DS9 Document EFTA01178092

0001 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 2 AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION 4 5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG 8 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, 9 individually, 10 Defendants. 11 12 500 East Broward Boulevard, 13 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Thursday, June 14, 2012 14 9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m. 15 16 17 DEPOSITION 18 Of 19 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN (Via Video Conference) 20 21 22 23 24 25 0002 1 2 3 Taken on behalf of the Trustee pursuant to a notice of taking deposition APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, P.A. by Tonja Haddad, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff. 4 5 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A., by Jack Goldberger, Esq. 6 Attorney for the Plaintiff. 7 8 9 10 11 SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA ET AL, by Jack Scarola, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant, Brad Edwards. MARC NURIK, P.A., by Marc Nurik, Esq. Attorney for Scott Rothstein. (Appearing via Video Conference.) 12 13 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, by Laurence LaVecchio, Esq. 14 Attorney for the Department of Justice. 15 16 17 18 19 20 EFTA01178092 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS SCOTT ROTHSTEIN 3 4 5 6 7 a (By Ms. Haddad) 5 (By Mr. Goldberger) 92 (By Mr. Scarola) 121 EXHIBITS PLAINTIFF'S FOR IDENTIFICATION 9 10 1 64 2 69 11 3 72 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004 1 Thereupon: 2 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, 3 was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, 4 was examined and testified as follows: 5 THE WITNESS: I do. 6 MS. HADDAD: Good morning, Scott. How are 7 you? 8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Tonja. How are 9 you? 10 MS. HADDAD: Fine, thank you. It's nice to 11 see you. 12 THE WITNESS: Good to see you, too. 13 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Rothstein, I don't know 14 that you and I have met. I'm Jack Scarola, I'm 15 representing Brad Edwards and I know you know Brad 16 who's to my immediate left. 17 THE WITNESS: Hey, Brad, how are you? 18 Jack, good to see you. 19 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 20 MR. GOLDBERGER: Also present is another 21 Jack, Jack Goldberger, and I also represent Jeffrey 22 Epstein. To my right is Darryn Indyke -- 23 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Jack. 24 MR. GOLDBERGER: How are you today? EFTA01178093 25 0005 1 Mr. Epstein's 2 MR. 3 THE 4 MR. 5 MR. 6 MR. 7 shoulder most 8 MR. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0006 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 0007 1 BY MS. HADDAD: And to my right is Darryn Indyke, who is in-house counsel. INDYKE: Good morning. WITNESS: Good morning, sir. NURIK: Good morning, everyone. GOLDBERGER: Hi, Marc, how are you? NURIK: Good. You'll be seeing my of the day. GOLDBERGER: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Well, Scott, I know you've talked about this probably more than you even care to, but I'd like to start a little bit asking you about the scheme at your firm and how and when it started and things of that nature just very briefly because I know you've covered it many times. MR. SCAROLA: It has been covered and protocol precludes asking questions that have already been answered and covering areas that have already been covered, so we do object. MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted. BY MS. HADDAD: Q. When did this first start? A. It started back in '05, '06. The question is a little bit vague for me because it started in a different form than it ended because it started as bridge loans and things of that nature, and then morphed into the Ponzi scheme. But you are looking back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning. Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge loans started? A. I can't be certain exactly what we were doing. I need to see all the documents to tell you what we were doing at what specific point in time. Q. What made you decide to start doing this? A. I started doing it out of greed and the need to support the law firm, which was having significant financial trouble at the time. Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401 yet or were you still in the building where Colonial Bank was? A. I don't remember. Q. Do you recall approximately how many attorneys you had working for you when it started? A. I do not. Between five and ten, Tonja. Q. Was it before you started acquiring attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches? MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the question, vague. THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 Q. Well, who were you partners with when it 3 first started? 4 A. Stu Rosenfeldt. 5 Q. Okay. Anyone else? 6 A. Susan Dolin, I believe. It was definitely 7 Stu Rosenfeldt, Michael Pancier, and Susan Dolin may 8 have been partners of ours at that time, I'm not 9 certain. EFTA01178094 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0008 1 growth started," do you mean both the scheme -- do you 2 mean the scheme and the firm or either one or both? 3 A. Both. 4 Q. Do you recall approximately when you took 5 the space in the 401 Building? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. At the time everything imploded, how many 8 partners did you have at the firm, do you recall? 9 A. Are you saying partners and shareholders? 10 Because remember, we had both, two designations. 11 Q. I want to start with just attorneys that 12 had -- not in your firm name but named as "partner" on 13 the cards, for example. 14 A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees. 15 We had a bunch. 16 Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you 17 had working there? 18 A. Approximately 70. 19 Q. In the year before, do you recall how many 20 you had? 21 A. I do not. 22 Q. So how many equity partners did you have or 23 shareholders? I'm not sure of the word that we are 24 using. 25 A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholders 0009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE WITNESS: What kind of funds are you 13 talking about? 14 BY MS. HADDAD: 15 Q. In general from the firm. When you say 16 equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu. 17 What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was 18 named as a shareholder, why did you call them a 19 shareholder as opposed to a partner? 20 A. It was a title of prestige and achievement. Q. Because if memory serves me correctly, you went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to the building across the street, it was Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And it was some time later that you moved into the 401 Building, correct? A. You are skipping one step. I went from One Financial Plaza to Phillips, Eisinger, Koss, Kusnick, Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeldt and I broke off and formed Rothstein Rosenfeldt. And then Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, Pancier over at the Colonial Bank Building. And then we took the space in the 401 Building and eventually moved over there and that's when the real growth started. Q. And when you say, "that's when the real were two, me and Stu Rosenfeldt. Q. And everyone else was just a partner for title purposes? A. There were shareholders for title purposes and partners for title purposes. Q. If someone was called a shareholder for title purposes then, did they get to receive any of the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or they were not considered shareholders in that sense? MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the form of the question. EFTA01178095 21 Q. So it was basically an ego thing, it had 22 nothing really to do with the finances or hierarchy of 23 the firm? 24 A. They got paid more generally, but it did not 25 have anything to do with distributions. 0010 1 Q. When you were hiring and bringing in all 2 these new attorneys, did everyone come in as a 3 partner? 4 A. No. 5 Q. How did you decide who came in as a partner 6 and who came in as an associate? 7 A. Depended upon their level of expertise, 8 practice, book of business. It was a decision Stuart 9 and I made together on a case-by-case basis. 10 Q. So you and Stu where the -- were in charge 11 of hiring? 12 A. Stuart and I tried to consult on every 13 hiring decision, yes. 14 Q. Did you guys also decide salaries? 15 A. I generally decided the salary and then let 16 Stu know what I was going to do. And he would say if 17 he thought it was okay or if he thought it was too 18 much or too little, but I generally had free reign in 19 that regard. 20 Q. Did someone's book of business directly 21 correlate to the salary that you would offer? 22 A. That is a very broad question because it 23 depends upon what other needs we had for that 24 individual. 25 Q. What do you mean by "what other needs"? 0011 1 A. Well, I'll give you a good example. My 2 lawyer, Mr. Nurik, his salary was directly related to 3 the fact that he was a great lawyer and had a solid 4 book of business. 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. David Boden, on the other hand, was, as I 7 previously testified, I don't know if you've had a 8 chance to read the testimony, but David Boden was not 9 only the general counsel to the law firm but he was 10 also -- acted as my consigliere in a significant 11 number of illegal operations and he was compensated 12 significantly for that, if that helps you understand 13 the difference. 14 Q. It does. 15 So, for example, when you were hiring former 16 judges, let's use that as an example, Pedro and Julio, 17 clearly they don't have a book of business coming in 18 because they haven't had clients, but they may carry 19 some sort of prestige or give some legitimacy, if you 20 will, to the firm. How would you decide the salary 21 for someone like that? 22 A. Stu and I would discuss it. It was more a 23 market issue than anything else, how much are judges 24 coming off the bench getting, how much business do we 25 think they can generate. 0012 1 Q. Would you need to look at someone's book of 2 business if they were coming in just solely to be a 3 rainmaker for the firm prior to hiring them? 4 A. I discussed it with them. There were not 5 many people that I recall that I actually looked at EFTA01178096 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0013 1 you thought could bring a book of business, you just 2 said Brad, for example, that he had a legitimate 3 practice group with a good book of business. How did 4 you know that? 5 A. Everyone in the tort world that I had spoke 6 to spoke extremely highly of Brad, not only people I 7 already had working for me but other people that knew 8 him. He was very -- came very highly recommended to 9 us. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0014 1 Q. Okay. When you were looking at people to 2 bring in to the firm to legitimize, as you said. Your 3 firm had a very unique area of practice and had a very 4 unique environment to which to work. How did you know 5 or how did you come to decide what people may or may 6 not fit into that? 7 A. Okay. Hang on one second. I think you just 8 accidentally misstated my testimony. 9 I was not bringing the people in to 10 legitimize the law firm. I was bringing them in to 11 the legitimate side of the law firm. The bulk of the 12 law firm, despite the lack of financial success, was a 13 large group of very honest, hard working lawyers 14 trying to do their best in difficult economic 15 conditions. There were some that were obviously not 16 legitimate. And the way I decided to bring people in, 6 their numbers. Once David Boden was working for me I 7 had him check people's numbers, but I rarely looked. I 8 took most people's words for what they were generating. Q. My recollection is, you were always looking to bring in more people, to hire more people, some of us were somehow able to resist you while others were not. How would you decide who you were looking at to bring into your firm? A. We were trying to develop, on the legitimate side of the law firm, we were trying to develop real talent, real practice groups. I mean, Brad is a perfect example, great lawyer, got a great reputation. You know, it was our hope that, you know, he was going to be one of the people to actually in some ways rescue the firm because he had a practice group that could generate substantial income. You know, on the legitimate side that's what we were trying to do, we were trying to find the best and the brightest. Q. Okay. With respect to bringing people that Q. Like who, for example? A. We wanted him in there. We were trying to develop a significant tort group and we thought that he'd be a great part of it. Q. Who besides Russ told you that about Brad? A. It would have been other people in the tort group. I don't want to guess, Tonja, as to which other people told me, but it was -- well more than Russ. Q. Was it people within -- A. Might have been people in politics that I talked to that knew him because we had significant input at the gubernatorial level with regard to tort reform and the like, and there were people there who knew who Brad was. It was more than one person that told us that. EFTA01178097 17 again, it's really everything I just told you. Are 18 you looking for how I brought people into the Ponzi 19 scheme? 20 Q. No, right now I'm just asking about the firm 21 because, as I said, it's a very unique way in which to 22 practice and a very unique workplace environment with 23 politics and restaurants and parties at your home and 24 things of that nature. I'm asking, personality wise, 25 other than the book of business, how did you decide on 0015 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 0016 1 that time with Farmer and Fistos and Jaffe and 2 Mr. Edwards. 3 Q. Do you know where Mr. Edwards was working 4 when you first learned of him? 5 A. I don't recall whether he was working for 6 someone or had his own practice, I don't recall. 7 Q. When did you first learn about Brad? 8 A. I don't remember the time frame. 9 Q. Do you recall when you first met with him 10 regarding a job? 11 A. No. The easiest way to figure that out is 12 to go look at his personnel file, it will have the 13 notes saying when he met with me the first time. 14 Q. You don't have any recollection of your 15 first meeting with him? 16 A. No. As you know, I was hiring people left 17 and right and I was also unfortunately very busy doing 18 things I shouldn't have been doing, so I don't have a 19 specific recollection of when I hired him. I barely 20 have a specific recollection of when I hired me. 21 Q. But you did, in fact, meet with him? 22 A. I'm certain I met with him before I hired 23 him. I can't imagine -- although I did hire people 24 without meeting them. I did hire people based on 25 other people's word, if they were people within the 0017 1 firm that I trusted. Because I always said, I had a people that would be a good fit? A. I looked for people that were outgoing, that had the type of personality. On the legitimate side of the business, people that had charisma that were -- that could go out and hustle and try to develop a book of business if they didn't have it. And as one of the 50 percent of the shareholders of the firm I was trying to hire people I wanted to work with. Q. Okay. When you would see people from whom you would offer jobs, for example, as you mentioned earlier with Brad and his practice, if somebody stated that people told you that he was a good lawyer, did you need to see him in action, so to speak, prior to your deciding to hire them or would you just take people at their word for it? A. Some of people I saw in action; he wasn't one of them. Steve Osber is an excellent example of that. I hired Steve after he was beating the living daylights out of me on the other side of a case. And I certainly would ask around about the people. But the people that I trusted -- see, I can't remember. I think Gary Farmer was working for me before Brad, and if I'm not mistaken he would have been one of the people that I went to with regard to Brad because we were really developing that whole tort group around EFTA01178098 2 very simple, you lie or die by what you are telling 3 me. If you are telling me this guy is good and he's 4 not good, that's on you, it's going to hurt your 5 income. So I used to tell my partner, people that 6 were recommending people to me, don't sell me a bill 7 of goods just to get somebody in here because if you 8 do that it's going to come back on you, it's going to 9 affect your income and your ability to grow in the 10 firm. So with that admonishment, I might have very 11 well hired someone sight unseen based upon what 12 someone else told me. 13 Q. But you did meet with Brad you say before he 14 came in to work? 15 A. Now that I'm saying it out loud, I think I 16 did but really I'm guessing. I don't have a specific 17 recollection of meeting him. 18 Q. Do you recall if you knew that he had worked 19 as an assistant state attorney for a few years prior 20 to doing tort litigation? 21 A. I don't recall that one way or the other. 22 Q. So you wouldn't have asked Howard Scheinberg 23 or anybody about him before he came to work there? 24 A. I can't say that I wouldn't have asked 25 because, like I said, I might have asked. But 0018 1 unfortunately, you are taking a little tiny spot out 2 of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the 3 life of the firm, so I can't tell you one way or the 4 other. 5 Q. I know you had a lot going on, I'm just 6 trying to see if you remember anything specific about 7 this. 8 Do you recall what salary you had offered 9 Brad to come join the firm? 10 A. I do not. You have to just try to 11 differentiate that what I knew then is a lot different 12 than what I know now so ... 13 Q. Meaning? 14 A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time 15 that I was hiring him or maybe a year after, I would 16 be able to tell you what I was paying him, but now 17 it's insignificant. I don't remember how much I was 18 paying him. 19 Q. Did you learn about his book of business or 20 know what kind of cases he was bringing in prior to 21 hiring him? 22 A. I do know that he -- I discussed either with 23 Russ, well, I know with Russ, and perhaps some other 24 people, I knew about the Epstein case. 25 Q. What did you know about it? 0019 1 A. I knew that it was a significant case of 2 potentially significant value against an extremely 3 collectible pedophile, for lack of a better word. 4 Q. So was that case your primary motive in 5 bringing Brad into the firm? 6 A. I doubt it. I mean, I can't tell you one 7 way or the other, but I doubt that I would bring him 8 in just for one case because what if the case fails, 9 then I'm stuck with a lawyer who can't do anything, 10 you know. 11 I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do 12 anything, I'm just saying that if I only relied on one EFTA01178099 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0020 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 0021 1 book of business and his legal skills. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. And his ability to generate business in the 4 future. 5 Q. You stated that you believed that you first 6 heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps 7 from Brad. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up 8 with these cases, these Epstein cases? 9 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to 10 object to the form of the question. It is an 11 inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has 12 no predicate. There was no reference about having 13 heard about these cases from Brad. The names 14 mentioned were Adler, possibly Farmer, possibly 15 Jaffe. 16 BY MS. HADDAD: 17 Q. Once Brad started working at the firm, 18 you've already testified you already knew about these 19 Epstein cases, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How did you keep abreast of these cases? 22 A. I didn't. 23 Q. You didn't know anything about them? case, then if I bring a lawyer in for one case and one case only, what do I do with him when the case is over. Q. How did you know that this case would be a collectible case then? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form of the question because it misstated the prior testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a collectible case but that it was a case against a "extremely collectible pedophile." BY MS. HADDAD: Q. What made you think that this case had any financial value? A. Epstein was a billionaire. Q. Okay. Did you know anything about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claims prior to knowing he was a billionaire? A. I knew what I was told. I didn't check it out myself, but I trusted the people that told me. Q. And who told you? A. The only person I remember discussing it with, as I sit here today, is Russ Adler. But if Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me at the time, I likely would have discussed it with them as well. Q. So were you aware of this case before you made an offer to Brad to join the firm? A. Yes. Q. You said you didn't -- I don't want to misquote you. You said you heard about it from other people, but you didn't do anything to know that personally. Was that before you made the offer of employment? A. I made the offer of employment based upon what other people had told me about Brad. Q. About Brad and his book of business or just Brad and his legal skills? A. Okay. When I say Brad, I mean Brad and his EFTA01178100 24 A. I didn't say I didn't know anything. I said 25 I didn't keep track of it. 0022 1 Q. You didn't keep track of it? 2 A. I did not keep track of it. From time to 3 time Russ and the other guys in the tort group would 4 tell me what was going on in certain cases, but until 5 I made a decision to utilize that file for an illegal 6 purpose related to something illegal that I was doing 7 along with my co-conspirators, I just assumed my 8 lawyers were going to work the case and eventually it 9 would hopefully work out well for the law firm. 10 Q. At your firm, when e-mails would go out to 11 attorneys at RRA or all attorneys at RRA, were you 12 part of that e-mail group? 13 A. You are talking about all staff? 14 Q. No, all it says is attorneys at RRA. 15 A. It's the e-mail group "attorneys"? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. Yes, I'm a part of that e-mail group. 18 Q. And I appreciate that you were very busy and 19 may not have read all of them, but you did receive 20 those e-mails when they would go around? 21 A. Yes, and I tried my best to read them. 22 Q. Okay. At what point did you decide to use 23 this case to further your Ponzi scheme? 24 A. I don't remember the date, but I can give 25 you the circumstances, if you'd like. 0023 1 Q. Please do. 2 A. The Ponzi scheme was running very low on 3 capital. My co-conspirators and I needed to find a 4 new feeder fund, new investment sources. We had a 5 couple of very large, significantly wealthy potential 6 investors out there. I was looking for something that 7 would have been very attractive. We had had a lot of 8 inquiry during the due diligence period with these 9 people that were doing due diligence on the putative 10 cases that we were selling. And when I thought about 11 the Epstein case, realizing that it was a substantial 12 actual file in the office, I came up with the idea 13 that if I created a fake confidential settlement 14 circling around -- based upon this actual case, they 15 would be able to increase the level of due diligence 16 that I was able to offer to my potential investors. 17 Q. How did you know this was a substantial file 18 in your office at that time? 19 A. Again, through the people I spoke to in the 20 office. 21 Q. Such as who? 22 A. Again, same people, Adler, Farmer, Jaffe, 23 Fistos. 24 Q. You never spoke to Brad about this case? 25 A. I didn't say that, but I had a lot more 0024 1 interaction -- 2 Sorry, Tonja, I didn't mean to speak over 3 you. 4 If you talk to the people in the firm, if 5 they are honest with you, they'll tell you my 6 interaction was far more significant with Russ Adler, 7 probably more so because he was a co-conspirator of 8 mine. My interaction with Russ was far greater by EFTA01178101 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0025 1 correct? 2 A. To the best of my recollection, no. 3 Q. So you stated that you learned this case 4 was -- I don't want to misquote you and listen to a 5 long speaking objection, but what did you call this 6 case? 7 MR. SCAROLA: Who wants the quote? 8 THE WITNESS: It was a substantial case 9 with a -- what I perceived to be a highly collectible 10 pedophile as a defendant. 11 BY MS. HADDAD: 12 Q. Right. How did you know at the time when 13 you said these investors wanted to investigate and you 14 said you were going to create a fake settlement, how 15 did you know that this case was the case that you 16 could use? 17 A. From talking to all the people that I just 18 said, Adler, Fistos, Jaffe, Farmer, Mr. Edwards, to 19 the extent that I spoke to him about it. 20 Q. Did you speak with Mr. Edwards about the 21 case? 22 A. I don't have a specific recollection one way 23 or the other. I remember speaking to him at least 24 briefly the day or the day of or the day before the 25 actual investor's due diligence was going on as to 0026 1 what was going on. And I may have spoke to him, I 2 know I spoke to Russ, but I may have spoke to him as 3 well within a couple of days just prior to this due 4 diligence because I was trying to at least get some 5 information in my head that I could use when I was 6 creating this story for the investors. 7 Q. Scott, what's Q-task? 8 A. Q-task is a web based software system that I 9 had invested $7 million in. 10 Q. And what was the purpose of this internet 11 system? 12 A. To be able to communicate in a secure 13 fashion and in a unique group fashion about specific 14 files. 15 Q. So forgive me, we all know I'm not good with 16 the computer. That was something that would be useful 17 within a law firm, why? 18 A. Because it allowed you to create groups and 19 have both general and private chats, organize data in many, many percents over my interaction with Brad, and then you go down the line. I had more interaction with Mr. Farmer than I did with Mr. Fistos, more interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr. Edwards, and so on. Q. Russ was the head of your tort group, right? A. Yes. Q. So these cases fell under the tort group; is that correct? A. Yes, it fell under the -- fell under Russ' purview ultimately, yes. Q. And Brad was a partner at your firm during the time these cases were there, correct? A. I believe that was his title. He was either partner or shareholder. I don't think we had made him a shareholder yet. Q. But he wasn't coming in as an associate, EFTA01178102 20 a very unique fashion. That was, at least to our way 21 of thinking, would have been very, very helpful in the 22 law firm setting with multiple practice groups. 23 Q. Did you belong to any groups on Q-task? 24 A. I'm certain that I did. I don't remember 25 which groups I belonged to. I never got into the full 0027 1 use of it. I tried to, but again, I was very busy 2 doing other things. But I know that Mr. Adler's group 3 used it extensively. 4 Q. Because it was your firm and, as you said, 5 you invested $7 million in it, did you have the 6 ability to access a group if you wanted to? A. Yes. And if I couldn't, I could get Russ to give me access. Q. So you didn't necessarily have to be invited the Q-task group for you to be able to utilize or the communications within it? A. No, that's not true. I actually had to be invited, that's what I was telling Russ to do, is to have me invited. Q. But I'm saying, the lawyers wouldn't have to personally invite you, you can get someone within your firm to give you access maybe without the lawyers knowing? A. No, I think it might have had a, quote, unquote, confidential, super secret viewing capability, but I don't recall it having that, and I'd have no need to utilize that. Just invite me into the group and let me see what's going on. Q. Okay. I know that you are or were a very hands-on person within certain of the practice groups 7 8 9 10 into 11 view 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0028 1 and with that, with the Q-task and the e-mails, did 2 someone assist you with reviewing everything and 3 letting you know what was going on within the groups? 4 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to 5 object to counsel's testimony. Object to the form of 6 the question as leading. 7 THE WITNESS: I really don't even 8 understand the question. 9 Can you try to rephrase it for me, Tonja? 10 BY MS. HADDAD: 11 Q. Of course, I would. 12 Did you keep abreast of everything that was 13 going on in every practice group or was someone 14 through Q-task and e-mails, for example, or was 15 someone giving you information keeping you posted on 16 what was going on within the practice? 17 A. Well, as part of the tort group I had a 18 pretty good idea of what was going on there all the 19 time just because of the significant amount of 20 interaction, both legitimate and otherwise, that I had 21 with Russ Adler, so I was probably more up-to-date on 22 that group than any group other than the labor and 23 employment group, again, because I had such 24 significant interaction with Stu Rosenfeldt, both 25 legitimately and illegitimately, so I knew what was 0029 1 going on in that group. 2 I tried, as best as I could, given my time 3 constraints, to stay on top of what was going on, you 4 know, throughout the firm. But I relied on other EFTA01178103 5 people like Debra Villegas and Irene Stay and David 6 Boden, Les Stracker to the lesser extent, to monitor 7 what was going on in the different practice groups and 8 keep me up to speed. 9 Q. Was there audio and video surveillance 10 throughout the entire firm or only within your office? 11 A. No, through the entire office, not in the 12 individual offices. 13 Hang on. Not in the individual offices but 14 throughout the general office space. 15 Q. So in 2009 how many floors did you have? 16 A. Three, I think. 17 Q. And do you recall approximately how many 18 attorneys you had working there at that time? 19 A. Approximately 70. 20 Q. And when you say "not the individual offices 21 but the other areas," do you mean -- would that 22 include conference rooms? 23 A. I didn't have surveillance in the conference 24 rooms. 25 Q. So can you please tell me exactly where you 0030 1 had audio and/or video surveillance? We'll start with 2 audio. 3 A. I don't have a specific recollection of 4 every place I had video and audio, but it was in -- I 5 had it set up so that in all of the common areas, 6 including our shareholder's lounge, we had -- I had 7 audio and video capabilities. 8 Q. When you say "capabilities," does that mean 9 you didn't always turn it on or you just turned it on 10 when you felt like it? 11 A. I turned it on when I felt like it, when I 12 felt like seeing what was going on. I sometimes left 13 the screen up because I had four computer screens on 14 my desk, I sometimes left the screen on with the video 15 of the reception area and some other general areas. 16 But unless I wanted to see what was going on or listen 17 to what was going on, I didn't turn it on It would 18 have been too distracting. 19 Q. Did the attorneys know that this 20 surveillance existed? 21 A. You can see it in the -- it wasn't hidden, 22 you can see it. There were globes up in the ceiling 23 all over the office. 24 Q. Did you have -- you said -- you didn't 25 answer this, you said you didn't recall. Did you have 0031 1 any surveillance in the conference rooms? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Other than the common areas you just went 4 over, in the hallways and the reception -- did you 5 have it in the hallways, is that a common -- do you 6 deem that a common area? 7 A. All the hallways pretty much with the 8 exception of a few blind spots, I can see all the 9 hallways. 10 Q. And this was on all three floors? 11 A. Yeah. For some reason I think we might 12 have taken some space on a fourth floor, but I could 13 be mistaken. But yes, on the three floors that we 14 actively had a significant amount of space on, I tried 15 to have surveillance on all the common areas of all EFTA01178104 16 that space. 17 Q. And what floor was Mr. Edwards' office on? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. Did you have the tort group all together or 20 was it divided up? 21 A. Except for Adler, Adler was on with -- near 22 me, down the hall from me. The rest of the group was 23 all together. I think they were on -- let's see. 24 There were people up on 22. I was on 16. He must 25 have been on the other floor that we were building 0032 1 out, because I remember building out space and I 2 remember Jaffe and all those guys moving into that 3 space. 4 Q. If you were building up that space, do you 5 recall when you put the surveillance in there? 6 A. It would have been while they were building 7 it out or shortly thereafter. 8 Q. During 2009 it seems that you hired lots of 9 former law enforcement people to work at the firm. 10 Why were they people you wanted to hire? 11 A. Severalfold. I had a significant amount of 12 illegal activity going on with various law enforcement 13 agencies throughout South Florida and hiring people 14 from former law enforcement assisted me in engendering 15 support and camaraderie with the law enforcement that 16 I was actually utilizing in illegal activities. 17 Q. So you are saying -- 18 A. Secondarily, I wanted to have a very strong 19 investigative team, ultimately, to do both legitimate 20 and illegitimate things for the law firm, and hiring 21 former law enforcement was the best way to do that. I 22 was hoping to actually ultimately create a group. Ken 23 Jenne and I had talked about that extensively. 24 Q. Why did you hire Ken Jenne? 25 A. Prior to Ken going to prison, he and I were 0033 1 very friendly and he was extremely friendly with 2 someone that was very close to me, Grant Smith. 3 During the time that he was down in FDC Miami, I went 4 down to visit him. And after speaking to him and 5 after speaking to Grant, I told him, because he was 6 talking to me about how many people had turned on him 7 and abandoned him. And I told him that when he got 8 out of jail that he had no worries, that I would give 9 him a job. 10 Q. And what -- 11 A. And that was the primary reason -- that was 12 my primary reason for hiring him. 13 Q. What was it you were hiring him to do 14 exactly? 15 A. Ultimate the goal was to head up on 16 investigative arm within RRA, within the RRA entities. 17 Q. Well, while he was there, since that didn't 18 happen, what was his obligation to the firm 19 day-to-day? 20 A. He handled firm security issues and he did 21 handle overseeing certain investigative things. We 22 had an alcohol and beverage group that was forming and 23 he was overseeing that. He was helping me find new 24 people to staff it, that kind of thing. 25 Q. Did you have a lot of interaction -- 0034 EFTA01178105 1 A. He had had significant -- as you know, he 2 also had significant political connections and 3 everyone who is not living under a rock knows I was 4 doing everything I could to garner significant 5 political power. 6 Q. I think many people miss your parties. 7 But, with respect to Mr. Jenne and his 8 political connections, were you hiring him to utilize 9 him with respect to any of the police department 10 investigations? You had stated earlier you had 11 dealings with police departments. I don't want -- 12 again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. You 13 said you had dealings going on with various police 14 agencies? 15 A. I had -- I mean, we had a criminal defense 16 section in the law firm, so we had legitimate dealings 17 with law enforcement. But I also had significant 18 illegitimate things with law enforcement that had 19 nothing to do with Ken Jenne. 20 Q. And how about with respect to former FBI 21 agents you were hiring? 22 A. They were all people that were operating in 23 a legitimate fashion within the law firm. 24 Q. In what role was that? 25 A. The investigative roles and the alcohol 0035 1 beverage roles and anything else Ken or other staff 2 could think of to have them do. 3 Q. Let's talk about the investigative roles for 4 a minute. 5 What kind of investigations were these teams 6 running? A. I do not know. You have to speak to lawyers that were actually utilizing them. I put it out there and Ken put it out there, that they were available to lawyers in the firm for use like in-house investigators. And what people did with them ultimately was up to them. Q. Were they on salary or were their costs and fees associated with utilizing them within a specific practice group? A. They were all on salary with me. The ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that could bill the law firm and have the clients at least defray some of the cost. I don't recall whether or not we ever got to that level or not. Q. With all that in-house police action, why did you have police security surrounding you all the time? A. I guess the best answer was I was paranoid, but I mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0036 1 know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For 2 example, I -- are you talking about my Fort Lauderdale 3 police detail? 4 Q. Yes. You had it at the office and at your 5 home, correct? 6 A. Yeah. There's a myriad of facts that 7 motivated me to do that. One was that I really wanted 8 the security for the office. Two was, I was paranoid 9 and this is in no particular order. Three was the 10 Melissa Lewis murder that shook the entire law firm 11 and shook me terribly. I didn't want that to ever EFTA01178106 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0037 1 these investors were coming that you decided to use 2 the files? 3 A. My best recollection it was in 2009, 4 sometimes after April of 2009, but I don't have a 5 specific recollection beyond that. 6 Q. What makes you think it was after April of 7 2009? 8 A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the 9 Clockwork Group came in towards the middle of 2009. 10 When I say Clockwork, that's an umbrella term that I 11 use to mean the Von Allmen, AJ Discala, and other 12 investors that came in through that feeder fund. 13 Q. So that was around April 2009? 14 A. No, it was after, to the best of my 15 recollection. I mean, you can tell because all you 16 have to do is look and see when the first, very first 17 Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint 18 it even closer. Look for the very first settlement 19 deal that we did that was related to the Epstein case, 20 within 60 days prior to that would have been when I 21 was meeting with those due diligence people, 30 to 22 60 days before that. 23 Q. So when you decided to use that case, take 24 me through exactly what you did to familiarize 25 yourself with that case. 0038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 have to happen again. And four was, I wanted -- the more law enforcement you have around, the more legitimacy it adds to you and your appearance to the community. So there were a multitude of reasons. I mean, I hired certain law enforcement to work for me that were just friends of mine that were -- that needed additional money, so I wanted to make sure that they had money, both guys that did the illegal stuff for me and guys that didn't do anything illegal for me. Q. Let's go back to the Epstein case and when you decided to utilize it -- to use for the investors for your Ponzi scheme. Do you recall approximately when it was that A. I talked to Russ Adler. I may have talked to some of the other lawyers. I flipped through certain boxes in the file. Q. How did you get the boxes? A. I asked someone to bring them to me. Q. Do you know where those files were stored? A. I do not. Q. So you flipped -- sorry, please continue. Flipped through some files? A. I flipped through some files. I had the files in my office. The day that the investor group came in, I actually had Ken Jenne and some others actually bring me some more of the boxes actually into my office while the investors were there. I already had some of the boxes with me. Q. You say "Ken Jenne and others," who were the others to whom you are referencing? A. I don't specifically recall who carried them in. I was very focused on my investors at that time. Q. Were any of the lawyers present with you when you were meeting with these investors? A. During the actual meeting with them, no. I EFTA01178107 23 recall that some of the lawyers may have met some of 24 the investors, but I don't recall who. 25 Q. Do you recall approximately when that 0039 1 happened? 2 A. No, it's the same dates that I was giving 3 you before. 4 Q. Okay. So you had, to further your Ponzi 5 scheme, you had to familiarize yourself with this case 6 so that you could speak intelligently with the 7 investors; is that correct? 8 A. Well, sort of because most of what I told 9 the investors was all things that I was creating as I 10 went. 11 Q. About this particular case, the Epstein 12 case? 13 A. Yes, from an investor -- you have to 14 understand how the inner working of the Ponzi scheme 15 were crafted but -- 16 Q. Please tell me then. 17 A. I'm telling you -- hang on. From an 18 investor's standpoint, the investor is simply looking 19 for is the case believable. And once they get past 20 that, is it of such case -- excuse me, is it of such a 21 nature that it is possible to be generating a 22 significant amount of settlement dollars. And then 23 after that, their concern is simply on the due 24 diligence side of making sure we actually have the 25 money, that the documents pass -- the documents 0040 1 unrelated to this case, documents related to the 2 settlements. Other than proving the existence of the 3 case, there's very little an investor, at least from 4 my end, investigates into the actual case. It was 5 more after having the case exist and not caring about 6 really what was going on in the case other than a lot 7 of money was going to be collected. 8 Q. Well, with respect to showing them that the 9 case existed and that there was a likelihood of a 10 possibility of a payday at the end, how did you 11 convince them of that? What did you use to convince 12 them of that? 13 A. I did two main things. One, I put the boxes 14 in my office while they were there. I told them to 15 specifically look at a couple of sheets of a flight 16 manifest that was in the file that Russ had shown me. 17 And I told them that it would be a breach of 18 attorney/client privilege for them to look at the 19 file, but that I was going to step out for a while and 20 leave them there with the boxes, wink, wink, and 21 that's what I did. I stepped out, I let them look at 22 whatever they wanted to look at. I came back in, they 23 were satisfied that it was a real case and I was off 24 and running. 25 Q. And these were the real legitimate files for 0041 1 this case; is that correct? 2 A. These were the legitimate files, yes. 3 Q. Nothing had been created at this time for 4 them to look through? 5 A. I didn't add anything to the case files. 6 The case files were significant enough by themselves. 7 Q. Do you know how long they were in your EFTA01178108 8 office; days, weeks? 9 A. The people or the boxes? 10 Q. The boxes. 11 A. The boxes were in there probably a little 12 more than a week. I don't have a specific 13 recollection. 14 Q. Okay. Did you ever go through them? 15 A. Yes, I flipped through them at some point in 16 time. 17 Q. And what do you recall about what you saw in 18 the cases? Do you remember anything? 19 A. I remember seeing the flight manifest. I 20 don't recall seeing anything else. I'm sure I looked 21 at other things, but again, for my purposes it was 22 insignificant to me because the actual content of the 23 boxes was not necessary in the sale of the fake 24 settlements. 25 Q. Why was the flight manifest so interesting 0042 1 to you? 2 A. Because of who was on it. 3 Q. Who was on it? 4 A. I don't recall, but I do recall saying to 5 the investors -- I recall having a conversation prior 6 to the investors coming in with Russ Adler and Russ 7 had told me that Epstein had flown Bill Clinton on his 8 plane, had flown Prince Andrew on his plane. And I 9 don't remember whether that was on any of the flight 10 manifests or not, but I left that to the investors' 11 imagination as to what they were being told about 12 Mr. Epstein and these other famous people that were 13 cavorting with Mr. Epstein and let them look at the 14 file. 15 You have to understand from an investor's 16 perspective -- hang on. From an investor's 17 perspective the only thing that matters to the 18 investor is that it's a real case and that they can 19 verify that real dollars are being paid. The fact 20 that it was a real case was evident, I had a lot of 21 boxes with real pleadings in it and a lot of other 22 information in it. The fact that there was real money 23 being paid was a fiction that was created by me and my 24 co-conspirators, everyone from bankers, to computer 25 people. So the actual role of the case, and I want to 0043 1 make sure you understand this, the actual role of the 2 actual physical case in the Ponzi scheme is, from my 3 perspective, minimal. It was just another vehicle for 4 me. 5 Q. After that initial meeting with the 6 investors where they looked at the file, what happened 7 with respect to their desire or lack of desire to 8 invest? 9 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to 10 object to the form of the question, it assumes facts 11 not in evidence. There's been no testimony that the 12 investors actually looked at the files, only that 13 they were given the opportunity to look at the files. 14 BY MS. HADDAD: 15 Q. Was your video surveillance on when you left 16 the investors alone in your office? 17 A. No, no, I didn't have cameras in my office. 18 I didn't let people look in my office when I was in EFTA01178109 19 there, that would have been bad. 20 Q. So you left them alone in there? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall for approximately how long? 23 A. No more than 20, 30 minutes. It was a short 24 period of time. 25 Q. When you went back in what happened? 0044 1 A. I went back to selling the Ponzi deal. 2 Q. And did you sell it? 3 A. I believe I did. You'd have to look at the 4 actual settlement documents to see if I put one 5 together for that, but I'm pretty sure we did. 6 Q. Do you recall if the investors asked you for 7 any additional information or any additional 8 documentation? 9 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 10 Q. After this initial meeting with the 11 investors, did you give any direction regarding this 12 particular case? 13 A. To whom? 14 Q. To any of the attorneys working on the 15 Epstein case. 16 A. No. I didn't interfere in how they were 17 running their cases. They were far more experienced 18 than I was in that type -- in handling that type of 19 case. As a matter of fact, I was practicing very 20 little real law at this point in time. I wouldn't 21 have had time to tell them or to get involved. 22 Q. Did you ever keep up with this case after 23 this initial meeting with the investors? 24 A. I'm certain that I talked to Russ Adler 25 about it from time to time, but my main focus by this 0045 1 point in time in 2009 was the Ponzi scheme. 2 Q. Did you try to sell this particular 3 settlement to any other investors? 4 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 5 Q. Okay. Did you ever have any conversations 6 with any of your investors about this Epstein case? 7 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 8 Q. I notice there's been a privilege log 9 produced with respect to e-mails. There seems to be 10 quite a bit of communication between you and Ken Jenne 11 with the topic being the Epstein case. Do you have 12 any recollection what that would be about? 13 A. I don't. As I sit here today, I don't have 14 a specific recollection of having significant e-mail 15 contact with Ken Jenne about the case. But if you are 16 telling me I did, I'll accept that, but I don't recall 17 what it was. 18 Q. Earlier you had stated that when you were 19 hiring good attorneys such as Mr. Edwards, looking at 20 their book of business was -- I don't want to put 21 words in your mouth -- it was the legitimacy of the 22 practice, it would bring in legitimate money to the 23 practice, is that what you were hoping to do? 24 A. Earlier when I testified I specifically 25 testified that I personally did not look at most of 0046 1 their book of business. This being said, I was 2 bringing in legitimate lawyers to form legitimate 3 practice groups to practice legitimate law, having EFTA01178110 4 nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme. 5 Q. During the year 2009, were there any, to 6 your knowledge, any big settlements of any cases at 7 RRA? 8 A. To the best of my recollection, no. We had 9 a dismal year. 10 Q. The year 2009 was just dismal across the 11 board? 12 A. Some people did better than others, but yes, 13 overall it was for a firm of 70 lawyers, it was 14 dismal. 15 Q. So there were no big wins coming into the 16 firm as far as a financial windfall other than from 17 your other businesses? 18 A. The only significant capital coming into the 19 firm was money my co-conspirators and I were stealing. 20 Q. Was there any particular practice group that 21 you can remember that had a particularly non-dismal 22 year in 2009? 23 A. Mr. Nurik had a good year. 24 Q. Do you recall what the gross revenue was 25 from legitimate sources in 2009? 0047 1 A. It was somewhere between eight and 2 $10 million, probably right around the nine million 3 mark. 4 Q. Do you know what your 5 A. On its best day. 6 Q. What was your overhead for salaries in 2009, 7 do you recall? 8 A. I don't have a clue. 9 Q. Was it more than you brought in 10 legitimately? 11 A. With what I was paying in salaries, I'm -- I 12 mean, I'd be guessing. If it wasn't more than, it was 13 certainly close to it. 14 Q. That's just salary, that's not talking about 15 anything else, rent, overhead, things of that nature? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Who was paying for the investigations of the 18 cases that were going on in 2009, the deposition 19 costs, the filing of complaints, and things of that 20 nature? Where did that money come from from your 21 firm? 22 A. It varied from case to case. 23 Q. For the tort group? 24 A. It was fronted by the law firm for the most 25 part. 0048 1 Q. For the most part. 2 What wasn't fronted by the law firm? 3 A. I recall there being a couple of agreements 4 that various tort lawyers had with certain clients 5 where they were going to assist in helping to pay the 6 costs. All the other costs would have been paid by 7 the law firm, both through legitimate and illegitimate 8 means. 9 Q. So when you say by "illegitimate means," 10 where would the illegitimate means money come from? 11 A. It came from the Ponzi scheme, and all the 12 tentacles of the Ponzi scheme, other illegal activity. 13 Q. Such as? 14 A. Things I was doing with law enforcement, EFTA01178111 15 things I was doing in politics, things that I was 16 doing with organized crime, things I was doing with 17 politicians, judges, other lawyers, bankers, business 18 people, things of that nature, I'm sure there's more. 19 Q. Do you recall if any of these Epstein cases 20 underwent significant investigation while the cases 21 were at your firm? 22 A. I'd be guessing. I don't remember. 23 Q. There was a meeting in 2009, July of 2009, 24 and it appears from the e-mail communications that it 25 was for everyone in the firm to attend and it was 0049 1 regarding the Epstein case. In fact, there was an 2 Epstein conference room that was reserved for it. 3 Were you present at that meeting? 4 A. I may have been. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. Do you recall? A. I don't recall one way or the other. Q. You don't recall it. Do you recall anything about the Epstein case in July of 2009? A. I do not. Do you have something that might refresh my recollection? MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a five-minute break right now? THE WITNESS: Sure. MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you. MS. HADDAD: Thanks. [Short recess taken.] BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Scott, I was asking you before we took the break about a meeting with respect to the Epstein cases. There was a 159-page privilege log filed, which I'm sure you don't have and are not aware of. But in it there are many, many e-mails to both 24 attorneys at RRA, yourself, and Mr. Nurik regarding 25 the Epstein litigation. And all this resolved in July 0050 1 of 2009 about the Epstein meeting and some additional 2 investigation into the Epstein case. 3 Does that refresh your investigation as to 4 when you met with the investors in the 5 Discala/Clockwork Group? 6 A. It does not. The best thing to refresh my 7 recollection as to when I met with them would be to 8 see the deal documents. 9 Q. Okay. I unfortunately don't have those. 10 Do you recall if you took Discala and his 11 other investors to a football game in 2009? 12 A. Sure, I did. 13 Q. Okay. Would that be around the time you 14 were trying to get them to invest in the case? 15 A. It would have been around the time I was 16 trying to get them to invest in general. It's may 17 have been around the time that I was showing them the 18 Epstein file. 19 Q. Did you show them any files other than the 20 Epstein file? 21 A. I may have. I don't have a specific 22 recollection one way or the other. 23 Q. You testified earlier that you had over a 24 dozen boxes brought to your office that were related 25 to the Epstein case. EFTA01178112 0051 1 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. Counsel, 2 there has been no such testimony. 3 BY MS. HADDAD: 4 Q. You said there were several boxes brought to 5 your office by different people. You don't recall who 6 that is; is that correct? 7 A. Yes, I had some boxes already in my office 8 and I had Ken Jenne and some other people bring some 9 others. I don't remember how many boxes. 10 Q. Was it more than three? 11 A. Sure, it was more than three boxes, yes. 12 Q. Was it more than 10? 13 A. I don't believe so, no. 14 Q. You stated that you looked -- I don't want 15 to put words in your mouth. What did you look at 16 specifically in that case? 17 A. Other than looking at the flight manifest 18 that Russ Adler told me to look at, I have no specific 19 recollection as to what I looked at in that file. 20 Q. Do you know if there was more than one case 21 being prosecuted by your office against Mr. Epstein? 22 A. To the best of my recollection there were -- 23 it was multiple plaintiffs. 24 Q. Okay. Do you recall if those cases were 25 pending in state or federal court? 0052 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. Did you check? 3 A. I don't remember one way or the other. It 4 was insignificant to me. 5 Q. Well, then explain to me. You testified 6 earlier that what was important to the investors to 7 see is that there was a real case, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What did you look at or show them -- what 10 did you look at, first of all, to see if it was, in 11 fact, a real case? 12 A. I knew it was a real case. 13 Q. How did you know? 14 A. Because my lawyers told me it was a real 15 case. I believed them. 16 Q. What lawyers told you that? 17 A. I already told you it was a mixture of Russ 18 and Jaffe and Fistos and Farmer and Mr. Edwards. I 19 mean, I knew it was a real case. We had all these 20 boxes, we had people really working on the file -- 21 Q. How do you know -- 22 A. -- or they were pulling a hell of a scam on 23 me. Not that I didn't deserve it but ... 24 Q. How did you know, you just said you knew 25 people were working really hard on this case. Who do 0053 1 you know was working on the case? 2 A. The only people that I knew for certain were 3 working on the case was Brad Edwards and Russ Adler 4 was doing his supervisory schtick, whatever that was. 5 But other than that, I don't know which other lawyers 6 were assisting Mr. Edwards. I didn't get involved at 7 that level. 8 As far as the Ponzi scheme goes, the only 9 thing I cared about, Tonja, was being able to show the 10 investors that this case that I was utilizing to steal EFTA01178113 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 were 22 23 24 25 0054 1 A. 2 Q. 3 A. 4 5 6 7 a significant amount of money from them was a real case. That's all I cared about. Q. That case came into your office through Mr. Edwards, correct? He brought it with him when he came to RRA? A. Yes. Q. He was lead counsel on the case, correct? A. I assume he was lead counsel. I never checked to see if he listed himself as lead counsel. Q. Do you know if any additional complaints filed while the case was at RRA? A. I have no idea one way or the other. Q. Did you ever instruct, in furtherance of your Ponzi scheme, Mr. Edwards or anyone in that litigation group to file additional complaints? No. Who is Cara Holmes? Who is who? Q. Cara or Cara, C-a-r-a, Holmes? A. To the best of my recollection, she was a former FBI agent or maybe IRS agent. I don't know. She was a former federal agent. 8 Q. Did you hire her to work for you? 9 A. It was either IRS or FBI. 10 Q. Did you hire her to work for you? 11 A. Yes, I hired her at the suggestion of Ken 12 Jenne. 13 Q. For what purpose? 14 A. To work in the group that he was overseeing. 15 Q. So what did she do for RRA while she was 16 there? 17 A. I don't remember. 18 Q. Did you ever mention her to your potential 19 investors from the Clockwork group? 20 A. It's a possibility because, as I was 21 building the Ponzi scheme, I frequently referred to 22 the fact that we had former state and federal law 23 enforcement working for us and on our investigative 24 teams. It added legitimacy to the Ponzi scheme. 25 Q. Didn't you tell investors that she could 0055 1 hack into a computer as part of her skills? 2 A. I certainly may have. I told the investors 3 a whole host of lies about what was going on about 4 with case and what people could do and did do. 5 Q. Did you ever personally utilize Cara Holmes' 6 skills in any of your cases? 7 A. I don't remember. 8 Q. Were you handling any cases during the 2009? 9 A. I was overseeing cases in 2009, but my 10 involvement was mostly supervisory. I was handling 11 very little that was legitimate at that point in time. 12 Q. Were you legitimately, when I say 13 "legitimately," were you invited into Q-task on any 14 particular cases that you can recall? 15 A. I'm certain I was. I don't recall one way 16 or the other. 17 Q. Do you recall if you were involved in 18 Mr. Epstein's case on Q-task? 19 A. I may very well have been, but I don't have 20 a specific recollection one way or the other. 21 Q. Do you know who invited you in? EFTA01178114 22 A. I have no idea if I was invited in. And if 23 I was invited in, I have no idea who invited me. 24 Q. Once you decided to use this case in your 25 Ponzi scheme, did you go into Q-task to look at the 0056 1 case or any communications 2 A. I may have. 3 Q. Do you recall when that 4 A. I may have. 5 Q. Do you recall when that may have happened? 6 A. I do not. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0057 1 perhaps getting me a piece of information that I 2 needed. 3 Q. I'm going to try to refresh your 4 recollection as to whether or not you attended those 5 meeting in July of 2009. And it appears that in 6 between the dates of July 22nd, 2009 and July 24th, 7 2009, there was a number of communications through 8 e-mail by and between yourself, Mr. Adler, Brad 9 Edwards and Ken Jenne regarding an Epstein meeting 10 that was going to be taking place. Do you remember 11 that at all? 12 A. I think what you are referring to, and I'm 13 not certain, but I think that what you are referring 14 to is me making sure that the file was in the 15 condition in which I wanted it at the time the 16 investors were coming in. I don't think it had 17 anything to do with the actual functioning of the 18 Epstein case. I think it had to do with my 19 illegitimate purpose. That's the best of my 20 recollection, but if you have documents or something 21 that you can show me, that would be helpful. 22 Q. We are not privy to all of the e-mails 23 because they've been alleged as privileged or work 24 product, so I unfortunately can't show them to you. 25 But according to the privilege log between 0058 1 July 22nd and 23rd there were numerous e-mails sent 2 about the meeting. It was almost an all-hands-on-deck 3 type meeting where everybody needed to attend. It was 4 labelled the Epstein meeting with an Epstein 5 conference room reserved. 6 A. Yes. Q. Do you recall the first time you looked at the flight manifest to which you referenced earlier? A. Prior to the investors coming in. I don't remember the date. Q. Did you instruct anybody, to further your Ponzi scheme, to investigate or check into anyone whose name was listed on the flight manifest? A. I may have, but with this clarification. If I instructed someone to look into something, I did it without that person knowing that I was involved in a Ponzi scheme or that what they were doing was illegal and it was just to get me additional information to help with my sale of the fake settlements. Q. So it was to further your -- A. So I may have asked someone -- I may have asked someone to get me some additional information, but as I sit here today, I don't recall ever asking anyone to do anything on the file that was for the purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme, other than EFTA01178115 7 Okay. What's your question and I will tell 8 you. 9 MR. SCAROLA: First I'm going to object to 10 counsel's testimony, but let's hear the question. 11 BY MS. HADDAD: 12 Q. The question is, does that refresh your 13 recollection as to whether or not this meeting took 14 place? 15 A. To the best of my recollection, I actually 16 had introduced some of the investors to some of the 17 people working on the Epstein case, and that is likely 18 the meeting that you are referring to. But for the 19 life of me, I don't have a specific recollection of 20 it. 21 Q. But it could be the meeting where you 22 introduced the Epstein litigation team to your Ponzi 23 investors? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to 25 object to the form of the question. It misstates the 0059 1 prior testimony. It has no predicate. 2 BY MS. HADDAD: 3 Q. That could have been the meeting in which 4 you introduced the Ponzi investors to people working 5 on the Epstein case? 6 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. The 7 testimony was that there may have been a meeting at 8 which investors may have been introduced to some 9 people working on the Epstein file. And your efforts 10 continuously to mischaracterize the prior testimony 11 are highly improper. I object. 12 BY MS. HADDAD: 13 Q. Scott, did you or did you not say that you 14 introduced some of the investors to some of the 15 lawyers on the Epstein case? 16 A. No, I actually said, Tonja, that I may have. 17 I have a recollection that I may have based upon you 18 just refreshing my recollection, but I just do not 19 remember one way or the other. This was, in the 20 scheme of what I was doing, insignificant. I was 21 simply trying to establish to the investors that this 22 was a real case, with real potential, with real 23 lawyers working on it. Other than that, it was of no 24 interest to me. 25 Q. How else would you convince them? You've 0060 1 mentioned letting them look through the litigation 2 boxes, you've mentioned the meeting. What other way 3 would you have convinced them that it was a real case? 4 A. I mentioned letting them look at boxes, what 5 they did when I was out of the office, that's -- 6 don't know because I couldn't see what they were 7 doing. Number two, I may have introduced them to 8 people in the office. Number three, I'm certain that 9 when the people brought the boxes to my office I 10 introduced them to whoever was carrying the boxes. 11 And number four, the rest of it would have been all 12 stuff I created in my imagination because, again, it 13 was the sale of something that didn't exist. This was 14 not settling. There was no real settlement money. 15 There were no real settlement documents. I even 16 manufactured, I think, the actual plaintiff, because I 17 don't recall even knowing the plaintiff's real name or EFTA01178116 18 if I did it was of no significance to me. 19 Q. How would you have manufactured a 20 plaintiff's name, would you have created additional 21 documents to further your Ponzi scheme using 22 Mr. Epstein as the defendant? 23 A. No 24 Q. How would you -- 25 A. The name just would have appeared on the 0061 1 confidential settlement agreement. 2 Q. Would they have already seen the documents 3 at that point? 4 A. I can't tell you one way or the other what 5 they had seen, because I don't know what they actually 6 looked at. 7 Q. Forgive me, you've now confused me so I'm 8 just going to ask you for some clarification. 9 You used a legitimate case and created fake 10 settlement documents, correct, in the simplest sense? 11 A. If this culminated in an actual sale of a 12 fake settlement, then the answer is yes. 13 Q. So it was a real case with a real plaintiff 14 and real defendant, just a fake settlement document? 15 A. No. Let me see if I can clarify this for 16 you. Over 90 percent of the settlements that I sold, 17 the fake settlements, were completely fictitious? 18 Q. Right. 19 A. A very small percentage of them were based, 20 at least in part, on some type of real litigation that 21 either had occurred or was currently occurring. I 22 utilized the Epstein case to bolster the visual for 23 the investors that a real case existed. Because as 24 these were being sold to more sophisticated investors, 25 the questions kept coming up, was there -- how do we 0062 1 know this is a real case? So I was finally able to 2 say this is how you know, here is a case file. I may 3 have, I don't remember specifically one way or the 4 other, but I may have utilized actual plaintiff names 5 from the cases filed, but I may have made them up. I 6 have no specific recollection one way or the other. I 7 was totally geared toward simply getting the investor 8 money into the Ponzi scheme. 9 Q. Were you aware that the day after this 10 meeting took place on July 24th, 2009, a new federal 11 complaint was filed against Epstein with one of the 12 same plaintiffs that was already pending in state 13 court? 14 A. I don't know that I was aware of that or 15 not. If they were filing it, someone may have told 16 me. I don't recall one way or the other. 17 Q. Did you ask anyone to file it to further 18 your Ponzi scheme? 19 A. No, I don't remember doing that. 20 Q. Do you recall any situation where you -- 21 A. You do realize -- Tonja, hang on. I just 22 want to make sure this record is clear. Other than 23 Russ Adler, the people that were involved in the 24 Epstein case had absolutely nothing to do with the 25 Ponzi scheme. 0063 1 Q. Directly? 2 A. Or indirectly. They had nothing to do with EFTA01178117 3 it. 4 Q. Yet the file was used for you to further 5 your Ponzi scheme. I'm not saying that they gave it 6 to you to use for the Ponzi scheme, I'm asking, you 7 used their case. I'm not -- the question is you used 8 the case? 9 A. I took advantage of some good, innocent 10 people for my own and my co-conspirator's illegal 11 purposes. Mr. Edwards is one of them, and for that I 12 am sorry, Brad. 13 Q. Did you ask anyone involved in the Epstein 14 case to file a federal complaint? 15 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, repetitious. 16 THE WITNESS: Without seeing a document, 17 Tonja, I can't tell you one way or the other. I 18 don't want to -- I do not want to guess. If you have 19 an e-mail where I'm saying to someone, file a federal 20 case, then obviously I did. But I have no specific 21 recollection of that. 22 BY MS. HADDAD: 23 Q. You do have a document with you, it's marked 24 for you, it's Bates stamped. It begins at EP 081 and 25 goes through through 264. 0064 1 A. Hold on one second. 2 Okay. What number am I looking at? 3 Q. It's a very large document. It's begins 4 with Bates Stamp Number 081 and ends with 264. 5 A. It's in the computer, hold on a second. 6 I have that in front of me. 7 Q. Do you see the date on that complaint 8 stamped? 9 A. I do. 10 Q. And there's -- give me one second, Scott, 11 sorry. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 attention 21 22 me. 23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 24 MS. HADDAD: It's stamped on the first 25 page. 0065 1 THE WITNESS: Hang on, the complaint is 2 dated July 24th, 2009. It was entered onto the 3 docket on July 27th, 2009. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Do you have another question? 5 MS. HADDAD: I thought he was still looking. 6 Scott, are you done looking? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, one second. 8 MS. HADDAD: That's what I thought. 9 THE WITNESS: No, hang on one second. It 10 shows the stamp on the first page says July 24th, 11 2009. The filing say electronically filed July 24th, 12 2009. There's an entry onto the docket on July 27, 13 2009, and the complaint is signed July 24th, 2009. What was the date that complaint was filed? A. What's the last page of the complaint, what's the Bates number? Q. The last page is 234. I'm sorry, 263 would be the last page of the complaint. [The Complaint referred to was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 1.] MR. SCAROLA: You may want to call his to the filing stamp on the first page. MS. HADDAD: I did. I guess he didn't hear EFTA01178118 14 That's all the dates I have. 15 BY MS. HADDAD: 16 Q. Okay. And back on Bates Stamp Page Number 17 263, who's the attorney that filed this complaint? 18 A. I don't know if that's his signature, but 19 the name is Brad Edwards. 20 Q. Okay. And does that e-mail -- 21 A. With the squiggle on top of it. 22 Q. And does that e-mail address look like the 23 correct e-mail address for RRA? 24 A. It is. 25 Q. So that is, in fact, a legitimate e-mail 0066 1 address from your firm; is that correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And were you filing any cases back in 2009 4 in federal court? Do you remember how PACER works? 5 MR. SCAROLA: Which question would like 6 answered? 7 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound. 9 BY MS. HADDAD: 10 Q. Do you remember how PACER worked when you 11 were filing a case, Scott? 12 A. I actually never actually did the actual 13 electronic filing procedure. I had people that did 14 that. I knew that we could file electronically. 15 Q. Do you know the purpose of your using your 16 e-mail address when you were filing electronically in 17 federal court? 18 A. I guess so you can get a receipt, but I have 19 no idea. 20 Q. Did you ever receive an e-mail from federal 21 court in your e-mail address that showed that a 22 document had been filed with the stamps that you see 23 on the top of that one? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, are you 25 attempting -- 0067 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know one way or the 2 other. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Are you attempting to 4 establish that that complaint was filed in federal 5 court by Brad Edwards? 6 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking him if he recalls 7 the way it's drafted and why. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Just ask your question. 9 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking a question. If you 10 have any objection, please lay it on the record. 11 MR. SCAROLA: No, what I want to do is try 12 to save some time. If what you are trying to 13 establish is that Brad filed the complaint in federal 14 court on July 24th and used the PACER system, you 15 don't need to ask any more questions about that, it 16 happened. 17 MR. GOLDBERGER: We appreciate that, but 18 when we depose you we'll ask you that question. But 19 we are deposing Rothstein right now so let her ask 20 her questions. Don't do this speaking stuff, let her 21 ask the questions, okay? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Maybe. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. Go ahead, Tonja. 24 BY MS. HADDAD: EFTA01178119 25 Q. Scott, did you ever get e-mails like that 0068 1 from federal court? 2 A. I'm certain I did, Tonja. I don't have a 3 specific recollection of getting the one pertaining to 4 this. I don't even know if they sent it to me. I 5 would imagine they'd send it back to Mr. Edwards. 6 Q. The filing attorney? 7 A. I suspect, unless the PACER system is 8 registered on my name, then maybe it comes to me, but 9 I am completely guessing. 10 Q. But based upon the e-mail communications of 11 July 22nd and the meeting occurring on July 23rd, this 12 complaint was filed the day of this meeting; is that 13 correct? 14 A. Okay. But here is the problem with your 15 question, I don't remember whether or not there 16 actually was a meeting. I said there may have been, 17 and I don't have an independent recollection of this 18 being filed. I do not have an independent 19 recollection of whether I told someone to file this. 20 And for the life of me, this I am certain of, if I 21 told Mr. Edwards to file a complaint in federal court, 22 if there wasn't a legitimate reason for him to do it, 23 he wouldn't have done it. 24 Q. Do you recall if this federal case was filed 25 when you decided to use the case for your Ponzi scheme 0069 1 and show it to your investors? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0070 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A. It may have been filed around that time, because I haven't been able to establish the exact time. It also certainly may have been utilized by me to further the Ponzi scheme. Also, I don't have an independent recollection of that either. Without seeing e-mail traffic, I can't tell you one way or the other exactly what was going on at that time. Q. Well, then I'll point you to another e-mail which is marked as EP 001. MR. EDWARDS: Let me see it. MS. HADDAD: I sent a copy to your MR. SCAROLA: He would like to see now. Thank you. [The E-mail referred to was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 2.] BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Were you A. Got it. Q. You have You said agent, correct? MR. THE able to find it, Scott? Yes, I have it. it, okay. Cara Holmes used to be an SCAROLA: No. What he said is WITNESS: FBI or IRS. office. a copy FBI BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Or IRS. We'll use the blanket term federal agent. Is that a fair assessment? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Do you recall when you hired her to work for you? A. I do not. Q. Was it in 2009? EFTA01178120 10 A. I don't have a recollection one way or the 11 other. 12 Q. Okay. Have you ever seen this e-mail 13 before? 14 A. I saw it when I was reviewing your exhibits. 15 Before that I have no independent recollection of 16 having seen it. I'm not copied on it so ... 17 Q. Did you ever have any communications with 18 Ms. Holmes about people that were close to 19 Mr. Epstein? 20 A. I do not remember. 21 Q. You stated earlier that you knew that 22 Mr. Epstein was a wealthy man. Is that a fair 23 statement? You called him "collectible," was that 24 because he had money? 25 MR. SCAROLA: He called him a billionaire 0071 1 too. 2 MS. HADDAD: Billionaire. 3 THE WITNESS: I knew he was a billionaire. 4 BY MS. HADDAD: 5 Q. Do you have any independent recollection in 6 the month of July 2009 of this case being intensified 7 in any way such as going after those close to 8 Mr. Epstein? 9 A. I don't remember that one way or the other. 10 Q. If you knew that Mr. Epstein was a 11 billionaire, do you have any recollection of asking 12 someone to investigate those close to Mr. Epstein to 13 further your Ponzi scheme? 14 A. I don't have an independent recollection of 15 that one way or the other. 16 Q. Do you recall if you ever directed the 17 depositions to be taken of the people who were listed 18 on the flight manifest that you saw? 19 A. I don't recall one way or the other. I may 20 have told the investors that I was going to take the 21 depositions without ever intending to take them, but I 22 don't recall one way or the other. 23 Q. Are you familiar with a gentleman by the 24 name of Mr. Rodriguez, Alfredo Rodriguez? 25 A. No 0072 1 Q. Never heard that name before? 2 A. Alfredo Rodriguez? 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. It's not ringing any bells to me. 5 Q. Do you remember hearing at your office with 6 respect to Mr. Epstein's case that one of his former 7 employees was willing to come forward with a big book 8 of names? 9 A. 10 Q. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I don't remember that one way or the other. You have no recollection of that. Do you recall anyone approaching to ask if the office can purchase this book? A. I don't recall that. Q. Do you recall instructing any of the attorneys in your office to get an opinion from Kendall Coffey whether or not they can legally and legitimately purchase this book? A. I don't recall that one way or the other. [The Complaint referred to was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 3.] EFTA01178121 21 BY MS. HADDAD: 22 Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to 23 what's now Bates stamped as EP 002, which I'm sure you 24 haven't seen before since you just said you didn't 25 know who he was, but I'll give you a minute to look 0073 1 over it. 2 A. This is rather long. Do you want to direct 3 me to a specific portion of it? 4 Q. Sure. If you look at the Page Bates Stamp 5 EP 004, Paragraph 5 and 6. 6 A. Okay. I read number five. 7 Q. Would you please read number six as well? 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Does this refresh your memory as to whether 10 or not anyone ever asked you in your office about 11 purchasing a book? 12 A. It does not. 13 Q. Do you know that the cooperating witness was 14 an attorney who worked for you at your firm? 15 A. I did not know that until you just said it 16 right now. 17 Q. According to Paragraph Number 5, "The 18 deposition of this Mr. Rodriguez occurred on 19 July 27th, 2009;" is that correct? 20 MR. SCAROLA: Is it correct that that's 21 what it says? I'm going to object to the form of the 22 question, it's vague and ambiguous. 23 BY MS. HADDAD: 24 Q. That's what's listed in the federal 25 complaint, correct? 0074 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 0075 1 know who it was. 2 Q. You are testifying that you didn't know it 3 had anything to do with the Epstein case, as you sit 4 here now, you don't remember? 5 A. No, no, I don't have a specific A. What does it say? Say it again. Q. It says, "The first deposition occurred on July 27th," correct? A. Yes. Q. Some three days after the federal complaint was filed, correct, that we referenced earlier? A. That's correct. Q. And Paragraph 6 clearly delineates that in August 2009 a phone call was received by the cooperating witness that explained that this Mr. Rodriguez had a list of other purported victims or contact information for people who Mr. Edwards could also potentially bring lawsuits for -- on behalf of; is that correct? A. I don't know one way or the other. You know, Tonja, just so this record is clear, you know, as I'm sitting here, I have a vague recollection of perhaps Ken Jenne coming, talking to me and telling me that someone in my office was going to cooperate with someone in this investigation. But for the life of me, I can't be certain of that. So much time has passed, but as I'm reading this, and it could be completely unrelated to this, I just want to make sure the record is a hundred percent clear, it's possible that Ken Jenne discussed that with me, but I don't EFTA01178122 6 recollection, and I want to just make sure so I answer 7 all your questions completely, is that as I'm sitting 8 here my recollection was refreshed that I have a vague 9 recollection of having a conversation with Ken Jenne 10 about the fact that someone in our office was going to 11 cooperate as a confidential informant for some law 12 enforcement agency, I just can't remember if it was 13 the Epstein case or not. 14 Q. Do you recall what you said to Mr. Jenne 15 about that? 16 A. No. What I just related to you is all I 17 remember. And I'm not even sure it had anything to do 18 with this. 19 Q. Who's Wayne Black? 20 A. Who? 21 Q. Wayne Black. 22 A. Sounds like the name of someone I hired, but 23 I could be mistaken. I don't recall. 24 Q. Okay. You don't recall ever meeting 25 Mr. Black? 0076 1 A. I may have. I don't recall one way or the 2 other. You have something that might refresh my 3 recollection? 4 Q. Do you know what he does for a living? 5 A. I do know the name. Sounds familiar to me, 6 but I can't recall one way or the other who he was or 7 what he did. 8 Q. Did you instruct your office to begin 9 investigating Mr. Epstein's pilot or his airplanes? 10 A. I do not recall one way or the other. 11 Q. You did testify that the flight manifest was 12 the one document you recall for sure looking at in 13 Mr. Epstein's case; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And if it did, in fact, contain the names 16 that you are purporting that it claimed or that you 17 knew of, that would be something that would be juicy 18 for the investors to further your Ponzi scheme that it 19 was a collectible case; is that true? 20 A. I'm sorry, you have to repeat the question, 21 Tonja. I don't understand what you just asked me. 22 Q. If these big names were on this list, as you 23 seem to recall they were, that would be most helpful 24 to you and your Ponzi scheme investors in convincing 25 them it was a big case, right? 0077 1 A. If they were on there, or if I lied to them 2 and told them they were on there, or if Adler told me 3 they were on there and I repeated, all those things 4 would have been helpful to the Ponzi scheme. 5 Q. You stated earlier that you -- the only 6 thing you looked at was the flight manifest because 7 you were told to look at it. Is that still true? 8 A. That's not what I testified to. I testified 9 that I flipped through other parts of the file and 10 that I didn't remember what I had flipped through. I 11 remember looking at the flight manifest because 12 Mr. Adler told me about it. 13 Q. You said that you met these investors in 14 your office, but there were no cameras in your office, 15 correct? 16 A. I didn't have cameras specifically in my EFTA01178123 17 office. 18 Q. You had these investors in your office for 19 this particular Epstein case? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you recall if it was during work hours or 22 after work hours? 23 A. I do not recall. 24 Q. Typically when you were meeting with your 25 potential Ponzi investors, did you meet them during 0078 1 work hours or after work hours? 2 A. Both. 3 Q. Did you always meet with them in your office 4 or did you do it more socially down at Bova or 5 elsewhere? 6 A. Both. 7 Q. But with this particular case, do you recall 8 meeting them at least one time in your office where 9 they could look through the files? 10 A. Actually, that group of investors were 11 looking at a lot of different cases or at least 12 multiple different cases that we were attempting to 13 lure them into the Ponzi scheme utilizing, so I met 14 with them on multiple occasions, both in my office and 15 at restaurants. 16 Q. Who is Mike Fisten? 17 A. Mike Fisten was a law enforcement officer of 18 some type that I hired. 19 Q. Why did you hire him? 20 A. He was a Ken Jenne suggestion. 21 Q. And were you hiring him to start up your 22 company with Mr. Jenne, as you indicated earlier? 23 A. I don't recall what the purpose of hiring 24 him was. It had nothing to do with what Ken Jenne was 25 doing for us. 0079 1 Q. So what did he do at RRA? 2 A. My best recollection is that he had been a 3 former ADT officer and so it would reason that he 4 would be working in our alcohol beverage practice that 5 we were establishing. 6 Q. Do you know if he ever did any work for your 7 firm as an investigator? 8 A. He may have. I don't have a specific 9 recollection one way or the other. 10 Q. Did you ever speak to the press about the 11 Epstein case? 12 A. I don't have a recollection one way or the 13 other. 14 Q. Did you ever have Kip utilize the Epstein 15 case to put any publicity or spin out there with 16 respect to the case? 17 A. I don't have a specific recollection of that 18 one way or the other. 19 Q. Did you ever instruct Brad or Russ to talk 20 to the press about the case? We'll start with Brad 21 then Russ. 22 A. I do not specifically recall getting 23 involved at the publicity level of that case. I don't 24 have a recollection one way or the other. 25 Q. Would that publicity have been good for your 0080 1 Ponzi scheme investors? EFTA01178124 2 A. Not really. 3 Q. Would it have given more legitimacy to your 4 allegation that it was a good case in which they 5 should invest? 6 A. In the way that I was selling the Ponzi settlements, it would have likely been overkill. Q. So did you ever instruct them not to speak to the press about the case? A. I don't recall that either one way or the other. Q. If it had gotten out there that the cases had not, in fact, settled, as you were claiming when you were selling the settlement, would that have hindered your case, your Ponzi investor's case? A. Not really because they would have no way of knowing if I had created a fake plaintiff's name. I mean, there could have been something in the news that -- and I don't know that there was -- there could have been something in the news that says none of this settled. And I just simply would have created a fake name with my co-conspirators, created a fake set of settlement documents and handle it that way. Q. Did you know where Mr. Epstein lived? A. I only knew that he was from Palm Beach, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0081 1 other than that, no. 2 Q. Okay. In 2009, did you ever have any firm 3 meetings? 4 A. Of any type? 5 Q. Of any type, in general, firm meetings. 6 A. I'm certain I did. 7 Q. Do you recall about how many? 8 A. I do not recall. 9 Q. Did you ever have any partner meetings? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you recall how many? 12 A. I do not. 13 Q. Do you recall how many partners you had at 14 the firm in 2009? 15 A. I do not. 16 Q. Do you recall how many fundraisers you had 17 at your home in 2009? 18 A. I do not. 19 Q. More than 10? 20 A. I'd be guessing, Tonja. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. It's easy enough to check, there's state and 23 federal records of all that stuff. 24 Q. In 2009, did you still require the attorneys 25 from your firm to attend the fundraisers you would 0082 1 have? 2 A. You said "still require," which would have 3 meant that I testified -- 4 Q. Sorry. 5 A. -- previously that it was requiring them. 6 Q. Did you require attorneys at your firm to 7 attend your fundraisers? 8 A. I asked them to, I urged them to, I tried to 9 cajole them into coming, but it wasn't an absolute 10 requirement. 11 Q. Do you recall between April and July of 2009 12 how many fundraisers you would have had? EFTA01178125 13 A. I do not. 14 Q. Did you have fundraisers anywhere besides 15 your home in 2009? 16 A. I probably did, but I don't recall without 17 seeing the documents. If you have the invitation or 18 the e-mails, that would help me. 19 Q. Did you hold fundraisers at your office in 20 2009? 21 A. I may have. That wouldn't have been 22 unusual, but I don't have a specific recollection. 23 Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs in 24 the Epstein case? 25 A. I don't have a specific recollection of 0083 1 that. 2 Q. Do you recall ever revving copies of e-mails 3 from Mr. Jenne with respect to the plaintiffs in the 4 case that the subject matter would say "information we 5 need to use"? 6 A. I don't recall that one way or the other. 7 It's certainly possible. 8 Q. Do you recall ever reviewing anything that 9 was titled "causes of action against Epstein"? 10 A. I do not have a specific recollection of 11 that one way or the other. 12 Q. Do you recall ever reviewing with Mr. Jenne 13 or any other investigator in your firm any information 14 regarding Mr. Epstein's house staff or airplane staff? 15 A. I do don't recall that one way or the other. 16 I may have, I may not have. 17 Q. Who is Bill Berger? 18 A. A former Palm Beach judge that we hired. 19 Q. Okay. What was his role at your firm? 20 A. He was a shareholder. 21 Q. What kind of practice? 22 A. Litigating cases. 23 Q. What kind of practice did he litigate? What 24 kind of cases did he litigate? 25 A. I don't recall specifically. 0084 1 Q. When did you hire him? 2 A. 2008 or 2009. I don't have a specific 3 recollection. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. If you hired lawyers who didn't have a book of business, what kind of practice did they do at your office? A. It depended upon the lawyer. I would have tried to get them to work with other lawyers in an area that they either were proficient in or wanted to become proficient in. Q. Okay. You had a meeting at your office during which you were asking about information regarding referring attorneys, attorneys who had referred business to the firm. Do you know what I'm talking about? I believe it was back in December of '08 or early 2009. A. The way you are characterizing that meeting, I had a lot of meetings like that. Q. What was the purpose of those? A. You are going to have to be more specific for me, Tonja. Q. Let's start generally then. What was -- you said you had many meetings like that. Tell me what EFTA01178126 24 these meetings were for? 25 A. Making sure that we were maximizing 0085 1 generation of business into the law form. 2 Q. What kind of business, legitimate business 3 or the other -- 4 A. Legitimate business. 5 Q. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. 6 A. Legitimate business. The general meetings 7 that you are discussing, that was legitimate business. 8 Q. So there was a meeting for all attorneys to 9 attend regarding generating business, those meetings 10 were for the legitimate business? 11 A. If it was addressed to all attorneys, yes. 12 Q. Okay. And if an e-mail went out to all 13 attorneys, did paralegals and support staff get it as 14 well or was it just directed to the attorneys? 15 A. Certain support staff probably were on that 16 list, like my CFO and COO, and perhaps my IT people, 17 but it was general for the attorneys. 18 Q. With respect to your IT people, did you have 19 the capability to review e-mails and internet activity 20 of all of your employees? 21 A. I did. 22 Q. Including attorneys? 23 A. I did. 24 Q. Did you ever utilize that tool? 25 A. Very infrequently. It was a pain because I 0086 1 had to have Curtis Renie or Bill actually come into my 2 office, set up a special icon to allow me to do that. 3 It was a real pain, so it was rare. 4 Q. Who else attended the meetings that you had 5 with the Clockwork group with respect to the investors 6 in the Epstein case? 7 A. There were multiple meetings with what I'll 8 call the Clockwork investors at various points in 9 time. A variety of people came in and out of the 10 meetings. Some of the meetings occurred down in Bova. 11 Other people came up to the meetings. Some of the 12 meetings involved Michael Szafranski, our fake 13 independent verifier. Some of the meetings may have 14 involved bankers and the like. I cannot tell you 15 specifically who was at those meetings. 16 Q. The specific meetings that we are talking 17 about with -- where you left the boxes at your office, 18 do you recall who else was there with you at that 19 meeting? 20 A. I only remember there being a handful of 21 people from the investment group and myself. I don't 22 recall -- and I remember the guys bringing the boxes 23 the down, but they didn't stay for the meeting. There 24 may have been other people there, I don't recall one 25 way or the other who it was. 0087 1 Q. If the expenditures were being made on a 2 case that were substantial, did you have to approve 3 them or did you have a specific practice for them? 4 A. The head of a practice group could basically 5 approve them but Irene, our CFO, would generally run 6 them by me before she actually cut the check. If I 7 wasn't around she'd run it by Stu. 8 Q. So as the equity partners you had the EFTA01178127 9 authority to make the determination what funds could 10 and could not be expended? 11 A. As the shareholders, as the two 50 percent 12 shareholders, we controlled the finances. 13 Q. And if Irene was coming to you to tell you 14 what the funding was for, to get approval rather, 15 would she tell you specifically what the funding was 16 for or just tell you "we need $100,000"? 17 A. No, if it was a substantial expense -- 18 Q. Tell me what you deem as substantial. 19 A. That would have been -- substantial to me 20 would have been based upon how much money we had in 21 our coffers at the time. So, if it was one of those 22 periods of time where we had 20 or $30 million 23 floating around the law firm, Irene probably would 24 have just written a check without even letting me know 25 we were writing it. If it was one of those times 0088 1 where we owed 20, $30 million in Ponzi payments out 2 and she needed to write a check for even $5,000, she 3 probably would have checked with me on that. So 4 substantial and whether or not she would have checked 5 with me depended upon the circumstance at the time. 6 Q. You stated earlier, and I think I'll get 7 this quote right, that 2009 was a dismal year; is that 8 correct? 9 A. For the legitimate law firm business, it was 10 a dismal year. 11 Q. So in the months immediately preceding the 12 dissolution of RRA, July to October of 2009, what 13 would you consider a substantial expense that had to 14 be approved? 15 A. It would vary literally from day-to-day. 16 Q. Do you have any independent recollection of 17 how you were doing in, say, July 2009? 18 A. The legitimate business was always doing 19 poorly in 2009, as far as I was concerned. 20 Q. So would you have -- 21 A. The Ponzi scheme had its moments of 22 significant wealth and significant poverty, so it 23 varied from time to time. It was a daily thing. 24 Sometimes it was hourly. It just depended upon what 25 was coming in and what needed to go out. 0089 1 Q. So would you have to utilize the 2 illegitimate funds to fund the legitimate cases at 3 times? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that varied daily you said? 6 A. Well, all the money was commingled together, 7 so we used whatever funds were in there to fund both 8 the legitimate and the illegitimate financial 9 requirements of the firm, the Ponzi scheme and other 10 legitimate and illegitimate things that were going on. 11 Q. If an outside agency or investigator was 12 being utilized for a case and they needed a signed 13 retainer agreement with your firm, would you have to 14 approve that? 15 A. It would depend upon the significance of the 16 expense. I didn't necessarily get involved in every 17 retention of every expert in every case. 18 Q. Okay. So it would depend on the cost or the 19 nature of the case? EFTA01178128 20 A. Who the lawyer was, their level of 21 expertise, all things of that nature. 22 Q. If it was this gentleman who you have no 23 recollection of meeting, Mr. Black, and the attorney 24 was Mr. Edwards, was that something you needed to look 25 over? 0090 1 A. Did Wayne Black work for Ron Cacciatore? 2 Q. Are you asking me -- 3 A. I'm asking anyone in the room who wants to 4 talk to me. 5 Q. I love to talk to you, but I don't know the 6 answer to that question. He might have. Brad might 7 be able to tell you. 8 MR. EDWARDS: No. 9 THE WITNESS: When you said Wayne Black's 10 name again and that I hired him to do something, I 11 seem to think that he may have been associated in 12 some way with Mr. Cacciatore, but I'm not sure one 13 way or the other. I don't remember whether or not I 14 met Mr. Black, it's possible I did, it's also 15 possible I did not. And I don't have an independent 16 recollection of retaining him to do anything or 17 whether I was part and parcel of the decision if we 18 did, in fact, retain him, whether I was part and 19 parcel of the decision to retain him. 20 BY MS. HADDAD: 21 Q. Traveling out of state for depositions for 22 the particular cases, did you have to approve that? 23 A. It would depend upon who the lawyers were, 24 the significance of the expense. It would have been 25 case by case. I certainly would not have been 0091 1 approving or disapproving Mr. Nurik's travel, 2 Mr. Rosenfeldt's travel, Mr. Boden's travel, 3 Mr. Lippman's travel. That was their own thing. 4 If a younger lawyer like a Shawn Birken came 5 to me and said he need to travel out of state for 6 something, if it was just for a deposition, I wouldn't 7 have gotten involved in that unless he was telling my 8 CFO, Ms. Stay, that he wanted to fly first class and 9 stay in the Ritz Carlton, then I would have gotten 10 involved. But other than that, no. The firm was too 11 big for me to get involved on a daily basis with all 12 that stuff. 13 Q. If Brad had to go out of state to take a 14 deposition, you wouldn't be the person to approve or 15 disapprove that? 16 A. Russ Adler would have handled that. And if 17 there was an issue, Russ would have come to me. And I 18 don't know what the relationship was specifically 19 between Brad and Russ, but it's certainly possible 20 that Brad just was going to go do what he needed to do 21 to properly handle the case and I would have trusted 22 him to do that. 23 MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a second. We 24 are going to take a minute, okay? 25 THE WITNESS: Sure. 0092 1 [Short recess taken.] 2 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 4 Q. All right Mr. Rothstein, Jack Goldberger, EFTA01178129 5 I'm going to ask you some questions now. You 6 testified that you knew Jeffrey Epstein was a 7 billionaire. You did testify to that today, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Tell me how you knew that. How did 10 you know that Mr. Epstein was a billionaire? 11 A. Russ Adler told me. I looked him up on the 12 internet. 13 Q. What did you look on the internet about 14 Mr. Epstein? 15 A. I don't recall, but I remember looking up an 16 seeing that he was very wealthy, that he was a 17 billionaire. 18 Q. Okay. So as far as learning that 19 Mr. Epstein was a billionaire, you learned via two 20 ways, one was from Russ Adler, correct? Is that 21 correct? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And the other was through looking up 24 Mr. Epstein on the internet, correct? 25 A. Yes. 0093 1 Q. Okay. And you don't know what you reviewed 2 on the internet in an effort to determine that 3 Mr. Epstein was a billionaire; is that correct? 4 A. I do not recall. 5 Q. Do you know when you did that? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Was it prior to your needing to use the 8 Epstein case to further your Ponzi scheme? 9 A. Yes 10 Q. Okay. So prior to -- I think you indicated 11 that you needed an influx of money at some point and 12 that's when you decided to use the Epstein case in 13 furtherance of the Ponzi scheme; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So prior to that time though, prior to 16 determining that you needed to use the Epstein case 17 for the Ponzi scheme, you looked up Mr. Epstein and 18 you spoke to Mr. Adler about his work; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Rothstein, if you 22 weren't using the Epstein case at that point in your 23 Ponzi scheme? 24 A. Because it was a legitimate case in the 25 legitimate portion of RRA that I had reason to believe 0094 1 from speaking to Mr. Adler could bring in a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 significant amount of money to the firm. Q. At that time Mr. Adler was one of your co-conspirators in the Ponzi scheme; is that correct? A. By this time, yes, sir. Q. Okay. When did Mr. Adler become a co-conspirator in your Ponzi scheme? A. I don't recall the specific date. Q. Was it before or after Mr. Adler recommended that Brad Edwards be hired at your firm? A. Before. Q. So before Brad Edwards was hired at RRA, Russell Adler was a co-conspirator of yours in the illegal part of the RRA firm; is that correct? A. Yes. EFTA01178130 16 Q. Then after that time you hired -- 17 Mr. Edwards was hired after Adler was your 18 co-conspirator? You are laughing, you are smiling, 19 why is that, sir? 20 A. Because when you say "RRA" that way, the 21 speaker sounds, it sounds like you are roaring. 22 Q. Okay. I'll just say Rothstein, how about 23 that? You know what I'm talking about if I just say 24 Rothstein. 25 A. RRA is fine. 0095 1 Q. Okay. So Adler is your co-conspirator in 2 the Ponzi scheme at the time that Brad Edwards is 3 hired, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Was it Adler who recommended to you 6 that Brad Edwards be hired? 7 A. Yes. He was one of the people. 8 Q. Who else recommended that Edwards be hired? 9 A. I don't have a specific recollection of who 10 it was, but others did. 11 Q. All right. But you have a recollection of 12 Adler being one of the people, so let's talk about 13 that, all right? 14 What did Adler tell you about Brad Edwards 15 when you hired him? Did he tell you that he had these 16 Epstein cases or an Epstein case in the fold? 17 A. Among other things, yes. 18 Q. What else did he tell you? 19 A. Told me he was a great lawyer and a great 20 guy. 21 Q. Did he tell you what his history was, what 22 Edwards' history was prior to coming to the Rothstein 23 firm? 24 A. I'm certain that I asked him, but I don't 25 have a specific recollection of that conversation. 0096 1 Q. What did Adler tell you about the Epstein 2 case that Edwards had at the time you were 3 contemplating hiring him to become a member of the 4 Rothstein firm? 5 A. He told me that it was a huge case involving 6 a billionaire pedophile and that it was a winner. 7 Q. Did you, when you heard that, did you think 8 that that was a case that could become part of your 9 Ponzi scheme? 10 A. No, I actually thought of it as a way to 11 earn legitimate money to help me out of the Ponzi 12 scheme. 13 Q. So at the time you hired Mr. Edwards and you 14 were talking to Adler about Edwards, you were trying 15 to get out from under the Ponzi scheme? 16 A. In the bulk of 2009 I was praying for some 17 sort of legitimate influx of money to get out of the 18 Ponzi scheme. 19 Q. Okay. So now Adler tells you about this 20 Brad Edwards guy, did you know Brad Edwards before 21 Adler talked to you about him? Had you run into him? 22 A. I may have. I don't have a specific 23 recollection one way or the other. 24 Q. Okay. So now he tells you that you should 25 consider hiring Brad Edwards, this is your 0097 EFTA01178131 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 0098 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 0099 1 2 3 4 5 6 co-conspirator talking to you, right? Is that correct? A. Yes Q. And he says, by the way, he's got this great Epstein case involving this billionaire, correct? A. Yes. Q. Presumably then you had a meeting with Brad Edwards when you met him; is that correct? MR. SCAROLA: Presumably he had a meeting when he met him? MR. GOLDBERGER: I'm sorry, Mr. Scarola was cutting you off when you answered, so go ahead, answer again. MR. SCAROLA: I didn't understand the question. BY MR. GOLDBERGER: Q. Do you understand the question, Mr. Rothstein? A. I'm not sure I do because you asked me if I had a meeting when I met him and I think that meeting him is a meeting. Q. Well, there was a meeting, correct? A. I most likely met him before I hired him. I most likely talked to him before I hired him because that was my general way of doing business. It's all together possible that I gave Russ the okay to hire him before, I just don't have a specific recollection one way or the other. Q. At some point, I take it, you learned, whether you sat in on a meeting when Mr. Edwards was hired or whether your co-conspirator hired him, at some point you learned that Mr. Edwards, in fact, had been hired by the firm; is that correct? A. I'm certain that I gave the final okay to hire him. Q. Okay. When you were giving the final okay to hire him, I assume there had to be discussion of the money that he was going to be paid, correct? A. With somebody, yes. Q. Certainly with Mr. Edwards, right? I assume he wanted to know how much he was getting paid. A. Yes, but I don't have a specific recollection of whether I discussed that with him or whether I authorized Adler or maybe even Rosenfeldt to discuss it with him. I don't recall. Q. Do you have the slightest idea how much money Mr. Edwards was paid when he first joined the firm, what his salary was? A. I don't have an independent recollection. Q. Generally someone like Mr. Edwards at his level of accomplishment and his age, you know what the general salary would have been at your firm? A. It didn't work that way. Q. I see. Tell me how it worked. A. It's a case-by-case basis. Q. Tell me how it worked. 7 A. Case-by-case basis. 8 Q. And how did you make that determination on a 9 case-by-case basis? 10 A. Actual book of business, potential book of 11 business, potentiality for growth, character, what he EFTA01178132 12 brought to the table, and obviously a function of how 13 much money we had available at the time. 14 Q. Okay. And you don't have any recollection 15 of the machinations that occurred in determining what 16 Mr. Edwards salary would be, correct? 17 A. I do not. 18 Q. But certainly one of the things you would 19 consider would be the book of business, i.e. the 20 Epstein case, right? 21 A. I'm certain that I did consider the Epstein 22 case. 23 Q. Do you know whether he brought any other 24 book of business -- 25 A. But I'm also certain it wasn't the only 0100 1 factor I considered. 2 Q. All right. Do you know whether he brought, 3 in his book of business, do you know whether he 4 brought any other cases to the firm other than the 5 Epstein case? 6 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 7 Q. Okay. Do you know whether your -- well, bad 8 question, I won't ask that. 9 Now, you've talked a lot about Ken Jenne 10 here this morning. Was Ken Jenne part of your Ponzi 11 scheme? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. Had nothing to do with it, right? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Other than his having working for you as 16 an investigator, he was not one of your 17 co-conspirators, right? 18 A. He didn't work for me as an investigator, he 19 worked for me heading up our investigative division, 20 heading up our internal security, heading up my 21 personal security, and acting as a political advisor 22 to me. 23 Q. Okay. Did he serve any kind of 24 investigative function at all, after all, he was a law 25 enforcement officer at one point in his career? 0101 1 A. I note that he assisted the other people at 2 the firm that were doing the investigative work. I 3 don't know if he personally did investigative work. 4 He may have. 5 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Jenne, in his role 6 as your advisor or your political consultant, do you 7 know if he was involved in any kind of illegality, 8 illegal wire tapping or anything like that while he 9 was at Rothstein? 10 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to 11 object to the form of the question, vague and 12 ambiguous. 13 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge he was not. 14 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 15 Q. To your knowledge, no? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Okay. You talked about having a bunch of 18 fundraisers, I know you had a bunch of fundraisers 19 that was kind of a deal at Rothstein. This was kind 20 of a rock star law firm, right? I mean, you had lots 21 of fundraisers, lots of parties, right? Was that the 22 image you were trying to present? EFTA01178133 23 A. In reality that's the way we were. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. A lot of young lawyers having a good time, 0102 1 trying to make money. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. And these young lawyers, would you consider Mr. Edwards to be a young lawyer or a middle-aged lawyer? A. Young lawyer. Q. Okay. Was he one of young lawyers that came to these fundraisers at your home? A. I don't recall whether he was there or not. I recall him being at some, but I didn't know if he was at all of them. Q. Okay. You do recall him coming to some of the fundraisers, though, correct? A. I recall him being at my home. It may have been for firm parties or other parties, it may have been for fundraisers there. Q. And that was during the time period that the Ponzi scheme was still going on, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did Adler ever the tell you about any discussions he had with Brad Edwards about the illegal part of the operations at Rothstein? A. Can you reask the question, please? Q. Sure. Sure. Did Russell Adler ever tell you -- Russell 25 Adler is your co-conspirator, we've established that. 0103 1 Did Russell Adler in the furtherance of your 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0104 1 was a real case going on, but that within that I would 2 have to create some sort of fictions in order to sell 3 the fake product. 4 Q. Okay. At the time that you decided to use 5 the Epstein case as part of your illicit Ponzi scheme 6 theme, I think you testified earlier today, when you 7 were in some dire straights, you needed an influx of conspiracy ever tell you he had discussed with Brad Edwards about the illegal activities at RRA? A. No. Q. Now, you testified when asked about whether the press -- if you were involved in asking the press to run with the Epstein story, you said something to the effect, "the way I was selling the Ponzi scheme it would be overkill." I didn't understand your answer like you didn't understand some of my questions, so I'd like you to kind of tell me what you meant by that. A. I was selling purportedly confidential settlements. Confidentiality was the hallmark of the Ponzi scheme, so too much publicity would have created a problem for me in the sale of what was supposed to be a completely confidential settlement. Q. I think what you are telling me, and I don't want to misstate what I think you are telling me, but is it true that you felt some publicity would be okay but too much would be counter to the purposes of the conspiracy. Is that a fair statement? A. The way I was thinking about it at the time this was going on was that some publicity would assist in establishing for the potential investors that there EFTA01178134 8 money, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. That's when you decided to use the Epstein 11 matters, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And you knew, I assume, being the 14 Ponzi scheme mastermind here, that you needed to make 15 sure that you had at least a working knowledge of the 16 Epstein case so that you could answer questions to the 17 investors. I recognize that you left the room and 18 told them to look at it, but you had to some knowledge 19 of the case, right? 20 MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, that's a 21 misrepresentation of what the earlier testimony was. 22 I object, no proper predicate. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay, let's go through the 24 whole thing again. 25 MR. SCAROLA: No, you are not going to go 0105 1 through the whole thing again. Just because we have 2 tolerated two lawyers asking questions, does not mean 3 we are going to tolerate two lawyers asking the same 4 questions. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted. 6 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 7 Q. Okay. So let's talk about your need to use 8 the Epstein case to further your conspiracy. You 9 needed an influx of money, did you not? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. You decided to use the Epstein case 12 for that purpose, right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And in order to use the Epstein case, you 15 were going to meet with the investors and pitch the 16 Epstein case with the investors, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And in an effort to pitch the case to the 19 investors, you had to have some knowledge of the case, 20 did you not? 21 A. Some level of knowledge, yes, sir. 22 Q. Okay. And in order to gain that knowledge, 23 you spoke to your co-conspirator, Russell Adler; is 24 that correct? 25 A. That's one of the things I did. 0106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. Okay. And do you remember what Adler told you specifically about the Epstein case that helped you have a basis of information to sell it to the investors? A. Other than him telling me that it was a billionaire pedophile, other than him telling me about the flight manifest, I don't have a specific recollection of what else he told me. Q. Did you actually look at the flight manifest at sometime, Mr. Rothstein? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was it about those flight manifests that you felt would help you pitch the Epstein case to the investor? A. I don't remember who specifically was on it, but I remember it looking juicy. Q. You don't know who was on it? A. I don't recall. EFTA01178135 19 Q. Did you add any names to that manifest at 20 any time? 21 A. I had -- you mean physically write names on 22 there? 23 Q. Any way you want to interpret -- did you -- 24 not physically write any names on the manifest, but 25 did you tell the investors that there were names on 0107 1 the manifest that were actually not on the manifest? 2 A. I told the investors that there were other 3 people that appeared on manifests, I don't recall 4 whether it was that manifest or other manifests, and I 5 got the names of those people from Russ Adler. 6 Whether or not they actually appeared on the manifest 7 or another manifest, I do not know. 8 Q. What names did you get from Russ Adler? 9 A. Russ Adler told me that Bill Clinton flew on 10 Mr. Epstein's plane and that Prince Andrew flew on 11 Mr. Epstein's plane. 12 Q. And is it your testimony today that you 13 never looked at the manifest to see whether Bill 14 Clinton or Prince Andrew's name were really on the 15 manifest that you were going to use to pitch the 16 investors? 17 A. It was my understanding they didn't have all 18 the manifests. 19 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask for the manifests 20 that purportedly had the name of Bill Clinton or 21 Prince Andrew on it? 22 A. I probably did, but I don't have a specific 23 recollection one way or the other. 24 Q. When you say you didn't have all the 25 manifests, were all the manifests in your office 0108 1 were all the manifests within the law firm of RRA and 2 you simply didn't have them in your office? 3 A. I have no idea one way or the other. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. I did not have them. 6 Q. You were told by Russell Adler that you 7 didn't have -- that you physically didn't have all the 8 manifests, correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. But you don't know whether they were in the 11 building somewhere, these other supposed manifests? 12 A. I have no idea one way or the other. 13 Q. You never asked for proof that Bill Clinton 14 or Prince Andrew's name were on a manifest somewhere? 15 A. I didn't say that. I may very well have 16 asked Adler or Ken Jenne to find the other manifests. 17 Q. Were you ever shown a manifest with the name 18 Bill Clinton or the name Prince Andrew on them? 19 A. I do not recall one way or the other whether 20 I saw that or not. I remember Adler telling me about 21 it and then me repeating that information to the 22 investors based upon Mr. Adler's representations to 23 me. 24 Q. Now, you testified that you were told that 25 the Epstein cases were "legitimate cases. Do you 0109 1 remember that testimony you gave this morning? 2 A. Yes 3 Q. And you remember your testimony that you EFTA01178136 4 were told they were legitimate cases by both Russ 5 Adler and Brad Edwards, do you remember that? 6 A. I never said that Mr. Edwards or Mr. Adler 7 said, "Scott, these are legitimate cases." I didn't 8 question them as to their legitimacy. 9 Q. You did testify that you talked to Brad 10 Edwards about the Epstein cases; is that correct? 11 MR. SCAROLA: No, counsel, that is a 12 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. 13 MR. GOLDBERGER: No, it's not. 14 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 15 Q. Did you talk to Brad Edwards about the 16 Epstein cases? 17 A. I do not recall one way or the other. That 18 was my prior testimony, that's still my testimony. I 19 don't -- I do not recall. 20 Q. We'll let the record speak -- 21 A. I know I spoke to Adler about it. 22 Q. We'll let the record speak for itself. Your 23 testimony, as I am questioning you now, is that you do 24 not recall whether you spoke to Brad Edwards about the 25 Epstein cases; is that correct? 0110 1 A. If you are including within that me walking 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0111 1 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 2 Q. So Ms. Holmes was working on the Epstein 3 cases? 4 A. It's my refreshed recollection from seeing 5 one of those e-mails that she must have been. 6 Q. Okay. And Ms. Holmes you said was a former 7 federal law enforcement officer, was that your 8 testimony? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You don't know whether she was FBI or IRS, 11 correct? 12 A. I don't remember. 13 Q. Okay. And upon reflection, do you know 14 whether she was hired without your say-so based on past Brad in the hall and saying, "Hey, Brad how are you? How is the Epstein stuff going?" Then it's very likely that I talked to him about it in that manner. But I have no specific recollection one way or the other as to having any lengthy conversations with Mr. Edwards about the case. I had a co-conspirator who was deeply involved in the Ponzi scheme that I could go to to get any information I wanted, Mr. Adler. I didn't need to go to Mr. Edwards. Q. So if you had a question of your co-conspirator, Russell Adler, about the Epstein case, you would go ask Adler and would Adler always have the answer for you or would he say he would get you the answer? A. Both. Q. When he didn't have the answer, do you know who he was getting the answer from? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, predicate. THE WITNESS: I don't know who he was getting it from and I may have contacted other people in the office who were working on the file to ask. I may have asked Mr. Jenne, I may have asked Ms. Holmes, I many have asked a whole myriad of people. EFTA01178137 15 what Mr. Jenne told you or did you meet with her? 16 A. No, I actually -- I remember meeting with 17 Ms. Holmes. 18 Q. Okay. What do you remember about that 19 meeting? 20 A. I remember talking about her relative who 21 was a judge. I remember her telling me about her time 22 in law enforcement. I just don't remember which 23 agency. 24 Q. Did she tell you why she left law 25 enforcement? 0112 1 A. She may have, I don't recall one way or the 2 other. 3 Q. Did you ever ask Ms. Holmes to use any of 4 her prior contacts in law enforcement to assist you in 5 the Ponzi scheme to get information for you? 6 A. The question is kind of convoluted because 7 the way you are asking it, it seems like you are 8 intimating that Ms. Holmes knew. I may have asked 9 Ms. Holmes to get me information that I was going to 10 utilize with my co-conspirators in the Ponzi scheme, 11 but Ms. Holmes did not know that there was a Ponzi 12 scheme going on. 13 Q. All right. So you may have asked Ms. Holmes 14 to try and get some information for you from her 15 contacts in law enforcement, but it's your testimony, 16 and I don't dispute it, it's your testimony that she 17 knew nothing about the Ponzi scheme, correct? 18 A. I may have, I may not have. I do not 19 remember and she absolutely knew nothing about the 20 Ponzi scheme. 21 Q. Okay. Now, we talked about Brad Edwards 22 getting paid and the multilevel ways in which you 23 determined what a person's salary was. Do you know 24 whether Brad Edwards got any bonuses along the way 25 once the Epstein case was used as part of the Ponzi 0113 1 scheme? 2 A. He did not. 3 Q. So he was -- 4 A. If he got a bonus, it was something he 5 earned. 6 Q. Did you make a determination as to what that 7 bonus would be? 8 A. If he got a bonus, I would have been 9 instrumental in determining it. You can determine if 10 he got a bonus by looking at our financial records, I 11 don't have an independent recollection one way or the 12 other. 13 Q. So you don't know whether he got a bonus at 14 all, correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. So I assume that if he got a bonus you 17 wouldn't know whether it occurred before or after the 18 Epstein case was used as part of the Ponzi scheme? 19 A. I don't know if he got a bonus, which means 20 I wouldn't know the time frame. 21 Q. But we would learn -- you are instructing 22 us, we would learn that by looking at when the Epstein 23 case was brought into the Ponzi scheme and we learn 24 that by looking at these -- what was the group that it 25 was used to pitch to? EFTA01178138 0114 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 0115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0116 1 about? By the way, you had a number of Epstein cases 2 in-house, do you know which case you were talking 3 about? 4 A. As I sit here today, no, sir, I don't 5 remember. 6 Q. Was it a state case or a federal case? 7 A. I don't remember one way or the other. 8 Q. All right. 9 A. I utilized all those boxes all together. I 10 don't remember which one I sold them. A. Clockwork. Q. So we would look at when the Clockwork group was brought into this and the Epstein case was used then and then we would look at the payroll records to see whether Mr. Edwards got a bonus after the Clockwork group was brought into the Ponzi scheme, correct? A. From a timing perspective, yes. But Mr. Edwards had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme, nor was he rewarded even surreptitiously without his knowledge for helping me with the Ponzi scheme. If he was rewarded it was because he deserved, I felt he deserved a reward, having nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme. The bulk of this law firm had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme. Q. I think you testified already, though, that money was fundable in the firm, right? I mean, you know, illegal money was used for legitimate purposes, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So, for example, investigations that were done with the Epstein case, it's very possible that legitimate Ponzi money was used to finance those investigations? A. I'd be guessing. It's certainly possible because all the money went into a whole series of pots, and if you look at, most of the pots were trust accounts. If you look back, you look to see what my CFO, who was also a co-conspirator was doing, she was pulling the money from wherever she needed to to fund whatever she needed to fund. MR. LAVECCHIO: Off the record a second. [Discussion off the record.] BY MR. GOLDBERGER: Q. Let me circle back to what you needed to learn about the Epstein cases to help make your pitch to the investors. You talked about the manifest already, correct, the flight manifest? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What else did you want to learn about the case or what else did you learn about the case so that you were conversant when you spoke to the investors about the Epstein case? A. I recall asking someone what the causes of action were. Q. Okay. Did you understand what they were? A. I likely did at the time, I don't remember what they were now. Q. Okay. Do you know which case we are talking EFTA01178139 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0118 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. And the exhibits -- A. It's something completely fictitious that I made up that I told them. Q. The exhibit that you were shown earlier, Exhibit Number 1, that's the long multi-page federal lawsuit. Do you know whether that was part of the information that you reviewed or shown to the investors when you were pitching to them? A. I do not remember one way or the other. Q. Okay. Now, did you make any effort to learn from your co-conspirator who the plaintiffs were in this case, what kind of women they were? A. Only that they were underage. Q. Did anyone tell you that these women had -- some of these women had a history of prostitution? A. They may have told me that, I wouldn't have cared one way or the other. Q. Why would you not have cared about that, Mr. Rothstein? A. It had nothing to do with the sale of the Ponzi scheme settlements. Q. Okay. Were you told by anyone whether any of the women involved as plaintiffs in the case may have worked at adult clubs in the past? I mean strip clubs, let's call it what it is. A. I may have been told that one way or the other. But again, it had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme sale of fake settlements. Q. As part of the information that you were told by you co-conspirator, Russell Adler, were you told that some of the plaintiffs that you had in-house had travelled on Mr. Epstein's airplane? I believe Russ did tell me that. You know, in fact, that that was not true, A. Q. correct? A. I care. Q. right? A. I have no idea one way or the other, nor did But your co-conspirator told you that, Mr. Adler did, in fact, tell me that certain of the underage women had travelled on Mr. Epstein's plane. Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs? MR. SCAROLA: That's question that's been asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I do not have a specific 7 recollection of ever meeting them. 8 MR. SCAROLA: You are exhausting my 9 indulgence. 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Fair enough. 11 MR. SCAROLA: You've exhausted my 12 indulgence. 13 BY MR. GOLDBERGER: 14 Q. Do you know whether any of your 15 investigators at the firm had any kind of high tech 16 surveillance equipment or, you know, wire tapping 17 equipment? 18 A. I believe they did. 19 Q. Do you know whether this was legal stuff or 20 illegal staff? 21 A. I did not know, nor did I care. EFTA01178140 22 Q. Do you know if any of that stuff was used to 23 either wire tap or surveil Mr. Epstein? 24 A. I do not know one way or the other. 25 Q. What sort of equipment did you know that 0119 1 they had, meaning your investigators? 2 A. I had told Mr. Jenne and others involved in 3 the investigation arm of RRA to get whatever equipment 4 they thought they needed and to get the best stuff 5 that they could get. What they actually did, I can't 6 tell you. 7 Q. You know as part of the Epstein litigation, 8 and I'm talking about now after your using it in the 9 Ponzi scheme, do you know whether anyone at your firm 10 attempted to depose ex-President Bill Clinton? 11 A. I don't recall that, sir. 12 Q. Okay. How about Donald Trump, same 13 question? 14 A. I don't recall that. As a matter of fact, 15 we had represented Trump in some things, we had some 16 pretty close ties with him, so I can't imagine that 17 they would have done that with my authority. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. I don't recall that. 20 Q. Do you know whether Adler would have -- 21 would Adler have the authorize to do that without 22 getting your permission? 23 A. The authority, no. Might he have tried, 24 yes 25 Q. Okay. How about Alan Dershowitz, do you 0120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. He represented them when I fled the country. 19 I remember him coming in and doing like a show and 20 tell in my office on TV. 21 MR. GOLDBERGER: Patience gets rewarded. 22 I'm done. 23 Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. That's all the 24 questions that I have. 25 THE WITNESS: You are welcome. 0121 1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Mr. Rothstein, again, Jack Scarola on behalf 4 of Brad Edwards. I want you to assume that Brad has 5 testified under oath that you never had a substantive 6 discussion with him regarding the Epstein case. Do have any knowledge of your firm's attempt during the Ponzi scheme to depose Alan Dershowitz? A. No, sir. I don't have a recollection of one way or the other. Q. Okay. The name Kendall Coffey was brought up before. Do you know who Kendall Coffey is? A. Yes. Q. Who do you know him to be? A. Former U.S. attorney, current criminal defense lawyer. Q. Was he a friendship of the firm's? A. Represented RRA when I fled the country. Q. So he was a friend of the firm, or a friend of yours at least, right? A. He wasn't a friend of mine. Q. A friend of the firm? A. No idea. EFTA01178141 7 you have any basis whatsoever to question the accuracy 8 of that testimony? 9 A. I do not. 10 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 11 testify under oath that while you were copied on 12 e-mails, you never attended a single legitimate 13 meeting regarding the legitimate prosecution of the 14 Epstein cases. Do you have any basis whatsoever to 15 question the accuracy of that testimony? 16 A. No, sir. 17 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 18 testify under oath that you never directed the filing 19 of any documents in the Epstein case, including the 20 July federal complaint that's been marked as an 21 exhibit to your deposition. Do you have any reason 22 whatsoever to question the accuracy of that testimony? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 25 testify under oath that you never directed the taking 0122 1 of a single deposition, or the propounding of any 2 discovery in the Epstein cases. Do you have any 3 reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. No, sir. Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will testify that you did not provide any input whatsoever into the handling of the legitimate Epstein cases. Do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? A. No, sir. Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will testify that you never met any of the legitimate plaintiffs in the Epstein cases. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? A. No, sir. MS. HADDAD: I'm going to object to these same questions you keep asking, because Mr. Rothstein has testified at nauseam that he doesn't recall any of this and now you are asking him to bolster Mr. Edwards' either already given or purported testimony when he's testified he doesn't recall it. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will 24 testify under oath that you never asked him once to 25 report back to you on any factual matters regarding 0123 1 the Epstein case. Do you have any reason to doubt the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 accuracy of that testimony? A. No, sir. Q. I want you to assume that Brad has testified repeatedly that he had absolutely no involvement in or knowledge of any illegal activity engaged in by you or any other RRA lawyer. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony? A. No, sir. Q. I want to talk to you briefly about your personal perceptions of the significance of the testimony that you are giving today. If Brad Edwards had, in fact, been a participant in any of the illegal activities that you have been questioned about at any stage of this very lengthy deposition, and you knowingly concealed Brad Edwards' participation, what do you understand the personal consequences to be as a EFTA01178142 18 consequence of your having knowingly concealed Brad 19 Edwards' participation? 20 A. I'll be violating my agreement with the 21 United States government and I would run the risk of 22 dying in prison. 23 Q. If Brad Edwards, contrary to what you have 24 testified under oath and what Brad himself has 25 repeatedly said, knew about anything having to do with 0124 1 illegal activities at the RRA firm and you concealed 2 your knowledge of Brad Edwards' knowledge of that 3 illegal activity, what do you understand the 4 consequences of that false testimony to be? 5 A. I'll be violating my agreement with the 6 United States government and I would run the risk of 7 dying in prison. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. I don't have any 9 further questions. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 11 MR. NURIK: Mark, I don't know what your 12 time frame is on your litigation, but the ability to 13 receive the transcript, review it and prepare an 14 errata sheet within what is normally the time 15 allotted under the court rules cannot be accomplished 16 in this case. 17 MR. GOLDBERGER: How much time are you 18 generally -- 19 MR. NURIK: I don't know. 20 Actually, the first set of errata sheets 21 have just been prepared and finalized for the first 22 deposition in December. I'm not suggesting it will 23 take that long this time, but if you can give me an 24 idea of what your time responsibilities are with the 25 court, what the time limits are -- 0125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you think it will be less than a month, two months? MR. NURIK: I don't think it will be less than a month. First of all, a lot depends on the ability to get the transcript to him to review. MR. GOLDBERGER: Right. MR. NURIK: And that's a whole procedure, it's not normal circumstances that we are dealing with. 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: If time becomes an issue, 11 we'll approach you and ask you to expedite. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Mark, I will tell that from 13 our perspective time is an issue. 14 MR. NURIK: Have at it then, Jack. Do what 15 you need to do to get it done. 16 MR. SCAROLA: There is a long pending 17 motion for summary judgment on Brad's behalf that has 18 been delayed for purposes of taking this deposition. 19 We are very anxious to be able to call that motion 20 for summary judgment up for hearing, so whatever can 21 be done reasonably to expedite the preparation of 22 this portion of this transcript would be appreciated. 23 We understand there are limitations beyond your 24 control, but to the extent you can do it, that would 25 be helpful. Thank you. 0126 1 MS. HADDAD: It's scheduled in a month, 2 Mark. EFTA01178143 3 MR. NURIK: We'll cooperate. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much. 5 [Thereupon, the taking of the deposition was 6 concluded at 12:37 p.m.] 7 8 9 10 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN 11 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day 12 of , 2012. Notary Public, State 13 of Florida at Large. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0127 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 3 I, Pearlyck Martin, a Notary Public in and 4 for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that, pursuant to a Notice of Taking Deposition in 5 the above-entitled cause, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN was by me first duly cautioned and sworn to testify the whole 6 truth, and upon being carefully examined testified as is hereinabove shown, and the testimony of said 7 witness was reduced to typewriting under my personal supervision and that the said Video Conference 8 deposition constitutes a true record of the testimony given by the witness. 9 I further certify that the said Video 10 Conference deposition was taken at the time and place specified hereinabove and that I am neither of 11 counsel nor solicitor to either of the parties in said suit nor interested in the event of the cause. 12 WITNESS my hand and official seal in the 13 City of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida, this day of June 19, 2012. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Pearlyck Martin EFTA01178144 24 25 0128 1 FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 2 Suite 924, Biscayne Building 19 West Flagler Street 3 Miami, Florida 33130 Telephone (305) 371-6677 4 June 21, 2012 5 IN RE: EPSTEIN VS. EDWARDS 6 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN C/O MARC NURIK 7 One East Broward Boulevard, Seventh Floor Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 8 Dear SCOTT ROTHSTEIN: 9 With reference to the deposition of 10 yourself taken on June 14, 2012, in connection with the above-captioned case, please be advised that the 11 transcript of the deposition has been completed and is awaiting signature. 12 Please arrange to stop by our office for 13 the purpose of reading and signing the deposition. Our office hours are 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday 14 through Friday. Please telephone in advance. 15 You may, however, read a copy of the transcript, provided by any of the attorneys 16 connected with the case, denoting any corrections by page and line number on a separate sheet of paper. 17 This correction page must be signed by you and notarized and returned to us for filing with the 18 original. 19 If this has not been taken care of, however, within the next 30 days, or by the time of 20 trial, whichever comes first, I shall then conclude that the reading, subscribing and notice of filing 21 have been waived and shall then proceed to deliver the original of the transcript to ordering attorney 22 without further notice. 23 24 25 Pearlyck Martin EFTA01178145