DS9 Document EFTA01117299

1 2 IN IRE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE 1 FITTMENTI4 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 2 AND FOR PAIN BEACH MINTY FLORIDA GENSAJW JURISDICTION DiVisiON 3 APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICES OP TCMJA KADDAD. P.A. by Sonja Bedded, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 Plaintiff, 5 ATTEMSURY, GOLDBERGER 6 WEISS, P.A., by No. 502009CA04000030CCOMAG Jack Goldberger, [sq. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 6 Attorney for the Plaintiff. and BRADLEY J. SCREEDS, 7 individually, SEAECY DENNEY SCAPOLA ET AL, by Defendants. 9 Jack Scarola, Leg. Attorney for the Defendant, Bred ?Awards. 9 10 MARC NURIE, P.A., by 500 East Sioward Boulevard, Mato Nurik, Esq. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida I1 Attorney for Scott Rothstein. Thursday, June 14. 2012 (Appearing via Video Conference.) 9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m. 12 13 11 S. ATTORNEY'S orricz, by Req. DEPOSITION 14 Attorney for the Department of Justice. of 15 SCOTT ROTIISTED4 16 (Via Video Conference) 17 18 Taken on behalf of the Trustee 19 pursuant to a notice of taking deposition 20 21 22 23 24 25 FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OISON 1 2 INDEX 1 2 4 Thereupon: SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, WITNESS DIRECT 01039 AZDIESE? =CROSS 3 3 was called as a witness and, hawing boon duly sworn. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN 4 was examined and testified as follows: 4 5 In WITNESS: 1 do. (By Na. gadded) 5 6 M. HADDAD: Good morning, Scott. How are 3 (Hy Mr. Goldberger) 92 (By NX Sterols) 121 I you? 6 g THE WITNESS: Good morning, Sonja. How are 7 9 you? EXHIBITS 10 MS. KADOAD: Sum. thank you. It's nice to PLAINTIFF'S FOR IDENTIFICATION 21 see you. 9 12 THE WITNESS: Good to see you, too. 10 1 64 13 I . SCAROLE' Mr Rothstein, I don't know 2 69 11 3 72 14 that you end I have net. rot Jack Scarola, l'a 12 13 representing Brad Edwards end I know you know Brad 13 16 who's to my inmedisto left. 14 15 17 THE WITNESS: Hey, Brad, how are you? 16 18 Jack, good to see you. 17 19 NR. SCAPULA: Thank you. 10 19 20 MR. GOLDBERGER: Also present is another 20 21 Jack, Jack Goldberger, and I also represent Jeffrey 21 22 Epstein. To my right is Dertyn ladyke 22 23 TEE WITNESS: Good morning, Jack. 23 24 24 MR. GOLDEERGER: Bow are you today? 25 25 And to my right is Darryl Indyke, who is FRIEDMAN, LOA, BARD] & OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI& OLSON EFTA01117299 5 6 1 Nr. Bpstein's in-house counsel. 1 different form than it ended because it started as 2 IS. INDTKE: Good morning. 2 bridge loans and things of that nature, and than 3 TEE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 3 (oersted into the Ponta scheme. But you are looking 4 MR. NuRIA: Good morning. everyone. 4 back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning. 5 IS. GOIDBMWAR: Ni, Marc, how are you? 5 Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge 6 NR. ADRIA: Good. You'll be seeing my 6 loans Started? 7 shoulder most of the day. 7 A. I can't be certain exactly what we were 8 WA. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 8 doing. I need to *fa all the docturents to tell you 9 Dirac? REANIMATION 9 what we were doing at what *pacific paint in time. 10 BY NS. RADDAD: 10 Q. What made you decide to start doing this? 22 Q. Well, Scott, I know you've talked about this 11 A. I started doing it out of greed and the need 12 probably more than you even care to, but I'd like to 12 to support the law fins, which was having significant 13 start a little bit asking you about the scheme at your 13 financial trouble at the time. 14 firm and how and when it started and things of that 14 Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401 yet or IS nature lust very briefly because I knew you've covered /5 were you still in the building where Colonial Bank 16 it many times. 16 wee? 17 NR. scAROLA: It has been covered and 17 A. I don't remoter. 18 protocol precludes asking questions that have already IS Q. Do you recall approximately how many 19 been answered and covering areas that have already 19 attorneys you had working for you when it started? 20 been covered, so we do object. 20 A. I do not. Between five and ten, Tcnja. 21 IS. coLOBERGER: Your objection is noted. 21 Q. Was it before you started acquiring 22 BY NS. HADDAD: 22 attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches? 23 When did this first start? 23 et. SCAPOLA: Cbject to the form of the 24 It started back in '05, '06. The question 24 question, vague. 25 LS a little bit vague for me because it started in a 25 INS WITNESS: Yes. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDAIAN. LOMBARDI & OISON 1 2 BY NS. WOAD: Q. Nell, who were you partners with when it 1 2 8 growth started," do you mean both the schwas -- do you mean the schema and the firm or either one or both? 3 first started? 3 A. Both. 4 Stu Rosenfeldt. 4 Q. Do you recall approximately when you took 5 Q. Okay. Anyone else? 5 the space in the 401 Building? 6 A. Susan Bolin, I believe. It was definitely 6 A. 2 do net. 7 Eta Rosen/44dt, Michael Panoier, and Susan Dolin may 7 Q. At the time everything imploded, how many 8 have been partners of our* at that time, I'm not S partnere did you have at the firm, do you recall? 9 certain. 9 A. Are you saying partners and shareholders? 10 Q. Because if memory serves me correctly, you 10 Because remember, we had both, two designations. 11 went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to 11 Q. I want to Start with just attorneys that 12 the building across the street, it was Rothstein, 12 had -- not in your firm mime but named as •partner' on 13 Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct? 13 the cards, for example. 14 A. Yes. 14 A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees. 15 Q. And it was some time later that you moved 15 NO had a bunch. 16 into the 401 Building, correct? 16 Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you 17 A. You are skipping one step. I went fret One 17 had working there? 18 Financial Plaza to Phillips, tiainger, Ross, Rusnick, 18 A. Approximately 70. 19 Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeldt and I 19 Q. In the year before, do you recall how many 20 broke off and formed Rothatein Rosenfeldt. And them 20 you had? 21 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Bolin. Pancier over at the 21 A. I do not. 22 Colonial Bank Building. And than we took the specs in 22 Q. So how many equity partners dad you have or 23 the 401 Building and eventually moved over there and 23 shareholders? I'm not sure of the word that we ere 24 that's when the real growth started. 24 using. 25 0. And when you say, "that's when the real IS A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholder* FTUEDMAIME & OLSON FRIEDMAN & OLSON EFTA01117300 • were two, me and Stu Aosenfeldt. 2 Q. And everyone else was just a partner for 3 title purposes? 4 There were shareholders for title purposes 5 and partners for title purposes. 6 Q. If someone was called a shareholder for 7 title purposes then, did they get to receive any of B the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or 9 they were not considered shareholders in that sense? 10 M. scAROLA: 0b3 action to the fens of the 11 question. 12 Ttot WIMCCOS What kind of funds are you 19 talking about? 14 Br WS. HADDAD: 15 Q. In general from the firm. leen you may 16 equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu. 17 What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was 18 named as a shareholder, why did you call them a 19 shareholder as opposed to a partner? 20 It was a title of prestige and aehiomemat. 21 Q. so at was basically an ego thing, it had 22 nothing really to do with the finances or hierarchy of 23 the firm? 24 A. They got paid more generally, 25 have anything to do with distributions. FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 9 but it did not • 11 1 A. Well. I'll give you a good example. WY 2 lawyer, le. Kura, his salary was directly related to 3 the fact that he was a great lawyer and had a solid • book of business. 5 Tea. 6 David Poden, on the other hand, was, as I 7 previously testified, I don't know if you've had a S chance to read the testimony, but David Soden was not 9 only the general counsel to the law firm but he was 10 also -- acted as my oonsigliere in a significant 11 number of illegal operatioas and he was compensated 12 significantly for that, if that helps you understand 13 the difference. 14 It does. 15 So, for example, when you were hiring looser 16 judges, let's use Met a an example, Pedro and Julio, 1/ clearly they don't have • book of business cuing in 18 because they haven't had clients, but they may carry 19 ease sort of prestige or give sum legitimacy, if you 20 will, to the firm. Sow would you decide the salary 21 for someone like that? 22 A. Stu and I would discuss it. It was more • 23 market issue than anything else, how mud, are judges 24 caning 022 the bench getting, how much business do we 25 think they can generate. 10 • Q. When you were hiring end bringing in all 2 these new attorneys, did everyone come in as e 3 partner? 4 5 Q. Bow did you decide who came in as a partner 6 and Who ear in as an associate? • A. Depended upon their level of expertise, 8 practice, book of business. It was • decision Stuart 9 and I made together on a case-by-case basis. 10 S. So you and Stu rata the -- were in charge 11 of hiring? 12 A. Stuart and I tried to consult on every 13 hiring decision, yes. 14 Did you guys also decide salaries? 15 I generally decided the salary and tan let 16 Stu know what I was going to do. And he would say if 17 he thought it was okay or if he thought it was too 18 much or too little, but I generally had free reign in 19 that regard. 20 Q. Did someone's book of business directly 21 correlate to the salary that you would offer? 22 That is a very broad question because it 23 depends upon what other needs we had for that 24 individual. 25 Q. What do you mean by 'what-other needs'? - FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 12 1 Q. Would you need to look at someone's book of 2 business if they were coming in just solely -to be 3 ralneaker for the firm prior to hiring thee? 4 A. I discussed it with them. There were not s mossy people that I recall that I actually looked at 6 their numbers. Once David Boden was working for me I 7 had him chaotic people's numbers, but I rarely looked. I ▪ took most people'a words for what they were 9 generating. 10 0. Hy recollection is, you were always looking 11 to bring in more people, to hire more people, same of 12 us were somehow able to ' you while others were 13 not. Mow would you decide who you ware looking at to 24 bring into your firm? 15 A. Wa were trying to develop, on the legitimate 16 side of the law firm, we were trying to develop real 17 talent, real practice groups. I moan, Brad is • 18 perfect example, great lawyer, got a groat reputation. 19 You know, it was our hope that, you know, ha was going 20 to be one of the people to actually in sane ways 21 rescue the firm because he had a practice group that 22 could generate substantial income. You know, on the 23 legitimate side that's what we were trying to do, we 24 were trying to find the best and the brightest. 25 O. Okay. With respect to bringing people that FRIEDNIA & OLSON FRIED3IAIIMMI & OLSON EFTA01117301 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 1 you thought could bring a book of business, you 3u5t 2 said Brad, for example, that he had a legitimate 3 practice group with a good book of business. Bow did 4 you know that? A. Everyone in the tort world that I had spoke to spoke extremely highly of Brad, not only people 2 already had working for me but other people that know him. Be was very -- came very highly recommended to Q. Like who, for example? We wanted him in there. We were trying to 12 develop a significant tort group and we thought that 13 he'd be a great part of it. 14 Q. Who besides Russ told you that about Brad? 15 A. It would have been other people in the tort 16 group. I don't want to guess, 'Moja, as to which 17 other people told me, but it was -- well more than 18 Ruse. 19 43. was it people within -- 20 A. Might have boon people in politics that I 21 talked to that knew him because we had significant 22 input at the gubernatorial level with regard to tort 23 reform and the like, and there were people there who 24 knew who Brad was. It was more than one person that 25 told us that. - FRIEDMAN. % I & OLSON 15 1 people that would be a good fit? 2 A. I looked for people that were outgoing, that 3 had the type of personality. CM the legitimate side 4 of the business, people that had charisma that were -- 5 that could go out and hustle and try to develop a bock 6 of business if they didn't have it. And as one of the 7 50 percent of the shareholders of the firm I was 8 trying to hire people I wanted to work with. 9 Q. Okay. When you would see people from whom 10 you would offer jobs, for example, es you mentioned 11 earlier with Brad and his practice, if somebody stated 12 that people told you that he was a good lawyer, did 13 you need to see him in action, so to speak, prior to 14 your deciding to hire them or would you just take 15 people at their word for it? 16 A. See of people I saw in action; he wasn't 17 one of them. Steve Caber is an excellent example of 18 that. I hired Steve after he was beating the living 19 daylights out of me on the other side of a case. And 20 I certainly would ask around about Om people. But 21 the people that I trusted -- see, I can't remember. I 22 think Gary Farmer wee working for me before Brad, end 23 if I'm not mistaken he would have been one of the 24 people that I went to with regard to Bred because we 25 ware really developing that whole tort group around 14 1 Q. Okay. When you were looking at people to 2 bring in to the firm to legitimise, es you said. Your 3 firm had a vary unique area of practice and had a very 4 unique environment to which to work. Bow did you know 5 or how did you came to decide what people may or may 6 not fit into that? 7 A. Okay. Bang on one second. I think you just B accidentally misstated my testimony. 9 I was not bringing the people in to 10 legitimise the law firm. I was bringing thaw in to II the legitimate tide of the law firm. The bulk of the 12 law firm, despite the lack of financial success, was a 13 large grow of very honest, hard working lawyers 14 trying to do their best in difficult economic 15 conditions. There were awe that were obviously not 16 legitimate. And the way I decided to bring people in, 17 again, it's really everything I just told you. Are 18 you looking for how I brought people into the Pouf 19 scheme? 20 Q. Bo, right now I'm just asking about the firm 21 because, as I said, it's a vary unique way in which to 22 practice and a very unique workplace environment with 23 politics and restaurants and parties at your home and 24 things of that nature. 2'n asking, personality wise, 25 other than the book of business, how did you decide on FlMEDMAN MBA OLSON 16 1 that time with Farmer and Fleece and Jaffe end 2 Mr. Edwards. 3 O. Do you know whore Mr. Edwards was working 4 when you earned of him? I don't recall whether he was working for 6 masons or had his own practice, I don't recall. 7 Q. When did you first learn about Brad? • A. I don't remember the time frame. 9 Q. Do you recall when you first met with him 10 regarding a job? 11 A. No. The easiest way to figure that out is 12 to go look at his personnel file, it will have the 19 notes saying when he met with me the first time. 14 Q. You don't have any recollection of your 15 first meeting with him? 26 A. No. As you know, I was hiring people loft 17 end right and I was also unfortunately very busy doing 18 things I shouldn't have been doing, so I don't have a 29 specific recollection of when I hired him. I barely 20 have a !pacific recollection of when I hired me. 21 Q. But you did, in fact, meet with hie? 22 A. I'm certain I met with him before I hired 23 him. I can't imagine -- although I did hire people 24 without meeting them. I did hire people based on 25 other people's word, if they were people within the & OLSON FRIEDMASinal & OLSON EFTA01117302 3 4 S 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 1 fine that I trusted. Because I always said, I had a 2 very simple, you lie or die by what you are telling 3 If you are telling me this guy is good and he's 4 not good, that's on you, it's going to hurt your 5 income. So I used to tell my partner, people that 6 were recommending people to me, don't sell ma a bill 7 of goods just to get somebody in here because if you 9 do that it's going to come back on you, it's going to 9 affect your incase and your ability to grow in the 10 firm. So with that admonishment. I might have very 11 well hired salmons sight unseen based upon what 12 scadmina else told ne. 13 Q. But you did meet with Brad you say before he 24 oar in to work? 15 A. Wow that I'm saying it out loud, I think I 16 did but rattly I'm guessing. I don't have a specific 17 recollection of meeting him. 10 Q. Do you recall if you know that he had worked 19 as an assistant state attorney for a few year. prior 20 to doing tort litigation? 21 A. I don't recall that one way or the other. 22 Q. So you wouldn't have Maid Coward Seheinberg 23 or anybody about him before he came to work there? 24 A. I can't may that I wouldn't have asked 25 because, like I said, I might have asked. But FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 19 1 I knew that it was a significant case of 2 potentially significant value against an extremely collectthle pedophile, for lack of a butte's word. Q. So was that case your primary motive in bringing Brad into the firm? A. I doubt it. I mean, I can't tell you one way or the other, but I doubt that I would bring him in just for one case because what if the case foils. then I'm stuck with a lawyer who can't do anything, you know. I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do anything, I'm just saying that if I only relied on one owe, then if I bring a lawyer in for one case and one case only, what do I do with him when the case is Oyer. Q. Bow did you know that this case would be a collectible ease then? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form of the question because it misstated the prior testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a collectible case but that it was s case against • 'extremely collectible pedophile..? BY NS. ItaDDAD: Q. What made you think that this case bad any financial value? 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 S 9 le unfortunately, you aro taking a little tiny spot out of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the life of the firm, so I can't tell you one way or the other. Q. I know you had a lot going on, I'm just trying to see if you remember anything specific about this. Do you recall what salary you had offered Brad to come join the firm? 10 A. I do not. You have to just try to 11 differentiate that what I knew thee is a lot different 12 than what I know now so .. 13 Q. Meaning? 24 A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time 15 that I was hiring him or maybe a year after, I would 16 be able to tell you what I was paying him, but new 17 it's insignificant. I don't reme•ber how much I was 10 paying him. 19 0. Did you learn about his book of business or 20 know what kind of oases ho was bringing in prior to 21 hiring him? 22 A. I do know that he -- I discussed either with 23 Russ, well, I know with Russ, and perhaps ems other 24 people, I knew about the Epstein case. 25 What did you know -shout it? FRIEDMAN OLSON 20 1 A. Epstein vas a billionaire. 2 Q. Okay. Did you know anything about the 3 legitimacy or illegitimacy of the classes prior to 4 knowing he was a billionaire? 5 A. I knew what I was told. I didn't check it 6 out myself, but 1 trusted the people that told me. Q. And who told you? A. The only person I remember discussing it 9 with, as I sit here today, is Russ Adler. But if 10 Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me at the 11 time, I likely would have discussed it with them as 12 well. 13 Q. So were you aware of Nis ear before you 24 made an offer to Brad to join the firm? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You said you didn't -- I don't want to 17 misquote you. You said you heard about it from other 19 people, but you didn't do anything to know that 19 personally. Was that before you made the offer of 20 employment? 21 A. I made the offer of employment based upon 22 what other people had told se about Brad. 23 Q. About axed and his book of business or just 24 Brad and his legal skills? 25 A. Okay. When I say Brad, I mean Brad and his FRIEDMANN/Mr OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117303 21 22 1 book of business and his legal stills. 2 3 Q. Okay. A. And his ability to generate business in the 4 future. 5 Q. You stated that you believed that you first 6 heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps 7 from Sniff. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up with these cases, these Epstein cases? 9 MR. SCAAOLA: itecuse me, I'm going to 20 object to the fore of the question. It is an 21 inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has 22 no predicate. There was no reference about having 13 heard about these cases free lirad. The names 14 mentioned were Adler, possibly Facer, possibly 15 Jaffe. 16 BY MS. HADDAD: 17 Q. Once Bred started working at the firm, 18 you've already testified you already know about these 19 Epstein cases, correct? 20 yes. 21 Q. Bow did you keep abreast of these cases? 22 A. I didn't. 23 Q. You didn't know anything about them? 24 I didn't say I didn't know anything. I said 25 I didn't keep track of it. FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 23 1 Q. Please do. 2 A. The POnii Saida.° was running very low on 3 capital. My co-conspirators and I needed to find a 4 now feeder fund, new Jewel: mint sources. Me had • 5 couple of very large, significantly wealthy potential 6 investors out there. I was looking for something that 7 would have been very attractive. We had had a lot of 8 inquiry during the due diligence period with these 9 people that were doing due diligence on the putative 10 cases that we were selling. And when I thought about 11 the Epstein case, realising that it was a substantial 12 actual file in the office, I caws up with the idea 13 that if I created a fake confidential settlement 14 circling around -- lased upon this actual case, they 15 would be able to increase the level of due diligence 16 that I was able to offer to my potential investors. 1? Q. Now did you know this was • substantial file 18 in your office at that time? 19 A. Again, through the people I spoke to in the 20 office. 21 22 23 'Pietas. 24 Q. 25 A. I didn't say that, but I had a lot more Q. Such aA who? A. Again, same people, Adler, Farmer, Jaffe, You newer spoke to Brad about this case? 1 Q. You didn't keep track of it? 2 I did not keep track of it. From time to 3 tine Russ and the other guys in the tort group would 4 tell me what was going on in certain cases, but until S I made a decision to utilise that file for an illegal 6 purpose related to something illegal that I was doing 7 along with my co-conspirators, I just assured my 8 lawyers were going to work the case and eventually it 9 would hopefully work out well for the law firm. 10 Q. At your firm, when e-mails would go out to 11 attorneys at RRA or all attorneys at RRA, were you 12 part of that e-mail group? 13 A. you are talking about all staff? 14 No, all it says is attorneys at ARA. IS It's the e-ermil group 'attorneys"? 16 Q. Yes. 27 A. yes, I'm a part of that e-mail group. 18 Q. And I appreciate that you were very busy and 19 may not have read all of them, but you did receive 20 those e-mails when they would go around? 21 A. Yes, and I tried my best to read thee. 22 Q. Okay. At what point did you decide to use 23 this case to further your Paul scheme? 24 A. I don't remember the date, but I can give 25 you the circumstances, if you'd like. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 2 interaction -- 2 3 Sorry, Sonja, I didn't moan to speak over 24 4 If you talk to the people in the firm, if 5 they ere honest with you, they'll tell you my 6 interaction was far more significant with Ruse Adler, 7 probably more so because he was a co-conspirator of 0 mine. My interaction with Russ was far greater by 9 many, many percents over my interaction with Brad, and 10 then you go down the lino. I had sore interaction 11 with Mr. Farmer than I did with Hz. Fistos, more 12 interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr. Edwards, 23 and so on. 24 Q. Ruse was the head of your tort group, right? 25 A. Yes. 16 Q. So these cases fell under the tort group; is 17 that correct? IS Yes, it fell under the -- fell under Russ' 19 purview ultimately. yes. 20 Q. And Brad was a partner at your firm during 21 the ties these cases were there, correct? 22 A. I believe Out was his title. Be was either 23 partner or shareholder. I don't think we had made him 24 a shareholder yet. 25 Q. But he wasn't coming in as an associate, FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117304 25 26 I correct? 2 3 4 S 6 case? 7 B To the best of my recollection, no. So you stated that you learned this case woks -- I don't want to misquote you and listen to a long speaking objection, but what did you call this HR. scAROLA: Who wants the quote? THE WITNESS: it was a substantial case 9 with a -- what I perceived to be a highly collectible 10 psdopbile as a defendant. 11 BY NS. IIACOAD: 12 Q. Right. How did you know at the tine when 13 you said these investors wanted to investigate and you 14 said you were going to create a fake settlement, how 15 did you know that this case was the case that you 16 could use? 17 From talking to all the people that I just 28 said, Adler. ristos, Jaffe, Farmer, Nr. Edwards, to 19 the extant that I spoke to him about it. 20 Did you speak with Mr. Edwards about the 21 case? 22 A. I don't have a specific recollection one way 23 or the other. I remember speaking to him at least 24 briefly the day or the day of or the day before the 25 actual investor's due diligence was going on as to • — FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 2? 1 use of it. I tried to, but again, I was vary busy 2 doing other things. But I know that tit. Adler's group 3 used it extensively. 4 Q. Because it was your firm and, as you said, 5 you invested $7 million in it, did you have the 6 ability to access a group if you ranted to? 7 A. res. And if I couldn't, I could get Russ to 8 give me access. 9 Q. So you didn't necessarily have to be invited 10 into the Q-task group for you to be able to utilize or 11 view the communications within it? 12 A. No, that's not true. I actually had to be 13 invited, that's what I was telling Russ to do, la to 14 have me invited. 15 Q. But I'm saying, the lawyers wouldn't have to 16 personally invite you, you can get acumen° within your 17 firm to give you access maybe without the lawyers 18 knowing? 29 A. No, I think it might have had a, quote. 20 unquote, confidential. super secret viewing 21 capability, but I don't recall it having that, and I'd 22 have no need to utilize that. Just invite me into the 23 group and lot me see what's going on. 24 Q. Okay. I know that you are or were a very 25 hands-on person within certain of the practice groups 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 22 23 24 25 I what was going on . And I may have spoke to him, I 2 knowispoke to Ruse, butImay have spoke to him as 3 well within a couple of days just prior to this duo 4 diligence because I was trying to at least get sons S information in my head that I could use when I was 6 creating this story for the investors. 7 Q. Scott, what's ll-task? • A. 03-task is a web based software system that I had invested $7 million in. And what was the purpose of this internet Mate.? A. To be able to rasmanitate in a secure fashion and in a unique group fashion about specific files. Q. So forgive me, we all know I'm not good with the computer. That was something that would be useful within a law firm, why? A. Because it allowed you to create groups and have both general and private chats, organize data in a very unique fashion. /het was, at least to our way of thinking, would have been were, very helpful in the law firm setting with multiple practice groups. Q. Did you belong to any groups on 0-task7 A. I'm certain that I did. I don't remember which groups I belonged to. I -never got into the full FRIEDMAN. LCAIARDI& OLSON 28 1 and with that, with the 0-task and the a-mails, did 2 someone assist you with reviewing everything and 3 letting you know what was going on within the groups? 4 SM. SOMOZA: Mscuee me. I'm going to 5 object to counsel's testimony. Object to the form of 6 the question es leading. 7 THE WITNESS: I really don't even $ understand the question. 9 Can you try to rephrase it for me, Sonja? 10 Br KS. HADDAD: 11 Q. Of course, I would. 12 Did you keep abreast of everything that was 13 going on in every practice group or was someone 14 through Q -task and e-mails, for examPle. Or was 15 msg .te giving you information keeping you posted C. 16 what we going on within the practice? 17 Well, as part of the tort group I had a 16 pretty good ides of what was going on then all the 19 time just because of the significant amount of 20 interaction, both legitimate and otherwise, that I had 21 with Russ Adler, so I was probably moms up-te-date on 22 that group then any group other than the labor and 23 employment group, again, because I had each 24 significant interaction with Stu Aosenfeldt, both 25 legitimately and illegitimately, so I knew what was FRIEDMAN & OLSON FRIEDALA • I & OLSON EFTA01117305 29 1 going on in that group. 2 I tried, as beat as I could, given my tine 3 constraints, to stay on top of what was going on. you 4 know, throughout the firm. But I relied on other 5 people like Debra Villages and Irene Stay and David 6 Soden, Las Strecker to the 1 extent, to monitor 7 what was going on in the different practice groups and B keep me up to speed. 9 Q. Was there audio and video surveillance 10 throughout the entire firm or only within your office? 11 A. No, through the entire office, not in the 12 individual office*. 13 Bang on. Not in the individual offices but 14 throughout the general office space. 15 Q. So in 2009 how many floors did you have? 16 A. Three, I think. 17 Q. And do you recall approximately how many le attorneys you had working there at that tine? 19 A. Approximately 70. 20 Q. And when you say "not the individual offices 21 but the other areas." do you mean -- would that 22 include conference rooms? 23 A. I didn't have surveillance in the conference 24 teems. 25 Q. So can you please tell mosmactly where you FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI& OLSON 31 1 any surveillance in the conference rooms? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Other than the Cant areas you just vent 4 over, in the hallway. and the reception -- did you 5 have it in the hallway*, is that a canon -- do you 6 deem that a coneon area? 7 A. All the hallways pretty much with the 8 exception of a few blind spots, I can see all the 9 hallways. 10 Q. And this was on all three floors? 12 A. Yeah. For some reason I think we might 12 have taken some space on a fourth floor, but I could 13 be mistaken. But yes, on the three floors that we 24 actively had a significant amount of epees on, I tried 15 to have surveillance on all the cannon areas of all 16 that space. 27 18 19 Q. Did you have the tort group all together Or 20 was it divided up? 21 A. Except for Adler, Adler was on with -- near 22 me, down the hall from me. The rest of the group was 23 all together. I think they were on -- let's see. 24 There were people up on 22. I was on 16. Be must 25 have boon on the other floor that we were building 0. And what floor vas NV. Edwards' office on? A. I don't recall. 30 1 had audio and/or video surveillance? We'll start with 2 audio. 3 A. I don't have a specific recollection of 4 every place I had video and audio, but it wee in -- I 5 had it set up so that in all of the common areas, 6 including our shareholder's lounge, we had -- I had 7 audio and video capabilities. Q. When you say "capabilities," does that mean 9 you didn't always turn it on or you just turned it on 10 when you felt like it? 11 I turned it on when I felt like it, when I 12 felt like seeing what was going on. I sometimes left 13 the sermon up because I had four enter screens on 14 my desk, I sometimes loft the screen on with the video 15 of the reception area and sour other general areas. 16 But unless I wanted to see what was going on or listen 17 to what was going on, I didn't turn it on. It would 18 have been too distracting. 19 Q. Did the attorneys know that this 20 surveillance existed? 21 A. You can see it in the -- it wasn't hidden, 22 you can see it. There were globes up in the ceiling 23 all over the office. 24 Q. Did you have -- you said -- you didn't 25 answer this, you said you didn't recall. Did you have -- FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 32 1 out, because I remember building out space and I 2 remember Jaffe and all those guys moving into that 3 space. 4 0. If you were building up that space, do you 5 recall when you put the surveillance in there? 6 A. It would have been while they were building 7 it out or shortly thereafter. 8 Q. During 2009 it seam* that you hired lots of 9 former law enforcement people CO work at the firm. 20 Why were they people you wanted to hire? 11 A. Severalfold. I had a significant amount of 12 illegal activity going on with various law enforcement 13 agencies throughout south Florida end hiring people 14 from former law enforcement assisted me in engendering 15 support and canaraderie with the law enforcement that 16 I was actually utilising in illegal activities. 27 Q. So you are saying -- le A. Secondarily, I wanted to have a very strong 19 investigative team, ultimately, to do both legitimate 20 and illegitimate things for the law firm, and hiring 21 former law enforcement was the best way to do that. I 22 was hoping to actually ultimately create a group. Kan 23 Jenne and I had talked about Chat extensively. 24 0. Why did you hire Ken Jenne? 25 A. Prior to Ken going to prison, he and I were FRIEDMIAN MB &OLSON FRIEDMA & OLSON EFTA01117306 33 94 • very friendly and he wee extremely friendly with 2 someone Out was very close to me, grant Smith. 3 During the time that he was down in PDC Miami, I went 4 down to visit him. And after speaking to him and S after speaking to Grant, I told him, because he was 6 talking to me about how many people had turned on him 7 and abandoned him. And I told him that when he got B out of jail that he had no worries, that I would give 9 him a job. 10 And what And that was the primary reason -- that was 12 my primary reason for hiring him. 13 Q. What was it you were hiring him to do 14 exactly? IS A. Ultimate the goal was to head up on 16 investigative arm within KRA, within the AAA entities. 27 Q. Well, while be was there, since that didn't 28 happen, what was his obligation to the firm 19 day-to-day? 20 A. Be handled firm security issues end he did 21 handle overseeing certain investigative things. We 22 had an alcohol and beverage group that was forming and 23 he was overseeing Out. Be was helping me find new 24 people to staff it, that kind of thing. 25 Q. Did you have a lot of interaction -- FRIEDMA N. LOMBARDI & OLSON 35 1 beverage roles and anything else Ken or other staff 2 could think of to have them do. 3 Q. Let's talk about the investigative roles for 4 a minute. tout kind of investigations ware these teems 6 running? 7 A. I do not know. You have to speak to lawyers 8 that were actually utilizing them. I put it out there 9 and Ken put it out there, that they were available to 10 lawyers in the firm for use like in-house 11 investigators. And what people did with them 12 ultimately was up to the. 13 Q. Were they on salary or were their oasts end 14 fees associated with utilizing them within a specific 15 practice group? 16 A. They were all on salary with ma. The 17 ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that IS could bill the law firm and have the client, at least 19 defray some of the cost. I don't recall whether or 20 not we ever got to that level or not. 21 Q. With all that in-house police action, why 22 did you have police security surrounding you all the 23 time? 24 I guess the best answer was I was paranoid, 25 but I mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You 1 A. Be had had significant -- as you know, he 2 also had significant political connections and 3 everyone who is not living under a rock knows I was 4 doing everything I could to garner significant S political power. 6 Q. I think many people miss your parties. 7 But, with respect to Mr. Jenne and his 8 political connections, were you hiring him to utilize 9 him with respect to any of UM police department 10 investigatimm? You had stated earlier you had 11 dealings with police departments. I don't want -- 12 again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. You 13 said you had dealings going on with various police 24 agencies? A. I had -- I mean, we had a criminal defense section in the law firm, so we had legitimate dealings IS 16 17 with law enforcement. But I also had significant le illegitimate things with law enforcement that had 19 nothing to do with Ken Jenne. 20 Q. And how about with respect to former FBI 21 agents you were hiring? 22 A. They were all people that were operating in 23 a legitimate fashion within the law firm. 24 0. In what role was that? 25 - A. The investigative roles and the alcohol FRIEDMAN, el R I& OLSON 36 I know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For 2 example, I -- are you talking about my ➢ort Lauderdale 3 police detail? 4 Q. Yes. You had it at the office and at your 5 home, correct? 6 A. Yeah. There's a myriad of facts that 7 motivated me to do that. One was that I really wanted 8 the security for the office. Two was, I was paranoid 9 and this is in no particular order. Three was the 10 Melissa Lewis murder that shook the entire law firm 11 and shook me terribly. I didn't want that CO ever 12 have to happen again. And four was, I wanted -- the 13 more law enforcement you have around, the 14 more legitimacy it adds to you and your 1781708777nO0 to 15 the COnmunity. So there ware a multitude of reasons. 16 I Man, I hired certain law enforcement to 17 work for me that were just friends of mine that 18 were -- that needed additional money, so I wanted to 19 make sure that they had cony, both guys that did the 20 illegal stuff for me and guys that didn't do anything 21 illegal for me. 22 Q. Let's go back to the Epstein case and when 23 you decided to utilize it -- to use for the investors 24 for your Penal scheme. 25 Do you recall approximately when it was that FRIEDALAN & oLsos FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI& OLSON EFTA01117307 37 1 these investors were coming that you decided to use 2 the film? 3 A. Ny best recollection it was in 2009, 4 OOMOCIOOS after April of 2009, but I don't have a specific recollection beyond that. S 7 Q. 2009? What takes you think it was after April of 0 A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the 9 Clockwork Group came in toward, the middle of 2009. 10 When I say clockwork, that's an umbrella term that I 11 use to mean the Von Allman, AJ Discala, and other 12 investors that cams in through that feeder fund. 13 So that was around April 2009? 14 A. No, it was after, to the hest of my 15 recollection. I men, you can toll because all you 16 have to do is look and see when the first, very first 17 Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint 16 it even closer. Look for the very first settlement 19 deal that we did that was related to the Epstein case. 20 within 60 days prior to that would have been when I 21 was meeting with those due diligence people, 30 to 22 60 days before that. 23 Q. So when you decided to use that case, take 24 me through exactly what you did to familiarise 25 yourself with that case. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 39 1 happened? 2 A. No, it's the same dates that I was giving 3 you before. 4 0. Okay. So you had, to further your Ponsi S scheme. you had to familiarise yourself with this case 6 so that you could speak intelligently with the 7 investors; is that correct? ▪ A. Well, sort of because moat of what I told 9 the investors was all things that I was creating as I 10 went. 11 About this particular case, the Epstein 12 case? 13 A. Yes, from an investor -- you have to 14 understand how the inner working of the Ponsi scheme 15 were crafted but -- 16 Q. Please toll me then. 17 A. I'm telling you -- hang on. Fran an 15 investor's standpoint, the investor is simply looking 19 for is the case believable. And once they get pest 20 that, is it of such case -- excuse me, is it of such a 21 nature that it is possible to be generating a 22 significant amount of settlement dollars. And Ulan 23 after that, their concern is simply on the due 24 diligence side of making sure we actually have the 23 money, that the documents pass -- the documents 36 A. I talked to Russ Adler. I may have talked 2 to son of the other lawyers. I flipped through 3 certain boxes in the file. Bow did you get the boxes? I asked SOM40041 to bring them to et. 6 Q. Do you know where Mule files ware stored? 7 A. I do not. 9 Q. So YOU flipped -- sorry, please continue. 9 Flipped through some files? 10 A. 1 flipped through some files. I had the 11 files in my office. The day that the investor group 12 cane in, I actually had Kan Jenne and sane others 13 actually bring me some more of the boxes actually into 14 my office while the investors were there. I already 15 had soma of the boxes with me. 16 Q. You say 'San Jenne and others," who were the 17 others to when you are referencing? IS A. I don't specifically recall who carried them 19 I was very focused on my investors st that ties. 20 Q. Ware any of the lawyers present with you 21 when you were meeting with these investors? 22 A. During the actual meeting with them, no. I 23 recall that some of the lawyers may have met some of 24 the investors, but I don't recall who. 25 Q. Do you recall approximately when that FRIEDMAN M R & OLSON 40 1 unrelated to this case, docaents related to the 2 settlements. Other than proving the existence of the 3 case, there's very little an investor, at least from 4 my end, investigates into the actual case. It was 5 more after having the case exist and not caring about 6 really what was going on in the case other than a lot 7 of stoney was going to be collected. a Q. Well, with respect to showing them that the 9 case existed and that there was a likelihood of a 10 possibility of a payday at the end, how did you 11 convince them of that? What did you use to convince 12 them of that? 13 A. Z did two main things. One, I put the boxes 14 in my office while they were there. I told that to 15 specifically look at a couple of sheets of a flight 16 manifest that vas in the filo that Russ had shown me. 17 And I told them that it would be a breath of 20 attorney/client privilege for then to look at the 19 file, but that I was going to step out for a while and 20 leave them there with the boxes, wink, wink, and 21 that's what I did. I stepped out, I let them look at 22 whatever they wanted to look at. 1 came hook in, they 23 were satisfied that it was a real case and I was off 24 and running. 25 Q. And these were the real legitimate files for PRIEDMA OLSON FltlEDMAN A. OLSON EFTA01117308 41 42 to 11 12 13 1 this case; is that correct? 2 A. These were the legitimate files, yes. 3 Q. Nothing had been created at this time for 4 them to look through? • A. I didn't add anything to the case files. 6 The case files were, significant enough by themselves. 7 Q. Do you know how long they were in your ▪ office: days, weeks? 9 A. The people or the boxes? Q. The boxes. A. The boxes were in there probably a little more than a week. I don't have a specific recollection. Okay 14 Did you ever go through them? 15 Yes, I flipped through them at same point in 16 I/ Q. And what do you recall about what you saw in 18 the cases? Do you remember anything? 19 A. I remember seeing the flight manifest. 20 don't retell seeing anything else. I'm sure I looked 21 at other things, but Ogebi, for my purposes it was 22 insignificant to me because the actual content of the 23 boxes was not necessary in the sale of the fake 24 settlement*. 25 Why was the flight manifest so interesting- FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 43 1 make sure you understand this, Um actual role of the 2 actual physical case in the roast scheme is, from my 3 perspective, minimal. It was just another vehicle for 4 5 After that initial meeting with the 6 investors where they looked et the file, what happened 7 with respect to their desire or lack of desire to O invest? 9 I . SCAR0LA: Excuse me. I'm going to 10 object to Um form of the question, it assumes facts 11 not in evidence. There's been no testimony that the 12 investors actually looked et the fill's, only that 13 they were given the opportunity to look et the files. 14 BY Ms. HADDAD: 15 Q. Was your video surveillance on when you left 16 the investor* sloes in your office? 17 A. No, no, I didn't have cameras in my office. 10 1 didn't let people lock in my office when I was In 19 there, that would have been bad. 20 Q. So you left thee alone in there? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall for approximately how long? 23 A. No more than 20, 30 minutes. It was a short 24 period of time. 25 Q. When you went hack in what happened? 1 to you? 2 A. Because of who was on it. 3 Q. Who was on it? 4 I don't recall, but I do recall saying to 5 the investors -- I recall having a conversation prior 6 to Um investors caning in with Russ Adler and Russ had told me that Epstein had flown Bill Clinton on his plane, had flown prince Andrew on his plane. And I 9 don't remember whether that was on any of the flight 10 manifest* or not, but I left that to the investors' 11 imagination as CO what they were being told about 12 lb-. Epstein and these other famous people that were 13 cavorting with Nr. Epstein and let thee look at the file. Sa 15 You have to understand free en investor's 16 perspective -- hang on. From an investor's I? perspective the, only thing that matters to the 18 investor is that it's a reel case and that they can 19 verify that real dollars are being paid. The fact 20 that it was a real Case was evident, I had s lot of 21 boxes with real pleadings in it and a lot of other 22 information in it. The fact that there was real money 23 being paid was a fiction that was created by no and my 24 co-conspirators, everyone free bankers, to computer 25 people. So the actual role of the case, and I.want to 9 10 11 FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 44 1 A. I went back to selling the Ponsi deal. 2 Q. And did you sell it? 3 A. I believe I did. you'd have to look at the 4 actual mettle:sent documents CO as. St I put one 5 together for that, but I'm pretty sure we did. 6 Q. Do you recall if the investors asked you for 7 any additional information or any additional 8 doMmentation? I don't recall one way or Um other. After this initial meeting with the A. D. investors, did you give any direction regarding this 12 particular case? 13 A. To whom? 14 Q. To any of the attorneys working on the 15 Epstein case. 16 A. No. I didn't interfere in how they ware running their oases. They were far more experienced 18 than I was in that type -- in handling that type of 19 case. As a matter of fact, I was practicing very 20 little real law at this point in time. I wouldn't 21 have had time to tell them or to get involved. 22 Q. Did you ever keep up with this case after 23 this initial meeting with the investors? 24 A. I'm certain that I talked to Puss Adler 25 about it from time to titre, but my main focus by this 17 FRIEDNIA & OLSON FRIEDMAN'S & OLSON EFTA01117309 45 46 1 point in time in 2009 was the Ponzi Saha 2 Q. Did you try to sell this particular 3 settlement to any other aaaaa tors? 4 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 5 Okay. Did you ever have any conversations 6 with any of your investors about this Epstein case? A. I don't recall one way or the other. Q. I notice there's been a privilege log 9 produced with respect to e-mails. There mans to be ID quite s bit of communication between you end Ken Jenne 11 with the topic being the Epstein case. Do you have 12 any recollection what that would be about? 13 A. I don't. As I sit here today, I don't have 14 a specific recollection of having significant e-mail 15 contact with Ken Jenne about the case. But if you are 16 telling me I did, I'll accept that, but I don't recall 17 what it was. IS Q. Earlier you had stated that when you were 19 hiring good attorneys such as Ht. Edwards, looking at 20 their book of business was -- I don't want to put 21 words in your mouth -- it was the legitimacy of the 22 practice, it would bring in legitimate money to the 23 practice, is that what you were hoping to do? 24 . A. Earlier when I testified I specifically 25 testified that I personally did not look "at most of. 1 2 3 S 6 7 a 9 ID 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON A. It was somewhere between eight and 410 million, probably right around the nine million mark. Q. Do you know what your -- A. On its best day. Q. What was your overhead for salaries in 2009, do you recall? A. I don't have a clue. Q. Was it more than you brought in legitimately? With whet I was paying in salaries, I's -- I moan, I'd be guessing. If it wasn't more than, it was certainly close to it. Q. That's just salary, that's not talking about anything else, rent, overhead, things of that nature? A. Q. That's correct. Who was paying for the investigations of the cases that were going on in 2009, the deposition COsts, the filing of ccmplaintS, and things of that nature? Where did that money come from from your fire? Q • A. part. It varied from case to case. For the tort group? It was fronted by the law firm for the most 1 2 3 a 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 27 IS 19 20 21 22 23 26 25 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their book of business. This being said, I was bringing in legitimate lawyers to form legitimate practice groups to practice legitimate law, having nothing to do with the Penal scheme. Q. During the year 2009. were there any, to your knowledge, any big settlements of any cases at PRA? A. To the best of my recollection, no. We had a canal year. Q. The year 2009 was just dismal across the board? A. Some people did better than others, but yes, overall it was for s firm of 70 lawyers, it was 0. So there were no big wins cawing into the firm as far as a financial windfall other than from your other businesses? A. The only significant capital coming into the farm was money my co-conspirators and I were stealing. Q. Was there any particular practice group that you can remember that had a particularly non-dimaal year in 2009? A. Nr. Nurik had a good year. Q. Do you recall what the gross revenue was from legitimate sources in 2009? FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 45 Q. For the most part. What wasn't fronted by the law firm? A. I _ recall there being a couple of agreements that various tort lawyers had with certain clients whore they were going to assist in helping to pay the All the other costs would have been paid by the law firm, both through legitimate and illegitimate So when you say by "illegitimate means,' where would the illegitimate mean money *am from? It cane from the Panel *theme, and all the tentacles of the Ponzi sebum, other illegal activity. D. Such as? Things I was doing with law enforcement, things I was doing in politics, things that I was doing with organized crime, things I wee doing with poll tiela, judges, other lawyers, bankers, business people, things of that nature, I'm sure there's more. Q. Do you recall if any of these Epstein cases underwent significant investigation while the cases were at your firm? A. I'd be guessing. I don't remember. Q. There was a meeting in 2009, July of 2009, and it appears from the e-mail communications Net it was for everyone in the fins to attend and it was FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117310 1 2 3 49 regarding the Epetatin case. In fact, there was an Epstein conference room that was reserved for it. Were you present at that meeting? 1 2 3 so of 2009 about the Epstein meeting and some additional investigation into the Epstein case. Does that refresh your investigation as to 4 A. I may have been. 4 when you met with the investors in the S Do you recall? S Discala/Clockwork Group? 6 I don't recall one way or the other. 6 A. It doss not. The best thing to refresh my 7 You don't recall it. 7 recollection as to when I met with them would be to S Do you recall anything about the Epstein S see the deal documents. 9 case le July of 2009? 9 Okay. I don't have those. unfortunately 10 I do not. Do you have sommthing that might 10 Do you recall if you took Discala and his 11 refresh my recollection? 11 other investors to a football game in 2009? 12 MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a five-minute 12 A. Sure, I did. 13 break right now? 13 Q. Okay. Would that be around the time you 14 THE WITNESS: Sure. 14 wore trying to get theca to invest in the can? 15 at. 0DIDSZRAER: Thank Yee. 15 It would have been around the time I was 16 MS. HADDAD: Thanks. 16 trying to get them to invest in general. It's may 1? IShort recess taken.] 17 have been the time Chet I around was showing them the 10 BY WS. RADDAD: IS Epstein file. 19 O. Scott. I was asking you before we took the 19 Q. Did you show them any files other than the 20 break about a meeting with respect to the Epstein 20 Epstein file? 21 cases. There was a 159-page privilege log filed, 21 I may have. 1 don't have a specific 22 which I'm sure you don't have end are not aware of. 22 recollection one way or the other. 23 But in it there are many, many e-nalla to both 23 Q. You testified earlier that you had over a 24 attorneys at MIA, yourself, and Mr. Werth regarding 24 dozen homes brought to your office that were related the Epstein litigation. And all this resolved in July 25 to the Epstein case. - - FRIEDALV ' & OLSON FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 51 $2 1 wit. schROLAt Excuse me, counsel. Counsel. 1 A. I don't recall. 2 there has bean no such testimony.' 2 Q. Did you check? 3 BY MS. HMKOM: 3 A. I don't remember one way or the Other. It Q. You said there were several boxes brought to 4 was insignificant to me. 5 your office by different people. you don't recall who S Q. Well, then explain to me. You testified 6 that is; is that correct? 6 earlier that what was important to the investors to 7 Yes, I had some boxes already in my office 7 see is that there was a real case, correct? $ and I had Ken Jenne and son other people bring soma 9 Yes. 9 others. I don't remember how many boxes. 9 Q. What did you look at or show them -- what 10 Q. Was it more than three? 10 did you look at, first of all, to se, if it was, in 11 sure, it was more than three boxes, yes. 22 fact, a real case? 12 Q. Was it note than 10? 12 I knew it was a real case. 13 A. I don't believe so, no. 13 Q. Now did you know? 14 Q. You stated that you looked -- I don't went 14 A. Because my lawyers told me it was a real IS to put words in your mouth. What did you look at 15 I believed them. case. 26 specifically in that case? 16 Q. What lawyers told you that? 11 A. Other than looking at the flight manifest 27 A. I already told you it was a mixture of Russ 1e that Russ Adler told me to look at. I have no specific Ig and Jaffe and Fietos and Farmer and Mr. Edwards. I 19 recollection as to what 1 looked at in that file. 19 moan, I knew it was a real ease. We had all these 20 Q. Do you know if there was more than one case 20 boxes, we had people really working on the file -- 21 being prosecuted by your office against Hr. Swain? 21 Q. Now do you know -- 22 A. To the beat of q recollection there were -- 22 A. -- or they were pulling a hell of a scam on 23 it was multiple plaintiffs. 23 Not that I didn't deserve it but ... 24 Q. Choy. Do you recall if those cases were 24 Now did know, knew Q. you you just said you 25 pending in state or federal court? 25 people were working really hard on this case. Who do FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & omens EFTA01117311 53 1 you know was working on the case? 1 2 A. The only people that I knew for certain were 2 Q. Mho is CAX0 Koine*? 3 working on the case was Brad Rdwards and Russ Adler 3 A. Who is who? 4 wee doing his supervisory gentle& , whatever that was. • Q. Cara or Cara, C-a-r-a, Holmes? But other than that, I don't know which other lawyers A. To the best of my recollection, she vs' a 6 were Ling Mr. &Nerds. I didn't get involved at 6 former FBI agent or maybe IRS agent. I don't know. 7 that level. 7 she was a former federal agent. As far as the Penal scheme goes, the only B Q. Did you hire her to work for you? 9 thing I cared about, Tonja, was being able to show the 9 A. It was either IRS or FBI. 10 investors that this case that I was utilizing to steal 10 Q. Did you hire her to work for you? 11 a significant amount of money from them vas a real 11 A. Yes, I hired her at the suggestion of !Ma 12 case. That's ell I oared about. 12 Jenne. 13 Q. That case came into your office through 13 O. For what purpose? 14 Mr. Edwards, Be brought it with her when he 24 A. To work in the group that he was overseeing. correct? 15 came to BRA? 15 Q. So what did she do for RRA while she was 16 Yes. 16 there? 17 Q. Re was load counsel cn the case, correct? 17 A. I don't remember. 10 A. I assure he was lead counsel. I never 10 O. Did you ever mention her to your potential 19 chocked to see if he listed himself as lead counsel. 19 investors from the Clockwork group? 20 0. Do you know if any additional cavil-into 20 A. It's a possibility because, as I was 21 were filed while the camp was at RRA? 21 building the Patel scheme, I frequently referred to 22 A. I have no idea one way or the other. 22 the fact that we had former state and federal law 23 Q. Did you ever instruct, in furtherance of 23 enforcement working for us and on our investigative 24 your Ponsi scheme, Mx. Rdwards or anyone in that 24 teems. It added legitimacy to the Ponzi scheme. 25 litigation group to file additional complaints? 45 Q. Didn't you toll investors that she could FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON SS 1 hack into a computer as part of her skills? 2 I certainly may have. I told the investors 3 a whole host of lies about what was going on about • with case and what people could de and did do. 5 Q. Did you aver personally utilize Cara Selmer 6 akills in any of your cases? 7 A. I don't remember. 8 More you handling any oases during the 2009? 9 I was overseeing cases in 2009, but my 10 involvement was mostly supervisory. I was handling 11 very little that was legitimate at that point in time. 12 Q. Were you legitimately, when I say 13 alegitinately,w were you invited into g-task on any 14 particular cases that you can recall? 15 A. I'm certain I was. I don't recall one way 16 or the other. 17 Q. Do you recall if you ware involved in 18 Mr. Rpstein's case on Cp-task? 19 A. I may wen, well have been, but I don't have 20 a specific recollection ono way or the other. 21 Q. Do you know who invited you in? 22 A. I have no idea if I yea invited in. And it 23 I was invited in, I have no idea who invited me. 24 Q. Once you decided to usa this case in your 25 Penal seiss, did you go into O-task to look at the FRIEDMAN. EOM BA RD I & OLSON 56 I case or any communications -- 2 A. I may have. 3 Q. Do you recall when that -- 4 A. I may have. Q. Do you recall when that may have happened? 6 A. I do not. 7 Do you recall the first time you looked at 4 the flight manifest to which you referenced earlier? 9 A. Prior to the investors coming in. 10 remember the date. 11 Did you instruct anybody, to further your 22 Ponzi &theme, to investigate or Check into anyone 13 whose name was listed on the flight manifest? /4 A. I may have, but with this clarification. If IS I instructed someone to look into something, 1 did it 16 without that person knowing that I was involved in a 27 Penal scheme or that what they ware doing was illegal 28 and it was just to get me additional information to 19 help with my sale of the fake settlements. 20 So it was to further your -- 2/ A. So I may have asked someone -- I may have 22 asked mamone to got me some additional information, 23 but as I sit here today, I don't recall ever asking 24 anyone to do anything on the file that was for the 25 purpose of furthering the Pone! scheme, other than I don't FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDM MBARI D &OLSON EFTA01117312 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Is 19 29 21 22 23 24 25 57 perhaps getting me a piece of information that I Q. I'm going to try to refresh your recollection as to whether or not you attended those meeting in July of 2009. And it appears that in between the dates of July 22nd, 2009 and July 24th, 2009, there was a number of communications through e-mail by and between yourself, Mr. Adler, Brad Edwards and Ben Jenne regarding an Epstein meeting that was going to be taking place. Do you remember that et all? A. I think what you are referring to, and I'm not certain, but I think that what you are referring to is am making sure that the file was in the condition in which I vented it at the time the investors wore coming in. I don't think it had anything to do with the actual functioning of the Epstein cams. I think it had to do with my illegitimate purpose. That's the best of my recollection, but if you have documents or something that you can show me, that would be helpful. Q. We are not privy to all of the e-malls because they've been alleged as privileged or work product, so I unfortunately can't show them to you. But according to the'privilege log between • FRIEDNIAN I. &OLSON 59 1 prior testimony. It has no predicate. 2 SY Ns. RADDAD: 3 Q. That could have been the meeting in which 4 you introduced the Point investors to people working 5 on the Epstein case? 6 NR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. The 7 testimony was that there may have hears a meeting at 0 which investors may have bean introduced to ease 9 people working on the Epstein file. And your efforts 10 continuously to elseharacterize the prior testimony 11 are highly improper. I object. 12 BY WS. HADDAD; 13 Q. Scott, did you or did you not say that you 14 introduced some of the investors to some of the 15 lawyers on the Epstein case? 16 A. No, I actually said, Sonja, that I may have. 17 I have a recollection that I may have based upon you 15 just refreshing my recollection, but I just do not 19 remember one way or the other. This was, in the 20 scherzo of what I was doing, Insignificant. I was 21 simply trying to establish to the investors that this 22 was a real case, with real potential, with reel 23 lawyers working on it. Other than that, it was of no 24 interest to me. 25 Q. Row else would you convince than? You've 56 1 July 22nd and 23rd there were numerous a-mails sent 2 about the =meting. It was almost an all-hands-on-deck 3 type meeting where everybody needed to attend. It was 4 labelled the Epstein meeting with an Epstein 5 conference rocs reserved. 6 B you. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Yea. Okay. Mhet's your question and I will tell el. SCAROLA: First I'm going to object to counsel's testimony. but let's hear the question. BY NS. RADDAD: Q. The question Ls, does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not this meeting took place? A. To the best of my recollection, I actually had introduced sone of the investors to ems of the people working on the Epstein case, and that is likely the meeting that you are referring to. But for the life of me, I don't have a specific recollection of it. Q. But it could be the meeting where you introduced the Epstein litigation team to your Ponzi Jove scAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to object to the form of the question. It aisatetem the FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OISON 60 1 mentioned letting them look through the litigation 2 boxes, you've mentioned the meeting. Mut other wily 3 would you have convinced thee that it was a real case? 4 A. I mentioned letting them look at boxes, what 5 they did when / was out of the office, that's -- I 6 don't know because I couldn't see what they ware 7 doing. !hither two, I may have introduced than to S people in the office. !Weber three, I'm certain that 9 when the people brought the boxes to my office I 10 introduced thee to whoever was carrying the boxes. 11 And number four, the reset of it would have been all 12 stuff I created in my imagination because, again, it 13 was the sale of something that didn't exist. This was 14 not settling. There was no real settlement money. 15 There were no real settlement documents. I even 16 manufactured, I think, the actual plaintiff, because I 17 don't recall even knowing the plaintiff's real name or 1$ if I did it was of no significance to me. 19 0. Sow would you have manufactured a 20 plaintiff's name, would you have created additional 21 documents to further your Penal scheme using 22 Epstein se the defendant? 23 A. 24 D. low would you -- 25 A. The name just would have appeared on the FRIEDMA & OISON FRIEDNIA & OlSON EFTA01117313 1 2 3 61 confidential settlement agreement. Q. Mould they have already seen the documents at that point? 1 2 3 62 know this is a real case? So I was finally able to say this is how you know, here is a case file. I may hove, I don't remember specifically one way or the I can't tell you one way or the other what 4 other, but I may have utilised actual plaintiff mmes 5 they had seen, because I don't know what they actually 5 from the cases filed, but I have them may made up. I 6 looked et. 6 have no specific recollection one way or the other. I 7 Q. Forgive ma, you've now confused me so I'm 7 was totally peered toward simply getting the investor 0 just going to ask you for some clarification. 0 money into the Ponsi scheme. 9 You used a legitimate case and created fake 9 Q. Were you aware Chat the day after this 10 settlement documents, correct, in the simplest sense? 10 meeting took place on July 24th. 2009, a now federal 11 A. If this culminated in an actual sale of a 11 complaint was filed against Epstein with ono of the 12 fake eettlement, then the answer is yes. 12 same plaintiffs that was already pending in state 13 Q. So it was a real case with a real plaintiff 13 court? 14 and real defendant, just a fake settlement docunent? 14 A. I don't know that I was aware of that or 15 A. No. Let me see if I can clarify this for 15 not. If they were filing it, someone may have told 16 you. Over 90 percent of the settlenents that I sold, 16 re. I don't recall one way or the other. 17 the fake settlements, were completely fictitious? 17 Q. Did you ask anyone to file it to further 19 Q. Right. 10 your Pont/ *chows? 19 A. A very small percentage of them were based, 19 A. No, I don't remember doing that. 20 at least in part, on some type of real litigation that 20 Q. Do you recall any situation where you -- 21 either had occurred or was currently occurring. I 21 A. You do realize -- Sonja, hang on. I just 22 utilised the Epstein cam to bolster the visual for 22 want to make sure this record is clear. Other than 23 the investors that a real case existed. Semen as 23 Ruse Adler, the people that were involved in the 24 these were being sold to more sophisticated investors, 24 Epstein case had absolutely nothing to do with the 25 the questions kept casing up, was there -- how do we 25 Ponsi scheme. FRIEDMAN LONIBAR &OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOSIBARDI & OLSON 64 1 Q. nirectly? 1 Hold on one second. 2 Or indirectly. They had nothing to do with 2 Okay. Whet amber an I looking at? 3 it. 3 It's a very large document. It's begins 4 Q. Yet the file was used for you to further 4 with Hates Stamp Humber 091 and ends with 264. 5 your Ponsi scheme. I'm not saying that they gave it 5 A. It's in the computer, hold on a second. 4 to you to use for the Panel. scheme, I'm &eking, you 6 I have that in front of me. 7 S used their case. I'm not -- the question is you used the case? 0 stamped? Do you see the date on that complaint 9 A. I took advantage of sew good, innocent 9 A. I do. 10 people for my own and my co-conspirator's illegal 10 0. And there's -- give me one second, Scott, 11 purposes. Hr. Edwards is one of them, and for that I 11 sorry. 12 an sorry, Bred. 12 What was the date that complaint was filed? 13 0. Did you ask anyone Involved in the Epstein 13 A. What's the last page of the complaint, 14 case to file a federal complaint? 14 what's the Bates °unbar? 15 M. SCAROLA: Objection, repetitious. 15 a The lest page is 234. I'm sorry, 263 would 16 THE WITNESS: Without seeing • document, 16 be the that page of the complaint. 17 Tonja, I can't tell you one way or the other. I 17 (She Complaint referred to was marked for 10 don't -- do If have le identification as Defendant's Exhibit 1.1 want to I not want to guess. you 19 an e-mail where I'm saying to someone, file a federal 19 M. SCARDLA: You may want to call his 20 case, then obviously I did. But I have no specific 20 attention to the filing stamp on the first page. 21 recollection of that. 21 I . HADDAD: I did. I guess he didn't hear 22 BY MS. HA DAD: 22 ma. 23 You do have a document it's 23 TM WITNESS; I'm sorry. 0. with you, marked 24 for you, it's Bates stamped. It begins at IP OBI and 24 M. RADDAD: It's steamed en the first 25 goes through through 264. 25 FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON FMEOKliiiiiii 4g OLSON EFTA01117314 1 2 3 65 THE WITNESS: Rang on. the complaint is dated July 24th. 2009. It use entered onto the &canon July 277.11, 2009. 1 2 3 64 address from your firm: is that correct? Yes. And were you filing any cases beck in 2009 4 HR. !CAROL.: Do you have another questice? 4 in federal court? Do you remember how PACER work.? 5 HE. Steen: I thought he was still looking. 5 HR. SCAROIA: Which question would like 6 Scott, are you done looking? 6 answered? 7 TILT WITMiss: Yee. one second. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 8 MS. HAMAD: Toat's what I thought. 8 MR. SCAROIA: Objection, compound. 9 TEE WITNESS: No, bang on one second. It 9 BY MS. HADDAD: 10 shows the stamp on the first page says July 24th. ID Q. Do you remember how PAM worked when you 11 2009. The filing any electronically tiled July 24th, 11 were filing a case, Scott? 12 2009. There's an entry onto the docket on Joly 2/, 12 A. I actually never actually did the actual 13 2009, and the complaint is signed July 24th, 2009. 13 electronic filing procedure. I had people that did 14 That's all the dates I have. 14 that. I knew that we could file electronically. 15 SY HE. HADDAD: 15 Q. Do you know the purpose of your using your 16 Q. Okay. And hack on sates steep Page Weber 16 e-mail address when you were filing electronically in 17 263, who's the attorney that filed this ones) 17 fedora/ court? 18 A. I don't know if that's his signature, but 18 A. I guess so you can get a receipt, but I have 19 the name is Brad Edwards. 19 no idea. 20 O. Okay. And does that e-mail -- 20 Q. Did you ever receive an e-mail fret federal 21 With the squiggle on top of it. 21 court in your e-mail address that showed that a 22 And does that e-mail address look like the 22 document had been filed with the stamps that you see 23 correct e-mail address for AAA? 23 on the top of that one? 24 It la. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, are you 25 So that is, in fact, a legitimate s-sail 25 attempting -- FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI& OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 67 60 1 THE W1TNESs: 1 don't know one way or the 1 from federal court? 2 other. 2 A. I'm certain I did, Sonja. I don't have a 3 HR. !KAROL.: Are you attempting to 3 specific recollection of getting the one pertaining to 4 establish that that complaint was filed in federal 4 this. I don't even know if they sent it to me. I 5 court by and Edwards? 5 would imagine they'd sand it back to Mr. Edwards. 6 NS. HADDAD: I'm asking his if he recalls 6 The filing attorney? 7 the way lt•a drafted and why. 7 I suspect, turtles. the PACER system is B MR. KARMA: Just ask your question. 61 registered on my name, then maybe St cases to me, but 9 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking • question. If you 9 I am completely guessing. 10 have any objection, please lay it on the record. 10 Q. But based upon the o -mail communications of 11 HR. SCASOL.: No, what I want to do is try 11 July 22nd and the meeting occurring on July 23rd. this 12 to save some time. If whet you are trying to 12 complaint was filed the day of this meeting; is that 23 establish is that Brad filed the complaint in federal 13 correct? 14 court on July 24th and used the PAM system, you /4 A. Okay. But here is the problem with your 25 don't need to ask any goose questions about that, it 15 question, I don't remember whether or not there 16 happened. 16 actually was a meeting. I said there may have been, 17 NR. COLDHERCER: We appreciate that, but 1/ end I don't hove an independent recollection of this IS when we depose you we'll ask you that question. Hut 18 being filed. I do not have an independent 19 we are deposing Rothstein right now so let her ask 19 recollection of whether I told someone to filo this. 20 her questions. Don't do this speaking stuff, let her 20 And for the life of me, this I em certain of, if I 21 esk the questions, okay? 21 told Hr. Edwards CO file • complaint in federal court, 22 IS. SCAROL.: Maybe. 22 if there wasn't a legitimate reason for him to do it, 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. go ahead, Tonja. 23 he wouldn't have done it. 24 BY MS. MADDED: 24 Q. Do you recall if this federal cars was filed 25 0. Scott, did you ever get e-rile like that 25 when you decided to use the case for your Ponsi scheme FRIEDMAN & OLSON FRIEDMAIMS OLSON EFTA01117315 69 70 1 and show it to your investors? 2 A. It may have been filed around that time, 3 because 2 haven't been able to establish the exact 4 time. It also certainly may have been utilized by aa S to further the Ponsi scheme. Also, I don't have an 6 independent recollection of that either. Without 7 seeing e-mail traffic, I can't tell you one way or the S other exactly what was going on et that time. 9 Q. Well, then I.11 point you to another 10 which is marked mu EP 001. 11 Mt. EDWARDS Let me see it. 12 la. BADDAD: I sent a copy to your orrice. 13 I . SCANDLA: Bo would like to see a copy 14 now. Thank you. 15 IThe E-mail referred to was marked for 16 identification as Defendant's inhibit 2.1 17 BY MS. BADDAD: IS Q. Mere you able to find it, Scott? 19 A. Got it. yes, 2 have it 20 0. You have it, okay. 21 You said Cera Noises used to be an FBI 22 agent, correct? 23 MR. SCAROLA: No. What ha said is -- 24 Yet NIT SS: OM or 25 FRIEDMAN LOAI BA RDI & OLSON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 BY MS. BADDAD: Q. Or ISIS. We'll use the blanket term federal pent. Is that a fair sssss meant? Yes. Thank you. Do you recall When you hired her to work for Q. you? A. Q. 11 other. 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 I do not. Was it in 2009? I don't have a recollection one way or the Q. Okay. Save you aver seen this e-mail before? I saw it when I was reviewing your exhibits. Before that I have no independent recollection of having seen it. I'm not copied on it mo Q. Did you over have any communications with Me. Balms about people that were close to Mt. Epstein? 20 A. I do not remember. 21 Q. You stated earlier that you knew that 22 Mr. Epstein was a wealthy man. Is that a fair 23 statement? You called him "collectible,' vas that 24 because he had money? 25 MR: SCAROLA: Be called him a billionaire FRIEDMAN, Loki BA RDI & OLSON 1 2 3 4 S 71 too. MS. BADDAD: Billionaire. Tat WITNESS: I knew he was a billionaire. BY MS. BADDAD: Q. Do you have any independent recollection in 2 2 3 4 5 72 Q. Never heard that mama before? A. Alfredo Rodrigues? Q. Yes. A. It's not ringing any bells to me. Q. Do you remember hearing at your office with 6 the month of July 2009 of this case being intensified 6 respect to Mr. Epstein's case that one of his framer 7 in any way such es going after those 01000 to Mr. Epstein? 7 employees vas willing to cam forward with a big book of name? 9 A. I don't reflex that one way or the other. 9 I don't remember that one way or the other. 10 Q. If you knew that Mt. Epstein was a 10 You have Q. no recollection of that. 11 billionaire, do you have any recollection of asking 11 Do you recall anyone approaching to ask if 12 someone to investigate those close to It. Epstein to 12 the office can purchase Nis book? 13 further your Pons' scheme? 13 I don't recall that. 14 A. I don't have an independent recollection of 14 Q. Do you retell instructing any of the 15 that one way or the other. 15 attorneys in your office to get an opinion from 16 Q. Do you recall if you ever directed the 16 Kendall Coffey whether or not they can legally and 17 depositions to be taken of the people who were listed 17 legitimately purchase this hook? 1$ on the flight manifest that you saw? IS I don't recall that one way or the ether. 19 A. I don't recall one way or the other. I may 19 [The Complaint referred to was marked for 20 have told the investors that I was going to take the 20 identification as Defendant's Exhibit 3.) 21 depositions without over intending to take than but I 21 BY MS. HAMAD: 22 don't recall one way or the other. 22 Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to 23 Q. Are you familiar with a gentleman by the 23 what's now Bates steed as EP 002, which I'm sure you 24 name of Mr. Rodriguez, Alfredo Rodrigues? 24 haven't seen before since you just said you didn't 25 25 know who he was, but I'll give you a minute to look FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMANIM& OLSON EFTA01117316 73 /4 1 over it 2 3 4 5 6 A. 7 O. 6 A. 9 This is rather long. DO you want CO direct so to a specific portion of it? Q. Cure. If you look at the Peg* Bates Stamp EP 006, Paragraph 5 and 6. Okay. I read number five. Would you please read number six as well? Okay. Does this refresh your memory as to whether 10 or not anyone ever asked you in your office about 11 purchasing • book? 12 A. It dome not. 13 Q. Do you know that the cooperating witness was 14 an attorney who worked for you at your firm? IS A. I did not know that until you just said it 16 right now. 17 Q. According to Paragraph Number 5, "The IS deposition of this Mk. Rodrigues occurred On 19 July 37th. 2009;" is that correct? 20 MR. SOMMOLA: Is it correct that that's 21 what it says? I'm going to object to the form of the 22 question, it's vague and ambiguous. 23 BY M.B. HADDAD: 24 Q. That's what's listed in the federal 25 complaint, correct? FR I F.DMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 15 1 know who it was. 2 Q. You are testifying that you didn't know it 9 had anything to do with the Epstein case, as you sit here now, you don't remember? 5 A. No, no, I don't have a epeCific 6 recollection, and I want to just sake sure so I answer 7 all your questions completely, is that ea 2'm sitting I here my recollection was refreshed that I have a vague 9 recollection of having a conversation with Ken Janne 10 about the fact that someone in our office was going to 11 cooperate as a confidential informant for some law 12 enforcement agency, I just can't remember if it was 13 the Epstein case or not. 14 Q. Do you recall what you said to Mr. Jenne 15 about that? 16 A. No. What I just related to you is all 1 17 remember. And I'm not even sure it had anything to do IS with this. 19 20 21 22 Q. A. 0. A. Who's anlme Black? Who? Wayne Black. Sounds like the name of someone I hired, but 23 I could be mistaken. I don't recall. 24 Q. Okay. you don't recall ever meeting 25 Mt. Black? 1 A. What does it say? Say it again. 2 Q. It says, 'The first deposition occurred on 3 July 27th." correct? 4 A. Yes. S Q. Sane throe days after the federal complaint 6 was filed, correct, that we referenced earlier? 7 A. That's correct. O. And Paragraph 6 clearly delineates that in 9 August 2009 a phone call was received by the 10 cooperating witness that explained that this 11 Mt. Rodrigues had a list of other purported victims or 12 contact information for people who Mr. Edwards could 13 also potentially bring lawsuits for -- on behalf of; 14 is that correct? 15 A. I don't know ono way or the other. you 16 know, Tonja, just so this record is clear, you know, 17 es I'm sitting hare, I have a vague recollection of 18 perhaps Ken Jenne coming, talking to me and telling me 19 that someone in ay office was going to cooperate with 20 seamen in this investigation. Hut for the life of 21 me, I can't be certain of that. So much time has 22 passed, but as I'm reading this, and it could be 23 completely unrelated to this, I just want to make sure 24 the record is s hundred percent clear, it'epossible .25 that Yen Jenne discussed that with me, but I don't - 1 2 3 5 6 7 6 9 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FRILDAIA OLSON I may have. I don't recall ono way or the other. You have something that sight refresh my recollection? 0. 76 Do you know what he doss for a living? I do know the nee. Sounds familiar to me, but I can't recall one way or the other who he was or what he did. Q. Did you instruct your office to begin investigating Mk. Epstein's pilot or his airplanes? A. I do not recall one way or the other. Q. You did testify that the flight manifest was the one document you recall for sure looking at in Mr. Epstein's case; is that correct? Yes. And if it did, in fact, contain the man that you aro purporting that it claimed or that you knew of, that would be something that would be juicy for the investors to further your eons! scheme that it was a collectible case; is that true? I'm earn', you have to repeat the question, Sonja. I don't understand what you just asked me. Q. If these big names ware on this list, as you seem to recall they were, that would be most helpful to you and your Pormi scheme investors in Convincing them it was a big case, right? FREEDMANLOMBARDI OISON FRIEDMAN & OLSON EFTA01117317 77 1 A. If they were on chore, or if I lied to the 2 and told the they were on there, or if Adler told ma 3 they were on there and I repeated, all those things 4 would have been helpful to the Ponsi scheme. 5 Q. You stated earlier that you -- the only 6 thing you looked at was the flight manifest because 1 you were told to look at at. Is that still true? A. That's not what I testified to. I testified 9 that I flipped through other parts of the file and 10 that I didn't reamober what I had flipped through. I 11 remember looking at the flight manifest because 12 Mr. Adler told me about it. 13 Q. You said that you met these investors in 14 your office, but there were no cameras in your office, 15 correct? 16 A. I didn't have cameras specifically in my 1? office. 18 Q, You had these investors in your office for 19 this particular Epstein case? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you recall if it was during work hours or 22 after work hours? 23 A. I do not recall. 24 Q. Typically when you were meeting with your 25 potential Ponti investors, did you meet the during 1 2 FRIEDMAN. LONIBARDI& OLSON Q. So what did he do et RRA? A. My best recollection is that he had been a 79 3 former ADT officer and so it would reason that he 4 would be working in our alcohol beverage practice that 5 we were establishing. 6 Q. Do you know if he ever did any work for your 7 firm as an investigator? He may have. I don't have a specific 9 recollection one way or the ether. 10 Q. Did you ever spook to the press about the 11 Epstein case? 12 I don't have a recollection one way or the 13 other. 14 Did you ever have Rip utilise the Epstein 15 case to put any publicity or spin out there with 16 respect to the case? 17 A. I don't have a specific recollection of that 28 one way or the other. 19 Q. Did you ever instruct Brad or Russ to talk 20 to the press about the case? We'll start with Brad 21 than Russ. 22 A. I do not specifically recall getting 23 involved at the publicity level of that case. I don't 24 have a recollection one way or the other. 25 Q. Would that publicity have been good for your 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 20 11 12 23 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 19 14 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work hours or after work hours? Both. Did you always meat with then in your office or did you do it more socially down at Bova or elsewhere? Both. But with this particular case, do you recall meeting then at least one tin. in your office where they could look through the files? A. Actually, that group of investors ware looking at a lot of different cases or at least multiple different cases that we more attempting to lure the into the Penai schema utilising, so I met with thee on multiple occasions, both in my office and at restaurants. Q. Q. A. Who is Mike Piston? Nike Piston was a law enforcement officer of ease type that I hired. Q. Why did you hire him? A. Be was a ken Jenne suggestion. And were you hiring him to start up your company with Na. Jenne, as you indicated earlier? A. I don't recall what the purpose of hiring him was. It had nothing to do with what Ran Jenne was doing for us. FRIEDA' ' LSON BO Pons'. .chm investors? A. Not really. Q. Would it have given more legitimacy to your allegation that it was a good case in which they should invest? A. In the way that I was selling the Ponsi settlements, it would have likely been overkill, Q. So did you ever instruct them not to speak to the prams about the case? A. I don't recall that either one way or the other. Q. If it had gotten out there that the cases had not, in fact, settled, es you were claiming when you were selling the settlement, would that have hindered your case, your Penal investor's case? A. Not really because they would have no way of knowing if 1 hod created a fake plaintiff's name. I mean, there could have been something in the news that -- and I don't know that there was -- there could have been scmething in the news that says nem of this settled. And I just simply would have created a fake name with my co-conspirators, created a fake set of settlement docissants and handle it that way. Did you know where It. Epstein lived? I only knew that he was fret Palm Beach. FRIEDMAN MBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN 1.07.111 @ OLSON EFTA01117318 2 2 3 81 other than that, no. Q. Okay. In 2009, did you ever have any fins meetings? 1 2 3 92 have? You said "still require," which would have meant that I testified -- 4 A. Of any type? 4 Q. Sorry. 5 Q. Of any type, in general, firm meetings. 5 -- previously that it was requiring them. 6 A. I'm certain I did. 6 Q. Dad you require attorneys at your firm to Q. Do you recall about how many? 7 attend your fundr 8 A. I do not recall. 8 A. I asked them to, I urged them to, I tried to 9 O. Did you ever have any partner meetings? 9 cajole them into coming. but It wasn't an absolute 10 A. Yea. 10 requirement. 11 Q. Do you recall how many? 11 Q. Do you recall between April and July of 2009 12 A. I do not. 12 how many fundraisers you would have had? 13 Q. Do you recall how many partners you had at 13 A. I do not. 14 the firm in 2009? 14 Q. Did you have fundraisers anywhere besides IS A. I do not. 15 your her in 2009? 16 Q. Do you recall how many fundraisers you had 16 A. I probably did, but I don't recall without 17 at your home in 2009? 17 seeing the documents. If you have the invitation or 18 A. I do not. 18 the e-mails, that would help me. 19 Q. More than 10? 19 Q. Did you hold fundraisers at your office in 20 I'd be guessing, fonja. 20 2009? 21 Q. Okay. 21 I have. That have been may wouldn't 22 A. It's easy @menet, to check, there's state and 22 unusual. but I don't have a specific recollection. 23 federal records of all that stuff. 23 Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs in 24 Q. In 2009. did you still require the attorneys 24 the Epstein case? 23 from your firm to attend the fundr you would 25 I don't have a specific recollection of FRIEDMAN I I &OLSON FRIEDNIAMS& OLSON I 83 that. 1 ea Q. When did you hire him? 2 Q. Do you recall ever revving copies of e-mails 2 A. 2008 or 2009. I don't have a specific 3 from Mr. Jenne with respect to the plaintiffs in the 3 recollection. 4 case that the subject matter would say "information we Q. If you hired lawyers who didn't have a book 5 5 of business, what kind of practice did they do at your need to use"? 6 A. I don't recall that one way or the other. 6 office? 7 It's certainly possible. 7 A. It depended upon the lawyer. I would have Do S tried to get thee to work with other lawyers in an Q. you retell ever reviewing anything that 9 was titled "causes of action against Epstein•? P area that they either were proficient in or wanted to 10 A. I do not have a specific recollection of 10 Demme proficient in. 11 that one way or the other. 11 Q. Okay. You had a meeting at your office 12 12 during which you wore asking about information Q. Do you recall ever reviewing with Mr. Jenne 23 or any other investigator in your firm any information 13 regarding referring attorneys, attorneys who had 24 regarding Mr. Lpstein's house staff or airplane staff? 14 referred business to the firm. Do you know whet I'm 15 A. I do don't recall that one way or the other. 15 talking abort? I believe it wee back in December of 16 I may have, I may not have. 16 '08 or early 2009. 17 Q. Who is Bill Berger? 17 A. The way you are characterizing that meeting, 19 A former Pala Death judge that we hired. 18 I had a lot of meetings like that. 19 Q. Okay. What was his role at your firm? ID Q. What was the purpose of those? 20 Be was a shareholder. 20 A. You are going to have to be more specific 21 Q. what kind of practice? 21 for me, Sonja. 22 A. Litigating oases. 22 Q. Let', start generally then. What was -- you 23 0. What kind of practice did he litigate? What 23 said you had many meetings like that. Tell Ise whet 24 kind of cases did he litigate? 24 these meetings were for? 25 I don't recall specifically. 25 A. Haim; sure that we were maximizing FRIEDA1AN. LOMBARDI & OLSON FR1EDMA OLSON EFTA01117319 9 10 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 generation of business into the law form. Q. What kind of business, legitimate business or the other -- A. Legitimate business. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. 6 A. Legitimate business. The general meetings 7 that you are discussing, that was legitimate business. Q. So there vas a meeting for all attorney* to attend regarding generating business, those meetings were for the legitimate business? If it vas addressed to all attorneys, yes. Okay. And if an e-mail vent out to all attorneys, did paralegals and support staff get it as well or was it just directed to the attorneys? Certain support staff probably ware on that list, like my CID and COO, and perhaps my IT people, but it was general for the attorneys. Q. With respect to your IT people, did you have the Capability to review e-mails and internet activity of all of your employees? 95 A. Q. A. Q. A. I did. Including attorneys? I did. Did you ever utilize that tool? Very infrequently. It was•a pain because I - FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 57 1 Q. If the expenditures were being made on a 2 case that were substantial, did you have to approve 3 them or did you have a specific practice for them? 4 A. The head of a practice group could basically S approve them but Irene, our CFO, would generally run 6 Owes by me before she actually cut the check. If I 7 wasn't around she'd run it by Stu. 8 51- So as the equity partners you had the 9 authority to make the determination what funds could 20 and could not be expended? 11 A. As the Shareholders, es the two 50 percent 12 shareholders, we controlled the finances. 13 Q. And if Irene mess caning to you to tell you 14 what the funding was for, to get approval rather, 15 would she tell you specifically what the funding was 16 for or just tall you "we need $100,000"? 17 A. No, if it was a substantial expense -- 18 Q. Tell me what you deem as substantial. 19 A. That would have been -- substantial to me 20 would have been based upon how much money we had in 21 our coffers at the time. So, if it was one of those 22 periods of time where we had 20 or $30 million 23 floating around the law firm, Irene probably would 24 have just written a check without even letting me know 25 we were writing it. If it was one of those times es substantial and whether or not she would have checked with me depended upon the circumstance at the time. Q. You stated earlier, and I think I'll got this quote right, that 2009 was a dismal year; is that correct? A. For the legitimate law firm business, it was • dismal year. Q. So in the months immediately preceding the dissolution of RM, July to October of 2009, what would you Consider a substantial expense that had to be approved? It would very literally from day-to-day. Do you have any independent recollection of Q. 86 1 had to have Curtis Rene or Bill actually come into my 2 office, set up a special icon to allow me to do that. 3 It was a real pain, so it was rare. 4 Q. Who else attended the meetings that you had 5 with the Clockwork group with respect to the investors 6 in the Epstein case? 7 A. There were multiple meetings with what I'll 8 call the Clockwork investors at various points in 9 time. A variety of people came in and out of the ID meetings. Sam of the meetings occurred down in Bova. 11 Other people came up to the meetings. Some of the 12 meetings involved Michael Ssafrenski, our fake 13 independent verifier. Sao of the meetings may have 14 involved bankers and the like. I cannot tell you 15 specifically who was at those meetings. 16 Q. The specific meetings that we are talking 17 about with -- where you left the boxes at your office. 18 do you recall who else was there with you at that 19 meeting? 20 A. I only remember there being a handful of 21 people from the investment group and myself. I don't 22 recall -- and I remsebeir the guys bringing the boxes 23 the dawn, but they didn't stay for the meeting. There 24 may have been other people there, I don't recall one 25 way or the other who it vas. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 1 where we owed 20, $30 million in Pones payments out 2 and she needed to write a check for even $5.000, she 3 probably would have checked with me on thst. So 4 5 6 9 10 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 how you were doing in, say, July 2009? 10 The legitimate business was always doing 19 poorly in 2009, as far as I was concerned. 20 Q. So would you have -- 21 A. The Penni scheme had its manta of 22 significant wealth end significant poverty, so it 23 varied from tine to time. It was a daily thing. 24 Sometimes it wee hourly. It just depended upon what 25 was amino in and whet needed to go out. FSUEDNIAIIIIMS OLSON FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI& OLSON EFTA01117320 69 90 1 O. So would you have t0 utilise the 2 illegitimate funds to fund the legitimate cases at 3 Clams? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that varied daily you said? 6 A. Well, all the money was commingled together, 7 so we used whatever funds were in there to fund both 8 the legitimate and the illegitimate financial 9 requirement* of the firm, the Pones scheme and other 10 legitimate and illegitimate things that were going on. 11 Q. If an outside agency or investigator was 12 being utilized for a case and they needed a signed 13 retainer agreement with your firm, would you have to 14 approve that? 15 A. It would depend upon the significance of the 16 expense. I didn't necessarily get involved in every 17 retention of every expert in every cote. 18 Q. Okay. So it would depend on the coat or the 19 nature of the case? 20 A. Who the lawyer was, their level of 21 expertise, all things of that nature. 22 O. If it was this gentleman who you have no 23 recollection of meeting, Mr. Black, end the attorney 24 was Mr.-Edwards, was that something you needed to look 25 over? FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 91 1 approving or disapproving It. Wurik's travel, 2 Wr. Rosenfeldt's travel, Mr. Boden's travel, 3 Mr. Lippman's travel. That was their own thing. 4 If • younger lawyer like a Shawn Birks'. came 5 to me and said he need to travel out of state for 6 emething, if it was just for • deposition, I wouldn't 7 have gotten involved in that unless he was telling my e C90, Ma. Stay, that he wanted to fly first class end 9 stay in the Rita Carlton, then I would have gotten 10 involved. But other than that, no. The firm was too 11 big for me to get involved on a daily basis with all 12 that stuff. 13 Q. If Brad had to go out of state to take a 14 deposition, you wouldn't be the person to approve or 15 disapprove that? 16 A. Ross Adler would have handled that. And if 17 there was an issue, Russ would have come to me. And 1 le don't know what the relationship was specifically 19 between Brad and Russ, but it's certainly possible 20 that Brad just was going to go do whet he needed to do 21 to properly handle the case and I would have trusted 22 him to do that, 23 NS. HADDAD: Can we lust take a second. W4 24 ere going to take a minute, Okay? 25 THE WITNESS: Sure. 1 Did Wayne Black work for Ron Cacciatore? 2 Ara you asking me -- 3 I'm asking anyone in the room who wants to 4 talk to ma. Q. I love to talk to you. but I don't know the 6 answer to that question. He might have. Brad sight 7 be able to tell you. I . EDWARDS: No. 9 THE WITNESS: When you said Wayne Black's 20 nese again and that I hired him to do something, I 22 saes to think that he may have been associated in 22 sent way with Mr. Cacciatore, but I'm not sure one 13 way or the other. I don't remember whether or not I 14 met Mx. Black, it's possible I did, it's also 15 possible I did not. And I don't have an independent 16 recollection of retalaing him to do anything or 17 whether I was part and parcel of the decision if we 18 did, in fact, retain him, whether I wee part and 19 parcel of the decision to retain him. 20 In MS. EADDAD: 21 Q. Traveling out of state for depositions for 22 the particular oases, did you have to approve that? 23 It would depend upon who the lawyers were, 24 the significance of the expense. It would have been 25 case by case. I certainly would not have been FRIEDMAN OLSON 92 1 [Short recess taken.) 2 FURTHER DIRECT SEAKITATION 3 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 4 All right. Mr. Rothstein, Jack Oolcterger, 5 I'm going to ask you Baba qutations now. You 6 testified that you knew Jaffrey Epstein was • I billionaire. You did testify to that today, correct? B A. Ms. 9 Q. Okay. Tell mm how you knew that. Bow did 10 you know that Mr. Epstein was • billionaire? 11 Russ Adler told me. I looked him up on the 12 Internet 13 O. What did you look on the internet about 24 It. Epstein? 25 A. I don't recall, but I remember looking up an 16 seeing that he was very wealthy, that he was a 1? billionaire. IS Q. Okay. So as far as learning that 19 Hr. Epstein was • billionaire, you learned via two 20 ways, One was from Russ Adler. correct? Is that 21 correct? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And the other was through looking up 24 Mr. Epstein on the Snterrist, correct? 25 Yes. FRIEDMAN RIBA & OLSON FR1EDMA & OLSON EFTA01117321 1 2 93 O. Okay. And you don't know What you reviewed on the internet in an effort to determine that 2 2 96 from speaking to Mr. Adler could bring in a significant amount of money to the firm. 3 Mr. Epstein was a billionaire; is that correct? 3 Q. At that time Mr. Adler was one of your A. I do not recall. 4 co-conspirators in the Ponsi scheme: is that correct? 5 Q. Do you know when you did that? A. By this time, yes, sir. I do not. 6 Q. Okay. When did Mr. Adler become • Q. Was it prior to your needing to use the 7 co-conspirator in your Pone/ scheme? 8 Epstein case to further your Ponzi schema? a I don't recall the specific date. 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. Wes it before or after Mr. Adler recommended 10 Q. Okay. So prior to -- I think you indicated 10 that Brad Edwards be hired at your firm? 11 that you needed an influx of nosey at 5000 point and 11 Before. 12 that's when you decided to use the Epstein Cass in 12 So before Brad Edwards was hired at REA, 13 furtherance of the Parisi scheme; is that correct? 13 Russell Adler was • co-conspirator of yours in the 14 A. Yes. 14 illegal port of the BRA firm; is that correct? IS Q. So prior to that time though, prior to 15 A. Yes. 16 determining that you needed to use the Epstein case 16 Q. Then after that time you hired -- 11 for the Ponsi scheme, you looked up Mr. Epstein and 17 It. Edwards was hired after Adler was your 18 you spoke to Mr. Adler about his work; is that 28 co-conspirator? Toe are laughing, you are smiling. 19 correct? 19 why is that, sir? 20 A. Yes. 20 A. Because when you say "BRA" that way, the 21 Q. Why did you do that. Mr. Rothstein, if you 21 speaker sound*, it sounds like you are roaring. 22 weren't using the Epstein case at that point in your 22 O. Okay. I'll just say Rothstein, how about 23 Ponzi scheme? 23 that? You know what I'm talking about if I just say 24 Because it was • legitimate case in the 24 Rothstein. 25 legitimate portion of ARA that I had reason to believe 25 RRA is fine. FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 1 95 O. Okay. So Adler is your co-conspirator in 1 96 Q. What did Adler toll you about the Epstein 2 the Ponsi scheme at the time that'Srad Edward, is 2 case that Edwards had et the time you were I hired, correct? 3 contanplating hiring him to became a amber of the 4 Yes. 4 Rothstein firm? 5 Okay. Was it Adler who recommended to you Be told me that it was a huge case involving 6 that Bred Edwards be hired? 6 a billionaire pedophile and that it was a winner. 7 A. Yes. Es was ono of the people. 7 Q. Did you, when you heard that, did you think Q. Who else recommended that Edwards be hired? 8 that that was a case that could becoma part of your 9 A. I don't have 9 Ponti scheme? a specific recollection of who 10 it was, but others did. 10 A. No, I actually thought of it as a way to 11 Q. All right. But you have a recollection of 11 earn legitimate money to help me out of the Ponsi 12 Adler being one of the people, so let's talk about 12 scheme. 13 that, all right? Q. So at the time you hired Mr. Edwards and you 14 What did Adler tell you about Brad Edwards 14 were talking to Adler about Edwards, you were trying 15 when you hired him? Did he toll you that he had these 15 to got out from under the Ponsi scheme? 16 Epstein cases or an Epstein case in the fold? 16 A. In the balk of 2009 I was praying for some 17 A. Among other things, yes. 17 sort of legitimate influx of money to got out of the 18 Q. What else did be tell you? IS Ponsi scheme. 19 A. Told me he was • great lawyer and a great 19 Q. Okay. So now Adler tells you about this 20 guy. 20 Brad Edwards guy, did you know Brad Edwards before 21 Did he toll you whet his history was, what 21 Adler talked to you about him? Bad you run into him? 22 Edwards' history was prior to coming to the Rothstein 22 I may have. I don't have a specific 23 firm? 23 recollection one way or the other. 24 A. I'm certain that I asked him, but I don't 24 Q. Okay. So now he tells you that you should 25 have 25 consider hiring Brad Edwards, this is your a specific recollection of that conversation. EMBALM OLSON FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117322 97 911 1 co-conspirator talking to pig, right? Is that 1 together possible that I gave Russ the okay to hire 2 correct? 2 him before, I just don't have a specific recollection 3 Yee. 3 one way or the other. 5 And he saes, by the way. he's got this great Epstein case involving this billionaire, correct? 4 5 Q. At soak point, I take it, you learned, whether you set in on a meeting when his:. Edwards was A. Yes. 6 hired or whether your co-conspirator hired him, at 7 Q. Presumably then you had a meeting with Bred 7 sae point you learned that Mr. Edwards, in fact, had A Edward. when you set him: as that correct? 0 been hired by the firm; is that correct? 9 M. SCAROIA. Presumably ha had a meeting 9 A. I'm that I the final to certain gave okay 10 when he net hist 10 hire him. 11 MR. 007.081342M I's sorry. Its. ilcarola was 11 Q. Okay. When you were giving the final okay 12 cutting you off when you answered. so go ahead, answer 12 to hire him, I assume there had to be discussion of 13 again. 13 the money that he was going to be paid, correct? 14 It. BKAROAA: 1 didn't understand the 14 A. With somebody, yes. 15 question. 15 Q. Certainly with Mr. Edwards, right? I assume 16 BY MR. COUMIZACCR: 16 he wanted to know how much he was getting peid. 17 ie O. Bo you understand the question, Mx. Rothstein? 17 10 Yes, but I don't have a specific recollection of whether I discussed that with him or 19 A. I's not sore I do because you asked me if I 19 whether I authorized Adler or maybe even Rosenfeldt to 20 had a meeting when I met him and I think that meeting 20 discuss it with him. I don't recall. 11 ham is a seating. 21 O. Do you have the slightest idea how such 22 well, there wen a meeting, correct? 22 money Nr. Edwards was he first paid when joined the 23 1 most likely set him before I hired him. 23 firm, whet his salary was? 24 most likely talked to him before I hired him because 24 I don't have an independent recollection. 25 that was my general way of doing business. It's all 25 Q. Generally soneone like Its. Edwards at his FRIEDMAN & OLSON FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 99 100 2 level accomplishment his know the 1 factor I considered. of and age, you what 2 salary have been firm? 2 Q. All right. Do you know whether he brought, general would at your 3 A. It didn't work that way. 3 in his book of business, do you know whether he 4 Q. I see. Tell me how it worked. 4 brought any other oases to the fire other then the It's a case-by-case basis. S Epstein case? 6 Q. Teal me how it worked. 6 I don't recall one way or the other. case-by-case basis. Q. And how did you sake that determination on a 7 0. Okay. Do you know whether your -- well, bad question, 1 won't ask that. 9 case-by-case basis? 9 Now, you've talked a lot about Fen Jenne 10 A. Actual book business, book 10 here this morning. Was Xen Jenne part of your eons! of potential of 11 business, potentiality for growth, character, what be 21 scheme? 12 brought to the table, and obviously a function of how 12 A. NO, sir. 13 much money we had available at the time. 13 Q. Rad nothing to do with it, right? 14 Q. Okay. And you don't have any recollection 14 That's correct. 15 of the machinations that occurred in determining what 15 Q. Other than his hawing -- working for you as 16 Mr. Edwards salary would be, correct? 16 an investigator, he was not one of your 17 A. I do not. I? co-conspirators, right? 15 Q. But certainly ono of the things you would 10 A. Be didn't work for ma as an investigator, he 19 would be the book business, i.e. 19 worked for me heading up our investigative division, consider of the 20 Epstein case, right? 20 heeding up our internal security, heading up my 21 A. I'm certain that I did consider the Epstein 21 personal security, and acting as a political advisor 22 case. 22 to me. 23 Q. Do you know whether he brought any other 23 Q. Okay. Did he serve any kind of 24 book of business -- 24 investigative function at all, after all, he was a law 25 A. But I'm also certain it wasn't the only 25 enforcement officer at one point in his career? FRIEDMAN, LOAIBARD1& OLSON FRIEDMAN LONIBA I OLSON EFTA01117323 101 102 1 A. I note that he assisted the other people at I trying to make money. 2 the firm that were doing the investigative work. I 2 Q. And these young lawyers, would you consider 3 don't know if he personally did investigative work. 3 Mr. Edwards to be a young lawyer or a middle-aged 4 Be may have. 4 lawyer? S Q. Do you know whether Mr. Jenne, in his role S A. Young lawyer. 6 as your advisor or your political consultant, do you 6 Okay. Was he one of young lawyers that came 7 know if he was involved in any kind of illegality. 7 to these fundraisers at your home? 4 illegal wire tapping or anything like that while he a A. I don't recall whether he was there or not. 9 was at Rothstein? 9 I recall him being at some, but I didn't know if ha 10 I . SCUIDIA: Excuse me, I'm going to 10 was at all of them. 12 object to the form of the question. vague and 11 Q. Okay. You do recall him cooing to zoos of 12 ambiguous. 12 the fundraisers, though, correct? 13 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge he was not. 13 A. I recall him being at my hems. It may have 14 BY MR. COMECERGER: 14 bean for firm parties or other parties, it may have 15 Q. To your knowledge, no? 15 been for fundraisers there. 16 A. Correct. 16 Q. And that was during the time period that the 17 Q. Okay. You talked about having a bunch of 17 Ronal scheme was still going on, correct? 1B fundraisers, I know you had a bunch of fundraiser* 16 A. Yee. 19 that vas kind of a deal at Rothstein. This was kind 19 Q. Did Adler ever the tell you about any 20 of a rock star law fine, right? I mean, you had iota 20 discussions he had with Bred Edwards about the illegal 22 of fundr ' , Iota of parties, right? Was that the 21 part of the operations at Rothstein? 22 image you were trying to present? 22 Can you reask the question, p 23 A. In reality that's the way we were. 23 Q. Sure. Sure. 24 Q. Okay. 24 - Did Russell Adler ever tell you -- Russell 25 . A. A lot of young lawyers having • good time. 25 Adler is your co-conspirator, we've established that. FRIEDNIA S. OLSON FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI& OLSON 103 104 1 Did Russell Adler in the furtherance of your 1 was a real case going on, but that within that I would 2 conspiracy ever tell you ho had discussed with Brad 2 have to create sees sort of fictions in order to sell 3 Edwards about the illegal activities at ERA? 3 the fake product. 4 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. At the tine that TWO decided to use 5 Q. Now, you testified when asked about whether 5 the Epstein case as part of your illicit Ponxi *chase 6 the press -- if you ware involved in asking the press 6 theme, I think you testified earlier today, when you 7 to run with the Epstein story, you said something to 7 were in some dire straights, you osoci•cl W. influx of B the effect, "the way I was selling the Ponoi scheme it 6 memo, right? 9 would be overkill.° 9 Yes. 10 I didn't understand your answer like you 10 That's when you decided to use the Epstein 11 didn't understand same of my questions, so I'd like 11 matters, correct? 12 you to kind of tell me what you meant by that. 12 A. Yes. 13 A. 2 was selling purportedly confidential 23 Q. Okay. And you knew, I &sinner, being the 14 settlements. Confidentiality was the hallmark of the 14 Pons*. *chase mastermind here, that you needed to make 15 Postai scheme, so too such publicity would have created 15 sure that you had at least a working knowledge of the 16 a problem for me in the sale of what was supposed to 16 Epstein case so that you could answer questions to the 17 be a completely confidential settlement. 17 . I recognise that you left the rocs and 10 Q. I think what you are telling me, and I don't 14 told the to look at it, but you had to some knowledge 19 want to misstate what I think you are telling me, but 19 of the case, right? 20 Is it true that you felt some publicity would be okay 20 MR. SCAROIA: Counsel, that's a 21 but too much would be counter to the purposes of the 21 mi•representetion of what the earlier testimony was. 22 conspiracy. Is that a fair statement? 22 I object, no proper predicate. 23 A. The way I was thinking about it at the time 23 MR. OOMBERGER: Okay, let's go through the 24 this was going on was that some publicity would assist 24 whole thing again. 25 in establishing for the potential investors that there 25 M. SCAROIA: No, you are not going to go FR1EDAIA & OLSON FRIEDMAN M D &OLSON EFTA01117324 105 106 1 through the whole thing again. Just because we have 1 Q. Okay. And do you remember what Adler told 2 tolerated two lawyers asking questions, does not mean 2 you specifically about the Epstein case that helped 3 we en going to tolerate two lawyers asking the same 3 you have a basis of information to sell it to the 4 questions. 4 investors? 5 mR. Go2DBEAGER: Your objection is noted. 5 A. Other then him telling me that it was a 6 By MR. GOLDBERGER. 6 billionaire pedophile, ether than him telling me about 0 Q. Okay. So let's talk about your need to use the Epstein case to further your conspiracy. You 7 the flight manifest, I don't haves specific recollection of what else he told me. 9 needed an influx of money, did you not? 9 Q. Did you actually look at the flight manifest 10 A. Yes. 10 at sometime, Mr. Rothstein? 11 Q. Okay. You decided to use the Epstein case 11 A. Yes. sir. 22 for that purpose, right? 12 0, And what was it about those flight manifests 23 A. Yes. 13 that you felt would help you pitch the Epstein case to 14 Q. And in order to use the Epstein case, you 14 the investor? 25 were going to meet with the investors and pitch the 15 A. I don't reserbar who specifically was on it. 16 Epstein case with the investors, correct? 26 but I remember it looking juicy. 17 A. Yes. 27 Q. You don't know who was on it? 18 O. And in an effort to pitch the case to the 18 A. I don't recall. 19 investors, you had to hen sane knowledge of the use. 19 O. Did you add any name to that manifest at 20 did you not? 20 any tine? 21 A. Boma level of knowledge, yes, sir. 21 A. I had -- you mean physically write names on 22 Q. Okay. And in order to gain that knowledge, 22 there? 23 you spoke to your co-conspirator, Ramon Adler: is 23 Q. Any way you want to interpret -- did you -- 24 that correct? 24 not physically write any names on the manifest, but 25 A. That's one of the things I did. 25 did you tell the investor, that there were names on FRIEDMAIMill& OLSON FRIEDMAN I I &OLSON 10? 2 the manifest that were actually not on the manifest? 2 A. I told the investors that Loon) were other 3 people that appeared on manifests, I don't recall 4 whether it was that manifest or other manifests, and I 5 got the names of those people from Russ Adler 6 Whether or not they actually appeared on the manifeSt 7 or another manifest, I do not know. 8 O. What names did you get from Buss Artier? 9 A. Rues Adler told ma that Bill Clinton flew on 10 Mr. Epstsin'a plane and that Prince Andrew flew on 11 Hr. Epstein's plans. 22 Q. And is it your testimony today that you 13 never looked at the manifest to see whether Bill 14 Clinton or Prince Andrew's name were really on the 15 manifest that you were going to use to pitch the 16 investors? 17 A. It was my understanding they didn't have all 18 the manifests. 29 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask for the manifests 20 that purportedly had the name of Bill Clinton or 21 Prince Andrew an it? 22 A. I probably did, but I don't have s specific 23 recollection one way or the other. 24 Q. Whom you say you didn't have all the 25 manifests, were all the manifests in your office -- 108 1 were all the manifests within the law firm of RRA and 2 you simply didn't have them in your office? 3 A. I have no idea one way or the other. 4 O. Okay. S A. I did not have them. 6 Q. You were told by Russell Adler that you 7 didn't have -- that you physically didn't have all the ▪ manifests, correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. But you don't know whether they were in the 11 building somewhere, these other supposed manifests? 12 A. I have no idea one way or the other. 13 Q. You never asked for proof that Bill Clinton 24 or Prince Andrew's name were on a manifest somewhere? 15 A. I didn't say that. I may very well have 16 asked Adler or Kam Jenne to find the ether manifests. 17 Q. Were you ever shown a manifest with the nano 10 Dill Clinton or the name Prince Andrew on them? 19 I do not recall one way or the other whether 20 I saw that or not. I remember Adler telling me about 21 it and then me repeating that information to the 22 23 24 25 investors based upon Mr Adler•s representations to Q. Now, you testified that you were told that the Epstein cases were •legitimate cease. Do you FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDAIAN &OLSON EFTA01117325 1 109 remember that testimony you gave this morning? 2 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. And you remesber your testimony that you 3 4 were told they were legitimate cases by both Buss 4 Adler and Brad Edwards, do you resister that? 6 A. I never said that Mr. Edwards or Mr. Adler 6 7 said, "Scott, those are legitimate cases." I didn't 8 question them as to their legitimacy. 9 Q. You did testify that you talked to Brad 9 10 Edwards about the Epstein came; is that correct? 10 11 MR. SCAROLA: No, counsel, that is • 11 12 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. 12 13 MR. GOLDBEAGIR: No, it's not. 13 24 BY MR. GOIDBEIMER: 14 IS Q. Did you talk to Brad Edwards about the 15 16 Epstein cases? 26 17 I do not recall one way or the other. That 17 18 was my prior testimony, that's still my testimony. 10 19 don't -- I do not retell. 19 20 Q. We'll let the reared Meek -- 20 21 A. I know I spoke to Adler about it. 21 22 Q. We'll let the record speak for itself. Your 22 23 testimony, as I am questioning you now, is that you do 23 24 not recall whether you spoke to Brad Edward. about the 24 25 Epstein cams: is that correct? 25 FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 111 1 BY MR. 0011311ERGER: 2 Q. So Ma. Holmes was working on the Epstein 3 cams? 4 A. It's my refreshed recollection from seeing 5 one of those e-mails that she must have been. 6 Q. Okay. And Ms. Bolas you said vas a former 7 federal law enforcement officer, was that your 8 testimony? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yea. You don't know whether she was FBI or 7AS, correct? A. I don't remember. Q. Okay. And upon reflection, do you know whether she was hired without your say-so based on what Mr. Jenne told you or did you meet with her? 16 A. No, I actually -- I remember mooting with 17 Ma. Bolas. ii Q. Okay. what do you remember about that 19 meeting? 20 A. I remember talking about her relative who 21 was a judge. I remember her telling me about her time 22 in law enforcement. I just don't remember which 23 agency. 24 Q. Did she tell you why she left law 25 enforcement? 110 If you are including within that as walking lint Brad in the hall and saying, "my, Brad how are you? Now is the Epstein stuff going?" Then it's very likely that I talked to hie about it in that manner. But I have no specific recollection one way or the other as to having soy lengthy conversations with Mr. Edwards about the case. I had a to-conspirator who was deeply involved in the Masi sdume that I could go to to get any information I wanted, Mr. Adler. I didn't need to go to Mr. Edwards. Q. So if you had a question of your co-conspirator, Adler, about the Epstein use, You would go ask Adler and would Adler always have the answer for you or would he say he would get you the answer? Roth. Q. When he didn't have the answer, do you know who he was getting the answer from? MR. SOMOZA: Objection, predicate. TM WITNESS: I don't know who he was getting it from and I may have contacted other people in the office who were working on the file to ask. I may have asked Mr. Jenne, I my have asked MS. Bolas; I many have asked a whole myriad of people. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 112 She may have, I don't recall one way or the 2 other. 3 Q. Did you ever ask Ma. Holmes to use any of 4 her prior contacts in law enforcement to assist you in S the Ponsi scheme to get information for you? 6 A. The question is kind of convoluted because 7 the way you are asking it, it seems like you are a intimating that Ms. Bobeas knew. / may have asked 9 It Balms to get me information that I was going to 10 utilise with my co-conspirators in the Itansi schema. 11 but ma. Balms did not know that there was a Shansi 12 scheme going on. 13 Q. All right. So you may have asked Ma. Malmo 14 to try and get see information for you from her 15 contacts in law enforcement, but it's your testimony, 16 and I don't dispute it, it's your testimony that she 17 know nothing about the Ponai scheme, correct? II A. I may have, I may not have. I do not 29 remember and she abaolutely knew nothing about the 20 hum/ scheme. 21 Q. Okay. Now, we talked about Brad Edwards 22 petting paid and the sultilevel ways in which you 23 determined what a person's salary was. Do you know 24 whether Brad Edwards got any bonuses along the way 25 once the Epstein cam was used as pert of the Fonsi FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117326 113 114 1 2 3 a 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 *these? Q. A. earned. Se did not. So he was -- If he got a bonus, it was something he Q. Did you make a determination as to what that bonus would be? A. If he got a bonus, I would have been instrumental in determining it. You can determine if he gots bonus by looking at our financial records, I don't have an independent recollection one way or the other. So you don't know whether he got a bonus at 14 all, correct? 15 That's correct. 16 Q. So I assume that if he got a bonus you 17 wouldn't know whether it occurred before or after the le Epstein case was used as part of the Ponsi scheme? 19 A. I don't know if he got a bonus, which means 20 I wouldn't know the time frees. 21 Q. But we would learn -- you are instructing 22 us, we would learn that by looking at when the Epstein 23 case was brought into the Ponsi scheme and we learn 24 that by looking at these -- what was the group that it 25 was used to pitch to? FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 115 1 because all the money went into a whole series of 2 pots. and if you look at, most of the pots were trust 3 accounts. If you look back, you look to see what my 4 CPO, who was also a co-conspirator was doing, she was 5 pulling the money from wherever she needed to to fund 6 whatever she needed to fund. 7 I . LaVECCBIO: Off the record a second. [Discussion off the record.] 9 BY MR. OOLDBERGER: 10 Q. Let me circle back to what you needed to 11 learn about the Epstein cases to help make your pitch 12 to the investors. 13 You talked about the manifest already, 14 correct, the flight manifest? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. What else did you want to learn about 17 the case or what else did you learn about the case so 20 that you were conversant when you spoke to the 19 investors about the Epstein case? 20 A. I recall asking someone what the causes of 21 action were. 22 Q. Okay. Did you understand what they were? 23 A. I likely did at the time. I don't remember 24 what they were now. 25 Q. Okay. Do you know which case we are talking 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 27 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 A. Clockwork. 2 Q. So we would look et when the Clockwork group 3 was brought into this and the Epstein case was used 4 than and then we would look at the payroll records to 5 see whether Mr. Edward* got a bonus after the 6 Clockwork group was brought into the Ponsi scheme, 7 correct? A. From a timing perspective, yes. But 9 Kr. Edwards had nothing to do with the Ponsi 10 nor was he rewarded even surreptitiously without his li knowledge for helping me with the Ponsi scheme. If he 12 waa rewarded it was because he deserved, I felt he 13 deserved a reward, having nothing to do with the Ponsi 14 wimme. The bulk of this law firm had nothing to do 15 with the Ponta scheme. 16 Q. I think you testified already, though, that 27 money was fundable in the firm, right? I Mean, YOU IS know, illegal money was used for legitimate purposes, 19 correct? 20 Tea. 21 Q. Okay. So, for example, investigations that 22 wens done with the Epstein case, it's very possible 23 that legitimate Ponsi money was used to finance those 24 investigations? 25 I'd be guessing. It's certainly possible FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 116 1 about? By the way, you had a number of Epstein oases 2 in-house, do you know which case you were talking 3 about? As I sit here today, no. sir, I don't 5 remember. 6 Was it a state case or a federal case? I don't remember one way or the other. Q. All right. A. I utilised all theme boxes all together. don't remember which one I sold Q. And Ute exhibits -- A. It's something completely fictitious that 2 made up that I told them. Q. The exhibit that you were shown earlier, Exhibit Humber 1, that's the long multi-page federal lawsuit. Do you know whether that was part of the information that you reviewed or shown to the investors when you were pitching to them? A. I do not remember one way or the other. Q. Okay. Now, did you make any effort to learn from your co-conspirator who the plaintiffs were in this case, what kind of women they were? A. Only that they were underage. 0. Did anyone tell you that these women had -- 25 eo . of these women had a history of prostitution? FRIEDSU & OLSON FRIEDMA & OLSON EFTA01117327 1 2 3 117 A. They may have told me that, I wouldn't have cared ono way or the other. O. Why would you not have cared about that, 1 2 3 118 of the underage women had travelled on Mr. Epstein's plane. Q. Did you aver meet any of the plaintiffs? 4 Mr. Rothstein? 4 MR. SCAR0LA: That's question that's been 5 A. It had nothing to do with the sale of the 5 asked and answered. 6 Pond schema settlements. 6 TEL WITNESS: I do not have a specific 7 Q. Okay. Were you told by anyone whether any 7 recollection of ever meeting the. 8 of the woman involved as plaintiffs Sr. the case may 0 MR. SCAROLA: You ere exhausting my 9 have in I 9 indulgence. worked at adult clubs the past? mean strip 10 elute, let's call it what it is. 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Fair enough. 11 A. I may have been told that one way or the 11 MR. SCAROLA: You've exhausted my 12 other. But again, it had nothing to do with the Ponzi 12 indulgence. 13 aches sale of fake settlements. 13 BY MR. 001DREMIER: 14 O. As part of the information that you were 14 Q. Do you know whether any of your 15 told by you co-conspirator, Russell Adler, were you 25 investigators at the firm had any kind of high tech 16 told that same of the plaintiffs that you had in-house 16 surveillance equipment or, you know, wire tapping 17 had travelled on Mr. Epstein's airplane? 17 equipment? 18 A. I believe Russ did tell me that. 18 A. I believe they did. 19 Q. You know, in fact, that that was not true, 19 O. Do you know whether this was legal stuff or 20 correct? 20 illegal staff? 21 I have no idea one way or the other, nor did 21 A. I did not know, nor did I care. 22 I care. 22 Q. Do you know if any of that stuff was used to 23 0. But your co-conspirator told you that, 23 either wire tap or surveil Mr. Epstein? 24 right? 24 A. I do not know one way or the other. 25 A. Mr. Adler did, in fact, tall me Net 25 O. What sort of equipment did you know that FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 119 120 1 had, meaning investigators? 1 have any knowledge of your firm's attempt during the they your 2 A. I had told Mr. Jenne and others involved in 2 Ponts scheme to depose Alan Dershowitz? 3 the investigation arm of ERA to get whatever equipment 3 A. No, sir. I don't have a recollection of one 4 they thought they needed and to got the best stuff 4 way or the other. 5 that they could get. Whet they actually did, I can't S Q. Okay. The name Kendall Coffey was brought 6 tell you. 6 up before. Do you know who Kendall Coffey is? 7 O. You know as part of the Epstein litigation, 7 Yes. 8 and I'm talking about now after your using it in the 8 Q. Who do you know him to be? 9 Ponsi echoes, do you know whether anyone at your firm 9 A. Former U.S. attorney, current criminal 10 attempted to depose es-President Bill Clinton? 10 defense lawyer. 11 I don't recall that, sir. 11 O. Was he a friendship of the firm's? 12 Okay. Bow about Donald Trump, same 12 A. Represented EPA when I fled the country. 13 question? 13 Q. So be was a friend of the firm. or a friend 14 A. I don't recall that. As a matter of fact, 14 of yours at least, right? 15 me had represented Trump in same things, we had some 15 A. Be wasn't a friend of mine. 16 pretty close ties with him, so I can't imagine that 16 Q. A friend of the firm? 17 they would have done that with my authority. 17 A. No idea. 19 O. Okay. 18 Q. Se represented them when I fled the country. 19 A. I don't recall that. 19 I remember him coming in and doing like a show and 20 Q. Do you know whether Adler would have -- 20 tell in my office on TV. 21 would Adler have the authorize to do that without 21 MR. GOLDBERGER' Patience gets rewarded. 22 getting your permission? 22 I'm done. 23 The authority, no. Might he have tried, 23 Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. That's all the 24 24 questions that I have. 25 Okay. How about Alan Dershowitz, do you 25 THE WITNESS: You aro welcome. FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI& OLSON FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117328 121 122 2 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Mr. Rothstein, again, Jack Sterol* on behalf 4 of Bred Edwards. I want you to sass that Brad has S testified under oath that you never had a substantive 6 discussion with him regarding the Epstein case. Do 7 you have any basis whatsoever to question the accuracy 9 of that testimony? 9 A. I do not. 10 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 11 testify under oath that while you were copied on 12 e-mails, you never attended a single legitimate 13 meeting regarding the legitimate prosecution of the 14 Epstein cases. Do you have any basis whatsoever to 15 question the accuracy of that testimony? 16 No, sir. 27 I want you CO assume that Bred has or will 18 testify under oath that you never directed the filing 19 of any documents in the Epstein came. including the 20 July federal complaint that's been marked as an 21 exhibit to your deposition. Do you have any reason 22 whatsoever to question the accuracy of that testimony? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. 1 want you to assume that Brad has or will 25 testify under oath that you never directed the taking FRIEDMA I& OLSON 123 1 the Epstein case. Do you have any reason to doubt the 2 accuracy of that testimony? 3 A. No, sir. 4 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has testified 5 repeatedly that he had absolutely no involvement in or 6 knowledge of any illegal activity engaged in by you Or 7 any other ARA lawyer. Do you have any reason to doubt 8 the accuracy of that testimony? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. I want to talk to you briefly about your 11 personal perceptions of the significance of the 12 testimony that you are giving today. If Brad Edwards 13 had, in fact, been a participant in any of the illegal 14 activities that you have been questioned about at any 15 stage of this very lengthy deposition, and you 16 knowingly concealed Brad Edwards' participation, whet 27 do you understand the personal consequences to be as a IS consequence of your having knowingly concealed Brad 19 Edwards' participation? 20 A. I'll be violating my agreement with the 21 United States government and I would run the risk of 22 dying in prison. 23 Q. If Brad Edwards, contrary CO what you have 24 testified under oath and what Brad himself has 25 repeatedly said, knew about anything having to do with 1 2 3 reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? 4 A. No, sir. 5 g. 1 want you to assume that Bred has or will 6 testify that you did not provide any input whatsoever 7 into the handling of the legitimate Epstein cases. Do 8 you have any reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy 9 of that testimony? 10 No, sir. 11 0. 1 want you to assume that Brad has or will 12 testify that you never net any of the legitimate 13 plaintiffs in the Epstein cases. Do you have any 14 reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? 15 A. No, sir. 16 NS. HADDAD: I'm going to object to these 17 amass questions you keep asking, because Nx. Rothstein of a single deposition. or the propounding of any discovery in the Epstein cases. Do you have any 28 has testified at nauseam that he doesn't recall 19 of this and now you are asking him to bolster 20 Mr. Edwards' either already given or purported 21 testimony when he's testified he doesn't recall it. 22 By It. &CAROLS: 23 Q. 1 want you to assume that Brad has or v111 24 testify under oath that you never asked him once to 25 report back to you on any factual matters regarding FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OISON any 124 1 illegal activities at the BRA firm and you concealed 2 your knowledge of Brad Edwards• knowledge of that 3 illegal activity, what do you understand the 4 consequences of that false testimony to be? S A. I.11 be violating my agreement with the 6 United States government and I would run the risk of 7 dying in prison. NR. SCAROLA Thank you. I don't have any 9 further questions. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. ll NR. !MIX: Nark, I don't know What your 12 time frame is on your litigation, but the ability to 13 receive the transcript, review it end prepare en 14 errata sheet within what is normally the tine 15 allotted under the court rules Cannot be accomplished 16 in this case. 17 MR. GO1DBER0ER. Row much time are you le generally -- 19 MR. Math: I don't know. 20 Actually, the first set of errata sheets 21 have just been prepared and finalised for the first 22 deposition in December. I'm not suggesting it will 23 take that long this time, but if you can give as an 24 idea of what your time responsibilities are with the 25 court, what the time limits are -- FRIEDIa& OLSON FRIEDMAN OLSON EFTA01117329 125 126 1 MR. GOLDBERG:FA. Do you think it will be 1 I . HADDAD It's scheduled in • month, 2 less than • month, two months/ 2 lark. 3 MR. M011IK: I don't think it will be less 3 MR. BORIS: We'll cooperate. 4 HR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much. 4 than a month. First of all. a lot depends on the 5 (Thereupon, the taking of the deposition was 3 ability to get the transcript to his to review. 6 concluded at 12:37 p.m.' 6 MR. GOLDBERGES: Right. S NR. MMIK: And that's • whole procedure, it's not normal circumstances that we are dealing 9 9 with. 10 10 It. GOLDBERGER: If time becomes an issue, SCOTT ROTBSTEIN 11 we'll approach you and ask you to expedite. 11 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day 12 It. SCAROLA: Mark, I will tell that from 12 of , 2012. 13 our perspective tine is an issue. Notary Public, State 14 It. RORIE: save at it then, Jack. Do what 13 of Florida at Large. 15 you need to do to get it done. 14 16 IS. SCAROLA: There is a long pending 15 17 motion for summary judgment on Brad's behalf that has 16 10 been delayed for purposes of taking this deposition. 17 2S 19 We are vary anxious to be able to call that motion 19 20 fox summary judgment up for hearing, so whateVer can 20 21 be dome reasonably to expedite the preparation of 21 22 this portion of this transcript would be appreciated. 22 23 We understand there are limitations beyond your 23 24 control, but to the extent you can do it, that would 24 25 be helpful. Thank you. 25 FR1EDMA • & OLSON 127 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF FLORIDA CCONTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 3 I, Pearlyck Martin, • Notary Public in and 4 for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that, pursuant to a Notice of Taking Deposition in 5 the above-entitled cause, SCOTT ROTWEITIII was by me first duly Cautioned and sworn to testify the whole 6 truth, and upon being carefully examined testified as ig hereinabove shown, and the testimony of said 7 witness was reduced to typewriting under my personal supervision end that the said Video Conference 8 deposition constitutes • true record of the testimony given by the witness. 9 I further certify that the said Video 10 Conference deposition was taken at the time and place specified hereinabove end that i em neither of 11 counsel nor solicitor to either of the parties in said suit nor interested in the event of the cause. 12 WITNESS my hand and official seal in the 13 City of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida. this day of June 19, 2012. 14 15 16 /7 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pearlyck Martin 2 3 4 5 6 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN C/o MARC NUR'S 7 One last Brenta Boulevard, Seventh Floor rt. Lauderdale, Florida 12301 S Dear scan ROTMSTrIN: 9 With reference to the deposition of 10 yourself taken on June 14, 2012, in connection with the above-captioned case. please be advised that the 11 transcript of the deposition has been completed and is *waiting signature. 12 Please arrange to atop by Our riffle , for 13 the purpose of reading and Signing the deposition. Our office hours are 9:00 art. to 4:00 p.m., Honda). 14 through Friday. Please telephone in advance. 15 you any, however, read • copy of the transcript, provided by any of the attorneys 16 connected with the case, denoting any corrections by page and line number on a separate sheet of paper. 17 This correction page must be signed by you and motorized and returned to us for filing with the 15 original. 19 If this has not been taken care of, however, within the next 30 days, or by the time of 20 trial, whichever comes first, I shall then conclude that the reading, subscribing end notice of filing 21 have been waived and shall then proceed to deliver the original of the transcript to ordering attorney 22 without further notice. 23 24 FRIEDSIAMM OLSON FRILDOMM, loseARDI t OLSCM Suite 924, Sisosyno Building 10 west Molar Street Nisei, Florida 33130 Telephone IN PS: EPSTEIN VS. SCeA1076 Juno 21. 2012 25 Peer yr-1 Martin 125 FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN & OLSON EFTA01117330