DS9 Document EFTA00801596

1 UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT DISCLAIMER IN THE MATTER OF EPSTEIN v. EDWARDS t 3 THE COURT: Good morning. Welcome back. All right as I understand it, you want to start with the issue of the motion to amend the answer and affirmative de . Is that accurate? 3 10 11 12 11 14 IS 16 17 IS IS 20 21 22 21 26 2$ MR. SCAROLA: That is, sir. Yes. THE COURT: I will be glad to do that. I have reviewed the materials from both sides. Thank you for that. MR. LINK: Whenever you are ready, Judge. THE COURT: Whenever you are ready, go ahead, sir. MR. LINK: Good morning, Your Honor. Scott Link on behalf of the plaintiff. It is our motion for leave to amend the affirmative defenses. You have to put that in context, Your Honer. That is, why do we need affirmative defenses that sound in defamation, and they do. The reason they do is because the counter-plaintiff in this case has made it very clear that they are trying the allegations in the statements in the complaint. 2 4 I The following transcriptisl of proceedings, or any portion 1 At the last hearing, Hr. Scarola handed 2 thereof, in the above-entitled matter, taken on Decerber 2 this out and showed us vary clearly what 3 Sth, 2017, is being delivered MEDI= and UNCERTIFIED by s their plan is. And this is their plan. 4 the official court reporter et the request of Kere 4 They believe that we're trying the factual S Rockenbach, Esquire. 5 allegations of the complaint to aaa whether 6 The purchaser agrees not to disclose this uncertified and e they wore true or false. 7 unedited transcript In any form Written or electronic) Aa this Court knows, in the recent a To anyone who has no connection to this case. e Supreme Court case dealing with this case, 9 This is an unofficial transcript, which should NOT be the Supreme Court made it very clear that 10 relied upon for purposes of verbatim citation of :0 there is a narrow exception to the 11 teatissny. 21 litigation privilege. That exception is for 12 This transcript has not been checked, preofroad 22 malicious prosecution. But the Supreme 13 or corrected. It is a draft transcript, HOT a certified 29 Court told us in that opinion Your-Honor -- 14 transcript. As such, it imy contain tweeter-generated 24 I will share it with the Court -- the Is nastranslations of atenecype tole or electronic 35 Supreme Court told us in that opinion, Your 16 transmission errors, resulting in inaccurate or 16 Honor -- gave ua a roadmap. 13 nonsensical word combinations, or untranslated stenotype 17 The Supremo Court told us. Is siribola which cannot to deciphered by non-stenotypists. 19 THE COURT: That Debt'neat, Is Corrections will be nade in the preparation of the 19 D-E-B-R-1-W-C-A-T versus Fischer -- 20 certified transcript, resulting in differences in content, 20 MR. LINK: That's correct, Your Honor. 21 page and line motor*, punctuation and formatting. 21 THE COURT: -- from the Florida Supremo 22 This realtire uncertified and unedited transcript contains 22 Court, So.34 cite that the parties aro well 22 no appearance page, certificate page, index or 23 familiar with. 24 certification. 24 MR. LINK: If you are look at this 25 25 case, you will see that the Supreme Court Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801596 it clear and us a roadmap. 5 made vary gave The Supreme Court said really simply -- and 2 2 3 it makes sense -- that if the litigation 4 privilege applied to the elements of a 5 malicious prosecution action, chore would 6 never be a malicious prosecution action. Plus the Supreme Court reaffirmed that every statement made in the proceeding 9 : the allegations of the complaint. 10 the statements of witnesses, the statements 10 11 of lawyers, and the statements of the judges 11 12 are absolutely protected. That's why the 12 13 court lays out the elements. And the 13 14 elements the court lays out talk about only 14 35 the actual initiation of the lawsuit. is 14 So if you turn, Your Honor, to page two 26 of three, the court sots forth the elements. 27 18 We will talk about those elements. The 28 29 Supreme Court really give us clarity. 29 20 At the bottom of the page two, it talks 10 II about an original criminal or civil judicial 21 proceeding -- an original proceeding. That 21 22 proceeding, according to the Supremo Court, 29 24 when you read the Fourth OCA division that's 24 25 cited, is the filling, it's the 15 6 1 commencement, it's the action. 2 If you think about where this law came from, it comes from the criminal system. If you think about the criminal system, simply issuing a warrant, starting an 2 6 investigation, filing a criminal complain: 7 in and of itself can cause injury to your reputation. 9 So the Supreme Court tells us the act 20 that is not protected by the litigation 10 21 privilege is the initiation of a lawsuit. 21 21 If you look at the probable cause 29 element, it says there was an absence of 29 24 probable cause for the original proceeding. 24 36 It doesn't say claim. It doesn't 35 16 allegation. It doesn't say statement. 16 17 So Mr. Scarola tolls us three times 17 10 during this hearing on the 29th that what he 18 19 plans to do -- what he plans to do -- 19 20 reading from this transcript at page 82 -- 20 21 the first thing Your Honor needs to 21 22 determine is the issue we have boon focusing 22 23 on. What are the factual allegations that 23 24 we claim were maliciously prosecuted, and 24 25 then he goes to our complaint. 25 7 According to the Supreme Court, our complaint is protected. ft cannot commit defamation. No cannot commit any action that's based on wrongful words. The only thing that's available is a claim for malicious prosecution focused on the initiation of the milt. On the last page of this opinion from the Supreme Court, the court tells us this: The filing of a lawsuit and the joining of a defendant Is the commencement of a judicial proceeding. It then says, really importantly, an action roc malicious prosecution which is based as a matter of law on causing the commencement of an original judicial proceeding -- that's what we need focus on. So If we are trying the statements and the allegations of the complaint, if that's what we are doing, then we have to have affirmative dot lllll that protect us from a claim based on allegations in the complaint. Tho last thing I want to show the Court, on Friday after our hearing, I took the deposition of Mr. Edwards' export. Hay I approach. During the deposition of Dr. Jansen -- if you turn to page throe, four and five, Your Honor, you will see what their export wants to do. The assignment was the level of dissemination of defaming statements -- defaming statements. That's on page three. Page four. I refer to ties statement associating Hr. Edwards with the illegal activities of Hr. Rothstein's, the results of Hr. Rothstein's lawsuits as the defaming statements. So what Choy plan to do is put on an export to demonstrate that the allegations of the complaint were defaming and caused damages, the defamation action. There's nothing in the el/manta of malicious prosecution that make it relevant for an expert to get on the stand and talk about defaming statements in the complaint. In fact, to do so violates the roadmap that the Supreme Court just gave us. Thera is no better authority than Dobrincat on how this case should go forward. But If they're going to be allowed to put an expert on to 8 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801597 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 22 23 24 25 9 talk about defaning statements, if they are going to bo allowed to put the allegations of the complaint and test their truth or falsity, which aro protected by litigation privilege, we then need to have affirmative defenses that sounds like defamation. Last point I want to point out in DobrIncat, Your Honor is this. It's in the analysis, and it's the second sentence of the analysis. To law has long recognised that judges, counsel, parties and witnesses should be absolutely exempted from liability to an action -- this is the key -- it doesn't say to defamation -- to an action. To be specific, to any action for defamatory words published in the course of the judicial proceeding. So if we aro exempted from liability for the words published in the lawsuit, then we don't need those affirmative defenses, because they will then have to focus on probable cause for the judicial proceeding. But If they aro going to by allowed to bring in allegations of the conplaint, truth or falsity, then we need these affirmative 2 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS io 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 that sane umbrella. MR. LINK: It does, Your Honor. Everything that we've asked the Court to allow us to amend is designed to protect our record, frankly, that we believe that everything in our pleading -- lot me glue you an example. The Court dismisses Mr. Edward's count for abuse of process based on litigation privilege. At the and of the suit when we win, if we sued Mr. Scarola for malicious prosecution in going forward with this case, aro the statements he's node in this proceedings -- for example, Mr. Epstein is a serial child molester -- aro they protected because they're part of this proceeding? Or does he waive the privilege somehow because we bring a malicious prosecution action? This court tolls us very clearly we could not sue Mr. Scarola for his statements. It is no purpose in the malicious prosecution action. But that's what this door is opening. That's what they want to do. And we suggest to Your Honor, we don't want to come back a 10 defenses. 12 second time. No would like to try this ease 2 Otherwise, if you look at our answer in 2 once. No would like to focus on the 3 affirmative defenses, Your Honor, we don't 3 elements of malicious prosecution and not have any. Tho reason we don't have any is 4 try a defaming words case in front of the 5 we didn't raise advice of counsel. There's not a statute of limitation defense. No have no affirmative defenses because we aro defending a malicious prosecution action. 5 jury. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay thank you, Mr. Link. Mho is going to arguing on behalf of 9 But we ask this Court, if this Court is 9 Mr. Edwards? Mr. Burlington? 20 going to allow them to try the truth or 10 MR. BURLINGTON: May it please the 12 falsity of the statements in the complaint, that we bo allowed to anon our pleading. 11 12 Court. I am Phillip Burlington representing Brad Edwards. 13 THE COURT: You aro not seeking to 13 I have not heard anything today that 24 amend to affirnatively defend on advice of 14 justifies their claim that the rights to 25 counsel? 15 petition the government provides them an 16 MR. LINK: We aro not, sir. They are 14 affirmative Oceans* as they allege in their 17 all defamation affirmative defenses. 17 fifth affirmative defense. That has nothing le THE COURT: Well, there's also the 18 to do with defamation. No have explained 19 constitutional affirmative defenses that you 19 why it is not a defense to a malicious 20 aro seeking to interpose dealing with the 20 prosecution case. Because as the US Supreme 21 petition to file against the government or 21 Court has stated very clearly, baseless 22 something along those lines. 22 litigation is not protected by the privilege 23 MR. LINK: Those aro all defamation. 23 to engage in petitioning of the government 21 They aro all protection of speech. 24 under the First Amendment. 25 THE COURT: I presume that falls under 25 I would note that oven considering the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801598 2 3 4 13 presentation here, there is not a single case from any jurisdiction cited by them that says that any of these defenses aro valid in a malicious prosecution case. Not 15 the prejudice to our client. But I will got back to the legal insufficiency. The argument that the Debrincat case gives a roadmap is simply wrong. Debrincat 5 6 7 9 a single case. They have gone so far as to site the Noerr/Pennington cases, which are anti-trust cases involving efforts to lobby the legislative and executive branches of is not a roadaap. It is a dead end. It was the determination that the litigation privilege OOOs not apply to a malicious prosecution case. And this is very clearly stated in the 10 government, and they have taken that and 10 paragraph preceding its conclusion. This 11 tried to apply it to the malicious 11 court has never hold that the litigation 12 prosecution case. That makes to sense. 12 privilege protects a litigant from the claim 13 Now, as to the other defenses, they 13 of malicious prosecution. And other 14 have also passed over two very critical 14 district courts have recognized that the 25 considerations which wore not addressed in 15 litigation privilege does not act as a bar 26 Choir motion -- and have not boon addressed 26 to a malicious prosecution claim. 27 hero, and I hope will not be addressed for 27 If the Florida Supremo Court was the first tine in the rebuttal, since wo 28 holding that it does not bar proof of the 29 addressed it very squarely in our 29 first element of malicious prosecution, they 20 response -- and that is, there aro throe 10 would have said that and said it remains in II grounds to deny a motion to amend. Ono is L force for the other elements. Clearly they 22 whore the party has abused privilege. The 22 would not have boon as categorical as they 22 second is whore the amendment would 29 were. 14 prejudice the opposing party, and than the 24 What they have done is try to parse out 25 third is whether the affirmative defenses 25 language, again trying to make the roadmap 14 would be futile because they are legally 16 when it's clear this was intended to be a 2 insufficient. 2 dead and for that privilege. 4 Now, in this case they've raised five affirmative defenses eight years into the And they talk about it's only the initiation of the claim that subjects them 5 litigation and mere weeks before of this 5 to liability. But even in Debrincat when it 6 7 8 9 20 special setting that this Court had for this month. No pointed out in our response. There was no explanation why it took them eight years to dream up those affirmative :0 talks about the first element, it says an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued. In this case, obviously, it was continued. 11 defenses. That Is an abuse of the They include the other elements, which 12 privilege, waiting until the ova of trial, 12 include that there was an absence of 19 after discovery is almost completely IS probable cause for the original proceeding. 24 concluded to raise multiple affirmative 14 That moans we can prove that the factual 25 defenses, many of which raise factual issues 15 allegations wore false, that the legal 16 that would require further discovery, 16 claims wore invalid, as a matter of law, and 17 possibly now exports, and maybe oven counter 17 nothing In Debrincat precludes that. 10 pleading. Those reasons in themselves aro 10 It was a simple, vary short decision 19 sufficient to justify denial of this motion. 19 for the Florida Supremo Court. And it 20 But, I have spend more time on the 20 simply said the privilege dons not apply to 21 futility, because I certainly understand 21 malicious prosecution claims. 22 that Your honor has always expressed concern 22 But oven putting aside Dobrincat, we 23 that people aro allowed to amend. And 23 have never had a defamation claim. We have 24 again, wo don't think that they should based 24 never alleged it. And they have this string 25 on the abuse of the privilege and based on 25 alto of cases that talks about how, well -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801599 17 19 it's called the single publication rule. If 2 your cause of action is based on a defamatory publication, you can't avoid 4 defenses to defamation or the statute of • limitations by pleading things like • intentional inflection of emotional distress 7 or tortious interference with business • relationships, so forth and so on. 9 It has nothing to do -- not a single 10 one of those cases had to do with malicious 11 prosecution. 7ho only one that comes within 12 shouting distance is Fridovich. But in that 13 case, the Fourth District rejected the 14 malicious prosecution case, because that 15 case arose out of family allegations that a le family member murdered somebody, and they 17 wore essentially fighting over the *state. 16 They created this conspiracy to bring 19 claims to the prosecutor to prosecute that 10 family member for murder. That family 11 member was ultimately convicted of 12 manslaughter. 13 So the Fourth District said that's not 14 a bona fide termination in your favor, so IS they eliminate the malicious prosecution. it. I nean, the fact that there aro similar 2 elements of danage does not convert 3 malicious prosecution to a dofanation count. And they have cited no case for that 5 proposition. 6 But oven if we go a little deeper into • those defamation claims to the defamation • defenses, they aro clearly invalid as a 9 matter of law. 10 For example, the fifth ono -- excuse 11 I have already addressed the fifth ono. 12 Tho sixth ono claims that Hr. Edwards 13 is a public figure. Now, as noted 14 previously, this would raise a whole new 15 factual mat of issues plus perhaps the need le for experts. I? But the Gertz case makes It crystal 16 clear that a private attorney representing a 10 client, despite their involvement in a 10 high-profile case, including their 11 involvenent In a proceeding unrelated to 12 their civil proceeding is not a public 13 figure, that you cannot convert -- they aro 14 very specific. You cannot convert a private 25 attorney representing a client into an 2 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 15 14 25 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 Then they wont with detonation counts and related counts. It was a certified question in Fridovich -- talks about defamation. But they have cited no case from any jurisdiction that says that you can convert a malicious prosecution case into a defamation case, and then raise defenses that aro unique to detonation cases. And this reliance on the deposition taken recently is nothing but -- that was a -- that was an expert on damages, and damages to reputation as a result of false statements, which is an inherent part of a malicious prosecution case. An they have cited no case to the contrary. THE COURT: You have cases that cite affirmatively to that proposition? MR. BURLINGTON: Thera is a case called Mancusi out of the Florida Suprono Court that define the elements and talked about it is designed -- in fact, Debrincat says that malicious prosecution is balanced between allowing people to bring suits and protecting the reputation of the individual. So that's ono -- that's the nature of 2 9 15 14 IS 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 officer of the court to bootstrap yourself into saying it's a public official. And they also said in that case that we aro not going to hold that someone who simply engages in their professional activities or has involvement in the community is converted to a public figure. And what they have attached to their motion to amend, which they claim Brad &Morels made hinsolf into a public figure is nothing more than website statements on the law rim whore Brad Edwards worked that talked about sone of his cases. And that's nothing more than his professional responsibility and professional relationship for purposes of getting clients. THE COURT: Resume. MR. BURLINGTON: Excuse me? THE COURT: Resume. MR. BURLINGTON: Sure. And there's nothing even -- only one of them mentions Epstein. So they have cited no case from any Jurisdiction that says that a defamation count can result in either a higher burden Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801600 21 of proof or additional affirmative defenses 23 So that case, the Nodar case, has 2 based on the nature of the individual who nothing to do with either the context of 3 was sued in the baseless litigation. this case or the cause of action that we had 4 5 Then their seven affirmative defense, just assorts generally just as a matter of brought. And they've cited, as I've said, no 6 public concern, and thereof we have a higher malicious prosecution cases to support the 7 burden of proof. Again, this is rather late in the gano idea that any of these defenses can be valid. 9 to start changing, not only the factual 9 Now, as to the -- I believe it's the 10 issues, but the burdens of proof. But they 10 eighth and ninth affirmative defenses, they 11 also cite no case from any jurisdiction that 11 aro not affirmative defenses at all. 12 says a malicious prosecution case is altered 12 Affirmative defense, as the Florida 13 on the basis of whether there was a matter 13 Supremo Court has stated, is whore a 14 of public concern involved. 14 defendant essentially has to admit the 25 And hero, inverting that notoriety of 36 allegations of the pleading. But say -- 26 Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct into a matter 26 oven assuming that -- I have this defense or public concern is somewhat of a stretch. 27 you are limited in those matters in proving 16 But also, in the Gertz case there was 26 your case or in your damages. 29 notoriety in that criminal case. And Gertz 29 Their eighth affirmative defense simply 20 made It very clear that the private attorney 20 says this is nothing but a defamation suit. 2I representing a client in proceedings and in 21 That's not an affirmative defense. That is 22 related proceedings, which had a lot of 22 a legal proposition which they rely on to IS publicity, did not convert him to either a IS provide the predicate for the sixth and 24 public official or a public figure, and 24 seventh affirmative defenses, but it is 15 whether or not it was a matter of public 26 nothing but a statement of a legal 22 24 1 concern was not relevant. proposition. It is not a defense. 2 The case that they seemingly rely on is the Nodar case, which is a Florida case 2 The last affirmative defense claims that there aro known procedures that this 4 where the parent wont to the board of the court could put in place that could protect school board to speak out against a teacher 5 Epstoin's duo process rights in the context 6 that he believed was no properly preparing the students, not properly teaching and was of the punitive damage claims. That's not an affirmative defense. That's a 8 harassing his son. constitutional challenge in the proceedings 9 That was a public forum. It was an of this court. While I'm not saying they 20 executive branch, not a judicial branch. 10 can't raise constitutional challenges, it is 11 And all that the Florida Supremo Court hold 21 not a affirmative defense. 22 was in that context -- because it was a 22 I would add, they haven't specified a 23 matter of public concern in the appropriate 25 single thing that has happened thus far in 24 public forum -- there was a qualified 14 the context of punitive damages that has 36 privilege, and the malice would not be 36 deprived Mr. Epstein of any duo process 16 presumed from the defamatory statements. 16 rights. 17 Now, again, that was a defamation suit. 17 And I gave a brief summary in our 10 It was nothing about malicious prosecution. 10 response to all the protections that have 19 But as Justice Scalia noted in his 19 been established in the case law, in the 20 concurring opinion in the Salina case, 20 statutes for protecting duo process rights. 21 malicious prosecution has the qualify 21 And until and unless they coma to you 22 privilege built into lt, because wo have to 22 with a colorable argument that those 23 prove, not only a lack of probable cause, 23 procedures aro inadequate, there's nothing 24 but wo have to prove malice, and wo do not 24 for you to do in response that g 25 get a presumption of malice. 25 assertion that Kr. Epstein could never have Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801601 25 27 1 his duo process rights protected in the 2 for me, if you will, the issue of futility. 2 context of the punitive damage award. But 2 Because usually because of Florida's policy 3 what is clear is it's not an affirmative 3 on liberality of amendments even at trial -- 4 defense at all. 4 cases after trial that allows for amending 5 So, trying to parse out Debrincat to the pleadings -- the amendment is typically 4 say that the litigation privilege only allowed, and then the affirmative defenses 7 applies to ono element of the malicious aro attacked, traditionally by a motion to 0 prosecution claim, I submit is facially strike. 9 wrong in light of the complaint. And if Home your arguments on behalf of your 10 they believe that Debrincat, which concludes 10 client aro that these amendments are 11 by saying unequivocally that the litigation 11 essentially futile in the sense that I 12 privilege does not apply to malicious 12 analogize it with a cause of action brought 19 prosecution camas, they had an obligation 13 by a plaintiff in a given case where the 14 because they were a tag-along case. And the 14 plaintiff is alleging sone typo of -- 15 Florida Supreme Court, after issuing is attempting to allege soma typo of cause of le Debrincat, issued an order in our case 26 action that makes no legal sense, or it is 17 saying that Epstein should show cause why 27 barred by the existing precedent so as to 16 Dobrincat does not control. And In 20 make any amendments futile. 29 response, Epstein conceded that it did 29 I would suspect that that same analogy 20 control. There is no to parse out anything 20 could apply here. Albeit, this is the first 22 in Debrincat which would create entirely new 22 effort, at least as to these affirmative 22 law in Florida about parsing out elements of 22 defenses, that have been made. 29 malicious prosecution for either purposes of 29 But aro you suggesting that under no 24 forcing the plaintiff into a position of 24 reading of law and the facts that apply hero 25 having a defamation claim or of taking out 25 that it would be either amendable or that 26 28 1 specific elements of a malicious prosecution 1 any potential amendment based on these facts 2 claim and saying, oh we have defamation 2 and the law that have constituted those 3 defenses to these. s proposed affirmative defense would be 4 The falsity of the statements in the 4 futile? 6 ccmplaint aro entirely different fret a 5 HR. BURLINGTON: You aro correct that 6 publication, because it is the act of 4 normally when affirmative defenses aro 7 triggering the judicial mechanism forcing my initially asserted in a timely fashion that 0 client to defend, litigate, expend funds. e the mans of challenging their legal 9 And the falsity of those statements goes to , sufficiency is a motion to strike. 20 lack of probable cause, it goes to malice, :0 When a no motion to amend is 21 and it is an element that we can prove 21 presented -- especially this late fn the 22 caused harm, and we should get compensatory 22 game -- it would be a waste of judicial 29 damages. 29 resources for you to allow the amendment 24 Again, they cited no case. They relied 14 knowing that as a matter of law those 15 solely on Debrincat, and it is an extremely is defenses are invalid. 16 thin read upon which to entirely change the 16 And there are cases -- I'm not sure 17 law of malicious prosecution. And I believe 17 they're the ones cited in our response -- 10 that Your Honor should deny the motion based 10 but I have cited case on futility where if 19 on being untimely with no explanation. 19 they're legally invalid, they're necessarily 20 None of these cases are now. Debrincat 20 futile. 21 is the only one that's within the last few 21 And to go through the motion of 22 years. But they had time to raise that. 22 allowing them to amend, requiring us to Soya 23 All the others are established law. It just 23 to strike, allowing them to respond when the 24 doesn't apply here. 24 legal sufficiency is addressed in those 25 THE COURT: Let me ask you to explain 25 memos. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801602 i 2 3 , S 29 They cited case law in their affirmative defenses themselves trying to )ustify them. So the futility Ss different -- not different, but the need to do a motion to strike is different when the i 2 3 4 S 31 There was one aspect of Mr. Link's argument that I found extremely confusing. And maybe it's Just some -- MR. LINK: Your Honor, you mind if I move so I can -- 4 amendment is made, when you come to the 4 THE COURT: Fool free. 7 Court and seek it to exercise its discretion 7 MR. SCAROLA: -- some inability on my 8 to allow an amendment, if it is legally 8 part to comprehend the argument. But ho 9 invalid, there's no reason for the Court to 4 told us repeatedly that Edwards soaks to 10 allow it, because it would be futile. And 10 prove the falsity of the allegations of the 11 that's one of three ways of attacking the 11 complaint instead of proving there was no 12 motion to amend as discussed in all the case 12 probable cause to file the complaint. I 13 law. 13 think ho repeated that statement at least 14 Otherwise, to say it would be futile, I 14 three timers. And quite frankly, I have no 15 guess, we would have to oat into the factual 15 idea what that means. 1e analysis of whore the facts don't support Io In order to prove there was no probable 17 it. But there isn't much difference between 17 cause to file the complaint, we must look at 16 saying the facts don't support it and this 16 the factual allegations in the complaint and 19 ClOOSIVt apply as a matter of law t0 this 10 we must demonstrate that there was no 10 cause of action. 20 probable cause to file those specific II So I believe you are fully authorized 21 factual allegations. That is, w0 must prove 12 tO look at the merits of these claims, which 22 the factual allegations were false, and w0 19 have been argued in the motion and the 23 must prove that there was no reason t0 24 response -- and they've certainly had an 24 believe that they wore true. This wasn't a 15 opportunity today to argue what they thought 25 good faith mistake. 30 32 1 was the legal validity. I So the issues aro identical. And what 2 So to simply put that off and have 2 they were attempting to do by way of this 3 another hearing on it when the question here 5 motion to amend is to get right back to , is, do you allow amendments which I believe 4 whore they wore arguing last week, and that 5 aro clearly not valid to a malicious s is, they don't want to ever have to defend 0 prosecution cause of action. So I believe 0 against the claim that Bradley Edwards 7 you aro authorized to do it on that basis as 7 fabricated false charges against Jeffrey 6 well. 6 Epstein. They don't want to focus on that 0 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Burlington. 9 at all. And this is one more means by which 10 I appreciate your written and oral 10 to attempt to reargue that same position. 21 presentation, as well, Hr. Link. 11 THE COURT: Or fabricated false claims 12 MR. SCAROLA: May I add just a little 12 against Jeffrey Edwards Isic) or -- 13 bit to that? 15 MR. SCAROLA: Jeffrey Epstein. 14 THE COURT: I will give you a couple 14 THE COURT: Fabricated false -- 15 minutes. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Edwards fabricated false 16 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, sir. 16 claims against Epstein. 17 THE COURT: After Hr. Scarola, 1• THE COURT: Correct. 10 Ms. Rockenbach, if you want to add something 18 MR. SCAROLA: Wo will help each other 19 you aro free to do so as wall. 19 out with that. 20 MS. ROCKEHBACK: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Or vice versa for that 21 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that it 21 matter, that Epstein fabricated false claims 22 will take a couple minutes. 22 against Edwards. Meaning, I am still not 23 It was ono aspect -- 23 sure whore the defendant in the malicious 24 THE COURT: Less than that? 24 prosecution claim, Mr. Epstein, stands as to 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yos, sir. 25 that issue, as to whether or not he's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801603 4 6 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 19 20 21 22 29 24 25 33 conceding or not conceding. MR. SCAROLA: That has boon scrupulously avoided by the other side, Your Honor. They don't want to face that issue or even acknowledge it exists. I agree with Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. scarola. Mr. Link, couple things that I would like you to focus on. First is that -- I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, and I have hoard this before, about the punitive export's testimony on behalf of Mr. Edwards, that his research has revealed whatever number of instances whereby Mr. Edwards' and Mr. Rothstein's names have boon linked, presumably as a result of Mr. Epstein's conduct. MR. LINK: Tea, Your Honor. THE COURT: I haven't road it very closely. At this point I don't know much of that testimony is going to got in. But irrespective of that, what Mr. Burlington has emphasised and what the Court clearly is under the impression as to its utilisation, is not to prove up any other element of the 2 3 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ie 17 16 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 Soma of these affirmative defenses, quite frankly, in handling defanation claims on numerous occasions in the past, I have never seen before. I never try to stifle creativity. But at the same tine, we have to take into account, not only judicial resources, but what the essential argument of Mr. Burlington boiling it down to its very essence is you can't fit a square peg into a round hole. And that is, that the bulk of these affirmative defenses, because they deal with defamation, ono, aro not pertinent. Two, even if they were, it's not a defanation claim. I certainly do not plan and will not try a defamation claim. And also, again, oven if these could be conceivably construed as defamation claims, they don't pass legal muster. Sone of them, such as the affirmative defense regarding the petitioning of the government, has, in my view, absolutely no application to this case, because if it did, it would have application to any lawsuit just about that I could conceive of that 34 malicious prosecution claim, except for 36 would be brought by any parson, by any 2 damages. 2 plaintiff, by any counter-plaintiff. For example, an affirmative defense to that aspect of the clain could potentially The application is completely in opposite to what we're doing here. This is be that Mr. Edwards failed to mitigate his 5 not rodrassable by virtue of petition to • damages by virtue of his own seal in seeking publicity for his representation of Mr. -- for his representation of the alleged 0 6 government, as aro, and as were, particularly at the time of those two cases, Hoerr and Pennington, where there wore 9 victims and the plaintiffs in those cases 9 issues of anti-trust violations and the 10 against Epstein, and therefore, cause much 10 testing of whether or not anti-trust laws of his own damages by exercising that seal. 11 wore in fact being violated. And the 17 That may constitute an affirmative 17 government's -- obvious because of the 15 defense as to the damage claim, because just 15 Sherman Act -- the government is obviously, 14 like a simple negligence action is 14 because of Shornan Act, interest in 25 concerned, damages aro a necessary element, 15 protecting against anti-trust violations. 16 similar to the questions I had of you fast 16 So there was that nexus that was clearly 17 week when I asked what were Mr. Epstein's 17 prevalent there. 10 damages as a result of his filing of the 18 So I really don't need further argument 19 initial suit against Rothstein, Edwards and 19 as to the fifth affirmative defense. 20 III. as related to factoring of those cases. 20 The sixth affirmative defense deals 21 So, chore's a distinction of importance 21 with the limited public figure. He haven't 22 that I can see here as it pertains to the 22 really talked about that from your 23 affirmative defenses that have been asserted 23 standpoint. Your position as to that in 24 as it relates to a traditional defamation 24 light of the Corti decision. 25 claim perhaps. 29 MR. LINK: Yes. Me believe that if Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801604 2 4 5 37 defamatory statements are going to be the basis for liability and for damages so that we're moving in absolute litigation privilege from allegations in the complaint, then the fact that Mr. Edwards is a quasi 2 3 39 didn't voluntarily put himself out there and create an image and a reputation for himself and put himself out there in a public way. There aro easy examples. I represent a high-profile client, Hr. Epstein. After the 6 public figure that puts himself out there. hearing, the press came up, I didn't talk to 7 that advertises, that speaks about those the press. I didn't put myself out there. 0 issues, that issues prose rebates, talked Other lawyers will do that. They will give 9 to the p aaaaa should come in as an press releases. 10 affirmative defense in this case. 10 Hr. Edwards went oven beyond that. Ho 11 THE COURT: How do you got around Gertz 11 used those cases to pronto himself in a way 12 essentially saying precisely the opposite, 12 that goes beyond simply representing a 13 that a lawyer -- oven whore a lawyer 13 client. 14 represents a high-profile client? Here 14 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, excuse me. 15 these aren't high-profile clients. 25 There is no record evidence to support that 16 My common sense thinking -- although 26 assertion at all. Absolutely none. 22 really not a part of the decision hero -- is 22 THE COURT: I appreciate that. Thank 20 that outside of South Florida, and had 20 you, Hr. Scarola. 29 Mr. Rothstein not committed the heinous 29 You may proceed. 20 crimes that he's boon convicted for in 20 HR. LINK: So there is a distinction. 22 serving a sentence somewhere in the 21 Simply representing a high-profile client 22 neighborhood of 50 years, Edwards would have 22 does not make you a quasi public figure. 22 been off the radar. There would have boon 22 But doing things that put yourself out 24 no real issues, other than his connection 24 there, contacting the p OOOO O giving 26 with Mr. Epstein. 25 interviews, giving speeches, making 38 40 1 Some may argue that Mr. Epstein is far 1 yourself -- putting yourself out there as a 2 more of a public figure that Hr. Edwards is 2 specialist In this particular area and 3 under the analysis you have suggested. seeking press and accolades dons. That's 4 HR. LINK: Ho may very well be, Your the distinction. 5 Honor. 5 So the fact that I'm representing 6 THE COURT: But that's not the issue Mr. Epstein, who may be a more well-known 2 hero. I don't sae how G aaaaa with the plain meaning of the opinion, and the fact that the attorney in Gores was in fact figure, doesn't moan I have done anything to assort myself into the public view. That's the distinction I would draw, Your Honor. 20 representing a high-profile client and Chore :0 THE COURT: Anything else you would 21 was afforded immunity -- which wouldn't have II like to speak to? 22 application here whatsoever -- I don't see 22 MR. LINK: Yes, If I can. I just want 29 the basic fundamental issue being answered 29 to touch on a couple points that 24 or oven arguable. 24 Mr. Burlington made and a point Kr. Scarola 36 MR. LINK: If I can take one shot at 36 made. 16 it, Your Honor. 16 Hero la the key to this and these 17 THE COURT: Sure. 17 affirmative defenses. And Your Honor asked 10 MR. LINK: I think the difference is 10 a groat question. You asked Hr. Burlington 19 the fact that you represent a high-profile 19 if any cases -- any of the malicious 20 client does not make you a quasi public 20 prosecution cases say that you can take 21 figure. It's the stops and actions that you 21 false statement -- allegedly a false 22 take as a result of that. 22 statement from a complaint -- and use that 23 So, the fact that the throe plaintiffs 23 to demonstrate lack of probable cause or 24 that Mr. Edwards represented were not 24 damages. And he pointed to the Nancusl 25 high-profile folks does not mean that ho 25 Case. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801605 41 43 1 Your Honor, we looked at this case last 2 time that wo were here. It's a case that 3 Your Honor pointed out, I believe, that 4 talks about the mixed question of fact of 5 law and the probable cause. There's no 6 discussion of damages other than punitive 7 damages in the case. It sets forth the standards that your court told us about and 9 recognized, which is, if there's no dispute 10 as t0 the facts that were relied on in 11 making the decision to bring a lawsuit, then 12 it's up to you. And I said Your Honor may 13 decide enough or not enough. It's your 14 call. It's not the jury's decision. That's 36 what Mancusi says. 26 There is not a case that we have 17 seen -- and we looked at about 65 -- 67 30 cases, Florida cases, that discussed that 19 you can use an allegation in the complaint 20 to either show lack of probable cause, based 21 on the truth or falsity, or use It to 22 establish damages. And here Ls why. 29 Hr. Burlington doesn't think that the 24 Supreme Court case answers the question, but IS I think it does. And here is what I want to 10 11 12 13 14 IS 26 37 I9 29 20 21 22 29 24 25 boon defined very carefully. Here is what the court said. The court says that continued means this: One, if I'm a new lawyer coming in, I don't have a defense if there was not probable cause. If I come in, don't do my homework and I continue with the proceeding, that's one aspect. The Second aspect is, I may have probable cause when I start, but if during the course of the lawsuit something comes to my attention that makes me now conclude that what I thought was true is not true, I have to stop, Your Honor. I don't get to keep going. But it has nothing to do with the allegations of the complaint, what I say during my deposition, what you say during the case, what the other lawyer say during the case. And if you look at every one of those elements -- really important to look at every one of these elements, except for malice. Use of the words the original proceeding. Six, the plaintiff suffered damage as a 1 2 3 8 9 10 31 12 19 24 35 )6 17 10 19 42 focus the Court on. It is not, Your Honor, simply the first element of the malicious prosecution element that focuses on civil judicial proceeding. This is from the Supreme Court case. Every element, If you look, an original civil judicial proceeding. It doesn't say count, allegation, complaint. It talks in the big picture. Why? Because once the lawsuit is filed, that's the damage, the filing of the lawsuit, not what you plead in it. That's protected by the litigation privilege. The present defendant was the legal Cause of the original proceeding. Second element uses the term original proceeding. Third element: Determination of the original proceeding. THE COURT: You think that the 20 terminology, 'an original criminal or civil 21 judicial proceeding against the present 22 plaintiff was commenced or continued,' seems 23 to bring in, at least arguably, more than 24 just the initial complaint? 25 MR. LINK: Yes. But the continue has 1 2 5 :0 II 22 13 14 IS 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 result of the original proceeding. Again, that's the filing of the complaint. And you look at Florida's jury instructions -- Mr. Scorpio, I don't have them, but they are tho standard jury instructions. -- and look at damages, 406.12, Your Honor, on malicious prosecution, you won't see anything In there about the publication of a false statement or damage Caused by a false statement. Contrast that with defamation, which it specifically says if you find that there was a false statement, It's a whole different Standard for damages. THE COURT: Again, we aro going t0 need get t0 that bridge when we COMO to lt. But the malicious prosecution damages state, quote, if you find for defendant, you will not consider the matter of damages. If you find for the plaintiff, you should award the plaintiff an amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows would fairly and adequately compensate him for such loss, injury, damage as the greater Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801606 1 2 3 45 weight of the evidence shows was caused by the institution -- and than it also parenthetically states -- continuation of i 2 7 47 anything you want to say to robot Hr. Burlington's argument or his written presentation, fool free to do so. 4 the proceeding complained of. 4 MR. LINK: As I have handed the court S MR. LINK: So it depends on the focus. S the Mancusi case, Your Honor, which does not 4 Hr. Scarola has not said -- I don't think -- 4 say anything about statements or allegations 7 he has always said we're focused on the 7 In the complaint or damages other than 8 initial filing. There's not probable cause 8 punitive damages. 4 for the initial filing. That's what ho has 4 The Supreme Court tolls us that there 10 told us. Ho has not said there was probable 10 is still a litigation privilege afforded to 11 cause at the beginning, Your Honor, but down 11 every litigant. Tho narrow exemption has to 12 the road Hr. Epstein loarnad something and 12 do between when you make the decision to 13 he should have stopped than. 13 institute -- 14 So based on exactly what you road, it 14 Mr. Scarola said that he sees them as 15 focuses on, was caused by the institution of 15 the sane thing. They aro very different. le it, the filing of it. Io Ono draws a line when you filo the lawsuit. 17 THE COURT: Continuation is one of the 17 And what's on this side of lino and before 16 words that's utilised right Chore in bold, 16 the lawsuit is filed is what is in your nand 19 black print. 10 when you make the decision. And that is not 20 MR. LINK: If ho was arguing that it 20 protected. II was continuation to cause damages. Ho's 21 But what you plead in the complaint, 22 not. He's not, I don't believe -- unless 22 and the truth and falsity of those 23 he's changed his mind. IS allegations is absolutely protected. And 14 THE COURT: Is that true? 14 that's what the Supremo Court just told us. IS MR. SCAROLA: No, Your Honor. It is IS Thank you, Your Honor. 46 48 I not true. Wo contend there was no probable / THE COURT: All right. Thank you, 2 cause to initiate this proceeding, Chore was 2 Hr. Link. Tho Court is prepared to rule. 1 3 no probable cause to continue the a am going to go through it one stop at a time 4 proceeding. Tho initiation and continuation 4 and proceed through the fifth through the 5 5 of the proceeding caused damage to Bradley ninth affirmative defenses. 0 Edwards, both because no probable cause over 0 Tho Court finds, as far as the fifth 7 existed. So it was both initiated and 7 affirmative defense is concerned that the 6 continued in absence of probable cause. 6 pleading made here has no relationship 9 9 MR.LINK: Your Honor, that only makes whatsoever to the case at bar. This is not 10 sense. If you think what about Hr. Scarola 10 a forum of petitioning government for 11 just said, if it's not probable cause when I 11 redress. Tho Court has stated, and in 12 filo it, and I continuo with the lawsuit, 12 agreement with Edwards' position, that 15 then there was never probable cause. IS neither Pennington nor Hoerr, H-0-E-R-R, 14 But the continuation isn't I filed it 14 have any application to this claim anymore 15 and it should have boon eliminated that day. 15 than it would have tO any generic Clan, 15 The second day after the lawsuit it's 15 brought by any plaintiff. 17 already boon continued. 17 This is not an anti-trust case. This 10 THE COURT: I will give you two minutes 18 is not a Case where the government 19 to wrap up. No had planned on 40 minutes. 19 involvement is either directly or indirectly 20 Ife aro now going on 55. But again, I want 20 at issue as it relates to the affirmative 21 to give both sides the opportunity -- 21 defense generally claiming that this is a, 22 MR. LINK: I appreciate that. 22 quote, forum of petitioning government for 23 THE COURT: I have read the materials 23 redress, end quote. It is simply 24 and I have hoard the arguments. I don't 24 inapplicable. Any amendment along those 25 want to get into repetition. So if there's 2S grounds will Do futile. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801607 49 51 As far as the sixth affirmative 2 defense, the Court finds that as a matter of 3 law that the Carts case speaks to this issue 4 broadly and specifically, and does not place 5 Mr. Edwards in the position of a general or 6 limited purpose public figure. Hence, any 7 affirmative defense that rely upon that theory aro, again, completely, entirely 9 inapplicable to the matters that are 10 addressed in this case. 11 The seventh affirmative defense falls 12 because of the same . Additionally, 13 the suggestion that in accordance with the 14 First and Fourteenth amendments of the 15 United States Constitution and Article 1, 26 Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, 22 Edwards may not recover presumed or punitive 26 damages without clear and convincing 29 evidence that Epstein knew of the falsity of 20 the claims that he made against Edwards were II in reckless disregard of the falsity of 22 these claims would reconstitute argument and 22 a denial, as opposed to a confession and 14 avoidance as required by Florida law so as 25 to constitute a valid affirmative defense. 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 26 27 26 29 20 21 22 22 24 25 analysis, or have seen his deposition transcript -- but the Court will certainly be amenable to motions that may limit that testimony so that we do not blur the fine line between what may be construed as defamation and malicious prosecution. But certainly the Court understands -- and was under the impression even before reading the brief by Hr. Burlington -- that the claims here were one of damages as it relates to this -- allegedly false statements or statements that linked Edwards and Rothstein together, which if attributable to Mr. Epstein which aro brought before the jury, they could constitute damages. So again, there's no applicability to defamation. It's generic, general manner in which the defense is phrased would not pass legal muster as wall, and any attempt to amend would be futile in this Court's view because of the distinction legally between defamation and malicious prosecution. As far as the ninth affirmative defense is concerned, again, in agreement with the 2 3 5 2 :o 11 12 IS le 25 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Again, it primarily relies on Gertz. which as I found earlier, is contrary directly to the position espoused by Mr. Epstein. And the Carts decision, as we all know, is a United States Supremo Court decision found at 418 US 323, 1974. The eighth affirmative defense specifically addresses defenses to a defamation claim. It states, quote, Edwards' claims are nothing more than defamation claims which are barred by defenses applicable to defamation claims as set forth in the defenses above. A plaintiff may not avoid defenses that apply to defamation actions by characterizing them as torts which aro not subject to those restrictions, as the court pointed out In agreeing with the position taken by Edwards, that is, that that is not a defamation claim. This will not be tried as a defamation claim. And any issues as to the utilization of Mr. Edward's name in print linking to Mr. Rothstein and presumably -- again, I haven't read in detail the proposed export's report or 2 5 :0 22 22 IS 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 position taken by Edwards, I find that the built-in remedies that are already established In Florida law will provide any safeguards that are sought by Mr. Epstein as it relates to the punitive damages. And merely a recitation of the law does not constitute confession or avoidance as far as the Court is concerned. It would be similar to saying words to the effect that the rules of evidence shall apply to this case. That is, that there's an application of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida constitution guaranteeing duo process. In any case where punitive damages are brought, those built-ln due process law -- whether decisional or statutory, constitutional or otherwise -- are all. built In to the already existing Florida law. And the ninth affirmative defense is superfluous, and it would be no reason to allow amendment. It's simply a statement of the law and not a confession of avoidance. So the Court finds, thereafter, that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801608 53 55 1 each of the affirmative defenses would i counsel. 2 constitute the improper affirmative defenses 2 And while the package itself is thick, 3 would not be subject to amendment because of 3 it's only thick because we have provided 4 futility -- the Court has addressed each of 4 Your Honor with the backup information. S those affirmative defenses In requisite S In this motion, there aro specific 6 detail finding that they aro either in 6 questions and answers, so that Your Honor 7 opposite, that they aro contrary to 7 can very quickly take a look at the e establish law and thus would be futile to e questions that we propose to address and the 4 try to amend, particularly whore I 4 assertions of the Fifth Amendment in 10 referenced the Carts decision as well as the 10 response to those questions. 11 anti-trust cases that wore found to bo 11 HS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I 12 completely and entirely in opposite to the 12 respond? 11 claims made hero. 11 THE COURT: Sure. 14 This is not a defamation case. It will 14 MS. ROCKENBACH: As I indicate to 15 not bo treated as such. It has bean 15 Mr. Scarola this morning, he filed those 16 represented in open court by Edwards' le y 00000 day afternoon. And I am happy to 17 counsel that any issues regarding the link 17 review them and go over them and present 16 between Rothstein and Edwards aro going to 16 argument to the Court perhaps this afternoon 19 be used solely for damages purposes. And 10 or Thursday when we have the continuation of 20 the Court has not been asked at this 20 this hearing. II juncture to limit any such testimony, but is 21 But having received them yesterday 22 amendable to taking up any motions in that 22 afternoon and not prepared to take Cho= up 19 regard and will treat those at such time. 23 right now, I would suggest that perhaps the 24 Again, the ninth affirmative defense is 14 better place to pick back up on the pending 15 simply a recitation of law that is already 15 motions is precisely whore we loft off on 54 56 1 built in and well-known and oven conceded by I November 29th, which was Exhibit 9 on 2 the parties is not a confession of 2 Mr. Edward's Exhibit list. 3 avoidance, thus making each futile in terns a THE COURT: I am certainly more 4 of attempting to amend. 4 prepared as well to go through that. I 5 I would ask for an order confirming the 5 would like to got a chance to road it. 0 Court's ruling, please, from the Edwards 0 As you know, I do the best I can to try 7 side. 7 to road everything that comes in and 6 Anybody needs a break? 6 familiarize myself with the context. So I'm 9 MR. SCAROLA: Wo aro ready to proceed, 9 going to sustain Ms. Rockenbach's 10 Your Honor, if the Court is ready. 10 suggestion and objection to going forward 11 Your Honor, we had started off last 11 with this particular issue at this time. 12 weak dealing with issues with respect to the 12 Lot's go back to the evidentiary 15 Fifth Amendment. Your Honor had asked us 15 issues. I am also prepared to discuss, as 14 to -- or we had actually volunteered to 14 well -- and I don't know whether it's still 15 specifically identify the limited questions 15 on the table -- I presume it is -- it's the 16 that wo would wish to place before the jury. 16 alltO21atiC stay issue. 17 We volunteered that we would identify the 17 So if there's any reason that 10 limited questions that wo wanted place 10 Mr. Burlington needs to be hero -- because I 19 before the jury? 19 believe there's been sone request that one 20 In light of Your Honor's statement that 20 of the attorneys -- I presume to be 21 we should bo focusing only on the civil 21 Mr. Burlington -- had to leave, which is why 22 claims against the throe plaintiffs 22 they wanted to speak about this affirmative 23 represented by Mr. Edwards, we have done 23 defense Issue and the denial of Epstein's 24 that. And I want to present the Court with 24 request to amend his answer. 25 packets that wo have presented to opposing 2S MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Burlington, Your Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801609 57 59 Honor, does not need to be here for the 2 automatic stay issue. No wanted, for purposes of conserving his time, to be able 4 to address the one matter that he would be arguing today, and we have done that. 5 Ho may or nay not be able to stay any longer, but ho is not required to be hero 8 for the other matters. 9 With regard to going through the 10 exhibit list, I had proposed to opposing 11 counsel, and I think I managed -- I think I 12 referenced this with the Court also during 13 the hearing that I am prepared to agree that 14 I will not reference any of those specific 25 exhibits that the defense identifies as a 16 problen in opening statement. And I 27 won't -- I won't reference Cho= with a 16 witness unless and until Your Honor has nada 10 a determination that it is appropriate for 20 us to do so. 21 To go through every listed exhibit and 22 obtain from Your Honor a ruling that 23 obviously is not going to do any more than 24 what I am prepared to concede to do 25 voluntarily, respectfully doesn't make any 1 speak to actually disallowing Daubert 2 motions, for example, from being heard 3 during the trial for the vary purpose that I 4 just cited. And that is, that these folks • are coming in as volunteers, often • reluctantly, taking significant amount of • time away from their businesses, jobs, 8 families to be hero with us, should not have 9 their time wasted if we can get done on the 10 front end what nay not need to bo done 11 during trial. 12 SO I'm comfortable with going through 13 the exhibits, because there may be some 14 apparent -- at least from my vantage 15 point -- reasons why sone exhibits should or io should not be admitted or not admitted. 17 And as I pointed out -- and you aro 16 correct Mr-Scarola in your global 10 observation, that because the law, more 20 recently than in the past, has, as I earlier 21 indicated on November 29th, that the 22 appellate courts recognize what they torn 23 the fluid nature of motions in liming, which 24 is essentially what we're dealing with here 25 when we talk about exhibits. 2 3 6 9 15 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 sense to me. I don't know why wo are going through this process, because the most Your Honor could do would be to say, I will give a preliminary indication. At such time as the evidence is offered, we will make a determination as to whether a predicate exist to admit it or not. So I'm willing to do that. I think we aro absolutely wasting our time to go through the large number of exhibits that you've identified for purposes of getting to exactly the point where I an willing to move voluntarily. THE COURT: Well, couple things, and that is this. Ha aro always mindful -- and I am speaking about now trial judges -- but attorneys as well -- I know any good attorney, such as all who aro sitting in this room, aro certainly wall aware of ensuring that the jury's time is spent in an efficient manner. That's why the overwhelming federal case law -- because Daubert WO don't know If it's going to remain law here in Florida -- but that's why the overwhelming cases on the Daubert issue 2 4 6 9 15 14 15 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 60 The Court will have the opportunity -- and should have the opportunity that if a contested exhibit comas to fruition during the trial to be able to either augment its decision, change its mind, or confirm the decision made pretrial. But I disagree that it is a waste of time because a lot of the arguments can be made now. I Can digest those arguments. I Won't forget, and I won't forget the context of what those arguments are in relation CO exhibits. So I would like to proceed, as recommended by Epstein's counsel, to go through what we can go through. No will do it in a little more of an expeditious fashion, and that is, if I find there's something that really does need absolutely, without question, context for MO to make that decision, than I will indicate to you that rather quickly in that regard so we don't waste too much time. But I think we can go through those with some comfort to know at least what the Court is thinking from that standpoint, perhaps ruling at this point, with the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801610 61 63 1 2 3 caveat that consistent with motions in limlne and the recognition by the appellate courts -- much to my delight -- that there Thanks. MS. ROCKENBACH: You do. Okay. Our objections were filed November 15. 4 aro often situations where situations will I That's obviously a separate document. 5 change and context Is introduced to cause THE COURT: That I will take. 6 the Court to, perhaps, vary its decision in I MR. LINK: Your Honor, they aro listed 7 8 acme regard. But that is afforded to me once trial is underway. in the motion starting on page three. THE COURT: I thought those were just 9 MR. LINK: Your Honor, before we start, r exemplars. 10 can I take you up on your three-minute break 10 MR. LINK: In the omnibus motion in 11 opportunity, please. 11 limLne, it actually lists, I think, every 12 THE COURT: Sure. Not a problem. Take 12 single one of the exhibits. They are 13 a few minutes. Como on back about five 11 identified in here. So they are in two 14 minutes, p 14 places. 25 IA recess was had 11:16 - 11:24 J 15 THE COURT: Page three of the revised 26 HR. SCAROLA: May I make a procedural 16 omnibus motion in linine? 27 inquiry, Your Honor? 17 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, it's the 20 THE COURT: Yes. 18 original omnibus -- 29 HR. SCAROLA: I assume that we are IS THE COURT: Is that part of the -- 20 starting on page 23 of Jeffrey Epstein's 20 MR. SCAROLA: If we are working with 22 revised omnibus motion in ',mine. Is that 21 the witness list -- I mean with the exhibit 22 correct? 21 list, we will just work with the exhibit 29 THE COURT: That's what I am 23 list. 24 understanding. 24 THE COURT: Let's do that. 25 Hs. Rockenbach? 25 MR. LINK: That works for us, Your 62 64 1 HR. SCAROLA: That's where we left off. I Honor. 2 MS. ROCKENBACH: Yea. The exhibit 2 THE COURT: Thanks. 9 section, which should be letter B. , HR. SCAROLA: So I assume we are going 4 MR. SCAROLA: Well, the specific 4 to take these one at a tiro? S exhibits that you aro objecting to aro 5 THE COURT: Yeah. if identified in this motion, correct? . MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, the next 7 0 MS. ROCKENBACH: Actually, we stopped -- we left off as Mr. Edwards' e one that we were on was number nine, Mr. Epstein's flight logs -- if I may 9 exhibit list and we are on number nine. approach, I would like to give Your Honor 20 The revised omnibus motion in limine, :0 what was provided to my office from 11 identified examples of the objections that 11 Mr. Scarola. And it is a sampling, because 22 we had. And we have listed and filed our II I think there were over 200 pages for this 12 objections to the exhibit list. 23 particular exhibit. 14 THE COURT: Where is the list of 14 we've objected basis of relevance, of 25 exhibits? 25 90.403, judicial value. And these aro 16 MR. SCAROLA: If you have an extra 16 flight logs of my client's planes. They 17 copy, I need one also, please. I gave mine 17 have no relevance to what is being tried in 18 to Sonja at the end of the last hearing. 10 this case, which is malicious prosecution. 19 And I was assuming we were going to be 19 Mr. Edwards testified that ho knew that 20 basing this discussion on the motion. 20 his clients were not on my client's plane, 21 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I 21 so the flight logs are completely 22 approach? I have a copy for Mr. Sc aaaaa . 22 irrelevant. 23 It is Hr. Epstein's amended exhibit list 23 THE COURT: Okay, Hr. Scarola. 24 that we were reviewing. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Your Honor, one of 25 THE COURT: I actually have it. 25 the alleged bases for Jeffrey Epstein having Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801611 65 67 concluded that Bradley Edwards was a knowing 2 participant in the Rothstein Ponzi scheme is 3 that the scope of the discovery that Bradley 4 Edwards was seeking once he became a member 5 of the Rothstein, Rosonfeldt, Adler firm 6 expanded to include matters that he was not 7 previously focusing on and which had no reasonable basis to lead to the discovery of 9 admissible evidence. 10 So he alleged that the abusive 11 discovery that Bradley Edwards engaged Ln 12 gave him reason to believe that he was only 13 doing those things because he was knowingly 14 supporting the Ponzi schema. 25 So Bradley Edwards obviously has an 26 opportunity to explain what he did and why I/ he did it. Yes, I was seeking discovery 29 with regard to the airplane flight logs and 29 who was on the airplane. And the reason why 10 I did that was, because oven though my own 21 clients wore not transported on the plane, I 22 know that other young woman were transported 29 on the plane for purposes of prostitution 24 and sexual abuse. And I can prove that 15 through the flight logs that list the other 1 knowing participant in the Pon2I scheme. 2 That's what he alleges. In fact, 3 portions of the deposition of Bradley • Edwards have already been identified by the defense as their intending to introduce this in evidence before the "Ivy. I have soma of those excerpts, if you • Your Honor needs to take a look at them. 9 They are offing that evidence with regard to 10 these matters as part of their support for 11 the lack of Bradley Edwards' probable cause 12 to conduct this discovery, the assertion 13 that this was an abuse of discovery process. 14 Now, that's what they alleged in their 15 complaint. Those specific allegations aro 26 included in the complaint. Those are false 27 allegations. 28 THE COURT: Show me those allegations 19 that you aro suggesting? 10 MR. SCAROLA: From the complaint, Your 21 Honor, or from the deposition testimony? 22 THE COURT: Either way, or both. 29 HR. SCAROLA: Let me do both, then. 24 THE COURT: Thanks. 25 HR. SCAROLA: It's a little bit 2 3 7 8 9 30 31 22 29 24 IS 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 occupants on the airplane, including children who were being transported by Jeffrey Epstein. Part of what makes this is a viable federal claim is the intrastate and international transportation of children for purposes of prostitution. The federal law, specifically federal rule 41.5 -- excuse me 415.5(g) -- and I referenced this in earlier argument to the Court -- expressly allows the introduction into evidence in any case involving a sexual offense against a child, the commission of any other sexual offense against a child. So, I was seeking evidence to prove a pattern of abuse of children including their transportation for purposes of prostitution. And I was doing that through flight logs that identified these children, flight logs that identified other witnesses, taking the depositions of pilots. And so all of this is information than rebuts the assertion by Jeffrey Epstein that this was an abusive discovery effort that supported my conclusion that Bradley Edwards was a 2 :0 Il 22 Is 24 IS 16 17 10 19 20 21 68 difficult for Your Honor to see on these copies what the defense has designated, but on page 153 it starts at line two and continues through -- it looks like the bottom of that page. And then on 276, 277, 270 and 279, it's most of all of those pages. Then In the complaint, the allegation in paragraph 35 -- and I will pause, if Your Honor would like me to do that, while you aro reading that. THE COURT: If you will take a moment please. Thanks. I don't see much as far as what is set forth in the latter pages of the deposition of Mr. Edwards that even mentions piano or it's connection with the alleged underaged individuals on that plane. Let me look at the complaint. Paragraph? HR. SCAROLA: Thirty-three, 34, 35, 36. 22 THE COURT: Okay. This is directed to 23 primarily to Mr. Rothstein. It says •and 24 others.• But it says, quote -- paragraph 25 34 -- Upon Information and belief, Rothstein Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801612 69 and others clained their investigators 1 71 the cases and thus by using the depositions 2 discovered that there were high-profile individuals onboard Epstein's private jot 2 to sell the cases -- or a part of them -- to third parties, end quote. 4 whore sexual assaults took place and showed 4 421k). Told investigators, as reported 5 03 -- and possibly others -- copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of in an Associated Press article, that celebrities and other famous people had celebrities, dignitaries and international 7 flown on Epstein's plane when assaults took 8 figures. 8 place. Therefore, oven though none of RRA's 9 10 Remind who is 1,3? HS. ROCKENBACR: Ono of investing 10 clients claim they flew on Epstein's planes, the litigation team sought pilot and flight 11 companies that was being defrauded by II logs. Why? Again, to prime the investment 12 Rothstein. 12 pump, enquote, with new money without any 13 THE COURT: Okay. I have road those 13 relevance to the existing claims made by RRA 14 other ones. Aro there any other -- 14 the clients, end quote. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Paragraph 35, Your Honor, 15 MR. SCAROLA: Our position, obviously, 16 then specifically references the litigation le is Your Honor, that having made those 17 team. As you recall, the litigation team is 17 specific allegations in the complaint, 16 defined as including Bradley Edwards. 16 specifically allegations that know assaults 19 THE COURT: Thirty-five. For instance, 10 took place on the plane, Mr. Epstein know 20 the litigation team relentlessly and 20 that that was untrue. He knew that children 21 knowingly pursued flight data and passenger 21 were being assaulted on the plane, he knew 22 manifests regarding flights Epstein took 22 that there very high-profile individuals who 23 with fanous individuals knowing full well 23 for were present on plane. And Bradley 24 that no underaged woman wore onboard and no la Edwards had a reasonable basis to conduct 25 illicit activities took place. Rothstein 25 this discovery pursuant to applicable 70 and the litigation team also inappropriately 72 Florida law and applicable federal law as 2 attempted to take the depositions of these 2 well as, because it was reasonably 3 celebrities in a calculated effort to bolster the marketing scam that was taking 3 calculated to load to the discovery of admissiblo evidence. 5 place. End quota. So the flight logs aro clearly relevant 6 There's a 40 something that was mentioned? MR. SCAROLA: I don't know if Your 6 and material for that purpose, as is all of the evidence with regard to what Mr. Epstein know was occurring on those airplanes. And 9 Honor took a look at 36, but that's a 9 that directly contradicts what is included 10 specific reference to Mr. Edwards and his 10 in this complaint as a basis for his belief 21 conduct of the discovery, and then 421k). 11 that Bradley Edwards was fabricating these 12 THE COURT: Thirty-six. Ono of 12 claims. 13 plaintiffs' counsel, Edwards, deposed three 13 THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Scarola. I4 of Epstein's pilots, and sought the 14 MS. ROCKENBACR: Your Honor, may I use 15 deposition of a fourth pilot. Tho pilots 15 the Elno for a minute? 16 were deposed by Edwards for over 12 hours, 14 THE COURT: Sure. 17 and Edwards never asked ono question 17 MS. ROCKENBACR: I really appreciated 18 relating to or about E.M., III. and Jane Doe 18 Mr. Link's presentation this morning based 19 as it related to transportation on flights 19 on the law, because after the November 29th 20 of RRA clients on any of Epstein's planes. 20 hearing, I wont back and I spent a good part 21 But Edwards asked many inflammatory and 21 of the weekend looking at malicious 22 leading irrelevant questions about the 22 prosecution cases, because I thought I must 23 pilots' thoughts and beliefs, which could 23 have missed sonething. I must have missed 24 only have been asked for the purposes of 24 something, because all I hear Mr. scarola in 25 pumping -- that word is used In quotes -- 25 court saying he's going to prove that the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801613 1 2 3 4 73 allegations In the original proceeding that my client filed are false. And I never know that to be a malicious prosecution action. But my research yielded what Mr. Link 1 2 3 4 75 Hr. Scarola wants to try other cases. This Is not a sexual abuse casco. It is not a federal court action a Crime Victims' Rights action. It's not even a defamation case, 5 indicated this morning, which Is the which Your Honor clearly stated this morning 6 Debrincat case is the blueprint for this when denying the affirmative defense is 7 9 trial. The Dobrincat case actually has the most guiding principle in it for this court, which is going to, I think superimpose the 9 related to defamation. So to allow flight logs into this malicious prosecution case is completely 10 entire exhibit list of Mr. Scarola as it 10 irrelevant to the issue of whether the facts 11 relates to a lot of those exhibits that go 11 that my client rolled on when he filed the 12 to ono of the other lawsuits, whether it's 12 original proceeding wore in existence at the 13 Mr. Edwards's lawsuits on behalf of the 13 time that he filed it. The facts are that 14 three woman who sued Mr. Epstein and was 14 there was a civil action forfeiture 35 settled in 2010 -- that case Is over -- or 35 proceeding against Rothstein filed with the 36 the exhibits go to ono of the other 26 U.S. Attorney's Office, that the Rothstein's 17 lawsuits. 27 firm was dissolving, that Mr. Edwards hold 20 The statement in Debrincat that's so 28 himself out as a partner in that firm, that 19 important is that Your Honor, Mr. Scarola 29 Mr. Edwards had the three lawsuits -- which 20 and I, parties and witnesses, should be 20 he oven concedes in his most recent 21 absolutely excepted from liability to an 21 deposition -- were used by Mr. Rothstein to 22 action for defamatory words published In the 22 fabricate -- and that's the word that 29 course of judicial proceedings. 29 Mr. Edwards testified to under oath -- to 24 So when Mr. Scarola pulls out my 24 fabricate -- and create a fantasy -- that 25 complaint, my client's original proceeding 25 was another word Mr. Edwards used. 74 76 1 and wants to parse through independent Those facts, did they exist? It sounds 2 allegations or paragraphs and say, I'm going 2 like we're in agreement. Those facts 3 to prove that that statement is false and existed. 4 you should novor plod Lt. That's not what The razorback lawsuit brought by 5 the malicious prosecution law says. That's Mr. Bill Scherer down in Fort Lauderdale who 6 not what we aro here to do. We here for Your Honor to decide as a threshold matter whether the facts that my was quoted in a newspaper article my client road and relied that said Mr. Rothstein was tricking investors. He used Epatoin's cases 9 client reasonably relied on existed at the 9 as a showpiece and bait. Which Epstein 30 time ho commenced the original proceeding. 20 cases? The one that Edwards had. 31 And, in fact, that's the Liabos case II So the flight logs aro irrelevant. 22 that Your Honor discussed with us back on 22 They are far astray from what we are here to 13 November 29th. whore there's a mixed 29 try. And they aro an attempt to open up 24 question of fact of law Your Honor has to do 24 some other lawsuit, sexual -- 35 that threshold determination of if there's IS By the way, the three clients of 16 any question or dispute of those facts that 16 Mr. Edwards, Mr. Edwards concedes were 17 my client rolled on wore not In existence. 17 not -- you never heard Hr. Scarola deny 10 If the facts existed, then you have to 10 that -- because Mr. Edwards conceded, they 19 determine, as the Court, whether my client 19 aro not on my client's planes. 20 had sufficient probable cause. 20 So this, like many of the other 21 So what are the facts that my client 21 exhibits, Your Honor must be precluded, 22 valor' on? They aro not the flight logs. 22 because they aro wholly irrelevant. And if 23 He's not relying on those flight logs. 23 there was any remote probative value, they 24 That's a complete rod herring for the Court. 24 aro prejudicial to talk about flight logs 25 I see why it's a focus, though, because 25 and celebrities who may have boon on my Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801614 77 79 1 client's planes. I comes up an it's introduced or attempted to 2 THE COURT: I think that the issue 2 be introduced outside the presence of the 3 , meaning the tangential allegations 3 jury. 4 that were made that mentioned flight logs or 4 To the, what I perceive to be three 5 mentioned the good faith discovery aspects S questions, the two former questions, the 6 of Mr. Edwards' plight relating to his three n answer would be yes. 7 clients has some relevancy. MR. SCAROLA: Will the Court take 8 However, the flight logs themselves a judicial notice of Florida Statute 90.404 9 would be subject to -- and the Court is 6 (2), which is commonly referred tO as the 10 sustaining at this juncture the relevancy 10 a ass Rule, and federal rule 415(g), 11 objection, and also a 403 objection. And 11 which exp permits the introduction of 12 that is, that while mentioning the fact that 12 evidence with regard t0 other sexual 13 Mr. Edwards in good faith -- whatever the 13 assaults against children, so that the Jury 14 case may have bean -- sought these flight 14 is away of the fact that Mr. Edwards, not 25 logs as part of his discovery process 35 only had a good faith basis to conduct this 26 representing the three young women, at the 26 discovery, but quite arguably would have 27 same time the Court has expressly indicated 27 been grossly negligent to have failed to 24 its significant reservations. And in fact, 20 pursue it? 39 it's condemnation of trying either those 29 THE COURT: The only thing I would may 20 cases in this courtroom -- as far as the 20 to that, Mr. Scarola, is I don't want t0 nix 22 malicious prosecution case is concerned -- 22 apples and oranges. And that la, I don't 22 or more importantly that we are going to 22 want to place the Court's incriminator on 29 potentially constructively try other either 29 getting too far afield and turning this into 24 underaged or over the age of consent -- 24 a case about alleged sexual exploitation, 25 albeit potential sexual assault claims -- In 25 particularly of others outside of 78 80 1 this forum. 1 Mr. Edwards' representation. That would 2 So again, while it nay become relevant 2 serve only to inflame the Jury, and, again, s as t0 why Mr. Edwards went about his $ would cause the playing field to become 4 business in seeking out those flight logs in 4 unleveled, because the defense to the 5 a matter of good faith discovery, the flight 5 malicious prosecution claim, l.e., Epstein 6 logs themselves, in this Court's respectful e and his attorneys, would have to be fighting 7 view based upon its ruling, are Irrelevant. claims that they may not even know about 0 And if there's any probative value at all, 6 much, much loss the ones that they do. 9 they would be materially outweighed by the 9 So again, I want to center on those 26 prejudice of 403. 20 throe claims that were brought by 21 MR. SCAROLA: May I raise a qu 21 Mr. Edwards on behalf of his clients, and 22 Your Honor? 22 center on those aspects that would be 29 THE COURT: Briefly. 29 relevant to the malicious prosecution claim 24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 24 and the alleged ginning up of those claims, 25 Do I understand the Court's ruling to 35 the alleged attempt to align himself with 16 be that Mr. Edwards is going to be able to 16 Rothstein, the alleged attempt to factor 17 explain why he was seeking the discovery he 17 those cases, potentially Mr. Edwards' 10 was seeking, why he was seeking the flight 18 conduct as it related to those factoring 19 logs, the fact that he did obtain flight 19 matters. 20 logs that confirmed independent information 20 MR. SCAROLA: I am -- I am sorry. I 21 about children being transported on the 21 didn't mean to interrupt. 22 airplane. 22 THE COURT: What I'm trying to say is 23 THE COURT: The latter is the one that 23 things like flight logs, the danger of 24 will have to b0 discussed further, again, as 24 unfair prejudice. And also, in -- to answer 25 I pointed out earlier, when the context 25 your question regarding the cases that talk Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801615 81 about the prior similar acts or perhaps oven 83 commentary as to Mr. Epstein, nor, 2 subsequent similar acts, those cases aro 2 obviously, as to the three plaintiff, at 3 from the forum of which the actual criminal issue. 4 claim, or perhaps oven a civil claim that And as conceded by Epstein in his 5 stems from the alleged assault, is being papers, once Mr. Mr. Link and Ma. Rockonbach 6 hoard. became involved to the matter, and that is 7 Again, what I'm trying to emphasize is there's no conceivable way that those issues 0 that I do not want to introduce tangential Can be ignored, because of the nature of 9 matters into this case which would either Mr. Epatoin's announced defense as well as 10 directly or indirectly, whether purposefully 10 his deposition testimony to the extent that 11 or not, inflame this jury. 11 ho testified. And that is, that these throe 12 So that la the ruling of the Court. 12 cases were a part of some typo of an 13 13 elaborate schema by Rothstein and others, I want to move forward now on the nowt 14 issue that's Doing objected to, that is what 14 including the litigation team -- which la 25 is generically listed as Jeffrey £pstein'a IS defined as Including Edwards -- to somehow 26 phone records. 26 inflate, gin up, ovoroxaggerate, whatever I/ MS. ROCKEHBACH: May I approach, Your 27 the case may bo, the value of those cases to 28 Honor. And I can swap with the court 28 these investors, whatever damage was caused 29 Exhibits 10 and 9, the phone records that 29 to Epstein as a result thereof. 20 wore produced to my office by Mr. Scarola. 20 £o that's the clear unadulterated 23 Your Honor, the objection is identical lI ruling of the Court as to that issue. 22 to the last, and that they aro not relevant. 22 MR. SCAROLA: And I understand that, 22 My client's phone records, if chore was any 22 sir. My question to you is, if there is a 24 remote relevance as to who my client may 24 specific allegation in the complaint -- 25 have called on any given day, I don't think 25 THE COURT: That was brought by 82 that's going to bo -- I think it's 84 Mr. Epstein. 2 prejudicial. I think there's a clangor or 2 MR. SCAROLA: -- that was brought by 3 prejudicing this jury. Mr. Epstein against Mr. Edwards, does Your 4 I am not quite sure what relevancy Mr. Scarola thinks that phone records have Honor's ruling contemplate that we got to prove that allegation la false? Without 6 to the malicious prosecution action, unless they think we may hoar that there is going getting into what exhibit we are going to use to prove its false, is there any issue 8 to be some attempt to prove the falsity of about the fact that if he alleged it In the 9 scme individual allegation in CO original complaint and it's false, wo got to prove 20 proceeding, which is not what we should be doing here In this action. :0 it's false? THE COURT: There's no issue as far as 22 THE COURT: Thank you. 22 I am concerned. 39 MR. SCAROLA: I am -- I continuo to be 29 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. I think 14 extremely puzzled by that statement, that we 24 that helps a groat deal, because I have been 15 aro not hero to prove the falsity of claims Is hearing something entirely different, 16 in the original complaint. 16 repeatedly from the other side. I didn't 17 I would like some guidance from the 17 understand how they can possibly be making 14 Court. 10 that argument that we 't permitted to 19 THE COURT: No need to puzzled. I 19 prove the falsity of ovary false allegation 20 think I've already made myself abundantly 20 in the complaint. 21 clear. And that is, that the relationship 21 THE COURT: My intone is to hold 22 between the legitimacy of the three claims: 22 Mr. Epstein accountable -- as I try to do 23 M ., R.M. and Jane Dm, aro going to bo 23 each and every day, no matter whether it 24 permitted in a manner that befits the 24 litigant or attorney -- and that is, what 25 dignity of the courtroom, without pejorative 25 they write they aro going to have to stand Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801616 i 2 3 85 behind. And I have got no issues in that respect at all. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. That's I 2 3 87 Someone could be conjuring up any thought process that they may have to possibly bring a claim. But it's not until 4 vary helpful. I appreciate that 4 that black and whit* document is served on S clarification. S someone and a filing fee is paid, and the 4 THE COURT: Now, again, the morn fact 4 litigation comnancos -- and as contemplated 7 that Mr. Epstein mentions flight logs in his 7 by the jury instructions and by the law -- 8 complaint does not ipso facto make the 8 continued by the defendant in a malicious 9 entire flight log disclosure relevant to the 4 prosecution claim, the original plaintiff, 10 jury's consideration of the claims. 10 to make this at all real. 11 So I want to temper my broad statement 11 MR. LINK: I think I can answer that 12 by that example as it may constitute 12 question very easily, and here is why -- and 13 examples in other matters that he's claimed. 13 you raise a really good point. 14 But generally, globally, yes. Tho 14 You, Mr. Scarola absolutely gots to 15 accountability issue is still resonating 15 test this. So hero is when is Epstoin's I. with the Court, and will always resonate for Io complaint is filo, Dacenbor 7th, 2009. I am 17 as long as I an doing this. 17 suggesting to you that if you road the 16 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. I do 16 Supreme Court case that just cane out, it 10 appreciate that clarification. I'm sorry to 10 will toll you what happens afterwards is all 20 the extant that any of that may seam to be 20 subject to the litigation privilege. 21 argument after Your Honor has ruled. That II THE COURT: Which Supreme Court case 22 helps no a groat deal. 22 you are talking about? 29 THE COURT: Lot's novo on. 23 MS. ROCKEHBACH: Debrincat. 24 MR. LINK: Your Honor, may I comment on 24 MR. LINK: It's the first thing it 25 that very, very briefly. 25 -- 86 88 1 THE COURT: Sure. Yos, sir. 1 MS. ROCKEHBACH: Under hoadnoto ono. 2 MR. LINK: Wo have hoard the Court 2 MR. LINK: -- that everything that 3 ruled that way and we've accepted that 3 happens after 12/7/09 is protected, it's 4 ruling. We don't agree that that's what the 4 subject to privilege. what the allegations 5 law suggests, but that's the playing field 5 are, the truth or falsity, any statements 0 that you have sot for us. 6 made by the lawyers, any statements made by 7 THE COURT: The playing field being -- 7 the parties or witnesses. 6 and then you don't agree is exactly what, so r THE COURT: Mold on just a moment. 9 that we can maybe clarify whatever your 9 What about, though, extra judicial 10 agreement is so that neither of us or any of 10 statements? Tho Dobrincat case, the Wolfe 11 us aro working under any false pretenses. 11 case, for case that wo had, was confined to 12 MR. LINK: Your Honor, we don't believe 12 issues dealing with the litigation itself. II that truth or falsity of any specific II The concern that Wolfe had was 14 allegation has anything to do with malicious 14 primarily ono of chilling effect on the 15 prosecution. It has everything to do with 25 ability of, in that case, a rather 16 defamation. Hero is why. 15 well-known law firm in Miami and their 17 No believe that malicious prosecution 17 ability to properly litigate their case 10 focuses on the information that you make the 18 without feeling -- fooling feathered by 19 decision to go forward with the lawsuit. 19 that. 20 Did you have enough information that a 20 What transpires outside of the 21 reasonable person would bring this civil 21 litigation aro you suggesting to MO would 22 proceedings. That's what the case law says. 22 not be relevant, moaning publication, things 23 THE COURT: How else is that testing, 23 of that nature, things that this export is 24 Hr. Link, but for the actual allegations 24 going to say in [GYMS of damages caused to 25 that were brought? 2S Edwards as a result of this filing and it's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801617 89 91 1 continuation. 1 Warner wont out of our -- very kind way -- I 2 MR. LINK: We are on two different 2 am saying that with an abundant amount of 3 points then. i respect. I think she's an exceptional 4 THE COURT: Sorry. I may have 4 appellate judge -- she stated that the trial 5 misunderstood. court correctly followed the Wolfe decision. 6 MR. LINK: You got it, but you aro on Off the record. 7 two different points, so let ma tell you > IA discussion was held off the record.) 6 this. e THE COURT: I do need a break. I hate 9 The extra judicial statements -- and 9 to break you in the middlo of a thought, but 10 it's a great example. Epstein sues for 10 I do have some lunch plans. I want to make 11 abuse of process, RICO, whatever ha sues 11 sure that I respect those. It's about five 12 for. Outside of the courtroom Mr. Epstein 12 or so after noon. Lot's got back, please, 13 stands up and says to a reporter, 13 assembled at 1:20. 14 Mr. Edwards is a thief. T➢ere's no part of 14 What my plan is, I'm going to give you 15 that statement that's connected to the 25 another two hours this afternoon. So we 16 litigation. He doesn't have immunity. 36 will go whenever we start and two hours 27 He makes a statement about the 22 thereafter. IS litigation, and he says, I have alleged le What I would like to do is try to get II Edwards was connected to Rothstein's Ponzi 29 through as much of this as we can. 20 scheme. He says it outside of the 20 My continued suggestion is to work with 21 courtroom. Is that connected to the II each other, if you can, as far as any of 22 litigation? Yes, it is. 22 these exhibits may be concerned. And then 23 So I don't think the law is unclear at 22 what I will do is -- if you aro prepared to 24 all. And I don't think Mr. scarola would 24 do it -- is got into the motion to stay If 25 dispute it if you asked him does the 25 we have time to do that today, okay? 90 92 I litigation privilege protect everything that 1 MR. GOLDBERGER: Judge, I apologia*. 2 happens in a lawsuit through parties, 2 So I'm kind of responsible for the stay 2 witnesses, lawyers and Judges that aro , motion, and I'm juggling a couple of balls 4 connected to the litigation. He would say, 4 right now. I'm not going to be here this 5 in any other circumstance -- he said it in 5 afternoon. I got called up for trial. I 6 this room -- ho said it in this courtroom . have to go prepare for that. 7 two or three times -- all of that Is On a personal level, my son and 8 protected by the litigation privilege. e daughter-in-law their due date is today. I 9 MR. SCAROLA: No. There 1: ono think St's happening so -- 20 exception. And the ono exception is :0 THE COURT: If you would have told no 21 continuing to maintain the lawsuit in the 21 that, I would have ➢een able to hear It 22 a➢sence of probable cause. That's ono 22 before wo did this evidence issue, because I 29 exemption. Everything else is protected by 22 think I mentioned earlier that I was prepare 24 the litigation privilege. The one thing 14 to do this today. 25 that la not, the one exemption carved out of 35 You know, my suggestion is probably 16 the litigation privilege by every Court, up 16 that either Mr. Link or Ms. Rockenbach could 17 until the Third DCA decided otherwise, and 1? argue It in your a➢sence. 10 the Fourth DCA issued its opinion, every 10 I will be glad to take It up the first 19 other court in the nation has said you 19 thing this afternoon, Jack, if it will help 20 cannot maintain a lawsuit in the absence of 20 you. But, you know -- 21 probable cause. You can't file it in the 21 MR. GOLDBERGER: I apologize for not 22 a➢serve of probable cause. 22 telling you ahead of time. 23 THE COURT: You're bringing back bad 23 THE COURT: I understand. You have a 24 memories. If I hoard that once, I heard it 24 lot on your mind and I respect that. But at 25 a thousand times. I think that's why Judge 25 the sane time, I told the parties before, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801618 93 1 you know, I am slammed, and I have to go: 2 this stuff pushed through in the bast way I 3 can describe lt. So I'm going to have to 4 insist that you make yourself available. 5 I will willing to do it, as I said, 6 first thing out of the gate. I don't expect 7 it to take very long. I'm expecting it to 8 be about a 15-minute argument per side. And 9 I will get you out of here, to to best of my 10 ability, by 2:00 in the afternoon, as long 1) as there's no unforeseen circumstance. 12 HR. COLDBERCER: Lot me talk to 13 co-Counsel. 14 MR. SCAROLA: I can do my argument in 15 five minutes on that issue. 10 THE COURT: I don't think it's going to 37 take more than 15 minutes to present, then 28 five on the rebuttal. So I'm telling you 39 right now, wo can' get it done in less than 20 half an hour. I will bo glad to that. I II will give every you every accommodation, as 22 I would with any of you here. I would do 29 the sane thing. 24 But I need to respect the fact that 25 I've put aside this tine, and that I've 94 I prepared in accordance with the information 2 that I received from counsel yesterday in 9 the manner which puts that as the next -- as 4 the nowt viable thing to review and -- I 5 haven't gone through the supplement motions 4 to compel yet. That is what I was planning 7 to do on Thursday. 8 I'm sorry about that. Again, it is 9 with all due respect to your long experience 30 and the fact I think you're an excellent 31 lawyer and a groat person, so it's not 22 personal at all, it's just needing to get 29 this done. 24 Thank you. And thank you all for 35 understanding. I appreciate that. See you 16 back assembled at 1:20. )7 IA recess was had 12:09 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801619 95 A ■ 61:15,15 ability 88:15,17 93:10 able 57:3,6 60:4 78:16 92:11 above-entitled 2:2 absence 6:13 16:12 46:8 90:12,20,22 92:17 absolute 37:3 absolutely 5:12 9:12 35:22 39:16 47:23 58:9 60:18 73:21 87:14 abundant 91:2 abundantly 82:20 abuse 11:9 14:11,25 65:24 66:16 67:13 75:2 89:11 abused 13:22 abusive 65:1066:23 accepted 86:3 accolades 40:3 accommodation 93:21 account 35:6 accountability 85:15 accountable 84:22 accurate 3:5 acknowledge 33:5 act 6:9 15:15 26:6 36:13,14 action 5:5,6 6:1 7:3 7:14 8:16 9:13,14 9:15 10:8 11:18 11:22 17:2 23:3 27:12,16 29:20 30:6 34:14 73:3 73:22 75:3,4,14 82:6,11 actions 38:21 50:15 activities 8:10 20:6 69:25 acts 81:1,2 actual 5:15 81:3 86:24 add 24:12 30:12,18 additional 21:1 Additionally 49:12 address 55:8 57:4 addressed 13:15,16 13:17,19 19:11 28:24 49:10 53:4 addresses 50:8 adequately 44:24 Adler 65:5 admissible 65:9 72:4 admit 23:14 58:7 admitted 59:16,16 advertises 37:7 advice 10:5,14 affirmative 3:4,17 3:19 7:21 9:5,20 9:25 10:3,7,17,19 12:16,17 13:25 14:4,10,1421:1,4 23:10,11,12,19,21 23:24 24:2,7,11 25:3 27:6,21 28:3 28:6 29:2 34:3,12 34:23 35:1,11,20 36:19,20 37:10 40:17 48:5,7,20 49:1,7,11,25 50:7 51:24 52:21 53:1 53:2,5,24 56:22 75:6 affirmatively 10:14 18:17 afforded 38:11 47:10 61:7 afield 79:23 afternoon 55:16,18 55:22 91:15 92:5 92:19 93:10 age 77:24 agree 33:5 57:13 86:4,8 agreeing 50:18 agreement 48:12 51:25 76:2 86:10 agrees 2:6 ahead 3:13 92:22 airplane 65:18,19 66:1 78:22 airplanes 72:8 albeit 27:20 77:25 align 80:15 allegation 6:16 41:19 42:8 68:8 82:9 83:24 84:5 84:19 86:14 allegations 3:24 4:5 5:9 6:23 7:19,22 8:14 9:2,24 16:15 17:15 23:15 31:10 31:18,21,22 37:4 43:16 47:6,23 67:15,17,18 71:17 71:18 73:1 74:2 77:3 86:24 88:4 allege 12:16 27:15 alleged 16:24 34:8 64:25 65:10 67:14 68:17 79:24 80:14 80:15,16 81:5 84:8 89:18 allegedly 40:21 51:11 alleges 67:2 alleging 27:14 allow 10:10 11:4 28:13 29:8,10 30:4 52:23 75:8 allowed 8:25 9:2,23 10:12 14:23 27:6 allowing 18:23 28:22,23 allows 27:4 66:11 altered 21:12 amenable 51:3 amend 3:4,16 10:12 10:14 11:4 13:21 14:23 20:9 28:10 28:22 29:12 32:3 51:21 53:9 54:4 56:24 amendable 27:25 53:22 amended 62:23 amending 27:4 amendment 12:24 13:23 27:5 28:1 28:13 29:6,8 48:24 52:23 53:3 54:13 55:9 amendments 27:3 27:10,18 30:4 49:14 52:13 amount 44:22 59:6 91:2 analogize 27:12 analogy 27:19 analysis 9:9,10 29:16 38:3 51:1 announced 83:9 answer 3:4 10:2 56:24 79:6 80:24 87:11 answered 38:13 answers 41:24 55:6 anti-trust 13:7 36:9 36:10,15 48:17 53:11 Anybody 54:8 anymore 48:14 apologize 92:1,21 apparent 59:14 appearance 2:23 appellate 59:22 61:2 91:4 apples 79:21 applicability 51:17 applicable 50:12 71:25 72:1 application 35:23 35:24 36:3 38:12 48:14 52:12 applied 5:4 applies 25:7 apply 13:11 15:7 16:20 25:12 26:24 27:20,24 29:19 50:15 52:11 appreciate 30:10 33:10 39:17 46:22 85:4,19 94:15 appreciated 72:17 approach 8:1 62:22 64:9 81:17 appropriate 22:13 57:19 area 40:2 arguable 38:14 arguably 42:23 79:16 argue 29:25 38:1 92:17 argued 29:23 arguing 12:8 32:4 45:20 57:5 argument 15:3 24:22 31:2,8 35:7 36:18 47:2 49:22 55:18 66:10 84:18 85:21 93:8,14 arguments 27:9 46:24 60:8,9,11 arose 17:15 article 49:15 52:14 71:5 76:6 aside 16:22 93:25 asked 11:3 34:17 40:17,18 53:20 54:13 70:17,21,24 89:25 aspect 30:23 31:1 34:4 43:8,9 aspects 77:5 80:12 assault 77:25 81:5 assaulted 71:21 assaults 69:4 71.7 71:18 79:13 assembled 91:13 94:16 assert 40:8 asserted 28:7 34:23 assertion 24:25 39:16 66:22 67:12 assertions 55:9 asserts 21:5 assignment 8:5 Associated 71:5 associating 8:9 assume 61:19 64:3 assuming 23:16 62:19 astray 76:12 attached 20:8 attacked 27:7 attacking 29:11 attempt 32:10 51:20 76:13 80:15 80:16 82:8 attempted 70:2 79:1 attempting 27:15 32:2 54:4 attention 33:10 43:12 attorney 19:18,25 21:20 38:9 58:18 84:24 Attorney's 75:16 attorneys 56:20 58:17 80:6 attributable 51:14 augment 60:4 authority 8:23 authorized 29:21 30:7 automatic 56:16 57:2 available 7:5 93:4 avoid 17:3 50:14 avoidance 49:24 52:7,24 54:3 avoided 33:3 award 25:2 44:21 aware 58:19 B B 62:3 back 3:2 11:25 15:2 32:3 55:24 56:12 61:13 72:20 74:12 90:23 91:12 94:16 backup 55:4 had 90:23 bait 76:9 balanced 18:22 halls 92:3 bar 15:15,18 48:9 barred 27:17 50:11 based 7:4,15,22 11:9 14:24,25 17:2 21:2 26:18 28:1 41:20 45:14 72:18 78:7 baseless 12:21 21:3 bases 64:25 basic 38:13 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801620 96 basing 62:20 basis 21:13 30:7 37:2 64:14 65:8 71:24 72:1079:15 befits 82:24 beginning 45:11 behalf 3:15 12:8 27:9 33:12 73:13 80:11 belief 68:25 72:10 beliefs 70:23 believe 4:4 11:5 23:9 25:10 26:17 29:21 30:4,6 31:24 36:25 41:3 45:22 56:19 65:12 86:12,17 believed 22:6 best 56:6 93:2,9 better 8:23 55:24 beyond 39:10,12 big 42:9 Bill 76:5 hit 30:13 67:25 black 45:19 87:4 blueprint 73:6 blur 51:4 board 22:4.5 boiling 35:8 bold 45:18 bolster 70:4 bona 17:24 bootstrap 20:1 bottom 5:20 68:5 Brad 12:12 20:9,12 Bradley 32:6 46:5 65:1,3,11,15 66:25 67:3,11 69:18 71:23 72:11 branch 22:10,10 branches 13:9 break 54:8 61:10 91:8,9 bridge 44:17 brief 24:17 51:9 briefly 78:13 85:25 bring 9:23 11:18 17:18 18:2341:11 42:23 86:21 87:3 bringing 33:10 90:23 broad 85:11 broadly 49:4 brought 23:4 27:12 36:1 48:16 51:15 52:17 76:4 80:10 83:25 84:2 86:25 built 22:22 52:19 54:1 built-in 52:2,17 bulk 35:11 burden 20:25 21:7 burdens 21:10 Burlington 12:9,10 12:11 18:18 20:18 20:20 28:5 30:9 33:22 35:8 40:14 40:18 41:23 51:9 56:18,21,25 Burlington's 47:2 business 17:7 78:4 businesses 59:7 C calculated 70:3 72:3 call 41:14 called 17:1 18:18 81:25 92:5 can' 93:19 carefully 43:1 caned 90:15 case 2:8 3:22 4:8,8 4:25 8:24 11:12 12:1,4,20 13:2,4,5 13:12 14:3 15:3,8 16:9 17:13,14,15 18:4,6,7,14,15,18 19:4,17,20 20:3 20:23 21:11,12,18 21:19 22:2,3,3,20 23:1,1,3,18 24:19 25:14,16 26:14 27:13 28:18 29:1 29:12 35:23 37:10 40:25 41:1,2,7,16 41:24 42:5 43:18 43:19 47:5 48:9 48:17,18 49:3,10 52:11,16 53:14 58:22 64:18 66:12 73:6,7,15 74:11 75:2,4,9 77:14,21 79:24 81:9 83:17 86:22 87:18,21 88:10,11,11,15,17 cases 13:7,8 16:25 17:10 18:8,16 20:13 23:6 25:13 26:20 27:4 28:16 34:9,20 36:7 39:11 40:19,20 41:18,18 53:11 58:25 71:1,2 72:22 75:1 76:8 76:10 77:20 80:17 80:25 81:2 83:12 83:17 categorical 15:22 cause 6:7,12,14 9:22 16:13 17:2 22:23 23:3 25:17 26:10 27:12,15 29:20 30:6 31:12,17,20 34:10 40:23 41:5 41:20 42:15 43:5 43:10 45:8,11,21 46:2,3,6,8,11,13 61:5 67:11 74:20 80:3 90:12,21,22 caused 8:15 26:12 44:1045:1,15 46:5 83:18 88:24 causing 7:15 caveat 61:1 celebrities 69:7 70:3 71:6 76:25 center 80:9,12 certainly 14:21 29:24 35:15 51:2 51:7 56:3 58:19 certificate 2:23 certification 2:24 certified 2:13,20 18:2 challenge 24:8 challenges 24:10 challenging 28:8 chance 56:5 change 26:16 60:5 61:5 changed 45:23 changing 21:9 characterizing 50:16 charges 32:7 checked 2:12 child 11:15 66:13 66:14 children 66:2,6,16 66:19 71:2078:21 79:13 chilling 88:14 circumstance 90:5 93:11 citation 2:10 cite 4:22 18:16 21:11 cited 5:25 13:2 I8:4 18:15 19:4 20:23 23:5 26:14 28:17 28:18 29:1 59:4 civil 5:21 16:7 19:22 42:3,7,20 54:21 75:14 81:4 86:21 claim 6:15,24 7:5,22 12:14 15:12,16 16:4,23 20:9 25:8 25:25 26:2 32:6 32:24 34:1,4,13 34:25 35:14,16 48:14,15 50:9,20 50:21 66:5 71:9 80:5,13 81:4,4 87:3,9 claimed 69:1 85:13 claiming 48:21 claims 16:16,21 17:19 19:7,12 24:2,6 29:22 32:11,16,21 35:2 35:18 49:20,22 50:10,11,1251:10 53:13 54:22 71:13 72:12 77:25 80:7 80:10,14 82:15,22 85:10 clarification 85:5,19 clarify 86:9 clarity 5:19 clear 3:23 4:9 5:1 16:1 19:1821:20 25:3 49:18 82:21 83:20 clearly 4:2 11:19 12:21 15:9,21 19:8 30:5 33:23 36:16 72:5 75:5 client 15:1 19:19,25 21:21 26:8 27:10 37:14 38:10,20 39:5,13,21 73:2 74:9,17,19,21 75:11 76:6 81:24 client's 64:16,20 73:25 76:19 77:1 81:23 clients 20:16 37:15 64:20 65:21 70:20 71:9,14 76:15 77:7 80:11 closely 33:20 co-Counsel 93:13 code 2:15 colorable 24:22 combinations 2:17 come 11:25 24:21 29:6 37:9 43:6 44:17 61:13 comes 6:3 17:11 43:11 56:7 60:3 79:1 comfort 60:23 comfortable 59:12 coming 43:4 59:5 commenced 16:9 42:22 74:10 commencement 6:1 7:11.16 commences 87:6 comment 85:24 commentary 83:1 commission 66:13 commit 7:2,3 committed 37:19 common 37:16 commonly 79:9 community 20:7 companies 69:11 compel 94:6 compensate 44:24 compensatory 26:12 complained 45:4 complaint 3:25 4:5 5:9 6:6,25 7:2,19 7:22 8:15,20 9:3 9:24 10:11 25:9 26:531:11,12,17 31:18 37:4 40:22 41:19 42:8,24 43:16 44:2 47:7 47:21 67:15,16,20 68:8,19 71:17 72:10 73:25 82:16 83:24 84:9,20 85:8 87:16 complete 74:24 completely 14:13 36:3 49:8 53:12 64:21 75:9 comprehend 31:8 computer-generat... 2:14 concede 57:24 conceded 25:19 54:1 76:18 83:4 concedes 75:20 76:16 conceding 33:1,1 conceivable 83:7 conceivably 35:17 conceive 35:25 concern 14:22 21:6 21:14.17 22:1,13 88:13 concerned 34:15 48:7 51:25 52:8 77:21 84:12 91:22 conclude 43:12 concluded 14:14 65:1 concludes 25:10 conclusion 15:10 66:25 concurring 22:20 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801621 97 condemnation 77:19 conduct 21:16 33:17 67:12 70:11 71:24 79:15 80:18 confession 49:23 52:7,24 54:2 confined 88:11 confirm 60:5 confirmed 78:20 confirming 54:5 confusing 31:2 conjuring 87:1 connected 89:15,19 89:21 90:4 connection 2:8 37:24 68:17 consent 77:24 conserving 57:3 consider 44:20 consideration 85:10 considerations 13:15 considering 12:25 consistent 61:1 conspiracy 17:18 constitute 34:12 49:25 51:16 52:7 53:2 85:12 constituted 28:2 constitution 49:15 49:16 52:13,15 constitutional 10:19 24:8,10 52:19 constructively 77:23 construed 35:17 51:5 contacting 39:24 contain 2:14 containing 69:6 contains 2:22 contemplate 84:4 contemplated 87:6 contend 46:1 content 2:20 contested 60:3 context 3:18 22:12 23:2 24:5,14 25:2 56:8 60:10,18 61:5 78:25 continuation 45:3 45:17,21 46:4,14 55:19 89:1 continue 42:25 43:7 46:3,12 82:13 continued 16:9,10 42:22 43:3 46:8 46:17 87:8 91:20 continues 68:4 continuing 90:11 contradicts 72:9 contrary 18:15 50:2 53:7 Contrast 44:12 contro125:18,20 convert 18:5 19:2 19:23,24 21:23 converted 20:7 convicted 17:21 37:20 convincing 49:18 copies 68:2 69:5 copy 62:17,22 correct 4:20 28:5 32:17 59:18 61:22 62:6 corrected 2:13 Corrections 2:19 correctly 91:5 counsel 9:11 10:5 10:15 53:17 55:1 57:11 60:13 70:13 94:2 count 11:8 19:3 20:25 42:8 counter 14:17 counter-plaintiff 3:22 36:2 counts 18:1,2 couple 30:14,22 33:8 40:13 58:14 92:3 course 9:16 43:11 73:23 court 2:4 3:1,7,12 4:7,8,9,13,14,15 4:17,18,21,22,25 5:2,7,13,14,17,19 5:23 6:9 7:1,9,9 7:24 8:22 10:9,9 10:13,18,25 11:3 11:8,19 12:7,11 12:21 14:6 15:11 15:17 16:19 18:16 18:19 20:1,17,19 22:11 23:13 24:4 24:9 25:15 26:25 29:7,9 30:9,14,17 30:24 31:6 32:11 32:14,17,20 33:7 33:19,23 37:11 38:6,17 39:17 40:1041:8,24 42:1,5,19 43:2,2 44:16 45:17,24 46:18,23 47:4,9 47:24 48:1,2,6,11 49:2 50:5,17 51:2 51:7 52:8,25 53:4 53:16,20 54:10,24 55:13,18 56:3 57:12 58:14 60:1 60:24 61:6,12,18 61:23 62:14,25 63:5,8,15,19,24 64:2,5,23 66:11 67:18,22,24 68:12 68:22 69:13,19 70:12 72:13,16,25 73:8 74:19,24 75:3 77:2,9,17 78:13,23 79:7,19 80:22 81:12,18 82:12,18,19 83:21 83:25 84:11,21 85:6,16,23 86:1,2 86:7,23 87:18,21 87:21 88:8 89:4 90:16,19,23 91:5 91:8 92:10,23 93:16 Court's 51:21 54:6 78:6,15 79:22 courtroom 77:20 82:25 89:12,21 90:6 courts 15:14 59:22 61:3 create 25:21 39:2 75:24 created 17:18 creativity 35:5 Crime 75:3 crimes 37:20 criminal 5:21 6:3,4 6:6 16:7 21:16,19 42:20 81:3 critical 13:14 crystal 19:17 D D-E-B-R-I-N-C-... 4:19 D3 69:5,9 damage 19:2 24:6 25:2 34:13 42:10 43:25 44:10,25 46:5 83:18 damages 8:16 18:11 18:12 23:18 24:14 26:13 34:2,6,11 34:15,18 37:2 40:24 41:6,7,22 44:7,15,18,20 45:21 47:7,8 49:18 51:10,16 52:5,16 53:19 88:24 danger 80:23 82:2 data 69:21 date 92:8 Daubert 58:23,25 59:1 daughter-in-law 92:8 day 46:15,16 81:25 84:23 DCA 5:24 90:17,18 dead 15:5 16:2 deal 35:12 84:14 85:22 dealing 4:8 10:20 54:12 59:24 88:12 deals 36:20 Debrincat 4:18 8:23 9:8 15:3,4 16:5,17 16:22 18:21 25:5 25:10,16,18,21 26:15,20 73:6,7 73:18 87:23 88:10 December 2:2 87:16 decide 41:13 74:7 decided 90:17 deciphered 2:18 decision 16:18 36:24 37:17 41:11 41:14 47:12,19 50:4,6 53:10 60:5 60:6,19 61:6 86:19 91:5 decisional 52:18 deeper 19:6 defamation 3:20 7:3 8:16 9:6,14 10:17 10:23 12:18 16:23 17:4 18:1,3,7,8 19:3,7,7 20:24 22:17 23:20 25:25 26:2 34:24 35:2 35:12,14,16,18 44:12 50:9,11,12 50:15,20,21 51:6 51:18,23 53:14 75:4,7 86:16 defamatory 9:15 17:3 22:16 37:1 73:22 defaming 8:6,7,11 8:15,209:1 12:4 defend 10:14 26:8 32:5 defendant 7:11 23:14 32:23 42:14 44:19 87:8 defending 10:8 defense 10:6 12:16 12:17,19 21:4 23:12,16,19,21 24:1,2,7,11 25:4 28:3 34:3,13 35:21 36:19,20 37:10 43:4 48:7 48:21 49:2,7,11 49:25 50:7 51:19 51:24 52:21 53:24 56:23 57:15 67:5 68:2 75:6 80:4 83:9 defenses 3:5,17,20 7:21 9:6,20 10:1,3 10:7,17,19 13:3 13:13,25 14:4,11 14:15 17:4 18:7 19:8 21:1 23:7,10 23:11,24 26:3 27:6,22 28:6,15 29:2 34:23 35:1 35:11 40:17 48:5 50:8,12,13,14 53:1.2,5 define 18:20 defined 43:1 69:18 83:15 defrauded 69:1 I delight 61:3 delivered 2:3 demonstrate 8:14 31:19 40:23 denial 14:19 49:23 56:23 deny 13:21 26:18 76:17 denying 75:6 depends 45:5 deposed 70:13,16 deposition 7:25 8:1 18:9 43:17 51:1 67:3,21 68:15 70:15 75:21 83:10 depositions 66:21 70:2 71:1 deprived 24:15 describe 93:3 designated 68:2 designed 11:4 18:21 despite 19:19 detail 50:25 53:6 determination 15:6 42:17 57:19 58:6 74:15 determine 6:22 74:19 difference 29:17 38:18 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801622 98 differences 2:20 different 26:5 29:4 29:4,5 44:14 47:15 84:15 89:2 89:7 difficult 68:1 digest 60:9 dignitaries 69:7 dignity 82:25 directed 68:22 directly 48:19 50:3 72:9 81:10 disagree 60:7 disallowing 59:1 DISCLAIMER 1:2 disclose 2:6 disclosure 85:9 discovered 69:2 discovery 14:13,16 65:3,8,11,17 66:24 67:12,13 70:11 71:25 72:3 77:5,15 78:5,17 79:16 discretion 29:7 discuss 56:13 discussed 29:12 41:18 74:12 78:24 discussion 41:6 62:20 91:7 dismisses 11:8 dispute 41:9 74:16 89:25 disregard 49:21 dissemination 8:6 dissolving 75:17 distance 17:12 distinction 34:21 39:20 40:4,9 51:22 distress 17:6 district 15:14 17:13 17:23 division 5:24 document 63:4 87:4 Doe 70:18 82:23 doing 7:20 36:4 39:23 65:13 66:18 82:11 85:17 door 11:23 Dr 8:2 draft 2:13 draw 40:9 drams 47:16 dream 14:10 due 24:5,15,20 25:1 52:15,17 92:8 94:9 E E.W 70:18 82:23 earlier 50:2 59:20 66:10 78:25 92:13 easily 87:12 easy 39:4 Edward's 11:8 50:22 56:2 Edwards 1:5 8:9 12:9,12 19:12 20:10,12 31:9 32:6,12,15,22 33:13 34:5,19 37:5,22 38:2,24 39:10 46:6 49:5 49:17,20 50:19 51:12 52:1 53:18 54:6,23 64:19 65:1,4,11,15 66:25 67:4 68:16 69:18 70:10,B,16 70:17,21 71:24 72:11 75:17,19,23 75:25 76:10,16,16 76:18 77:13 78:3 78:16 79:14 80:11 83:15 84:3 88:25 89:14,19 Edwards' 7:25 33:15 48:12 50:10 53:16 62:8 67:11 77:6 80:1,17 Edwards's 73:13 effect 52:10 88:14 efficient 58:21 effort 27:21 66:24 70:3 efforts 13:8 eight 14:4,9 eighth 23:10,19 50:7 either 20:25 21:23 23:2 25:23 27:25 41:20 48:19 53:6 60:4 67:22 77:19 77:23 81:9 92:16 elaborate 83:13 electronic 2:7,15 element 6:13 15:19 16:6 25:7 26:11 33:25 34:15 42:2 42:3,6,16,17 elements 5:4,13,14 5:17,18 8:17 12:3 15:21 16:11 18:20 19:2 25:22 26:1 43:21,22 eliminate 17:25 eliminated 46:15 Elmo 72:15 emotional 17:6 emphasize 81:7 emphasized 33:23 engage 12:23 engaged 65:11 engages 20:5 enquote 71:12 ensuring 58:20 entire 73:10 85:9 entirely 25:21 26:5 26:1649:8 53:12 84:15 Epstein 1:3 11:14 20:22 24:15,25 25:17,19 32:8,13 32:16,21,24 34:10 37:25 38:1 39:5 40:6 45:12 49:19 50:4 51:14 52:4 64:25 66:3,23 69:22 71:19 72:7 73:14 76:9 80:5 83:1,4,19 84:1,3 84:22 85:7 89:10 89:12 Epstein's 21:16 24:5 33:17 34:17 56:23 60:13 61:20 62:23 64:8 69:3 70:14,20 71:7,9 76:8 81:15 83:9 87:15 errors 2:16 especially 28:11 espoused 50:3 Esquire 2:5 essence 35:9 essential 35:7 essentially 17:17 23:14 27:11 37:12 59:24 establish 41:22 53:8 established 24:19 26:23 52:3 estate 17:17 eve 14:12 evidence 39:15 44:23 45:1 49:19 52:10 58:5 65:9 66:12,15 67:6,9 72:4,7 79:12 92:12 evidentiary 56:12 exactly 45:14 58:12 86:8 example 11:7,14 19:10 34:3 59:2 85:12 89:10 examples 39:4 62:11 85:13 excellent 94:10 excepted 73:21 exception 4:10,11 90:10,10 exceptional 91:3 excerpts 67:7 excuse 19:10 20:18 39:14 66:9 executive 13:9 22:10 exemplars 63:9 exempted 9:12,18 exemption 47:11 90:13,15 exercise 29:7 exercising 34:11 exhibit 56:1,2 57:10 57:21 60:3 62:2,9 62:13,23 63:21,22 64:13 73:10 84:6 exhibits 57:15 58:11 59:13,15,25 60:12 62:5,15 63:12 73:11,16 76:21 81:19 91:22 exist 58:7 76:1 existed 46:7 74:9,18 76:3 existence 74:17 75:12 existing 27:17 52:20 71:13 exists 33:5 expanded 65:6 expect 93:6 expecting 93:7 expeditious 60:16 expend 26:8 experience 94:9 expert 7:25 8:4,14 8:19,25 18:11 88:23 expert's 33:12 50:25 experts 14:17 19:16 explain 26:25 65:16 78:17 explained 12:18 explanation 14:9 26:19 exploitation 79:24 expressed 14:22 expressly 66:11 77:17 79:11 extent 83:10 85:20 extra 62:16 88:9 89:9 extremely 26:15 31:2 82:14 F fabricate 75:22,24 fabricated 32:7,11 32:14.15,21 fabricating 72:11 face 33:4 facially 25:8 fact 8:21 18:21 19:1 36:11 37:5 38:8,9 38:19,23 40:5 41:4 67:2 74:11 74:14 77:12,18 78:19 79:14 84:8 85:6 93:24 94:10 facto 85:8 factor 80:16 factoring 34:20 80:18 facts 27:24 28:1 29:16,1841:10 74:8,16,18,21 75:10,13 76:1,2 factual 4:4 6:23 14:15 16:14 19:15 21:9 29:15 31:18 31:21,22 failed 34:5 79:17 fairly 44:24 faith 31:25 77:5,13 78:5 79:15 falls 10:25 49:11 false 4:6 16:15 18:12 31:22 32:7 32:11,14,15,21 40:21,21 44:10,11 44:14 51:11 67:16 73:2 74:3 84:5,7,9 84:10,19 86:11 falsity 9:4,25 10:11 26:4,9 31:10 41:21 47:2249:19 49:21 82:8,15 84:19 86:13 88:5 familiar 4:23 familiarize 56:8 families 59:8 family 17:15,16,20 17:20 famous 69:23 71:6 fantasy 75:24 far 13:6 24:13 38:1 48:6 49:1 51:24 52:7 68:14 76:12 77:20 79:23 84:11 91:21 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801623 99 fashion 28:7 60:16 favor 17:24 feathered 88:18 federal 58:22 66:5,8 66:8 72:1 75:3 79:10 fee 87:5 feel 31:6 47:3 feeling 88:18,18 fide 17:24 field 80:3 86:5,7 fifth 12:17 19:10,11 36:19 48:4,6 52:12 54:13 55:9 fighting 17:17 80:6 figure 19:13,23 20:7 20:10 21:2436:21 37:6 38:2,2 I 39:22 40:7 49:6 figures 69:8 file 10:21 31:12,17 31:20 46:12 47:16 87:16 90:21 filed 42:10 46:14 47:18 55:15 62:12 63:3 73:2 75:11 75:13,15 filing 6:6 7:10 34:18 42:11 44:2 45:8.9 45:16 87:5 88:25 filling 5:25 fmd 44:13,19,21 52:1 60:16 finding 53:6 fmds 48:6 49:2 52:25 fore 51:4 firm 20:12 65:5 75:17,18 88:16 first 6:21 12:24 13:18 15:19 16:6 27:20 33:9 42:2 49:14 87:24 92:18 93:6 Fischer 4:19 fit 35:9 five 8:3 14:3 61:13 91:11 93:15,18 flew7I:9 flight 64:8,16,21 65:18,25 66:18,19 69:6,21 71:10 72:5 74:22,23 75:8 76:11,24 77:4,8,14 78:4,5 78:18,19 80:23 85:7,9 flights 69:22 70:19 Florida 4:21 15:17 16:19 18:19 22:3 22:11 23:12 25:15 25:22 37:1841:18 49:16,24 52:3,14 52:20 58:24 72:1 79:8 Florida's 27:2 44:3 flown 71:7 fluid 59:23 focus 7:17 9:21 12:2 32:8 33:9 42:1 45:5 74:25 focused 7:6 45:7 focuses 42:3 45:15 86:18 focusing 6:22 54:21 65:7 folks 38:25 59:4 followed 91:5 following 2:1 force 15:21 forcing 25:24 26:7 forfeiture 75:14 forget 60:10,10 form 2:7 formatting 2:21 former 79:5 Fort 76:5 forth 5:17 17:8 41:7 50:13 68:15 forum 22:9,14 48:10,22 78:1 81:3 forward 8:24 11:12 56:10 81:13 86:19 found 31:2 50:2,6 53:11 four 8:3.8 Fourteenth 49:14 5"):1") fourth 5:2417:13 17:23 70:15 90:18 frankly 11:5 31:14 35:2 free 30:19 31:6 47:3 Friday 7:24 Fridovich 17:12 18:3 front 12:4 59:10 fruition 60:3 full 69:23 fully 29:21 fundamental 38:13 funds 26:8 further 14:16 36:18 78:24 futile 14:1 27:11,18 28:4,20 29:10,14 48:25 51:21 53:8 54:3 futility 14:21 27:1 28:18 29:3 53:4 game 21:8 28:12 gate 93:6 genera149:5 51:18 generally 21:5 48:21 85:14 generic 24:24 48:15 51:18 generically 81:15 Gertz 19:17 21:18 21:19 36:24 37:11 38:7,9 49:3 50:1,4 53:10 getting 20:16 58:12 79:23 84:6 gin 83:16 ginning 80:14 give 5:19 11:6 30:14 39:8 46:18,21 58:3 64:9 91:14 93:21 given 27:13 81:25 gives 15:4 giving 39:24,25 glad 3:7 92:18 93:20 global 59:18 globally 85:14 go 3:12 8:2419:6 28:21 48:3 55:17 56:4,12 57:21 58:10 60:13,14,22 73:11,16 86:19 91:16 92:6 goes 6:25 26:9,10 39:12 going 8:25 9:2,23 10:10 11:12 12:8 20:4 33:21 37:1 43:15 44:16 46:20 48:3 53:18 56:9 56:10 57:9,23 58:1,23 59:12 62:19 64:3 72:25 73:9 74:2 77:22 78:16 82:1,7,23 84:6,25 88:24 91:14 92:4 93:3 93:16 GOLDBERGER 92:1,21 93:12 good 3:1,14 31:25 58:17 72:20 77:5 77:13 78:5 79:15 87:13 government 10:21 12:15,23 13:10 35:22 36:6,13 48:10,18,22 government's 36:12 great 40:18 84:14 85:22 89:10 94:11 greater 44:23,25 grossly 79:17 grounds 13:21 48:25 guaranteeing 52:15 guess 29:15 guidance 82:17 guiding 73:8 H half 93:20 handed 4:1 47:4 handling 35:2 happened 24:13 happening 92:9 happens 87:19 88:3 90:2 happy 55:16 harassing 22:8 harm 26:12 hate 91:8 headnote 88:1 bear 72:24 82:7 9211 beard 12:13 33:11 46:24 59:2 76:17 81:6 86:2 90:24 90:24 bearing 4:1 6:18 7:24 30:3 39:6 55:20 57:13 62:18 72:20 84:15 heinous 37:19 held 15:1122:11 75:17 91:7 help 32:18 92:19 helpful 85:4 helps 84:14 85:22 herring 74:24 high-profile 19:20 37:14,15 38:10,19 38:25 39:5,21 69:2 71:22 higher 20:25 21:6 hold 20:4 84:21 88:8 holding 15:18 hole 35:10 homework 43:6 Honor 3:14,18 4:16 4:20 5:16 6:21 8:3 9:8 10:3 11:2,25 12:6 14:22 26:18 30:20 31:4 33:4,6 33:18 38:5,16 39:14 40:9,17 41:1,3,1242:1 43:14 44:8 45:11 45:25 46:9 47:5 47:25 54:10,11,13 55:4,6,11 57:1,18 57:22 58:3 61:9 61:17 62:21 63:6 63:17 64:1,6,9,24 67:8,21 68:1,10 69:15 70:9 71:16 72:14 73:19 74:7 74:12,14 75:5 76:21 78:12 81:18 81:21 85:21,24 86:12 Honor's 54:20 84:4 hope 13:17 hour 93:20 hours 70:16 91:15 91:16 i.e I 80:5 idea 23:7 31:15 identical 32:1 81:21 identified 58:11 62:6,11 63:13 66:19,20 67:4 identifies 57:15 identify 54:15,17 ignored 83:8 illegal 8:9 illicit 69:25 image 39:2 immunity 38:11 89:16 importance 34:21 important 43:21 73:19 importantly 7:13 77:” impression 33:24 51:8 improper 53:2 inability 31:7 inaccurate 2:16 inadequate 24:23 inapplicable 48:24 49:9 inappropriately 70:1 include 16:11,12 65:6 included 67:16 72:9 including 19:20 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801624 100 66:1,16 69:18 83:14.15 incriminator 79:22 independent 74:1 78:20 index 2:23 indicate 55:14 60:19 indicated 59:21 73:5 77:17 indication 58:4 indirectly 48:19 81:10 individual 18:24 21:2 82:9 individuals 68:18 69:3,23 71:22 inflame 80:2 81:11 inflammatory 70:2 I inflate 83:16 inflection 17:6 information 55:4 66:22 68:25 78:20 86:18,20 94:1 inherent 18:13 initial 34:19 42:24 45:8,9 initially 28:7 initiate 46:2 initiated 46:7 initiation 5:15 6:11 7:7 16:4 46:4 injury 6:7 44:25 inquiry 61:17 insist 93:4 instance 69:19 instances 33:14 institute 47:13 institution 45:2,15 instructions 44:4,6 87:7 insufficiency 15:2 insufficient 14:2 intended 16:1 intending 67:5 intent 84:21 intentional 17:6 interest 36:14 interference 17:7 international 66:6 69:7 interpose 10:20 interrupt 80:21 interviews 39:25 intrastate 66:5 introduce 67:5 81:8 introduced 61:5 79:1,2 introduction 66:11 79:11 invalid 16:16 19:8 28:15,1929:9 inverting 21:15 investigation 6:6 investigators 69:1 71:4 investing 69:10 investment 71:11 investors 76:8 83:18 involved 21:14 83:6 involvement 19:19 19:21 20:6 48:19 involving 13:8 66:12 ipso 85:8 irrelevant 64:22 70:22 75:10 76:11 76:22 78:7 irrespective 33:22 issue 3:3 6:22 27:1 32:25 33:4 38:6 38:13 48:20 49:3 56:11,16,23 57:2 58:25 75:10 77:2 81:14 83:3,21 84:7,11 85:15 92:12 93:15 issued 25:16 90:18 issues 14:15 19:15 21:10 32:1 36:9 37:8,8,24 50:21 53:17 54:12 56:13 83:7 85:1 88:12 Suing 6:5 25:15 Jack 92:19 Jane 70:18 82:23 Jansen 8:2 Jeffrey 32:7,12,13 61:20 64:25 66:3 66:23 81:15 jet 69:3 jobs 59:7 joining 7:10 judge 3:11 90:25 91:4 92:1 judges 5:119:11 58:16 90:3 judicial 5:21 7:11 7:16 9:17,22 16:7 22:10 26:7 28:12 35:6 42:4,7,21 64:15 73:23 79:8 88:9 89:9 juggling 92:3 juncture 53:21 77:10 jurisdiction 13:2 18:5 20:24 21:11 jury 12:5 44:3,6 51:15 54:16,19 67:6 79:3,13 80:2 81:11 82:3 87:7 jury's 41:14 58:20 85:10 Justice 22:19 justifies 12:14 justify 14:19 29:3 K Kalina 22:20 Kara 2:4 keep 43:14 key 9:13 40:16 kind 91:1 92:2 knew 49:19 64:19 71:19,20,21 72:8 73:2 know 33:20 50:5 56:6,14 58:1,17 58:23 60:23 65:22 70:8 71:18 80:7 92:15,20 93:1 knowing 28:14 65:1 67:1 69:23 knowingly 65:13 69:21 known 24:3 knows 4:7 L .34:20 70:18 82:23 lack 22:23 26:10 40:23 41:20 67:11 language 15:25 large 58:10 late 21:8 28:11 Lauderdale 76:5 law 6:2 7:15 9:10 16:16 19:9 20:12 24:19 25:22 26:17 26:23 27:24 28:2 28:14 29:1,13,19 41:5 49:3,24 52:3 52:6,17,20,24 53:8,25 58:22,24 59:19 66:8 72:1,1 72:19 74:5,14 86:5,22 87:7 88:16 89:23 laws 36:10 lawsuit 5:15 6:11 7:10 9:19 35:24 41:11 42:10,11 43:11 46:12,16 47:16,18 76:4,14 86:19 90:2,11,20 lawsuits 8:11 73:12 73:13,17 75:19 lawyer 37:13,13 43:4,18 94:11 lawyers 5:11 39:8 88:6 90:3 lays 5:13,14 lead 65:8 72:3 leading 70:22 learned 45:12 leave 3:16 56:21 left 55:25 62:1,8 legal 15:2 16:15 23:22,25 27:16 28:8,24 30:1 35:18 42:14 51:20 legally 14:1 28:19 29:8 51:22 legislative 13:9 legitimacy 82:22 Let's 56:12 63:24 85:23 91:12 letter 62:3 level 8:5 92:7 liability 9:12,18 16:5 37:2 73:21 Liabos 74:11 liberality 27:3 light 25:9 36:24 54:20 limine 59:23 61:2 61:21 62:10 63:11 63:16 limit 51:3 53:21 limitation 10:6 limitations 17:5 limited 23:17 36:21 49:6 54:15,18 line 2:21 47:16,17 51:5 68:3 lines 10:22 link 3:10,14,15 4:20 4:24 10:16,23 11:2 12:7 30:11 31:4 33:8,18 36:25 38:4,15,18 39:20 40:12 42:25 45:5,20 46:9,22 47:448:2 53:17 61:9 63:6,10,25 73:4 83:5 85:24 86:2,12,24 87:11 87:24 88:2 89:2,6 92:16 Link's 31:1 72:18 linked 33:16 51:12 linking 50:23 list 56:2 57:10 62:9 62:13,14,23 63:21 63:22,23 65:25 73:10 listed 57:21 62:12 63:6 81:15 lists 63:11 litigant 15:12 47:11 84:24 litigate 26:8 88:17 litigation 4:11 5:3 6:10 9:4 11:9 12:22 14:5 15:6 15:11,15 21:3 25:6,11 37:3 42:12 47:10 69:16 69:17,20 70:1 71:10 83:14 87:6 87:20 88:12,21 89:16,18,22 90:1 90:4,8,14,16 little 19:6 30:12 60:15 67:25 lobby 13:8 log 69:6 85:9 logs 64:8,16,21 65:18,25 66:18,19 71:11 72:5 74:22 74:23 75:8 76:11 76:24 77:4,8,15 78:4,6,19,20 80:23 85:7 long 9:10 85:17 93:7,10 94:9 longer 57:7 look 4:24 6:12 10:2 29:22 31:17 42:6 43:20,21 44:3,7 55:7 67:8 68:19 70:9 looked 41:1,17 looking 72:21 looks 68:4 loss 44:25 lot 21:22 60:8 73:11 92:24 lunch 91:10 M maintain 90:11,20 making 39:25 41:11 54:3 84:17 malice 22:15,24,25 26:10 43:23 malicious 4:12 5:5,6 7:6,14 8:18 10:8 11:11,18,22 12:3 12:19 13:4,11 15:7,13,16,19 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801625 101 16:21 17:10,14,25 18:6,14,22 19:3 21:12 22:18,21 23:6 25:7,12,23 26:1,17 30:5 32:23 34:140:19 42:2 44:8,18 51:6 51:23 64:18 72:21 73:3 74:5 75:9 77:21 80:5,13 82:6 86:14,17 87:8 maliciously 6:24 managed 57:11 Nlancusi 18:19 40:24 41:15 47:5 manifests 69:22 manner 51:18 58:21 82:24 94:3 manslaughter 17:22 marketing 70:4 material 72:6 materially 78:9 materials 3:8 46:23 matter 1:2 2:2 7:15 16:16 19:921:5 21:13,16,25 22:13 28:14 29:19 32:21 44:20 49:2 57:4 74:8 78:5 83:6 84:23 matters 23:17 49:9 57:8 65:6 67:10 80:19 81:9 85:13 mean 19:1 38:25 40:7 63:21 80:21 meaning 32:22 38:8 77:3 88:22 means 16:14 28:8 31:15 32:943:3 mechanism 26:7 member 17:16,20 17:21 65:4 memories 90:24 memos 28:25 mentioned 70:7 77:4,5 92:13 mentioning 77:12 mentions 20:22 68:16 85:7 mere 14:5 85:6 merely 52:6 merits 29:22 Miami 88:16 middle 91:9 mind 31:4 45:23 47:18 60:5 92:24 mindful 58:15 mine 62:17 minute 72:15 minutes 30:15,22 46:18,19 61:13,14 93:15,17 missed 72:23,23 mistake 31:25 mistranslation 2:15 misunderstood 89:5 mitigate 34:5 mix 79:20 mixed 41:4 74:13 molester 11:15 moment 68:12 88:8 money 44:22 71:12 month 14:7 morning 3:1,14 55:15 72:18 73:5 75:5 motion 3:3,16 13:16 13:21 14:19 20:9 26:18 27:7 28:9 28:10,21 29:5,12 29:23 32:3 55:5 61:21 62:6,10,20 63:7,10,16 91:24 92:3 motions 51:3 53:22 55:25 59:2,23 61:1 94:5 move 28:22 3I:5 58:13 81:13 85:23 moving 37:3 Mr-Searola 59:18 multiple 14:14 murder 17:20 murdered 17:16 muster 35:19 51:20 N N-O-E-R-R 48:13 name 50:22 names 33:15 69:6 narrow 4:10 47:11 nation 90:19 nature 18:25 21:2 59:23 83:8 88:23 necessarily 28:19 necessary 34:15 need 3:19 7:17 9:5 9:20,25 19:15 29:4 36:18 44:16 57:1 59:10 60:17 62:17 82:19 91:8 93:24 needing 94:12 needs 6:21 54:8 56:18 67:8 negligence 34:14 negligent 79:17 neighborhood 37:22 neither 48:13 86:10 never 5:6 15: I 1 16:23,24 24:25 35:4,4 46:13 70:17 73:2 74:4 76:17 new 14:17 19:14 25:21 26:20 43:3 71:12 newspaper 76:6 nexus 36:16 nine 62:9 64:7 ninth 23:10 48:5 51:24 52:21 53:24 Nodar 22:3 23:1 Noerr 36:8 48:13 Noerr/Pennington 13:7 non-stenotypists 2:18 nonsensical 2:17 noon 91:12 normally 28:6 note 12:25 noted 19:13 22:19 notice 79:8 notoriety 21:15,19 November 56:1 59:21 63:3 72:19 74:13 number 33:14 58:10 62:9 64:7 numbers 2:21 numerous 35:3 0 oath 75:23 objected 64:14 81:14 objecting 62:5 objection 56:10 77:11,11 81:21 objections 62:1 1,1 3 63:3 obligation 25:13 observation 59:19 obtain 57:22 78:19 obvious 36:12 obviously 16:10 36:13 57:23 63:4 65:15 71:15 83:2 occasions 35:3 occupants 66:1 occurring 72:8 offense 66:13,14 offered 58:5 office 64:10 75:16 81:20 officer 20:1 official 2:4 20:2 21:24 offing 67:9 oh 26:2 okay 12:7 63:2 64:23 68:22 69:13 91:25 omnibus 61:21 62:1063:10,16,18 onboard 69:3,24 once 12:2 42:9 61:8 65:4 83:5 90:24 ones 28:17 69:14 80:8 open 53:16 76:13 opening 11:23 57:16 opinion 4:13,15 7:8 22:20 38:8 90:18 opportunity 29:25 46:21 60:1,2 61:11 65:16 opposed 49:23 opposing 13:24 54:25 57:10 opposite 36:4 37:12 53:7,12 oral 30:10 oranges 79:21 order 25:16 31:16 54:5 original 5:21,22 6:14 7:16 16:7,13 42:6,15,16,17,20 43:23 44:1 63:18 73:1,25 74:10 75:12 82:9,16 87:9 outside 37:18 79:2 79:25 88:20 89:12 89:20 outweighed 78:9 overexaggerate 83:16 overwhelming 58:22,25 P M94:17 package 55:2 packets 54:25 page 2:21,23,23 5:16,20 6:20 7:8 8:2,7,8 61:20 63:7 63:15 68:3,5 pages 64:12 68:7,15 paid 87:5 papers 83:5 paragraph 15:10 68:9,20,24 69:15 paragraphs 74:2 parent 22:4 parenthetically 45:3 parse 15:24 25:5,20 74:1 parsing 25:22 part 11:16 18:13 31:8 37:17 63:19 66:4 67:10 71:2 72:20 77:15 83:12 89:14 participant 65:2 67:1 particular 40:2 56:11 64:13 particularly 36:7 53:9 79:25 parties 4:22 9:11 54:2 71:3 73:20 88:7 90:2 92:25 partner 75:18 party 13:22,24 pass 35:18 51:19 passed 13:14 passenger 69:21 pattern 66:16 pause 68:9 peg 35:9 pejorative 82:25 pending 55:24 Pennington 36:8 48:13 people 14:23 18:23 71:6 perceive 79:4 permits 79:11 permitted 82:24 84:18 person 36:1 86:21 94:11 personal 92:7 94:12 pertains 34:22 pertinent 35:13 petition 10:21 12:15 36:5 petitioning 12:23 35:21 48:10,22 Phillip 12:11 phone 81:16,19,23 82:5 phrased 51:19 pick 55:24 picture 42:9 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801626 102 pilot 70:15 71:10 pilots 66:21 70:14 70:15 pilots' 70:23 place 24:4 49:4 54:16,18 55:24 69:4,25 70:5 71:8 71:19 79:22 places 63:14 plain 38:7 plaintiff 3:15 16:8 25:24 27:13,14 36:2 42:22 43:25 44:21,22 48:16 50:14 87:9 plaintiffs 34:9 38:23 54:22 83:2 plaintiffs' 70:13 plan 4:3,3 8:13 35:15 91:14 plane 64:20 65:21 65:23 68:16,18 71:7,19,21,23 planes 64:16 70:20 71:9 76:19 77:1 planned 46:19 planning 94:6 plans 6:19,19 91:10 playing 80:3 86:5,7 plead 42:1147:21 pleading 10:12 11:6 14:18 17:5 23:15 48:8 pleadings 27:5 please 12:10 54:6 61:11,1462:17 68:13 91:12 pled 74:4 plight 77:6 plus 5:7 19:15 point 9:7,7 33:20 40:14 58:12 59:15 60:25 87:13 pointed 14:8 40:24 41:3 50:18 59:17 78:25 points 40:13 89:3,7 policy 27:2 Ponzi 65:2,14 67:1 89:19 portion 2:1 portions 67:3 position 25:24 32:10 36:23 48:12 49:5 50:3,18 52:1 71:15 possibly 14:17 69:5 84:17 87:3 potential 28:1 77:25 potentially 34:4 77:23 80:17 precedent 27:17 preceding 15:10 precisely 37:12 55:25 precluded 76:21 precludes 16:17 predicate 23:23 58:6 prejudice 13:24 15:1 78:10 80:24 prejudicial 76:24 82:2 prejudicing 82:3 preliminary 58:4 preparation 2:19 prepare 92:6,13 prepared 48:2 55:22 56:4,13 57:13,24 91:23 94:1 preparing 22:6 presence 79:2 present 16:8 42:14 42:21 54:24 55:17 71:23 93:17 presentation 13:1 30:11 47:3 72:18 presented 28:11 54:25 press 37:8,9 39:6,7 39:9,24 40:3 71:5 presumably 33:16 50:24 presume 10:25 56:15,20 presumed 22:16 49:17 presumption 22:25 pretenses 86:11 pretrial 60:6 prevalent 36:17 previously 19:14 65:7 primarily 50:1 68:23 88:14 prime 71:11 principle 73:8 print 45:19 50:23 prior 81:1 private 19:18,24 21:20 69:3 privilege 4:11 5:4 6:11 9:5 11.10,17 12:22 13:22 14:12 14:25 15:7,12,15 16:2,20 22:15,22 25:6,12 37:4 42:13 47:10 87:20 88:4 90:1,8,14,16 probable 6:12,14 9:22 16:13 22:23 26:10 31.12,16,20 40:23 41:5,20 43:5,10 45:8,10 46:1,3,6,8,11,13 67:11 74:20 90:12 90:21,22 probably 92:15 probative 76:23 78:8 problem 57:16 61:12 procedural 61:16 procedures 24:3,23 proceed 39:19 48:4 54:9 60:12 proceeding 5:8,22 5:22,23 6:14 7:12 7:17 9:17,22 11:16 16:8,13 19:21,22 42:4,7 42:15,16,18,21 43:7,24 44:145:4 46:2,4,5 73:1,25 74:10 75:12,15 82:10 proceedings 2:1 11:14 21:21,22 24:8 73:23 86:22 process 11:9 24:5 24:15,20 25:1 52:15,17 58:2 67:13 77:15 87:2 89:11 produced 81:20 professional 20:5,14 20:15 promote 39:11 proof 15:18 21:1,7 21:10 proofread 2:12 properly 22:6,7 88:17 propose 55:8 proposed 28:3 50:25 57:10 proposition 18:17 19:5 23:22 24:1 prosecute 17:19 prosecuted 6:24 prosecution 4:12 5:5,6 7:6,14 8:18 10:8 11:12,18,22 12:3,20 13:4,12 15:8,13,16,19 16:21 17:11,14,25 18:6,14,22 19:3 21:12 22:18,21 23:6 25:8,13,23 26:1,17 30:6 32:24 34:1 40:20 42:3 44:8,18 51:6 51:23 64:18 72:22 73:3 74:5 75:9 77:21 80:5,13 82:6 86:15,17 87:9 prosecutor 17:19 prostitution 65:23 66:7,17 protect 7:21 11:4 24:4 90:1 protected 5:12 6:10 7:2 9:4 11:15 12:22 25:1 42:12 47:20,23 88:3 90:8,13 protecting 18:24 24:20 36:15 protection 10:24 protections 24:18 protects 15:12 prove 16:14 22:23 22:24 26:11 31:10 31:16,21,23 33:25 65:24 66:15 72:25 74:3 82:8,15 84:5 84:7,9,19 provide 23:23 52:3 provided 55:3 64:10 provides 12:15 proving 23:17 31:11 public 19:13,22 20:2.7.10 21:6,14 21:17.24,24,25 22:9,13,14 36:21 37:6 38:2,20 39:3 39:22 40:8 49:6 publication 17:1,3 26:6 44:9 88:22 publicity 21:23 34:7 published 9:16,19 73:22 pulls 73:24 pump 71:12 pumping 70:25 punctuation 2:21 punitive 24:6,14 25:2 33:12 41:6 47:8 49:17 52:5 52:16 purchaser 2:6 purportedly 69:6 purpose 11:21 49:6 59:3 72:6 purposefully 81:10 purposes 2:10 20:16 25:23 53:19 57:3 58:11 65:23 66:7 66:17 70:24 pursuant 71:25 pursue 79:18 pursued 69:21 pushed 93:2 put 3:17 8:13,25 9:2 24:4 30:2 39:1,3,7 39:23 93:25 puts 37:6 94:3 putting 16:22 40:1 puzzled 82:14,19 Q qualified 22:14 qualify 22:21 quasi 37:5 38:20 39:22 question 18:2 30:3 40:18 41.4,24 60:18 70:17 74:14 74:16 78:11 80:25 83:23 87:12 questions 34:16 54:15,18 55:6,8 55:10 70:22 79:5 79:5 quickly 55:7 60:20 quite 31:14 35:2 79:16 82:4 quote 44:19 48:22 48:23 50:9 68:24 70:5 71:3,14 quoted 76:6 quotes 70:25 R radar 37:23 raise 10:5 14:14,15 18:7 19:14 24:10 26:22 78:11 87:13 raised 14:3 razorback 76:4 read 5:24 26:16 33:19 45:14 46:23 50:24 56:5,7 69:13 76:7 87:17 reading 6:20 27:24 51:9 68:11 ready 3:10,12 54:9 54:10 reaffirmed 5:7 real 37:24 87:10 really 5:2,19 7:13 36:18,22 37:17 43:21 60:17 72:17 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801627 103 87:13 realtime 2:22 reargue 32:10 reason 3:21 10:4 29:9 31:23 49:12 52:22 56:17 65:12 65:19 reasonable 65:8 71:24 86:21 reasonably 72:2 74:9 reasons 14:18 59:15 rebut 47:1 rebuts 66:22 rebuttal 13:18 93:18 recall 69:17 received 55:21 94:2 recess 61:15 94:17 recitation 52:6 53:25 reckless 49:21 recognition 61:2 recognize 59:22 recognized 9:10 15:14 41:9 recommended 60:13 reconstitute 49:22 record 11:5 39:15 91:6,7 records 81:16,19,23 82:5 recover 49:17 red 74:24 redress 48:11,23 redressable 36:5 refer 8:8 reference 57:14,17 70:10 referenced 53:10 57:12 66:10 references 69:16 referred 79:9 regard 53:23 57:9 60:20 61:7 65:18 67:9 72:7 79:12 regarding 35:21 53:17 69:22 80:25 rejected 17:13 related 18:2 21:22 34:20 70:19 75:7 80:18 relates 34:24 48:20 51:11 52:5 73:11 relating 70:18 77:6 relation 60:11 relationship 20:15 48:8 82:21 relationships 17:8 releases 37:8 39:9 relentlessly 69:20 relevance 64:14,17 71:13 81:24 82:4 relevancy 77:7,10 relevant 8:18 22:1 72:5 78:2 80:13 81:22 85:9 88:22 reliance 18:9 relied 2:10 26:14 41:10 74:9,17,22 75: I 1 76:7 relies 50:1 reluctantly 59:6 rely 22:2 23:22 49:7 relying 74:23 remain 58:24 remains 15:20 remedies 52:2 Remind 69:9 remote 76:23 81:24 repeated 31:13 repeatedly 31:9 84:16 repetition 46:25 report 50:25 reported 71:4 reporter 2:4 89:13 represent 38:19 39:4 representation 34:7 34:8 80:1 represented 38:24 53:16 54:23 representing 12:11 19:18,25 21:21 38:10 39:12,21 40:5 77:16 represents 37:14 reputation 6:8 18:12,24 39:2 request 2:4 56:19 56:24 require 14:16 required 49:24 57:7 requiring 28:22 requisite 53:5 research 33:13 73:4 reservations 77:18 resonate 85:16 resonating 85:15 resources 28:13 35:7 respect 54:12 85:2 91:3,11 92:24 93:24 94:9 respectful 78:6 respectfully 57:25 respond 28:23 55:12 response 13:20 14:8 24:18,24 25:19 28:17 29:24 55:10 responsibility 20:15 responsible 92:2 restrictions 50:17 result 18:12 20:25 33:16 34:18 38:22 44:1 83:19 88:25 resulting 2:16,20 results 8:10 Résumé 20:17,19 revealed 33:13 review 55:17 94:4 reviewed 3:8 reviewing 62:24 revised 61:21 62:10 63:15 RICO 89: I 1 right 3:2 32:3 45:18 48:1 55:23 92:4 93:19 rights 12:14 24:5,16 24:20 25:1 75:3 road 45:12 roadmap 4:16 5:1 8:21 15:4,5,25 Rockenbach 2:5 30:18,20 55:11,14 61:25 62:2,7,21 63:2,17 64:6 69:10 72:14,17 81:17 83:5 87:23 88:1 92:16 Rockenbach's 56:9 room 58:19 90:6 Rosenfeldt 65:5 Rothstein 34:19 37:19 50:23 51:13 53:18 65:2,5 68:23,25 69:12,25 75:15,21 76:7 80:16 83:13 Rothstein's 8:10,11 33:15 75:16 89:19 round 35:10 RRA 70:20 71:13 RRA's 71:8 rule 17:1 48:2 66:9 79:10,10 ruled 85:21 86:3 rules 52:10 ruling 54:6 57:22 60:25 78:7,15 81:12 83:21 84:4 86:4 S safeguards 52:4 sampling 64:11 saying 20:2 24:9 25:11,17 26:2 29:18 37:12 52:9 72:25 91:2 says 6:13 7:13 13:3 16:6 18:5,21 20:24 21:12 23:20 41:15 43:2 44:13 68:23,24 74:5 86:22 87:25 89:13 89:18,20 Scalia 22:19 scam 70:4 Scarola 3:6 4:1 6:17 11:11,20 30:12,16 30:17,21,25 31:7 32:13,15,18 33:2 33:7 39:14,18 40:14 44:5 45:6 45:25 46:10 47:14 54:9 55:15 56:25 61:16,19 62:1,4 62:16,22 63:20 64:3,11,23,24 67:20,23,25 68:21 69:15 70:8 71:15 72:13,24 73:10,19 73:24 75:1 76:17 78:11,14 79:7,20 80:20 81:20 82:5 82:13 83:22 84:2 84:13 85:3,18 87:14 89:24 90:9 93:14 scheme 65:2,14 67:1 83:13 89:20 Scherer 76:5 school 22:5 scope 65:3 Scott 3:15 scrupulously 33:3 second 9:9 12:1 13:23 42:15 43:9 46:16 section 49:16 52:14 62:3 see 4:5,25 8:3 34:22 38:7,12 44:9 68:1 68:14 74:25 94:15 seek 29:7 seeking 10:13,20 34:640:3 65:4,17 66:15 78:4,17,18 78:18 seeks 31:9 seemingly 22:2 seen 35:4 41:17 51:1 sees 47:14 sell 71:2 sense 5:3 13:12 27:11,16 37:16 46:10 58:1 sentence 9:9 37:21 separate 63:4 serial 11:15 serve 80:2 served 87:4 serving 37:21 set 19:15 50:13 68:14 86:6 sets 5:1741:7 setting 14:6 settled 73:15 seven 21:4 seventh 23:24 49:11 sexual 65:24 66:12 66:14 69:4 75:2 76:14 77:25 79:12 79:24 share 4:14 Sherman 36:13,14 short 16:18 shot 38:15 shouting 17:12 show 7:23 25:17 41:20 67:18 showed 4:2 69:4 showpiece 76:9 shows 44:23 45:1 sic 32:12 side 33:3 47:17 54:7 84:16 93:8 sides 3:9 46:21 significant 59:6 77:18 similar 19:1 34:16 52:9 81:1,2 simple 16:18 34:14 simply 5:2 6:4 15:4 16:20 20:5 23:19 30:2 39:12,21 42:2 48:23 52:23 53:25 single 13:1,5 17:1,9 24:13 63:12 sir 3:6,13 10:16 30:16,25 83:23 84:13 85:3,18 86:1 site 13:6 16:25 sitting 58:18 situations 61:4,4 Six 43:25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801628 104 sixth 19:12 23:23 36:20 49:1 slammed 93:1 So.3d 4:22 solely 26:15 53:19 somebody 17:16 somewhat 21:17 son 22:8 92:7 Sonja 62:18 sorry 80:20 85:19 89:4 94:8 sought 52:4 70:14 71:10 77:14 sound 3:20 sounds 9:6 76:1 South 37:18 speak 22:5 40:11 56:22 59:1 speaking 58:16 speaks 37:7 49:3 special 14:6 specialist 40:2 specific 9:15 19:24 26:1 31:2055:5 57:14 62:4 67:15 70:10 71:17 83:24 86:13 specifically 44:13 49:4 50:8 54:15 66:8 69:16 71:18 specified 24:12 speech 10:24 speeches 39:25 spend 14:20 spent 58:20 72:20 square 35:9 squarely 13:19 stand 8:19 84:25 standard 44:6,15 standards 41:8 standpoint 36:23 60:24 stands 32:24 89:13 start 3:3 21:9 43:10 61:9 91:16 started 54:1 I starting 6:5 61:20 63:7 starts 68:3 state 44:18 stated 12:21 15:9 23:13 48:1175:5 91:4 statement 5:8 6:16 8:8 23:25 31:13 40:21,22 44:10,11 44:14 52:23 54:20 57:16 73:18 74:3 82:14 85:11 89:15 89:17 statements 3:24 5:10,10,11 7:18 8:6,7,12,20 9:1 10:11 11:13,21 18:13 20:11 22:16 26:4,9 37:1 47:6 51:12,12 88:5,6 88:10 89:9 states 45:3 49:15 50:5,9 52:13 statute 10:6 17:4 79:8 statutes 24:20 statutory 52:18 stay 56:16 57:2,6 91:24 92:2 stems 81:5 stenotype 2:15,17 step 48:3 steps 38:21 stifle 35:4 stop 43:14 stopped 45:13 62:8 stretch 21:17 strike 27:8 28:9,23 29:5 string 16:24 students 22:7 stuff 93:2 subject 50:17 53:3 77:9 87:20 88:4 subjects 16:4 submit 25:8 subsequent 81:2 sue 11:20 sued 11:11 21:3 73:14 sues 89:10.11 suffered 43:25 sufficiency 28:9,24 sufficient 14:19 74:20 suggest 11:24 55:23 suggested 38:3 suggesting 27:23 67:19 87:17 88:21 suggestion 49:13 56:10 91:20 92:15 suggests 86:5 suit 7:7 11:10 22:17 23:20 34:19 suits 18:23 summary 24:17 superfluous 52:22 superimpose 73:9 supplement 94:5 support 23:6 29:16 29:18 39:15 67:10 supported 66:24 supporting 65:14 Supreme 4:8,9,12 4:15,17,21,25 5:2 5:7,19,23 6:9 7:1 7:9 8:22 12:20 15:17 16:19 18:19 22:11 23:13 25:15 41:24 42:5 47:9 47:24 50:5 87:18 87:21 sure 20:20 28:16 32:23 38:17 55:13 61:12 72:16 82:4 86:1 91:11 suspect 27:19 sustain 56:9 sustaining 77:10 swap 81:18 symbols 2:18 system 6:3,4 T table 56:15 tag-along 25:14 take 30:22 35:6 38:15,22 40:20 55:7,22 61:10,12 63:5 64:4 67:8 68:12 70:2 79:7 92:18 93:7,17 taken 2:2 13:10 18:10 50:19 52:1 talk 5:14,18 8:19 9:1 16:3 39:6 59:25 76:24 80:25 93:12 talked 18:20 20:13 36:22 37:8 talking 87:22 talks 5:20 16:6,25 18:3 41:4 42:8 tangential 77:3 81:8 te 9:10 82:9 93:9 teacher 22:5 teaching 22:7 team 69:17,17,20 70:1 71:10 83:14 tell 87:19 89:7 telling 92:22 93:18 tells 6:9,17 7:9 11:19 47:9 temper 85:11 term 42:16 59:22 termination 17:24 terminology 42:20 terms 54:3 88:24 test 9:3 87:15 testified 64:19 75:23 83:11 testimony 2:11 33:12,21 51:4 53:21 67:21 83:10 testing 36:10 86:23 thank 3:9 12:6,7 30:9,16,20 33:7 39:17 47:25 48:1 78:14 82:12 84:13 85:3,18 94:14,14 Thanks 63:1 64:2 67:24 68:13 72:13 theory 49:8 thereof 2:2 21:6 83:19 thick 55:2,3 thief 89:14 thin 26:16 thing 6:21 7:5,23 24:13 47:15 79:19 87:24 90:14 92:19 93:6,23 94:4 things 17:5 33:8 39:23 58:14 65:13 80:23 88:22,23 think 6:2,4 14:24 30:21 31:13 38:18 41:23,25 42:19 45:646:10 57:11 57: I 1 58:9 60:22 63:11 64:12 73:9 77:2 81:25 82:1,2 82:7,20 84:13 87:11 89:23,24 90:25 91:3 92:9 92:13 93:16 94:10 thinking 37:16 60:24 thinks 82:5 third 13:25 42:17 71:3 90:17 Thirty-five 69:19 Thirty-six 70:12 Thirty-three 68:21 thought 29:25 43:13 63:8 72:22 87:2 91:9 thoughts 70:23 thousand 90:25 three 5:17 6:17 8:2 8:7 13:20 29:11 31:14 38:23 54:22 63:7,15 70:13 73:14 75:19 76:15 77:6,16 79:4 80:10 82:22 83:2 83:11 90:7 three-minute 61.10 threshold 74:8,15 Thursday 55:19 94:7 ties 8:8 time 12:1 13:18 14:20 26:22 35:5 36:7 41:2 48:3 53:23 56:11 57:3 58:4,10,20 59:7,9 60:8,21 64:4 74:10 75:13 77:17 91:25 92:22,25 93:25 timely 28:7 times 6:17 31:14 90:7,25 today 12:13 29:25 57:5 91:25 92:8 92:14 told 4:13,15,17 31:9 41:8 45:10 47:24 71:4 92:10,25 tortious 17:7 torts 50:16 touch 40:13 traditional 34:24 traditionally 27:7 transcript 1:2 2:7,9 2:12,13,14,20,22 6:20 51:2 transcript(s) 2:1 transmission 2:16 transpires 88:20 transportation 66:6 66:17 70:19 transported 65:21 65:22 66:2 78:21 treat 53:23 treated 53:15 trial 14:12 27:3,4 58:16 59:3,11 60:4 61:8 73:7 91:4 92:5 tricking 76:8 tried 13:11 50:20 64:17 triggering 26:7 true 4:6 31:24 43:13 43:13 45:24 46:1 truth 9:3,24 10:10 41:21 47:22 86:13 88:5 try 10:10 12:1,4 15:24 35:4,16 53:9 56:6 75:1 76:13 77:23 84:22 91:18 trying 3:23 4:4 7:18 15:25 25:5 29:2 77:19 80:22 81:7 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801629 105 turn 5:16 8:2 turning 79:23 two 5:16,20 13:14 35:13 36:746:18 63:13 68:3 79:5 89:2,7 90:7 91:15 91:16 type 27:14,15 83:12 typically 27:5 U US 75:16 ultimately 17:21 umbrella II:1 unadulterated 83:20 uncertified 1:2 2:3,6 2:22 unclear 89:23 underaged 68:17 69:24 77:24 understand 3:2 14:21 78:15 83:22 84:17 92:23 understanding 61:24 94:15 understands 51:7 underway 61:8 unedited 2:3.7.22 unequivocally 25:11 unfair 80:24 unforeseen 93:11 unique 18:8 United 49:15 50:5 52:13 unleveled 80:4 unofficial 2:9 unrelated 19:21 untimely 26:19 untranslated 2:17 untrue 71:20 use 40:22 41:19,21 43:23 72:14 84:7 uses 42:16 usually 27:2 utilization 33:24 50:22 utilized 45:18 V v 1:4 valid 13:4 23:8 30:5 49:25 validity 30:1 value 64:15 76:23 78:8 83:17 vantage 59:14 vary 61:6 verbatim 2:10 versa 32:20 versus 4:19 viable 66:4 94:4 vice 32:20 victims 34:9 Victims' 75:3 view 35:22 40:8 51:21 78:7 violated 36:11 violates 8:21 violations 36:9,15 virtue 34:6 36:5 voluntarily 39:1 57:25 58:13 volunteered 54:14 54:17 volunteers 59:5 w waiting 14:12 waive 11:17 want 3:3 7:23 9:7 11:24,25 30:18 32:5,8 33:4 40:12 41:25 46:20,25 47: I 54:24 79:20 79:22 80:9 81:8 81:13 85:11 91:10 wanted 54:18 56:22 57:2 wants 8:4 74:175:1 Warner 91:1 warrant 6:5 wasn't 31:24 waste 28:12 60:7,21 wasted 59:9 wasting 58:9 way 32:2 39:3,11 67:22 76:15 83:7 86:3 91:1 93:2 ways 29:11 we're 4:4 36:4 37:3 45:7 59:24 76:2 we've 11:3 64:14 86:3 website 20: II week 32:4 34:17 54:12 weekend 72:21 weeks 14:5 weight 44:23 45:1 Welcome 3:1 well-known 40:6 54:1 88:16 went 18:1 22:4 39:10 72:20 78:3 91:1 weren't 84:18 whatsoever 38:12 4S:9 white 87:4 wholly 76:22 Wiffiams79:10 Nifiling58:7J393.5 win 1 1:11 wish 54:16 witness57:186311 witnesses5:109:11 66:20 73:20 88:7 90:3 Wolfe 88:10,13 91:5 women 65:22 69:24 73:14 77:16 word 2:17 70:25 75:22,25 words 7:4 9:16,19 12:4 43:23 45:18 52:9 73:22 work 63:22 91:20 worked 20:12 working 63:20 86:11 works 63:25 wouldn't 38:11 wrap 46:19 write 84:25 written 2:7 30:10 47:2 wrong 15:425:9 wrongful 7:4 X Y Yeah 64:5 years 14:4,10 26:22 37:22 yesterday 55:16,21 94:2 yielded 73:4 young 65:22 77:16 Your-Honor 4:13 15 63:3 93:17 15-minute 93:8 153 68:3 1974 50:6 2 2 79:9 2:00 93:10 20064:12 2009 87:16 2010 73:15 2017 2:3 23 61:20 276 68:5 277 68:5 278 68:6 279 68:6 29th 6:18 56:1 59:21 72:19 74:13 3 323 50:6 34 68:21,25 35 68:9,21 69:15 36 68:21 70:9 4 449:16 40 46:19 70:6 403 77: I 1 78:10 406.1244:7 41.5 66:9 415(g) 79:10 415.5(g) 66:9 418 50:6 42(k) 70:11 71:4 5 50 37:22 55 46:20 5th 2:3 6 6541:17 6741:17 zeal 34:6,11 0 1 149:15 52:14 1:2091.1394:16 10 81:19 11:16 61:15 11:24 61:15 12 70:16 12/7/09 88:3 12:09 94:17 7 7th 87:16 8 82 6:20 9 9 52:1456:1 81:19 90.403 64:15 90.404 79:8 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801630