IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT IN SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT OF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant/Counterplaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby gives notice of the filing of the transcript of the deposition of Scott Rothstein taken on June 14, 2012. Specific portions of the deposition on which Mr. Edwards' relies in support of his motion for sununary judgment are highlighted. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by 1-10 U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attached lis day of June 2012. RO A ar No.: 169440 Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 9 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard est Palm Beach. Florida 33409 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA01130733 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Notice of Filing Transcript In Supplemental Support of Bradley Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment Page 2 of 2 COUNSEL LIST Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik, Esquire One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 iierdale FL Toot Haddad Coleman, Esquire Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A. 524 S Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale. FL 01 Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esquire The L-S Law Firm 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor Miami, FL 33131 EFTA01130734 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. 500 East Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m. DEPOSITION Of SCOTT ROTHSTEIN (Via Video Conference) Taken on behalf of the Trustee pursuant to a notice of taking deposition - - - FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-4471•bcdd-ca2d81e841d1 EFTA01130735 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: 2 LAW OFFICES OF IOWA HADDAD, P.A. by 3 Tonja Haddad, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff. 5 AT'fERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A., by Jack Goldberger, Esq. 6 Attorney for the Plaintiff. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA ET AL, by 8 Jack Scuola. Esq. Attorney for the Defendant, Brad Edwards 4 9 10 11 12 MARC NUIUK, PA , by Marc Nurik, Esµ Attorney for Scott Rothstein (Appearing via Video Conference.) 13 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, by Laurence LaVecchio, Esq. Attorney for the Department of Justice Page 2 1 2 3 , 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thereupon: SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: I do. MS. HADDAD: Good morning, Scott. How are you? THE WITNESS: Good morning, Tonja. How are you? MS. HADDAD: Fine, thank you. It's nice to see you. THE WITNESS: Good to see you, too. MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Rothstein, I don't know that you and I have met. I'm Jack Scarola, I'm representing Brad Edwards and I know you know Brad who's to my immediate left. THE WITNESS: Hey, Brad, how are you? Jack, good to see you. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. GOLDBERGER: Also present is another Jack, Jack Goldberga, and I also represent Jeffrey Epstein. To my right is Darryn Indyke -- THE WITNESS: Good morning, Jack. MR. GOLDBERGER: How are you today? And to my right is Darryn Indyke, who is Page 4 I 2 3 4 (By Ms. Haddad) 5 5 (By Mr. Goldberger) 92 (By Mr. Scarola) 121 6 7 8 INDEX WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS SCOTT ROTHSTEIN 9 EXHIBITS PLAINTIFFS FOR IDENTIFICATION 10 I 2 3 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 70 21 72 23 74 25 64 69 72 Page 3 1 Mr. Epstein's in-house counsel. 2 MR. INDYKE: Good morning. 3 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 4 MR. NORA: Good morning, everyone. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Hi, Marc, how are you? 6 MR. NURIK: Good. You'll be seeing my 7 shoulder most of the day. 8 W. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. HADDAD: 11 Q. Well, Scott, J know you've talked about this 12 probably more than you even care to, but I'd like to 13 start a little bit asking you about the scheme at your 14 firm and how and when it started and things of that 15 nature just very briefly because I know you've covered 16 it many times. 17 MR. SCAROLA: It has been covered and 18 protocol precludes asking questions that have already 19 been answered and covering areas that have already 20 been covered, so we do object. 21 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted. 22 BY MS. HADDAD: 23 Q. When did this first start? 24 A. It started back in '05, '06. The question 25 is a little bit vague for me because it started in a Page 5 "Mk 2 (Pages 2 to 5) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 6•0930864564-44Mbedd-ca201s9410 EFTA01130736 1 different form than it ended because it started as 2 bridge loans and things of that nature, and then 3 morphed into the Ponzi scheme. But you are looking 4 back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning. 5 Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge 6 loans started? 7 A. I can't be certain exactly what we were 8 doing. I need to see all the documents to tell you 9 what we were doing at what specific point in time. 10 Q. What made you decide to start doing this? 11 A. ! started doing it out of greed and the need 12 to support the law firm, which was having significant 13 financial trouble at the time. 14 Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401 yet or 15 were you still in the building where Colonial Bank 16 was? 17 A. I don't remember. 18 Q. Do you recall approximately how many 19 attorneys you had working for you when it started? 2 0 A. 1 do not. Between five and ten, Tonja. 21 Q. Was it before you started acquiring 2 2 attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches? 2 3 MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the 2 4 question, vague. 2 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. Page 6 1 ". 2 3 45 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 growth started," do you mean both the scheme — do you mean the scheme and the firm or either one or both? A. Both. Q. Do you recall approximately when you took the space in the 401 Building? A. 1 do not. Q. At the time everything imploded, how many partners did you have at the firm, do you recall? A. Are you saying partners and shareholders? Because remember, we had both, two designations. Q. 1 want to start with just attorneys that had — not in your firm name but named as "partner' on the cards, for example. A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees. We had a bunch. Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you had working there? A. Approximately 70. Q. In the year before, do you recall how many you had? A. I do not. Q. So how many equity manners did you have or sha Ss? I'm not sure of the word that we are using. A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholders Page 8 1 BY MS. HADDAD: 2 Q. Well, who were you partners with when it 3 first started? 4 A. Stu Rosenfeldt. 5 Q. Okay. Anyone else? 6 A. Susan Dolin, I believe. It was definitely 7 Stu Rosenfeldt, Michael Fancier, and Susan Dolin may 8 have been partners of ours at that time, I'm not 9 certain. 10 Q. Because if memory serves me correctly, you 11 went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to 12 the building across the street, it was Rothstein, 1 3 Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And it was some time later that you moved 16 into the 401 Building, correct? 17 A. You are skipping one step. I went from One 18 Financial Plaza to Phillips, Eisinger, Koss, Kusnick, 19 Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeld% and 1 2 0 broke off and formed Rothstein Rosenfeldt. And then 21 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, Fancier over at the 2 2 Colonial Bank Building. And then we took the space in 2 3 the 401 Building and eventually moved over there and 2 4 that's when the real growth started. 2 5 Q. And when you say, "that's when the real Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were two, me and Stu Rosenfelt Q. And everyone else was just a partner for title purposes? A. There were shareholders for title purposes and partners for title purposes. Q. If someone was called a shareholder for title purposes then, did they get to receive any of the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or they were not considered shareholders in that sense? MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: What kind of funds are you talking about? BY MS. HADDAD: Q. In general from the firm. When you say equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu. What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was named as a shareholder, why did you call them a shareholder as opposed to a partner? A. It was a title of prestige and achievement,. Q. So it was basically an ego thing, it had nothing really to do with the finances or hierarchy of the firm? A. They got paid more generally, but it did not have anything to do with distributions. Page 9 3 (Pages 6 to 9) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sed93085.0554.447f.bcdd-ca2d8te947d1 EFTA01130737 1 Q. When you were hiring and bringing in all 2 these new attorneys, did everyone come in as a 3 partner? 4 A. No. 5 Q. How did you decide who came in as a partner 6 and who came in as an associate? 7 A. Depended upon their level of expertise, 8 practice, book of business. It was a decision Stuart 9 and 1 made together on a case-by-case basis. 1 0 Q. So you and Stu where the -- were in charge 1 1 of hiring? 2 A. Stuart and I tried to consult on every 1 3 hiring decision, yes. I. 4 Q. Did you guys also decide salaries? 1 5 A. I generally decided the salary and then let 1 6 Stu know what I was going to do. And he would say if 1 7 he thought it was okay or if he thought it was too 1 8 much or too little, but I generally had free reign in 19 that regard. 2 0 Q. Did someone's book of business directly 21 correlate to the salary that you would offer? 2 2 A. That is a very broad question because it 2 3 depends upon what other needs we had for that 2 4 individual. 2 5 Q. What do you mean by "what other needs"? Page 10 1 2 3 4 I 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Would you need to look at someone's book of business if they were coming in just solely to be a rainmaker for the firm prior to hiring them? A. I discussed it with them. There were not many people that I recall that I actually looked at their numbers. Once David Boden was working for me I had him check people's numbers, but I rarely looked. I took most people's words for what they were generating. Q. My recollection is, you were always looking to bring in more people, to hire more people, some of us were somehow able to resist you while others were not. How would you decide who you were looking at to bring into your firm? A. We were trying to develop, on the legitimate side of the law firm, we were trying to develop real talent, real ractice groups. I mean, Brad is a perfect exampleareat lawyer, got a great reputation, You know, it was our hope that, you know, he was going to be one of the people to actually in some ways rescue the firm because he had a practice group that could generate substantial income. You know, on the legitimate side that's what we were trying to do. we were trying to find the best and the brightest. Q. Okay. With respect to bringing people that Page 12 1 A. Well, I'll give you a good example. My 2 lawyer, Mr. Nurik, his salary was directly related to 3 the fact that he was a great lawyer and had a solid 4 book of business. 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. David Boden, on the other hand, was, as I 7 previously testified, I don't know if you've had a 8 chance to read the testimony, but David Boden was not 9 only the general counsel to the law finn but he was 10 also — acted as my consigliere in a significant 11 number of illegal operations and he was compensated 12 significantly for that, if that helps you understand 13 the difference. I 4 Q. It does. 15 So, for example, when you were hiring former 16 judges, let's use that as an example, Pedro and Julio, 1 7 clearly they don't have a book of business coming in 18 because they haven't had clients, but they may carry 19 some sort of prestige or give some legitimacy, if you 7 0 will, to the firm. How would you decide the salary 21 for someone like that? 12 A. Stu and l would discuss it. It was more a 3 market issue than anything else, how much arc judges 2 4 coming off the bench getting, how much business do we 25 think they can generate. Page 11 1 you thought could hring_a book of bulinesscou just 2 said Brad, for example, that he had a legitimate 3 practice_maro witILagoraLhoolcalusifl did 4 you know that? 5 A. Everyone in the tort world that I had spoke 6 to spoke extremelylighlv_offirad not only neonle I 7 already had working forme but other People that knew 8 rim. He was very -- came very highly recommended to 9 us. 10 Q. Like who, for example? 11 A. 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 ton 16 group. I don't want to guess, Tonja, as to which 17 other people told me, but it was -- well more than 18 Russ. 19 Q. Was it people within — 20 A. Might have been 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. Page 13 4 (Pages 10 to 13) FRJEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 5cd93085.0554-4471-bcdd-ca2difenkli EFTA01130738 Q. Okay. When you were looking_arneoole to 2 bring in to the firm to legitimize, as you said. Your 3 fine had a very unique area of practice and had a very 4 unique environment to which to work. How did you know 5 or how did you come to decide what people may or may 6 not fit into that? 7 A. Okay. Renton one second. I think you his) 8 accidentally misstated my testimony. 9 I was not bringing the people in to 10 legithnize the law firm. I was bringing them in to 1 1 the legitimate side of the law finn. The bulk of tht 12 law firm, despite the lack of financial success, was a 3 large group of very honest, hard working lawyers 1 4 trying to do their best in difficult economic 1 5 conditions. There were some that were obviously not 1 6 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 1 brought people into the Poozi 19 scheme? 20 Q. No, right now I'm just asking about the finn 21 because, as 1 said, it's a very unique way in which to 22 practice and a very unique workplace environment with 2 3 politics and restaurants and parties at your home and 2 4 things of that nature. I'm asking, personality wise, 2 5 other than the book of business, how did you decide on Page 14 1 t 1 that time with Farmer and Fistos and Jaffe and 2 Mr. Edwards. 3 Q. Do you know where Mr. Edwards was working 4 when you first learned of him? 5 A. I don't recall whether he was working for 6 someone or had his own practice, I don't recall. 7 Q. When did you first learn about Brad? 8 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 13 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? 16 A. No. As you know, 1 was hiring people left 17 and right and I was also unfortunately very busy doing 18 things I shouldn't have been doing, so I don't have a 19 specific recollection of when 1 hired him. 1 barely 20 have a specific recollection of when 1 hired me. 21 Q. But you did, in fact, meet with him? 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 Page 16 1 people that would be a good fit? 2 A. I looked for people that were outgoing, that 3 had the type of personality. On 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 book 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, as you mentioned 11 earlier with Brad and his practice, if somebody stated 12 that people told you that he was a good lawyer, did 1 3 you need to see him in action, so to speak, prior to 1 4 your deciding to hire them or would you just take 15 people at their word for it? 16 A. Some of people I saw in action; he wasn't 1 7 one of them. Steve Osber is an excellent example of 18 that. 1 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 the people. But 21 the people that l trusted -- see, I can't remember. 1 22 think Gary Fanner was working for me before Brad, and 3 if I'm not mistaken he would have been one of the 24 people that 1 went to with regard to Brad because we 2 5 were really developing that whole tort group around Page 15 1 finn that 1 trusted. Because I always said, I had a 2 very simple, you lie or die by what you are telling 3 me. 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 me a bill 7 of goods just to get somebody in here because if you 8 do that it's going to come back on you, it's going to 9 affect your income and your ability to grow in the 10 firm. So with that admonishment, I might have very 11 well hired someone sight unseen based upon what 12 someone else told me. 13 Q. But you did meet with Brad you say before he 14 came in to work? 15 A. Now that I'm saying it out loud, I think 1 16 did but really I'm guessing. I don't have a specific 17 recollection of meeting him. 18 Q. Do you recall if you knew that he had worked 19 as an assistant state attorney for a few years 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 asked Howard Scheinberg 23 or anybody about him before he came to work there? 24 A. I can't say that I wouldn't have asked 25 because, like 1 said, I might have asked. But Page 17 5 (Pages 14 to 17) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 1140930854554-447f-buld-cs201O•941d1 EFTA01130739 1 unfortunately, you are taking a little tiny spot out 2 of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the 3 life of the firm, so 1 can't tell you one way or the 4 other. 5 Q. I know you had a lot going on, I'm just 6 trying to see if you remember anything specific about 7 this. B Do you recall what salary you had offered 9 Brad to come join the firm? 10 A. I do not. You have to just try to 11 differentiate that what I knew then is a lot different 12 than what 1 know now so ... 13 Q. Meaning? 14 A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time 15 that I was hiring him or maybe a year after,l would 16 be able to tell you what 1 was paying him, but now 17 it's insignificant. I don't remember how much I was 18 paying him. 19 Q. Did you learn about his book of business or 20 know what kind of cases he was bringing in prior to 21 hiring him? 2 2 A. I do know that he — 1 discussed either with 2 3 Russ, well, I know with Russ, and perhaps some other 24 people, I knew about the Epstein case. 25 Q. What did you know about it? Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Epstein was a billionaire Q. Okay. Did you know anything about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claims prior to knowing he was a billionaire? A. I knew what I was told. I didn't check it out myself, but I trusted the people that told me. Q. And who told you? A. The only person I remember discussing it with, as I sit here today, is Russ Adler. But if Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me al the time I likely would havesliseussed it with them a§ Bra, Q. So were you aware of tlt case before tau made an offer to Brad to join the firm? A. In Q. You said you didn't -- I don't want to misquote you. You said you heard about it from other people, but you didn't do anything to know that personally. Was that before you made the offer of employment? A. I made the offer of employment based upon what other people had told me about Brad. Q. About Brad and his book of business or just Brad and his legal skills? A. Okay. When I say Brad, I mean Brad and his Page 20 1 A. I knew that it was a significant case of 2 potentially significant value against an extremely 3 collectible_rxxloph i le. for lack of a better word. 4 Q. So was that case your primary motive in 5 bringing Brad into the firm? 6 A. ) doubt it. I mean, I can't tell you one 7 way or the other, but I doubt that I would bring him 8 in just for one case because what _lithe case fails, 9 then I'm stuck with a lawyer who can't do anything, 10 you know. 1 1 I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do 12 anything, I'm just saying that if 1 only relied on one 1 3 case, then if I bring a lawyer in for one case and one 14 case only, what do I do with him when the case is 15 over. 16 Q. How did you know that this case would be a 17 collectible case then? 18 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the 19 form of the question because it misstated the prior 2 0 testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a 21 collectible case but that it was a case against a 22 "extremely collectible pedophile." 2 3 BY MS. HADDAD: 2 4 Q. What made you think that this case had any 25 financial value? Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 book of business and his legal skills. Q. Okay. A. And his ability to generate business in the future. Q. You stated that you believed that you first heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps from Brad. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up with these cases, these Epstein cases? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to object to the form of the question. II is an inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has no predicate. There was no reference about having heard about these cases from Brad. The names mentioned were Adler, possibly Farmer, possibly Jaffe. BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Once Brad started workings the firm you've already testified you already knew about these Epstein cases, correct? A. Yes. Q. How did youlteenabreast of these cases? A. I didn't. Q. You didn't know anything about them? A. I didn't say I didn't know anything. I said I didn't keep track of it. Page 21 6 (Pages 18 to •21) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5od93085.0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d810941dt EFTA01130740 1 Q. You didn't keep track of it? 2 A. 1 did not keep track of it. From time to 3 time Russ and the other guys in the tort group would 4 tell me what was going on in certain cases, but until 5 I made a decision to utilize that file for an illerar- 6 purpose related to something illegal that 1 was doing 7 along with my-co-conspirators, I lust assumed my 8 lawyers were going to work the case and eventually it • 9 would hopefully work out well for the law finn. 10 Q. At your firm, when e-mails would go out to 1 1 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? 1 4 Q. No, all it says is attorneys at RRA. 15 A. It's the e-mail group "attorneys"? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. Yes, I'm a part of that e-mail group. 1 6 Q. And I appreciate that you were very busy and 19 may not have read all of them, but you did receive 2 0 those e-mails when they would go around? 2 1 A. Yes, and I tried my best to read them. 2 2 Q. Okay. At what point did you decide to use 2 3 this case to further your Ponzi scheme? 2 4 A. I don't remember the date, but 1 can give 2 5 you the circumstances, if you'd like. Page 22 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interaction — Sony, Tonja, I didn't mean to speak over you. If you talk to the people in the firm. if they are honest with you, they'll tell you my interaction was far more significant with Russ Adler, Probably more so because he was a co-conspirator of mine. My interaction with Russ was far greater by many, many percents over my interaction with Brad, and then you go down the line. I had more interaction with Mr. Fanner than I did with Mr. Fistos, more interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr. Edwards, and so on. Q. Russ was the head of your tort group, right? A. Yes. Q. So these cases fell under the tort group; is that correct? A. Yes, it fell under the -- fell under Russ' purview ultimately, yes. Q. And Brad was a partner at your firm during the time these cases were there, correct? A. I believe that was his title. He was either partner or shareholder. I don't think we had made him a shareholder yet. Q. But he wasn't coming in as an associate, Page 24 1 Q. Please do. 2 A. The Ponzi scheme was running very low on 3 capital. My co-conspirators and 1 needed to find a 4 new feeder fund, new investment sources. We had a 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, realizing that it was a substantial 12 actual file in the office, I came up with the idea 13 that if I created a fake confidential settlement 14 circling around — based 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. 17 Q. How did you know this was a substantial file 18 in your office at that time? 19 A. Again, through the people 1 spoke to in the 20 office. 21 Q. Such as who? 22 A. Again, same people, Adler, Farmer, Jaffe, 23 Fistos. 2 4 Q. You never spoke to Brad about this case? 2 5 A. 1 didn't say that. but 1 had a lot more Page 23 1 correct? 2 A. To the best of my recollection, no. 3 Q. So you stated that you learned this case 4 was -- I don't want to misquote you and listen to a 5 long speaking objection, but what did you call this 6 case? 7 MR. SCAROLA: Who wants the quote? 8 THE WITNESS: It was a substantial case 9 with a -- what I perceived to be a highly collectible 10 pedophile as a defendant. 11 BY MS. HADDAD: 12 Q. Right. How did you know at the time 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 1 6 could use? 17 A. From talking to all the people that I just 18 said, Adler, Fistos, Jaffe, Farmer, Mr. Edwards, to 19 the extent that I spoke to him about it. 20 Q. 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. 1 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 Page 25 7 (Pages 22 to 25) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d810941d1 EFTA01130741 1 what was going on. And 1 may have spoke to him, I 2 know I spoke to Russ, but 1 may have spoke to him as 3 well within a couple of days just prior to this due 4 diligence because I was trying to at least get some 5 information in my head that ] could use when I was 6 creating this story for the investors. 7 Q. Scott, what's Q-task? 8 A. Q-task is a web based software system that 1 9 had invested 37 million in. 10 Q. And what was the purpose of this internet 11 system? 12 A. To be able to communicate in a secure 1 3 fashion and in a unique group fashion about specific 14 files. 15 Q. So forgive me, we all know I'm not good with 1 6 the computer. That was something that would be useful 17 within a law firm, why? 18 A. Because it allowed you to create groups and 19 have both general and private chats, organize data in 20 a very unique fashion. That was, at least to our way 21 of thinking, would have been very, very helpful in the 22 law firm setting with multiple practice groups. 2 3 Q. Did you belong to any groups on Q-task? 24 A. I'm certain that I did. 1 don't remember 2 5 which groups I belonged to. I never got into the full Page 26 1 and with that, with the Q-task and the e-mails, did 2 someone assist you with reviewing everything and 3 letting you know what was going on within the groups? 4 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to 5 object to counsel's testimony. Object to the form of 6 the question as leading. 7 THE WITNESS: I really don't even 8 understand the question. 9 Can you try to rephrase it for me. Tonja? 10 BY MS. 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 someone giving you information keeping you posted on 16 what was going on within the practice? 17 A. Well, as pan of the tort group l had a 18 pretty good idea of what was going on there 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 more up-to-date on 22 that group than any group other than the labor and 23 employment group, again, because ] had such 24 significant interaction with Stu Rosenfeldt, both 25 legitimately and illegitimately, so I knew what was Page 28 1 use of it. I tried to, but again, l was vet), busy 2 doing other things. But 1 know that Mr. Adler's group 3 used it extensively. 4 Q. Because it was your firm and, as you said, 5 you invested S7 million in it, did you have the 6 ability to access a group if you wanted to? 7 A. Yes. And if l couldn't,1 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 1 was telling Russ to do, is to 14 have me invited. 15 Q. But I'm saying, the lawyers wouldn't have to 16 personally invite you, you can get someone within your 17 firm to give you access maybe without the lawyers 18 knowing? 19 A. No,1 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 2 2 have no need to utilize that. Just invite me into the 23 group and let me see what's going on. 2 4 Q. Okay. 1 know that you are or were a very 25 hands-on person within certain of the practice groups Page 27 1 going on in that group. 2 I tried, as best as I could, given my time 3 constraints, to stay on top of what was going on, you 4 know, throughout the firm. But 1 relied on other 5 people like Debra Villegas and Irene Stay and David 6 Boden, Les Stracker to the lesser extent, to monitor 7 what was going on in the different practice groups and 8 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 offices. 13 Hang 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,1 think. 17 Q. And do you recall approximately how many 18 attorneys you had working there at that time? 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 rooms. 25 Q. So can you please tell me exactly where you Page 29 8 (Pages 26 to 29) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdtl-ca2d81.3941dI EFTA01130742 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 was 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. 8 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? 1 A. I tamed it on when I felt like it, when 1 12 felt like seeing what was going on. I sometimes left 13 the screen up because) had four computer screens on 14 my desk, I sometimes left the screen on with the video 15 of the reception area and some 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 2 0 surveillance existed? 21 A. You can see it in the — it wasn't hidden, 2 2 you can see it. There were globes up in the ceiling 2 3 all over the office. 2 4 Q. Did you have — you said — you didn't 2 5 answer this, you said you didn't recall. Did you have Page 30 1 out, because I remember building out space and I 2 remember Jaffe and all those guys moving into that 3 space. 4 Q. 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 seems that you hired lots of 9 former law enforcement people to work at the firm. 10 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 and hiring people 14 from former law enforcement assisted me in engendering 15 support and camaraderie with the law enforcement that 16 1 was actually utilizing in illegal activities. 17 Q. So you are saying 18 A. Secondarily, I wanted to have a very strong 19 investigative team, ultimately, to do both legitimate 20 and illegitimate things for the law firnt, and hiring 21 former law enforcement was the best way to do that. I 22 was hoping to actually ultimately create a group. Ken 23 Jenne and I had talked about that extensively. 24 Q. Why did you hire Ken Jenne? 25 A. Prior to Ken going to prison, he and I were Page 32 1 any surveillance in the conference moms? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Other than the common areas you just went 4 over, in the hallways and the reception — did you 5 have it in the hallways, is that a common — do you 6 deem that a common area? 7 A. All the hallways pretty much with the 8 exception of a few blind spots,/ can see all the 9 hallways. 10 Q. And this was on all three floors? 11 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 14 actively had a significant amount of space on, I tried 15 to have surveillance on all the common areas of all 16 that space. 17 Q. And what floor was Mr. Edwards' office on? 18 A. 1 don't recall. 19 Q. Did you have the tort group all together or 2 0 was it divided up? 21 A. Except for Adler, Adler was on with -- near 2 2 me, down the hall from me. The rest of the group was 2 3 all together. I think they were on — let's see. 24 There were people up on 22. I was on 16. He must 2 5 have been on the other floor that we were building Page 31 1 very friendly and he was extremely friendly with 2 someone that was very close to me, Grant Smith. 3 During the time that he was down in FDC Miami, I went 4 down to visit him. And after speaking to him and 5 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 8 out of jail that he had no worries, that I would give 9 him a job. 10 Q. And what -- 11 A. And that was the primary reason -- that was 32 my primary reason for hiring him. 13 Q. What was it you were hiring him to do 14 exactly? 15 A. Ultimate the goal was to head up on 16 investigative ann within RRA, within the RRA entities. 17 Q. Well, while he was there, since that didn't 18 happen, what was his obligation to the firm 19 day-to-day? 20 A. He handled film security issues and he did 21 handle overseeing certain investigative things. We 22 had an alcohol and beverage group that was forming and 23 he was overseeing that. Ile was helping me find new 24 people to staff it, that kind of thing. 25 Q. Did you have a lot of interaction — Page 33 9 ( P. ages 30 to 33) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 50c/93085-0554 -4471-bcdthca2d81094101 EFTA01130743 1 A. He 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 gamer significant 5 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 the police department 10 investigations? 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 1 4 agencies? 15 A. I had —1 mean, we had a criminal defense 16 section in the law firm, so we had legitimate dealings 17 with law enforcement. But I also had significant 18 illegitimate things with law enforcement that had 19 nothing to do with Ken Jenne. 2 0 Q. And how about with respect to former FBI 1 agents you were hiring? 2 2 A. They were all people that were operating in 2 3 a legitimate fashion within the law firm. 4 Q. In what role was that? 2 5 A. The investigative roles and the alcohol Page 34 1 know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For 2 example, I -- are you talking about my Fort 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 1 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 to 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 appearance to 15 the community. So there were a multitude of reasons. 16 1 mean, I hired certain law enforcement to 17 work for me that were just friends of mine that 18 were -- that needed additional money, so l wanted to 9 make sure that they had money, 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 2 3 you decided to utilize it — to use for the investors 2 4 for your Ponzi scheme. 25 Do you recall approximately when it was that Page 36 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. 5 What kind of investigations were these teams 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 them. 13 Q. Were they on salary or were their costs and 14 fees associated with utilizing them within a specific 15 practice group? 16 A. They were all on salary with me. The 17 ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that 18 could bill the law firm and have the clients at least 19 defray some of the cost. 1 don't recall whether or 2 0 not we ever got to that level or not. 21 Q. With all that in-house police action, why 2 2 did you have police security surrounding you all the 2 3 time? 2 4 A. I guess the best answer was I was paranoid, 2 5 but I mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You Page 35 1 these investors were coming that you decided to use 2 the files? 3 A. My best recollection it was in 2009, 4 sometimes after April of 2009, but I don't have a 5 specific recollection beyond that. 6 Q. What makes you think it was after April of 7 20097 8 A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the 9 Clockwork Group came in towards the middle of 2009. 10 When I say Clocicworlc, that's an umbrella term that 1 11 use to mean the Von Allmen, AJ Discala, and other 12 investors that came in through that feeder fund. 13 Q. So that was around April 2009? 14 A. No, it was after, to the best of my 15 recollection. I mean, you can tell because all you 16 have to do is look and see when the first, very first 17 Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint 18 it even closer. Look for the very rust 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, 2 3 Q. So when you decided to use that case, take 24 me through exactly what you did to familiarize 25 yourself with that case. Page 37 10 {Pages 34 to 37) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5od93085-0554-4471-bcdd•ca2d81041d1 EFTA01130744 1 A. 1 talked to Russ Adler. I may have talke4 2 to some of the othedawyers. I flipped through 3 certain boxes in the file. 4 Q. How did you get the boxes? S A. I asked someone to bring them to me. 6 Q. Do you know where those files were stored? 7 A. I do not. 8 Q. So you flipped -- sorry, please continue. 9 Flipped through some files? 10 A. I flipped through some files. I had the 11 files in lily office. The day_that the investor group 12 came in, I actually had Ken Jenne and some others 13 actually bring me some more of the boxes actually into t 4 my office while the investors were there. I already 15 had some of the boxes with me. 16 Q. You say "Ken Jenne and others," who were the 17 others to whom you are referencing? 18 A. I don't specifically recall who carried them 1 9 in. I was very focused on my investors at that time. 20 Q. Were any of the lawyers present with you 21 when you were meeting with these investors9 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. 2 5 Q. Do you recall approximately when that Page 38 1 unrelated to this case, documents 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.ILav 5 more after having the case exist and not caring about 6 really what was going on in the case other than a lqt 7 of money was going to be collected. 8 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. I did two main things. One, I put the boxes 14 in my office while they were there. I told them to 15 specifically look at a couple of sheets of a flight 36 manifest that was in the file that Russ had shown me. 17 And I told them that it would be a breach of 18 attorney/client privilege for them 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. 1 stepped out. I let them look at 22 whatever they wanted to look at. 1 came hack 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 Page 40 1 happened? 2 A. No, it's the same dates that I was giving 3 you before. 4 Q. Okay. So you had, to further your Ponzi 5 scheme, you had to familiarize yourself with this case 6 so that you could speak intelligently with the 7 investors; is that correct? 8 A. Well, sort of because most of what I told 9 the investors wasalLthings_that I was creating as I 10 ,WggL 11 Q. 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 Ponzi scheme 15 were crafted but — 16 Q. Please tell me then. 17 A. I'm telling you hang on. From an 18 investor's standpoint, the investor is simply looking 19 for is the case believable. And once they get past 20 that, is it of such case -- excuse me, is it of such a 21 nature that it is possibklo_be generating a 22 significant amount of settlement dollars. And then 23 after that, their concern is simply on the due 24 diligence side of making wre we actually have the 25 money, that the documents pass — the documents Page 39 1 this casee• 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? 5 A. I didn't add anything to the case files. 6 The case files were significant enough 7 Q. Do you know how long they were in your 8 office; days, weeks? 9 A. The people or the boxes? 10 Q. The boxes. 11 A. The boxes were in there probably a little 12 more than a week. I don't have a specific 13 recollection. 14 Q. Okay. Did you ever go through them? 15 A. Yes, I flipped through them at some point in 16 time. 17 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. 1 20 don't recall seeing anythingelse. I'm sure I looked 21 at other things, but again, 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 settlements. 25 Q. Why was the flight manifest so interesting Page 41 11 (Pages 38 to 41) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 5ed93085-0554-447f-bcddca2d81041df EFTA01130745 1 to you? 2 A. Because of who was on it. 3 Q. Who was on it? 4 A. I don't recall, but I do recall saying to S the investors -- I recall having a conversation prior 6 to the investors coming in with Ritss_Adler and Russ 7 had told me that Epstein had flown Bill Clinton on his 8 ,plane, had flown Prince Andrew on his plane. And1 9 don't remember whether that was on any of the lf ight 10 manifests or not, but I left that to the investors' 11 imagination as to what they were being told about 12 Mr. Epstein and these other famous people that were 13 cavorting with Mr. Epstein and let them look at the 14 file. 15 You have to understand from an investor's 16 perspective -- hang on. From an investor's 17 perspective the only thing that matters to the 38 investor is_that it'snal_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 a lot of 21 boxes with real pleadinjs in it a d 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 me and my 24 co-conspirators, everyone from bankers, to computer 25 rats : So the actual role of the case, and I want to Page 42 1 A. 1 went back to selling the Ponzi deal 2 Q. And did you sell it? 3 A. I believe I did. You'd have to look at the 4 actual settlement documents to see if 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 documentation? 9 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 10 Q. After this initial meeting with the 11 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. 1 didn't interfere in how they were 17 running their cases. They were far more experienced 18 than 1 was in that type — in handling that twe qf 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 Russ Adler 25 about it from time to time, but my main focus by this Page 44 1 make sure you understand this, the actual role of the 2 actual physical case in the Ponzi scheme is, from my 3 perspective, minimal. 11 was just another vehicle for 4 me. 5 Q. After that initial meeting with the 6 investors where they looked at the file, what happened 7 with respect to their desire or lack of desire to 8 invest? 9 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Pm going to 10 object to the form of the question, it assumes facts 11 not in evidence. There's been no testimony that the 12 investors actually looked at the files, only that 13 they were given the opportunity to look at the files. 14 BY MS. HADDAD: 15 Q. Was your video surveillance on when you left 16 the investors alone in your office? 17 A. No, no,ldidn't have cameras in my office. 18 I didn't let people look in my office when I was in 19 there, that would have been bad. 2.0 Q. Soyou left them alone in there? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall for approximately how Ions)? 23 A. No more than 2110 minutes. It was a short 24 *period of time 25 Q. When you went back in what happened? Page 43 1 point in time in 2009 was the Ponzi scheme 2 Q. Did you try to sell this particular 3 settlement to any other investors? 4 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 5 Q. Okay. Did you ever have any conversations 6 with any ofsourim5tstors about this Epstein case? 7 A. I don't recall one way or the other. B Q. I notice there's been a privilege log 9 produced with respect to e-mails. There seems to be 10 quite a bit of communication between you and 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. 18 Q. Earlier you had stated that when you were 19 hiring good attorneys such as Mr. 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 yon were hoping to do? 24 A. Earlier when I testified I specifically 25 testified that I personally did not look at most of Page 45 12 (Pages 42 to 45) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 50c193085.0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d8to941d1 EFTA01130746 1 their book of business. This being said I was 2 bringinginlegitirnate lawyers to form legitimate 3 sacticegiountice legitimate law. having 4 nothing tado with the Ponzi scheme. 5 Q. During the year 2009, were there any, to 6 your knowledge, any big settlements of any cases at 7 RRA? 8 A. To the best of my recollection, no. We had 9 a dismal year. 10 Q. The year 2009 was just dismal across the 11 board? 12 A. Some people did better than others, but yes, 1 3 overall it was fora finn of 70 lawyers, it was 14 dismal. 1 5 Q. So there were no big wins coming into the 1 6 firm as far as a financial windfall other than from 17 your other businesses? 18 A. The only significant capital coming into the 19 firm was money my co-conspirators and I were stealing. 2 0 Q. Was there any particular practice group that 21 you can remember that had a particularly non-dismal 2 2 year in 2009? 2 3 A. Mr. Nurik had a good year. 2 4 Q. Do you recall what the gross revenue was 2 5 from legitimate sources in 2009? Page 46 1 2 34 • I 56 7 Q. For the most pan. What wasn't fronted by the law firm? A. I recall there being a couple of agreements that various ton lawyers had with certain clients where they were going to assist in helping to pay the costs. All the other costs would have been paid by the law firm, both through legitimate and illegitimate 8 means. 9 Q. So when you say by "illegitimate means," 10 where would the illegitimate means money come from? 11 A. It came from the Ponzi scheme, and all the 12 tentacles of the Ponzi scheme, other illegal activity. 13 Q. Such as? 14 A. Things I was doing with law enforcement, 15 things 1 was doing in politics, things that I was 16 doing with organized crime, things 1 was doing with 17 politicians, judges, other lawyers, bankers, business 18 people, things of that nature, I'm sure there's more. 19 Q. Do you recall if any of these Epstein cases 20 underwent significant investigation while the cases 21 were at your firm? 22 A. I'd be guessing. I don't remember. 2 3 Q. There was a meeting in 2009, July of 2009, 24 and it appears from the e-mail communications that it 2 5 was for everyone in the firm to attend and it was Page 48 1 A. It was somewhere between eight and 2 S10 million, probably right around the nine million 3 mark. 4 Q. Do you know what your -- 5 A. On its best day. 6 Q. What was your overhead for salaries in 2009, 7 do you recall? 8 A. I don't have a clue. 9 Q. Was it more than you brought in 10 legitimately? 11 A. With what 1 was paying in salaries, l'm -- 1 2 mean, I'd be guessing. If it wasn't more than, it was 13 certainly close to it. 14 Q. That's just salary, that's not talking about 15 anything else, rent, overhead, things of that nature? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Who was paying for the investigations of the 18 cases that were going on in 2009, the deposition 19 costs, the filing of complaints, and things of that 2 0 nature? Where did that money come from from your 21 firm? 2 2 A. It varied from case to case. 2 3 Q. For the tort group? 2 4 A. It was fronted by the law firm for the most 2 5 part. Page 47 1 regarding the Epstein case. In fact, there was an 2 Epstein conference room that was reserved for it. 3 Were you present at that meeting? 4 A. I may have been. 5 Q. Do you recall? 6 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 7 Q. You don't recall it. 8 Do you recall anything about the Epstein 9 case in July of 2009? 10 A. I do not. Do you have something that might 11 refresh my recollection? 12 MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a five-minute 13 break right now? 14 THE WITNESS: Sure. 15 MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you. 16 MS. HADDAD: Thanks. 17 [Short recess taken.] 18 BY MS. HADDAD: 19 Q. Scott, I was asking you before we took the 20 break about a meeting with respect to the Epstein 21 cases. There was a 159-page privilege log filed, 22 which I'm sure you don't have and are not aware of. 23 But in it there are many, many e-mails to both 24 attorneys at RRA, yourself, and Mr. Nurik regarding 25 the Epstein litigation. And all this resolved in July Page 49 13 (Pages 46 to 49) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sect930854554-4471-beddta201,941di EFTA01130747 1 of 2009 about the Epstein meeting and some additional 2 investigation into the Epstein case. 3 Does that refresh your investigation as to 4 when you met with the investors in the 5 Discala/Clockwork Group? 6 A. It does not. The best thing to refresh my 7 recollection as to when 1 met with them would be to 8 see the deal documents. 9 Q. Okay. I unfortunately don't have those. 10 Do you recall if you took Discala and his 1 1 other investors to a football game in 2009? 12 A. Sure,1 did. 13 Q. Okay. Would that be around the time you 14 were trying to get them to invest in the case? 15 A. It would have been around the time 1 was 16 trying to get them to invest in general. It's may 17 have been around the time that I was showing them the 18 Epstein file. 19 Q. Did you show them any files other than the 2 0 Epstein file? 21 A. I may have. 1 don't have a specific 2 2 recollection one way or the other. 2 3 Q. You testified earlier that you had over a 2 4 dozen boxes brought to your office that were related 2 5 to the Epstein case. Page 50 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. Did you check/ 3 A. I don't remember one way or the other. It 4 was insiRnificant to me S Q. Well, then explain tome. You testified 6 earlier that what was important to the investors to 7 see is that there was a real case, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What did you look at or show them -- what 10 did you look at, first of all, to see if it was, in 11 fact, a real case? 12 A. I knew it was a real case. 13 Q. How did you know? 14 A. Because my lawyers told me it was a real 15 case. 1 believed them. 16 Q. What lawyers told you that? 17 A. I already told you it was a mixture of Russ 18 and Jaffe and Fistos and Farmer and Mr. Edwards. I 19 mean, l knew it was a real case. We had all these 20 boxes, we had people really working on the file -- 21 Q. How do you know -- 22 A. -- or they were pulling a hell of a scam on 23 me. Not that I didn't deserve it but ... 24 Q. How did you know, you just said you knew 25 people were working really hard on this case. Who do Page 52 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. Counsel, 2 there has been no such testimony. 3 BY MS. HADDAD: 4 Q. You said there were several boxes brought to 5 your office by different people. You don't recall who 6 that is; is that correct? 7 A. Yes, I had some boxes already in my office 8 and I had Ken Jenne and some other people bring some 9 others. I don't remember how many boxes. 10 Q. Was it more than three? 11 A. Sure, it was more than three boxes, yes. 12 Q. Was it more than 10? 13 A. I don't believe so, no. 14 Q. You stated that you looked —I don't want 15 to put words in your mouth. What did you look at 16 specifically in that case? 17 A. Other than looking at the flight manifest 18 that Russ Adler told me to look at, I have no specific 19 recollection as to what I looked at in that file. 2 0 Q. Do you know if there was more than one case 21 being prosecuted by your office against Mr. Epstein? 2 2 A. To the best of my recollection there were -- 2 3 it was multiple plaintiffs. 2 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall if those cases were 2 5 pending in state or federal court? Page 51 1 you know was working on the case? 2 A. The only people that I knew for certain were 3 working on the case was Brad Edwards and Russ Adler 4 was doing his supervisory schtick whatever that was. 5 But other than that, I don't know which other lawyers 6 were assisting Mr. Edwards. I didn't get involved al 7 that level. 8 As far as the Ponzi scheme goes. the only 9 thing 1 cared about. Tonic, was being able to show the 10 investomthat thiscas€tlmt I wasAitilizing to steal 11 a significant amount of money from them was a real 12 case. That's all I cared about 13 Q. That case came into your office through 14 Mr. Edwards, correct? He brought it with him when he 15 came to RRA? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. He was lead counsel on the case, correct? 18 A. l assume he was lead counsel. I never 19 checked to see if he listed himself as lead counsel. 20 Q. Do you know if any additional complaints 21 were filed while the case was at RRA? 22 A. I have no idea one way or the other. 2 3 Q. Did you ever instruct, in furtherance of 24 your Ponzi scheme. Mr. Edwards or anyone in that 25 litigation group to file additional complaints? Page 53 14 (Pages 50 to 53) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-Cadaft941d1 EFTA01130748 A. ,No„ 2 Q. Who is Cara Holmes? 3 A. Who is who? 4 Q. Cara or Cara, C-a-r-a, Holmes? 5 A. To the best of my recollection, she was a 6 former FBI agent or maybe IRS agent. I don't know. 7 She was a former federal agent. 8 Q. Did you hire her to work for you? 9 A. It was either IRS or FBI. 10 Q. Did you hire her to work for you? 11 A. Yes, I hired her at the suggestion of Ken 12 Jenne. 13 Q. For what purpose? 14 A. To work in the group that he was overseeing. 15 Q. So what did she do for RRA while she was 16 there? 17 A. I don't remember. 18 Q. Did you ever mention her to your potential 19 investors from the Clockwork group? 2 0 A- It's a possibility because, as 1 was 21 building the Ponzi scheme, I frequently referred to 2 2 the fact that we had former state and federal law 2 3 enforcement working for us and on our investigative 2 4 teams. It added legitimacy to the Ponzi scheme. 2 5 Q. Didn't you tell investors that she could Page 54 1 case or any communications -- 2 A. I may have. 3 Q. Do you recall when that -- 4 A. I may have. 5 Q. Do you recall when that may have happened? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Do you recall the first time you looked at 8 the flight manifest to which you referenced earlier? 9 A. Prior to the investors coming in. I don't 10 remember the date. 11 Q. Did you instruct anybody, to further your 12 Ponzi scheme, to or check into anyone 13 whose name was listed on the flight manifest? 14 A. I may have, but with this clarification. If 15 I instructed someone to look into something, I did it 16 without that person knowing that I was involved in a 17 Ponzi scheme or that what they were doing was illegal 18 and it was just to get me additional information to 19 help with my sale of the fake settlements. 20 0. SO it was to further your — 21 A. So I may have asked someone -- I may have 22 asked someone to get me some additional information, 23 but as I sit here today, I dontrecall ever asking 24 anyone to do anything on the file that was for the 25 purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme, other than Page 56 1 hack into a computer as part of her skills? 2 A. I certainly may have. I told the investors 3 a whole host of lies about what was going on about 4 with case and what people could do and did do. 5 Q. Did you ever personally utilize Cam Holmes' 6 skills in any of your cases? 7 A. I don't remember. 8 Q. Were you handling any cases during the 2009? 9 A. 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. I 2 Q. Were you legitimately, when I say 13 "legitimately," were you invited into Q-task on any 14 particular cases that you can recall? 15 A. I'm certain I was. 1 don't recall one way 16 or the other. 17 Q. Do you recall if you were involved in 18 Mr. Epstein's case on Q-task? 19 A. I may very well have been, but I don't have 20 a specific recollection one way or the other. 21 Q. Do you know who invited you in? 2 2 A. I have no idea if I was invited in. And if 2 3 I was invited in, I have no idea who invited me. 2 4 Q. Once you decided to use this case in your 2 5 Ponzi scheme, did you go into Q-task to look at the Page 55 1 perhaps getting me a piece of information that 1 2 needed. 3 Q. I'm going to try to refresh your 4 recollection as to whether or not you attended those 5 meeting in July of 2009. And it appears that in 6 between the dates of July 22nd, 2009 and July 24th, 7 2009, there was a number of communications through 8 e-mail by and between yourself, Mr. Adler, Brad 9 Edwards and Ken Jenne regarding an Epstein meeting 10 that was going to be taking place. Do you remember 11 that at all? 12 A. I think what you are referring to, and I'm 13 not certain, but I think that what you are referring 14 to is me making sure that the file was in the 15 condition in which I wanted it at the time the 16 investors were coming in. I don't think it had 17 anything to do with the actual functioning of the 18 Epstein case. I think it had to do with my 19 illegitimate purpose. That's the best of my 20 recollection, but if you have documents or something 21 that you can show me, that would be helpful. 22 Q. We are not privy to all of the e-mails 23 because they've been alleged as privileged or work 24 product, so I unfortunately can't show them to you. 25 But according to the privilege log between Page 57 15 (Pages 54 to 57) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sod93085-0554-4471.buld-ca2d81•941d1 EFTA01130749 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 July 22nd and 23rd there were numerous e-mails sent 1 about the meeting It was almost an all-hands-on-deck 2 type meeting where everybody needed to attend. It was 3 labelled the Epstein meeting with an Epstein 4 conference room reserved. 5 A. Yes. Okay. What's your question and I will tell you. MR. SCAROLA: First I'm going to object to counsel's testimony, but let's hear the question. BY MS. HADDAD: Q. The question is, 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 some of the investors to some 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 investors? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to object to the form of the question. It misstates the Page 58 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mentioned letting them look through the litigation boxes, you've mentioned the meeting. What other way would you have convinced them that it was a real cast? A. 1 mentioned letting them look at boxes, what they did when I was out of the office, that's -- I don't know because I couldn't see what they were doing. Number two, I may have introduced them to people in the office. Number three, I'm certain that when the people brought the boxes to my office I introduced them to whoever was carrying the boxes. And number four. the rest of it would have been all stuff I created in my imagination because, again, it was the sale of something that didn't exist. This was not settling, There was no real settlement money. There were no real settlement documents. 1 even manufactured, I think, the actual plaintiff. because I don't recall even knowing the plaintiffs real name or if I did it was of no significance to me. Q. How would you have manufactured a plaintiffs name, would you have created additional documents to further your Ponzi scheme using Mr. Epstein as the defendant? A. No. Q. How would you — A. The name just would have appeared on the Page 60 1 prior testimony. It has no predicate. 2 BY MS. HADDAD: 3 Q. That could have been the meeting in which 4 you introduced the Ponzi investors to people working 5 on the Epstein case? 6 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. The 7 testimony was that there may have been a meeting at 8 which investors may have been introduced to some 9 people working on the Epstein file. And your efforts 10 continuously to mischaracterize the prior testimony 11 are highly improper. 1 object. 12 BY MS. HADDAD: 13 Q. Scott, did you or did you not say that you 1 4 introduced seine of the investors to some of the 15 lawyers on the Epstein case? 16 A. No, I actually said, Tonja, that I may have. 17 1 have a recollection that 1 may have based upon you 18 just refreshing my recollection but 1 just do not 19 remember one way or the other. This was, in the 2 0 scheme of what 1 was doing—insignificant. I was 21 simply trying to establish to the investors that um 22 was a real case, with real potential. with real 2 3 lawyers working on it. Other than that, it was of no 24 interest to me. 2 5 Q. How else would you convince them? You've Page 59 1 confidential settlement agreement. 2 Q. Would they have already seen the documents 3 at that point? 4 A. I can't tell you one way or the other what S they had seen, because 1 don't know what they actually 6 looked at 7 Q. Forgive me, you've now confused me so I'm 8 just going to ask you for some clarification. 9 You used a legitimate case and created fake 10 settlement documents, correct, in_the simplest sense? 11 A. If this culminated in_an actuaLsale of 12 fake settlement' then the answer is Yes. 13 Q. So it was a real case with a real plaintiff 14 and real defendant, just a fake settlement document? 15 A. No. Let me see if I can clarify this for 16 you. Over 90 percent of the settlements that I sold, 17 the fake settlements, were completely fictitious? 18 Q. Right. 19 A. A very small percentage of them were based, 20 at least in part on sometogstfmal litigation that 21 eitkr_had °tor was currently occurring. I 22 utilized the Epstein case to holster the visual for 23 the investors Mali:eat case existed. Because as 24 these were being sold to more sophisticated investors, 25 the uesti s ere — how do we Page 61 16 (Pages 58 to 61) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 15•03085-0554-447f•bcdd.ca2d8fo941df EFTA01130750 1 knowlhisis a real case? So I was finally able to 2 say this is how you know, here is a case file. I may 3 have, I don't remember specifically one way or the 4 other, but I may have utilized actual plaintiffnames 5 from the cases filed, but I may have made them up. 1 6 have no specific recollection one way or the other I 7 was totally geared toward simply getting the investor 8 money into the Ponzi scheme. 9 Q. Were you ataemthatthe day after this 10 meeting took place on July 24th, 2009, a new federal 11 complaint was filed against Epstein with one of the 12 same plaintiffs that was already pending in state 13 court? 14 A. I don't know that 1 was aware of that or 15 not. If they were filing it, someone may have told 16 me. I don't recall one way or the other. 17 Q. Did you ask anyone to file it to further 18 ur r121712tschemg.? 19 A. No,1 don't remember doing that, 2 0 Q. Do you recall any situation where you -- 21 A. You do realize — Tonja, hang on. I iust. 2 2 want to make sure this record is clear. Other than 2 3 Russ Adler, the monk that were involved in the 2 4 'Epstein case had absolmely_nothing to do with the 2 5 Ponzi scheme. Page 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Hold on one second. Okay. What number am I looking at? Q. It's a very large document. It's begins with Bates Stamp Number 081 and ends with 264. A. It's in the computer, hold on a second. I have that in front of me. Q. Do you see the date on that complaint stamped? A. 1 do. Q. And there's -- give me one second, Scott, sorry. What was the date that complaint was filed? A. What's the last page of the complaint, what's the Bates number? Q. The last page is 234. I'm sorry, 263 would be the last page of the complaint. [The Complaint referred to was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit I.] MR. SCAROLA: You may want to call his attention to the filing stamp on the first page. MS. HADDAD: I did. I guess he didn't hear THE WITNESS: 1'm sorry. MS. HADDAD: It's stamped on the first me. Page. Page 64 1 Q. Directly? 2 A. Or indirectly. They had nothing to do with 3 it. 4 Q. Yet the file was used for you to further 5 your Ponzi scheme. I'm not saying that they gave it 6 to you to use for the Ponzi scheme, I'm asking, you 7 used their case. I'm not — the question is you used 8 the case? 9 A. I took advantage of some good, innocent 10 people for my own and my co-consnirates illegal 11 purposes. -Mr. Edwards is one of them. and for that 12 am sorry, Brad. 13 Q. Did you ask anyone involved in the Epstein 14 case to file a federal complaint? 15 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, repetitious. 16 THE WITNESS: Without seeing a document, 17 Tonja, I can't tell you one way or the other. 1 18 don't want to —1 do not want to guess. If you have 19 an e-mail where I'm saying to someone, file a federal 20 case, then obviously I did. But I have no specific 21 recollection of that. 22 BY MS. HADDAD: 2 3 Q. You do have a document with you, it's marked 2 4 for you, it's Bates stamped. It begins at EP 081 and 25 goes through through 264. Page 63 1 THE WITNESS: Hang on, the complaint is 2 dated July 24th, 2009. It was entered onto the 3 docket on July 27th, 2009. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Do you have another question? 5 MS. HADDAD: I thought he was still looking. 6 Scott, are you done looking? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, one second. 8 MS. HADDAD: That's what I thought. 9 THE WITNESS: No, hang on one second. It 10 shows the stamp on the first page says July 24th, 11 2009. The filing say electronically filed July 24th, 12 2009. There's an entry onto the docket on July 27, 13 2009, and the complaint is signed July 24th, 2009. 14 That's all the dates l have. 15 BY MS. HADDAD: 16 Q. Okay. And back on Bates Stamp Page Number 17 263, who's the attorney that filed this complaint? 18 A. I don't know if that's his signature, but 19 the name is Brad Edwards. 20 Q. Okay. And does that e-mail — 21 A. With the squiggle on top of it. 22 Q. And does that e-mail address look like the 23 correct e-mail address for RFtA? 24 A. It is. 25 Q. So that is, in fact, a legitimate e-mail Page 65 17 (Pages 62 to 65) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5•03085-0554-4471-beddca2dife94101 EFTA01130751 1 address from your firm; is that correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And were you filing any cases back in 2009 4 in federal court? Do you remember how PACER works? 5 MR. SCAROLA: Which question would like 6 answered? 7 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound. 9 BY MS. HADDAD: 10 Q. Do you remember how PACER worked when you 11 were filing a case, Scott? 12 A. I actually never actually did the actual 1 3 electronic filing procedure. I had people that did 14 that. I knew that we could file electronically. 15 Q. Do you know the purpose of your using your 1 6 e-mail address when you were filing electronically in 17 federal court? 18 A. I guess so you can get a receipt, but l have 1 9 no idea. 20 Q. Did you ever receive an e-mail from federal 21 court in your e-mail address that showed that a 2' 2 document had been filed with the stamps that you see 23 on the top of that one? 2 4 - MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, are you ?5 attempting -- Page 66 I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from federal court? A. I'm certain I did, Tonja. I don't have a specific recollection of getting the one pertaining to this. I don't even know if they sent it to me. I would imagine they'd send it back to Mr. Edwards. Q. The filing attorney? A. I suspect, unless the PACER system is registered on my name, then maybe it comes to me, but 1 am completely guessing. Q. But based upon the e-mail communications of July 22nd and the meeting occurring on July 23rd, this complaint was filed the day of this meeting; is that correct? A. Okay. But here is the problem with your question, I don't remember whether or not there actually was a meeting. I said there may have been, and I don't have an independent recollection of this being filed. I do not have an independent recollection of whether I told someone to file this. And for the life of me, this I am certain of, if I told Mr. Edwards to file a complaint in federal court, if there wasn't a legitimate reason for him to do it, he wouldn't have done it. Q. Do you recall if this federal case was filed when you decided to use the case for your Ponzi scheme Page 68 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know one way or the 2 other. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Are you attempting to 4 establish that that complaint was filed in federal 5 court by Brad Edwards? 6 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking him if he recalls 7 the way it's drafted and why. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Just ask your question. 9 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking a question. If you 10 have any objection, please lay it on the record. 11 MR. SCAROLA: No, what 1 want to do is try 12 to save some time. If what you are trying to 13 establish is that Brad filed the complaint in federal 14 court on July 24th and used the PACER system, you 15 don't need to ask any more questions about that, it 1 6 happened. 17 MR. GOLDBERGER: We appreciate that, but 18 when we depose you we'll ask you that question. But 19 we are deposing Rothstein right now so let her ask 20 her questions. Don't do this speaking stuff, let her 21 ask the questions, okay? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Maybe. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. Go ahead, Tonja. 2 4 BY MS. HADDAD: 25 Q. Scott, did you ever get e-mails like that Page 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and show it to your investors? A. It may have been filed around that time, because I haven't been able to establish the exact time. It also certainly may have been utilized by me to further the Ponzi scheme. Also, 1 don't have an independent recollection of that either. Without seeing e-mail traffic, 1 can't tell you one way or the other exactly what was going on at that time. Q. Well, then I'll point you to another e-mail which is marked as EP 001. MR. EDWARDS: Let me see it. MS. HADDAD: I sent a copy to your office. MR. SCAROLA: He would like to see a copy now. Thank you. (The E-mail referred to was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 2.) BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Were you able to find it, Scott? A. Got it. Yes, I have it. Q. You have it, okay. You said Cam Holmes used to be an FBI agent, correct? MR. SCAROLA: No. What he said is — THE WITNESS: FBI or IRS. Page 69 18 (Pages 66 to 69) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d816941d1 EFTA01130752 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Or IRS. We'll use the blanket term federal agent. Is that a fair assessment? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Do you recall when you hired her to ‘vork for you? A. I do not. Q. Was it in 2009? A. I don't have a recollection one way or the other. Q. Okay. Have you ever seen this e-mail before? A. 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 so ... Q. Did you ever have any communications with Ms. Holmes about people that were close to Mr. Epstein? A. 1 do not remember. Q. You stated earlier that you knew that Mr. Epstein was a wealthy man. Is that a fair statement? You called him "collectible," was that because he had money? MR. SCAROLA: He called him a billionaire Page 70 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Never heard that name before? A. Alfredo Rodriguez? Q. Yes. A. It's not ringing any bells to me. Q. Do you remember hearing at your office with respect to Mr. Epstein's case that one of his former employees was willing to come forward with a big book of names? A. I don't remember that one way or the other. Q. You have no recollection of that. Do you recall anyone approaching to ask if the office can purchase this book? A. I don't recall that. Q. Do you recall instructing any of the attorneys in your office to get an opinion from Kendall Coffey whether or not they can legally and legitimately purchase this book? A. I don't recall that one way or the other. [The Complaint referred to was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 3.] BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to what's now Bates stamped as EP 002, which I'm sure you haven't seen before since you just said you didn't know who he was, but I'll give you a minute to look Page 72 1 too. 2 MS. HADDAD: Billionaire. 3 THE WITNESS: I knew he was a billionaire. 4 BY MS. HADDAD: 5 Q. Do you hive any independent recollection in 6 the month of July 2009 of this case being intensified 7 in any way such as going after those close to 8 Mr. Epstein? 9 A. I don't remember that one way or the other. 10 Q. If you knew that Mr. Epstein was a 11 billionaire, do you have any recollection of asking 12 someone to investigate those close to Mr. Epstein to 13 further your Ponzi scheme? 14 A. I don't have an independent recollection of 15 that one way or the other. 16 Q. Do you recall if you ever directed the 17 depositions to be taken of the people who were listed 18 on the flight manifest that you saw? 19 A. I don't recall one way or the other. I may 20 have told the investors that 1 was going to take the 21 depositions without ever intending to take them, but I 22 don't recall one way or the other. 23 Q. Are you familiar with a gentleman by the 24 name of Mr. Rodriguez, Alfredo Rodriguez? 25 A. No. Page 71 1 over it. 2 A. This is rather long. Do you want to direct 3 me to a specific portion of it? 4 Q. Sure. If you look at the Page Bates Stamp 5 EP 004, Paragraph 5 and 6. 6 A. Okay. 1 read number five. 7 Q. Would you please read number six as well? 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Does this refresh your memory as to whether 10 or not anyone ever asked you in your office about 11 purchasing a book? 12 A. It does not. 13 Q. Do you know that the cooperating witness was 14 an attorney who worked for you at your firm? 15 A. I did not know that until you just said it 16 right now. 17 Q. According to Paragraph Number 5, "The 18 deposition of this Mr. Rodriguez occurred on 19 July 27th, 2009;" is that correct? 20 MR. SCAROLA: 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 MS. HADDAD: 24 Q. That's what's listed in the federal 25 complaint, correct? Page 73 19 (Pages 70 to 73) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d8fe94141 EFTA01130753 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. 5 Q. Some three days after the federal complaint 6 was filed, correct, that we referenced earlier? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And Paragraph 6 clearly delineates that in 9 August 2009 a phone call was received by the 10 cooperating witness that explained that this 1 1 Mr. Rodriguez had a list of other purported victims or 1 2 contact information for people who Mr. Edwards could 3 also potentially bring lawsuits for on behalf of; 1 4 is that correct? 15 A. I don't know one way or the other. You 1 6 know, Tonja, just so this record is clear, you know, 17 as I'm sitting here, 1 have a vague recollection of 1 B perhaps Ken Jenne coming, talking to me and telling me 19 that someone in my office was going to cooperate with 20 someone in this investigation. But for the life of /) 1 me, I can't be certain of that. So much time has 22 passed, but as I'm reading this, and it could be 2 3 completely unrelated to this, I just want to make sure 2 4 the record is a hundred percent clear, it's possible 25 that Ken Jenne discussed that with me, but 1 don't Page 74 1 A. I may have. I don't recall one way or the 2 other. You have something that might refresh my 3 recollection? 4 Q. Do you know what he does for a living? 5 A. I do know the name. Sounds familiar to me, 6 but I can't recall one way or the other who he was or 7 what he did. 8 Q. Did you instruct your office to begin 9 investigating Mr. Epstein's pilot or his airplanes? 10 A. I do not recall one way or the other. 11 Q. You did testify that the flight manifest was 12 the one document you recall for sure looking at in 13 Mr. Epstein's case; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And if it did, in fact, contain the names 16 that you are purporting that it claimed or that you 17 knew of, that would be something that would be juicy 18 for the investors to further your Ponzi scheme that it 19 was a collectible case; is that true? 20 A. I'm sorry, you have to repeat the question, 21 Tonja. I don't understand what you just asked me. 22 Q. If these big names were on this list, as you 23 seem to recall they were, that would be most helpful 24 to you and your Ponzi scheme investors in convincing 25 them it was a big case, right? Page 76 1 know who it was. 2 0. You are testifying that you didn't know it 3 had anything to do with the Epstein case, as you sit 4 here now, you don't remember? 5 A.' No, no, 1 don't have a specific 6 recollection, and I want to just make sure so 1 answer 7 all your questions completely, is that as I'm sitting B here my recollection was refreshed that I have a vague 9 recollection of having a conversation with Ken Jenne 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 3 the Epstein case or not. 1 4 Q. Do you recall what you said to Mr. Jenne 15 about that? 16 A. No. What I just related to you is all I 1 7 remember. And I'm not even sure it had anything to do 1 8 with this. 19 Q. Who's Wayne Black? 20 A. Who? 21 Q. Wayne Black. 2 2 A. Sounds like the name of someone I hired, but 2 3 I could be mistaken. I don't recall. 2 4 Q. Okay. You don't recall ever meeting 25 Mr. Black? Page 75 1 A. If they were on there, or if I lied to them 2 and told them they were on there, or if Adler told me 3 they were on there and I repeated, all those things 4 would have been helpful to the Ponzi scheme. 5 Q. You stated earlier that you — the only 6 thing you looked at was the flight manifest because 7 you were told to look at it. Is that still true? 8 A. That's not what I testified to. l testified 9 that I flipped through other parts of the file and 3 0 that I didn't remember what 1 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 17 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 2 2 after work hours? 2 3 A. I do not recall. 2 4 Q. Typically when you were meeting with your 25 potential Ponzi investors, did you meet them during Page 77 20 (Pages 74 to 77) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 5ed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d810941W EFTA01130754 1 work hours or after work hours? 2 A. Both. 3 Q. Did you always meet with them in your office 4 or did you do it more socially down at Bova or 5 elsewhere? 6 A. Both. 7 Q. But with this particular case, do you recall 8 meeting them at least one time in your office where 9 they could look through the files? 10 A. Actually, that group of investors were 11 looking at a lot of different cases or al least 12 multiple different cases that we were attempting to 13 lure them into the Ponzi scheme utilizing, so I met 14 with them on multiple occasions, both in my office and I S at restaurants. 16 Q. Who is Mike Fisten? 17 A. Mike Fisten was a law enforcement officer of 18 some type that I hired. 19 Q. Why did you hire him? 2 0 A. He was a Ken Jenne suggestion. 21 Q. And were you hiring him to start up your 22 company with Mr. Jenne, as you indicated earlier? 23 A. I don't recall what the purpose of hiring 2 4 him was. It had nothing to do with what Ken Jenne was 25 doing for us. Page 78 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ponzi scheme 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 Ponzi settlements, it would have likely been overkill. Q. So did you ever instruct them not to speak to the press 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, as you were claiming when you were selling the settlement, would that have hindered your case, your Ponzi investor's case? A. Not really because they would have no way of knowing if I had created a fake plaintiffs name. I mean, there could have been something in the news that -- and I don't know that there was -- there could have been something in the news that says none of this settled. And 1 just simply would have created a fake name with my co-conspirators, created a fake set of settlement documents and handle it that way. Q. Did you know where Mr. Epstein lived? A. I only knew that he was from Palm Beach, Page 80 1 Q. So what did he do at BRA? 2 A. My best recollection is that he had been a 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? 8 A. He may have. 1 don't have a specific 9 recollection one way or the other. 10 Q. Did you ever speak to the press about the 11 Epstein case? 12 A. 1 don't have a recollection one way or the 13 other. 34 Q. Did you ever have Kip utilize 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 18 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 then 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. 2 5 Q. Would that publicity have been good for your Page 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other than that, no. Q. Okay. In 2009, did you ever have any firm meetings? A. Of any type? Q. Of any type, in general, finn meetings. A. I'm certain 1 did. Q. Do you recall about how many? A. I do not recall. Q. Did you eve• have any partner meetings? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall how many? A. I do not. Q. Do you recall how many partners you had at the firm in 2009? A. I do not. Q. Do you recall how many fundraisers you had at your home in 2009? A. I do not. Q. More than 10? A. I'd be guessing, Tonja. Q. Okay. A. It's easy enough to check, there's state and federal records of all that stuff. Q. In 2009, did you still require the attorneys from your firm to attend the fundraisers you would Page 81 21 (Pages 78 to 81 ) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sec/93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2081e941 dl EFTA01130755 1 have? 2 A. You said "still require," which would have 3 meant that I testified -- 4 Q. Sony. 5 A. -- previously that it was requiring them. 6 Q. Did you require attorneys at your firm to 7 attend your fundraisers? 8 A. I asked them to, I urged them to, I tried to 9 cajole them into coming, but it wasn't an absolute 10 requirement. 11 Q. Do you recall between April and July of 2009 12 how many fundraisers you would have had? 13 A. I do not. 14 Q. Did you have fundraisers anywhere besides 15 your home in 2009? 16 A. 1 probably did, but I don't recall without 17 seeing the documents. If you have the invitation or 18 the e-mails, that would help me. 19 Q. Did you hold fundraisers at your office in 2 0 2009? 21 A. I may have. That wouldn't have been 2 2 unusual, but I don't have a specific recollection. 23 Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs in 2 4 the Epstein case? 25 A. I don't have a specific recollection of Page 82 , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. When did you hire him? A. 2008 or 2009. I don't have a specific recollection. Q. If you hired lawyers who didn't have a book of business, what kind of practice did they do at your office? A. It depended upon the lawyer. I would have tried to get them to work with other lawyers in an area that they either were proficient in or wanted to become proficient in. Q. Okay. You had a meeting at your office during which you were asking about information regarding referring attorneys, attorneys who had referred business to the firm. Do you know what I'm talking about? I believe it was back in December of '08 or early 2009. A. The way you are characterizing that meeting, had a lot of meetings like that. Q. What was the purpose of those? A. You are going to have to be more specific for me, Tonja. Q. Let's start generally then. What was — you said you had many meetings like that. Tell me what these meetings were for? A. Making sure that we were maximizing Page 84 1 that. 2 Q. Do you recall ever revving copies of e-mails 3 from Mr. Jenne with respect to the plaintiffs in the 4 case that the subject matter would say "information we 5 need to use"? 6 A. I don't recall that one way or the other. 7 It's certainly possible. 8 Q. Do you recall ever reviewing anything that 9 was titled "causes of action against Epstein"? 10 A. I do not have a specific recollection of 11 that one way or the other. 12 Q. Do you recall ever reviewing with Mr. Jenne 13 or any other investigator in your firm any information 14 regarding Mr. Epstein's house staff or airplane staff? 15 A. I do don't recall that one way or the other. 16 I may have, I may not have. 17 Q. Who is Bill Berger? 18 A. A former Palm Beach judge that we hired. 19 Q. Okay. What was his role at your firm? 20 A. He was a shareholder. 21 Q. What kind of practice? 22 A. Litigating cases. 23 Q. What kind of practice did he litigate? What 24 kind of cases did he litigate? 25 A. I don't recall specifically. Page 83 1 generation of business into the law form. 2 Q. What kind of business, legitimate business 3 or the other -- 4 A. Legitimate business. 5 Q. Sorry, l couldn't hear you. 6 A. Legitimate business. The general meetings 7 that you are discussing, that was legitimate business. 8 Q. So there was a meeting for all attorneys to 9 attend regarding generating business, those meetings 10 were for the legitimate business? 11 A. If it was addressed to all attomeys, yes. 12 Q. Okay. And if an e-mail went out to all 13 attorneys, did paralegals and support staff get it as 14 well or was it just directed to the attorneys? 15 A. Certain support staff probably were on that 16 list, like my CFO and COO, and perhaps my IT people, 17 but it was general for the attorneys. 18 Q. With respect to your IT people, did you have 19 the capability to review e-mails and Internet activity 20 of all of your employees? 21 A. I did. 22 Q. Including attorneys? 23 A. I did. 24 Q. Did you ever utilize that tool? 25 A. Very infrequently. It was a pain because I Page 85 22 (Pages 82 to 85) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 5ed93085-0554-4471-beddca2011941d1 EFTA01130756 1 had to have Curtis Renie 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 8 call the Clockwork investors at various points in 9 time. A variety of people came in and out of the 10 meetings. Some of the meetings occurred down in Bova. 1 1 Other people came up to the meetings. Some of the 12 meetings involved Michael Szafranski, our fake 13 independent verifier. Some 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? 2 0 A. 1 only remember there being a handful of 21 people from the investment group and myself. I don't 2 2 recall — and I remember the guys bringing the boxes 2 3 the down, but they didn't stay for the meeting. There 2 4 may have been other people there, I don't recall one 2 5 way or the other who it was. Page 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 22 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where we owed 20, $30 million in Ponzi payments out and she needed to write a check for even S5,000, she probably would have checked with me on that. So substantial and whether or not she would have checked with me depended upon the circumstance at the time. Q. You stated earlier, and 1 think I'll get this quote right, that 2009 was a dismal year; is that correct? A. For the legitimate law firm business, it was a dismal year. Q. So in the months immediately preceding the dissolution of RRA, July to October of 2009, what would you consider a substantial expense that had to be approved? A. It would vary literally from day-to-day. Q. Do you have any independent recollection of how you were doing in, say, July 2009? A. The legitimate business was always doing poorly in 2009, as far as I was concerned. Q. So would you have -- A. The Ponzi scheme had its moments of significant wealth and significant poverty, so it varied from time to time. It was a daily thing. Sometimes it was hourly. It just depended upon what was coming in and what needed to go out. Page 88 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 5 approve them but Irene, ow CFO, would generally run 6 than by me before she actually cut the check. If I 7 wasn't around she'd run it by Stu. 8 Q. So as the equity partners you had the 9 authority to make the determination what funds could 10 and could not be expended? 11 A. As the shareholders, as the two 50 percent 1 2 shareholders, we controlled the finances. 1 3 Q. And if Irene was coming 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 tell you "we need $100,000"? 1 7 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 2 4 have just written a check without even letting me know 25 we were writing it. If it was one of those times Page 87 1 Q. So would you have to utilize the 2 illegitimate funds to fund the legitimate cases at 3 times? 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 requirements of the firm, the Ponzi 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 fine, 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 case. 18 Q. Okay. So it would depend on the cost or the 19 nature of the case? 20 A. Who the lawyer was, their level of 21 expertise, all things of that nature. 22 Q. If it was this gentleman who you have no 2 3 recollection of meeting, Mr. Black, and the attorney 24 was Mr. Edwards, was that something you needed to look 25 over? Page 89 23 (Pages 86 to 89) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.66'77 6ed93085.0554-447f-bccid-ciadele941d1 EFTA01130757 A. Did Wayne Black work for Ron Cacciatore? 2 Q. Are you asking me -- 3 A. I'm asking anyone in the room who wants to 4 talk to me. S Q. I love to talk to you, but 1 don't know the 6 answer to that question. He might have. Brad might 7 be able to tell you. 8 MR. EDWARDS: No. 9 THE WITNESS: When you said Wayne Black's 10 name again and that I hired him to do something, I 11 seem to think that he may have been associated in 12 some 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 Mr. Black, it's possible I did, it's also 15 possible I did not. And I don't have an independent 16 recollection of retaining him to do anything or 17 whether 1 was pan and parcel of the decision if we 18 did, in fact, retain him, whether I was part and 19 parcel of the decision to retain him. 20 BY MS. HADDAD: 21 Q. Traveling out of state for depositions for 22 the particular cases, 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 Page 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Short recess taken.) FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERGER: Q. All right. Mr. Rothstein, Jack Goldberger, I'm going to ask you some questions now. You testified that you knew Jeffrey Epstein was a billionaire. You did testify to that today, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Tell me how you knew that. How did you know that Mr. Epstein was a billionaire? A. Russ Adler told me. I looked him up on the internet. Q. What did you look on the internet about Mr. Epstein? A. I don't recall, but I remember looking up an seeing that he was very wealthy, that he was a billionaire. Q. Okay. So as far as learning that Mr. Epstein was a billionaire, you learned via two ways, one was from Russ Adler, correct? Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the other was through looking up Mr. Epstein on the internet, correct? A. Yes. Page 92 1 approving or disapproving Mr. Nurik's travel, 2 Mr, Rosenfeldt's travel, Mr. Boden's travel, 3 Mr. Lippman's travel. That was their own thing. 4 If a younger lawyer like a Shawn Bitten came 5 erne and said he need to travel out of state for 6 something, if it was just for a deposition, I wouldn't 7 have gotten involved in that unless he was telling my B CFO, Ms. Stay, that he wanted to fly first class and 9 stay in the Ritz 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. Russ Adler would have handled that. And if 17 there was an issue, Russ would have come to me. And I 18 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 what he needed to do 21 to properly handle the case and I would have trusted 22 him to do that. 23 MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a second. We 24 are going to take a minute, okay? 25 THE WITNESS: Sure. Page 91 1 Q. Okay. And you don't know what you reviewed 2 on the internet in an effort to determine that 3 Mr. Epstein was a billionaire; is that correct? 4 A. I do not recall. 5 Q. Do you know when you did that? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Was it prior to your needing to use the 8 Epstein case to further your Ponzi scheme? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. So prior to -- I think you indicated 11 that you needed an influx of money at some point and 12 that's when you decided to use the Epstein case in 13 furtherance of the Ponzi scheme; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So prior to that time though, prior to 16 determining that you needed to use the Epstein case 17 for the Ponzi scheme, you looked up Mr. Epstein and 18 you spoke to Mr. Adler about his work; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Rothstein, if you 22 weren't using the Epstein case at that point in your 23 Ponzi scheme? 24 A. Because it was a legitimate case in the 25 legitimate portion of RRA that I had reason to believe Page 93 24 (Pages 90 to 93) FRiEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d8fadidf EFTA01130758 1 from speaking to Mr. Adler could bring in a 2 significant amount of money to the firm. 3 Q. At that time Mr. Adler was one of your 4 co-conspirators in the Ponzi scheme; is that correct? 5 A. By this time, yes, sir. 6 Q. Okay. When did Mr. Adler become a 7 co-conspirator in your Ponzi scheme? 8 A. I don't recall the specific date. 9 Q. Was it before or after Mr. Adler recommended 1 0 that Brad Edwards be hired at your firm? 11 A. Before. 12 Q. So before Brad Edwards was hired at RRA, 13 Russell Adler was a co-conspirator of yours in the 1 4 illegal part of the 1212.A firm; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Then after that time you hired — 17 Mr. Edwards was hired after Adler was your 18 co-conspirator? You are laughing, you are smiling, 19 why is that, sir? 2 0 A. Because when you say "RRA" that way, the 21 speaker sounds, it sounds like you are roaring. 2 2 Q. Okay. I'll just say Rothstein, how about 2 3 tki? You know what I'm talking about if 1 just say 2 4 R0thstein. 2 5 It A. RRA is fine. Page 94 1 Q. What did Adler tell you about the Epstein 2 case that Edwards had at the time you were 3 contemplating hiring him to become a member of the I 4 Rothstein firm? 5 A. He told me that it was a huge case involving 6 a billionaire pedophile and that it was a winner. 7 Q. Did you, when you heard that, did you think 8 that that was a case that could become pan of your 9 Ponzi scheme? 10 A. No, I actually thought of it as a way to 11 earn legitimate money to help me out of the Ponzi 12 scheme. 13 Q. So at the time you hired Mr. Edwards and you 14 were talking to Adler about Edwards, you were trying 15 to get out from under the Ponzi scheme? 16 A. In the bulk of 2009 I was praying for some 17 son of legitimate influx of money to get out of the 18 Ponzi scheme. 19 Q. Okay. So now Adler tells you about this 20 Brad Edwards guy, did you know Brad Edwards before 21 Adler talked to you about him? Had you run into him? 22 A. I may have. I don't have a specific 23 recollection one way or the other. 24 Q. Okay. So now he-tells you that you should 25 consider hiring Brad Edwards, this is your Page 96 1 Q. Okay. So Adler is your co-conspirator in 2 the Ponzi scheme at the time that Brad Edwards is 3 hired, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Was it Adler who recommended to you 6 that Brad Edwards be hired? 7 A. Yes. He was one of the people. 8 Q. Who else recommended that Edwards be hired? 9 A. I don't have a specific recollection of who 10 it was, but others did. 1 1 Q. All right. But you have a recollection of 12 Adler being one of the people, so let's talk about 13 that, all right? 14 What did Adler tell you about Brad Edwards 15 when you hired him? Did he tell you that he had these 16 Epstein cases or an Epstein case in the fold? 17 A. Among other things, yes. 18 Q. What else did he tell you? 19 A. Told me he was a great lawyer and a great 20 guy. 21 Q. Did he tell you what his history was, what 22 Edwards' history was prior to coming to the Rothstein 23 firm? 2 4 A. I'm certain that 1 asked him, but 1 don't 2 5 have a specific recollection of that conversation. Page 95 1 co-conspirator talking to you, right? Is that 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And he says, by the way, he's got this great 5 Epstein case involving this billionaire, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Presumably then-you had a meeting with Brad 8 Edwards when you met him; is that correct? 9 MR. SCAROLA: Presumably he had a meeting 10 when he met him? 11 MR. GOLDBERGER: I'm sorry, Mr. Scarola was 12 cutting you off when you answered, so go ahead, answer 13 again. 14 MR. SCAROLA: I didn't understand the 15 question. 16 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 17 Q. Do you understand the question, 8 Mr. Rothstein? 19 A. I'm not sure I do because you asked me if I 20 had a meeting when I met him and I think that meeting 21 him is a meeting. 2 2 Q. Well, there was a meeting, correct? 2 3 A. I most likely met him before I hired him. I 24 most likely talked to him before I hired him because 25 that was my general way of doing business. It's all Page 97 25 (Pages 94 to 97) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d810941d1 EFTA01130759 1 together possible that I gave Russ the okay to hire 2 him before, I just don't have a specific recollection 3 one way or the other. 4 Q. At some point,1 take it, you learned, 5 whether you sat in on a meeting when Mr. Edwards was 6 hired or whether your co-conspirator hired him, at 7 some point you learned that Mr. Edwards, in fact, had 8 been hired by the firm; is that correct? 9 A. I'm certain that I gave the final okay to 10 hire him. I. 1 Q. Okay. When you were giving the final okay 12 to hire him, I assume there had to be discussion of 13 the money that he was going to be paid, correct? 14 A. With somebody, yes. 1 5 Q. Certainly with Mr. Edwards, right? I assume 1 6 he wanted to know how much he was getting paid. 17 A. Yes, but 1 don't have a specific 18 recollection of whether 1 discussed that with him or 1 9 whether I authorized Adler or maybe even Rosenfeld! to 20 discuss it with him. 1 don't recall. 21 Q. Do you have the slightest idea how much 22 money Mr. Edwards was paid when he first joined the 23 firm, what his salary was? 24 = A. I don't have an independent recollection. 25 - Q. Generally someone like Mr. Edwards at his Page 98 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 factor I considered. Q. All right. Do you know whether he brought. in his book of business, do you know whether he brought any other cases to the firm other than the Epstein case? A. I don't recall one way or the other. Q. Okay. Do you know whether your well, bad question, I won't ask that. Now, you've talked a lot about Ken Jenne here this morning. Was Ken Jenne part of your Ponzi scheme? A. No, sir. Q. Had nothing to do with it, right? A. That's correct. Q. Other than his having -- working for you as an investigator, he was not one of your co-conspirators, right? A. He didn't work for me as an investigator, he worked for me heading up our investigative division, heading up our internal security, heading up my personal security, and acting as a political advisor to me. Q. Okay. Did he serve any kind of investigative function at all, after all, he was a law enforcement officer at one point in his career? Page 100 1 level of accomplishment and his age, you know what the 2 general salary would have been at your firm? 3 A. It didn't work that way. 4 Q. I see. Tell me how it worked. 5 A. It's a case-by-case basis. 6 Q. Tell me how it worked. 7 A. Case-by-case basis. 8 Q. And how did you make that determination on a 9 case-by-case basis? 10 A. Actual book of business, potential book of 11 business, potentiality for growth, character, what he 12 brought to the table, and obviously a function of how 13 much money we had available at the time. 14 Q. Okay. And you don't have any recollection 15 of the machinations that occurred in determining what 16 Mr. Edwards salary would be, correct? 17 A. I do not. 18 Q. But certainly one of the things you would 19 consider would be the book of business, i.e. the 20 Epstein case, right? 21 A. I'm certain that I did consider the Epstein 22 case. 23 Q. Do you know whether he brought any other 24 book of business — 25 A. But I'm also certain it wasn't the only Page 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I note that he assisted the other people at the firm that were doing the investigative work. I don't know if he personally did investigative work. He may have. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Jenne, in his role as your advisor or your political consultant, do you know if he was involved in any kind of illegality, illegal wire tapping or anything like that while he was at Rothstein? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to object to the form of the question, vague and ambiguous. THE WITNESS: To my knowledge he was not. BY MR. GOLDBERGER: Q. To your knowledge, no? A. Correct. Q. Okay. You talked about having a bunch of fundraisers, I know you had a bunch of fundraisers that was kind of a deal at Rothstein. This was kind of a rock star law firm, right? I mean, you had lots of fundraisers, lots of parties, right? Was that the image you were trying to present? A. In reality that's the way we were. Q. Okay. A. A lot of young lawyers having a good time, Page 101 26 (Pages 98 to 101) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8le9411dt EFTA01130760 1 trying to make money. 2 Q. And these young lawyers, would you consider 3 Mr. Edwards to be a young lawyer or a middle-aged 4 lawyer? A. Young lawyer. 6 Q. Okay. Was he one of young lawyers that came 7 to these fundraisers at your home? 8 A. 1 don't recall whether he was there or not. 9 1 recall him being at some, but I didn't know if he 10 was at all of them. 11 Q. Okay. You do recall him coming to some of 12 the fundraisers, though, correct? 13 A. 1 recall him being at my home. It may have 14 been for firm parties or other parties, it may have 15 been for fundraisers there. 16 Q. And that was during the time period that the 17 Ponzi scheme was still going on, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did Adler ever the tell you about any 2 0 discussions he had with Brad Edwards about the illegal 21 part of the operations at Rothstein? 2 2 A. Can you reask the question, please? 2 3 Q. Sure. Sure. 2 4 Did Russell Adler ever tell you — Russell 2 5 Adler is your co-conspirator, we've established that. Page 102 1 2 3 4 : I 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was a real case going on. but that within that I would have to create some sort of fictions in order to cell the fake product, Q. Okay. At the time that you decided to use the Epstein case as pan of your illicit Ponzi scheme theme, I think you testified earlier today, when you were in some dire straights, you needed an influx of money, right? A. Yes. Q. That's when you decided to use the Epstein matters, cornet? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you knew, I assume, being the Ponzi scheme mastermind here, that you needed to make sure that you had at least a working knowledge of the Epstein case so that you could answer questions to the investors. I recognize that you left the room and told than to look at it, but you had to some knowledge of the case, right? MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, that's a misrepresentation of what the earlier testimony was. I object, no proper predicate. MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay, let's go through the whole thing again. MR. SCAROLA: No, you are not going to go Page 104 1 Did Russell Adler in the furtherance of your 2 conspiracy ever tell you he had discussed with Brad 3 Edwards about the illegal activities at RRA? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Now,you testified when asked about whether 6 the press — if you were involved in asking the press 7 to run with the Ensteinstorr. YOU said something to 8 the effect, "the way] was selling_the_Eonzi scheme it 9 would be overkill." 10 I didn't understand your answer like you 11 didn't understand some of my questions, so I'd like 12 you to kind of tell me what you meant by that. 13 A. 1 was selling purportedly confidential 14 settlements. Confidentiality was the hallmark of the 15 ora lnirheme, so too much publicity would have created 16 a problem for me in the sale of what was supposed to 17 be a completely confidential settlement 18 Q. 1 think what you are telling me, and I don't 19 want to misstate what I think you are telling me, but 20 is it true that you felt some publicity would be okay 21 but too much would be counter to the purposes of the 22 conspiracy. Is that a fair statement? 2 3 A. The way I was thinking about it at the time 24 this was going on was that some publicity would assist 25 in establishing for the potential investors that that Page 103 1 through the whole thing again. Just because we have 2 tolerated two lawyers asking questions, does not mean 3 we are going to tolerate two lawyers asking the same 4 questions. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted. 6 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 7 Q. Okay. So let's talk about your need to use 8 the Epstein case to further your conspiracy. You 9 needed an influx of money, did you not? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. You decided to use the Epstein case 12 for that purpose, right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And in order to use the Epstein case, you 15 were going to meet with the investors and pitch the 16 Epstein case with the investors, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And in an effort to pitch the case to the 19 investors, you had to have some knowledge of the case, 20 did you not? 21 A. Some level of knowledge, yes, sir. 22 Q. Okay. And in order to gain that knowledge, 23 you spoke to your co-conspirator, Russell Adler, is 24 that correct? 25 A. That's one of the things I did. Page 105 27 (Pages 102 to 105) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-btdd-ca2dale941d1 EFTA01130761 1 Q. Okay. And do you remember what Adler told 2 you specifically about the Epstein case that helped 3 you have a basis of infonnation to sell it to the 4 investors? S A. Other than him telling me that it was a 6 billionaire pedophile, other than him telling me about 7 the flight manifest, I don't have a specific 8 recollection of what else he told me. 9 Q. Did you actually look at the flight manifest 10 at sometime, Mr. Rothstein? A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And what was it about those flight manifests 13 that you felt would help you pitch the Epstein case to 14 the investor? 15 A. I don't remember who specifically was on it, 16 but I remember it looking juicy. 17 Q. You don't know who was on it? 18 A. I don't recall. 1 9 Q. Did you add any names to that manifest at 2 0 any time? 21 A. I had — you mean physically write names on 22 there? 2 3 Q. Any way you want to interpret -- did you -- 2 4 not physically write any names on the manifest, but 2 5 did you tell the investors that there were names on Page 106 fi I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were all the manifests within the law firm of RRA and you simply didn't have them in your office? A. I have no idea one way or the other. Q. Okay. A. I did not have them. Q. You were told by Russell Adler that you didn't have — that you physically didn't have all the manifests, correct? A. That's correct. Q. But you don't know whether they were in the building somewhere, these other supposed manifests? A. I have no idea one way or the other. Q. You never asked for proof that Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew's name were on a manifest somewhere? A. I didn't say that. I may very well have asked Adler or Ken Jenne to find the other manifests. Q. Were you ever shown a manifest with the name Bill Clinton or the name Prince Andrew on them? A. I do not recall one way or the other whether I saw that or not. I remember Adler telling me about it and then me repeating that information to the investors based upon Ms. Adler's representations to me. Q. Now, you testified that you were told that the Epstein cases were "legitimate cases. Do you Page 108 1 the manifest that were actually not on the manifest? 2 A. I told the investors that there were other 3 people that appeared on manifests, I don't recall 4 whether it was that manifest or other manifests, and I S 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 Q. What names did you get from Russ Adler? 9 A. Russ Adler toldfne thaRill_Clinton flew on 10 Mr. Epstein's plane and that Prince Andrew flew on 1.1 Mr. Epstein's plane. 12 Q. And is it your testimony today that you I 3 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. 19 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask for the manifests 2 0 that purportedly had the name of Bill Clinton or 21 Prince Andrew on it? 22 A. I probably did, but I don't have a specific 23 recollection one way or the other. 24 Q. When you say you didn't have all the 25 manifests, were all the manifests in your office — Page 107 1 remember that testimony you gave this morning? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you remember your testimony that you 4 were told they were legitimate cases by both Russ 5 Adler and Brad Edwards, do you remember that? 6 A. I never said that Mr. Edwards or Mr. Adler 7 said, "Scott, these are legitimate cases." I didn't 8 question than as to their legitimacy. 9 Q. You did testify that you talked to Brad 10 Edwards about the Epstein cases; is that correct? 11 MR. SCAROLA: No, counsel, that is a 12 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. 13 MR. GOLDBERGER: No, it's not. 14 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 15 Q. Did you talk to Brad Edwards about the 16 Epstein cases? 17 A. I do not recall one way or the other. That 18 was my prior testimony, that's still my testimony. I 19 don't — I do not recall. 2 0 Q. We'll let the record speak — 21 A. I know 1 spoke to Adler about it. 22 Q. We'll let the record speak for itself. Your 23 testimony, as 1 am questioning you now, is that you do 24 not recall whether you spoke to Brad Edwards about the 25 Epstein cases; is that correct? Page 109 28 (Pages 106 to 109) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 54493085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941dt EFTA01130762 1 A. If you are including within that me walking 2 past Brad in the hall and saying, "Hey, Brad how are 3 you? How is the Epstein stuff going?" Then it's very 4 likely that I talked to him about it in that manner. 5 But I have no specific recollection one way or the 6 other as to having any lengthy conversations with 7 Mr. Edwards about the case. 8 I had a co-conspirator who was deeply 9 involved in the Ponzi scheme that I could go to to get 10 any information I wanted, Mr. Adler. I didn't need to 11 go to Mr. Edwards. 12 Q. So if you had a question of your 13 co-conspirator, Russell Adler, about the Epstein case, 14 you would go ask Adler and would Adler always have the 15 answer for you or would he say he would get you the 16 answer? 17 A. Both. 18 Q. When he didn't have the answer, do you know 19 who he was getting the answer from? 20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, predicate. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know who he was 22 getting it from and I may have contacted other people 23 in the office who were working on the file to ask. I 24 may have asked Mr. Jenne,1 may have asked Ms. 25 Holmes, I many have asked a whole myriad of people. Page 110 t 1 A. She may have, I don't recall one way or the 2 other. 3 Q. Did you ever ask Ms. Holmes to use any of 4 her prior contacts in law enforcement to assist you in 5 the Ponzi 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 8 intimating that Ms. Holmes knew. I may have asked 9 Ms. Holmes to get me information that I was going to 10 utilize with my co-conspirators in the Ponzi scheme, 11 but Ms. Holmes did not know that there was a Ponzi 12 scheme going on. 13 Q. All right. So you may have asked Ms. Holmes 14 to try and get some 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 knew nothing about the Ponzi scheme, correct? 18 A. I may have, I may not have. I do not 19 remember and she absolutely knew nothing about the 20 Ponzi scheme. 21 Q. Okay. Now, we talked about Brad Edwards 22 getting paid and the multilevel 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 case was used as part of the Ponzi Page 112 1 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 2 Q. So Ms. Holmes was working on the Epstein 3 cases? 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. Holmes you said was a former 7 federal law enforcement officer, was that your 8 testimony? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You don't know whether she was FBI or IRS, 11 correct? 12 A. I don't remember. 13 Q. Okay. And upon reflection, do you know 14 whether she was hired without your say-so based on 15 what Mr. Jenne told you or did you meet with her? 16 A. No, I actually -- I remember meeting with 17 Ms. Holmes. 18 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? Page 111 1 scheme? 2 A. He did not. 3 Q. So he was -- 4 A. If he got a bonus, it was something he 5 earned. 6 Q. Did you make a determination as to what that 7 bonus would be? 8 A. If he got a bonus, I would have been 9 instrumental in determining it. You can determine if 10 he got a bonus by looking at our financial records, I 11 don't have an independent recollection one way or the 12 other. 13 Q. So you don't know whether he got a bonus at 14 all, correct? 15 A. 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 18 Epstein case was used as part of the Ponzi scheme? 19 A. I don't know if he got a bonus, which means 20 I wouldn't know the time frame. 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 Ponzi scheme and we learn 24 that by looking at these -- what was the group that it 25 was used to pitch to? Page 113 29 (Pages 110 to 113) FFUEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 56093085 0554-4471-beddca2d8k941dI EFTA01130763 1 A. Clockwork. 2 Q. So we would look at when the Clockwork group 3 was brought into this and the Epstein case was used 4 then and then we would look at the payroll records to 5 see whether Mr. Edwards got a bonus after the 6 Clockwork group was brought into the Ponzi scheme. 7 correct? 8 A. From a timing perspective, yes. But 9 Mr. Edwards had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme, 10 nor was he rewarded even surreptitiously without his 11 knowledge for helping me with the Ponzi scheme. If he 12 was_rewarderLit was because he deserved, I felt he 13 deserved a reward, having nothing to do with the Ponzi 14 scheme. The bulk of this law firm had nothing to do 1 5 with the Ponzi scheme. 16 Q. I think you testified already, though, that 17 money was fundable in the firm, right? I mean, you 18 know, illegal money was used for legitimate purposes, 19 correct? 2 0 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. So, for example, investigations that 22 were done with the Epstein case, it's very possible 23 that legitimate Ponzi money was used to finance those 24 investigations? 25 A. I'd be guessing. It's certainly possible Page 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 '16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about? By the way, you had a number of Epstein cases in-house, do you know which case you were talking about? A. As I sit here today, no, sir, I don't remember. Q. Was it a state case or a federal case? A. I don't remember one way or the other. Q. All right. A. I utilized all those boxes all I don't remember which one I sold them. Q. And the exhibits -- A. It's something completely fictitious that I made iv that I told them. Q. The exhibit that you were shown earlier, Exhibit Number I, 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. Q. Did anyone tell you that these women had — some of these women had a history of prostitution? Page 116 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 CFO, 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. MR. LAVECCHIO: Off the record a second. 8 (Discussion off the record.] 9 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 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 18 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 Page 115 1 A. They may have told me that I wouldn't have 2 cared one way or the other, 3 Q. Why would you not have cared about that, 4 Mr. Rothstein? 5 A. It had nothing to do with the sale of the 6 Ponzi scheme settlements. 7 Q. Okay. Were you told by anyone whether any 8 of the women involved as plaintiffs in the case may 9 have worked at adult clubs in the past? I mean strip 10 clubs, let's call it what it is. 11 A. I may have been told that one way or the 12 other. But again, it had nothing to do with the Ponzi 13 scheme sale of fake settlements. 14 Q. As pan of the information that you were 15 told by you co-conspirator, Russell Adler, were you 16 told that some of the plaintiffs that you had in-house 17 had travelled on Mr. Epstein's airplane? 18 A. I believe Russ did tell me that. 19 Q. You know, in fact, that that was not true, 20 correct? 21 A. I have no idea one way or the other, nor did 22 I care. 23 Q. But your co-conspirator told you that, 24 right? 25 A. Mr. Adler did, in fact, tell me that certain_ Page 117 30 (Pages 114 to 117) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-4471-bedd-endale94141 EFTA01130764 1 of the underage women had travelled on Mr. Epstein's 1 2 ae. I 2 3 Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs? 3 4 MR. SCAROLA: That's question that's been 4 5 asked and answered. 5 6 THE WITNESS: I do not have a specific , 6 7 recollection of ever meeting them. 7 8 MR. SCAROLA: You are exhausting my 8 9 indulgence. 9 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Fair enough. 10 11 MR. SCAROLA: You've exhausted my 11 12 indulgence. 12 13 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 13 14 Q. Do you know whether any of your 14 15 investigators at the firm had any kind of high tech 15 16 surveillance equipment or, you know, wire tapping 16 17 equipment? 17 18 A. I believe they did. 18 19 Q. Do you know whether this was legal stuff or 19 20 illegal staff? 20 21 A. I did not know, nor did I care. 21 22 Q. Do you know if any of that stuff was used to 22 2 3 either wire tap or surveil Mr. Epstein? 23 24 A. I do not know one way or the other. 24 2 5 Q. What sort of equipment did you know that 25 Page 118 have any knowledge of your firm's attempt during the Ponzi scheme to depose Alan Dershowitz? A. No, sir. I don't have a recollection of one way or the other. Q. Okay. The name Kendall Coffey was brought up before. Do you know who Kendall Coffey is? A. Yes. Q. Who do you know him to be? A. Former U.S. attorney, current criminal defense lawyer. Q. Was he a friendship of the firm's? A. Represented RRA when I fled the country. Q. So he was a friend of the firm, or a friend of yours at least, right? A. He wasn't a friend of mine. Q. A friend of the firm? A. No idea. Q. He represented them when I fled the country. I remember him coming in and doing like a show and tell in my office on TV. MR. GOLDBERGER: Patience gets rewarded. I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. That's all the questions that I have. THE WITNESS: You are welcome. Page 120 1 they had, meaning your investigators? 2 A. I had told Mr. Jenne and others involved in 3 the investigation arm of RRA to get whatever equipment 4 they thought they needed and to get the best stuff 5 that they could ga. What they actually did, I can't 6 tell you. 7 Q. You know as part of the Epstein litigation, 8 and I'm talking about now after your using it in the 9 Ponzi scheme, do you know whether anyone at your firm 10 attempted to depose ex-President Bill Clinton? 11 A. 1 don't recall that, sir. 12 Q. Okay. How about Donald Trump, same 13 question? 14 A. I don't recall that. Asa mailer of fact, 15 we had represented Trump in some things, we had some 16 pretty close ties with him, so I can't imagine that 17 they would have done that with my authority. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. I don't recall that. 20 Q. Do you know whether Adler would have -- 21 would Adler have the authorize to do that without 22 getting your permission? 23 A. The authority, no. Might he have tried, 24 yes. 25 Q. Okay. How about Alan Dershowitz, do you Page 119 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Mr. Rothstein, again, Jack Scarola on behalf 4 of Brad Edwards. I want you to assume that Brad has 5 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 8 of that testimony? 9 A. .1 ot_ not. 10 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 11 testify under oath that while you were copied op 12 e-mails, you never attended a single legitimate 13 meeting regardinglhe legitimate prosecution of the 14 Epstein cases. Do you have any basis whatso—e-Ver to 15 question the accuracy of that testimony? 16 A. No, sir. 17 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 18 testify under oath that you never directed rt ue filinp 19 of any documents in the Epstein case, 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. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 25 testify under oath that you never directed the takirur Page 121 31 (Pages 118 to 121) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 543(193085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d8fe941d1 EFTA01130765 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 3 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of a single deposition or the propounding of any discover/ in the Epstein cases. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? A. No. ir, Q. I want voile assume that Brad has or will testify that you did not provide any input whatsoever into the handling of the leititimate_Epstein cases. Do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? A. 3:12,E. Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will testify that you_never met any of the legitimate plaintiffs in the Epstein cases. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? A. MS. HADDAD: I'm going to object to these same questions you keep asking, because Mr. Rothstein has testified at nauseam that he doesn't recall any of this and now you are asking him to bolster Mr. Edwards either already given or purported testimony when he's testified he doesn't recall it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will testify under oath that you never asked him once to report back to you on any factual matters regarding Page 122 1 illegal activities at the RRA_finnancl 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? 5 A. I'll be violating my agreement with the 6 Vnited States government and) would run the risk of 7 dying in prison. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. I don't have any 9 further questions. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 11 MR. NUM: Mark, l don't know what your 12 time frame is on your litigation, but the ability to 13 receive the transcript, review it and prepare an 14 errata sheet within what is normally the time 15 allotted under the court rules cannot be accomplished 16 in this case. 17 MR. GOLDBERGER: How much time are you 18 generally -- 19 MR. NURIK: I don't know. 20 Actually, the first set of errata sheets 21 have just been prepared and finalized for the first 22 deposition in December. I'm not suggesting it will 23 take that long this lime, but if you can give me an 24 idea of what your time responsibilities are with the 25 court, what the time limits are -- Page 124 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 RRA lawyer Do you have any reason to d bt B 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 deoositioa and you 16 knowingly concealed Brad Edwards' participation, what 17 do you understand_theimonalssinsequences to be as a 18 consequence of your having knowingly concealed Brad 19 Edwards' participation? 20 A. 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 to what you have 24 testified under oath and what Brad hj_mself has 25 repeatedly said, knew about anything having to do with Page 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you think it will be less than a month, two months? MR. NURIK: I don't think it will be less than a month. First of all, a lot depends on the ability to get the transcript to him to review. MR. GOLDBERGER: Right. MR. NUM: And that's a whole procedure, it's not normal circumstances that we are dealing with. MR. GOLDBERGER: If time becomes an issue, well approach you and ask you to expedite. MR. SCAROLA: Mark, I will tell that from our perspective time is an issue. MR. NURIK: Have at it then, lack. Do what you need to do to get it done. MR. SCAROLA: There is a long pending motion for sununary judgment on Brad's behalf that has been delayed for purposes of taking this deposition. We are very anxious to be able to call that motion for summary judgment up for hearing, so whatever can be done reasonably to expedite the preparation of this portion of this transcript would be appreciated. We understand there are limitations beyond your control, but to the extent you can do it, that would be helpful. Thank you. Page 125 32 (Pages 122 to 125) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371.6677 Sed93085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d8fe941dt EFTA01130766 1 MS. IIADDAD: Ifs scheduled in a month, 2 Mark. 3 MR. NURIK: We'll cooperate. 4 MR. SCAROI.A: Thank you very much. 5 [Thereupon, the taking of the deposition was 6 concluded at 12:37 p.m.) 7 8 1. 0 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN 1 1 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day 12 of , 2012. Notary Public, Stale of Florida at Large. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 126 2 3 4 5 • 12 13 14 15 le IT 1 19 20 7? 23 24 25 a HUMAN. LOMBARDI a OLSON Sew 914 Beare Butalute 1p W411 flag* Suess Morn rØ 33130 lettplatre (305)371-6611 Jed 21.3012 IN RE EPSTEIN VS EDWARDS SCOTT R0116TEIN 00 MARC NORM One Ea, Brerweed Bakes/el Sarnia Nor re ~dole n011å• 33301 NW SCOTT ROTHSTEIN WA24~o/ io the deer.m of reuse gtaken hod R 2012, in ~IMO, vnia ihe abarneepotood urn, pion be atoned rho the ~cm of die *patron Ss tern cowered and • OW•110111 ~WC Prerat anew sia slop by ow ant km the peewee deaden tad sienna the *portion Ow olio how. we 900 a rn .04 CO p . hØ thous\ tidor Okra telephare a &hØ You rara hovornr, rad a corn of de trtnetot, petivrnd by any of Ow attorneys erneocred %oh die erne, deans ay eorroment by pert ad lee rrniarr on • mom{ lied fi pper Tan Hernia" par ant be synd bt you and solicits and returned to ut b film watt** need laths hat nte tern taken tae of. leiwerna oohs no ant 30 de" ot by de erte of ••t ~et eon's fro, I shell an eontludc dal die radio«. tokeenbine Ind rarne or stre tow ben wood ard eel 'Sn weird co dearer de enprat of tIe Irma° to ordenes attorney *utall kids note< Pearlyd: Mann Page 128 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF FLORIDA I COUNTY OF S0MEDADE ) Peadyck Masta a Notary Ptlabc in and 4 fa the Sate of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that burnout to a Notice of Talkie Orgasm°. m 5 the ebovbentnkd own. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN was by mc first duly cauuceed and swum to testify the wick 6 mah, ard upon being carefully examined testified as is beicirabove shown and la testimony of said 1 witness was reduced le eypnwital under my personal supervision and that the sal Video Conference 8 deposition eOntrirutel e true reidd of the testimony Lawn by the vorness 3 9 I funk' entity that ea said Video 10. Conferee= deposition was taken at the time and platt epeeilled hereinebow and Ran I am nett of 11 counsel mc solicitor to eider of She games in wad sun not aerated in the ram of the cause 12 WITNESS my hand and official sal in the 13 City of Miami Carty of Dade. Stale of Florida. this day oflwx IV 2012 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pearlsk Mania Page 127 33 (Pages 126 to 128) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 54:493085-0554-4471-bcdd-ca2d81.941d1 EFTA01130767