR. LINK: Fair. Fair enough. BY MR. LINK: Q This is the first time -- Mr. Edwards -- MR. SCAROLA: Can we also agree that whoever posted this isn't even identified? MR. LINK: We can agree it is what it is. Whatever it says, it says. THE WITNESS: It says unregistered guest. MR. SCAROLA: Unregistered guest. Whoever that is. MR. LINK: Whoever that is. Okay. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, I'm not sure I got an answer. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800606 100 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And if I did, I apologize. I didn't meant to ask it again. But in looking at Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, is this the first time that you have -- that you knew that your name was listed by somebody related to that article? A I don't know. I don't know one way or the other. Q Now, let's take a look at Exhibit 3. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q This is a November 6 article. And the headline is "Scott Rothstein: The Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton ploy." Do you see that? A Yes. Q Did you see this article when it came out November 6, 2009? A I don't remember. Like you said, there were a lot of articles. I don't know which ones I saw, which ones I didn't. Q Do you see that on the second page it talks about the Ponzi imploding? In the upper top, page two. A Yeah, I know. It's the end of a sentence. I am just reading the beginning. Yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800607 101 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q So by November 6, at least, this article is mentioning the word Ponzi. A Somebody is calling it a Ponzi by then Q So do you now agree with me that there were stories in the press in early November 2009 discussing the Ponzi scheme perpetrated at RRA? A I agree MR. SCAROLA: Again, assuming the authenticity of this online printout, I will agree that this online printout says what it says and makes reference to the Ponzi scheme imploding. THE WITNESS: I will agree to the same thing. BY MR. LINK: Q The reason I'm showing you this article is because when I asked you if that part of the sentence of paragraph six was accurate, you said, I don't remember whether the word Ponzi was used in the articles in November or whether it was December. A Exactly. Q So I am showing these to you now to confirm that, in fact, in early November the Ponzi scheme was being discussed in the press. A I will agree that it appears that the New Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800608 102 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Times used the word Ponzi on November 6th of 2009. I don't think that we are disputing at all that this was a Ponzi scheme. Everybody knows what it was, so -- Q It's not whether -- I'm not disputing with you whether it was. We know that it was. I'm asking you whether the statements in this affidavit -- the factual statements so far -- we are on paragraph six only -- were accurate. So the statement that I was focused on was that in early November 2009, that the Ponzi scheme perpetrated at the firm, meaning RRA, was in the press and on the news. You agree that it was? A I agree that this article on November 6 of 2009 said the word Ponzi. It could have very well been in a bunch of articles by then. It could have very well been on the news. I'm not disputing it being there. I just don't remember the timing of when everybody decided what it was. Q And you see on page two, that's a picture of Mr. Epstein, right? A Yes. Q And underneath his picture it says, "Epstein was bait." You see that? A I do see that. Q Was Mr. Epstein used as bait by the RRA Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800609 103 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 firm to attract potential investors? A I don't see that sentence. Q I'm asking you. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to object, unless a predicate is laid with regard to Mr. Edwards' personal knowledge. MR. LINK: He has or he doesn't. He can answer the question. THE WITNESS: Are you referring to a specific sentence in this article? BY MR. LINK: Q Do you see the words under his picture? A Yes. It says, "Epstein was used as bait." Q Read the sentence. It says, "One way he did it --" talking about Mr. Rothstein -- "was by tricking investors into believing that his firm was representing numerous underaged girls who had sex with Palm Beach billionaire and convicted child sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein, sources have confirmed." A I see that sentence, too. Q And I asked you whether Mr. Epstein was used as bait to attract potential investors. MR. SCAROLA: And I have objected, unless a predicate is laid with regard to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800610 104 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Edwards' personal knowledge. THE WITNESS: I would have no way of knowing that. BY MR. LINK: Q And do you see the next sentence says this is November 6 -- "On top of that, Rothstein claimed that he had flight logs showing that Epstein flew extremely prominent people, including former President Bill Clinton, on his private jet with some of the plaintiffs." A I see that sentence. Q The person who obtained the flight logs from Mr. Epstein for his airplanes during the RRA period of representing the three investors (sic) was you, correct? A I was one of numerous attorneys who took pilot depositions. And as a consequence of a subpoena duces tecum, the pilot brought the flight logs to the deposition. So I was one of several lawyers who had access to flight logs as a result of that deposition that we took in the legitimate cases where we represented and Jane Doe, who were actual underaged victims of Jeffrey Epstein's child molestation. That's what happened. Q Did any of those three folks that you Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800611 105 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 represented tell you that they had sex on Mr. Epstein's plane? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to object. That clearly calls for attorney-client privileged information. BY MR. LINK: Q And when they were asked that question during their depositions in the underlying cases, did any of them testify that they were on Mr. Epstein planes and had sex on them? A When they were asked what they told me? Q No. During their depositions -- not what they told you. When they were asked during their depositions. I am getting away from the attorney-client. It was a good objection. During their depositions they were asked whether they were on Mr. Epstein's plane and had sex with him. Did any of the three folks that the Rothstein firm represented say they were, in fact, on the plane and had sex with Mr. Epstein on his plane? A They were asked that question? Q Do you know whether they were, sir? A No, I don't remember whether they were. They were asked a lot of questions. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800612 106 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 if you don't remember, you don't remember. A I don't remember. Q Do you know who the sources are that have confirmed that the Rothstein firm used Epstein as bait? A No. Q You said there were several lawyers -- and let me make sure I understand that. I am talking about the lawyers at the Rothstein firm. I thought you told me that you were the lead lawyer for the three clients with claims against Mr. Epstein during the six months that you were employed at the Rothstein firm. A I did tell you that. Q And you, in fact, were the lawyer for the Rothstein firm that took the depositions of the pilots, true? A Right. Q And so you would have been the lawyer at the Rothstein firm that had received the flight logs from the pilots, true? A All right. Here is what I'm trying to tell you is -- so, Bob Josefsberg was prosecuting cases against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800613 107 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 me stop you. MR. SCAROLA: No. I'm sorry. MR. LINK: I don't want to interrupt him if he's Jack, he's answering my question. THE WITNESS: I am. MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's fine. You can move to strike the response, but you can't interrupt him. MR. LINK: Actually, I can. MR. SCAROLA: No, you cannot. MR. LINK: My question was really simple. MR. SCAROLA: Well, whether it's simple or not, he's going to answer the question and complete his response. If you find it to be unresponsive, you can move to strike. But he's permitted to complete his answer. MR. LINK: He's actually not. He's not permitted to answer a question I haven't asked. And you know that. MR. SCAROLA: Continue, if you would with your response. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, answer question, please. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800614 108 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I am answering question. Q You are? A Yes. Q So my question was really simple. MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm sorry. You are not going to ask another question until Mr. Edwards has had a chance to respond to the question that you already asked when you interrupted him in the middle of his answer. You may not like the answer. You may think it's unresponsive. You can move to strike it. But he gets to finish it. So continue if you would, please. BY MR. LINK: Q So before you continue it -- MR. SCAROLA: No, not before he continues -- BY MR. LINK: Q You are going to answer my question? That's what you were going to do? A Yes, I'm going to answer your question. Q Then answer my question. A So, Bob Josefsberg represented a volume of girls, who, when they were underaged, were molested by Jeffrey Epstein. Adam Horowitz represented six or Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800615 109 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 seven girls who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's molestation. I represented three girls who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's molestation. Mr. Scarola's firm represented females who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's molestation, and so did Sid Garcia, and so did Spencer Kuvin. There were so many girls that Jeffrey Epstein molested while they were underaged that there were many lawyers involved. When we took depositions of anyone, all of the plaintiffs' lawyers would decide together whose deposition we were taking, what the objective was, and what evidence that we could obtain from them. With respect to the pilots, the subpoena duces tecum required for the pilot to bring the flight logs. The flight logs were produced at the deposition, and produced so that all of the plaintiffs' lawyers would have them. So to say that I'm the one who got them from the pilot, maybe I was. Maybe it was Jack, maybe it was Bob. But they were copied. And I had access to them for sure. Bob had access to them for sure. All of the plaintiffs' lawyers did at the same time. It wasn't me out on some vigilante mission that got these flight logs. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800616 110 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's the only clarification that I'm trying to make for you. I think that we are not necessarily on a different page with what you want. Q And you think that answer is responsive to my question? A Yes. Was I the person who got the flight logs? That's your question. Q No. I said were you the lawyer at the Rothstein firm -- only asked you about the Rothstein firm. I don't care about Mr. Scarola. He wasn't even at the deposition. I don't care about Mr. Josefsberg, unless you are telling me he gave the flight logs to somebody at the Rothstein firm, and then I will ask Bob if that's true. A It wouldn't be to me. Q That's was my question. Was there somebody other than you that would have had possession of bringing those flight logs back to the Rothstein firm while you were an employee? A From wherever I got it from, right. No. Q Just you, right? A Yes. Q Okay. That was my question. And -- A Apparently I didn't understand it. Sorry. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800617 111 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 I tried to ask it again, but Mr. Scarola insisted that you give me your speech, and that's okay. MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Move to strike. Argumentive. BY MR. LINK: Q Did the flight logs that you took back to the Rothstein firm have information about Bill Clinton, for example, being on the plane? A The flight logs did indicate that Bill Clinton was one of the passengers with Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators on his airplane, yes. Q Do you know whether Mr. Scarola or Mr. Josefsberg or any of the other lawyers that you mentioned when you were discussing the flight logs would have provided that information to Mr. Rothstein? A I wouldn't think that anyone provided that information to Mr. Rothstein. Q I'm asking about the lawyer you mentioned. Mr. Scarola, your lawyer here, who you represented A I don't think so. Q You don't think he gave it to Mr. Rothstein, do you? A No. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800618 112 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 You don't think Mr. Josefsberg did, do you? A No. Q You don't think Mr. Kuvin did, do you? A No. Q You don't think Ted Leopold did, do you? A No. I don't believe anyone did. Q Let's take a look at this next one. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Are you on any medication today for your anxiety? A No. Q Have you ever been on medication for anxiety -- A No. Q Let me just finish. Have you ever been on medication for anxiety since December 2009? A No. Q This is an article dated November 12. This is an article in the Sun Sentinel. "FBI doubts Rothstein ran a Ponzi scheme alone." Do you see that -- A Yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800619 113 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 -- is the headline. Take a minute and take a look at it. A Yep. Q Do you know Mr. John I'm probably saying this wrong -- John Gillies A No. Q -- the head of the FBI in South Florida? When he said, "I do not believe that this was a one-man show." You see that statement? A I do. Q You see that Mr. Rosenfeldt, at the bottom, said that he had no clue about what was going on? A I see a statement in this article that says, Rothstein's partner, Stuart Rosenfeldt, has said he had, quote, no clue, end quote, about the alleged fraud. Q Was that Mr. Rosenfeldt's position during the last few days of the Rothstein firm while you were employed there? A I don't know that I gathered his position about anything. Q You're aware that he filed, on behalf of the law firm, a preemptive lawsuit to appoint a receiver. You knew that? A I do remember it was filed. Those kind of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800620 114 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 details aren't totally fresh in my mind. I don't know that he filed it as opposed to somebody. I don't know. Q Wasn't it a big deal when you learned out that the firm you were working for had committed a massive 1.some-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to object to that question. It assumes facts not in evidence, and that is that the firm committed a Ponzi scheme. BY MR. LINK: Q Go ahead? A This was big news to everybody, yes. Q How did you find out? A I remember going to a meeting on -- I believe it was a Monday -- like down in, like, a cafeteria-style -- the bottom floor of the building that the firm was located in. I don't remember exactly what was told to us, but somebody came in and said Rothstein's in Morocco, trust funds are missing, the firm's closing down. I don't think I stayed for much more than that. Q It was a pretty horrific day, I would guess. A Yeah, it was a bad day. Q Is there any doubt in your mind that in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800621 115 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 early November 2009, that the press and the news covered the implosion of RRA -- A No. Q -- and covered the Ponzi scheme perpetrated at that firm? Right? A No. There's no doubt. Q And so this first sentence is a true, factual sentence from paragraph six A What exhibit are we on? Q We are on Exhibit Number 1, which would be affidavit -- the sworn statement by Mr. Epstein. A Okay, first sentence. Q Is there anything that you would say is inaccurate or untrue about the first sentence of paragraph six? A "In early November 2009, stories in the press, on the news, and on the Internet were legion about the implosion or RRA, the Ponzi scheme perpetrated at that firm, and the misuse in the Ponzi Scheme of certain civil cases then being litigated against me by RRA partner, Edwards." To the extent that it's saying that the press was -- the press was -- that I was involved in the Ponzi scheme, that's not true. Q Does this sentence say you were involved in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800622 116 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 Ponzi scheme, sir? A Well, it says, "The Ponzi scheme perpetrated at the firm, and the misuse in the Ponzi scheme of certain civil cases then being litigated against me by RRA partner, Edwards." It's trying to imply that. Q Okay. But does it say that? A It implies that. It's not perfectly written. Q Were Mr. Epstein's files being used as part of the Ponzi scheme? A You showed me an article that says that -- Q They were? A Yeah. "One way he did it was by tricking investors into believing that his firm as representing numerous underaged girls who had sex with Palm Beach billionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein." That doesn't say that the cases against Epstein -- it doesn't say anything about the legitimate cases against Epstein. Q I didn't say it did, did I? All I'm asking you is, isn't it a fact isn't it a true fact that these articles say that Scott Rothstein used the Epstein litigation in order to attempt to entice investors to make the investment? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800623 13.7 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. THE WITNESS: So far you haven't shown me that. BY MR. LINK: Q Then let's go back and take a look at Exhibit Number 3 that we walked through and has Mr. Epstein's picture that says Epstein was bait. A Right. Q You see that? A Yes. Q So I want you to read that -- this article, and tell me if you agree that this article -- whether it was true or not -- that this article suggests that the cases that you were handling as the lead lawyer -- A Right. Q were being used by Rothstein as bait in order to lure investors. A Is there a part of the article that you want to point me to, or do you want me to read this whole article? MR. SCAROLA: Can we agree Mr. Edwards' name appears nowhere in this article? MR. LINK: What does that have to do with anything, Jack? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800624 118 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: You just asked him whether the article says that the cases that he was prosecuting were being used as bait. MR. LINK: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Edwards' name is not referenced. There's no -- MR. LINK: I never said that it was, Jack. MR. SCAROLA: There's no reference in this article to the cases that Brad was prosecuting. MR. LINK: I never said it was. Is that an objection to the form? What is it? MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what it is. You are -- MR. LINK: Then say, objection to the form. MR. SCAROLA: You are misrepresenting what the article says. It says what it says. It doesn't identify the cases that Brad was prosecuting. MR. LINK: You didn't hear my question. Listen, I have let you give a lot of speeches today, and they have been very informative and I have enjoyed them. But if Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800625 119 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 have an objection, please just make it to form now. MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. MR. LINK: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Let me just read the article now. MR. SCAROLA: And while Brad is reading the article, could we have the question read back please. (Thereupon, the requested portion of the record was read back by the reporter as above duly recorded.) MR. SCAROLA: Do we agree that what you were asking was whether Brad's cases were being used to lure investors? MR. LINK: That's what I said. MR. SCAROLA: That's right. That's what I've objected to, because Brad's not referenced anywhere in the article. It doesn't say that. MR. LINK: I never said he was. Let's not argue about it. The question is what it is. You got your objection. It's one of my better questions of the day. THE WITNESS: So what this article says Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800626 120 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, do you remember the question? A You can ask it again. Q So let me give you the question to help maybe clarify Mr. Scarola's comments. Were there any other lawyers at the Rothstein firm while you were there that represented any other plaintiffs, other than the three that we have been talking about, in lawsuits against Mr. Epstein? A Well, and Jane Doe were the only case at RRA. Q So the only cases at RRA were the cases that you were the lead lawyer for, correct? A The only legitimate cases against Jeffrey Epstein where the clients were actually molested by Jeffrey Epstein, I was the lead lawyer on. That's what this article is talking about, but yes. Q I just wanted to clarify, because I asked if the cases that you were the lead lawyer on, those three are the cases that this article is discussing that Mr. Rothstein was using? A I doesn't appear to be. What this article appears to be saying is that -- and this is from Bill Scherer -- saying he used Epstein cases as showpiece as Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800627 121 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 bait. He would use legitimate cases as bait for luring investors into fictional cases, which -- it then talks about -- there were legitimate cases, such as which were being handled -- it says here by RRA lawyer Bill Berger -- William Berger. Sources say they believe Berger wasn't involved in the scam. So the article is saying what Rothstein was doing is taking cases that were legitimate and being legitimately prosecuted by his firm, and making up a fictionalized version of it over here to sell to investors, not using -- not selling these cases or anything like that. That's not what this article says. Q So when you read this article and the other articles I have shown you, is it your position that Mr. Rothstein was not using the Epstein files in order to entice investors to participate in the Ponzi scheme? MR. SCAROLA: Sorry. That question confuses me, because your predicate was when you read these articles -- MR. LINK: This is your objection to form? Is this your objection to form? MR. SCAROLA: It is objection to form. MR. LINK: Then just make an objection Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800628 122 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to form, Jack. MR. SCAROLA: I'm trying to understand what the question means. MR. LINK: It doesn't matter to me if you understand it. MR. SCAROLA: Are you asking him what the article says, or are you asking him what his personal belief is? MR. LINK: I don't know, but that's great coaching. How about we go back to object to the form. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Object to the form. MR. LINK: Fair enough. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. THE WITNESS: You were actually asking me what my interpretation of the article is. BY MR. LINK: Q I did. That was before, and then I asked you another question. A Okay. Q And my question was, as a matter of fact -- forget what this article says -- as a matter of fact, do you now know that Mr. Rothstein used the cases that you were in charge of -- I'm not saying he did Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800629 123 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 inflate them, he didn't manipulate them, he didn't do other things -- but the cases you were in charge of against Mr. Epstein were used by Mr. Rothstein to attempt to perpetuate his Ponzi scheme? Is that a true statement? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. No proper predicate. THE WITNESS: What I believe, based on things that I have read after the fact, is that Rothstein used the details of the legitimate cases against Jeffrey Epstein to lure investors into purchasing some fictitious cases that never existed, that may have -- where he may have said Epstein was somehow involved, but he wasn't involved. That's what I believe to be true now. BY MR. LINK: Q Are you aware, sir, of the press articles and the Razorback lawsuit that alleges that the real Epstein files that were at the Rothstein firm were put in a room for investors to look at? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound. THE WITNESS: I'm aware of the Razorback lawsuit. I'm aware of -- the same Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800630 124 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 articles that you're aware of -- BY MR. LINK: Q You're aware of? A I'm aware of. Q And Mr. Epstein was aware of at the time? A How would I know? I don't know what he was aware of. Q Do you think he was probably aware of the one with his picture that says, "Epstein was bait"? A No idea. Regardless, it has nothing to do with him. He's not suffered any damage by -- no matter what type of spin of this whole thing that you try to create, there's no damage to Mr. Epstein that Rothstein was telling a random story about him about fake cases. Q Okay. A It doesn't make the legitimate cases fabricated. That's absurd. Q So is there someplace in what we're looking at, Exhibit 1 here, this affidavit, where Mr. Epstein ever says that the three individual clients that you represented and the cases that they filed in court were somehow not legitimately filed? MR. SCAROLA: Are you asking whether that appears in the affidavit? MR. LINK: Yeah. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800631 125 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. LINK: Q I'm not sure -- you've given me that speech. Is there anything in here? A Sure. I mean, his complaint against me, that I committed RICO and fraud and perjury and all of these other crimes that he accused me of, is all about this allegation that I fabricated the cases on behalf of basically fictitious victims against him. And he elaborated on that in his deposition and said that I ginned up the cases. I mean, yeah, that's what his complaint is about, the fabricated cases. Q I'm asking. Is that what Mr. Rothstein did? Did Mr. Rothstein do everything that you just described to me? A I don't know. I know what you know. Q Based on what you read. Based on what you have read, did Rothstein make up stories about Epstein -- A Yes. Q -- in order to lure investors? A It appears that way from exactly what you're looking at. Rothstein made up Epstein stories and whatever stories about whoever else in the world to try to run a Ponzi scheme. Q Agreed. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800632 126 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A We agree. Q So take a look at paragraph seven. You see it says, "In November 2009, Mr. Epstein became aware of news stories that, as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one half of the attorneys employed by RRA." Did the Florida Bar commence investigations into over one half of the attorneys employed by RRA? A I don't know. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I object to the predicate of the question, not to the question. BY MR. LINK: Q Did you see news stories back in November 2009 that made that statement? A I don't think so. I'm not saying they don't exist. I just didn't see them. I wasn't watching all of RRA news stories about the implosion. I was more worried with starting a new firm and dealing with the lawsuit that was filed against me and that fallout. Q I understand. Let me ask you this. Do you have any information that would make you think or any evidence that you could present that would show that the statement in paragraph seven was untrue at Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800633 127 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 time that it was made? A So he -- he is making this statement on June 30th, 2017, this year, about -- Q News stories that existed in 2009. I'm asking you A That's not what this is about. It's about -- you're talking paragraph seven. Q Yes. A Which says, "I also became aware --" Q You missed the first three words. A In November of 2009. Q Right. A News stories about the Florida Bar investigation? Q Right. And I'm asking you, do you have any evidence that, in November 2009, there were not news stories that the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one half of the attorneys employed at RRA? A I don't have evidence one way or the other, whether there were news stories, whether there weren't, or Jeffrey Epstein knew about them or he didn't, or he became aware or he didn't. I don't know any of those things. Q So let me try it again. Are you aware of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800634 128 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 any evidence that would prove that there were no news stories in November 2009 that the Florida Bar has commenced investigations into over one half of the attorneys employed by RRA? MR. SCAROLA: Didn't Mr. Edwards just tell you he doesn't know one way or another? THE WITNESS: I have no idea. BY MR. LINK: Q So if I asked are you aware of any evidence, instead of just saying no, you want to tell me you have no idea, yes, no, maybe. A Am I aware of evidence? You might have it right in front of you right now. Q I might. I'm asking you if you're aware. A I don't see this in front of me right now. So I am not aware of the evidence one way or the other, whether the Florida Bar opened up an investigation into over one half of the lawyers or that there were news stories in November of 2009 that says that. All I have now right about the 2009 -- November 2009 are the things that you have given me. And none of them say that, at least from what I have read. But I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Q It's okay. Let's do this then. Let's go ahead and mark -- when we take a break here to eat, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800635 129 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we will go ahead and mark all of these news articles from November 2009 -- and you are welcomed to go through them to see if you find any evidence that supports a position that what Mr. Epstein is saying in this affidavit is untrue in any way. Okay? A What does it matter whether I know this or not? Either it is supported or it's not supported. And good. If it's supported, great. It's still irrelevant. And if it's not supported, okay, too. What does it matter what I know about Mr. Epstein's mental state about Florida Bar inquiries? Q I'm not asking about mental state at all. I haven't asked that question one time, sir. A He said, "when I became aware." Q I didn't ask you whether he's aware. That's not been my question. MR. SCAROLA: But you've repeatedly asked whether the statement in paragraph seven is true. And the statement in paragraph seven is an assertion of what Mr. Epstein became aware of, what his state of mind was, whether he knew -- MR. LINK: Is this form again? Jack, I remember exactly what I asked, so please, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800636 130 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 just limit it to form, if you would. I know you love lecturing me, and I appreciate it, and you teach me every step of the way. But please refrain from counseling so much. MR. SCAROLA: Please refrain from misrepresenting the record. MR. LINK: I do not believe I am, and I will stand by the record. BY MR. LINK: Q And if I have somehow misled you or did something inappropriate on the record unintentionally, then I apologize, Mr. Edwards. But, in fact, you are not just a witness in this case. You are a lawyer of record, aren't you? A Yes. Q Which means that you're going to be a lawyer trying this case, as I understand, right? MR. SCAROLA: No, it doesn't mean that. MR. LINK: He can't answer that? THE WITNESS: I don't think I need to tell you who is trying the case. MR. SCAROLA: I'm the attorney in this case. MR. LINK: Okay. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800637 131 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Your question was about who is going to be trying the case. MR. LINK: And he can answer that. MR. SCAROLA: And I'm telling you who is going to try the case, and that doesn't include Bradley Edwards as a lawyer trying the case. MR. LINK: Is there a reason he couldn't answer that? MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me? MR. LINK: Is there a reason he couldn't answer that? MR. SCAROLA: It is not within the scope of his responsibility to answer it. It is within the scope of my responsibility to answer it. And if what you are really looking for is an answer to the question, I have just given it you to. BY MR. LINK: Q So you don't intend to participate in the trial of this case? A It depends on how successful you guys are in continuing with the case the way that -- Q So there's a possibility you will participate in the trial of this case in -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800638 132 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A There's a possibility that I wouldn't even be alive when this case is tried if we continue going down this road. Q Okay, let's not talk about your pending death. Are you in good condition? You're health's okay? A I believe so. Q How old are you? A Forty-one. Q Any medication you are on? A No. Q So I'm asking you, is it your intent that you will participate in the trial of this case? A I don't think that I need to tell you our strategy as to who is going to participate at what stage in this case at all, nor would I ask you or expect for you to tell me yours. Q But you are both a plaintiff, a witness and an attorney representing yourself in this case? A I've agreed to that already, yes. Q Do you know why you were left off of the witness list for this case and were just added last night at 5:30 p.m.? A Again, other information that is attorney-client privileged information that I'm not Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800639 133 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 obligated to tell you. Q I didn't ask you about your communications with your lawyer. I asked if you know -- A How else would I know? MR. SCAROLA: You asked why. How else would he know? BY MR. LINK: Q Then you can say there's a privilege. MR. SCAROLA: That's what he just did. THE WITNESS: I just told you that. I said it. BY MR. LINK: Q Is there anything other than communication with yourself as a lawyer and with Mr. Scarola as to why, as the plaintiff in this case, you were not listed as a witness? A You would have to ask my lawyers as to witness lists, exhibit lists and those types of things that -- Q That you are unaware of? A That they deal with. Q Do you work on the day-to-day handling of the lawsuit? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Work-product privilege. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800640 134 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. LINK: What does that tell me about his anticipating thoughts about trial? MR. SCAROLA: What he is doing in connection with this case is a work-product privilege. MR. LINK: I didn't ask what he was doing. I asked if he worked on the case day-to-day. I didn't ask for any specific thing he did, Jack. I don't know how that can be work product. You stand by your objection? MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I do. BY MR. LINK: Q When the -- let's go back to the time period before the lawsuit was dismissed -- the claims against you were dismissed by Mr. Epstein. Did you work on the defense of that case? A I had no choice. Q You didn't have a lawyer. A Right, but I knew the details. I had to spend a lot of time defending that case. Q But you said you had no choice. When you represent clients, a lot of them are not lawyers, right? A It was the nature of the lawsuit. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800641 135 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q There was something about the lawsuit when it was filed that made it -- you uncomfortable relying on Mr. Scarola to do the work? A It required -- it was about legal actions that I had taken in the case. I had taken those actions, so I had to do the work. Q So you had to do the legal work because of legal actions that you had taken? Is that what you are telling me? A I was most equipped I'm a lawyer. I was most equipped to answer as to the falsity of the complaint that was filed against me. I was best suited to point out and to strategize as to what needed to be done to prove the falsity of those allegations. Q And I'm sure Mr. Scarola appreciated that help. A I'm sure. Q And did you draft the counterclaim? MR. SCAROLA: Same agreement. MR. LINK: Well, it can't be. You're seeking recovery for the pleadings. It's in everything you've disclosed. It can't be -- THE WITNESS: Not for the counterclaim, I don't think -- MR. LINK: It can't be part of the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800642 136 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 agreement. THE WITNESS: For the counterclaim, we are not seeking fees for that. BY MR. LINK: Q You're not? A That's the affirmative case, as opposed to the defense of the case. Q Okay. A If what you're representing to me is that statement you just made to me is true, I will accept your word for it, but I don't believe it to be true. Q I'm not going to represent anything to you about your time. A Okay. Q If you're telling me that you are not that all of your time that you recorded, 1,300 hours, was in defending solely the claim brought by Mr. Epstein, then that's what you're telling me, and the records are what the records are. A The time records are what the time records are. Q But I'm asking you, are you telling me that the 1,300-plus hours that you are seeking compensation for were spent solely on defending against the complaint Mr. Epstein filed against the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800643 137 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 Rothstein -- against Mr. Rothstein and against you? A If you show me my time records I can answer that question without any doubt. Q I'm asking you. You are the plaintiff in this case and you are seeking that recovery. A I understand that. But why won't you give me something that will help to refresh my recollection on exactly what -- and the only thing that's holding me up is that there were various versions of both the complaint and the counterclaim that overlapped one another. But I believe that the time records that were submitted to you, which -- which is less than the total time records that I kept up to that point, I believe that they were reduced by my counsel to the time that was spent -- to my time that was spent defending the case. But I can tell you without any doubt, if you will just show me the documents, because I know that you have them. Q We are going to look at a lot of documents. A Okay. Q But I am certainly allowed to test your memory. A That's my memory. Q That's all I am doing. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800644 138 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 guess you are telling me that you gave all the contemporaneous time records to Mr. Scarola, and somebody in his office determined what to be produced as to what you're seeking recovery for. A This gets into attorney-client privilege. Q You told me you gave them all to Mr. Scarola, and they decided what to give me. Is that what you said? A There's no way for me to answer that question as to how the time records that were produced in this case came to be without getting into discussions with counsel. Q Did you keep contemporaneous time records? A Yes. Q So starting in -- when did you start keeping contemporaneous time records of the amount of time you spent on the Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards matter? A I don't know exactly. Q You know what contemporaneous time records are? A Yes. Q Day-to-day, writing down your time. A I understand. Q And that's what you did. So somewhere Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800645 139 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there is backup for what has been produced to me that would show me day-to-day what you wrote down on a day-to-day basis? Is that true? That's how you kept your time? A You just asked a bunch of different questions. Somewhere is there -- is that how I kept my time? Just one question and I will answer it. Q It was an amazing question if you piece them all together. Let's try it one by one. A Okay. Q Did you keep, starting in December 2009, daily time sheets? A I don't know that I started -- I don't think I started then. I think that it was subsequent to that. And I know because I remember where I was when I had a specific conversation that led me to begin keeping them contemporaneously. So I know that there was a period of time that passed before I started keeping them contemporaneously where I had to go back and try to figure out for a period of a month or six weeks or so the time that I had spent. Q It's my understanding that the tort group, which you mentioned at the Rothstein firm, did not keep daily time records. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800646 140 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 Okay. Q Did you keep daily time records when you were at the Rothstein firm? A I don't think that your statement that you just represented is true. I think that the tort group did keep daily time records. But if you say it's true, I will accept it. Q Let me just ask about you. Did you keep daily time records at the Rothstein firm? A We were required to put time in daily. And I believe I did every -- I don't know that I did every day, but I did for the most part. Q So when is it that you made the decision to start recording your time related to the Epstein matter on a daily basis? A I don't know exactly. Q You said you remembered the exact precise time that you did it. A I remember the location where I was standing. I don't remember the precise day that -- I was in the Palm Beach County courthouse. I can picture where I was standing. I don't know where in the course of this litigation that that occurred, like what time period. Q Do you generally remember? Was it weeks? Months? A year? Two years? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800647 141 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No, it wasn't that long. It was within the first -- at least six, eight months of the lawsuit beginning. Q So then how did you create your time for the first six to eight months? A It could have been a month, then. You know, it could have been six months. Q I understand. A That's what I said. But then you said, How did you create it for the first six to eight months? I mean, there was a period of time that I had to go back and look at the documents that had been filed, what part -- what role I played in drafting those documents, those types of things that you would always do to go back and figure out how much time that you spent on anything. Q Well, if you're taking contemporaneous time records -- you're making contemporaneous time records, you don't have to do that. A And there came a point in time where I was keeping contemporaneous time records. Q You remember that point where you asked me to let you finish? A Yeah. Q Okay. Same deal, all right. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800648 142 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Got it. Q So if you were keeping contemporaneous time records, you wouldn't have to go back and recreate your time, because it would be there day-to-day. A Agreed. Q So if you started you said, six to eight months. Let's say between one month and eight months -- the way you went back to recreate your time is to look at everything you did day-to-day and wrote down time for that, I take it. Is that right? A If you could just show me my time records, I will tell you exactly what I did to -- and I will probably be able to tell you when I started keeping contemporaneous time records Q I'm asking if you remember. A -- because it would be on a more regular basis. Q I'm asking you if you remember how you recreated the time, what you did? A Yeah. Sure. I would look at a docket. Pull up the pleading that had been filed, and say, Okay, I did -- I drafted this pleading. I know what work went into drafting that pleading. Probably took me two hours, I would say it's a .5. I will underestimate Q So you reduced your time? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800649 143 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 would not exaggerate my time. Q I didn't say that. I asked if you reduced it. You said I spent two hours and I put down a .5. A I would make sure it was conservative, yeah. Q So when I look at your timeline here, you actually spent more time than you would have billed for? A I have spent so much more time on dealing with Jeffrey Epstein than I have put on any time record, yes. Q And in 2009, did you have any clients that paid you on an hourly-rate basis? A I don't remember. Q In 2010 did you have clients that paid you on an hourly-rate basis? A I just don't remember. Q Have you ever had a client pay you on an hourly-rate basis? A Yes. Q When was that? A I have clients right now that pay me on an hourly basis. Q When is the first one that you can remember that paid you on an hourly-rate basis? A Oh, God. I don't know. 2007. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800650 144 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 how much did they pay an hour? A I don't remember that. Q Do you remember how much you billed when you were at Kubicki Draper -- hourly rate? A I don't. Q What hourly rate -- do you have clients that pay you hourly rate now? A Yes. Q What rate do they pay you? A Varying, but up to 500 an hour. Q What's the lowest amount you are being paid? A I believe 350. Q How long ago did the client that is paying you 550 (sic) an hour retain you? A I said 500. And if I didn't say 500, then I mean -- MR. SCAROLA: You did say 500 -- BY MR. LINK: Q Maybe I misheard it. MR. SCAROLA: -- and it was misstated as 550, I'm sure inadvertently. THE WITNESS: What was your question then? How long ago? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800651 145 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. LINK: Q Yeah. How long ago did this client hire you and agreed to the $500 an hour? A Within the last year. MR. LINK: Let's go ahead -- are they going to bring the food here? BY MR. LINK: Q While we take our break, I will mark these and show them to you. We will do them as a composite exhibit. These are the November news articles we talked about. A Okay. (Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit Number 5 was marked for identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:06 p.m. We are going off the record. (A recess was had.) Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800652 146 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 FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. VOLUME II VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BRADLEY EDWARDS Taken on Behalf of Plaintiff Friday, November 10th, 2017 10:02 a.m. - 6:16 p.m. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Examination of the witness taken before Sonja D. Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800653 147 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: The time is 1:45 a.m. We are back on the record. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, take a look at Exhibit 6, which is the Razorback complaint. We were talking about it 50 minutes ago, before we broke. And I would like you to turn to page nine in the complaint, paragraph 25. A Okay. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q During the six months that you worked at Mr. Rothstein's firm, were you aware that he owned an 87-foot yacht? A I knew he had a boat. I knew he had a yacht, but I didn't know it was 87 feet. I had been to his house one time. Q I'm going to get to his house. Had you been on his yacht? A No. Q Had you seen it? A It was in the backyard of his house the time I went over. Q So you saw the 87 -- you didn't know it was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800654 148 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 87 feet. However many feet the yacht was, you saw it. A I saw a boat back there, yeah. I mean, there was a canopy that was kind of blocking what I could see and what I couldn't, but yeah. Q And which house was it that you went to? A I only knew of one house, so I don't know. It was in Fort Lauderdale. Q It was in Fort Lauderdale. You see here it says he owned 16 different real estate properties, paragraph 25? A Yes. Q The house you went to was in Fort Lauderdale? A Yes. Q Did you go there during the time that you were employed by Mr. Rothstein? A Yes. Q What was the purpose of going to his house? Was there a function? A Yeah, it was a function. Q For employees, or was it a fundraiser? A No, it was a fundraiser of some sort. Q Do you remember for whose benefit the fundraiser was? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800655 149 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 He had his hands in so many things. Hospitals and -- you know, heart associations and whatever it was. But I don't remember which one it was. He had things at his house all the time. This is the only one I went to, but I don't remember what it was. Q Big house? A Oh, yeah, it was a big house. Q You see here it mentions 25 cars. Were you aware he had multiple cars? A I think I knew he had two. Q Which ones? A I don't remember. The one I can picture was either a Bentley -- I think it was a Bentley. Q Were you aware that he owned interest in some of the restaurants in town? A I knew he owned Bova. Q What was Bova? A It was the restaurant downstairs of the law firm. Q I know you had mentioned before that there was security -- somewhere I read that there was security in Mr. Rothstein in the offices? A There was. Q Everywhere? I never went to his offices, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800656 150 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 don't know. A So there were uniformed, armed police officers on every floor. Actual, police officers. BSO, Fort Lauderdale police officers all the time, every single floor, all day, every day from the day that I first got there until the last day. Q Did you think that was odd? A Well, I thought it was different, for sure, because you don't see police officers walking around here. But it was actual police. It wasn't, like, the mob dressed as police. It was police. Q I understand. A If anything, it was -- it's crazy -- has more security. I did ask somebody about it one time and they said that a lawyer had been murdered, before I got there, that was a partner at that firm, and that Rothstein's feeling was that he doesn't want that to ever happen again. So if he has the money for additional security, why not hire Fort Lauderdale police and secure everybody, which was the response I got. Q Had you ever been in an office before or since that had armed police security guards? A Not like that. Maybe I have been to a bank and there's been one police officer there, but Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800657 151 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 I am talking a law firm. Any other law firms? A No. Q And the bank has usually one armed police officer. A Right. Q Bank where they keep money and stuff like that? A I go to the same kind of banks you do, so yes. MR. SCAROLA: You walked right past our security guard when you came in today. MR. LINK: And I was intimidated. I'm sure I saw him -- him, her. Just one? MR. SCAROLA: Just one. At the front door. MR. LINK: I saw the lions. But that's not the security guard. THE WITNESS: They transform. BY MR. LINK: Q The security -- in addition -- how many armed guards on each floor? Two? Multiple? A Multiple. Q Other than multiple armed guards on each floor -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800658 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 A Police officers. Q Police officers. A Right. Q On-duty police officers. A Appeared to be, yes. Uniformed. Q Uniformed -- okay, got it. Multiple on-duty, uniformed police officers in the building. There was also electronic security and cameras and stuff like that? A I think there was signage that said that there was cameras. Whether there was actually cameras, I just can't remember anymore, but I think so. Q Everywhere? A I just don't remember anymore. I don't know. But if you could imagine what looks like the most secure place, that is what the law firm looked like. I say that -- I remember the signage -- because I remember there being a sign that said there's video or audio surveillance on one of the doors -- one of the main doors to the building. And there might have actually been or there might have been fake cameras or something. I don't know. Q But as far as you could tell, and the sign -- A I believe there was surveillance everywhere. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800659 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 Q So you worked at a law office that had surveillance everywhere and armed uniformed police guards on every floor? A The perception of surveillance everywhere, and yes, police officers on every floor. Q Did you ever go into Mr. Rothstein's -- as I understand it, he had a personal office on his own floor, and more secure than any banks that you and I go into. A Yes. There were multiple levels of security to ever get into his office. Q Did you ever go into his office? A I did. I had a back surgery sometime that summer in 2009. And because I needed time off for the back surgery, I went in there that time. Q To ask -- A To tell him, look, I need a couple weeks off because I'm having back surgery. That's the time I remember talking to him. Q He said okay? A Yeah. Q So you said multiple levels. How would I get to him? What did you have to go through? A I remembered it better then than I do now. Let me think about this. He had somebody sitting Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800660 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 outside of doors, kind of like would be normal -- probably like your offices, there's a secretary or paralegal or somebody there. That person would have -- if you didn't have an appointment with that person, whoever that person was, you could not get past that level. Q So that's the first level, the scheduling person? A Yeah. And that's kind of, like, normal. Like most -- then there was a door. I think it had -- I think you needed a key or -- like a fob to get into. That just got you into a hallway. It didn't really lead you anywhere. If you only got past that first level, you are just stuck for life. Q Let me make sure I've got this. I get past the typical reception-type person. I then, with a fob, get into the hallway. A Hallway. Q Then what happens? A There's another double set of doors. Looks like that, but just bigger doors. Looks like the doors that you come in through here. Q So that the jury will understand, you are pointing to typical wood doors -- double doors going into a conference room. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800661 155 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A And behind that would be his office. Q And what was in front of the doors? How did you get to those doors? Do you remember? A I think you could just walk. Q But from the hallway -- you're in the hallway A Yeah, I mean -- you know, it's kind of like you're in a corridor that's, from recollection, 12 feet by 15 feet. And if you walked straightforward 15 feet and his doors were unlocked, you could open the doors and you could walk in. Q And you could walk in? A Yes. Q And there he was? How big was his office? A As big as this room or -- yeah, as big as this room. Q So we're sitting in Mr. Scarola's library conference room. I don't know the dimensions of it, but maybe 30 by 30ish. Close? MR. SCAROLA: Thirty by 20. THE WITNESS: Thirty by 20. BY MR. LINK: Q At least that size? A From my recollection, that's pretty accurate. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800662 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 I mean, it was big. Q Biggest law office you have been in for an individual lawyer? A I don't know. Top of my head you know. I think so. As big any I have been in. Q Bigger than the office you had? A Oh, yeah. Cubbyhole. Q Bigger than Mr. Scarola's office? A Mr. Scarola has a very nice office, too, but -- Q It's not that big. I have been in it, too. A Right. Q And I remember reading somewhere about there's a private elevator or some special elevator. A I didn't know that until after the news article and something came out. I never saw the private elevator. Q But you know what I'm talking about? A I heard about it. I think that afterwards there was something on the news where Kendall Coffey was talking about there being a private elevator, and that's where I learned it. Q Turn to page 12, if you would, please. So I apologize, but I don't think that I mentioned that we are looking at Exhibit Number 6, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800663 157 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which is the Razorback Funding versus Rothstein lawsuit filed November 20th, 2009. A Now I am on page 12. Q Now you are page 12, yes, sir. We are looking -- this is November 20th -- so the Razorback -- putting this in context for the jury, the Razorback Funding lawsuit against Rothstein was filed November 20th, 2009. Do you see that? box? A Where do you see -- Q Look at the very first page. You see the A Yeah. Okay. Q November 20th, 2009? A Yes. Q And the lawsuit that Mr. Epstein filed against Mr. Rothstein and you was filed December 7th, 2009. A Taking your word for it. Q I will show you my copy. We are going to mark it. But you see in the middle, December 7? A Yeah, says December 7. That's when it's stamped into the clerk. Q So before Mr. Epstein's lawsuit, first came the Razorback lawsuit against Mr. Rothstein Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800664 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 chronologically? A Correct. Q If you turn -- you're on page 12, paragraph 40. Do you see that in the Razorback lawsuit, paragraph 40, page 12, it talks about the Ponzi scheme and how one of the settlements that was being offered to potential investors related to Jane Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein pending in the Southern District of Florida? Do you see that? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. THE WITNESS: I read the paragraph. That's not that it says, though. BY MR. LINK: Q What does it say? A Well, it says, "In incertain instances, the purported settlements" -- talking about the Rothstein's fraudulent settlements -- "were based on actual cases being handled by RRA. For example, one of the settlements involved herein was based upon facts surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous billionaire financier. In fact, RRA did have inside information due to its representation of one of Epstein's alleged victims in a civil case styled Jane Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein pending in the Southern District of Florida." Q Keep reading up to the next -- you didn't Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800665 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 finish the paragraph where it says -- A I was still reading, though. Q Okay. A "Representatives of D3 were offered, quote, the opportunity, end quote, to invest in a pre-suit $30 million court settlement against Epstein arising from the same set of operative facts as the Jane Doe case, but involving a different underaged female plaintiff." Q Keep going, please. A Keep going? Q Yeah. Where it starts with, "To augment." A There's an attachment, too. But, "To augment his concocted story, Rothstein invited D3 to his office to view the 13 banker's boxes of actual case files in Jane Doe in order to demonstrate that the claims against Epstein were legitimate and that the evidence against Epstein was real." Keep going? Q No. I just -- the statement that I made -- that I thought you disagreed with -- was that the actual Jane Doe lawsuit that you were the lead lawyer for was used by Rothstein to try and induce folks to make an investment in his Ponzi. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800666 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 A I guess where we are having a disagreement is the word used. To me that's an implying that Rothstein is selling something related to the legitimate cases. It's pretty obvious or clear from this that what Rothstein was doing was using the fact that real legitimate cases against Epstein were actually being litigated in his law firm to, as this says, concoct a story about some other situation, and ask investors to buy into some made up fictitious story. Q I think we are saying the same exact thing. A Right. So we are not in disagreement. Q I think we are saying the exact same thing. The way I read Razorback, I believe, is the way you read it, which is that, yes, there are real -- three real lawsuits. A Right. Q That you are in charge of. A Yes. Q And those -- A They say one. But you are right, three. Q I know, three. A Yes. Q The three real lawsuits that you are in charge of, that Rothstein, to raise money, makes up additional information about other clients that the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800667 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 firm does not represent. It's phony, and in order to show that what he is doing is real, he uses the real Jane Doe lawsuit that you're in charge of and lets them look at boxes. That's the way I read it. Do you agree with that? A I mean, I would say it differently than you, but I think we don't disagree too much. Q Was there ever a pre-suit settlement of $30 million with Mr. Epstein? A No. Q Did Mr. Epstein offer $200 million as it reports in paragraph four to settle the claims? A No. This has to do with a story that Rothstein was making up, apparently. Q Right. I understand that. But there are some parts of his story that weave in the reality of what you were doing, right. You were, in fact, representing Jane Doe in a lawsuit against Epstein? A Right. Girls that were actually molested by Jeffrey Epstein, yes, that's what I was doing. Q There were, in fact, banker's boxes of the actual case files for Jane Doe within the Rothstein offices, right? A Yes. Q Those actual banker's boxes were used by Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800668 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 Rothstein to show potential investors? A Invest in my story over here. And in case you're not believing it, look, there's an actual file -- these are legitimate cases and you can look it up on Pacer, and it's really happening. He really is that bad person they say he is. I think that that is actually what happened. Q Got it. A Yeah. Q You see here, that I said he was weaving some of the reality into his story -- A Make his story more believable, it looks like. Q He talks about -- he talked about -- and according to the Razorback complaint, the high-profile witnesses and the private jet. You see that in the middle of -- A Point me to it. Q -- page 13? A Okay. Q "Rothstein claimed that his investigative team" -- we talked about who those investigators were earlier right? A Right. Q -- "discovered" -- the team did -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800669 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 "discovered that there were high-profile witnesses onboard Epstein's private jet where some of the alleged sexual assaults took place, and showed D3" the potential investors -- "copies of a flight log Right? A Yeah. Q -- "purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries and international figures." A Right. Q Did the flight log in fact contain names of celebrities? A Epstein's flight log does contain names of celebrities. Those are the people he hung out with. Q And dignitaries? A What's the definition of dignitary? I think so. Q Good enough for me. And international figures. A Yes. Q So there is some truth that Rothstein is weaving in, based on documents, the flight log that was obtained by you as the lead trial lawyer in the pending lawsuits? A There is some truth in the pending lawsuits? Q No. I'm saying that what Rothstein was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800670 164 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doing -- we all -- A He used actual evidence to support a fabricated story. Q And the actual evidence that was referred to here are these flight logs that you as the lead lawyer obtained and brought back to the Rothstein firm, right? A I maintain the evidence for all of my cases at the Rothstein firm where I worked, yes. Q That's all I was confirming. A Does it appear that Rothstein gained access to it and used it to support his fairytale? It does. Q It does, right? And you agree with that. A Yes. Q So paragraph 41. A Yes. Q In this case, Razorback -- this is not Mr. Epstein's suit, right? This is Bill Scherer representing the Razorback client that he represented suing Rothstein is making these allegations? A Yes. Q Right? Okay. So Mr. Scherer -- do you know Mr. Scherer? A I know him now better than I did then. I didn't know him at all then. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800671 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 Q What was his reputation in Fort Lauderdale in 2009? A He owned a law firm that had been around a while. Q A long time, right? A Yeah. Q So Mr. Scherer prints here in his Razorback suit, as an example of how they were trying to lure investors in the Ponzi scheme, that RRA relentlessly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with other famous individuals, knowing full well that no underage women were onboard and no elicit activities took place. Do you see sentence? A Yes. Q How is it that Mr. Scherer is aware of that information at the time? Do you know? A That information is false, so he's not aware of anything. Here is the problem with the whole thing. Mr. Epstein knows that information is false. Q He knows what information is false? A It says, "RRA relentless pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with other famous individuals knowing full well that no Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800672 166 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 underaged women were onboard." There were underage women onboard. Epstein knew that. So he knows this to be false. "And no elicit activities took place." Epstein knows elicit activities took place on his airplane, so he knows that to be false. He can't just adopt what Bill Scherer says and say, Oh, that forms the basis of something I believe. It can't possibly form the basis of what he believes, because he knows it to be false. Q Okay. So did any of the three clients that you represented while you were at Mr. Rothstein's testified that they went on Mr. Epstein's plane? A They were not three of -- they were not on Mr. Epstein's plane. They were not the victims on the plane. Q So the clients that you represented -- you individually while at the Rothstein firm -- your three clients testified or admitted that they never traveled on Mr. Epstein's plane, correct? A If they testified truthfully, they would say that. I just don't remember if they were asked that question. Q But you know the question is A I do know the answer to that question for sure. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800673 167 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you know that in 2009. A Of course. Q Did you know that the three clients that you were representing had never had sex with a dignitary or had been molested by a dignitary? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The only way that Brad would have knowledge with regard to those matters would be as a consequence of attorney-client privilege communications. I think you can get the same information by rephrasing your question as to what they have testified to, but you can't get it that way. MR. LINK: Well, the reason I asked it that way is he doesn't really remember what they testified to. BY MR. LINK: Q Right? A Not every question. Q I got it. So was there any testimony from your three clients that anyone of the three of them had sex with a celebrity that's associated with Mr. Epstein? A No. Q Had sex with a dignitary associated with Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800674 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 Mr. Epstein? A No. Q Had sex with an international figure associated with Mr. Epstein? A No. Q Touched, fondled, inappropriate activity in any shape, form or way with a celebrity, dignitary or international figure associated with Mr. Epstein? A There was not, and that's why we never made such allegations. Q When you were utilizing the investigators at the Rothstein firm, what would you have to do to get payment in order pay them? Wayne Black, as an example, you said was an independent person that had to be paid. What would you do? A Wayne Black. I think that I would just tell Russ Adler, Hey, I have hired this investigator. That's what I recall doing with Wayne Black. And I remember this better because I remember Wayne Black coming to me saying, Look, I'm still not getting paid, and me saying, You're talking to the wrong guy. Talk to Russ, because he is kind of the head of the tort division, for lack of a better word. So I'm not the guy to pay you. I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800675 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 know I brought you in, but you have to talk to him. And I know that it was tough for Wayne to get paid. Q So who is Russ? A Russ Adler. Q Mr. Adler was the head of the practice group you worked for? A Yes. Q Mr. Adler was convicted of some crime as well? A Political campaign contribution something. Q And in order for you to pay an investigator, you had to go to Mr. Adler and ask him to submit a check request? A That's just overbroad. So Wayne Black, specifically, because he is outside, when it was -- I need to be hired (sic), I would tell Russ, Hey, this is the investigator that I want -- that I want to hire for this case, and then Russ dealt with him however it was for him to get paid. The problem was that whatever they worked out for him to get paid, Wayne didn't get paid, so Wayne came back to me saying, Hey, I'm still not getting paid. Nobody has paid my invoice. I would just pass that on to Russ. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800676 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 Q What would Russ say -- Mr. Adler? A It's getting paid. Q But it never did? A I don't know. I think it did eventually get paid. I'm not sure that it didn't. But there was -- it was longer than I would ever go to pay my bills. I would pay -- he didn't pay it. But the other investigators -- your question was just overbroad -- the other investigators were employees of the firm, so I didn't go to them -- I didn't go to anybody about Mike Fisten or Pat Roberts, how they were going to get paid. They were just employees on salary, I believe. Q I thought that I asked it if they were not employees. But I may not have, so I appreciate it. A Just clarifying. Q Mr. Fisten, I read he was he would attend the meeting with the investors on the Epstein case? A I don't believe that. Q You don't believe that's true. A No. Q But you have seen that said? A I have seen that said somewhere. I don't Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800677 171 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know if it's in the context of this lawsuit I have seen it said, or I have seen it said somewhere else. But I find that very, very hard to believe. Q But you know that allegation was out there? A Right. Like I am saying, I don't know if it was an allegation that was thrown out there by Epstein's defense team or by somebody else, but the first time I have heard that is not right now. Q Understood. Take a look, if you will, at Exhibit 7, please. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 7 was marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: What about Exhibit 7? BY MR. LINK: Q Exhibit Number 7, which is the versus Jeffrey Epstein Complaint filed January 24th, 2009. A Okay. Q This is a complaint that you drafted? A Like I told you, I think Paul drafted much more of this, if not the entire document. I don't know how much -- Q Take a look at the last page. This complaint is 234 pages long. I only see one lawyer submitting this complaint. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800678 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 A Okay. Q What do you see? A No, I submitted the complaint for sure. I'm the Florida lawyer. Q I have seen other pleadings that you've submitted and it has Mr. Cassell's name on it, has Mr. Howell's name on it. A Yes. Q In fact, both of them were on the state court complaint that you filed for , true? A Sure. Q But on this one, on the 234-page complaint, the only name on it is Bradley Edwards, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, true? A That's true. Q Is that your signature? A No. Q Whose signature is that? A I don't know. I don't know. That's not my signature. Q Who did you authorize to sign this to file it? A I would have told one of the paralegals to file it. Q And sign your name on a federal court Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800679 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 pleading? A No. I would not have told them to do that. I think that typically when that is done, it's an electronic signature that's -- Q You think this is an electronic signature? A No, no, I don't think that. I'm saying when we file cases in federal court. Q You know what an electronic signature looks like, right? A I wasn't saying that. Q Okay, good. Because you just said typically. This is a real signature, agreed? A Right. Q So who signed a federal court, 234-page complaint for you? A I don't know whose signature that is. I just told you that. Q Does that signing -- having somebody else sign this for you, that you don't know who it is, comply with your Rule 11 obligations? A I did not have somebody else sign this for me. Q You just said it's not your signature. A It's not my signature. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800680 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 Q Then who signed it for you? A I don't know who signed this. Q Okay. A I wanted it filed. I mean -- Q You were in such a hurry to file it that you couldn't sign it yourself? A Until right now I believed I signed it myself. I would have signed it myself. Q But you didn't? A That's not my signature. No, I didn't. But I wanted this filed. I'm not saying I didn't want this filed. I wanted this filed. I'm glad that it was filed. It should have been filed. Q You can't tell me who signed it for you? A No. Q Did you authorize somebody to sign this complaint on your behalf? A No. Q Then did you fulfill -- A I authorized someone to file it. I authorized someone to file the complaint. Q I authorize my legal assistant and secretaries to file things that I sign all the time. I assume that's what you're talking about. A Yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800681 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 Q If I file a federal court lawsuit, 234 pages, it will have my signature on it. A Okay. Q Isn't that what you do? A Typically. If -- yes, I would think so. Q I would hope so. A That's not necessarily true. I file pleadings and other lawyers in my firm file pleadings for me -- or sign signatures for me. Q They sign your name? A No, not sign my name. Q Somebody signed your name here? A Nobody signed my name. That doesn't say my name. But I agree with you that somebody signed above where it says my name. Q This isn't a significant block that says Scott Link and Kara Rockenbach and one of us signs for the two of us. This only has one name on it, Bradley Edwards. At the very least it should say "for." A Sure. I agree with you that this should say somebody is signing for me. Q So do you think it's compliant with your Rule 11 obligation to have somebody sign this 234-page complaint to say, Juliette Smith for Bradley Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800682 176 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 J. Edwards complies with your obligations? A Until right now, this second, I didn't know that anyone else other than me signed this complaint. I believed that I either signed it or that it was electronically -- my electronic signature was on this complaint. Q I got it. But you see now A I see it. Q -- that it's not true. And I'm asking you does it comply with your Rule 11 obligations to have a 234-page complaint filed in federal court with a signature on it that's not yours and not somebody you authorized? A I don't know if it does or not. But I would sign this document. Q I understand you would. But you didn't. A And I agree with it being signed. Q And it was filed with some name that you don't even know who it is, do you? A Right. But I'm not running from the document. I agree this document should have been signed. It's as if -- you can treat it like I signed the document. Q I agree, but is that what a federal judge would say to you? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800683 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 You can. Q Would a federal judge say that under Rule MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to that question. It's argumentive. It calls for speculation. You don't have to answer. BY MR. LINK: Q You practice in federal court right? A Yes. Q You know what Rule 11 is, right? A I do. Q We have to sign under Rule 11 as lawyers? A I have never had Rule 11 sanctioned against me, so -- Q You don't know the obligations under Rule 11 as a lawyer? Just because you haven't been sanctioned, that means you don't know what your obligations are? A I do. Q So what are your obligations? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. That question is argumentive. It's not relevant or material or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and material information. You don't need to answer. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800684 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 BY MR. LINK: Q Can you please tell me, as the lawyer who authorized this to be filed, what your Rule 11 obligations were in July 2009 about signing this pleading? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. LINK: Q Take a look at the civil cover sheet, last page. See where it says, "The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of attorney of record"? Is that your signature, sir? A No. Q Do did you authorize that signature on this civil cover sheet for the federal case? A I authorized the case to be filed. That's all I authorized. Q Sir, listen, please. My question is really easy. Did you authorize somebody to sign this document as though they were you for this federal court civil cover sheet? A No. Q Let's mark this. I'll hand you Exhibit 8. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 8 was marked Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800685 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 for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Remember you mentioned earlier Cara, who was an attorney and former FBI agent who worked for Mr. Rothstein's firm, right? A Yes. Q So I'm showing you what's just been marked as Exhibit 8. Cara L. Holmes, is that the Cara you were referring to? A I think so. I didn't know another Cara, so -- Q And this is dated July 29th, 2009, right? A Right. Q About the same time that you filed the 234-page federal court complaint, right? A Five days later. Q What does Ms. Holmes say to you about strategy relating to Mr. Epstein? A "I think our best bet is to go after those close to Epstein." Q So let's take a look at this next exhibit, Exhibit 9, which is the complaint filed on December 7th by Mr. Epstein against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and_ (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 9 was marked Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800686 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 for identification.) THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. BY MR. LINK: Q I would like you to please identify the allegations in this complaint that cause your loss of reputation. A I would have to start basically reading the entire complaint into the record. Q Take your time. A You want me to read the complaint to the court reporter? Q No. I want you to read it to yourself just read it to yourself. The document is an exhibit. Read it, then we can go through it paragraph by paragraph and then you can answer my question. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: There's less than 10 minutes left on the tape. BY MR. LINK: Q Why don't we take a break while you read the complaint, and you can -- maybe if you want to mark on there, why don't you mark each paragraph that you read that caused injury to your reputation? A How do you want me to mark it? Q Put a bracket around or a checkmark. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800687 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 Whatever is easiest for you. MR. LINK: Okay. We can go off the record. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:22 p.m. This is the end of tape two. We are going off the record. (A recess was had.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:34 p.m. This is the beginning of tape three and we are back on the record. BY MR. LINK: Q Okay. Mr. Edwards, you were going to go through the Exhibit Number 9, which was the December 7th, 2009 complaint filed by Mr. Epstein against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards andllill and you were going to highlight the paragraphs that caused injury to your reputation. A The complaint as a whole. Q The entire complaint? A The entire complaint This is a complaint that says that Scott Rothstein and I ran a Ponzi scheme in which we together committed many federal crimes and state crimes and fabricated cases and committed bar violations and were guilty of conspiracy and RICO, and fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800688 182 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It reads like a federal indictment. And there's no way to take pieces out of it that would not injure somebody, because as a whole, this is about as damaging to any lawyer's reputation as it possibly could be, and it was intended to do that. When I read back over it, I just remember how unbelievably painful it was when I received it and how I still feel today as a consequence of the things that were put out there. This is a criminal indictment against me. That's what this is. Q Can you point to the paragraphs, please, that you just read through that contain the inaccurate statements you just referred to? A Start from the beginning. Q So if I read the summary of the action, tell me what's inaccurate about that. What's untrue about the summary of the action, sir? A These are statements that are consumed within the counts at the back, which I'm part of every one of those counts, so this applies to me. None of it is true as it pertains to me. Q I asked you to point out in the summary of the action what is untrue. Can you take a look at that and tell me -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800689 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 A Scott Rothstein aided by others. The clear implication is that the others are me and Q Does it say that there? A It does. That's what a complaint is. It's adopting everything into the count at back of this complaint. The whole thing is about me. Q It is? So is III. a lawyer? A No. She's one of the females that Mr. Epstein molested, and in this complaint alleges that she wasn't molested and she was somehow fabricating her claim against him. Q Did III. authorize the 234-page complaint we looked at that was Exhibit Number 7? A Yes. Q She authorized that filing? A Yes. Q So when I look at Summary of Action, first sentence, it says, "Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm" ... "for personal greed enrichment." Where does it talk about III. in there? Does it? A It's about me. Q Well, you said you and III. When you said how this impacts you, you said other lawyers like me Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800690 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 and III. That's what you said. MR. SCAROLA: No. THE WITNESS: That's not what I said. That's fine. BY MR. LINK: Q Then I heard you wrong. So in the Summary of Action, do you see your name in there? A My name is in the style of the case. Q I know that, sir. I'm asking you about the summary of the action. A It speaks for itself. Whether my name is in there generally or specifically, that's what this complaint is talking about. And this complaint is clearly designed to talk about me throughout the entire case. Sometimes specifically, sometimes generally. Q No question you're a defendant. And I'm asking you what in the Summary of Action is an untrue statement? A Those things in the summary of the action, I did not do. Q I don't see that it says that you did in the summary of the action. MR. SCAROLA: Objection, argumentive. THE WITNESS: It does. You can't just Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800691 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 take this piece. The whole complaint refers to itself. BY MR. LINK: Q So can you point to a single sentence in the Summary of Action that is an untrue statement? A Sure. Q Which one? A All of it as it pertains to me. Q Look at paragraph six. Can you tell me why you denied being an employee, agent or associate or partner, shareholder or other representative of RRA? A You have my answer? Q I do. Take a look at Exhibit 10, which is the answer and counterclaim of defendant Bradley Edwards, which was date stamped December 21st, 2009, and I believe it was filed with the clerk on the 17th of 2009. Okay? A I think this would invade the attorney-client privilege to tell you why. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 10 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Why you denied -- A Yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800692 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 Q -- being a partner at RRA? A Okay. I wasn't a partner at RRA, so that's one reason. Q So you weren't a partner at RRA? A I was not. Q So for the six months that you were employed there, you did not hold yourself out as a partner of the Rothstein firm; is that true? A You are asking a different question. What I'm saying is -- Q Okay. A I don't understand the faces, but -- Q Let me start over. Did you hold yourself out as a partner of the Rothstein law firm? A This is something that we have gone over in prior depositions. We are just rehashing what other lawyers have asked me and I've explained this in detail. MR. SCAROLA: And because that is in fact the case, and because that is clearly outside the scope of the admitted areas of inquiry for this deposition, I am going to instruct Brad not to answer. BY MR. LINK: Q Were you an employee of the Rothstein firm? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800693 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 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. LINK: Q Were you an associate of the Rothstein firm? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. LINK: Q Did you get paid by the Rothstein firm for the six months that you worked there? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. LINK: Q Were you paid as a W-2 employee or a 1099 employee? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. LINK: Q Did you have a website for Jeffrey (sic) Edwards & Associates? MR. SCAROLA: Did you mean that question as you asked it? MR. LINK: I think so. MR. SCAROLA: No, I don't think so. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800694 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 BY MR. LINK: Q Your answer is no? MR. GOLDBERGER: Change the first name. MR. LINK: I'm sorry. You're right. Thank you. BY MR. LINK: Q Did you have a website for Bradley Edwards & Associates? A I don't think so. Q When you would sign letters while you were at the Rothstein firm, did you ever sign as a partner of that firm? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. LINK: Q Do you agree that it would have been reasonable for a person who was not within the Rothstein firm to conclude that you were a partner of that firm? MR. SCAROLA: Question calls for speculation and is an incomplete hypothetical. THE WITNESS: I don't know what would have been reasonable for somebody to infer in terms of how anyone was paid or whether Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800695 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 they shared equity according to any title. BY MR. LINK: Q I am going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 11. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 11 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Can you tell us what Exhibit 11 is, please? A It's a letter about depositions that were already set by other plaintiff counsel and depositions that we intended to take, in addition to those that were already set. Q What day is this letter? A July 22nd, 2009. Q Is it referencing any particular cases you were working on. A I don't see it, but it's representing it's Epstein -- it's Epstein related. Q Epstein related. All right. And how did you sign that letter? A Um. Q What does the signature block say, sir? A That's my signature, but -- Q What does the signature block say? A Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Bradley J. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800696 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 Edwards, Esquire, Partner for the Firm. Q And who signed that letter for you? A I don't know. Q Take a look at Exhibit 12 and go to page five, please. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 12 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Exhibit 12 is the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Firm Directory Updated: October 23rd, 2009. Do you see your name listed under Attorneys and Staff on page five. A Yes. Q What is your title, sir? A It says partner. I have never seen this document before, but that's what it says. Q Did you have an employment with the Rothstein firm? A Again, something else that has been asked in previous depositions, but the answer, again, is no. Q Take a look at Number 13. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 13 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q This is a May 22nd, 2009 email from Bradley Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800697 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 J. Edwards to somebody at the Palm Beach Post, right? A It appears to be a writer, I'm assuming, at the Palm Beach Post. I don't remember her. Q So back in May 2009, you were corresponding with a writer at the Palm Beach Post about the lawsuit, Jane Doe versus United States of America? A Yeah. I'm telling that person that the non-prosecution agreement was released pursuant to protective order, so I can't discuss the contents of the non-prosecution agreement. I'm assuming that reporter called asking about the contents. Q What does the signature block say? A I'm not contesting that the signature block probably always said Bradley Edwards, Partner, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. I would guess everything that was signed there probably said that. Q So you held yourself out as a partner in the law firm, true? A What does partner mean between us? I mean, a partner is an equity partner. In a business, I was not, nor did I ever tell anybody that I was. Lawyers in the law firm, all -- almost all went by either partner or shareholder, with very few exceptions. So partner was an informal title that indicated I carried my caseload as opposed to I Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800698 192 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 worked on somebody else's cases. I was never an equity partner. I never acted like I was an equity partner. I never told anyone I was an equity partner, which in the sense of a business is what an actual partner is. So that's the full and complete answer. Did it say partner as opposed to just mere employee or whatever else it would say? Yes, that's what it said. Q Did you ever clarify when you were having conversations with these folks that you just mentioned that you never said I'm an equity, I'm an owner, so on and so forth; that you were simply an employee of the firm? A Sure. With anyone that I had these discussions with, including Michael Pike, who was one of Mr. Epstein's lawyers. We talked about the arrangement there, and including whether he would want to come over to RRA at some point in time. Q Tell me what you told him about the arrangement there and why he might want to come over? A It's a good law firm. It's a good law firm. You get a lot of help. There's sufficient staff. You will like it. You don't have to represent pedophiles. You can actually be on the other side of the cases. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800699 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 And at the time I didn't think that he was a bad guy, and he -- and we had those types of conversations. Q And you said to him, they will give you the title partner but it doesn't really mean you're a partner, but you get to hold yourself out to the public as though you're a partner? Did you talk to him about? A Nobody says that. Q The conversation you had with Mr. Pike must have been before the lawsuit was filed against you in December. A I said it was while I was at RRA, which was before the lawsuit was filed against me in December. Q Now, if you would, please, turn to page -- A Which exhibit are we looking at? Q Huh? A Which exhibit? Q We are on Exhibit 9, the complaint, which you said the entire thing has caused damage to your reputation, right? And did it -- Let's back up for a second. When did you receive a copy of this complaint? A I don't remember. Q Were you personally served with it? A Yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800700 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 Q Where were you served at? A I believe at a restaurant. Q Which restaurant? A I don't remember. Q How many times have you been served by -- have you been served with a complaint? A This is the only one that's memorable to me. But we talked about a complaint previously. Q Talked about several. A I presume that I was served. I don't remember being served, but I'm sure there's a certificate of service where I was. Or if there was substitute service at a law firm or something else, that's possible too. This complaint, though, I remember that I was personally served. I am not sure exactly where I was. Q the 7th? A Your guess is as good as mine on that. Q If you look at the counterclaim that was prepared, do you remember when you started drafting that? Were you served on the 7th or was it after A No. Q How long after you received a copy of the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800701 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 complaint that was filed on December 7th did you start drafting the counterclaim? If we're looking at the counterclaim -- do you have that in front of you? I believe that's Exhibit Number -- MR. SCAROLA: I don't know that it was marked. MR. LINK: Did we not mark it? THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's 10. BY MR. LINK: Q So we're looking at Exhibit Number 10 -- let me back up. Did you draft the counterclaim that's attached to the answer? A No. Q Who did? A I don't know. Q Mr. Scarola's office? A Yes. Q So Mr. Scarola's office drafted an abuse of process counterclaim based on the filing of a complaint? Is that true? A It appears that way. I mean, the document speaks for itself. There's a signature for that office, so it looks like that's what happened. I only know what you are knowing right now. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800702 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 Q Do you remember earlier you told me about how much time you had to spend on this doing the legal work because you were the one who knew and that you were the one doing the drafting, not Mr. Scarola or his firm? MR. SCAROLA: That's an inaccurate representation of the earlier testimony. THE WITNESS: The record will speak for itself just how badly you just bastardize what I just said. BY MR. LINK: Q So this counterclaim that was filed, you didn't draft it. Did you approve it before it was filed? A I'm sure. Q Had there been any other pleadings or anything done since December 7th and when this counterclaim was prepared? A Your question is had there been anything done -- Q In this lawsuit -- A Oh, in this suit. Q -- that you sued for abuse of process, other than the filing of the complaint? Anything else happen? Any other papers filed? Anything take Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800703 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 place? A Did anything happen? Did anything take place? Or were any papers filed? Q Yeah. All the above. A Which one is your question? Q All of the above. A I'm sure things happened. MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound. BY MR. LINK: Q Okay, what happened? A You want me to recall what I did every day between December 7th and December 21st? Q No, sir. I want you to tell me what was the abuse of process. What took place after the complaint was filed to justify this counterclaim. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Can you tell me where within the Court's defined area of inquiry those questions fall? MR. LINK: Uh-huh. I can. MR. SCAROLA: Where? MR. LINK: Probable cause and damages. MR. SCAROLA: Filing of the federal lawsuit, interaction with Rothstein and knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, $14 million bond -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800704 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 MR. LINK: That's your reading of it, not mine. I sent you an entire email with all of the Court's statements about starting over -- MR. SCAROLA: I read every one. MR. LINK: -- and probable cause -- MR. SCAROLA: I read every one -- MR. LINK: -- and damages -- MR. SCAROLA: You're wrong. MR. LINK: And this relates to damages. MR. SCAROLA: How does it relate to damages? MR. LINK: Because he's claiming damages in this lawsuit. And he is seeking damages from when he filed this. And I want to find out what his damages were. MR. SCAROLA: He's seeking damages from the point at which he was maliciously named in a false and fraudulent claim by a serial pedophile. MR. LINK: Good statement. I'm sure the jury will enjoy that. But for my purposes and today, are you instructing him not to answer? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800705 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 BY MR. LINK: Q So, are the damages you are seeking in this case related to the complaint that was filed on December 7th, 2009? A They are related yes, they were proximally caused by the complaint. Q This is the complaint we're talking about, right? A Yes. Q December 7, 2009. A Yep. Q And now we are looking at your answer and the counterclaim to that complaint, right? A Okay. Q And through the counterclaim is how you seek damages, isn't it, sir? A I don't think this is the operative counterclaim. Do you? Q I didn't say it was the one operative today. It's the one that you filed as soon as you received the lawsuit in less than 14 days. A Your statement is the counterclaim that we are looking at is the one through which you are seeking damages? Q Yeah. When you first filed the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800706 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 counterclaim you sought damages, correct? MR. SCAROLA: This is an abuse of process counterclaim. MR. LINK: I know. And I am trying to find out what the damages are. MR. SCAROLA: The case that is being prosecuted currently is a malicious prosecution claim that relates back to the December 7th, 2009 case. As you are well aware, a malicious prosecution claim cannot be filed until the underlying action has been disposed of in favor of Mr. Edwards. MR. LINK: I actually thought that was true, but you didn't wait that long. I do agree with that statement. You're right. But this is the pleading that was filed that seeks damages, and it is the response to the complaint. If you won't let me ask him questions about it, then instruct him not to answer and we will go see what Judge Hafele says. MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me hear what the question is. MR. LINK: I just asked it. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800707 201 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: So far you haven't asked one that I'm going to let him answer. MR. LINK: That's fine. BY MR. LINK: Q What were your damages, sir -- what were your damages on December 21st, 2009? A It was the same types of damages that I am claiming now, in that the complaint that was filed against me was -- and it was intentionally designed to link me to Scott Rothstein, who at that moment was the most hated person in South Florida. And link me to him in a way that was as if Scott Rothstein and I together were running this Ponzi scheme. And he did it -- Jeffrey Epstein did this at a time when everyone -- everyone -- not locally -- and as you said, nationally -- was paying attention to the story, so as to cause the most damage possible. Since that point in time, those damages have continued to increase. But they began right from the time that this was filed. So whatever damages, whatever cause of damage that I was seeking back then, it's the same thing as now. Q I got it. So it's the filing of the complaint that caused damages, not it's being Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800708 202 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 disseminated? Is that right? A Well, the filing of the complaint and the consequences of that filing, which included the dissemination of the information contained within that complaint. Q I understand that. Can you tell me, please, one piece of information that was disseminated publicly in newspaper, in articles, somewhere before December 17th, when the counterclaim was filed with the clerk? Tell me one public document, news story, anything, discussing Mr. Epstein's complaint against you. A The complaint. That's public. Q I understand. A Okay. There it is. Q Who saw it? Didn't somebody have to see it? It's like if a tree falls it doesn't matter -- in the woods -- and nobody hears it. What I'm asking you is, who saw it? Who read it? A The Epstein complaint was also a highly publicized case, so then he makes this filing at this time. Q Right. I got that. My question is simple. Who was it disseminate to, other than the court, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800709 203 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before December 17th when the counterclaim was filed? A You are going to have to tell me. Q Do you know one person it was disseminated to that caused damage before you sued Mr. Epstein on your counterclaim? A Well, yeah. Q Who? A It was disseminated to whoever received a copy of the complaint. I mean, how do I know who your team -- I know we are through many lawyers now -- who your team disseminated it to and who was getting information about this. Q I'm trying to understand. If your reputation -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. You're interrupting Mr. Edwards. BY MR. LINK: Q I thought you were done. My apologies. A And at the time when it was filed against me, the purpose also was to sidetrack me from the prosecution of his cases -- the cases that I was pursuing against him -- basically to extort me into abandoning the legitimate cases that I was handling against him, to inconvenience me, take my time away, and make me have to deal with this complaint that I was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800710 204 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now being served with by Mr. Epstein. Q Did I interrupt you? A No. I will finish right there. Q Good. I didn't want to interrupt you. So, are you telling this jury that the three clients that you represented, the settlements that you obtained for them were somehow impacted by your inability to fulfill your professional obligations as a result of this counterclaim -- this lawsuit being filed against you? A No. I'm telling you that's what Jeffrey Epstein wanted to happen, but I didn't let happen. Q He failed; is that right? A Look at the numbers. He said it was a fabricated case. He paid millions of dollars for these allegedly fabricated cases. It was all a big, fat lie that he put in that complaint, which the jury is going to get to hear about. Q So his intent was to shut you down and make you not settle the cases, or to somehow give them away. He failed, because you, on behalf of your clients, got every single penny they deserved, didn't you? A I did well for them. Q You wouldn't have settled them if you Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800711 205 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't believe you had reasonable settlements for them, would you? A It was not my choice to settle the cases. It was my clients' choice. Q Of course. A So you say I wouldn't have settled them. Look, I would have rather tried all three of them, to tell you the truth. Q Of course. I know that now. But you settled those three cases. And as a member of this bar, you did not believe that your representation was somehow impacted by the filing of this complaint, did you? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound. THE WITNESS: Thank goodness that Jack was there to help me defend against that lawsuit, otherwise, Mr. Epstein could have been successful. BY MR. LINK: Q But he wasn't, was he? A We made sure that my representation of my clients was not compromised because of his attempt to destroy my reputation. Q And that's what I was asking. A I did a pretty good job with that. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800712 206 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q You fulfilled your professional responsibilities and obligations to your client and negotiated fair settlements for them, right? A I believe so. Q Good. And focusing on this window of when you are sued and when the counterclaim is filed, do you know of any press that ran a story about the Epstein lawsuit against Rothstein and Brad Edwards? A And what I was getting at before answering this question is, even when you were asking me questions about the press and the timing of the press with respect to the Ponzi scheme, I don't remember the chronology of any of the press or any of the news on any of these things. I would have to look and see what was out there at that time to be able to answer that question. I just don't remember. Q Have you sought press from December 2009 forward about your litigation with Mr. Epstein? A If you could show me something to refresh my recollection, I will try to answer that question. I would do anything possible to mitigate the damage that Mr. Epstein tried to cause. If the opportunity arose and I thought the press could assist me in that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800713 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 endeavor I would do it. Did it do it? I don't remember doing it. Q You don't remember having communication with the press about your litigation with Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: Which litigation are we talking about? Are we talking about Mr. Epstein -- MR. LINK: His -- his litigation. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. I understand that. But he had -- he had litigation against Mr. Epstein in which he was representing clients. He also had litigation with Mr. Epstein in which Mr. Epstein was suing him. He also had litigation with Mr. Epstein in which he was suing Mr. Epstein. So the question -- so the question is vague and ambiguous because we don't know what lawsuit you are talking about. BY MR. LINK: Q We have been talking about the Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards lawsuit, right, in this deposition? So I'm talking about Epstein versus Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800714 208 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rothstein and Edwards. And in the counterclaim by Brad Edwards against Mr. Epstein, I'm asking you if you've ever gone to the press or talked to the press about that lawsuit and counterclaim. A Those are two different questions. I would say that the answer to the first question, did I go to the press Q Uh-huh. A -- I believe with great certainty that's not true. Did I -- Q You don't recall issuing any press releases about the litigation? A At any point in time? Even with Q Well, after it was filed, December 7th, 2009. A I don't remember issuing a press release. But thinking back on it, when the case was dismissed against me, that seems like an opportune time to release a press release in order to mitigate the damages that were being caused. If I didn't, I wish I had. But I don't remember doing that. Did I ever speak to somebody from the press who called me about it? I would if I believed that it would mitigate the damages. I don't Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800715 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 remember a specific conversation like that. Q Well, the lawsuit Mr. Epstein filed against you was dismissed in 2012. A Three years later. Q 2012, okay. And I asked you earlier if the dismissal of that lawsuit stopped the damages that you are claiming, and you said, No, it carries all the way on to today. You remember telling me that? A It carries on until a jury decides otherwise, decides that these things against me were untrue and hurtful. Q What I have been asking you is, you filed a counterclaim on December 15th, 10 days after the lawsuit was filed. And I am trying -- A I think that's 14. 7th to the 21st. Q The 17th is when it's filed. The 21st is when it's stamped. A Oh, it is. Okay. Q Whether it's the 17th or the 21st A Okay. Q One's 10, one's 14th, right? A Yeah. Very soon after. Q Had you been contacted by the press during that 10-to-14-day window to ask you questions about Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800716 210 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Epstein's lawsuit against you? A I just don't remember anymore. Q Did you have any damages -- any damages -- real damages on the 17th or the 21st of December 2009 related to the December 7th lawsuit Mr. Epstein filed? A Of course. Q What were they? A I was just linked with the biggest Ponzi schemer in history as his primary co-conspirator. The only lawyer in the whole law firm singled out by Jeffrey Epstein in a complaint as being the co-mastermind of a Ponzi scheme. It's filed in the local community. Every day my reputation is being tarnished by that. That's going to be patently obvious to anybody who sees this situation. To you right now, you know this. That's a complaint that's harmful. You read this and you go, there's a criminal indictment basically against me in the legal community that links me with the most hated person in South Florida right now. So the feeling that you get when you read that is, I know that this is really, really, really bad. There's only one way to come back from this, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800717 211 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that's to prove that this is false. That's why we are here still. Q Only one way to come back from this you said. Come back from what? Your career has been more successful than ever since this lawsuit was filed, right? A Well, this kind of goes back to before. The people who really know me and know the outstanding work that I do for clients and see -- I'm a successful lawyer in that way. The people who don't know me, the 9 million people who read this who won't call me, that don't want to have anything to do with me because of this association, and this being what they remember from that period of time and my relationship to that period of time. There's only one way to do this. Q So you're really bothered that 9 million people haven't called you? You just said these 9 million people aren't going to call you. Do you think they were going to call you before the Epstein suit? A The only thing that matters to you is not your reputation amongst your best friends. It's your reputation in the community as a lawyer. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800718 212 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Yes, it's general people. I care about people. And I care about what people think about me. The truth, not some false indictment against me. Q Who do you think Mr. Epstein hurt more from a financial standpoint and from a pain and suffering and anxiety standpoint, you or the three clients that you were representing while you were at the Rothstein firm? Who's more the victim here? You or those three folks, sir? A It's tough put me up against -- it's not just those three victims. It's the hundreds and hundreds of little girls that he's molested over the years. I mean, that's what he does on a day-to-day basis. That's what he's still doing, I'm sure. So hurting people is something that he will do in any way, shape or form. But the fact is, he tried to hurt me in a way so that he could continue to hurt others and not have me call him out on it. Who's hurt more? Q Yeah. A It's different ways. He hurt my reputation more, because I had more of a reputation in the community. He hurt them more physically and Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800719 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 emotionally and has caused, you know, certain lives to be destroyed. I think I'm a stronger person than some of them. I was older. I wasn't a 14-year-old little girl. It's just very hard. You're comparing apples and oranges. We have all been hurt to the maximum degree possible. And that's always been his intent. Q So let's go back to 2009 and '10, and have you focus on my question. That was a good speech, and I appreciate that. But I asked you whether the three folks you represented -- not these hundreds that you didn't represent or these thousands that you think exist, or whatever you think Mr. Epstein is doing today. You represented three individuals, correct? A Yes. At that time, yes. Q At that time. A Yes. Q And you settled all three of their lawsuits, right? A I did. They settled their lawsuits, yes. Q You were their lawyer, weren't you? A I was. But I don't want you to make it seem like I chose to settle their lawsuits. My clients choose what they're going to do. They settled their Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800720 214 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lawsuits. I was their lawyer, yes. Q So you were their lawyer. You told me they were really good lawsuits. You were proud of the job you did, right? Isn't that what you told me? A I was proud of the job that I did, yes. Q Good. So I'm asking about those three people and the harm that you believe Mr. Epstein inflicted on those three people that you represented. Do you think, sir, that the harm he inflicted on you is more or less than the harm he inflicted on those three individuals that you just told us about. MR. SCAROLA: That question has been asked and answered in great detail. THE WITNESS: The best way for us to get the answer to that question is, in this trial we can try each one of those cases and let the jury determine what amount of damages fairly and fully compensates each one of us for the harm he's cause, and we will have our answer who was harmed worse. BY MR. LINK: Q Well, is that what your intent is in this case, is A No, I'm trying to answer your question. Q -- to try the clients' cases that you Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800721 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 settled? A No. No. I'm just trying to play into your sociological experiment that you are trying to ask me about. Q I was just asking you to tell me A If I were a juror? Q No, sir, you, as the plaintiff in this case. If you believe that the harm inflicted on you by Mr. Epstein by filing his complaint in December 2009 causes you more anxiety and suffering than whatever he did to the three folks you represented? MR. SCAROLA: And that question is argumentive. It's not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It's the fourth time you have asked it. It's been answered. I will instruct you not to answer again. BY MR. LINK: Q When Mr. Epstein filed his complaint against you in December 2009, did he issue a press release? A Other than to take the Fifth, he doesn't say anything. Q So my question was, did he issue a press Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800722 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 release? I know you like to keep telling your story as a trial lawyer, but my question was, did he issue a press release? MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the form of the question. BY MR. LINK: Q Did he? MR. SCAROLA: It's argumentive. THE WITNESS: You tell me whether he issued a press release. He's your client. BY MR. LINK: Q So you don't know whether Mr. Epstein issued a press release related to the lawsuit he filed against you that you are seeking damages for? A If he did issue a press release, I did not personally see it. If you are going to show me a press release, then I'm not going to debate you with it. Q You ever file any papers in federal court that were devoid of factual support? A What does that mean? Q Have you ever filed any papers against Mr. Epstein that were determined to be devoid of factual support? A What are we looking at? Q Just asking you that question, sir. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800723 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 A Oh, in my life? Up to today, or are we going back to 2009? I'm confused what time period we are on. Q 2009. MR. SCAROLA: The first question wasn't limited to Epstein. The next time the question was asked, it was limited to Epstein. BY MR. LINK: Q Let me ask it again. Was there ever any time that you filed a federal court paper, motion, pleading related to a case with Mr. Epstein that it was determined to be devoid of factual support? A Not that I recall. Q You remember filing a petition to have Mr. Epstein post a bond while you were working at the Rothstein firm? A Yeah, I remember that motion. Q Did you sign that motion? A Let me see. Q Do you remember if you signed that motion? A No. But I remember -- Q Do you remember the court's ruling on the motion? A It was denied. Q Do you remember the Court making any Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800724 218 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific findings about your factual basis for bringing the motion? A I don't. But it was I believe that the court denied it because prejudgment, you can't freeze assets. Q Did you have any evidence before you filed that motion that Mr. Epstein was transferring his assets offshore? A Yeah, I had many sources during this investigation. And we had significant evidence that the way in which -- the way -- what we should fear is that we would get a judgment and there would be no money in his name, and that the money would have been transferred offshore. Q Who is the source that told you, specifically at the time you filed the federal court pleadings, that Mr. Epstein was, in fact, transferring every dollar that he had offshore, so there would be nothing left to pay the plaintiffs you represented? Who was that? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, work product. BY MR. LINK: Q Was it something you relied on in filing the federal court action under your Rule 11 obligations? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800725 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 A It's not something that I relied on in filing this case. Q No, sir. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the federal court case where you sought a bond in which you still have Rule 11 obligations. Right? A Right. Q And before you file something in federal court, you have to have a factual evidentiary basis to do so, correct? A Correct. Q I'm asking you what was your factual evidentiary basis for seeking the relief that you sought on the bond motion. A I had numerous sources. I had numerous sources, and numerous sources that was (sic) shared amongst plaintiff's counsel on the case. Q I don't want to know about sources. I want to know about evidence. Evidence is not protected. You have to submit it to the court. I'm not looking for your confidential sources. I want to know what evidence you had, sir. A Well, we knew that there were cars, boats, houses that were placed in Larry Visoski's name. That's some evidence that we had. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800726 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 Q Uh-huh. A And other than that, we had individuals who were familiar with Mr. Epstein and knew him some of which had known him for many years -- to provide us good information that that's what he was doing. Q And they were going to get on the stand and testify. A Would they have testified to that if subpoenaed and on the stand? Yes. Q Is there a reason you didn't get affidavits from these folks to support your petition, if they would have testified? A Yes, there is. Q What was the reason? A This is also work-product privilege information. Q Let's take a look at Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 14. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 14 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q So we are on Exhibit Number 14, which is United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And if you go to page four of this exhibit, you will find the motion for injunction Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800727 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 to restrain fraudulent transfer of assets. You see that? A Yes. Q First, let's take a look at the last page. A Of this exhibit or of the motion? Q Of the motion. A Which is page 21 of the exhibit. Q I think it's page 19 of 41 at the top, right? A Okay. Q You see that's an electronic signature, right? A Yes. This is what typically was on -- the electronic signature that we would use when I would authorize filings. That's what I was talking about earlier. Q And you see this one includes Paul Cassell, right? A Yeah, I do. Q Now, let's go back to page four of 41. A He drafted this motion, so I know Q He drafted it? A Yeah. Q But you put your name on it and filed this, right? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800728 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 Of course. And I agreed with it. Q So let's take a look. This motion was on behalf of plaintiff Jane Doe? A Right. Q And you represented Jane Doe A Yes. Q -- while you were at Mr. Rothstein's firm. And this was filed while you were at Mr. Rothstein's firm, right? A It was. Q Look at the first paragraph on page five. It says, "Epstein is a billionaire, who recently has been fraudulently transferring his assets overseas." Do you see that? A Yes. Q What evidence -- admissible evidence -- did you have of that statement before you made it in this pleading? A I had information that he was doing this from sources, including sources close to him. I had evidence that he had placed significant assets into at least one other person's name, as well as properties that were placed in the names of corporations or other companies, as I remember, that was already going to make it difficult on the collection end. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800729 223 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q So what I'm asking is about your statement here, sir, which is, that I would like to know the evidence that you had that he was fraudulently transferring his assets overseas. What evidence do you have -- or did you have at the time? MR. SCAROLA: That's the question that was just asked and just answered. MR. LINK: He didn't answer it. MR. SCAROLA: I disagree with you. MR. LINK: Okay. BY MR. LINK: Q Will you answer the question for me specifically on transferring his assets overseas? You told me about titling them, you told me about things, but you didn't tell me about the evidence for transferring his assets overseas. A I told you that we had a very good source of information that had given us this information that was a longtime associate of Mr. Epstein's. MR. SCAROLA: Are you disregarding the affidavit attached to the motion? Are you asking for information apart from the affidavit attached to the motion? MR. LINK: I'm asking what evidence he had of this happening. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800730 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 MR. SCAROLA: But there's an affidavit attached to the motion. MR. LINK: I know there is, and it doesn't answer this question. MR. SCAROLA: Well, respectfully, I disagree. MR. LINK: Okay. We disagree a lot today. It's okay. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Scarola wants you to look at the affidavit. Who signed the affidavit? MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scarola wants to know whether your question is excluding the affidavit. BY MR. LINK: Q Take a look at the affidavit and tell me who signed it. A Paul Cassell. Q And he's a lawyer, right? A Yes, he's a lawyer. Q And he's a lawyer involved in this case, right? A He was a lawyer -- Q Was he going to get on the stand as the lawyer involved in this case and testify about Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800731 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 personal knowledge that Mr. Epstein transferred assets overseas? Was he going to do that? MR. SCAROLA: Was he going to do that in this case? BY MR. LINK: Q Was he going to do it then? A You will have to take Mr. Cassell's deposition and ask him that question. Q So did you have -- did you and Mr. Cassell, when you filed this injunction paper in federal court, have evidence -- not sources -- I mean you were a prosecutor. You know the difference between sources and evidence, right? There's lots of information out there. Doesn't mean we get it in evidence, right? You know that, as a trial lawyer. A Okay. Q You agree with me? A I agree with you. Q What evidence did you have? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. May he finish the answer to the question that you asked before you ask the next question? THE WITNESS: This case was a little different than most in this sense. If I get Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800732 226 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information in a case, such as this, I can then take Mr. Epstein's deposition and say, Is it true that you are transferring assets here, there and everywhere? And if he tells me the truth, he's going to tell me, Yes, and then I will have that evidence. He restricted our ability to gain evidence on many subjects, not only by claiming the Fifth himself, but having his co-conspirators claim the Fifth, and then having the next tier of associates show up with lawyers who were paid by him, which restricted our ability to gain the testimonial evidence that we would need to support many of our -- many of the things that we knew about the case. In this case, on this particular subject, we had good sources, reliable sources. And as this affidavit indicates, other plaintiff lawyers and I -- speaking on behalf of Paul Cassell -- have been greatly concerned that Epstein might attempt to transfer many of these assets overseas with the intent to defeat any judgment. This was one of the topics -- one of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800733 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 the many topics that, amongst plaintiffs' counsel, we discussed as the way in which Epstein intended to ultimately defeat these cases, which would ultimately prove his serial sexual molestation of minors. BY MR. LINK: Q So is your concern something that's evidence? A And we had a source telling us our concern was true. Q I understand. A Okay, so -- Q I have heard about the source. I am asking you about evidence. You told me you had concerns. Okay, I don't know that a federal judge cares about your personal concerns. I doubt that a federal judge cares that you have a source who won't get on the stand. So whenever I have filed a motion for injunction, I intend to put evidence on in front of the court. And I'm asking you, sir, what evidence did you have in this federal proceeding to prove your statement that Mr. Epstein was fraudulently transferring his assets overseas? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800734 228 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 object to Counsel's speech about Counsel's experience. Move that it be stricken. And the question as to what evidence did Mr. Edwards have MR. LINK: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: -- is a question that has been asked and answered repeatedly. BY MR. LINK: Q So would you agree you had no admissible evidence at the time that you filed this pleading? A Hold on one second. So -- Q Yes, sir. A -- this is evidence. Q What is it? A In request for admission I asked Mr. Epstein Q Yes. A -- admit you are moving financial assets overseas outside of the direct territorial reach of the US and Florida courts. Question 22, you were making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against you in this case or similar cases. Twenty-three, do you currently have the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800735 229 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ability to post a $15 million bond to satisfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty? Q Uh-huh. A If he told the truth, he would have said yes. And that is what the adverse inference requirement allows for us to draw when he says in response to those direct requests for admissions that he's invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which is tantamount to an admission. So that is evidence. Q Okay. So you think that the adverse inference A That's going to happen in this case, too. Q Hang on. Let me just make sure I understand. You thought when you filed this that having an adverse inference to a question -- whatever question you asked -- because he raised the Fifth, makes it an admission? That's your understanding of an adverse inference in federal court? A I had an admission by Mr. Epstein in response to his question. Q That was it? You told me he pled the Fifth and didn't answer. All I'm asking is, was it your Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800736 230 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 belief that at the time in federal court that an adverse inference based on raising a Fifth Amendment privilege is an admission of your question? A If his answer to that -- MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. The question about what Mr. Edwards' belief was is clearly a question that invades the work-product privilege. MR. LINK: Okay. Fair enough. BY MR. LINK: Q But the only evidence you had that you can point to was your asking Mr. Epstein a question that he raised his constitutional privilege to and that you considered that an admission for purposes of federal court? MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me. That's compound. You can ask him what the evidence was. You cannot ask him what he considered. What he considered is an operation of his mind, and that is protected work product. BY MR. LINK: Q Do you remember on September 29, 2009, writing a memo saying it would be really nice if we can find evidence of a transfer? A Show it to me. I will see it. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800737 231 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 15 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Take a look at Exhibit 15. This is an email from Mr. Edwards to Ken Jenne. You remember you told me earlier you weren't sure if Ken Jenne, who was the sheriff that had criminal issues, worked on the Epstein matter. You see his name there? A Yes. Q Who is Elizabeth Villar? A I don't remember her. Q Was she an investigator? A No. I don't think that there investigators that I remember. So this is on the subject of forensics. Q Yep. Do you see the sentence that says, "We need to be able to file a supplement to his were any female response, and it will be great to put in evidence of a transfer." So that you wanted to get a forensic report done at that time and were having trouble do you remember this -- you were having trouble getting the funding necessary to pay the forensic person to determine if there had been any transfers of assets? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800738 232 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A That's not true, the statement that you just made, having trouble getting the -- Q Okay. That statement that I just made is untrue and not supported by the files that have been produced in this case? Is that your testimony? A Right. You are basically implying that the Josefsberg firm and the Searcy firm -- and nobody could come up with money to do this. This is clearly talking about the checks that were coming from the other plaintiff's lawyers for the purposes of hiring the forensic accountant. Q Did Mr. Searcy -- did Mr. Scarola sign this injunction paper? A No. But now you're talking about two different things. Q Did Mr. Josefsberg sign this paper? A You are talking about different things. Q I'm asking you did they sign it. A You tell me. Did they sign it? Q I don't see it. A Okay, then they didn't. Q Did Mr. Scarola in his case file a federal injunction seeking a bond? A No. I did the work. Q Did Mr. Josefsberg? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800739 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 You did the work -- this is for Mr. Scarola's case? A No, but -- yes, the cases -- Q This is one of Mr. Scarola's cases? A The cases were combined. Q Let's look at the style. I just want to make sure I understand this. This motion you filed was to benefit Mr. Scarola's client; is that right? A No. What I'm saying is it was filed in Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane Doe No. 5, Jane Doe No. 6, Jane Doe No. 7, C.M.A., Jane Doe, Doe No. 2, Doe No. 101, Doe No. 102. So there was a motion filed in that case, filed by me. This was work that was done by me to freeze Mr. Epstein's money so that he could not move assets out of the country and defeat any judgment that I was to obtain. Q For your client, right? A Right. Q Mr. Scarola even filed a federal court action on behalf of his client? A No. You're showing me this email that's talking about -- an email that I sent about other firms' checks that relate to the forensic accountant. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800740 234 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's why I'm telling you, you're talking about different things here. Q This says right here, right, "Epstein has to respond to the Judge as to why he's taking the Fifth on all asset transfer questions." You just read me asset transfer questions, true? A And if -- and if his answer to those questions was no, that obviously wouldn't incriminate him. He's not moving money overseas, okay, it doesn't incriminate him. So clearly the answer was going to incriminate him. Now it looks like -- I'm saying -- the Judge is going to make him respond as to why. What we need is to file a supplement. It would be great to have evidence of the transfer -- Q I agree -- A -- to file with our supplement. Q -- it would have been great. Did you have any evidence of the transfer? It's what I've been asking for. A We didn't have evidence that we could use at that time to support the transfer. What we had was a really good source, and we had evidence that Epstein's invocation of the Fifth was evidence that he had indeed Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800741 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 done those things. Q Is there any part of Rule 11 that says that you do not have to have an evidentiary support for your filings because a witness takes the Fifth Amendment? MR. SCAROLA: You know -- you know that Rule 11 requires a good faith basis. MR. LINK: I do. MR. SCAROLA: It does not require that you have evidence in your possession at the time of the filing. Complaints are filed on the basis of good faith with a view towards obtaining evidence all the time. MR. LINK: And that's okay. MR. SCAROLA: That's okay, as long as there's a good faith basis. MR. LINK: I agree with that. MR. SCAROLA: So you are talking about apples and oranges. You don't have to have evidence for filing. MR. LINK: This isn't a complaint. This is a motion for injunction, which is not -- MR. SCAROLA: You do not have to have Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800742 236 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence at the time of the filing of the motion. You have to have a good faith belief that it's well-founded. MR. LINK: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: But you're arguing and my arguing about what about Rule 11 has to do with these pleadings has nothing to do with any of these issues in this lawsuit. But it has a lot to do with wasting time in this fourth section of Mr. Edward's deposition the fourth and last session of Mr. Edward's deposition. MR. LINK: I think it's really most of the first session, but that's okay. I understand your position. BY MR. LINK: Q All right, so let me just wrap this up real quick. All these Jane Does on here that you mentioned, Mr. Scarola, did he have any clients in this federal case that you are aware of? A I think he represented C.M.A. Although, you shake your head no, so maybe you know information that I don't. If you are telling me the truth, I will believe you. Q I'm not telling you anything, sir. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800743 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 You are shaking your head. Q Did Mr. Scarola have one of these Jane Doe clients? A You can't ask the question, then shake your head, which indicates an answer no, and then ask me to answer the question. If you're telling me the answer is no, I will agree with you. I assume you're telling me the truth. Q I'm not telling you any answer, sir. That's your job. A Why are you still shaking your head? Still. Right now you are still shaking your head. Q Maybe I have some kind of a twitch in my neck. I don't know. A So do know the answer to the question? Q I'm not here to answer the question, sir. A I don't know. Q Did Mr. Josefsberg have any plaintiffs in this federal action? A I believe so. Q Did Mr. Josefsberg authorize you to file the motion for injunction on his behalf -- of his clients? A He knew that it was being filed. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800744 238 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q You can file whatever you want for your clients. I get that. Did Mr. Josefsberg authorize you to file this motion on behalf of his clients? A No. That's not how we worked. Q All right. Take a look, if you would, please, at Exhibit Number 16. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 16 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Is my head still shaking no or -- A No, it's not. It's still now. Q Okay. Good. This is the order that the court entered on the motion for injunction, true -- see Judge Marra -- November 5th, 2009? A Yeah. Q And I want you look on page three. Do you see where it says, "Plaintiff's motion" A I'm going to read it. I will get there. Q Okay. A Yeah. Q Do you see where the federal district court judge says, "Plaintiff's motion is entirely devoid of evidence of defendants alleged fraudulent transfers"? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800745 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 You see the court's statement? A Yes. I'm just reading it in the context of the rest of the order. Q Is there something in the context of the order that changes the court's words that the motion that you and Mr. Cassell filed was entirely devoid of evidence of Mr. Epstein's alleged fraudulent transfers? A No. I see that that is what the court says. And also in light of the defendant being a billionaire, the various retitling of vehicles in the view of the court was de minimis in relativity. So, yeah -- and there's a long string -- cite of cases indicating that prejudgment relief of this type is not easy to obtain. Q Mr. Edwards, I'm handing you what we just marked as Exhibit 17, which is the Fourth Amended Counterclaim that you filed against Mr. Epstein, correct? (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 17 was marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: It appears like that's what this is. BY MR. LINK: Q Would you take a look, please -- and this Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800746 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 is the operative pleading? Do you know? A Are we on the fourth amended -- I don't know. Are we on the fourth amended counterclaim? Not sure. Q Not sure. Okay. A I don't think so. Well, I only say that because count one is abuse of process. I don't know that we have an abuse of process in this case still left. I thought it was only malicious prosecution. I could be wrong. Q Let's take a look at paragraph five. This was filed on January 9th, 2013. Do you see that, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim? A Paragraph five? Q No, the entire counterclaim. Look at the first page of it. See the file stamp? A January 9, 2013. Q So as of January 13, 2000 -- January 9th, 2013 -- look at the last sentence of paragraph five. Can you tell me on that day who are the victims seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Mr. Epstein that you represented? A Okay. MR. SCAROLA: If that information has not been publicly disclosed, then I instruct you that it is attorney-client privilege and Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800747 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 you should not respond. BY MR. LINK: Q Without disclosing their names, I will ask the question differently. Were you representing, in January 2013, undisclosed victims that had compensatory and punitive damage claims yet to be filed against Mr. Epstein? A I don't know. I don't know if at that time I was or not. Q Well, that's what this statement says, right? A It doesn't really. It says that upon information and belief, federal law enforcement continues to investigate additional allegations of Epstein's serial abuse and molestation of children. Q That's not the sentence we were just looking at. A "As a consequence" -- that's the sentence you are looking at. "As a consequence of the" -- that's what it says in the first sentence -- "Epstein continues to face the potential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments from both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800748 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 children" -- Q Including victims represented by Edwards. A -- "including victims represented by Edwards." Q So I'm asking you, did you, in fact, in January 2013 represent any victims of Mr. Edwards (sic) that still had -- A Epstein. Q I'm sorry. Mr. Epstein. Let me do it again. Mr. Edwards, did you in January 2013 represent any victims that had potential claims for both compensatory and punitive damages against Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: You're misreading the sentence. It doesn't say what you think -- what you are reading it to say. And as the author of the sentence, I can tell you it doesn't say what you think it says. MR. LINK: I think it says exactly the way I'm reading it, but it doesn't really matter. So in answering my -- someone else will decide what it says, not you or me. MR. SCAROLA: Well, I will decide what it says because I wrote it. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800749 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 MR. LINK: Well, I don't think it actually works that way. I expect the jury will have to determine -- MR. SCAROLA: And I suspect that -- MR. LINK: That's improper -- MR. SCAROLA: -- to examine this witness about the allegations -- MR. LINK: -- in a pleading. MR. SCAROLA: -- in an unsworn pleading. That's correct. MR. LINK: We will find out. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. BY MR. LINK: Q In any event, did you, in fact, in January 2013 have any clients that you were representing that still had potential civil compensatory and punitive damages claims against Mr. Epstein? A I don't remember if in January of 2013 I represented anybody who was a victim of Mr. Epstein's molestation. I just don't remember. Q Take a look at the last sentence of paragraph six and the first sentence of paragraph seven. A Okay. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800750 244 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Tell me which lawyers were unable to persist in the prosecution of their claims based on Mr. Epstein's tactics? A It doesn't say that. You are just reading something into it a paragraph that's not even close to what it says. Q Talks about intimidating his victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their just value, right? That's a statement of fact in here of what has happened. And it says, "Epstein's tactics have proven successful, while other victims have thus far withstood this continued assault upon them and persisted in the prosecution of their claims." Right? So if Mr. Epstein's tactics proved successful, then he must have intimidated victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or abandoning their legit claims or resolving them for substantially less than their just value. And I would like to know who those lawyers and victims were, sir. MR. SCAROLA: That is argumentive. It is a misreading of the sentence. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800751 245 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINK: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: And if the question is are you aware of victims who were intimidated by Epstein and compromised their claims for less than their value, that's a legitimate question. But skip the whole bunch of rhetoric that precedes it and ask that question. MR. LINK: You are done? MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. BY MR. LINK: Q Do you remember my question? A Hardly. Q Me too. So what I'm trying to understand is this most current lawsuit against that Mr. Epstein has allegations in it. And I know when we looked at Mr. Epstein's complaint against you, you were bothered by allegations that were in there that you said were untrue, right? A Yeah. The complaint is untrue. Q I'm just looking at these allegations that your lawyer filed on your behalf. Did you review this complaint, this counterclaim before it was filed? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800752 246 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A At some point in time, but not recently. Q I said before it was filed. A I'm sure. Q And if there was something that you saw in there that you thought Mr. Scarola got wrong or was inaccurate, he unintentionally made a mistake, you would have pointed it out, right? A Well, Mr. Scarola was one of the lawyers who also represented Epstein victims, so he knew -- he knew the case, so did I. Did he know facts that I didn't know? Maybe. But this doesn't look foreign to me. I mean, Epstein intimidated victims. You've seen the police reports. He intimidated victims. He intimidated their families. Q And their legal counsel, you say in here. Mr. Scarola did not -- MR. SCAROLA: No, no. The complaint said he attempted to intimidate victims and legal counsel, and in some circumstances he was successful. MR. LINK: Right. I'm trying to figure out who it was. MR. SCAROLA: Okay, well, then ask that question -- MR. LINK: I did. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800753 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 MR. SCAROLA: -- are you aware of victims or legal counsel who were intimidated? MR. LINK: I asked it my way. You are better at it than I am. I will keep going my way. BY MR. LINK: Q Can you tell me one lawyer who was intimidated and resolved or abandoned a legitimate claim, or resolved it for substantially less? Can you tell me one? A Because of intimidation, many of the victims either didn't bring claims or abandoned their claims or settled them for much -- well below the value of the cases. Q You said lawyer. Tell me one lawyer, please, is what I asked. One lawyer. Did Mr. Scarola? There's no chance, right? MR. SCAROLA: How about one question at a time. MR. LINK: Fair enough. BY MR. LINK: Q Did Mr. Scarola capitulate and was afraid of Mr. Epstein? A It wasn't the -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800754 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 MR. SCAROLA: That's two questions. MR. LINK: It was? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Did Mr. Scarola capitulate? Was Mr. Scarola intimidated by Mr. Epstein? MR. LINK: I bet he can handle that question. MR. SCAROLA: I'm sure he can, but the law requires that you ask one question at a time. MR. LINK: It actually requires that you just object to the form and then we will see. That's what it requires. I know you know that. I think you taught me that during my objections. MR. SCAROLA: Let's ask the proper question, please. THE WITNESS: All right. What's the question? BY MR. LINK: Q Can you tell me one lawyer that represented an Epstein plaintiff that abandoned their claim based on Mr. Epstein's intimidation? A I believe what is being said here is that the intimidation of the victim caused the lawyer or the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800755 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 victim to settle the case or the lawyer to not be able to get the full value of the case. I think that if you talk to Bob Josefsberg, he will tell you that that happened. Q That he settled his cases for less than he otherwise would have because of him being intimidated or not getting the evidence? A His clients being intimidated. Q I will ask him that. A Perfect. Q You can try to massage the words, as you have done, but this says intimidate his victims and their legal counsel. And I keep asking you about legal counsel. A And I keep telling you to ask him. Ask some other legal counsel. It wasn't me. Q This isn't his pleading. This is yours, sir. And I'm asking you in this pleading that you filed to please tell me one person that you are referring to in this statement that you made. One. Tell me one lawyer that abandoned a legitimate claim. A I just told you who to go to ask and you acted like I didn't say it. Q Sir, your pleadings says that a legal counsel abandoned a legitimate claim. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800756 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 A It's Jack Scarola's -- MR. SCAROLA: My pleading does not say -- my pleading does not say that any lawyer was intimidated. My pleading says that Jeffrey Epstein sought to intimidate victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims. That's what it says. That's what he sought to do. BY MR. LINK: Q Can you identify any lawyers that were intimidated and abandoned their claim, please? If you can't, you can't. Just say, I don't know of any. A I just told you it wasn't me. Q I didn't ask if it was you, sir. I said if you can identify any. This is about the 50th time I've asked you can you tell me any lawyers that have abandoned their claim. And all you have to say is, I don't know of any. Or I do know, and here is who they are. A Any lawyers that abandoned their claim? Q Yes. A I don't know of any lawyers that abandoned their claim. Q Okay. Thank you. Do you know of any lawyers that have Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800757 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 resolved their claim for substantially less than their just value? A I don't know of any lawyers that had a claim. But if they had a claim against Mr. Epstein, I don't know of any lawyer who abandoned his claim for substantially less value. Q Now, I'm not talking about a lawyer's claim. A That's what you just asked me. Q No, it's not. It's the claim for the clients they represent. A Okay. Q I am assuming that's what your paragraph talks about here, are lawyers representing victims, and that those lawyers, as a result of intimidation, either walked away from the case, or took less money than they thought was professionally and ethically available for the case because of the intimidation. That's what we're talking about. So let's try it again, which is really simple. Are you aware of any lawyer that abandoned a legitimate claim filed on behalf of a client because they were intimidated by Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: Who is the they you're speaking with? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800758 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 MR. LINK: What? MR. SCAROLA: You used a pronoun. MR. LINK: Yeah. MR. SCAROLA: The pronoun followed two specific references. One was a reference to client and the other was a reference to lawyer. BY MR. LINK: Q You can answer the question. A So am I aware -- is it your question or does it relate to this paragraph? Does your question relate to the paragraph? Q Ignore the paragraph for a minute. A Pretend the paragraph doesn't exist Q I can tell it's confusing. A It is, because it doesn't relate to your question, but -- okay. So your question is -- Q You're objecting too? Now you're objecting for yourself. A No. I just thought that you were trying to relate it to this paragraph, and that's what's making this hard. Q Don't worry about what's going on in my head. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800759 253 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A So omit the paragraph? Q I would like to know if you can identify one lawyer that represented a victim with a legitimate claim against Mr. Epstein where that lawyer abandoned that claim because of Mr. Epstein's intimidation. A I'm not sure one way or the other. Like I said, if -- Bob Josefsberg represented a lot of people. If anybody's claim was abandoned because of intimidation, he would probably know better than me. Q Mr. Josefsberg is not sitting in that chair, sir. A Right. Q I'm asking you. So if you don't know one, is it hard no say I don't know of any? A I believe victims abandoned their claims. I remember that as a fact. I believe also that they were represented by Mr. Josefsberg. I'm not positive about that, but that's to the best of my memory. That's what I think happened. How this has anything to do with this lawsuit, God only knows. But I'm trying for you. Q So I should talk to Mr. Josefsberg to see if, when he was legal counsel for a victim he abandoned a legitimate claim because he was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800760 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 intimidated by Mr. Epstein. Is that what you're saying? A That's not what I said. I said whether a victim abandoned her claim where he happened to be the lawyer because she was intimidated or Mr. Epstein used his -- employed his extraordinary financial resources, sought to avoid damages by employing extraordinary resources at his disposal with the purpose of intimidating his victims or legal counsel, I think that that would be the person you would ask about that. Q All right. Turn to paragraph 25, which is on page eight. A Okay. Q You see that it talks about Mr. Epstein filing this claim against Edwards and Edwards' client A I do. Q -- for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate? A Yes. Q And to abandoning or settling their legitimate claims. A Right. Q We talked about that earlier, right? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800761 255 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 can you -- III. was a defendant in this lawsuit, right? A Right. Q At the time that she was a defendant, she was represented by you and your law firm as her lawyer against Mr. Epstein, right? A Correct. Q Did you and your law firm represent III. in the defense of this lawsuit? A Yes. Q And in representing III. in the defense of this lawsuit where you're also a defendant, did you charge her for that work? A No. Q Did you do it on a contingency basis? A No. Q Did you charge her for costs? A No. Q Did you have a written fee agreement with her? A Specifically for the defense of this case? Q Yes, sir. A Not a fee agreement, because I didn't charge her a fee, and I don't think that there was a written Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800762 256 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement at all, to the best of my memory. Q Did you have any writing with her at all discussing the terms upon which this representation would go forward? A No, other than I told her I would represent her pro bono in this. It was unfair that this was his tactic to try to extort her into abandoning her claim, as well. Q Did you have any writing with her describing a conflict situation related to your being a defendant in this lawsuit representing her in the claims against Mr. Edwards (sic) and defending A Epstein. Q Epstein. Thank you. -- and defending her in the claim brought by Mr. Epstein against her? A I don't know if she signed a conflict waiver. I'm trying to think through what that conflict would be. It's not jumping out at me. I don't think that she signed a conflict waiver. Q Just so I get the names right -- thank you for correcting me. At the time you, Brad Edwards, represented in a state lawsuit against Mr. Epstein. A Right. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800763 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 You, Brad Edwards, represented in a federal lawsuit against Mr. Epstein. A Right. Q Mr. Epstein sued_ and you individually in December 2009. A Right. Q Your law firm and you represented yourself, right, in the defense of Mr. Epstein's suit? A Mr. Scarola represented me. Q Well, you filed a notice of appearance. A Not then. Q When did you file it? A I don't remember. You would have to show me the pleading, but not initially. Q But you did, before Mr. Epstein's suite was dismissed, file a notice of appearance, right? A Before Mr. Epstein Mr. Epstein's lawsuit with m was dismissed? Q Against you. A Against me was dismissed? Q Uh-huh. A Yes. Q And Mr. Epstein sued_ and you and your law firm agreed to represent her without charging her to defend against the lawsuit Mr. Epstein brought? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800764 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 That's right. Q And as far as you can remember, there's no written fee agreement? A True. Q And there's no written conflict waiver letter? A Yes. We just went through that. MR. SCAROLA: Good place for a break? MR. LINK: Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:01 p.m. This is the end of tape three and we are going off the record. (A recess was had.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:17 p.m. This is the beginning of tape four. We are back on the record. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, looking at Exhibit 18 -- we started the day talking about lawyers in the Rothstein firm that worked on the Epstein matters with you. And that is -- you testified earlier that Russell Adler -- this is an email from him -- was the head of the tort group. A Right. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 18 was marked Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800765 259 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q And this is a memo from him to you copying Marc Nurik. Marc Nurik was a lawyer at Rothstein's firm? A One of the criminal defense lawyers. Q And it's references Mr. Epstein's non-prosecution agreement? A That's what it looks like. Q And it looks like it's a message from Mr. Adler to you. Says, "Brad, Wayne Black and I just had a great conversation with Marc Nurik about the non-prosecution agreement, and I need you to please get in contact with Marc and meet with him to discuss the possibilities. Bring with you a copy of the agreement." Next sentence says, "We also discussed the assets situation and there are some major possibilities that need to be explored with Marc and others." "Get on it" exclamation point. Were you reporting to Mr. Adler in how to represent the three Rothstein clients -- the three ladies -- on how to prosecute the Epstein matters? A Well, this email is dated April 8th, 2009, so Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800766 260 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I had just started at the firm. I had just got there. Russ Adler was one of the only lawyers that I had known for years before I got to the firm. And Russ Adler handled sexual abuse cases. So, especially in the beginning, I talked to Russ about how to kind of navigate through the complications with Jeffrey Epstein and with the type of defense that was going on. So this just appears that Wayne Black and Russ Adler -- Wayne was the investigator -- that they were talking also about how to -- what we needed to do in the investigation. Yeah, Russ was definitely involved then. He didn't do much in the day-to-day, so I don't want to say anything to that. Q I understand. But I'm talking about on April 8th, 2009, it looks to me like he's giving you instructions on what to do. Do you agree? A Not giving me instructions on what to do. I mean, he's telling me bring Marc Nurik the non-prosecution agreement, is the instruction. If anything, we are working together with the common goal. Q The get on it, exclamation point -- A We're buddies. Then we were just friends. Get on it is let's do this. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800767 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 Q So at least in April of 2009, Russ Adler, a tort lawyer; Bradley Edwards, a tort lawyer; and Marc Nurik, a criminal lawyer, are caucusing about the Epstein litigation? A About the non-prosecution agreement, specifically, which is a complicated document that related to the civil litigation, yeah. But that's why we would involve Marc, because of the complications related to that criminal document. Q And was Mr. Adler a partner? A No. I don't believe so. No. I think there were only two equity partners, which was Scott Rothstein and Stuart Rosenfeldt. Q As Mr. Adler the Adler at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler? A Yes. Q So he was a named partner? A He was a name on the door. I believe he was a partner at the time. I did believe that, because his name was on the door. Q How about Mr. Nurik? Was he a partner? A No. Q Did you believe he was a partner at the time? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800768 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 A No. I learned -- I don't know about that time. A month into my being there, I learned that only Scott and Stuart were the actual partners. Q Equity partners? A Yes. Q That he owned the firm? A Yeah. The name partner really just meant you kind of controlled your own life. Q Did you talk with former Judge Bill Berger about the Epstein the three Epstein cases that you brought to the firm. A Yes. And Bill Berger was the one I told you earlier, he actually did certain things on the case: attended hearings, may have helped to draft a motion or two. Q Let's take a look at this one. Was Mr. Berger a partner? A No. Q Did he hold himself out as a partner? A I don't know that, but I believe that if -- he may have carried that title partner, which means he had his own division. He didn't have to report to anybody. Q If we look on the firm -- A That directory thing -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800769 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 Q -- directory. A I hadn't seen that until you showed it to me. It's not going to surprise me if it says partner. Q Berger's name probably says partner and so does Mr. Adler and Mr. Nurik, right? A Presumably. Q So this is an email and it says May 19th. And it's from Mr. Berger to Bradley Edwards -- that's you -- Russell Adler, Steven Jaffe. Who is Steven Jaffe? A He's a lawyer there and in the successor firm that I started after this. Q And Matthew Weissing? A Same. Q And Gary Farmer? A Same. Q Is this Gary Farmer senior or junior? A On this email that's junior. Q So we have got Berger, Edwards, Adler, Jaffe, Weissing and Farmer on email. Six lawyers. A Right. Q Discussing meeting with a psychologist expert related to Epstein? A Right. Q And it's Berger inviting you, in fact, to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800770 264 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attend an interview of Dr. Amy Swan, a psychologist, "who we're considering as the damages expert in Epstein cases." A Right. Yeah, the cases were being tried in West Palm Beach -- in Palm Beach where Judge Berger had just come off the bench. So the question really was, who are the psychologists who treat sex abuse victims in that area. And Judge Berger believed that she was somebody that he thought was well qualified who had appeared in front of him. So that's who he wanted us to interview. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 19 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q I got. He's asked five lawyers to -- invited them to participate in the interview? A Yeah. Q Right? A I can't I can't imagine that many showed up to that, but yeah. Q Was Mr. Weissing, would he show up as a partner on the directory? A I don't know. Presumably though most everybody had that title. Q Do you have the directory handy? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800771 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 A Tell me what exhibit it is. I'm sure I do. Q I think it's down at the bottom. A Maybe it was earlier in the day than I thought, unless I passed it. Yeah, I passed it. Q Right after that. A I will find mine. Ten -- here it is. Exhibit 12. You were asking me about Berger, right? Q Yeah. Let's just look at the folks that were all invited to attend this meeting. A William Berger says -- next to title, it says shareholder. Q Shareholder. Okay. Is that different than a partner? A In reality, no. But it's a different title. Everybody was an employee, but -- it's a different word than a partner. Q Well, you said earlier that there's a difference between a partner and a shareholder. And a shareholder means you actually have equity in the firm. A No, I didn't say that. Again, you're making things up. Totally made up. Q Okay. Then I misunderstood you. What is a shareholder? A I don't know. Another title that was given Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800772 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 at the firm. I think everybody was just an employee. There were two equity partners: Scott Rothstein and Stuart Rosenfeldt. Everybody else, some form of employee with a different name next to them, meaningless. Q Well, I see just on this very first page of Exhibit 12, I see there's a partner. I see Russ Adler is a shareholder. Roger Alvarez is an associate. Larry Barsky is an associate. Bill Berger is a shareholder. Shawn Birken is a partner. Then you have law clerk, shareholder for Boden, and partner for Bofshever. I see lots of different titles. A I do too. It's a made up stratification that somebody created at the firm. Q All right. So who else was on that list that we just looked at of the five names? A Russ Adler, which we went to. Q Shareholder. Berger, shareholder. A Steve Jaffe. Q How about Mr. Jaffe? So far working on -- with two shareholders and a partner. A Page seven. Q What is Mr. Jaffe? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800773 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 A Partner. Q Partner. Okay. A Farmer. Farmer says shareholder. Q So we have three shareholders -- A And Weissing says partner. Q And all partners. All right. Stuart Rosenfeldt says shareholder, by the way. So he had the same title as Adler, Berger and Farmer? A Apparently, on this directory he did. Q Okay. A And Scott Rothstein says managing partner, chairman, CEO. Q Okay. A I assume Mr. Rothstein named everybody, then, since he's the only one with the highest title. Q Look at Number 20. A Yes, sir. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 20 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q This just follows up on what you testified earlier. This is from Susan Stirling. Who is Susan Stirling? A That name is familiar. I don't remember. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800774 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 Q This is about Epstein. And it's her saying to you, "I promise I will tell you about every check I get. So far it has only been the one for the motorcycle." A So it looks like I sent an email before that saying did we get a check to Wayne Black yet. That's probably after he called me saying he hasn't been paid. If not, let me know, and I will tell Russ about this, again. Which is what I was saying, I will tell Russ somebody needs to get paid. She says, "No. I promise I will tell you about every check I get. So far it has only been one for the motorcycle." That's a different case. That was a motorcycle in storage on another case. Q So when you were mentioning about paying Wayne Black and talking to Russ, this is -- A That's consistent with exactly what my memory was this morning, is Wayne was saying he wasn't getting paid, and I was referring it to Russ. Q Mr. Edwards this is Exhibit 21 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 21 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q And this is the Seventh Amended and Supplemental Witness List filed on your behalf last Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800775 269 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 night at 5:20 p.m. Can you tell me, please, what -- what factual knowledge and information she has and why she's expected to be presented as a witness? A I think who is going to be called and in what order and what they're going to present is better asked of my attorney, who is presenting the case. But I know Q Did I ask that? I don't remember asking that. A I thought you asked what information was going to testify to in this case. Q Right. Not when or if. She's listed here as expected to be presented, right? A It would be in response to any question -- any witness would be in response to any questions that Mr. Scarola asks of them. Q True. A So I know what she would say if she told the truth: Jeffrey Epstein was my employer. He hired me to assist him in recruiting underaged girls so that he could molest them. He did it all over the world. I watched him traffic them nationally, internationally, and I was also made to participate in that. And then Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800776 270 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when Mr. Epstein was discovered by the FBI, he assaulted me on an airplane to get me to cooperate with him and not cooperate with the victims. If she was going to tell the truth, that's along the lines of what she would say. Q We are talking about the counterclaim for malicious prosecution, right, calling her in the counterclaim claim for malicious prosecution, right? A Right. The cases weren't fabricated. Epstein really is a child molester. The underlying cases that you were prosecuting against him really were legitimate underlying cases. III. was a victim, not fabricated. Q Was there something in the claim that Mr. Epstein brought where he said anything about his interaction with and the case that you filed? Where does he say that? A Yeah. He says -- Q Show me where that is. A He says -- look at this deposition. He says -- Q I'm asking you about the complaint that he filed that you say -- as I understand you -- you have one count, malicious prosecution, right? And that you say on December 9th, 2007, when that complaint Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800777 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 was filed -- A 7, 2009. I got you. Q December 7th, 2009 -- that Mr. Epstein did not have a -- did not have probable cause to file that proceeding. That's the complaint you brought, right? A Right. Q So, understanding what was in Mr. Epstein's mind about what he knew about Rothstein and his Ponzi scheme, and what he knew about any connection to that -- that he might have in his head, how does have personal knowledge about that? A You just reframed this case to something that this case is not. Q Really. Tell me what the case is about then. A Well, at least as it relates to Q No, no. Is it not a malicious prosecution case? A It is a malicious prosecution case. Q And it's whether or not Mr. Epstein had probable cause when he filed it, right? A To bring the complaint that he filed. Right. Q The proceeding that he brought, whether he had probable cause Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800778 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 Yes. Q -- is one of the elements. A Sure. That's one of the elements. Q Does ave any factual information related to whether Mr. Epstein had probable cause to make the allegations he did about Mr. Rothstein and about you? A Mr. Epstein -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent that relevance is a legal concept, the question calls for a legal conclusion. I object to the form of the question on that basis. MR. LINK: Understood. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Mr. Epstein's complaint against me for the crimes that he alleged that I and Scott Rothstein and committed is predicated upon the assertion by him that I fabricated cases of a sexual nature on behalf of victims, or fictitious victims, including And in furtherance of these fictitious cases, that I conducted irrelevant discovery that could serve no purpose but to pump a Ponzi scheme. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800779 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 would be able to testify that 's case was not fabricated, was not as Mr. Epstein elaborated in his deposition, ginned up; that it was indeed legitimate. She was a legitimate victim. My pursuit of discovery, including the flight logs, was relevant to the proof of her claim, including the punitive damage claim that I was prosecuting, which would refute the probable cause he claims existed when he filed the complaint against me. BY MR. LINK: Q So help me understand. I know you have got a bunch of these folks -- A I don't know if I can say it better than that. Q You said it very well. What I'm asking about is -- if I understand the counterclaim that you filed the probably cause requires a reasonably cautious person to have a good faith belief, essentially, in the things that they allege -- Mr. Scarola said it more articulately earlier, right -- and so that it has to do with the allegations made. Does Ms. IIIIIIIIIhave any knowledge about Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800780 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 what Mr. Rothstein was doing? A Ms. has knowledge about what Mr. Epstein did, and therefore, what Mr. Epstein knew. And therefore, what Mr. Epstein said in his complaint was knowingly false. Q Let me try my question again. A Which means no probable cause. Q I must have confused you. Did Ms. have any knowledge about what Scott Rothstein was doing? A Ask her. Q Pardon me? A Ask her. Q You don't know? A I don't know if she knew what Scott Rothstein was doing. Q Did Ms. have any idea what you were doing at the Rothstein firm? Were you talking to her? Did she participate? A Not to my knowledge she didn't know what I was doing. Q So Ms. testimony has to do with claims made by victims that have settled their cases, right? MR. SCAROLA: It has to do with what Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800781 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 Mr. Edwards has described in detail it has to do with. He doesn't -- What purpose does it serve for you to recharacterize in five words the lengthy answer that he gave you explaining in detail the relevant, quote, unquote, knowledge that you asked him? BY MR. LINK: Q I'm just trying to understand how the knowledge is part of your case. That's what I'm asking. I understand. So her knowledge is about what she knew about Mr. Epstein before he did his plea deal, right? A And after. Q And after. A It's what she knew about what Mr. Epstein did and what Mr. Epstein knew at the time that he filed the false complaint against me. That's what it is. Q Did she talk to Mr. Epstein at the time he filed the complaint and say, What's in your mind? Is that what she's going to say? Mr. Epstein told me in December of 2009 this is why I filed this complaint? A All right. Let me just give you an example. Q Okay. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800782 276 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A as on the airplane with Jeffrey Epstein and an underaged girl. Jeffrey Epstein makes the allegation in the complaint that the proof that Brad Edwards was pumping a Ponzi scheme is that he sought flight logs, despite knowing that there were no underaged girls on the airplane. Jeffrey Epstein knew that to be false, because there were indeed underaged girls on the airplane. To the extent that Jeffrey Epstein himself won't say that I knowingly filed this false allegation, could say, I know that Jeffrey Epstein knew that that was a false allegation, because I too was on the airplane and so was this underaged girl, and he knew that. So at the time that he filed this complaint, he knew that it was false, the allegations that he was making, which allegedly formed the basis of his assertion that I was involved in a Ponzi scheme. Q Okay. You lost me, but I'm not going -- A Read it back. I think it makes sense. Q I'm not going to try to figure that out. Do you have anyone that can testify about what was in Mr. Epstein's mind in December 2009 at Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800783 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 the time that the lawsuit was filed about why he filed it? A Mr. Epstein testified to that. Q Other than Mr. Epstein, do you have any witnesses that are going to testify about the reasons why Mr. Epstein made the decision to file the lawsuit? A No. It's very obvious why he filed the lawsuit. Q You have no other witnesses other than Mr. Epstein, correct? A We have attempted to take his attorneys' depositions and they have all rejected that opportunity. So he has no witnesses that can testify as to what was in his mind at that time. Q You are the plaintiff in the counterclaim, right? A We will see how this unfolds, right? Q Let me just wrap this up, because you have given me a lot of information to which I think are simple questions. Do you have a witness that will testify, other than Mr. Epstein, about what was in his mind in December 2009 about why he brought the lawsuit? MR. SCAROLA: Direct evidence or Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800784 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 circumstantial evidence or both? THE WITNESS: Let me think about that question. About why he brought the lawsuit. Specifically that. MR. LINK: Can you read back the question for him, please? I won't take that as coaching at all. In any event, well done. But I don't think you heard my question. Can you read it back? (Thereupon, the requested portion of the record was read back by the reporter as above duly recorded.) THE WITNESS: A witness other than Mr. Epstein, no. BY MR. LINK: Q Thank you. Why was Bill Berger added to the witness list last night? A You will have to ask somebody other than myself. Q Do you know what Mr. Berger -- why he's listed as an expert in this case? A Again, that's a question for the lawyers. Q Do you know when Mr. Berger agreed to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800785 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 testify as an expert in this case, or if he has? A Also a question for Mr. Scarola. Q Have you -- MR. SCAROLA: All of which I will be happy to answer at the appropriate time. BY MR. LINK: Q Do you know what factual knowledge Mr. Berger has upon which he will predicate an expert opinion in the case? A Again, this is not a question for me. Q How about Earleen Earleen? A He certainly knows why certain discovery was done and for what legitimate purpose it was done. But what he's going to testify to, again, that's just a question for somebody else. Q I will ask him. That's okay. Earleen Cote -- A She's -- Q Do you know why she was listed last night at 5:20 p.m. to the Seventh Amended and Supplemental Witness List? A She's a -- she's my former boss at Kubicki Draper. Q Why was she listed last night? What is she going to testify about Mr. Epstein? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800786 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 A She will not testify about Mr. Epstein's knowledge of what was in his mind before -- whatever that question was you asked. She won't testify about that. Q Can you tell me what the purpose for her being included? What is the knowledge she has about the lawsuit? A No. Only about me. Q She's going to testify about you as an employee at Kubicki Draper? A I have known her for many years, from that time until today, so she can testify about Q About what? Related to the lawsuit. A Sure. How the lawsuit has affected me over time. Q I see. Okay. So she's not -- that's what she's going to testify about. Okay. How about -- you took Mr. Dershowitz off the witness list. Do you know why Mr. Dershowitz is no longer -- A I didn't know he was on the witness list. Q On for years. A By you or by us? Q This is your witness list, not mine. You don't know why he was on there. Okay. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800787 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 How about Prince Edwards? Do you know why Prince Edwards was on the witness list? Is he coming here to testify? A I don't even know who that is. Q You don't even know who he is? A Prince Edwards. No. Q Do you know whether he's coming to testify? A I don't know who that is. How would I know if he's coming to testify. Q You're the plaintiff and a lawyer in the case. A Is that a real person? Q He's on your witness list, sir, not mine. A Show me where that is. Q You don't have the witness list -- you, you have the witness list. I can't tell you. I'm looking at a chart, and they are not alphabetical. It's like a scrambled witness list. A Let me try. Q I think he goes by Price Andrew, I'm told. A Okay. Prince Andrew. If he testifies, he would have relevant information. Q Do you know what he has? A Yeah. I know that Jeffrey Epstein lent at least one underaged female to Prince Andrew. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800788 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 Q Lent? What do you mean by that? Tell me what you mean by that, please. MR. SCAROLA: The witness identification actually appears at number 48, Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edwards, which is his full legal name. Duke of York, Buckingham Palace Road, London. THE WITNESS: I would love for him to testify. BY MR. LINK: Q Has he been subpoenaed, do you know? A I don't know. We have tried to subpoena him in the past, and he doesn't seem to want to testify. Q The Royals are not easy to get in a circuit court? A Apparently not. I think that your client would have the ability to get him here, though, so I would hope he could. Q Since he's on your witness list -- Mr. Edwards -- I suspect that you would be the one that would be calling him. A Like I said, I would love to. Q On the witness list, if you would, turn to the back page -- Mr. Scarola's office didn't number the pages -- oh, 18 of 22. He did. You see under Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800789 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 expert witnesses on page 18 of 22 -- A Yes. Q -- Mr. Josefsberg? Has he agreed to be an expert witness? A Again, that's a question for Mr. Scarola. Q Have you talked to Mr. Josefsberg -- A Ever? Q No. Let me finish. Have you talked to Mr. Josefsberg about testifying in this case? A Have I personally? Q Yes. A No. Q How about Charles Lichtman at Berger Singerman? Has he agreed to provide expert opinions in this case? A All of these witnesses, you would have to ask Mr. Scarola. Q So you told me -- A He's in charge of the case. Q I got it. So there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine expert witnesses listed? A Most of which appear to be the plaintiff attorneys who handled the other -- who represented the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800790 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 other victims against Mr. Epstein, and would testify that all of the discovery that Mr. Epstein claims to have been done and so improper for some improper purpose were joint decisions by all of us, and was entirely proper and served very relevant purposes for all of our clients. Q Now, you have Earleen Cote -- who you told me was a personal friend -- listed as an expert witness. Does she have an expert opinion she's going to provide to the jury? A That's a question that is directed better to Jack. Q One of the experts that's listed -- Exhibit 22. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 22 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q -- actually provided a report in your case. A It looks like, from the expert witness list that you showed me before, that he's the only one that's above the paragraph saying, The following, or attorneys that are not retained, or are specifically employed to provide expert testimony. So that's probably why we have a report, because he's the one expert that has been employed to provide expert Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800791 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 testimony. Q I understand. He's the only one that complied with the disclosure rules and has a report, but the rest are listed as under the actual expert witness section. A I hear you. Q So in looking at -- do you have the report in front of you, which we just marked as Exhibit 22 for Bernard Jansen, PhD? A Yeah. Q When was Mr. Jansen retained? A I don't know. Q Your counterclaim has been pending since December 2009, correct? A Yes. Q Do you know why Mr. Jansen did not provide a report until 2017? A Don't know. Q Do you know why Mr. Jansen was not listed on any exhibit list from the beginning of the case -- the first -- I think it was five -- maybe five or six witness list to the court? A With certainty I don't know. I know the types of things he does. And typically his report is most useful right before trial, because it is a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800792 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 quantification of the number of people who have seen the articles associated -- depending on the type of lawsuit in which he's testifying -- with the derogatory and defamatory statements, so -- Q Dr. Jansen -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm sorry. You interrupted Mr. Edwards. BY MR. LINK: Q Did I, Mr. Edwards? A Yes. I was almost finish, though. So his report can't be completed until well, you want it to be complete as close up to the trial as possible so that you can have the final numbers. Q I understand you can update reports. But you could have retained him at any time, because there were other trial settings and there would have been a witness list, right? A Well, we have been on appeal for a while, but -- Q I understand. But you've had five trial settings. In any event, you have used Mr. Jansen before, correct? A I have used Mr. Jansen before. As a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800793 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 plaintiff I have not. This is my first time, I think. Q As a lawyer? A Yes. Q I saw on his Appendix B on page 77 he lists a lawsuit versus Maxwell, that we talked about earlier -- A That's the one I told you earlier. Q -- with Boies Schiller -- A Right. Q -- and your firm, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, right? A Exactly. Q And is that where you met Mr. Jansen, during that lawsuit. A Yes. Q Was he somebody that the Boies Schiller firm recommended that you use? A In that lawsuit? Q Yes. A I don't remember who first found him. I would say that in the first call with Mr. Jansen, right before he was hired, it was either myself and Mr. Boies, or somebody from his firm. So together we found him. I think he testified in the Erin Andrews Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800794 288 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case. That's initially how we discovered him. Q If you flip back in this report to forward in the report. Sorry -- to page 13. You see the first article that he references is from October 4th, 2017. A I do see that. Q This is one of the articles he references as being dissemination of defamatory material about you, correct? A I don't know. I haven't read this report. Q You didn't read his report? A No. Q So what was it that he was retained to do, then, if you didn't read his report? Do you know? A It wasn't so I could read his report. That's definitely not what he was retained to do. Q Okay. Did you understand that he was supposed to do a search to see where articles had been disseminated and the number of viewers? A How many viewers viewed the dissemination of the false allegations that were made against me that were prompted or set in motion by Mr. Epstein's complaint. Q So he lists some examples here on page 13. Are you familiar with the article, October 3rd, 2017, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800795 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 in the Palm Beach Post about Jeffrey Epstein paid three women $5.3 million to end sex lawsuits? A Yeah. Q Did your office or Mr. Scarola's office invite that reporter to the hearing on that day? A I did not. I wasn't even in town, I don't believe, for that day. Q Do you know whether Mr. Scarola had lunch with that reporter that day before the article came out or the day before? A I do not know. I don't think it's of consequence, since that article contains these false allegations, and it was only set in motion by this complaint. Q So even if you reached out and asked a reporter to attend a hearing and publish an article, that's Mr. Epstein's responsibility because he sued you in December 2009; is that right? A You got it. Although, I didn't do that. Q You retained Mr. Scarola on a contingency fee to represent you in this case? A Yes. Q So you haven't had to pay Mr. Scarola for his work; is that correct? Let's take a look at Exhibit 23. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800796 290 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 23 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q Can you tell me from looking at Exhibit 23, which is a compilation of Brad Edwards' time, when it is that you started taking contemporaneous notes of your time -- contemporaneous time records? A I believe by February. Q Of February 2010? A I believe so. Q What is it about February 2010 that makes you think that's when you started? A It looks like that's when Q Is there something different about that February 2nd entry that's different than the January 29th and 30th entry? A No. What I thought was that there was a hearing, because I remember -- like I said, I remember being at a hearing at the courthouse. But now that I'm looking at this, this says, "Review of" -- it's a notice. Okay, it was before my deposition, which was March 23rd, 2010. It was before that day. Q Before March 23rd? A That's the date that it says my deposition Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800797 291 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was taken here. Q Was your deposition taken for 12 hours? A It was similar to today, which, you know, I left my house this morning at whatever time. It was it's going to be longer than 12 hours, you know. Q So you bill from the time you leave your house until the time you get back? A Yeah. For that day I wrote that down. The time I left -- the time I came here -- the whole time that this deposition took out of my life that day, I billed it. Q When you're billing clients, do you bill clients for the amount of time it takes you to drive from your house to wherever the deposition is, if you are charging them on an hourly-rate basis? A That's usually worked out with the client. Sometimes if it's out of town, I tell them you are going to have to pay for travel. But most of the time not if it's out of town. If it's in town -- it's down the street, I bill from -- there's usually preparation before the deposition, too, so, you know, it's -- Q I'm just reading what you wrote here. And what you wrote is deposition of Brad Edwards at Searcy Denney, 12 hours? A Yeah. It was probably longer than that. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800798 292 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 From the time that I -- the time that it took out of my day was longer than that. And that wasn't in billing a client. It was -- I couldn't do anything for any client that day, because I was wrapped up in this nonsense. Q Well, you said -- okay. Let's go back, then, and take a look at the beginning. Remember, I asked you about your review of the complaint? You said you did that on the 7th. And I total 22.7 hours that you have recorded to review the complaint in this case. A I have reviewed it for longer than that. I may not Q So to read this complaint you spent more than 22 hours? A Over the course of the last eight years, yes. Q I'm talking about in the first five days, it has the 22 hours, sir. A If that's what the time records say. That doesn't seem -- Q You have got 8.1 on the 7th. You see that? Initial complaint, review and research. A It's not just reviewing the complaint. It's also research related to the complaint, which includes a lot of things. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800799 293 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Do you have any questions relating to these time records that concern any of the four areas that the Court has described, other than a general review of the time records that was already conducted by your predecessor counsel and still co-counsel Fred Haddad? MR. LINK: I am asking about his claim for damages. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. I understand that. But this aspect of his claim for damages was the subject of prior deposition testimony. These records were produced in advance of that deposition. Mr. Haddad had them. Mr. Haddad conducted an examination with regard to these time records. We are not going to go through that again. That is an area that was inquired into. And everything about these time records could reasonably have been asked at that time or was asked at that time. MR. LINK: I understand. MR. SCAROLA: So I'm going to object to any further questions, unless those Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800800 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 questions can be tied into the areas specifically permitted by Judge Hafele. MR. LINK: I believe Judge Hafele has given me permission to ask about damages. BY MR. LINK: Q So would you take a look, if you would, at September 2nd, 2010? And do you see on that date you recorded 41 hours of time? A It wasn't all done on that date. Q By September 2nd, 2010, you told me you were keeping contemporaneous time records. So if you were keeping contemporaneous time records, you recorded on that date 41 hours. A But I'm not billing a client. This is keeping records for me, so I know how much time I'm spending on the file. If you have seen the summary judgment motion and seen the undisputed statement of facts, and seen the volume of exhibits attached to it, you would know how long is spent to assemble that motion, and know that that's not really an unbelievable amount of time. So by that date, that's the number of hours that I had spent on that, that block billed that. This is not something that -- I am doing it Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800801 295 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for me. It's not going to a client. Q But you are doing it in order to recover damages against Mr. Epstein, right? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Don't answer that question. And unless you can tie a specific question regarding these time records to the area specifically identified by Judge Hafele, or demonstrate that the questions that you are asking are questions that could not reasonably have been covered during the third session of Mr. Edwards' deposition, then we will not answer the questions. MR. LINK: So, if I understand it, any questions that I have that relate to damages that are set forth on Exhibit 23, your position is I'm not allowed to ask? MR. SCAROLA: Unless they can specifically be tied to the filing of the federal lawsuit, interaction with Rothstein and knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, or the $14 million bond motion, that's correct. This aspect of damages was fully and completely explored by Mr. Haddad. We are not here to redepose Mr. Edwards with regard Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800802 296 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to matters that were already covered. And no objections were raised with regard to those questions, so this is not an area where the Court sought a clearer record with regard to the nature of the objections that were being raised and any privilege assertions that were being raised. MR. LINK: Okay. You're entitled to instruct him. I disagree with the way you read the transcript. It is what it is. MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. MR. LINK: So the record is clear, there are many questions I would want to ask you about these time records, particularly in light of you telling me that you kept contemporaneous records, which I don't think is true, based on the time that I see here and based on the testimony I just heard, which is that I block billed here, and that I would like to explore that further. Mr. Scarola -- MR. SCAROLA: Your personal assessment of Mr. Edwards' credibility is neither relevant nor material, particularly when your predecessor counsel had every Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800803 297 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opportunity to explore issues regarding credibility with regard to these records. MR. LINK: Move on? MR. SCAROLA: Please do. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, since 2009 when Mr. Epstein's lawsuit was filed, you have actually made presentations about the Epstein case and about representing sexual abuse victims, right? A I have definitely made presentations about representing sexual abuse victims. And one of those cases is the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Q Okay. Let's take a look at Exhibit 24. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 24 was marked for identification.) BY MR. LINK: Q If you would, I would like you to turn to -- it's page 99. This was part of a bigger package. I think it's a presentation you made to the National Crime Victim Bar Association. Do you remember that presentation? A Let me see. Where was it? I know where it was -- Q If you look on page one, it says, "Bradley Edwards. Protecting the Rights of Crime Victims. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800804 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 Why do we do what we do. Papers and Presentations." You see that? A I have given that presentation. Q Turn to page 99. A Yep. Q So, if you look at Subsection F, you make the comment in A that defendant will likely invoke the Fifth. Does that mean the Fifth Amendment? Is that what you mean by that, the constitutional right to not testify against yourself? A The Fifth -- your client does it all the time. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Q Were you talking about Mr. Epstein here or generally? A Doesn't look like -- Q Doesn't look like Mr. Epstein to me. A It doesn't look like it. Q In most cases that are brought involving sexual abuse, do the defendants invoke the Fifth Amendment? A When you sue a pedophile, typically they invoke the Fifth. I mean, I can't even think of an instance where they haven't. The only time that they don't is if they try to claim that it was negligent or they Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800805 299 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 misunderstood the age or misapprehended something about the situation. But where they're actually guilty, yeah, they take the Fifth. Q You see here where you say here in those cases where somebody pleads the Fifth, you can and should ask -- something you put in quotes pressure point questions. You see that? A Yeah. Q And then you give an example of a pressure interrogatory. A Yep. Q What do you mean by finding pressure points to ask defendants? A Well, so this is talking about in an STD transmission case, which I have had a bunch of them not a bunch of them, four or five of them. And one of the things that is difficult about those cases is proving that the perpetrator -- the perpetrator usually doesn't admit, Yeah, I knew I had it beforehand. So in this case, getting the names and numbers of all their prior girlfriends and tracing back the disease is a pressure point that typically when they see that you are headed down this road that you are ultimately going to get information from previous people to be able to prove your case, it will lead to the defendant Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800806 300 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understanding that you got me and -- Q A settlement? A Yeah, and the case will settle. Q So that if you apply the appropriate pressure to the right -- in the right circumstances, you will get them to settle? A Yeah. Q Is that a tactic that you were teaching that folks should do if you were representing a plaintiff, which is to find the right pressure points so that you can extract the best settlement possible? A Well, that's what every plaintiff lawyer does in every case, is try to maximize the recovery. And in order to do that, you need the right evidence. And in order to get the right evidence, these are the types of questions that you need to do to get it. Q And you have to squeeze the pressure point, right? Push the pressure point to get the best settlement? A You've got to get the right evidence to get it, yeah. Of course. MR. LINK: Let's mark this as a composite Exhibit 25. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 25 was marked for identification.) Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800807 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 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q Mr. Edwards, one of the things I have seen is that you have been -- you have gotten awards and accolades and different recognition by your peers over the years, right? A Mr. Haddad and I talked about this ad nauseam at my second deposition, so yes. You've noticed the same thing that your predecessor noticed. Q What I was going to ask you is, I didn't see any such accolades or awards before December 2009. Were you rated by Martindale-Hubbell before December 2009? A This is the same line of questioning. We are just rehashing the same thing. Q So you don't want to answer? MR. SCAROLA: I will let you answer THE WITNESS: It's not that I don't want to answer, it's just wasting time. MR. SCAROLA: I will let you answer that one question. THE WITNESS: I don't know. When Mr. Haddad told me last time all of the accolades, it was -- most of it was news to me. Some of the things I didn't even know about. Martindale-Hubbell, I do. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800808 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 Was I rated before that? I don't know. You would have to go back. BY MR. LINK: Q So the things in this exhibit -- A It's mainly Martindale-Hubbell. Q -- 20 -- 30 -- 23 -- 23. MR. SCAROLA: Twenty-five. MR. LINK: Twenty-five? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. BY MR. LINK: Q Exhibit 25, you're aware of all of these because you ordered plaques, right? A I personally didn't. Did my firm? I don't know. Like, I have never seen this before. I don't know what this organization is. I haven't seen it. Was it ordered? Possibly. Q Do you put these plaques up in your office? A I may have three plaques up in my office. No. I don't have all these plaques. Q You don't have all these plaques up in -- where are you storing your plaques? A I don't know. That's a good question. "Highest possible rating in both legal ability and ethical standards." I feel like I would have remembered seeing this plaque. I haven't seen Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800809 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 it. Q But you see the picture of the plaque? A I do. Q With your name on it? A You've made a great exhibit here. I'm going to use it in my next presentation. MR. SCAROLA: Marketers send you these things with a picture of your plaque all the time. MR. LINK: Not me. They know better. Why don't we take a couple minute's break. Let me sort through some of this and see where we can get to to move it along. How's that? THE WITNESS: Anything to move it along. MR. SCAROLA: Sounds promising. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 5:15 p.m. We are going off the record. (A recess was had.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 5:35 p.m. We are back on the record. BY MR. LINK: Q Mr. Edwards, Bill Corte, who is he? A He's an IT guy. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800810 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 Q Worked at the Rothstein firm? A Yes. Q And did he join the firm that you guys set up, Farmer A No. Q Tell me the name of the firm again. A Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman. Q Did not join them? A No. Q Did you work with him while he was at Rothstein when you were employed there? A We were both employed there. Q Did you work with him on any of the Epstein files? A No. He didn't work on Epstein files. He was an IT guy. Q I understand. Did you use him for any part of the Epstein cases? A I don't think he worked on any -- we didn't have any IT needs, I don't believe. Q We talked earlier about the settlement with the three clients that you represented when you were at Rothstein, and I think the number was Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800811 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 5.2 million -- A It was 5.5 million. It settled in July of 2010, not while I was at Rothstein. Q No, I understand. They were the three same three clients you represented while you were at Rothstein's, right? A Yes. Q Can you tell me, of the 5.5, how much did the three collectively collect from that? A I don't remember that. Q You didn't take those cases on a pro bono basis, did you? A No. It was a contingency arrangement, similar to my arrangement with Mr. Scarola in this case. Q Okay. I understand. I understand. So that contingency, do you remember what percentage the contingency was? A I don't. Q Was it a third, 40 percent? A Probably -- I don't know. But the standard is between zero and a million, 40 percent if it's in litigation; 1 to $2 million, 30 percent; and then over $2 million, 20 percent or something. There's a sliding scale. That's probably what was used. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800812 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 Q Somewhere in that range, though. So on average between 30 to 35 percent on total? A Yeah. Q Did your clients fund their expenses in the litigation? A No. Q You fronted the expenses for them -- the law firms did? A Yeah. Q The expenses that were fronted by the Rothstein firm, were they ever collected? A What do you mean by that? Q So I assume when you were at the Rothstein firm there were expenses advanced on behalf of the three clients, right? A Right. Q And when Rothstein's firm went away, were those expenses that the Rothstein firm advanced ever paid to the trustee -- A Yeah. Q -- or paid back -- A Yeah. Q They were? A Yes. Q And how much was paid to the trustee for Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800813 307 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the expenses? A I don't remember that. I think this was asked in a prior deposition and I gave the answer. I remember this line of questioning, and I knew then. I just don't now. Too many years have passed. Q But there is some amount of the recovery that went to the trustee, right? A Yes. Q Do you remember what the total costs were that the three clients had deducted from the settlement amount? A I don't. Again, I definitely testified about this at a time that I knew it, which was either my second or third deposition. I don't remember anymore. Q Do you have a rough estimate in your mind about what the expenses were or the costs that were advanced? A Approximately $200,000. Q When -- at the Rothstein firm, the four-plus investigators that would work on the matter, would they record their time as an expense that the clients would pay? A No. Q They did not. So a couple hundred thousand dollars in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800814 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 costs, roughly 30, 32 percent contingency fee. I got that about right? A Yeah. I mean based on the math that we're doing. Again, I'm approximating based on -- Q I understand. A Yeah. Q So -- that's really hard math. I like a round number. Roughly a million six or seven in fees to your -- to the firm? A It wasn't that much, because we had to pay a portion of the fees to the trustee, too. Q Oh, they got a portion of the fees and the cost? half. A Yes. Q Do you remember what portion they got? A I don't. Q Half? More? Less? A I just don't remember. I think less than Q Do you? All right. Other than -- A It worked out based on how long different lawyers were there. And I was at RRA for such a short period of time that it would not have been half. That's my deductive reasoning that leads me to answer Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800815 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 that question that way. Q I got it. So there was -- obviously there were three firms that had an interest in whatever the fee recovery was. Brad Edwards, PA? A Yep. Q The Rothstein firm? A Wait. No. Brad Edwards, PA didn't It was the Rothstein firm -- when I came to that firm, all of my cases became RRA cases. I didn't retain -- Q Separate interest -- A No. I didn't retain any separate interest. I just became an employee of a firm. Q And gave them the cases? A They were their cases. Q I got it. A So when I left, I took the cases with me because there was no RRA anymore. Q I didn't understand. Let me make sure I got this. When you left Brad Edwards, PA and became -- the salaried employee? A Yes. Q Salaried employee -- you brought those cases with you and did not retain any percentage in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800816 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 those cases? A Correct. Q Got it. And when those case leave and go to the new Farmer firm, those cases go with, and there's an agreement with the trustee for Rothstein about how fees and costs will be shared? A Exactly. MR. LINK: Thank you very much. I have questions only as to the areas that you instructed him not to answer. But other than that, I'm finished. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCAROLA: Q Brad, there were a number of questions asked of you in regard to signatures on documents that you do not recognize. But you testified that it was your intent that those documents be filed under your authority; is that correct? A Right. Q Do you have any reason to believe that, although you did not recognize those signatures, that those documents were signed without your authority? A No. As I explained, I authorized the cases to be filed. And any attorney could sign the pleading and have it filed. It was my pleading. I wanted it to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800817 311 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be filed. Attorneys sign pleadings for people all the time. So I authorized it to be filed. Q There was -- A I think that the implication was that I authorized somebody to sign my signature. I didn't authorize anybody to sign my signature. I authorized the cases to be filed -- an attorney could sign it, get it filed. Q Was that an unusual circumstance? A No. Q Was it unique in any respect with regard to anything having to do with the Epstein cases? A No. Q Is it unusual in your experience for other lawyers to operate in the same fashion? A No. I signed pleadings. People sign pleadings for me. It happens in every law firm that I know, so -- Q You were also asked questions about your knowledge of the compromise of claims based on Jeffrey Epstein's intimidation. Did you have any authority to settle claims without the knowledge and consent of your clients? A No. Q Did you have any authority to refuse to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800818 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 settle claims where your clients directed that their claims be compromised? A Repeat that question again. Q Yes. You told us that you couldn't settle a claim without your clients' authority. Did you have any authority to refuse to settle a claim where your client directed you to settle it? A I did not. And as I explained, I wanted to try all of those cases and not settle them. I settled them because the clients wanted them settled. Q Did Jeffrey Epstein's intimidation of clients, to your knowledge, and without violation of any attorney-client communication privilege, have an impact on the amount for which claims against Jeffrey Epstein were being settled? MR. LINK: Object to the form. You are going to testify about what the client said but you are not waiving the privilege? MR. SCAROLA: No. I'm asking him whether from his perspective, as the trial lawyer on those cases, whether Jeffrey Epstein's intimidation had any impact on the amount for which the claims were settled. THE WITNESS: We are talking about just the cases that I handled or all of the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800819 313 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cases? BY MR. SCAROLA: Q Right now I'm talking about just cases that you handled. A Of course. It wasn't just my clients. Every single one of the girls were scared to death of Jeffrey Epstein and his intimidation, and my clients were no different. It was the same. His intimidation was very successful in reducing the amount that should been paid to every single one of these abused girls very successfully. MR. LINK: I am going to object and move to strike as inconsistent with the testimony that you already gave under oath to me, but you may continue. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q Do you have an opinion with regard to the full value of the claims of the three clients that you represented? A Sure. Q Did the value of those claims exceed the amounts for which they actually settled? A Of course. Q What are the factors that go into the assessment of the value of a claim against Jeffrey Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800820 314 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Epstein? MR. LINK: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: In my view, it was the disparity of age between Jeffrey Epstein and the particular victim. The way -- the types of conduct, specifically, that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in with the particular victim. It wasn't all identical. The psychological control that Jeffrey Epstein gained over the particular victim, the method that he gain that control over the particular victim, and the lasting impact that his abuse played in that particular victim's life. Some recovered better than others. Some didn't do well at all. MR. LINK: When you say some, are we talking about your three clients? THE WITNESS: I think we're talking about how do you go into evaluating a claim against Jeffrey Epstein. MR. LINK: Generically, unrelated to anyone specifically? MR. SCAROLA: Generically. MR. LINK: Okay. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800821 315 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: And then -- and then it was an assessment of punitive damages, which, from the best that any of us could tell, it appeared that his net worth was going to be in the range of $2 billion. And the idea of punitive damages was to punish him for the conduct that he committed against that particular victim as well as to deter him from engaging in similar conduct. So understanding just how many other victims had been abused, how long he had been abusing these victims, with what -- with what frequency he was engaging in this conduct, were all variables that would go into making a determination just what amount of money somebody would have to assess against him to deter him from this habitual conduct that he had been engaged in for many years. So when I put into a complaint that we were requesting $50 million -- which is the exact same number that Jeff Herman put into his complaint -- I thought that was a very fair number. And in fact, I always knew that if you Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800822 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 took a billion dollars from Jeffrey Epstein and left him with a billion dollars, you would not have actually satisfied the rule under punitive damages, because he would not have been deterred from that future conduct and using his money to create this pyramid of underaged girls that he could abuse. So all of that was what went into how I assessed the value of all of these cases. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q Your earlier testimony established that there were two separate cases filed in different jurisdictions on behalf of One claim filed in state court, one claim filed in federal court, correct? A Correct. Q You have also acknowledged that both of those claims arose out of the same misconduct on Jeffrey Epstein's part, correct? A That's correct. Q Did the federal lawsuit seek the same relief that the state lawsuit sought? A No. Q Explain that, if you would, please. A So when Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800823 317 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 non-prosecution agreement with the federal government, there was a provision within that agreement that said that if one of his victims brought a case against him exclusively under 18 USC 2255, then only under that circumstance of bringing that case exclusively under that count would Jeffrey Epstein not contest liability and agree to a minimum statutory damage amount of $150,000. He later contested and said that an earlier application of the statute applied and it should only be $50,000. But nonetheless, that was the general principle. That statute did not allow for punitive damages. And as I just explained, we assessed the punitive damages as being extraordinary in the case. So that's the answer to that question in terms of the difference of the damages that we were claiming in the state action, which contained a claim for punitive damages and proceeded under common law theories of battery or intentional affliction, emotional distress. Those kinds of things in the federal claim was to proceed under 18 USC 2255. What happened in the summer of 2009 was that it was realized -- like I said, not by me -- it was initially realized by Mr. Cassell, but I agreed, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800824 318 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that III.'s case was proceeding only in state court, and that we had not taken advantage at all of the provision in the non-prosecution agreement, which would allow for statutory damages under 18 USC 2255, and that 's birthday -- 21st birthday, I believe -- was coming up in August, and that the statute of limitations would run -- or begin to run at that birthday for bringing the 2255 claims. Q Explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you would please, what the statute of limitations as applied under the circumstance meant. What was the significance of the statute of limitations? A Well, the statute of limitations in any sense is you only have so long from the time that the tort or the crime is committed to bring a claim, otherwise it's waived forever. So what we did not want to do is fail to bring the claim under 2255 and that claim expire at her 21st birthday, and it ultimately be a more beneficial claim to have brought and us not have the ability to bring it any more. Because it was also around that same time that we began to believe that -- there was an argument -- and perhaps the right argument -- the argument that I still believe Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800825 319 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to this day probably we would win on, but it never got tested -- was that while Jeffrey Epstein, under 2255, would have to agree -- if you exclusively sued him under that -- would have to agree to admit to liability and to statutory minimum damages of 150,000. It was his position that that would be the maximum regardless of the number of times that he molested that particular person. IMIIIII's circumstance, she had been molested by him for years and dozens and dozens and dozens of times. I don't know how many times. Maybe 100 times while a minor. So we started to think, you know what, if you settled one of these cases for $150,000, it's grossly undervaluing the case. If he has to admit to liability and you can multiply 150,000 times the number of offenses that he committed, it saves that victim from having to endure extensive discovery and intimidation that they -- especially -- was having to endure. And if we win that argument, then that's definitely the best way to try this case, especially for Q Why that difference? Why would be shielded from abuse to which she was subjected in the state court proceeding if the determination was made to proceed in federal court under 18 USC 2255? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800826 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 A If that determination was made in federal court, she would not have been shielded in state court, but we could have dismissed the state court claim and only proceeded under the federal case. Then we would be presenting a case in front of the jury where all of the -- let's call it dirt that Jeffrey Epstein had dug up about would not be -- would not all have to come into evidence, and we could save her some of the problems that we assessed as being problems with her case. Q You spoke about the statute of limitations andM turning 21. What is the statute of limitations that applies in a federal 18 USC 2255 claim? A From recollection, there were two readings of the statute. I haven't seen the statute in a long time -- at least in a while -- but it's -- it uses some language that it's three years from the date that the disability no longer exists, which we interpret as her being a minor. So I think it's three years from the time that she's no longer a minor. So at the time she turned 21, there was an argument that her 2255 claims, if we chose to proceed under them, would have expired. Q Did the timing of the filing of that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800827 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 federal action have anything to do with any factor, other than those that you have just described, the potential expiration of the statute of limitations and your desire to take advantage of the provisions of the non-prosecution agreement as a potential alternative to the state court claim? A That is the only reason that we filed it at that time. Q Did Scott Rothstein have any role whatsoever in that decision-making process? A He never had any role in any decision-making process with anything to do with any of these cases, so no. Q Did you become aware of the fact that your Epstein-related files at some point in time had been requested by Scott Rothstein? A Yes. Q How did you become aware of that? A I think Mike told me -- Fisten. Q Was there any explanation offered as to why Scott Rothstein wanted to see the Epstein-related files? A That if these cases went to trial, he wanted to try the cases with me. Q He who? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800828 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 A He, Scott Rothstein, wanted to try the case with me. That's the explanation that I was given. Q And was there anything suspicious about the head partner in the firm telling you that in this high-profile case he wanted to be part of the prosecution team? A No. If my associate brought in a high-profile case right now, I would be the one to try the case, despite the fact that she may be the only one who knows anything about it. So there's nothing suspicious about that. Q Files got returned to you? A Yes, files did get returned to me. Q And -- was there anything about the request for review of the files on the basis that Scott Rothstein was considering participating in the prosecution of those claims that aroused any suspicion on your part? A No. Q Was there anything else that went on in the short period of time that you were in that law firm that gave any cause for you to suspect that your files were being used in any way, directly or indirectly, in connection with any illegal activity of any kind? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800829 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 A No. I was just a lawyer just working my case and trying to prove my case. That's it. I wasn't concerned with whatever other signals or signs there were. But there weren't any. The most suspicious thing was, there were police officers walking the hallway. But police officers in the building didn't give me that type of suspicion. It was an unnecessary degree of security over the law firm, at best. But with these files or any of the files, no suspicion whatsoever. Q Who were your coworkers in that law firm? Who were the other lawyers that you were working with? A Just generally who was in the law firm? Q Yeah. Give us a general description of the quality of the people that were working for Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler during the period of time that you became associated with the firm. A Well, while I was at the firm, I worked with Bill Berger, who had just come off the bench. He was a judge. Q There's been a number of references to Bill Berger having just come off the bench. Was Judge Berger a respected member of the judiciary in Palm Beach County? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800830 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 A Very much so, and that's why I welcomed him to help with the file. Q Did he leave under any circumstances that gave rise to any suspicion whatsoever? MR. LINK: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: Not at all. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q Who were the other people that you were working with? A Like I said, I conducted -- I ran the files. But other people -- Q When I say working with, I'm not talking about limiting that question to people who worked on the Epstein files. Who were the other folks that were a part of this firm? A Steve Jaffe, Gary Farmer, Matt Weissing. Gary's Farmer's father was an appellate judge. In fact, I think he was still on the bench then when we were working there together. Gary is a senator now. Matt Weissing, who became my partner. Steve Jaffe, same. Mark Fistos, same. These are high-quality people. Good lawyers. The people that I associated with there, good lawyers, good people, not doing anything bad. They're just lawyers who are good lawyers. That's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800831 325 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. Q Did any of these high-qualify, respected, good lawyers ever express any suspicion to you about any of the activities that were being conducted within that law firm? A Not at all. Q Did the unraveling of the Ponzi scheme come as a total and complete surprise to you? A Of course, yes. Q Did you speak to anybody within the firm, among those respected lawyers that you have described, who indicated to you that the unraveling of the Ponzi scheme did not come as a total and complete surprise to them? A All of them were just as surprised. MR. SCAROLA: I have no further questions. MR. LINK: I have couple follow-ups on it. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LINK: Q So, in your evaluation of the plaintiffs' cases, generically, I didn't hear you describe any aspect of the plaintiffs' past. Did you consider the plaintiffs' past? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800832 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 I did. Q You didn't say that when Mr. Scarola asked you. MR. SCAROLA: I disagree with you. I think that that was identified. But the record will speak for itself. That question is argumentive. THE WITNESS: I considered their past. BY MR. LINK: Q Okay. Talking generically. A Sure. For a bunch of reasons, not the least of which was how vulnerable were they before Mr. Epstein abused them, how easy pry were they. That factored big time into my assessment of the value of the cases. Q Did you factor into consideration other sexual activity that they may have had? A Sure. I took everything about them. Q Whether they had worked as prostitutors before? A Before meeting Jeffrey Epstein? Q Yeah. A I don't remember that ever being the case with any of them before meeting Jeffrey Epstein. That might have been right after. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800833 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 Q Any of them ever worked at strip clubs before meeting Mr. Epstein? Those kind of factors -- A All of those things I will take into consideration. Every single one of these. These were just little girls, so, yes, into consideration. Q Did you take into consideration any of them having fake IDs that expressed an age of 18 or older? Did you take that into consideration? A That's ridiculous? That's just not true. Q You didn't? A There's, like, 100 underaged girls. That was not a factor in this case. It might be -- Q I'm asking if it's a factor you'd take into consideration generically. I didn't think Mr. Scarola asked you about a specific case. I said is this generic, and he said, yes, this is generic. A Are you talking about any case or just Jeffrey Epstein? Q No. He asked you about a generic case. A With Jeffrey Epstein? Q Yes. A Yes. Somebody having a fake ID, I think that that was, like, one of the defenses that somebody ran I took all of those things Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800834 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 early on, but it's not a factor to consider in this case. Q Okay. So that's not a factor you would have considered? A No. I would have considered it if that was true across the board. It just wasn't a factor in any case related to Jeffrey Epstein. Q Would you consider it a factor of any of the victims changing their testimony from when they spoke with the FBI until when they were -- when they retained a lawyer? Would that impact your evaluation of cases? A I took into consideration all of those circumstances. Q All of those kinds of things. How much did net from the settlement proceeds? A I don't remember. Q Of the gross amount of the 5.5, which portion was allocated to MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. That assumes that there was a lump-sum settlement that involved an allocation among the three. MR. LINK: I was not suggesting it was a lump-sum at all. I just know the total Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800835 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 number is 5.5. MR. SCAROLA: When you talk about allocating a portion of the 5.5, that suggests -- MR. LINK: I will ask the question again. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. LINK: Q What was the settlement amount for A You know it as well as me. I believe $1 million. I could be wrong on that though. Q Mr. Scarola asked you a bunch of questions about the federal lawsuit and the statute of limitations. Are you telling us that you filed a 245-page complaint to simply toll the statute of limitation? A It's only as long as it is because of the number of times that Jeffrey Epstein molested her. As you will see, it's just count after count after count, so that we captured the number of counts that would incorporate what he did to this particular person. If it was one of the females who had only gone to his house one or two times, it would be a much shorter complaint. It's being held against me that he molested so many times. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800836 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 Q I asked you if it's true that you filed that complaint simply to toll the statute of limitations. That's what I asked. A And I've already explained that, yes, that's why we filed it, to toll the statute of limitations. Q And by filing it and not serving it, did that accomplish the goal you set out? A It did. Although, I ordered it to be served. I mean, I wanted that complaint served. Q Did you do anything -- did you believe it had been served? Was it your mental state when you left the Rothstein firm that that complaint had been served on Mr. Epstein? A I think I knew at that point in time that it hadn't been served yet. But the intention was to serve it, and I wanted it served on him at his house when he was in town. It just wasn't always easy to serve Mr. Epstein. Q Did you -- tell me what efforts you made to serve that complaint. A I don't remember. What I usually do is serve Q I don't want to know what you usually do. What did you do to serve that complaint? A I, like you, don't walk around serving Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800837 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 complaints, so I don't make efforts to serve anybody. I'm not a process server. I tell somebody I want it served, and hopefully they get a process server to serve the complaint. Q Who did you tell to hire a process server, sir? Who did you tell to hire a process server? A I don't remember who was doing that at RRA at that time. We are talking about eight years ago. Q Well, when you went -- started your own firm, the Farmer Jaffe firm, did you make efforts to serve the complaint? A I don't remember. Q Well, if you did, there would be some correspondence or communication, I assume, with a process server or somebody -- A I would think so. Q Do you still have the communications and files that relate to the federal court complaint during the time period at Farmer Jaffe? A I don't know. It is so not important to me right now. I don't know. Q But it was really important to you at the time, because of the statute of limitations and her 21st birthday -- A We filed the complaint. We tolled the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800838 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 statute of limitations. I don't need to serve it before then. Q You would have to serve it to prosecute it, right, and to recover under it? If the ultimate goal, based on what you told me, is to recover damages, then you can't accomplish that unless you serve the complaint, agreed? A You can accomplish that, but all you need to do is file the complaint before the statute of limitations run. That tolls the statute. Q Sir, I'm asking about recovering the damages. You gave us this whole litany of the damages that you wanted to recover, and that by doing this federal complaint you could recover money for on the statutory counts. And I'm asking you in order to accomplish the goal that you have told the jury during Mr. Scarola's questioning, didn't you have to first serve the complaint? A If we were going to go to trial on the federal case and not the state case, we would have had to serve the complaint, and we would have had to drop the state court case, go to trial on that complaint because we would have had to proceed against him exclusively under that count. So, yes, we -- Q You don't usually have to serve the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800839 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 complaint until right before trial? A I didn't say that. MR. SCAROLA: He didn't say that. BY MR. LINK: Q You said if you were going to try it you would have to serve it. A You're just making things up. MR. SCAROLA: He didn't say anything like that. BY MR. LINK: Q So let me ask you this. When you filed that complaint, was it your intent to prosecute that action -- to move that action forward? A When I filed that complaint it was to preserve the statute of limitations in case we wanted to go forward on that case and not the state case. We were weighing, tactically, which way is better for III Q And did you make the decision to not pursue the federal court case before service was effected? A We ultimately made the decision to go forward on the state court cases with and with Q When was that decision made, sir? A I don't remember when that decision was made. Q Can you tell me approximately how long Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800840 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 after the complaint was filed that you made the decision to abandon it? A I don't know that we ever made the decision to abandon it. Like I said, it was all premised on this argument as to whether or not you are going to get a multiplier by the number of events. And I seem to remember that we started getting into the legal pleadings on that debate where Jeffrey Epstein was saying, no, it's $150,000, regardless of the number of times I molested anybody. And we were saying, No, you get the multiplier. You can't molest somebody one time, pay $150,000, and then get 99 free molestations. That was, at least, our argument. It was briefed in early 2010, I think, in the Jane Doe case, in response to a motion for summary judgment. And when that case settled, I don't believe that Judge Marra had yet ruled on that issue. In fact, I know that it was never ruled upon. We never got the answer to that question. So by that point in time, we had decided we're going forward on the state court cases with respect till.' and and we will go forward on the federal case with respect to Jane Doe. And if we win on that argument with Jane Doe, it may prompt Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800841 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 us to dismiss the counts that are not 2255 with respect to Jane Doe. That was what was going on in our mental processes with respect to how we were going to process -- prosecute these cases. Q So when did you withdraw the federal court action foil.? A I believe it was dismissed by stipulation as part of the settlement when Jeffrey Epstein paid III. a million dollars for molesting her. That's what I believe. Q So it sat there -- even though it wasn't served, you didn't dismiss the case until there was a settlement? You filed it, but you didn't serve it? A Right. I think that's right. It got dismissed in 2010 when he settled the cases, when he settled her -- Q So it just sat there without being prosecuted, the federal court case? A Yes. I think it got joined with the other 15 or 16 cases for discovery purposes and whatever else, so I don't know about just sit there. It's not like a normal case where it just sits. Q Can you conduct discovery in a case before you serve it? Can you do that? Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800842 336 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 What would discovery look like? It's still taking the same depositions of the same people, the same time. So we were conducting discovery on behalf of In the state court action, it would have looked exactly the same over here, which all would have been together with all of the other victims that he molested. So it wasn't like a single-act case where you are not getting to do anything. Everything else was happening. We weren't hamstrung. Q There wasn't anything happening for in the federal court, was there? A She's still the same person. Whether she has a case in the state court or the federal court, we still needed to conduct discovery against Jeffrey Epstein to prosecute the same type of case. Q So Scott Rothstein, what was his trial experience in the fall of 2009? A I was told from the time that I got there that he was this amazing employment lawyer, trial lawyer, and that's how -- that's how he had built this reputation as -- that he was the best employment trial lawyer in South Florida. Q So you practiced in Fort Lauderdale for Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800843 337 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 seven years before you joined the firm -- before you joined Rothstein's firm? A I mean, I was a prosecutor for three of those years, so you don't really know anybody. When you're a prosecutor you know -- that's a different world. Q You know criminals? A Yeah, you know criminals. Exactly. And then I was insurance defense attorney for the next three years. Q So you don't really know anybody? A Well, you just know a different world of people. It's not the same thing. I didn't run into Scott Rothstein. Q Had you ever heard of him? A No. I had not really heard of him. I mean, I heard of him from -- I had heard of the firm from Russ Adler. I worked out of the same gym as Russ, so he would tell me all the time how great the firm was and how great Scott was. Personally, I had no experience with the guy. Q When Mr. Rothstein decided he was going to be the lead trial lawyer, which case was that? A He didn't decide he was going to be the lead trial lawyer. You just make things up in questions all day long. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800844 338 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 was told that he was going to try the case with me. Period. Not more than, not less than that. That's just it. Not be the lead, not be the second, not be the third. Q Just try the case with you? A That's what I was told. Q And that was okay because he was head of the firm and he owned the files, right? A Correct. Q You were an employee, in your mind, and he was the lawyer ultimately at the firm responsible for the three clients, true? A There's seventy lawyers at the firm. They all work for him. Hundreds of files. He's still the equity partner of the firm, so they are the firm's files. They are not -- Q I understand. You told me earlier. And I didn't realize that, that the interest that Bradley Edwards, PA had in three files, you gave up to Mr. Rothstein and became a salary employee, essentially. A Gave up to RRA. Q Mr. Rothstein's firm, correct? A Right. We've established this. Q And so that Mr. Rothstein was the lawyer at Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800845 339 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 firm as the -- one of two equity shareholders who was ultimately responsible for the three Epstein matters? A For every case in the entire firm, including those -- Q Including the three Epstein matters? A Every case, yeah. MR. LINK: I have no further questions. MR. SCAROLA: I have nothing further. We will read. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 6:16 p.m., and that concludes this deposition. - - - (The deposition was concluded at 6:16 p.m.) Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800846 340 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 : SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) I, the undersigned authority, certify that BRADLEY EDWARDS personally appeared before me and was duly sworn. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 13th day of November, 2017. Sonja D. Hall Commission No.: FF 082994 Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission Expires: 2-01-18 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800847 341 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 DEPOSITION CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) : SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) I, SONJA D. HALL, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the deposition of BRADLEY EDWARDS; that a review of the transcript was requested; and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that on the 13th day of November, 2017, I notified JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE that the deposition of BRADLEY EDWARDS was ready for reading and signing by the witness. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 13th day of November, 2017. SONJA D. HALL Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800848 342 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO: BRADLEY EDWARDS c/o JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE RE: JEFFREY EPSTEIN vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually At the conclusion of your deposition given in the above-styled cause you indicated you wished to read and sign the transcript. This letter is to advise you that your deposition is read and we ask that you call our office at at your earliest convenience for an appointment to come in. If you are a party in this action and your attorney has ordered a copy of this transcript, you may wish to read his copy and forward to us a photostatic copy of your signed correction sheet. It is necessary that you do this as soon as possible, since the transcript cannot be held beyond two weeks from the date of this letter. If you have any reason which you would like for me to place on your deposition as to your failure to sign the same, please advise. Thank you for your prompt attention. Very truly yours, PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 BY: SONJA D. HALL Date: November 13th, 2017 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800849 343 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 CORRECTION SHEET: NAME: BRADLEY EDWARDS RE: JEFFREY EPSTEIN vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually The following corrections, additions or deletions were noted on the transcript of the testimony which I gave in the above-captioned matter held on November 10th, 2017: PAGE(S) LINE(S) SHOULD READ SIGNATURE: DATE: Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00800850