DS9 Document EFTA01138026

648 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, VS. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. VIDEOTAPE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ VOLUME 5 Pages 648 through 781 Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:04 a.m. - 11:59 a.m. Tripp Scott 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator EFTA01138026 649 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of Plaintiffs: 3 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. 6 7 8 On behalf of Defendant: 9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. 12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone) 13 --and 14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP 131 Oliver Street 15 Boston, MA 02110 BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ. 16 17 --and-- 18 WILEY, REIN 17769 K Street NW 19 Washington, DC 20006 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ. 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01138027 650 1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 2 3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 4 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. 5 New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) 6 7 On behalf of 8 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 9 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ. 10 11 12 ALSO PRESENT: 13 Edward J. Pozzuoli, Special Master 14 Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General Office 15 Marcy Martinez, Videographer 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01138028 651 1 INDEX 2 3 Examination Page 4 5 VOLUME 5 (Pages 648 - 781) 6 7 Certificate of Oath 778 Certificate of Reporter 779 8 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 780 Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 781 9 10 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS 11 12 No. Page 13 25 Transcript from Don Lemon Interview 689 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01138029 652 1 Thereupon, the proceedings continued at 9:04 a.m. 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Are now on the video 3 record. This is the 13th day of January, 2016. 4 The time is 9:04 a.m. This is the videotaped 5 deposition of Alan Dershowitz in the matter of 6 Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell versus Alan 7 Dershowitz. 8 My name is Marcy Martinez. I am the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 colleague Meredith Schultz from Boies, Schiller 21 & Flexner. 22 MR. INDYKE: On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, 23 Darren Indyke. 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ed Pozzuoli as 25 the special master. videographer representing Above & Beyond Reprographics. Will the attorneys please announce their appearances for the record. MR. EDWARDS: Sure. On behalf of the plaintiff today Brad Edwards, Jack Scarola, Brittany Henderson and Paul Cassell. MR. SIMPSON: On behalf of the defendant and the witness, Richard Simpson, and Thomas Scott will be joining. He just walked in. MS. McCAWLEY: On behalf of nonparty , Sigrid McCawley and my EFTA01138030 653 1 MR. SIMPSON: Is there anyone else on the 2 phone? 3 MR. MAISEL: Yeah, this is Nicholas 4 Maisel. 5 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your 6 right hand, please? 7 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 8 you are about to give will be the truth, the 9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 10 THE WITNESS: I do. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Nick, would you announce the 12 capacity in which you're appearing, please. 13 MR. MAISEL: Special research assistant 14 for Alan Dershowitz. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Are we ready? 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Mr. Dershowitz, in January of 2015, when you made the statements that Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards participated in the fabricating of the allegations that were made against you, what information or evidence did you have in your possession at that time to support those statements? MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form as overly EFTA01138031 654 1 general. You may answer. 2 A. As soon as the allegations were made 3 against me, I received a series of phone calls and 4 people approached me at various events and they 5 warned me about the reputation of Bradley Edwards. 6 They told me that he had, in their view, 7 participated in a major fraud with a man named 8 Rothstein, that he should be in jail for the 9 Rothstein events. 10 I received a phone call saying that he had 11 fabricated evidence when he was a prosecutor and 12 that he had knowingly failed to investigate police 13 fabrication of evidence in a case. Generally was 14 warned about the terrible reputation that 15 Mr. Edwards had. 16 I also received phone calls telling me 17 that Mr. Cassell was a zealot, that he had used me 18 in class as a whipping -- as a kind of an object of 19 hate and painted me as a liberal supporter of the 20 exclusionary rule and opponent of the death penalty, 21 and that he had no concern for the truth when it 22 came to his zealotry on behalf of alleged victims. 23 The calls were just -- the people who told 24 me this were just -- there were so many of them that 25 it was amazing to me. EFTA01138032 655 1 And I knew, of course, that I had never 2 met -- had no contact with I knew 3 that she was lying. I read her deposition, and as 4 an experienced lawyer with 50 years of experience, 5 it was absolutely clear to me that no lay person 6 with her lack of education could have written that 7 deposition. a I sought the advice of friends and others 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 this was part of an extortion plot in order to 17 obtain money. I later learned many, many, many 18 facts. 19 MR. EDWARDS: I object and move to strike 20 as nonresponsive and that the question calls 21 22 2015. I would ask for a ruling on that. 23 A. I'm providing that, but I'm giving the 24 context. 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Denied. Move with experience who confirmed the view that that affidavit clearly had to have been written by lawyers and certainly drafted by lawyers; the level of detail, the structure of the sentences, all of which led me conclusively to the belief that the lawyers had written this affidavit. I suspected from the very beginning that for information in his possession in January of EFTA01138033 656 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 in this case and that they pretended to be pro bono 10 lawyers when they were, in fact, money-grubbing, 11 money-hungry lawyers who had earned a very 12 substantial amount of money already on these cases 13 and were expecting to earn more money. 14 Let me think of what other information I 15 had. 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: At the time of 17 the question. 18 A. At the time of my statements, right. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 forward. A. Okay. I knew that there was a financial motivation here. I also knew that Cassell and Edwards had lied when they said they were representing in a pro bono basis. I had been informed repeatedly that they were in it for the money and that they expected to earn a lot of money from representing her and others It's just inconceivable to me that this uneducated woman could have come up with this story on her own. I understood the motives of the lawyers, and I was convinced, therefore, it was my opinion based on my experience, in fact, that she could not have done this by herself and that she had to have EFTA01138034 657 1 worked in coordination with her lawyers. 2 Her lawyers were also at that point 3 claiming that the story should be believed because 4 of who they were. Mr. Cassell, in my view, 5 unethically signed his pleading with the University 6 of Utah imprimatur, suggesting that he was a State 7 actor, suggesting that he acted on behalf of his 8 university, something I would never do and I've 9 stopped clients from doing. When I represent 10 people, I represent them on my own behalf, not on 11 behalf of any university. 12 The very fact that the Attorney General of 13 Utah was here yesterday indicates that he may very 14 well be a State actor and subject to the rules of 15 State action rather than individual action. 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That portion I 17 will strike. That sentence. 18 A. Sorry. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. I'm not finished. 22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is there any 23 other information that you haven't touched 24 on -- 25 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to -- EFTA01138035 658 1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: -- as of, what, 2 January? 3 MR. EDWARDS: January of 2015. 4 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. 5 MR. SCAROLA: January 4. 6 MR. EDWARDS: January 4, 2015. 7 A. Okay, that's the question. But, of 8 course, I made a series of statements that continued 9 beyond January 4, and they always took into account 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 important to this. I did not make a single call to 17 a single newspaper or single television station, to 18 my knowledge, or a single newspaper. I was 19 constantly responding. 20 MR. SCAROLA: That's not responsive. 21 A. Excuse me. In the last deposition -- 22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, no. 23 A. -- there was an interruption by 24 Mr. Scarola that I want to put on the record. 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, no, no, no, new developments and new information that I had. I was also aware that Mr. Cassell was promoting himself as a former federal judge and using his status and imprimatur in a false effort to try to add credibility to the story. And I did not make -- this is very EFTA01138036 659 1 no, no, no. No. Respond to the question that 2 was answered and go ahead because I haven't 3 heard any objection yet. 4 MR. EDWARDS: I'm objecting to all of this 5 as being nonresponsive to the question. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is there 7 anything else that you would like to add to the 8 answer? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 A. When the newspapers called me, they all 11 asked me the following question -- 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Was this in 13 January? 14 A. This was in January. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 Q. The question on the table is -- 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 18 second. 19 A. I'm going to tell you. 20 MR. EDWARDS: What information that 21 Mr. Dershowitz had in January 4, 2015, when he 22 made the statement that Paul Cassell and Brad 23 Edwards fabricated the allegations against him. 24 MR. SIMPSON: The question was about in 25 January of 2015. EFTA01138037 660 1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's what it 2 was. That was the original question, which is 3 why he was afforded a tremendous amount of 4 latitude. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Understood. 6 A. And I got continuing information all 7 through January and amended my statements as 8 consistent with the information that I got. 9 The newspapers called me. They all said 10 to me, why would anybody make a false allegation if 11 he's a former Federal judge, if he's a professor, if 12 he's a distinguished trial lawyer? 13 Clearly the -- on the 4th of December, 14 talking about that day, that's the day on which 15 Mr. Cassell wrote to ABC 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. January. 18 A. January 4, 2015, that's the date on which 19 Mr. Cassell wrote to ABC News asking them to 20 publicize his client's story and to -- and again 21 making it clear to ABC who he was and what he -- and 22 who he had been and what offices he had held. 23 And so it was clear to me at that point, 24 and through January it became clearer and clearer 25 that she could not have done this on her own, that EFTA01138038 661 1 she had to have sat with her lawyers and concocted 2 this story, added the kind of detail to the story 3 that would make a lie seem plausible and credible. 4 And I think that any reasonable lawyer reading that 5 affidavit would have come to exactly the same 6 conclusion that I came to. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. 8 BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, when you first made the 10 statement on January 4, 2015 that Mr. Cassell and 11 Brad Edwards had participated in the fabrication of 12 these allegations, did you have before you any 13 affidavit or, as you have repeatedly called it, 14 deposition of 15 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. It's 16 referring to a specific statement that has not 17 been identified for the witness. 18 A. Affidavit of What I had 19 was the lawyers' statements that were included in 20 the Complaint, which they then sought to publicize 21 all around the world and got more than a thousand 22 newspapers to cover the story, every television 23 station in the world, every radio station virtually 24 in the world, based on what they themselves had 25 written, actually gives me even a greater basis, EFTA01138039 662 1 because it wasn't at that point based on her 2 affidavit, it was based on what the lawyers had 3 said. 4 MR. EDWARDS: I object. Can I have the 5 question read back. I'm lost as to what the 6 question is anymore. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ask -- reread 8 the question. 9 COURT REPORTER: "Mr. Dershowitz, when you 10 first made the statement on January 4, 2015 11 that Mr. Cassell and Brad Edwards had 12 participated in the fabrication of these 13 allegations, did you have before you any 14 affidavit or, as you have repeatedly called it, 15 deposition of ." 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Did you? 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So that's the 19 question. Answer that question only. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike everything 21 else he's said. 22 A. On January 4th, to my memory, I did not 23 refer to a deposition or to whatever other word you 24 used -- what was the word? 25 MR. SIMPSON: Affidavit. EFTA01138040 663 1 MR. EDWARDS: Affidavit. 2 A. -- if I hadn't seen it at that point. I 3 don't remember the exact day when her affidavit came 4 in. I referred obviously to the pleadings. That 5 was the allegation, the allegation in the pleadings. 6 So if I said that you and Cassell sat and 7 helped her make it up, it was based on -- at that 8 point in time, based on you and her, primarily you 9 and Cassell, because she didn't submit -- it wasn't 10 an affidavit at that point. 11 It was your words, you, that were accusing 12 me of these heinous crimes without any basis. So I 13 surely had a basis on January 4th of attributing it 14 to you because it was your signature on the 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hold on a 16 second. So I understand, the question is what 17 did you have on January 4th -- 18 MR. EDWARDS: -- 2015 to support that 19 statement. 20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Just answer that 21 question first and then you can explain, but -- 22 A. With due respect, Your Honor, I think the 23 question was, did you have the affidavit in front of 24 you. 25 EFTA01138041 664 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q. Right. Okay. Did you have the affidavit 3 or deposition of on that day? 4 A. To my recollection, I did not. I had only 5 your characterization of the accusation which you 6 were making against me. 7 Q. And in your experience as an attorney, 8 isn't it common knowledge that attorneys drafting 9 complaints or pleadings take the word of the client 10 to form the basis of that Complaint or pleading? 11 A. No, it's not common knowledge. It's 12 common knowledge that unethical lawyers of the kind 13 that your reputation told me you were help the 14 clients 15 MR. EDWARDS: I object. Move to strike as 16 nonresponsive. 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That, I am going 18 to strike. Try -- try to answer the question. 19 A. But I think the generic answer is ethical 20 lawyers -- let me put it this way, ethical lawyers 21 should not elaborate on what a client tells them in 22 an affidavit. 23 In my experience, there's a continuum. 24 Many, many lawyers, when they see a statement by a 25 client, they'll say, no, no, no, no, could you EFTA01138042 665 1 please elaborate on that. You say you had sex with 2 him. Was it one time? Was it two times? Could it 3 have been six times? Could it have been on the 4 airplane? Could it have been -- et cetera. 5 So I think it's a continuum of the way 6 lawyers work with clients. The most ethical lawyers 7 don't change what a client says. They word for word 8 repeat what the client says. 9 The most unethical lawyers will put all of 10 their own thoughts, words, ideas if it strengthens 11 their position and strengthens their case. 12 From what I had been -- from the 13 information I knew at that time, I put you on the 14 extreme unethical end of the continuum. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That wasn't the 16 question, so 1 will strike the last sentence. 17 We need to get focused on answering the 18 question, so please try to do that. 19 A. Okay, I will do that. 20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 Q. When you first made the statements that 22 Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards fabricated the 23 allegations -- 24 A. Would you read me the statement that you 25 say I made on January 4th so I can understand what EFTA01138043 666 1 you're saying? 2 Q. Do you deny making the statement that Brad 3 Edwards and Paul Cassell fabricated the allegations 4 against you? 5 A. I remember making a series of statements 6 over time. I do not remember what I said on 7 January 4th. In order to ask me what I had at the 8 time I made the statement, I need to know with 9 precision the exact statement you are referring to 10 and the exact date. I think that's a fair request. 11 Q. We'll get that for you. It would be 12 easier had you made less statements, but we'll sift 13 through them. 14 A. If would be easier if you had called 15 MR. SIMPSON: There's no question. Object 16 to the sidebar comments. 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yes, let's -- 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. What are the names -- please list for me 20 all of the names of the people who told you that -- 21 in quotes -- Brad Edwards was -- participated in a 22 major fraud with Rothstein. Names of people. 23 MR. INDYKE: Objection based upon 24 attorney-client, work product, common interest. 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, okay. EFTA01138044 667 1 MR. INDYKE: Instruct Alan not to answer 2 to the extent it would disclose communications 3 of who made those -- 4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Objection noted. 5 You can answer it. 6 A. What framework are you giving me in terms 7 of time? 8 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: In January. 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 Q. You told me that before you made these 11 statements, one of the things that you had in your 12 possession was a series of phone calls, "a bunch of 13 people called me" -- 14 A. That is right. That's true. 15 Q. -- "and told me Brad Edwards participated 16 in major fraud with Rothstein." That's the first 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. What are the names? 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Stop, stop, question I want answered. What are the names of those people? A. A number of them who called me were ones who volunteered -- MR. SCAROLA: That's not a response to the question. EFTA01138045 668 1 please, please, please. 2 A. I'm invoking the privilege, if you would 3 allow me, please. A number of those who called me 4 called me in tandem to volunteer to be my lawyer. 5 I'll give you an example. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, no, hang on. 7 A. I can't name this person because he called 8 to give me legal advice, and I -- he gave me that 9 information as part of his legal advice. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. I'm not asking if one of the lawyers who 12 represented you and you have an attorney-client 13 privilege with has shared with you some information 14 that they believe to be the case. 15 I'm asking if you are using as support for 16 your statement that certain people told you and you 17 relied upon this -- and the particular "this" at 18 this point is that Brad Edward participated in a 19 major fraud with Scott Rothstein -- I want to know 20 the names of those people that you are relying upon 21 to test veracity of that statement, please. Names 22 of people. 23 A. One of the names was of a person who I was 24 seeking legal representation from, and it was part 25 of my conversation with him regarding legal EFTA01138046 669 1 representation. 2 MR. SCAROLA: That's not a name. 3 MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, I object and I 4 ask -- 5 A. If I give you the name 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I do think you 7 have to give the name. 8 A. Okay. The name of that person would be 9 David Markus. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. And he told me to check the docket -- 13 MR. SIMPSON: Just the question. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 Q. When did David Markus call you to tell you 16 that he knew or believed that Brad Edwards 17 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein? 18 A. Within days. Within probably a day or 19 two. 20 Q. Did he tell you what it was that formed 21 the basis for that statement that he made to you 22 that you so relied upon? 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. Was it more than the fact that your 25 client, Jeffrey Epstein, had filed a lawsuit making EFTA01138047 670 1 those allegations? 2 A. I don't think he was aware that Jeffrey 3 Epstein had made an allegation of that kind. 4 Q. At the time when David Markus called you 5 to tell you that Brad Edwards participated in a 6 major fraud with Rothstein, did you already -- 7 A. That's not 8 Q. -- have or know that Scott Rothstein had 9 testified under oath about that specific subject 10 matter? 11 A. Well, I can't imagine that you're relying 12 on Scott Rothstein's credibility. 13 Q. I'm asking, did you know? 14 MR. SIMPSON: Just answer the question. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 Q. Yes or no? 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Did you know? 18 A. I did not know. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 Q. Did you know at that point in time that 21 the Complaint that was filed by your client, Jeffrey 22 Epstein, against Brad Edwards, making those exact 23 allegations, had been dismissed at the stage -- at 24 the point in time when David Markus was making these 25 statements to you that you so relied upon? EFTA01138048 1 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 2 instruction. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's -- 4 MR. EDWARDS: Calls for a yes or no 5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's only asked 6 if you aware that the case was dismissed at 7 that time. 8 A. I don't think I was. But a case being 9 dismissed does not mean the allegation isn't true. 10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I understand, 11 but -- 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 Q. Okay. In addition to David Markus, can 14 you please complete this list of people that you 15 testified called you to tell you specifically that 16 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 17 Rothstein? 18 A. So, I spoke several times during that 19 period of time at various events. And people -- 20 lawyers came over to me and told me -- 21 Q. I'm not asking where. Who? What are the 22 names? 23 A. I can tell you one of them -- 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's trying to 25 be -- I would allow him to answer it. He's EFTA01138049 672 1 trying to be responsive to the question. 2 Please proceed. 3 A. One of them was a former president or 4 chairman or at least member of the Florida Bar 5 committee who warned me about you. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. Does he have a name? 8 A. I don't remember his name. I don't 9 remember his name, no. Of course he has a name, but 10 I don't remember his name. 11 Another was -- I mean -- just hard to 12 pinpoint names, but it was something that was 13 clearly in my mind that so many people were telling 14 me -- telling me to look into the case of Rothstein, 15 telling me that you were his protege. 16 Q. Okay. Is it true, then, that you have the 17 name of one person who you can identify told you 18 that Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 19 Rothstein? 20 A. I was also aware, of course, of the 21 Complaint that had been filed against you. And that 22 was one -- I mean, I can't comment on that because 23 of lawyer-client privilege. 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Listen to the 25 question, Professor. Go ahead. EFTA01138050 673 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q. Is it now your testimony that you can only 3 provide me with one name of one human being that 4 called you and told you Brad Edwards participated in 5 a major fraud with Rothstein? 6 A. I will try to think of others. 7 Probably -- I may have some notes of others. I will 8 call around and find out whether my memory is 9 correct or not. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Professor -- 11 A. But I don't want to mention names without 12 being sure. 13 MR. SIMPSON: Just do you recall, as you 14 sit here, the names? 15 A. And right now, I don't recall names, other 16 than a general discussion with my lawyers. And in 17 the general discussion with my lawyers -- and I 18 don't want to get into it -- 19 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Then don't do 20 it. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Are you relying upon the statements from 23 your lawyers to support this allegation that the 24 basis of your statement that Brad Edwards 25 participated in the fabrication of the allegations EFTA01138051 6/4 1 against you was a list of people told you 2 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 3 Rothstein; and, if so, I want to know the names of 4 those lawyers that you are using to support that 5 allegation? 6 MR. SIMPSON: Well, we have asserted 7 privilege as to communications with those who 8 represented you. Please don't disclose that. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Respectfully -- pardon me -- 10 the witness is the possessor of that privilege. 11 He cannot make a statement disclosing the 12 content of the communications that he is 13 relying on and then he himself assert a 14 privilege to refuse to provide further 15 information with regard to the statement that 16 he has made. We would request a ruling on the 17 record as to whether there has already been a 18 waiver. 19 A. What I said, of course, was that 20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Excuse me. Hang 21 on a second. 22 MR. SCAROLA: We're requesting a ruling on 23 the record as to whether there has been a 24 waiver as a consequence of what has already 25 been stated. EFTA01138052 675 1 MR. SIMPSON: He did not testify that 2 he -- we went through long questions and 3 answers in response to Mr. Edwards' questions. 4 He did not say he was relying on what his 5 lawyers told him in this case. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I think that 7 there is -- let me say this: I think the 8 question was from Mr. Edwards whether he relied 9 on statements from his lawyers. I do think 10 that you have to answer that question. 11 A. I would say that the statements from my 12 lawyers played a small role. The larger role 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q. I want to know about that small role. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 16 second. So now proceed. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Sure. I would like to know whose 19 statements it was that played a small role in your 20 21 22 23 24 25 belief that Brad Edwards fabricated cases based on the statements that they made to you that Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with Rothstein. What are the name of those individuals? A. It's a complicated question here. So there are three issues that I understand. One, what EFTA01138053 676 1 was the basis for my belief that you had fabricated 2 along with Mr. Cassell -- 3 Q. No, I'm asking for names of human beings. 4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, let me stop 5 you. My understanding of your testimony was 6 that whatever you received -- whatever 7 information you received from your lawyers 8 played a small role. That's what you testified 9 to. 10 THE WITNESS: That's right. 11 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Correctly, 12 Mr. Edwards then followed up on that question 13 and said, let's go into that small role. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So now . . . 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. What are the names of those people that 18 gave you this information that played a small role 19 in -- 20 A. In what? 21 Q. in your belief that Brad Edwards had 22 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein which 23 somehow furthered your belief that Brad Edwards and 24 Paul Cassell fabricated the allegations against you? 25 So I'm asking for names of the people. EFTA01138054 677 1 A. So my best recollection, and it's now over 2 a year, is that that was a subject of conversation 3 with David Markus. It was also the subject of 4 conversation with -- 5 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear 6 7 8 that. If he's talking about conversations MR. EDWARDS: He said Davis Markus. MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I couldn't 9 hear. 10 A. Another lawyer -- other people sent me 11 newspaper clippings. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, no, no. 13 A. Lawyer. Okay. The other lawyer who told 14 me about that was a lawyer named David Efron. 15 MR. SCAROLA: First of all, make sure the 16 list is complete, and then you want to know 17 every one. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. Is that it? David Markus, David Efron? 20 A. Those are the two I remember offhand. 21 Plus, as I said, when I spoke I spoke 22 at several events in January -- 23 Q. Right now -- 24 A. -- and lawyers came -- people 25 lawyers -- EFTA01138055 678 1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let me stop you. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. Let me get to the next question. 4 A. Yes. 5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let me ask the 6 witness, the question is limited to -- 7 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, the lawyers who played 8 a small role. 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: The small role 10 around the lawyers, and I think the followup 11 question was, you've mentioned a second lawyer, 12 is there anybody else on that list? 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Two lawyers, yes. The lawyers who came 16 over to me at the events that I spoke at. 17 Q. What are their names? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. How do you know that they're lawyers? 20 A. Because it was a lawyers' event. And they 21 were trial lawyers. This was all trial lawyers at 22 the event. Florida trial lawyers. 23 Q. You don't have the names of any of them; 24 is that right? 25 A. I can describe one of them as somebody who EFTA01138056 679 1 came over to me and told me -- he may have given me 2 a card, which I conceivably may have at home, told 3 me that he was a former official of the Florida Bar 4 and was outraged at what had happened and told me to 5 please look into your background and then told me 6 about your background. 7 Q. Dade Markus, is he a former student of 8 yours? 9 A. Yes, yes. 10 Q. Did he have anything to do with the 11 investigation into the -- Scott Rothstein or any of 12 that? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. David Efron, did he have any inside 15 personal information into who was or who was not 16 culpable in any aspect of the fraud with Scott 17 Rothstein? 18 A. I don't know. 19 MR. SCAROLA: You want to know exactly 20 what they said. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Before we go to the next statement that 23 apparently formed your basis for believing that 24 Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell fabricated the 25 allegations against you, can you tell me exactly EFTA01138057 680 1 word for word as you remember it what David Markus 2 and then what David Efron told you -- 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's start with 4 the first one. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. -- what David Markus told you about the 7 participation of Brad Edwards in a fraud with 8 Rothstein? 9 MR. SIMPSON: We assert privilege to the 10 extent that it's someone who he was getting 11 legal advice from. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to 13 allow the question. You can answer over 14 objection. 15 A. All I can tell you is what the total 16 information I had at that point. I can't now, as I 17 sit here, separate out what Markus said, what Efron 18 said, what the lawyers who I met at the events said. 19 I can give you a totality of what the conclusion was 20 that was reached. Each of them contributed 21 something. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q. Where were you when you received this 24 communication from David Markus about his 25 understanding or belief that Brad Edwards EFTA01138058 681 1 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein? 2 A. In my apartment, I suspect. 3 Q. Do you remember this? 4 A. I remember being in my apartment when the 5 story broke and getting call after call after call 6 from lawyers. 7 Q. Was this a telephone call with David 8 Markus -- 9 A. Probably. 10 Q. -- or an in-person meeting? 11 A. It was -- well, I had both. I had both 12 with him. I had a telephone call and then we had a 13 meeting. 14 Q. And in this, did he describe to you what 15 support he had for this statement that he was making 16 to you regarding the involvement of Brad Edwards in 17 a major fraud with Rothstein? 18 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product on 19 this whole line of questioning. He has the 20 name. If we're going to go beyond this, we 21 need a judicial ruling from the judge and you. 22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, I'm going 23 to allow the witness to answer it at this point 24 and overrule the objection without prejudice. 25 A. What is the question again? EFTA01138059 682 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well the question. COURT REPORTER: "And in this, describe to you what support he had statement that he was making to you the involvement of Brad Edwards in fraud with Rothstein?" A. I'm sure he told me some , go back to did he for this regarding a major information involving his state of knowledge, but I can't separate out now what different people told me. All I remember is the totality of the conclusion that I reached based on what they told me. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. remember? What specifically did he tell you, if you MR. SCOTT: Same objection standing. I just wanted to make sure we have a standing objection. SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'll give you a standing objection. I understand that piece. If you don't remember, you don't remember you can't describe it, rather than through again the generalities, so answer his specific question. A. Sure. Okay. The answer is I going try to or if do remember EFTA01138060 683 1 the generalities, but I don't remember the 2 particulars of that. I would be happy to try to 3 refresh my recollection. 4 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to take a short 5 break. 6 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 7 time is 9:38 a.m. 8 (Recess was held from 9:38 a.m. until 9:45 a.m.) 9 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 10 The time is 9:45 a.m. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. Did David Markus say Brad Edwards 13 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein? 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product and 15 privileged. 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'll overrule 17 the objection. 18 MR. SCOTT: I have a question. Are we 19 taking the position that he has to answer the 20 question now and pending an appeal to the 21 judge? Is that what we're doing? 22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Or -- I will 23 reserve your right -- 24 MR. SCOTT: Because you reserved on all 25 their stuff yesterday. EFTA01138061 684 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I will reserve on that, but I want him to answer the question at this point. I believe that at this point, given the inquiry and given the witness's answers previously, that they've opened the door, at least to this extent. But I will reserve, but I want him to answer. A. I will. I do not recall precisely what David Markus or David Efron said. I do recall that 10 they -- to the best of my recollection, that they 11 both contributed to my general sense of what your 12 reputation was. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q. I want to only stick with David Markus and 15 then we'll move on to David Efron. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. All right. Did David Markus say anything 18 along the lines of, close to, Brad Edwards 19 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein? 20 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 21 A. My best recollection is that he said 22 something along those lines. He certainly said 23 something that led me to that conclusion. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. Did he tell you to look into a court file EFTA01138062 685 1 or did he tell you Brad Edwards participated in a 2 major fraud with Rothstein? 3 MR. SIMPSON: We have a continuing 4 objection on this, and also object to the form 5 of that one. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yeah, well, the 7 form I'm not going to rule on, but the form is 8 awkward, at best. 9 MR. SIMPSON: We just want in the record 10 we have a continuing objection. 11 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yes. 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 Q. I've heard two statements. One is that 14 David Markus said to look into a court file. And 15 the other I understood you to say is, David Markus 16 told me Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud 17 with Rothstein, which is what gave the support for 18 the statement that I ultimately made about 19 Brad Edwards participating in the fabrication of 20 these allegations. 21 So I'm trying to understand, did David 22 Markus tell you that Brad Edwards participated in a 23 major fraud with Rothstein? 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You have a 25 continuing objection, but you can answer. EFTA01138063 686 1 A. To the best of my recollection, it's more 2 than a year ago now, he told me facts that led me to 3 conclude that you had participated in a major fraud. 4 He told me, for example, that what 5 Brad Edwards -- that what Rothstein was selling were 6 fake Edwards cases made up by people who didn't 7 exist. 8 He told me -- I think it was he who told 9 me, but I can't be sure, that you were a protege, 10 that you had offices that were very close to each 11 other, that the fraud was very similar to what was 12 being alleged against me. That's, again, my best 13 recollection of a conversation that occurred over a 14 year ago. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 Q. Did he tell you where he gathered that 17 information that you just described to us? 18 A. He did not. I think he -- no, he did not 19 tell me precisely where he got it from, no. 20 Q. Did he share with you his own conclusion 21 that Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 22 Rothstein? 23 A. I don't recall that. That's not the 24 nature of the way a conversation happens. I wasn't 25 cross examining him. He was calling me to offer his EFTA01138064 687 1 assistance and to tell me how outrageous he thought 2 this was. And in the course of the conversation, he 3 mentioned to me that I should be very careful about 4 you, that you had this reputation, and then he told 5 me some things about your reputation that helped 6 form my general impression about who you were and 7 what you would do. 8 Q. With respect to the reputation of 9 Brad Edwards, did he tell you anything beyond 10 describing what he understood to be as facts related 11 to the Scott Rothstein fraud? 12 A. I think he -- others also told me that 13 Q. I'm only talking about David Markus. 14 A. Well, I can't separate out completely what 15 David Markus told me and what others told me. I 16 formed the holistic impression based on what a large 17 number of people told me. That's the best I can do. 18 Q. When was your first communication with 19 David Markus? 20 A. Oh, probably the day of the allegation or 21 maybe the day after. But very, very soon 22 thereafter. 23 Q. Do you have journal entries indicating the 24 telephone call that you had with David Markus? 25 A. I don't journals entries of that kind, no. EFTA01138065 688 1 Q. Do you have phone records that would serve 2 as evidence of the telephone call between yourself 3 and David Markus? 4 A. I suspect -- he called me, I remember that 5 for sure. He called me. 6 Q. Do you have telephone records that support 7 his call to you? 8 A. I don't know if the telephone records show 9 who called you. If they do, probably we do. 10 Q. On the days that you claim that you met 11 with David Markus, do you have journal entries or 12 any other diary notation that would -- that would 13 serve as evidence of such a meeting? 14 A. I'll check. I remember where we met. I 15 don't remember exactly when. And if I paid for it, 16 I may have paid for it by credit card. I'll check. 17 I'll be happy to do that. 18 Q. Did you meet with David Markus before or 19 after appearing on the Don Lemon show on January 5, 20 2015? 21 A. I think I met with him before. I think I 22 met with him before. I certainly communicated with 23 him before. 24 Q. Was it before your appearance on the Don 25 Lemon show when David Markus provided you with EFTA01138066 689 1 information that led you to conclude that 2 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 3 Rothstein? 4 A. I never said that publicly, of course, on 5 Lemon or any of the other shows. So, you're asking 6 me a compound question. Was it before I came to 7 that conclusion that then contributed to my belief 8 that you had worked -- that you had created false 9 testimony? It did. 10 MR. EDWARDS: What number exhibit are we 11 up to? 12 COURT REPORTER: Twenty-five. 13 MR. EDWARDS: Twenty-five, okay. I'll go 14 ahead and mark this transcript from the Don 15 Lemon interview as 25. 16 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 17 Exhibit 25.) 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. I'm going to show you the interview and 20 particularly the bracketed paragraph. 21 A. Sure. 22 Q. Do you see the section that we bracketed 23 there? 24 A. Yeah. Yeah, let me just -- 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to EFTA01138067 690 1 look over your shoulder. 2 THE WITNESS: Sure. 3 BY MR. EDWARDS: 4 Q. Is that a statement that you made on 5 January 5, 2015? 6 A. Let me read into the record what I said. 7 Q. I'm asking right now is that a statement 8 that you made? 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Which statement? 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. The statement that is bracketed. 12 MR. SIMPSON: Can I object? The record 13 doesn't reflect what that is, so the answer 14 will be misleading. You can't ask about a 15 statement that no one knows what it is. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. You can read the statement into the 18 record, but right now I'm just asking is that -- is 19 that an accurate transcript of your statement that 20 you're holding in your hand? 21 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. 22 A. Let me respond to that. Yesterday you 23 read transcripts, and it turned out you left out 24 absolutely critical exculpatory -- 25 MR. EDWARDS: Objection, nonresponsive, EFTA01138068 691 1 move to strike. 2 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on. Motion 3 to strike is granted. But here's the issue. 4 Let him identify the document first and lay the 5 predicate down and then go back into the 6 document. I don't want to tell you how to do 7 the deposition, but it makes it cleaner. 8 So, Brad, please have him identify the 9 document first and see what he knows about the 10 document and then move forward. 11 MR. SIMPSON: I think it's the portion of 12 it you're asking about, that's what we're 13 trying to identify. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 Q. Sure. Well, the first question has 16 nothing do with the document. It is, did you appear 17 on the Don Lemon show January 5, 2015? 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's an easy 19 question. 20 A. Yes, yes. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Okay. In that interview -- can you 23 identify the transcript that you're holding in your 24 hand as a transcript of that interview? 25 A. It seems like it is, yes. EFTA01138069 692 1 Q. Okay. And does it seem to accurately have 2 transcribed, to the best of your memory, that 3 interview that you had with Don Lemon? 4 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. 5 A. Yes. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. Can you read for us the portions that are 8 bracketed? 9 A. No, because they're out of context. I 10 refuse to do that. That's what happened yesterday, 11 and you totally read it out of context. I will read 12 it for you in context. 13 I will read the question that was asked me 14 and I will read the entire answer, but I won't read 15 your selected excerpts which mislead everybody in 16 this transcript. No, I won't do that. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. Because that would be a lie, and I'm under 19 oath. So I'll be happy to read the entire thing. 20 MR. SCOTT: Seems like a fair request. 21 MR. EDWARDS: If we're going to read 22 entire transcripts, not just the defamatory 23 remarks, we're going to be here all day. 24 A. We have time. The truth takes time and in 25 full context. EFTA01138070 693 1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. 2 MR. SIMPSON: Wait for a question, please. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I believe it's 4 fair for the question starting -- the question 5 that starts right above the bracketed where 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 14 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That standpoint 15 would provide some level of context. 16 A. "Don Lemon: So, why are you being 17 targeted? As you mentioned the lawyers, why would 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Lemon asks, "So why are you being targeted? As you mentioned the lawyers, why would someone target you, Alan Dershowitz, with these very serious allegations?" And then from there down, you don't need to read the whole thing, but I think you'll get your point across that way. someone target you, Alan Dershowitz, with these very serious allegations?" My response: "Well, I fit beautifully into the profile because they want to be able to challenge the plea agreement, and I was one of the lawyers who organized the plea agreement. I got the very good deal for Jeffrey Epstein. I plead guilty to getting him a good deal. That's my job. And if EFTA01138071 694 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 they can find a lawyer who helped draft the agreement who was also a criminal having sex, wow, that could help them blow up the agreement. So they sat down together, the three of them, these two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarrable lawyers, Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and current professor, and another sleazy lawyer from Florida, Brad Edwards, whose partner is in jail for 50 years 9 to trying to sell Epstein cases fraudulently, they 10 sat down together and they said, who would fit into 11 this description, a lawyer who knows Epstein who 12 helped draft, ha, Dershowitz. So they and the woman 13 got together and contrived and made this up." 14 That is a truthful statement, and I stand 15 by it. 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. In January -- on January 5, 2015, when you 19 made the statement that Brad Edwards and Paul 20 Cassell sat down with the woman together and 21 contrived and made this up, had you already spoken 22 with David Efron? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. What is the date when you spoke to 25 David Efron? EFTA01138072 695 1 A. I think he called me the day of the event, 2 the day the story was in the newspapers. 3 Q. Would you have calendar entries or 4 telephone records to support the date of that call? 5 A. I don't know about telephone records. I 6 don't have a calendar entry. 7 Q. Did you meet with David Efron in person or 8 only by telephone? 9 A. I did. I met with him in person. 10 Q. And what did -- or did David Efron say 11 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 12 Scott Rothstein? 13 A. Again, I can only say that he gave me 14 facts and statements that led me to that conclusion, 15 which I stated in the interview, namely that 16 Rothstein had sold Epstein cases, and that Edwards 17 was his partner, and that his reputation was not 18 good in the community. 19 Q. Did David Efron provide you with the 20 support for his alleged conclusion that 21 Brad Edwards' reputation is not good? 22 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. Do we 23 have the continuing objection, sir? 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yes, continuing 25 objection. EFTA01138073 696 1 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. 2 A. I think he -- I think he either brought me 3 or told me about some newspaper articles, which I 4 then read and formed my own conclusion. And he 5 also -- 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. Which newspaper articles did David Efron 8 provide you? 9 A. I don't remember. But I -- at that point 10 in time, I was not reading the local newspapers, and 11 apparently there was some large coverage of the 12 Rothstein matter. 13 I didn't really know about the Rothstein 14 matter much at all. But when my accusation 15 occurred, I got lots and lots of calls from people 16 telling me about the Rothstein matter and giving me 17 all kinds of information about it. 18 Q. Wasn't it within the context of what 19 you're now describing the Rothstein matter that Jack 20 Scarola attempted to depose you in 2011? 21 A. I don't recall whether that was the 22 Rothstein matter. But I wasn't following it. 23 Q. When you communicated with Mr. Scarola 24 about whether or not you could be subject or would 25 be subject to deposition, are you saying that you EFTA01138074 69"/ 1 had no idea which case -- that the case in which you 2 were being asked for deposition? 3 A. I wasn't following that case. I was only 4 interested in the fact that I was being asked to be 5 deposed on, A, lawyer-client privileged information 6 or, B, facts that weren't true; namely an allegation 7 that I had observed young women in the presence of 8 Jeffrey Epstein. I didn't focus on the nature of 9 the case at all. 10 Q. So did David Efron provide you with 11 newspaper articles about the Rothstein matter or did 12 he say Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud 13 with Rothstein? 14 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form and -- 15 object to the form. 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm not ruling 17 on the -- those are -- those are reserved for 18 later. But I mean -- you should try to ask one 19 question and give him one question at a time 20 and break that up. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Did David Efron do anything more than 23 provide you with newspaper articles on the Rothstein 24 matter? 25 A. Yes. EFTA01138075 698 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 Q. Okay. What specifically did he do in 2 addition to providing you with -- do or say in 3 addition to providing you with newspaper articles 4 about the Rothstein matter? 5 A. To the best of my recollection, this is a 6 year-old conversation, he told me that you were all 7 tied up in the Rothstein matter, that this was -- 8 involved your whole firm, that you were a protege of his, and that the firm was selling Epstein cases and defrauding lots and lots of people. That's the general thrust of what he told me. Q. Just so I'm clear, did he -- are you saying he shared with you his conclusion that Brad Edwards was involved in the Rothstein fraud? MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. A. I wouldn't use the term "conclusion." 17 That's not the way conversations occur. He gave me 18 facts from which I drew my own conclusion. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 Q. Is there anyone else whose name you can 21 provide us today in addition to David Markus and 22 David Efron that provided you information from which 23 you concluded that Brad Edwards participated in a 24 major fraud with Rothstein? 25 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same EFTA01138076 1 instruction. 2 A. Yeah, I mean, obviously -- 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Short of that. 4 A. -- I'm not the talking about material, 5 much of which I got from lawyer-client privileged 6 information. But I can't talk about that. 7 So I will talk about another person called 8 me, I don't remember the date, who had sued you, 9 because he said you had -- 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. Wait. We haven't left the Rothstein 12 matter yet we're going to move to that -- 13 A. He told me about the Rothstein matter. 14 Q. Oh, really? Okay. 15 A. Yeah. So he called me and he said, be 16 very careful about this sleazy guy Rothstein [sic], 17 he was sleazy when he represented me, he helped fake 18 evidence, he helped doctor a tape, he was sued, it 19 was dismissed on prosecutorial privilege, but not on 20 the merits. And he was also involved in the 21 Rothstein, and he just gave me also general 22 information about the Rothstein matter, which many, 23 many people gave me. That -- you are burdened with 24 that as part of your reputation, for better or 25 worse. EFTA01138077 700 1 Q. I just want the names of the people who 2 gave it to you. That's all I'm asking. 3 A. I don't remember his name, but you would 4 know his name, the man who sued you. 5 Q. Okay. What facts specifically were you 6 given or were given to you by David Markus or David 7 Efron or anyone else regarding Brad Edwards 8 participating in a major fraud with Rothstein? 9 A. I would like to answer that question. 10 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 11 instruction. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let me stop for 13 a second. You can answer it, but I think we've 14 plowed this ground some. So go ahead. 15 A. Let me answer it. I was told that you 16 were his protege, that you were Rothstein's protege. 17 That the two of you were essentially joined at the 18 hip, or were inseparable. That you had offices near 19 each other. That Rothstein didn't do anything 20 without conferring with you. That you were "the 21 brains of the operation," he was the rainmaker, you 22 were the brains of the operation. 23 I was told that the case for which he went 24 to jail for 50-something years involved Epstein. 25 That you had kind of jointly worked on Epstein EFTA01138078 701 1 matters. That I was -- let me see what else. 2 That's the thrust of it. That was the thrust of it. 3 BY MR. EDWARDS: 4 Q. Who told you that Scott Rothstein and 5 Brad Edwards were "joined at the hip"? 6 A. I heard that probably from more than one 7 person. 8 Q. Then give me more than one person's name. 9 That's fine. 10 A. I don't remember specifically who told me 11 that, but that certainly came out of my 12 conversations with the various lawyers, that you 13 were very close. 14 Q. Were you aware of my deposition being 15 taken in Mr. Scarola's office on the subject matter 16 of the Jeffrey Epstein suit against me and my 17 countersuit that related to the Rothstein matter 18 you're referring to? 19 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 20 instruction. 21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, short of 22 that objection, I didn't -- I didn't understand 23 the question. 24 MR. EDWARDS: I'm -- 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: If you EFTA01138079 702 1 understood it, you can answer. But I didn't 2 understand the question. 3 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. Nor did 4 I. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. So you testified that you were not really 7 aware of the Rothstein matter; is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And my question is, when my deposition was 10 taken in that matter, were you aware of the fact 11 that my deposition was taken? 12 A. I think so. I think I was, yes. 13 Q. And how were you aware of the fact that my 14 deposition was taken? 15 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 16 instruction. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. And were you aware of the testimony that I 19 provided at that deposition? 20 A. Not the details of it, certainly. 21 Q. Weren't you sitting at the table as I 22 testified for my deposition? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You weren't? 25 A. I was sitting at the table when you EFTA01138080 703 1 testified in your deposition? 2 Q. No, I'm asking you. 3 A. I certainly have absolutely no memory of 4 that. Where would that have been? When would it 5 have been? 6 Q. Just answer, were you sitting at the 7 table? a A. I have no memory of that whatsoever. 9 Q. Okay. Okay. Who told you that -- 10 A. But if I was 11 Q. Scott Rothstein -- 12 A. I would like to see the transcript. 13 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on a 14 second. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 Q. Who told you that Scott Rothstein didn't 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. That would require going into privilege. 24 MR. SCAROLA: We would like a ruling on 25 whether there has been a waiver with respect to do anything without conferring with Brad Edwards? A. I heard that routinely from a number of people, that you were his brains. Q. Can you please provide the names of those number of people that told you that Scott Rothstein did not do anything without me? EFTA01138081 704 1 that privilege as a consequence of having 2 disclosed the content of this information. 3 MR. INDYKE: If Mr. Dershowitz is 4 referring to Mr. Epstein, then I would object 5 to -- 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Did you get 7 that? 8 COURT REPORTER: No. 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Can you repeat 10 the -- I want to make sure that we get the 11 record clear. 12 Go ahead and repeat your objection on the 13 phone, Darren. 14 MR. INDYKE: If Mr. Dershowitz, by 15 referring to privilege, is referring to 16 anything that he may have learned through his 17 representation of Mr. Epstein or through a 18 common interest agreement with Mr. Epstein, 19 then I would object to disclosure of the 20 contents. 21 MR. SCOTT: We also object on work product 22 because this is whole new area now, and I don't 23 think there's been any waiver. 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, I'm going 25 reserve, consistent with yesterday's rulings, EFTA01138082 705 1 that we will protect the privilege for now and 2 we'll reserve for a later fuller discussion on 3 this. So we'll mark this and we'll move 4 forward. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. At the time when you were told that Scott 8 Rothstein did not do anything without conferring 9 with Brad Edwards, were you representing Jeffrey 10 Epstein? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What were the circumstances of your 13 learning that information that Scott Rothstein did 14 not do anything without conferring with 15 Brad Edwards? 16 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 17 instruction. 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: If you can 19 answer outside the privilege. 20 A. There's nothing outside of the privilege. 21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So I would say 22 the following: I'm going to, for now, grant 23 the objection, consistent with yesterday, and I 24 think we need to either -- whether it's in 25 front of me or in front of Judge Lynch, fully EFTA01138083 706 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 explore the timing of what -- the timing of when -- the timetable you're inquiring relative to his representation and the scope of that representation to best determine whether there was a privilege and if it exists. So for now -- MR. INDYKE: I'm sorry, Your Honor, just for the record, as well as any kind of common 9 interest agreement as well. 10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Fine. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. The last statement that you testified you 13 were told was that Brad Edwards was the brains 14 behind the Scott Rothstein operation. 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. Who outside of the privilege that you have 17 with Jeffrey Epstein told you that information? 18 A. Well, outside the privilege and outside of 19 common interest privilege and joint defense 20 privilege. 21 Q. Outside of the privileges 22 A. All those three privileges. 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. I don't have any distinct -- I can't 25 separate out necessarily the sources of everything I EFTA01138084 707 1 was told. But I was told that by a number of 2 people -- 3 Q. Did -- 4 A. -- using different phrases. 5 Q. Can you provide me the name of the number 6 of people that are outside of any of the common 7 interest or attorney-client privilege that told you 8 Brad Edwards was the brains behind the Scott 9 Rothstein operation? 10 A. I can't give you a name of somebody who 11 said those precise words outside the privilege. 12 Q. Can you give me the name of somebody who 13 said words similar to that effect outside the 14 privilege? 15 A. As I sit here now, I cannot. But I will 16 try to refresh my recollection. 17 Q. Okay. You also testified that you spoke 18 with somebody that told you Brad Edwards fabricated 19 evidence as a prosecutor. 20 A. That's right. That's right. 21 Q. What is the name of that person that told 22 you that information? 23 A. You know that. I don't. As I'm sitting 24 here today, I have no memory. But we can get that 25 for you. You, of course, know the name. EFTA01138085 708 1 Q. Why do you say that I know the name? 2 A. Because he sued you. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: This is not 4 Mr. Dershowitz, answer the question that's been 5 asked and let's not have crosstalk. 6 A. I do not know the name. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. At our next break, can you get us the name 9 of this individual? 10 A. I will try. I will try. 11 Q. When did you have a conversation with this 12 individual that told that you Brad Edwards 13 fabricated evidence as a prosecutor? 14 A. Shortly after the allegations in my case, 15 he called me. 16 Q. Did you meet with this person? 17 A. I did not. But -- I did not. 18 Q. Did you attempt to ascertain the 19 truthfulness -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- of this -- 22 MR. SCOTT: Listen to the question. 23 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Listen to the 24 question. 25 EFTA01138086 709 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q. -- of this individual's statements that 3 Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a prosecutor? 4 A. I did. 5 Q. What did you do to 6 A. I -- 7 Q. What did you do to ascertain the 8 truthfulness of this gentleman's statements that 9 Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a prosecutor? 10 A. I obtained all of the pleadings that I 11 could in the case, including the tampered videotape. 12 I obtained the expert analysis of the videotape. I 13 think I personally viewed the videotape. It was a 14 jail videotape. 15 And I came to my own independent 16 conclusion that the videotape had been tampered 17 with, that the defendant had been denied his due 18 process rights, and that he would have prevailed in 19 that lawsuit but for prosecutorial immunity. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Could we inquire as to 21 whether these materials that Mr. Dershowitz 22 contends he relied upon have been disclosed in 23 discovery in this case in response to 24 production requests that clearly would have 25 called for that production? EFTA01138087 710 1 MR. SIMPSON: I don't -- I will answer 2 that question at a break. I'm not agreeing 3 whether it's called for or not called, but I 4 don't have a microscopic memory of everything 5 that's been produced in the case. But 6 certainly if it was called for and it was 7 responsive, it was either produced or is on a 8 privilege log. 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's deal with 10 that at break between you guys. Go ahead. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q Is the person you are referring to Donald 13 Baker? 14 A I don't have his name in my mind, but I 15 can find that out. 16 Q. Is this the lawsuit where the person sued 17 Michael Satz, Judge Micheal Gates, the entire 18 Hollywood Police Department, and in that list of 19 defendants included the prosecutors of the case, 20 which was Brad Edwards and some other prosecutor I 21 don't remember the name? 22 A. That's not my recollection. 23 Q. Is your recollection that this is a 24 lawsuit that was filed against Brad Edwards alone? 25 A. My focus was on the lawsuit filed against EFTA01138088 711 1 Brad Edwards. I don't -- I didn't focus on any 2 other people who might have been sued. But I did 3 focus on Brad Edwards and I did get the pleadings, 4 and last year early in the year I read them. I 5 my research assistant went through all the 6 pleadings. Either he or I or both of us viewed the 7 videotape together. He wrote me some note about it. 8 And I came to the conclusion that the lawsuit was a 9 very valid one. 10 Q. Was that note that you just described a 11 part of that conclusion that you reached? 12 A. No, the note was probably just, here is 13 the video, here is this, here is that. It was 14 just -- my recollection of the note, it was just an 15 inventory of some kind. 16 Q. Did you read the jury trial transcript 17 from the criminal case you're referring to? 18 A. Well, the civil case had no jury, had no 19 trial. It was dismissed. The criminal case, I 20 don't remember if I read the jury trial or if my 21 research assistant did or -- I just don't remember 22 that. I do remember reading the pleadings, which 23 included excerpts from the trial. 24 Q. Did you read any of the transcripts from 25 the testimony regarding that defendant's motion for EFTA01138089 712 1 ineffective assistance of counsel? 2 A. No, not that I can recall. 3 Q. Did you read any of the transcripts from 4 the hearing on that defendant's complaints about 5 misconduct on behalf of the City of Hollywood Police 6 Department or any others? 7 A. I did -- I do remember reading about the 8 fact that the actual physical tampering was done by 9 the Hollywood Police Department. But the 10 allegation, to my best of my memory, it's been a 11 long time now, was that you covered it up or played 12 a role in it. 13 Q. Did you review the criminal record of this 14 individual that provided you with the information 15 that Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a 16 prosecutor? 17 A. I don't remember reviewing his criminal 18 record. I do recall that the crime itself -- no, I 19 just -- I don't remember reviewing his criminal 20 record. I may very well have, but I don't remember 21 it now. 22 Q. When you say you do remember reviewing the 23 crime itself, the crime was a battery on a law 24 enforcement officer. Is that what you remember? 25 A. My recollection is that in the course of EFTA01138090 73.3 1 being arrested, he was accused of resisting arrest. 2 That's my best recollection. I may have that wrong. 3 And that he complained that they cut off -- that he 4 was assaulted and he was only defending himself, and 5 that they cut off the video at the point that would 6 show the complete context. That's my best 7 recollection. And it's, again, a long time ago. 8 Q. Did you or your representative initiate 9 the contact with this individual who -- 10 A. No. 11 Q. -- claimed that Brad Edwards fabricated 12 evidence as a prosecutor? 13 A. No, no. To my knowledge and my 14 recollection, he initiated the contact. 15 Q. Is this -- did this individual's criminal 16 record include a first-degree murder conviction? 17 A. Certainly I was not aware of that, if it 18 did. 19 Q. Did -- in your review of this record -- 20 A. I would find that hard to believe. 21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Listen. 22 A. He was out on the street when he called 23 me. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. Do you remember whether or not this EFTA01138091 714 1 defendant was sentenced to prison after his 2 conviction? 3 A. I'm confused. Is the conviction you're 4 referring to after the events at issue? 5 Q. The conviction of battery on a law 6 enforcement officer, the case I prosecuted. 7 A. Did that take place before or after his 8 alleged conviction on a murder charge? 9 Q. Well after. 10 A. So, what you're asking me, if I knew about 11 a prior earlier first-degree murder conviction? 12 Q. Sure. My first question is, did you know 13 about a prior earlier first-degree murder conviction 14 of this person whose word you're accepting that 15 Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a prosecutor? 16 Did you know about that? 17 A. I was not accepting his word. I'm aware 18 of how to be skeptical about words. I did an 19 independent evaluation of the evidence, then came to 20 my conclusion. 21 Q. Were you aware of this gentleman's prior 22 murder conviction? 23 A. I'm not aware of it as I sit here now, no. 24 I don't think I was. 25 Q. Are you aware as you sit here now whether EFTA01138092 715 1 this gentleman was sentenced to prison after the 2 jury verdict finding him guilty of battery on a law 3 enforcement officer? 4 A. My recollection is that he was offered a 5 plea if he would withdraw his lawsuit, and that he 6 refused to withdraw his lawsuit. I think that was 7 part of his Complaint, that he was coerced, that 8 there was an effort to try to coerce him into 9 pleading guilty. But, again, these were all matters 10 of record, and it's a year ago, so my recollection 11 is not as clear. 12 Q. What documents do you have to support that 13 this gentleman was offered a plea in exchange for 14 him agreeing to withdraw a lawsuit? 15 A. That was my memory. 16 Q. In order for that to be the case, wouldn't 17 you agree that his lawsuit must have preceded his 18 jury trial in order for your logic to be correct? 19 A. Of course not. Of course not, no. Why 20 would that be? A lawsuit almost certainly -- he may 21 have threatened a lawsuit previously and it was part 22 of a -- my understanding, again, it's long time ago, 23 was that there was -- there were plea bargaining 24 efforts after he was convicted and that there 25 were -- this is just my memory of a long time ago -- EFTA01138093 716 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 that the -- that they would give him a consideration in sentencing if he didn't go through with his threat to bring a lawsuit. That was my recollection. Q. In addition to talking to this particular individual who told you that Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a prosecutor -- A. Right, or participated in the fabrication. 9 Q. 10 representative of his or his attorneys that 11 corroborated that allegation? 12 A. Representative of his? 13 Q. Anybody other than -- 14 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's the 15 question, yes. 16 A. Not to my recollection, no. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Have you -- has anyone other than this 19 particular person you have identified told you that 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- did you speak to anyone else that was a Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a prosecutor? A. That's a conclusion -- first of all, I never, as far as I remember, never publicly stated that. I've told you that that was part of what went into my conclusion about your reputation and record and background. EFTA01138094 717 1 But the question again? 2 Q. Right. A person's name. Tell me what 3 other -- what other individual, if anyone, has ever 4 told you Brad Edwards fabricated evidence as a 5 prosecutor. 6 A. I did not rely on his statement to me of 7 that. I did my own research, came to my own 8 conclusion about the facts based on my review of 9 the 10 MR. EDWARDS: Object. Move to strike as 11 Nonresponsive. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Stay focused on 13 the question being asked. 14 A. No other name -- no other person told me 15 that. I did it on the basis of my own research. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Can you tell me the names of all of the 18 individuals that told you Brad Edwards has a 19 terrible reputation? 20 MR. INDYKE: Objection. Same objection. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Outside of the attorney-client privilege, 23 the joint defense privilege and any other privileges 24 that you maintain with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine 25 Maxwell or anyone else a part of that agreement. EFTA01138095 718 1 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form as 2 becoming very redundant. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You can answer. 4 A. Several people who came to me at these Bar 5 meetings told me that, and I just heard it from 6 many, many people who called me. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. Okay. I'm -- 9 A. But I'm having difficulty coming up with a 10 specific name. I will check to see if I have any 11 notes. 12 Q. I just want the list of those many, many 13 people in response to this question that told you 14 Brad Edwards has a terrible reputation. 15 A. Okay. And I, right now, cannot name any 16 person other than the information that I have 17 already provided you. 18 Q. Did you ever attempt to contact 19 Brad Edwards or any representative of Brad Edwards 20 to talk to him about any allegation of misconduct on 21 his part before you relied on these allegations you 22 received? 23 A. This will require -- I can't do this yes 24 or no. I can only do this with an explanation. 25 MR. SCAROLA: Could we start with a yes or EFTA01138096 719 1 no to a question that clearly can be answered 2 with a "yes" or "no" or "I don't remember"? 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Before anybody 4 objects to his answer, let's see what he says. 5 Go ahead, and then we'll work backwards. 6 A. What's the question again? Just repeat 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. Sure. Did you attempt to contact 9 Brad Edwards or any representative of Brad Edwards 10 to talk to him about any allegation of misconduct on 11 his part before you relied on those allegations from 12 these individuals you have identified? 13 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So, I've heard 14 the question. I do think that it's either yes 15 or no, and I'm going to allow you full latitude 16 to explain. So please proceed in that manner. 17 A. It's no with an explanation. 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead. 19 A. Because I was not making these allegations 20 public, as you made your allegations against me 21 public without calling me, because I was not making 22 these allegations public, because I was only using 23 them as part of my own internal work product, my own 24 internal dynamic, my own thinking process, I didn't 25 think it was necessary for me to call you and ask EFTA01138097 720 1 you about it. And so I did not. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. Did you attempt to contact Brad Edwards or 4 any agent of Brad Edwards to talk to him before 5 making the allegation that "Brad Edwards and Paul 6 Cassell and sat down together, the 7 three of them, these two sleazy, unprofessional, 8 disbarrable lawyers, they and the woman got together 9 and contrived and made this up"? 10 A. Well -- 11 Q. Yes or no? 12 A. The answer to that is with Brad Edwards, 13 no. With Cassell, it would be a different answer if 14 you want to ask me about that. 15 Q. All right. Okay. Prior to January 5, 16 2015, making the statement that they, Brad Edwards 17 and Paul Cassell, and the woman got together and 18 contrived and made this up, did you contact Paul 19 Cassell? 20 A. I tried to reach out to Paul Cassell 21 through a number of mutual acquaintances, and was 22 told that he had no interest in having any 23 conversation with me. 24 Q. Tell me the date that you first reached 25 out to Paul Cassell through anyone. EFTA01138098 721 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 months and months and months to reach out and do all 11 the checking. 12 I was in an emergency situation. I was 13 getting calls, probably a hundred a day, from every 14 media in the world asking me to respond immediately. 15 And I had to respond at that point based on the best 16 information I had available to me. I could not hire 17 an investigator. I could not conduct a massive 18 research operation. I was being accused of the most 19 heinous crime imaginable, absolutely falsely, and I 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I don't recall the date. Q. Is it your testimony that the date you tried to reach out to Paul Cassell preceded January 5, 2015, when you made the statement that Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell and this woman got together and contrived and made this up? A. That will require a "no" answer and an explanation. Okay. The explanation is that before you made your false allegation against me, you had had to respond immediately. And my response was based on my state of knowledge, my opinion, my professional opinion, and I gave those at the time because I had to give a response immediately. I couldn't say "no comment." I couldn't say, "I refuse to answer." Others have EFTA01138099 722 1 done that. I was totally, totally innocent. And I 2 had to respond immediately to these false charges, 3 which is what I did. 4 I need to take a break. 5 MR. SCOTT: Take recess for a couple of 6 minutes. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's take a 8 ten-minute break. Lawyers, can you stay for 9 just a second. I want to deal with a secondary 10 matter dealing with a deposition on Saturday. 11 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 12 time is 10:32 a.m. 13 (Discussion held off video record only as follows:) 14 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: We are off the 15 video, but I wanted to have this on the record. 16 I've reviewed the confidentiality order that's 17 pending that was issued by Judge Lynch, and I 18 just want to be clear as we head into the 19 deposition on Saturday as to get the party's 20 view as to who should be in attendance at that 21 deposition. So, Ms. McCawley, why don't you 22 start. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. Sure. The 24 deposition is a confidential deposition that is 25 going to be held under seal. It will be filed EFTA01138100 723 1 under seal. And our position is that the 2 individuals who need to be present at that 3 deposition are the parties in this case, so the 4 actual -- Brad and Paul, their lawyers, and 5 Mr. Dershowitz and his lawyers. 6 No other individuals; for example, 7 Mr. Dershowitz's wife or anybody else can be 8 present at that deposition. It's a deposition 9 of who we contend is a sex abuse victim. It 10 should be closed and sealed, and nobody else 11 should be present. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Do you not want 13 me there? 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I do want you there. 15 Sorry. 16 MR. SIMPSON: Our position is that 17 Professor Dershowitz's wife should be permitted 18 to attend. They're married. She'll agree to 19 whatever confidentiality. She's worked with 20 him on the case as a paralegal. She's entitled 21 to be there. 22 We have advised -- and I don't know if 23 Darren is still on the line -- counsel for 24 Mr. Epstein that it's confidential and that 25 non-parties are not permitted to attend, per EFTA01138101 724 1 Ms. McCawley's position that it's between those 2 folks if they disagree about that. But as to 3 Mrs. Cohen, we're adamant she has a right to be 4 there and there's no legitimate basis for 5 excluding her. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 7 second. Anything else? 8 MR. SCOTT: No. 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Mr. Scarola, 10 Mr. Edwards, do you have an opinion on this? 11 MR. SCAROLA: No. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Our opinion is consistent 13 with the opinion of Sigrid McCawley or the 14 argument of Sigrid McCawley. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Darren, go 16 ahead. 17 MR. INDYKE: I would like to give this to 18 Florida counsel because this is the first I'm 19 hearing of it. But I would say that at the 20 very least, there's some confidentiality 21 obligations that are applicable to Ms. Roberts 22 in connection with the settlement agreement 23 that was signed. And that Mr. Epstein should 24 have counsel there present to protect any 25 disclosures -- EFTA01138102 725 1 MR. SCAROLA: We have a very strong 2 opinion on that. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I just want to 4 be clear, Mr. Epstein's counsel has not 5 appeared in this case. I argued this issue 6 before the judge, and I have a confidentiality 7 order from Judge Lynch signed based on my 8 motion to quash. 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I've rereviewed 10 both your motions and the order. 11 Darren, anything else? 12 MR. INDYKE: No, that's as far as I 13 understand right now. 14 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Mr. Scarola, you 15 wanted to say something? You were you had 16 some strong opinion I wanted to hear. 17 MR. SCAROLA: The purpose of the 18 confidentiality motion was to exclude 19 Mr. Epstein from the deposition, among other 20 purposes. But we did not want to be in a 21 position where was 22 obliged to give her testimony in front of any 23 of her abusers, but most specifically not in 24 front of the individual accused of having 25 maintained her as a sex slave for an extended EFTA01138103 726 1 period of time. 2 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So, I've 3 reviewed both the motion that was filed as well 4 as the order. While the order lacks any real 5 specificity, my view of the order is as 6 follows: That the deposition on Saturday, 7 obviously the named parties and their 8 representatives can attend. The witness and 9 their counsel can attend. The court reporter 10 and myself. And that will be it. 11 If there is any further clarification from 12 Judge Lynch, I'm happy to consider it. But as 13 of right now, those are the only parties and 14 people that will be allowed to attend the 15 deposition. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you. 17 MR. SCOTT: You are excluding Ms. Cohen? 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm excluding 19 Ms. Cohen and excluding Mr. Epstein's 20 attorneys. 21 MR. INDYKE: I just want to note my 22 objection, but I will take that up with Florida 23 counsel. 24 (Recess was held from 10:37 a.m. until 10:50 a.m.) 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Just for something for the EFTA01138104 727 1 record, I mentioned to Rick yesterday I have to 2 leave here at 3:45 this afternoon, so he made 3 representations that there wouldn't be any 4 testimony with respect to Boies Schiller 5 Flexner or those allegations that have 6 repetitively come up in the deposition outside 7 of counsel's presence. But I do have to leave 8 because I have to catch a plane, so I won't be 9 here this afternoon, and they've agreed to 10 that. 11 MR. SIMPSON: She's correct about the 12 agreement. 13 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: What we might 14 do, then, is break at that point if we're going 15 to have to come back anyway. 16 MR. EDWARDS: What time is that? 17 MS. McCAWLEY: 3:45. 18 THE WITNESS: If we could finish in a 19 couple of hours, I'd like to do that, if that's 20 possible. 21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: It's not my 22 deposition. 23 MR. EDWARDS: At this stage and at this 24 pace, I don't see how that's possible. That 25 was my goal, but I don't see it happening. EFTA01138105 728 1 We'll see where we are. 2 THE WITNESS: I hope we get to this 3 letter. I spent all night reading it last 4 night at your request. 5 MR. EDWARDS: I think we'll at least make 6 a dent. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's go back on 8 and plow forward. 9 VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We're going back on 10 the record. The time is 10:50 a.m. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. So, in addition to the statements that 13 or the information that you had in your possession 14 at the time that you made the public statement on 15 January 5, 2015, regarding Brad Edwards, you also 16 indicated initially that you had certain information 17 in your possession with respect to Paul Cassell as 18 well, correct? 19 A. That's right, yes. 20 Q. One of the things I wrote down is that you 21 were told that Paul Cassell is a zealot. 22 A. Right. 23 Q. When were you told Paul Cassell is a 24 zealot? 25 A. Immediately. EFTA01138106 729 1 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 2 instruction. 3 A. Shortly there -- shortly after the 4 allegations were made. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. And who told you that Paul Cassell is a 7 zealot? 8 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 9 instruction. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Outside the privilege 11 A. Numerous people. That was a common term 12 used to describe him. I can tell you the people I 13 spoke to, but, again, I can't identify who precisely 14 would have used that term. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 Q. You previously said that numerous 17 people -- 18 A. They did. 19 Q. -- told you that Paul Cassell is a zealot, 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that assisted in providing the basis for your statement that you made publicly about Paul Cassell. I'm only asking for you to identify by name the individuals that specifically told you Paul Cassell is a zealot. I just want a list of names. MR. SIMPSON: Objection, asked and EFTA01138107 730 1 answered. 2 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 3 instruction. 4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: In a 5 nonprivileged context. 6 MR. SCAROLA: So that the record is clear, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 other conversation, this has not been touched 16 on or waived. 17 MR. INDYKE: My position is that 18 Mr. Epstein waived no such privilege. 19 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. So with 20 that said, please provide an answer outside of 21 the context of the privilege, which will be 22 reserved for a later argument. 23 A. Right now all I can think of is the number 24 of people who gave me information about Paul 25 Cassell, but I cannot with specificity indicate who the question does not limit itself to a nonprivileged context because our position is the privilege has been waived. We understand that we may only get a limited response, but the question does not include the limitation. MR. SCOTT: And this is -- our position is that this is the entire area, and that even if you accept, which we don't, that he waived the EFTA01138108 731 1 led me to the conclusion that he was a zealot. 2 I also read a great deal of his material. 3 MR. EDWARDS: I move to strike as 4 nonresponsive to this question. 5 A. Okay. I'll give you some descriptions. 6 Q. I want the names of individuals. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Listen. 8 BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 Q. The names of individuals who told you that 10 Paul Cassell is a zealot. 11 A. I can't remember names, but I can give you 12 some descriptions, if you want. 13 Q. No, I want names of people. 14 A. Okay. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 16 second. He's now answered the question. So -- 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. At this stage, you cannot provide me the 19 names of any individuals that told you Paul Cassell 20 is a zealot; is that correct? 21 A. I can give you descriptions, which would 22 lead you to be able to probably find out the names. 23 Q. Descriptions of people? 24 A. Description of people, yeah. 25 Q. Okay. Not descriptions of the statements; EFTA01138109 732 1 descriptions of the people? 2 A. No, description of people. 3 Q. Okay. I'll take right now descriptions of 4 the people who told you that Paul Cassell is a 5 zealot. 6 A. I got a number of calls from people who 7 were in litigation with Paul Cassell. He purports 8 to be an expert on false confessions. Apparently 9 he's not. 10 MR. EDWARDS: Object and move to strike as 11 nonresponsive. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I would agree 13 and grant that Motion to Strike. Provide the 14 descriptions of the names pursuant to the 15 question. 16 A. Okay. So a number of people who were 17 involved in litigation concerning his alleged 18 expertise as a witness on false confessions 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. -- called me. 22 Q. Category number one, then, is people 23 involved in litigation currently with Paul Cassell 24 on false confession cases? 25 A. That's right, yes. EFTA01138110 733 1 Q. And are these people that you are 2 describing lawyers or litigants? 3 A. Lawyers, lawyers. But not in a privilege. 4 5 that 6 7 the 8 9 10 Paul Cassell? 11 A. To my best recollection, two. 12 Q. Do these two lawyers work at the same law 13 firm? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Do these two -- are these two lawyers, to 16 the best of your understanding, working on separate 17 false confession cases against Paul Cassell? 18 A. I think so, but I'm not absolutely 19 certain. 20 Q. Do you know where it is that these two 21 lawyers that you're describing practice? 22 A. My best recollection, this is just a 23 recollection, one of them is in the midwest, maybe 24 Chicago. And another I think in the mid south, I'm 25 not positive, maybe Atlanta. But those are -- Q. Do you remember which party these lawyers you're describing represent? A. Yes. The party opposed to Paul Cassell, party that were challenging his expertise. Q. How many different lawyers are you describing that are currently in litigation with EFTA01138111 734 1 again, I can probably find these names, but I don't 2 have them off the top of my head. 3 Q. Have you provided these names or these 4 descriptions in response to any requests for 5 production in this case? 6 A. I don't provide that. My lawyers do. But 7 I don't think anybody has ever -- these are not 8 MR. SIMPSON: Answer the question. 9 A. I don't know the answer to that. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. Is there anything more that you can 12 provide me in the way of description of the 13 individuals that told you that Paul Cassell is a 14 zealot? 15 A. No, but what I can do is give you names of 16 people who called me and discussed with me Paul 17 Cassell. 18 Q. We'll get there. Different category. Did 19 these other people that called you, did they also 20 tell you Paul Cassell is a zealot? 21 A. Well, I can only tell you again, as I said 22 previously, on the basis of all the conversations I 23 had with about Paul Cassell, I came to the 24 conclusion, as some people had told me, that the 25 people who told me that he was a zealot were EFTA01138112 735 1 correct. And I also did my own investigation. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Did those include privileged 3 and nonprivileged communications? 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q. Did those communications that led you to 6 the conclusion that Paul Cassell is a zealot include 7 both privileged and nonprivileged communications? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And with respect to the privileged 10 communications, are you claiming that the 11 communication that Paul Cassell is a zealot came 12 from people with whom you share an attorney-client 13 privilege because they're your attorneys or with 14 whom you share a joint defense attorney-client 15 privilege because they are attorneys or 16 representatives of Jeffrey Epstein? 17 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. I'm objecting 18 to that on work product and we're going to 19 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead, 20 Darren, get your 21 MR. INDYKE: Objection. Same objection, 22 same instruction on a number of grounds, 23 including attorney-client privilege as well as 24 common interest. 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Read the EFTA01138113 736 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question back. COURT REPORTER: "And with respect to the privileged communications, are you claiming that the communication that Paul Cassell is a zealot came from people with whom you share an attorney-client privilege because they're your attorneys or with whom you share a joint defense attorney-client privilege because they are attorneys or Epstein?" MR. INDYKE: In doing so, you're not identifying the people but you're also identifying the contents of the disclosure. MR. SCAROLA: No, we're identifying the nature of the privilege being asserted. SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: The nature of the privilege -- hang on a second. representatives MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: to identify the nature of the of Jeffrey only I'm sorry. They're trying privilege being asserted. And I do think that if the witness does know the answer as opposed to a legal discussion, whoever's going to assert it, I think they're entitled to an answer on that. MR. SCOTT: Without any type of waiver EFTA01138114 737 1 position. 2 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Without a 3 waiver, but they're entitled -- because I don't 4 think that waives -- I think it's the nature of 5 what's being asserted. 6 A. So without waiving -- 7 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. So let's 8 ask the question again so we have it again. 9 A. I know the question. 10 MR. SCOTT: I don't. I'm not as smart as 11 you are. 12 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 13 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's go ahead 14 and reread the question back so we get it 15 precisely because that's how I ruled. 16 COURT REPORTER: "And with respect to the 17 privileged communications, are you claiming 18 that the communication that Paul Cassell is a 19 zealot came from people with whom you share an 20 attorney-client privilege because they're your 21 attorneys or with whom you share a joint 22 defense attorney-client privilege because they 23 are attorneys or representatives of Jeffrey 24 Epstein?" 25 MR. SCOTT: Answer that very concisely. EFTA01138115 738 1 A. Both. 2 MR. INDYKE: I'm sorry, if there is 3 discussion going on, I can't hear any of the 4 discussion. 5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, there's 6 we've been quiet. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. With respect to the communications with 9 these individuals where you are the client, can you 10 provide me with the names of those individuals? 11 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yeah, so I'm 13 going to grant the objection and allow them to 14 assert the privilege at this point pending 15 further review. 16 MR. SCAROLA: I want to -- excuse me. 17 Before we proceed, I want to get a 18 clarification. This privilege that's being 19 asserted is a work product privilege, correct? 20 MR. SCOTT: And attorney-client privilege. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, you said only 22 work product. 23 MR. SCOTT: Okay. I apologize. If I use 24 one, I'm referring to both consistent with -- 25 MR. SCAROLA: I wanted to be sure that the EFTA01138116 739 1 record is clear as to which privilege is being 2 asserted. 3 MR. SCOTT: Jack, I totally agree with 4 you. Thank you. 5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 6 second. So based upon the correction, the 7 privilege being asserted is both work product 8 and attorney-client. 9 MR. SCOTT: Both. 10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: And so the same 11 ruling for now on the reservation. 12 MR. SCOTT: And, Mr. Special Master, I'm 13 objecting on both grounds consistent with what 14 we discussed yesterday. I apologize. And 15 thank you, Mr. Scarola. 16 MR. SCAROLA: No apologies necessary. I 17 just wanted the record to be clear. 18 MR. SCOTT: I appreciate it. 19 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, I would 20 accept your apology. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, are you willing to waive 23 the attorney-client privilege to provide us the 24 names of the individuals with whom you share a 25 privilege that told you that Paul Cassell -- EFTA01138117 740 1 MR. SCOTT: Don't answer the question. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. -- is a zealot, a fact that you relied 4 upon before making your public statement? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Work product. Do 6 not answer that. He has a right to consult 7 with counsel, and we haven't spoken. 8 MR. INDYKE: Objection. 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 Q. My only question is, are you willing to 11 waive. 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 13 second. 14 MR. INDYKE: Are we talking about only as 15 to where Mr. Dershowitz is the client? 16 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. 17 MR. INDYKE: Okay. 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So, now repeat 19 your question so it's clear. 20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 Q. Sure. Are you, Alan Dershowitz, willing 22 to waive the attorney-client privilege to provide us 23 the names of the individuals that told you Paul 24 Cassell is a zealot? 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Work product, EFTA01138118 741 1 attorney-client privilege, and I'm instructing 2 him not to answer that question. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. And where 4 he is the client? 5 MR. EDWARDS: Where he is the client. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You're 7 instructing him not to answer? 8 MR. SCOTT: Not to answer. I will discuss 9 it with him, and after a break, we can come 10 back to that question. 11 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I believe the 12 witness has the right to consult with counsel 13 before answering that question. So we'll 14 proceed on that grounds. 15 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Other than the two lawyers that you have 18 described that told you that Paul Cassell is a 19 zealot, and any attorneys with whom you share a 20 privilege, can you identify or describe any others 21 that you have not yet told us about that told you 22 Paul Cassell is a zealot? 23 A. It's a common term that has been given to 24 me by numerous lawyers, but I can't right now give 25 you any more specificity. Sometimes it's "zealot," EFTA01138119 742 1 sometimes the term is "true believer," sometimes the 2 term is an "extremist." But I've heard many terms 3 along those lines that would lead to a consistent 4 conclusion. 5 Q. When did you receive these communications 6 from these various individuals that Paul Cassell is 7 a zealot? 8 A. From the beginning up through recently. 9 Q. Is it your testimony that you received 10 that information prior to January 5, 2015? 11 A. Yes, yes. 12 Q. Okay. And what was the form of that 13 communication, written or verbal? 14 A. I don't remember. Well, I have to check. 15 I don't remember anything in writing. I think it's 16 all been -- I think it's all been verbal on the 17 phone and in person. 18 Q. Have you met in person with the two 19 individuals that you described? 20 A. No, no. 21 Q. So when you are speaking about in-person 22 communication of the statement that Paul Cassell is 23 a zealot, you're talking about communications that 24 are privileged communications? 25 A. I didn't understand the question. I'm EFTA01138120 743 1 sorry. 2 Q. Okay. The communications that Paul 3 Cassell is a zealot -- 4 A. Right. 5 Q. -- outside of the two individuals with 6 whom you do not share privilege that you've 7 described 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. -- are the remaining individuals that told 10 you that information and people that you have met 11 with in person, are those people all people with 12 whom you share a privilege? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Okay. What people have you met with in 15 person with whom you do not share a privilege that 16 have told you Paul Cassell is a zealot? 17 A. I told you I spoke with numerous people. 18 I can't now specify a particular name with the word 19 "zealot." I can give you names of people I spoke to 20 who gave me information about Cassell. 21 MR. SCOTT: If they're not privileged. 22 A. They're not privileged. 23 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That was his 24 question. 25 EFTA01138121 744 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q. Please provide me the names of the 3 individuals you spoke to that provided you 4 information about Paul Cassell. 5 A. I received a phone call from Senator Orrin 6 Hatch from whom -- for whom he worked. I received 7 phone call from a lawyer now -- a lawyer who he had 8 a litigation against somewhere in Arizona or 9 somewhere in the southwest whose name I don't right 10 now have on hand. 11 Another name that's popping into my mind, 12 but it's privileged. I had a conversation with the 13 former President of Ecuador, who had been a student 14 in one of my classes and was a colleague of 15 Mr. Cassell. We spoke -- I think I may have called 16 him or he may have called me, I don't remember 17 exactly. 18 Q. This is the President of Ecuador? 19 A. The former President of Ecuador. 20 Mr. Cassell knows who he is. And -- I can try to 21 think of other names of people who called me. I 22 will check and see if I have any information 23 further. 24 Q. If you think of them while we're talking, 25 then let me know. EFTA01138122 745 1 A. Sure. 2 Q. What did the lawyer in Arizona tell you 3 about Paul Cassell? 4 A. That he was a zealot and that he was a 5 pain in the ass. That was I remember that was 6 his exact words. 7 Q. Is this somebody in addition to the other 8 two lawyers that you described? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So now we are up to three lawyers that 11 were in litigation with Paul Cassell that told you 12 that Paul Cassell is a zealot? 13 A. At least three, yes. 14 Q. Three that you've been able to describe? 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. But as you sit here right now, unable to 17 name today? 18 A. I can't, no. 19 Q. Including this lawyer in Arizona? 20 A. Yeah. I don't remember if it was Arizona 21 or New Mexico or Utah. It was a southwest case that 22 was a long, long -- apparently a lengthy litigation. 23 Q. Did this lawyer in Arizona telling that 24 you Paul Cassell is a, quote, pain in the ass, 25 unquote, contribute -- EFTA01138123 746 1 A. No, no, not that statement. I mean, many 2 lawyers could be described that way. That would not 3 contribute to that. I myself have been described 4 that way. 5 Q. Okay. So is there anything about the 6 communications that you had with this lawyer in 7 Arizona that in any way contributed -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Let me just finish the statement so that 10 we have a clean record. 11 -- contributed to your confidence in 12 making the public statement in January 5, 2015, that 13 Paul Cassell contrived or assisted in making up the 14 allegations? 15 A. First let me be very clear that that was 16 an expression of an opinion. 17 Q. What was? Be clearer. 18 A. "So they sat down together, the three of 19 them, these clearly disbarrable, unprofessional 20 lawyers," when you read it in context, it's clear I 21 wasn't saying I was there, I wasn't saying I was saw 22 it. I was giving a scenario. They profiled me, 23 they did this, so they sat down together and they 24 made up this story. 25 So it was an expression -- EFTA01138124 747 1 constitutionally protected expression of opinion, 2 and it was based on the totality of circumstances 3 that I had available to me at the time. That 4 included reputations of the two people who had made 5 up the story. It included the statements themselves 6 and how they were written and framed. Included the 7 fact that there was no affidavit, that it was 8 written, in fact, by the two lawyers. 9 So of course the lawyers played a role. 10 It was their own words that were being circulated to 11 millions -- hundreds of millions of people around 12 the world. 13 Q. But you were -- you were saying and you 14 said and you conveyed something more than Paul 15 Cassell and Brad Edwards simply listened to their 16 client and put it on paper, you were saying 17 A. That's right. 18 Q. -- you were saying and are still saying 19 Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards and 20 concocted this story about me together? 21 A. That's right. 22 Q. Meaning it wasn't just her words; the 23 lawyers came up with these allegations. That's what 24 you were saying, right? 25 A. I'm saying a combination. I said -- my EFTA01138125 748 1 exact words were: 2 "MR. DERSHOWITZ: So they and the woman 3 got together and contrived and made this up." 4 Yes. 5 Q. Right. So, when I asked you what formed 6 the basis of your public statement that the lawyers 7 were involved in contriving and making this up, you 8 gave me a list of things, and one is -- 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. -- Paul Cassell's reputation 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. -- that was supported by various people 13 telling you various things. 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. One of those things being Paul Cassell is 16 a zealot. And so that's where we are right now in 17 understanding who these people were, when you got 18 this information. And that's what you're describing 19 for me, right? 20 A. That's correct. But I'm saying to you 21 that it was the totality of circumstances. For 22 example, if a very imminent lawyer with a superb 23 reputation had made serious allegations, I would 24 be -- I mean, I knew in this case they were totally 25 false, but if I didn't know, if I didn't have that EFTA01138126 749 1 personal information, I would be more reluctant to 2 express this opinion. 3 But knowing everything I knew, that the 4 allegations were false, that there had to be 5 financial motive, that there was so much 6 specificity, that it was written by the lawyers 7 themselves, that they didn't put it under seal, that 8 they were trying to get the story out and circulated 9 as widely as possible, all of that combined with 10 their reputation led me to the opinion that this was 11 the scenario. 12 By the way, I think it was partial 13 scenario, I think as I've said before, there were 14 dual motivations. One motivation was to profile me 15 to try to -- that was a cover, really. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Object. Move to strike as 17 nonresponsive. 18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yeah, I think 19 we've gone far afield. So granted. Move 20 forward. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. What did the former President of Ecuador 23 tell you about Paul Cassell? 24 A. Again, all I remember is we had a 25 conversation. You asked me who did I have a EFTA01138127 750 1 conversation with about Paul Cassell. My 2 recollection is that he did not use the term 3 "zealot" or anything like that. He just gave me 4 information. 5 Q. What information did he give you? 6 A. That he is stubborn, that he would be 7 difficult to get to change his views, that kind of 8 thing, in general. But all of it contributed to an 9 image. 10 I had never met Paul Cassell. I didn't 11 know who he was other than having read some of his 12 articles. But then I did a lot of research on him 13 before I made these statements. 14 Q. Okay. My question that's pending is, what 15 did the former President of Ecuador tell you? 16 A. That he was stubborn and probably would be 17 difficult to get him to change his mind. 18 Q. Okay. Is there anyone else other than the 19 people that you have already either identified -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- by name or described for me that gave 22 you information 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- about Paul Cassell that contributed to 25 your belief about his reputation that gave you a EFTA01138128 751 1 confidence in the public statement you made about 2 him on January 5, 2015? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Who are those individuals? 5 A. But I want to be very clear. I'm talking 6 about individuals who I spoke to about Paul Cassell, 7 who gave me information that formed part of the 8 large picture. 9 Q. You've been clear on that. I get that. 10 A. One of them is Akhil Amar, who is a 11 professor at Yale Law School. 12 Q. When did you talk to Akhil Amar? 13 A. Shortly after this happened. Again, my 14 recollection is he called me because he was so 15 shocked. 16 Q. And would that have been some date prior 17 to January 5, 2015? 18 A. I don't remember for sure. But it's -- I 19 don't remember for sure. 20 Q. Can you tell me what the substance of the 21 conversation was that you had with Akhil Amar about 22 Paul Cassell? 23 A. Well, how shocked he was that Cassell 24 would make a statement like this. And that he would 25 try to talk to Cassell and persuade him that it EFTA01138129 752 1 couldn't be true. And that it would be a difficult 2 conversation. That's my basic recollection. 3 Q. Did Akhil Amar tell you that he thought 4 highly of Paul Cassell? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did he give you positive or negative 7 information about Paul Cassell or Paul's reputation? 8 A. I would say it was neutral but consistent. 9 You have to know something about Akhil Amar. Akhil 10 Amar is the nicest person in the world. I've never 11 heard him say anything negative about any human 12 being on the face of the earth, and I would never 13 expect him to say in specific terms anything 14 negative about anybody. But the information he 15 provided me helped form the total picture that I had 16 of Mr. Cassell. 17 Q. Other than telling you that Mr. Cassell 18 was stubborn, what other information did he provide 19 you which helped to form the total picture? 20 A. I think we discussed his views of 21 victimization, his views of false confessions. We 22 had a general discussion about his academic 23 standing, about his general reputation, about -- 24 Q. When you says "his," you're speaking of 25 Paul Cassell's or Akhil Amar's? EFTA01138130 753 1 A. No, about Paul Cassell's. This is a 2 conversation with Akhil Amar. 3 Q. Okay. What specifically, then, was the 4 substance of that conversation about Paul Cassell's 5 reputation that's helped to form the basis of the 6 big picture? 7 A. The conclusion that I drew from it was 8 that he with a zealot and he was stubborn and that 9 he was an idealogue, and that he was rigid in his 10 views. But, again, this is a conclusion that I 11 reached on the basis of all the conversations I had. 12 I reached out, some people reach out to me, and 13 these are the kinds of things that we discussed. 14 Q. Did Akhil Amar, in speaking about Paul 15 Cassell and his character and his reputation, tell 16 you that he feels Paul Cassell must genuinely 17 believe in the allegations? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did he tell you or convey to you that Paul 20 Cassell did not believe in the allegations of this 21 claim? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did Akhil Amar convey to you that Paul 24 Cassell's character or reputation were such that he 25 would place assertions or allegations in pleadings EFTA01138131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I got from the people around -- the people I spoke 13 to. 14 MR. EDWARDS: We're getting a little 15 feedback on the phone. 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: On the phone, 17 there is some background -- 18 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record. 19 The time is 11:21 a.m. 20 (Recess was held from 11:21 a.m. until 11:27 a.m.) 21 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record. 22 The time is 11:27 a.m. 23 MR. EDWARDS: Can you read back for me the 24 last question and the last answer? 25 COURT REPORTER: "Did Akhil Amar convey to in which Paul Cassell did not believe? A. My best recollection -- again, this could be him, it could be others, but it was partly from what I spoke to him about is that Paul Cassell does not believe that any woman is capable of lying about sexual assault; that when a woman makes a claim of sexual assault, it must be believed and it must be credited without regard to the evidence. That was certainly the impression I came away with from my various conversations with a range of people. And that was a pretty uniform view that EFTA01138132 755 1 you that Paul Cassell's character or reputation 2 were such that he would place assertions or 3 allegations in pleadings in which Paul Cassell 4 did not believe? 5 "My best recollection -- again, this could 6 be him, it could be others, but it was partly 7 from what I spoke to him about is that Paul 8 Cassell does not believe that any woman is 9 capable of lying about sexual assault; that 10 when a woman makes a claim of sexual assault, 11 it must be believed and it must be credited 12 without regard to the evidence. 13 "That was certainly the impression I came 14 away with from my various conversations with a 15 range of people. And that was a pretty uniform 16 view that I got from the people around the 17 people I spoke to." 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. Is there anything more about your 20 conversation with Akhil Amar that contributed to 21 your overall perspective on the reputation of Paul 22 Cassell, other than what you've already told me? 23 A. Not that I can now think of. 24 Q. How many times did you speak with Akhil 25 Amar about Paul Cassell? EFTA01138133 756 1 A. I think twice. 2 Q. And are you able to say with any certainty 3 whether or not it was before or after January 5, 4 2015? 5 A. I can't say. 6 Q. Did you ask Akhil Amar to reach out to 7 Paul Cassell? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. Other than Akhil Amar, is there anyone 10 else that you haven't already described or named 11 that gave you information about Paul Cassell? 12 A. Okay, let me be very clear, I'm not 13 including people with whom I have a privilege, I'm 14 not including people that have a privilege with me. 15 And I want to be very clear about this, I 16 am not now allowed to describe any conversations 17 with the person who Sigrid McCawley is now here on 18 behalf of. So, I don't want a negative inference to 19 be drawn. 20 I would like to comment, if I could, about 21 a person who I'm not allowed to comment about. But 22 I want the record to be -- I don't want I have to 23 answer your question completely. 24 Q. Okay. But this is all -- all of these 25 questions are about the basis that gave you the EFTA01138134 757 1 confidence to make the January 5, 2015 statement 2 that provided you information on Paul Cassell. 3 A. I misunderstood. I think your last 4 question said the universe of information about Paul 5 Cassell. That's why I had to put that on the record 6 involving the sealed -- 7 Q. Maybe it did, so let me just say let me 8 break this down. 9 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's how I 10 understood it. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. Let's break this down into the people that 13 you were describing you spoke to prior to making the 14 public statement that we've been talking about, and 15 then we'll expand it beyond that time. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. Okay. So, in addition to Akhil Amar, who 18 is next on the list? 19 A. You want me to repeat the names I gave you 20 or -- 21 Q. No, no, outside of the people we've 22 already discussed? 23 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Who is next on 24 the list for what? 25 EFTA01138135 758 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q. Who is next on the list of people that you 3 spoke with about Paul Cassell or his reputation that 4 gave you the confidence to make the public statement 5 that you made about Paul Cassell on January 5, 2015? 6 A. Outside of people within the various 7 privileges we've talked about. 8 Q. Well, I want to know are there people 9 within the privileges that we spoke about -- 10 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. Are there people within the privilege that 13 spoke to you that helped to form your opinions or 14 give you confidence to make the public statement 15 that you made in January 5, 2015? 16 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product -- 17 MR. INDYKE: Objection -- 18 MR. SCOTT: -- attorney-client. I'm 19 instructing him not to answer that question. 20 MR. EDWARDS: I'm not even asking for the 21 identities first. I'm asking are there people. 22 MR. SCOTT: I'm not -- objection. 23 MR. INDYKE: Objection. Same objections. 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Because you've 25 defined the topic so specifically, it would, in EFTA01138136 759 1 my view, invade the privilege without 2 identifying the people. And so based on the 3 objection, I will grant the objection pending a 4 reservation to review the entire issue on the 5 privilege, as we've done before. 6 So move on. I think right now, move on on 7 this -- on the question because you specified 8 the question. 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 Q. Did privileged communications assist in 11 forming your opinions about Paul Cassell? 12 MR. SCOTT: Same objection, same 13 instruction. 14 MR. INDYKE: Same objection. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: And the same 16 ruling as the previous question. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Are we clear that I'm not asking what 19 those opinions are or the names of the individuals? 20 21 22 23 24 25 Just are there individuals -- is there privileged communications that form the basis of your -- that help to form the basis of your opinions? Just yes or no, is there privileged communication -- MR. SCOTT: Same objection, same instruction. EFTA01138137 760 1 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 2 instruction. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Here's -- let me 4 just -- so I'm clear, we may -- it may be me or 5 it may be Judge Lynch who visits this issue, 6 and it may very well be that he will have to -- 7 the witness will have to answer these questions 8 after subsequent argument. 9 However, because the question defines the 10 topic and the matter that you're inquiring so 11 specifically without addressing the 12 individuals, but seeking the individuals whom 13 he shares whatever privilege is being asserted, 14 since the topic is so specifically defined in 15 your question, I think it would invade the 16 privilege, as I understand it. 17 And until we reach the overall decision on 18 whether privileged information of this type can 19 be -- to force the witness to answer it -- 20 require an answer from the witness, then I 21 would like to move on. 22 MR. SCAROLA: So that our position is 23 clear, there is no legal issue to address 24 unless there are materials over which a 25 privilege is being asserted. EFTA01138138 761 1 We are entitled to know whether there are 2 materials over which a privilege is being 3 asserted, and we are entitled to know the 4 nature of the privilege that is being asserted 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I -- well taken. 16 But my ruling will stand for now. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Did you receive any e-mails about Paul 19 Cassell or his reputation? 20 A. Not that I remember, but I can check. 21 MR. INDYKE: Same objection. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q. Did you receive any e-mails about the 24 reputation of Brad Edwards? 25 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same so that we can make a determination as to whether we even want to raise a legal issue. There's no legal issue to raise unless we've identified whether there is privileged material. That's what we're attempting to do, to establish for the record whether there is privileged material and the nature of privilege being asserted without getting into the substance of any privileged communication. EFTA01138139 762 1 instruction. 2 MR. SCOTT: Again, if they're in the 3 context of privileged materials. 4 A. Outside -- outside all of the privileges, 5 I will have to check. I don't recall. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. Did you receive any e-mails about the 8 reputation of Jack Scarola? 9 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 10 instruction. 11 A. I don't recall. 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 Q. Did you receive any e-mails about the 14 reputation of Sigrid McCawley? 15 MR. SCOTT: Relevancy. 16 MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 17 instruction. 18 A. No. I've always had a very high regard 19 for Sigrid McCawley prior to these allegations, 20 which is why I was so shocked that she would lend 21 her name to these false allegations. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q. I don't believe there's any question 24 pending. 25 Who are the individuals by name that told EFTA01138140 763 1 you Paul Cassell, as a professor, used Alan 2 Dershowitz as an object of hatred in his class? 3 A. I heard that from some students. Well, 4 no, let me be clear. From a student. And I have no 5 recollection of the name. But a student called me 6 and told me that a friend of his who was in Paul 7 Cassell's class remembered that he went after me on 8 the -- two issues; on the death penalty and on the 9 exclusionary rule, and used me as a kind of object 10 example of, you know, a wrong-headed person. That 11 he seemed to -- at least the student got a 12 perception that he seemed to have an animus towards 13 me. But I have to tell you that did not figure 14 into -- that did not contribute to my conclusions 15 about that. I'm controversial; I know that. 16 Q. Didn't we get here by me asking what did 17 contribute, and you told me, amongst a laundry list 18 of other things, that you were told that Paul 19 Cassell used Alan Dershowitz as an object of hatred? 20 A. I may have thought about that. But as I 21 think about it now, I don't think I really factored 22 that in in any significant way into my assessment. 23 Q. So that I understand the source of that 24 information, as you sit here today, it is a person 25 who you cannot identify told you that a friend of EFTA01138141 764 1 that person that you cannot identify -- 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. -- told you that -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: Told him. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. -- told him that Paul Cassell used you as 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 That 14 call 15 in your mind and it becomes a small part. 16 As I now think about it, I think too small 17 a part to even factor into my decision. I don't 18 think I really let that weigh on my decision. It 19 20 21 22 23 24 that 25 are the other names in addition to those that you an example on two issues, the death penalty and exclusionary rule, in his class? A. And more generally about my approach to criminal law. That's why I would never make a statement like that publicly. You're asking me what was in my mind. was a factor in my mind. When you get a phone about somebody, you don't forget it, it stays may have weighed on my attitude toward Paul Cassell, but I don't think it would have affected my decision as to whether he would do what I said he did -- what I believe he did. Q. What are the names -- other than those you have identified or described for us -- what EFTA01138142 765 1 have described or named for us that gave you 2 information about Paul Cassell? 3 A. As I sit here now, I'm sure there are 4 many, but I can't identify any specific names, and 5 if I can think of any, I will certainly let you 6 know. 7 Q. Can you tell me the additional names other 8 than Akhil Amar that you communicated with and asked 9 to communicate with Paul Cassell? 10 A. Nancy Gertner, former federal judge. 11 MR. SCOTT: Again, not privileged. 12 A. Well, it's complicated. At the time I 13 asked her to reach out, I did not regard her as my 14 attorney. Since that time, she has offered to help 15 represent me. So we're now in a privileged 16 relationship. 17 But when I called and asked her -- I think 18 she called me. I had no idea who knew Paul Cassell, 19 but a number of people called and said, what can we 20 do? Can we call Paul? How can he be doing this? 21 This is -- even Senator Hatch offered to call Paul 22 Cassell because he couldn't believe -- he said, I 23 cannot believe this allegation against you. I know 24 you. I know you to be a very honorable man. I 25 cannot believe that allegation against you. And I'm EFTA01138143 766 1 going to call Paul Cassell. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. Okay. Going back to Nancy Gertner, when 4 did you establish an attorney-client relationship 5 with Nancy Gertner? 6 A. Sometime thereafter. 7 Q. Sometime? 8 A. After she called Cassell, and Cassell 9 would not do anything to try to resolve the matter. 10 Q. Okay. Do you know when it was that you 11 asked Nancy Gertner to reach out to Paul Cassell? 12 A. Shortly after the allegations. Again, she 13 called me, and she just couldn't believe that 14 anybody would be making these allegations. 15 Q. Was it before or after the statement that 16 we have discussed that was made by you on the Don 17 Lemon show on January 5, 2015, that you asked Nancy 18 Gertner to reach out to Paul Cassell? 19 A. I don't remember. It could have been 20 before. But it might have been after. I just don't 21 remember. 22 Q. And is there a formal memorialization of 23 the attorney-client relationship between yourself 24 and Nancy Gertner? 25 A. I don't know the answer to that as we sit EFTA01138144 767 1 here now, but she's one of my lawyers and she's 2 included on my list of lawyers and I regard her as 3 one of my attorneys. 4 Q. Is there anyone else that is on the list 5 of people other than those that you've either 6 described or named already that provided you 7 information about Paul Cassell? 8 A. I'm sure there are many, but not that I 9 can identify now. Well, I can give you one more. 10 The BBC reporter who interviewed me showed me an 11 e-mail from Paul Cassell in which Paul Cassell gave 12 her a list of questions to ask me, while claiming 13 that he was not speaking to the media. 14 That led me to conclude that he was a 15 liar. And that happened very early on. That he was 16 absolutely a liar because he categorically stated 17 that he had never spoken to the media, never would 18 speak to the media. And here I had an e-mail from 19 him showed to me by BBC that proved he was 20 absolutely lying through his teeth. So I concluded 21 that he is a liar who has no concern for the truth. 22 Q. When did Paul Cassell categorically deny 23 ever speaking to the media? 24 A. In his press releases where he says, we do 25 not speak to the media, we've never spoken to the EFTA01138145 768 1 media, only Dershowitz speaks to the media, lying by 2 omission and by commission, failing to state that he 3 was trying to get publicity through ABC, that he was 4 pleading with ABC and he was trying to sell her 5 story to tabloids. So he was lying by omission, 6 lying by commission, and so were you. 7 Q. Have you produced -- do you have a list 8 from BBC or -- reporter or anyone else that 9 indicates a list of questions or whatever it is 10 you're testifying to -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- that came from somebody other than Paul 13 Cassell? 14 A. I don't understand that question. 15 Q. Well, you just threw in "and so were you," 16 and we're only talking about a list of questions 17 that you know about from the BBC. 18 MR. SCOTT: I'm not sure -- can you 19 rephrase the question so we have it clear? 20 MR. EDWARDS: Sure. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. I asked for you to identify anyone else 23 that provided you information about Paul Cassell 24 that helped to form your opinions. Your answer was, 25 a BBC reporter. Do you know her name? EFTA01138146 769 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 A. You must, because you know it's a her. 2 Q. I'm asking 3 A. I provided it and we have 4 the record. 5 Q. As you sit here today, do you 6 name? 7 A. No, I don't know the names of 8 Q. Okay. And the thing reporter whose name you do not A. But I can get it for Q. that know you. you, do you know her name? -- it's part of know her reporters. that BBC right now -- I'm just describing the reporter since you don't know her not name. The reporter whose name you recall right now provided you an e-mail A. Q. A. BY MR. Q. correct me showed you that were to you. A. No. Showed you an e-mail? No. MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let him EDWARDS: I understood your testimony, if I'm wrong, that this BBC an e-mail of questions from requested by Paul Cassell to do finish. and please reporter Paul Cassell be directed Yes. But it was not done by the reporter. EFTA01138147 770 1 It was done by the producer. It was a man producer. 2 And he told me and showed me on his BlackBerry or 3 his iPhone the questions that Paul Cassell had asked 4 him to ask me. 5 Q. In addition to the questions that Paul 6 Cassell had asked him to ask you, is it your 7 testimony that Paul Cassell spoke to the media about 8 the allegations or the facts as Paul understood them 9 in the case? 10 A. Yes, I don't about spoke, but we know that 11 he -- yes, we know he spoke to ABC. I think I can 12 give you the names of the people he spoke to there. 13 Jim Hill. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me. I think there's 15 a feedback problem again. 16 MR. SIMPSON: On the phone, there seems to 17 be a feedback problem. 18 MR. SCAROLA: Cross talk. 19 MR. INDYKE: Do you know if it's coming 20 from Darren Indyke or another phone? 21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: There's no way 22 to know. 23 MR. SIMPSON: It's not there now. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. I want to limit this so that I can EFTA01138148 771 1 understand exactly what you're saying to this BBC 2 reporter that you have identified that provided you 3 information that helped to support your opinions 4 about Paul Cassell. 5 A. That's right. 6 Q. Okay. That person provided you an e-mail 7 or you saw through this person an e-mail that Paul 8 Cassell -- that evidenced questions that Paul 9 Cassell wanted you to be asked? 10 A. It was my recollection it was an e-mail 11 from Paul Cassell to the producer is my 12 recollection. 13 Q. Okay. In addition -- so my question 14 that's pending is, in addition to the questions, is 15 there anything in the body of that e-mail or that 16 you were told by this reporter that Paul Cassell 17 spoke or communicated with the BBC beyond the 18 content of those questions? 19 A. Yes, the reporter told me that Paul 20 Cassell had spoken to him, and my recollection is 21 that they had spoken and then he sent him a 22 follow-up e-mail is my recollection. Again, it's a 23 year ago. And this was at the time that Paul 24 Cassell was saying and you were saying through your 25 lawyers and certainly trying to convey the EFTA01138149 772 1 impression that you were trying to keep this case 2 out of the media and that it was I who was putting 3 it into the media, while it turns out that 4 secretly -- 5 MR. EDWARDS: Object. Move to strike as 6 nonresponsive. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Are you almost 8 finished? 9 A. Almost done. 10 Secretly you were communicating with the 11 media and trying very hard to get them to cover this 12 story in a way negative to me. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q. Was this a reporter or a producer that was 15 telling you this information? 16 A. Producer. 17 Q. And what is the name of that producer, if 18 you know? 19 A. We can find that out. But I'm sure you 20 have the e-mail. I'm sure Cassell has the e-mail. 21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Do you know? 22 A. I don't know the name of the producer. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. And what was it that this producer told 25 you that Paul told him? EFTA01138150 773 1 A. To please ask me very critical and hard 2 questions. And I assumed -- this is an 3 assumption -- that the reason the BBC may have 4 called me was they were put on to it by Paul 5 Cassell, who urged them to call me. 6 Q. My question, if we back up a few, though, 7 is beyond the substance of the questions from Paul 8 Cassell, do you have information that Paul Cassell 9 spoke to them? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And I think, as you said, yes, 12 because I talked to this reporter. What did the 13 reporter tell you that Paul Cassell said beyond the 14 substance of those questions? 15 A. It's the producer. 16 Q. Producer. 17 A. Not the reporter. The reporter was part 18 of the conversation, too, but I think the 19 conversations had been between Paul Cassell and the 20 producer. 21 The conclusion I drew from our 22 conversation was that Paul Cassell had reached out 23 to BBC and asked to have them ask me hard questions, 24 and the questions were all very critical and hard 25 questions designed to make her story believable. EFTA01138151 774 1 And that the producer then responded to 2 Cassell and said send me an e-mail, and Cassell sent 3 an e-mail with the questions listed. And they, in 4 fact, asked me those questions. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. But the point of my answer is that at the 7 same time, you, Mr. Scarola, and Mr. Cassell were 8 communicating to the press -- 9 MR. EDWARDS: Object and move to strike as 10 nonresponsive. 11 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I would agree 12 with that and grant the motion. Go ahead and 13 ask your next question. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 Q. Beyond the communication from Paul Cassell 16 to a producer, ask Alan Dershowitz these questions, 17 is it your understanding that Paul Cassell 18 communicated anything further to that producer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. What did the producer tell you that 21 Paul Cassell said to him beyond "ask Alan Dershowitz 22 these questions"? 23 A. Well, the producer certainly came to the 24 interview having been, it seemed to me, briefed by 25 Cassell and came with a conclusion that he had EFTA01138152 775 1 2 3 4 5 6 reached that I was guilty. So I can draw a reasonable inference that he was told that by Paul Cassell. Q. Did the producer tell you that he was told anything beyond "ask Alan Dershowitz these questions"? 7 A. The producer told me that he had other 8 communications with Cassell. But beyond that, I had 9 to draw my own inferences. 10 Q. Without you drawing your own inferences, 11 did the producer tell you the substance of those 12 other communications with Paul Cassell beyond "ask 13 Alan Dershowitz these questions"? 14 A. No. 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: We're beginning 16 to approach a break, so as your deposition -- 17 find a time in the next 10 or 15 minutes or so. 18 MR. EDWARDS: I think this is as good a 19 time as any. 20 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to go on. 21 MR. SIMPSON: Take a break. 22 MR. SCOTT: Take a break. 23 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I don't want to 24 interrupt a flow. 25 MR. EDWARDS: This is good stopping point, EFTA01138153 776 1 and then we'll take a break and be back. 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record. 3 The time is 11:52 a.m. 4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You can go off 5 the record but stay on the record. 6 With respect to the issues over privilege, 7 and as it appears that this witness may be held 8 over beyond today, I would ask the parties to 9 discuss and see if you can agree among 10 yourselves how you wish, if you wish, to 11 address those issues so that whether it's in 12 front of me or in front of Judge Lynch, so that 13 in several weeks or whenever he's reset, should 14 there need to be a readdressing of questions 15 that were not answered because of that issue, 16 just as I'm not foretelling -- don't take 17 anything in it, but just for purposes of 18 scheduling, we probably ought to try to deal 19 with -- I would suggest that the parties try to 20 deal with that issue between now and the next 21 time Mr. Dershowitz sits for deposition. 22 MR. SCAROLA: That absolutely makes sense. 23 And we will be filing, after we have received 24 the transcript, an appropriate Motion to 25 Compel, and I think that it is best that the EFTA01138154 777 1 Court deal with that motion. 2 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: I think it's beyond the 4 scope of the responsibilities that have been 5 agreed to be resolved by you, and that would be 6 our request. 7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. I wanted 8 to raise that just from the purposes of just an 9 administrative standpoint. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Thank you very much. 11 (Recess was held from 11:54 a.m. until 1:04 p.m. 12 after which the proceedings continued in Volume 6.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01138155 778 CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, the undersigned authority, certify that ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on the 13th day of January, 2016. Signed this 17th day of January, 2016. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, CLR Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. FF 226848 Expires: 7/12/2019 EFTA01138156 779 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing videotape continued deposition of ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ; pages 648 through 455; that a review of the transcript was requested; and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 14th day of January, 2016. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, CLR EFTA01138157 780 January 14, 2016 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. [email protected] Re: Bradley Edwards, et al., v. Alan M. Dershowitz Please take notice that on the 12th day of January, 2016, you gave your deposition in the above cause. At that time, you did not waive your signature. The above-addressed attorney has ordered a copy of this transcript and will make arrangements with you to read their copy. Please execute the Errata Sheet, which can be found at the back of the transcript, and have it returned to us for distribution to all parties. If you do not read and sign the deposition within a reasonable amount of time, the original, which has already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be filed with the Clerk of the Court. If you wish to waive your signature now, please sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this letter and return to the address listed below. Very truly yours, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, CLR Phipps Reporting, Inc. 1551 Forum Place Building 200, Suite E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 I do hereby waive my signature. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ EFTA01138158 781 ERRATA SHEET DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE In Re: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ET AL., V. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Case No.: ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ January 12, 2016 PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. Date ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ EFTA01138159