Draft: efta02774128

*" FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY. FL SHARON R BOCK. CLERK¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 0408003OOCXMBAG¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually,¶

individually,¶

AsS -¶

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

NOTICE OF E-FILING EXHIBITS¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 2.516 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, hereby files his exhibits to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Fourth Amended Counterclaim an LBSupporting Memorandum of Law ("Motion"), previously filed and accepted by the P each County, Florida Civil Division Filing # 5846906. The files accompanyingr«ltis Notice of Filing Exhibits were previously filed on September 26, 2013 and again on October 2, 2013, but moved to Pending Queue due to procedural issues. -filing is an attempt to correct those procedural issues. The attachment hereto contain exhibits to the above referenced Motion, which is not being re-filed contemporaneously herewith. However, the exhibits are being divided based upon the filing requirements of the rules of e-filing; each new cxhibit begins when so marked on the is so marked on the bottom of the first page of said exhibit.¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served, via electronic service (through the e-file portal), to all parties on the attached service list, this October 3, 2013.¶

hi Tonja Haddad Coleman¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman, .¶

Florida Bar No.: 17673¶

Tonja Haddad, PA¶

5315 SE 7th Street¶

Suite 301¶

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301¶

954.467.1223¶

954.337.3716 (facsimile)¶

Attic for Epstein¶

SERVICE LIST¶

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

Jack Scarola, Esq. jsx@seareylaw.com; mep®searcylaw.com Searcy 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. "1414' Denney Scarela et al. West Palm Beach, FL 33409¶

Jack Goldberger, jgoldberger@agwpa.com; smahoney@agwpa.corn Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA West Palm Beach, FL 33401 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 i 4)C)¶

S¶

Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Suite 700¶

?S "¶

Esq. abr lithtojustice.com Jaffe Weissing Edw Le 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Floritel¶

t Fred Haddad, Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com 1 Financial Plaza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

W. Chester =, Jr., Esq. wcbcg@aol.com W. Chester Jr., P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

(con't)¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire
Tonja@tonjahaddad.com; efiling@tonjahaddad.com
Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A.
315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

has significant financial sophistication, including sophistication about the international transfer of financial instruments and other assets.¶

5. According to the Vanity Fair article, defendant Jeffrey Epstein's real, mentor was not Leslie Wexner, but Steven Jude Hoffenberg, who was sent to federal prison for twenty years for bilking investors out of monied million in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Epstein listed Hoffenberg with (failed) takeover bids of Pan Americ Airways and Emery Air Freight.

6. According to the Vanity Fair article, before working with Wexner and il Hoffenberg, defendant Jeffrey ittrorked with Beam Stearns. He left the firm very suddenly in 1981 oned by S.E.C. investigators in an insider trading scandal involving se Italian and Swiss investors.

7. According to the Vanity Fair article, Epstein recently owned (and thus may still own) a Boeing 727 with a trading room.

8. Vicky published a follow-up note to her earlier article in May 2008. It can be found at htto://www.vanityfair.com/onhne/dailv/2008/05/vicicyIM-vou.html. According to this note, rumors were circulating (to celebrities such as Dustin Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, and filmmaker Michael Mailer) that Epstein was moving all of his considerable assets to Israel. The note also indicated that, having written the earlier detailed article about Epstein, was now frequently viewed as an "expert" on Epstein.

9. According to reputable press reports, Jeffrey Epstein internationally with Donald Trump, former President ton, and Prince Andrew. See, e.g., The Daily Mail, Prince Andr i lionaire Friend is Accused of Preying on Girl of 14, Apr. 29, 2007, http://www.dailvmail.co.uk/news/article-451372/Prince-Andrews-billionaire-friend-accused-preying-girl-14.html ("One of Prince Andrew's closest friends [Jeffrey Epstein] is being investigated by the FBI for allegedly paying under-age girls for tawdry sexual encounters."). It is therefore reasonable to infer that he has international contacts, including international financial contacts.

10. Approximately 25 civil suits have been filed in Florida state courts and Florida federal courts raising similar allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. These complaints seek damages comparable to those sought by Jane Doe in this case. Accordingly, Epstein has currently pending against him lawsuits seeking more than

$1 billion in damages. Even given his great wealth, it appears that the lawsuits against him could well lead to his fmancial ruin, unless he is able to conceal his assets so that the plaintiffs in these cases are unable to reach them.¶

11. Since his guilty plea in state court, he has been incarcerated Beach County Detention facility. I have been advised, however, currently been allowed out on a "work release" program, wher(he orks at managing his financial interests.

12. Because of his overseas contacts, other plaintiff attorneys and I have been greatly concerned that Epstein might attempt to transfer many of his assets overseas with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him. I have also received reports, that I am attempting to substantiate, that Epstein is transferring his assets out of the country at this time with the intent to make it impossible for Jane Doe and other plaintiffs to satisfy any significant judgment that they might obtain against him. In light of these reports, other attorneys and I have propounded the requests for admission regarding fraudulent asset transfers discussed in the pending motion.

13. In this case, Epstein has blocked all discovery regarding the current location of his assets and recent fraudulent transfers of his assets, by asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. With other attorneys working on this case (and related cases), I have wanted to obtain direct, first band information regarding Epstein's financial dealings, but have becn bloc Arc doing so by Epstein. Therefore, I have been forced to rely on repu reports for information about these dealings.

14. In the similar sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Epstein, other plaintiffs attorneys have advised that Epstein has likewise blocked all discovery regarding his finances with Fifth Amendment invocations or other interposed obstructions.

CiC)*¶

O¶

I swear the foregoing to be truthful under the penalty of perjury.¶

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.¶

Paul G. Cassell¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO: OS-CV-80893-MARRAJ¶

JANE DOE,¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DCE,4)ANT¶

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, and files this her First Request for Admissions to the Defendant, JEFFREY/EPSTEIN, and requests said Defendant admit or deny the following facts, JQ cocdance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:¶

/ 4:Ag age¶

DEFINITIONS¶

The term "you" means and refers to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN.¶

ADMISSIONS¶

• worth is greater than S I0 million. us net worth is greater than S50 million.
• 3. Your net worth is greater than S100 million.
• 4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million.

¶

• 5. Your net worth is greater than SI billion.
• 6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you.
  • 7. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean.
• 8. countries.
• 9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or money You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign instruments to countries outside the United States.
  • 10. You have provided financial support to the modeling VIA C2.
  • 11. You committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, at '
  • 12. You committed battery against Plaintiff. )
  • 13. You digitally penetrated Plaintiff when -ikt C 14,a minor.
• 14. You offered Plaintiff more money contingent upon her having sex with you or giving you oral sex.
  • 15. You intended to harm Plaintiff when you committed these sexual acts against her.
• 16. fondled her.
• 17. Y hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this litigation. O IS. os You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country borders for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present. You knew Plaintiff was under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and
  • 19. You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution.
• 20. You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe:
  • A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03
  • B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes
  • C. Sexual Battery
• 21. You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts.
• 22. You arc making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against you in this or similar cases.
• 23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty.

CERTIFICATE OF SSVICE¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and cotnct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this day of March, 2009.¶

Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 rcrit@bciclaw.com mnikeebelclawcom¶

Jack MCI Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 iaaesciabellsouth.net¶

Michael R. Tein, Esquire n ein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 rein@lewistein.com¶

Respectfully Submitted,¶

By:¶

THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD Oa ASSOCIATES, LLC¶

Brad Esquire Attorney or aintiff Florida Bar No. 542075 2028 .1.Street Suite Hollywood, Florida 33 Telephone: 954-414=8 Facsimile: 9M-924-153 E-Mail: braibraclodwardslaw.com¶

Paul G. Cassell Attorney for Plaintiff Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 3400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cas,sello®law.utah.edu¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 — MARRA/¶

JANE DOE,¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

Cos•¶

DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S FIRST REQUEST FORADMISSIQNS (dated 03/23/091¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EP !Sil N, EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned t, attorneys, serves his responete e Intiffs First Request for Admission, dated March 23, 2009.¶

1. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the FffehySIxth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

2. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my 1 ^C

¶

Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al.¶

Page 2¶

attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fen, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstilnee0Pwould unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. —¶

3. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth. and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse Ilictirace under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

4. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

5. in response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to ail relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to Jane Doe v. Epstein, el el.

Page 3¶

effective representation. Accordingly, assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. n¶

6. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

7. In response, Defendant asserts_his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth nd Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. rawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

8. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representaton. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 4

Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.¶

9. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any dia,a relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth ndment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federaj4natttutIonal rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise only Ntitstitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

10. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accea4ie advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and .,,Wteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

11. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would Jane Doe v. Epstein, et el. Page 5

unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.¶

12. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lavistat.towever, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovev relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by k United States Constitution, Drawing an adverse inference under_alasise circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

13. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation, Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and t: Id therefore violate the Constitution.

14. In response, fendant assorts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effeopve representation. Accordingly. I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments es guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al.¶

Peace¶

15. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these`arcumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

16. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S.A:0nstitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant diiKetregarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, i assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing anc,3v3rse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

17. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I injed to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the rktv Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

18. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my Jars Doe v. Epstein, et at Page 7

attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.¶

19. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide mews to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk IMO) my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

20. In response to 20 A, B, and C, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional pnvilegos as specified herein. 1 intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly. I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

21. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to

Jane Doe v. Epstein, et a',¶

Pane 8¶

effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse Inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.¶

22. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this Lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled mo that I cannot provide anavinto any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my Constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

23. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein, I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, pelt, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasorable, and would therefore violate the Constitution.

Certificate of Service¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the Agregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this rday of tAav, 2009.¶

Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al.
Page 9¶

Brad [REDACTED] Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-522-3456
Fax: 954-527-8663
bedwards@ra-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Welss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
561-659-8300
561-835-8691 Fax
jagesq@bellsouth.net
Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
Pro Hac Vice
332 South 1400 E, Room 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
801-585-5202
801-585-6833 Fax
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Co-counsel for Plaintiff¶

NOTA CERTIFIED¶

Respectfully submitted,¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO: 084V-80119. MARRA/¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

JANE DOE NO. 3,¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

JANE DOE NO. 4,¶

Cr)¶

Plaintiff¶

vs. yy¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-822324 4ARRA¶

CO 'S¶

'S >)¶

CASE NO: 084V-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/[REDACTED]¶

JANE DOE NO. 5,¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

JANE DOE NO. 6.¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

JANE DOE NO. 7,¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRAJJ¶

C.M.A.,¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

JANE DOE.¶

Defendant¶

/¶

CASE NO. 84V-808,VR¶

Plaintiff,¶

Vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et at.¶

Defendant.¶

DOE II,¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et at.¶

Defendants.¶

4¶

E NO: 09-CV-804894AARRA/JOHNSON¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARFUa¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND DIRECTING RECEIVER TO SECURE ASSETS FOR POSTING OF A BOND¶

For the reasons provided in Jane Doe's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge Property of Epstein, and for Posting of a $15 Mrnion Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, it Is adjudged:¶

1. The defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is hereby ordered not to make any further transfers of assets that are fraudulent, as defined in the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 et seq. Epstein also shall not transfer any of his assets outside the fifty states of the United States or the District of Columbia without first seeking leave of court, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard bytplaintiff Jane Doe.

CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON¶

2. is appointed as receiver of all the real property, good, chattels, moneys, financial instruments, stocks, or other assets of any type of defendant Jeffrey Epstein, and all the rents, income, interest, and profits from them, all called the 'property in this order, and the receiver is directed to immediately enter upon, receive and take complete possession of all of the property and the rents, income and profits.

3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, and his servants, agents and employees are ordered to deliver immediately to the receiver all of the property and they, and each of them, are enjoined from interfering in any way with the receiver or with any of the property until the further order of this court.

4. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein and his servants, agents and employees are further ordered to deliver to the receiver or his representative, all keys or combinations to locks required to open or gain access to any of the property and all money deposited in any bank to the credit of the defendant, and any other money, financial instruments, or things of value of the defendant wherever they may be.

5. The receiver is granted all the usual, necessary and incidental powers for the purpose of managing and maintain the property, including the power to appoint such agents as the receiver considers necessary to enable the receive to perform the receivers duties.

6. The receiver shall, within 60 days of this order, if sufficient assets are available, post a $15 million bond on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein with the Clerk of the Court to secure any potential judgment the plaintiff might obtain. The

CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA,¶

also by that time file an accounting of all significant assets of n with the Court. The receiver shall be entitled to reasonable and coverage of expenses, as approved by the Court.¶

AND ORDERED in at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach a, this day of, 2009.¶

O¶

'4\¶

KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge C¶

ed to: record receiver she¶

Jeffrey EpstE¶

compensatloi¶

DONE¶

County, Floric¶

Copies fumist All counsel of¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

-vs-¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually, and
L.M., individually,¶

Defendants.¶

---

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶

Wednesday, March 17, 2010
10:17 a.m. - 1:27 p.m.¶

303 Banyan Boulevard
Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

Reported By:
Sandra W. Townsend, FPR
Notary Public, State of Florida
West Palm Beach Office Job #1358¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

1 APPEARANCES: 2 On beheofthe Plaintiff 3 MICHAEL PUCE, ESQUIRE BURMAN CRITTON LUTT1ER & COLEMAN, LLP 4 303 Bryan &Avid, Suite 400 West Palm Beach Florida 33401 S Phone: 561.842.2820¶

6 8 On behalf of the Defaldant RIME JACK SCAROLA, ESQ SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY 9 2139 Palm Beach Lies Boulevard West Paha Beach, Florida 33409 10 Phone: 561.686.4300 11 On . 12 ESQ ":iti~It4QU FISTOS,¶

13 ,PL 425 North Andrews Mum 14 Suing Fon Laidedde, Florida 33301 15 Phone: 954.524.2820 16 Also Pruett 1? w pir, JAFFE ESQUIREt ats.Staa,¶

18 425 North Andrews Manx 19 State 2 Fact Locket*, Maids 33301 20 Phoa: 954.524.2820 21 22 23 21 25¶

1 PROCEEDINGS¶

2¶

3 Deposition taken before Sandra W. Townsend, Court 4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of S Florida at Large, in the above cause.¶

6¶

7 YIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on video record.¶

8 This is media number one in the videotaped 9 deposition of Jeffrey Epstein in the matter of 10 Jeffrey Epstein versus Scott Rothstein, 11 and L.M.¶

12 Today is Wednesday, Muth 17,2010 at 13 10:17 a.m.¶

14 We are at the law offices of Burman, 15 Critton -- Banyan — of Burman, Critton on Banyan 16 Boulevard, Suite 400, Weal Palm Beach, Florida.¶

17 My name is Joe Kozak. I'm the videogrepha. 18 The court reporter is Sandra Townsend from Prose 19 Court Reporting Agency.¶

20 Would Counsel please introduce yourselves and 21 then the court reporter will swear in the witness.¶

2 2 "( ietuhillst. SCAROLA: My name is Jack Scarola. lam 23 °I on behalf of Brad in his capacity, 24S \ bot oth as Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff in this 25 s, ion. Mr. is present with me.¶

NUMBER 6 Exhibit number 1 DESCRIPTION Eyeglasses¶

5¶

EXHIBITS¶

MR. PIKE: Michael Pike, on behalf of the Plaintiff Je ein. MR. : Brad M, on behalf of the 4 Defendant, L.M. 5 Also present, Steve Jaffe, on behalf of the 6 Defendant, L.M., as well. 7 THEREUPON,¶

3¶

8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined 10 and testified as follows:¶

11 TIM WITNESS: Yes, I do. Thank you. 12 MR. PIKE: Before we get started, Jack, I just 13 wanted to get on the record, I just want to make 14 sure that you received this letter that 1 sent to 15 your office yesterday of March 16, 2010.¶

16 MIt SCAROLA: I did receive the letter. 17 MIt PIKE: Okay. And we're still on for 18 Mr deposition, as we sit here today? 19 MR. SCAROLA: That's ',tutu.¶

20 MR. PIKE: Okay. Thank you. 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION¶

22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. Please state your full name and your current 24 residence address.¶

25 A. My name is Jeffrey Epstein. Fm currently¶

1 residing at 358 El &lib in Palm Beach. 2 Q. How long have you resided at that location, 3 Mr. Epstein? 4 A. I'm sorry. On advice of Counsel today, I'm 5 going to take the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment with 6 respect to that question, Mr. Scant 7 Q. Have you maintained any other residences over 8 the course of the Ian five years? 9 A. Though I'd like to answer each and every one 10 of your questions here today, with respect to that 11 question Pm going to have to assert my Constitutional 12 Rights as provided by the Sixth, 14th and Sixth — 13 Fifth — sorry — Filth, Sixth and 14th Amendment. 14 Q. Does anyone reside with you at the El Brillo 15 address? 16 A. Again, Mr. Serails, though I'd like to answer 17 each and every one of your questions here today, at 18 least with respect to that question, In going to have 19 to assert my rights as under the Sixth, Fifth and 14th 20 Amendment. 21 And Pre been advised by Counsel, though I'd 22 like to answer these questions, if I do so, I risk 23 losing their representation. 24 Q. What did your lawyer cell you in that regard? 25 MR. PIKE: I'm going to instruct you not to¶

1 your questions here today. However, on advice of 2 Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 3 14th Amendment Right. 4 Q. Are iwi o a Plaintiff in a lawsuit against Scott 5 Rothstein, J. and an individual 6 identified by the initials L.M.? 7 A. Yes, sir, I am. 8 Q. Who is roe individual identified as L.M.? 9 A. I believe from depositions that I've read, her 10 MI name 11 Q. When and under what circumstances did you 12 first meet the individual referenced by the initials 13 L.M.? A. MI. Santa, I think you ate aware these 15 questions are simply designed to have me invoke my Fifth 16 Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment Right in 17 relation to other questions and other cases filed. 18 But in response to your question, Pm going to 19 have to invoke my right not to testify. 20 Q. Do you know the individual named L.M., 21 identified by the Initials L.M.? 22 A. Mr. Scarola, at least today— I would like to 23 answer that question; however, today, on advice of 24 keens* Pm going to have to refuse to answer that 25 question. 5~¶

1 2 3 4 S 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer that question. Attorney/client. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Well, didn't you just tell me that your It advised you that if you answered questions he represent you anymore? MR. PIKE: nes exactly what he said, Mr. Scarola, and Pm instructing him not to answer the question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. So I want to know then — I want to know what your lawyer told you about that. MR. PIKE: Pm going to instruct you not to answer that question. Attorney/client. MR. SCAROLA: And it is our contention, obviously, that by making the statement that he has made, Mr. Epstein has waived any attorneyklient privilege with regard to that matter. MR. PIKE: Your contention, definitely not mine. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Mr. Epstein, who else has shared that residence with you at any time over the course of the last five years? A. Again, Mr. Scarola, I'd like to answerthat question, as I'd like to answer each and every one of¶

3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Have you ever acknowledged in the presence of any other person knowing the individual identified by the initials L.M.? MR. PIKE: Form. ME WITNESS: Again? Sony. Can you repeat the question, sir? BY Mk SCAROLA: Q. Yes, sir. Have you ever acknowledged in the presence of any other person knowing the individual identified by the initials L.M.? MR. PIKE: Form. Also could invade attorney/ellen. THE WITNESS: Again, I would like to answer that question, but today Inn going to have to invoke my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th Ann./Awn Right. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Have you ever acknowledged in the presence of any person, other than your own lawyer, having known the individual identified by the initials L.M.? MB. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Again, I'd Ince to answer each and every one of your questions here today, Mr. Senna; however, on advice of enonse4, at least today, Pm going to have to refine to answer¶

1 that question.¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q. Have you ever acknowledged to —¶

4 A. Excuse me.¶

5 Q. -_-¶

6 A. Sir, may I suggest that if I say I refuse to 7 answer, that it means the Fifth, Sixth and 14th or would 8 you prefer that I recite it each time?¶

9 Q. I would prefer that you answer the questions,. 10 that's my preference. But if you're going to assert a 11 privilege, I will assume that if you simply say that you 12 are refusing to answer, your refusal to answer will be 13 on the basis of various Constitutional privileges 14 against self-incrimination without the necessity of 15 specifying.¶

16 If your refusal to answer is on the basis of 17 any other privilege, it will be necessary for you to 18 identify that privilege.¶

19 A. Thank you.¶

20 MR. PIKE: And fin going to instruct you, too, 21 when you do invoke, invoke the Fifth, Sixth and the 22 14th.¶

23 THE WITNESS: Yes.¶

24 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

25 Q. Have you ever acknowledged in the presence of¶

1 invoke my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right¶

2 Q. Have you ever acknowledged in the presence of 3 Terri Becker, a court reporter present at a deposition 4 taken by Brad in a 3 Cale in which the 5 individual identified by the initials L.M. was a¶

6 Plaintiff that you knew and/or liked — 7 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

8 THE WITNESS: Again,-¶

9 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

10 Q. -- L.M.?¶

11 MR. PIKE: Same objection.¶

12 THE WITNESS: Again, I'm going to have to 13 assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Anaendment Right¶

14 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

15 Q. Have you ever acknowledged in the presence of 16 Steve Jaffe that you knew and/or liked L.M.?¶

17 A. Again, Mr. Search, though I'd like to answer 18 each and every one of your questions today, I'm going to 19 have to, at the advice of Counsel, invoke my Fifth, 20 Sixth and 14th Amendment Right.¶

21 Q. Why are you suing L.M.?¶

22 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

23 MR. SCAROLA: Let me state for the record that 24 rdon't consider a form objection to be a proper 25 Lion, unless you specify the defect in the¶

J. that you knew the individual 2 identified by the initials L.M.?¶

3 A. Cm going to have to refuse to answer that 4 question.¶

5 6 O. Have raver acknowledged in the priseenoeo that you !mew L.M? \\V¶

7 MR. PIKE: Again, for purposes' f the record, 8 Fm instructing you to invoke the Fifth, Sixth and 9 14th, rather than just simply say --¶

10 THE WITNESS: Okay.¶

11 MR. PIKE: -- I refuse to answer. I want it 12 to be clear for the Court that you have invoked 13 your Fifth, Sixth and 14th.¶

14 THE WITNESS: Fine.¶

15 Then on advice of Counsel, I'm going to have 16 to invoke my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right¶

17 BY MK SCAROLA:¶

18 Q. Have you ever acknowledged in Brad 19 presence that you liked the individual identified by the 20 initials L.M.?¶

21 A. Again, I'm going to have to invoke my Fifth, 22 Sixth and 14th Amendment Right, Mr. Scarola.¶

23 Q. Have you ever acknowledged in 24 presence that you liked L M.7¶

25 A. Again, Mr. Scarola, Fm going to have to¶

4 5 MR. PIKE: That's fine. I believe the rules provide otherwise. But, nonetheless,1 stand on my objection to form.¶

6 7 THE WITNESS: Pm sorry. You have to repeat the question.¶

8 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

10 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

11 12 13 14 THE WITNESS: L.M. is of a conspiracy with Scott Rothstein, MI creating excuse me -- creating fraudulent cases of a sexually charged nature in which the U.S. Attorney¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 has alread.ed the firm of Rothstein,a firm of which is a partner, was a partner, with creating, fabricating malicious cases of a sexual nature, including cases with respect to me, specifically, in order to fleece unsuspecting investors in South Florida out of millions of dollars.¶

22 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

23 24 Q. What role do you contend L.M. played in that conspiracy to create fraudulent cases?¶

25 A. L.M.'s testimony before she met Mr.¶

form and provide me with an opportunity to correct the defect.¶

Q. Why are you suing L.M.?¶

1 was dramatically -- sworn testimony to the FBI was 2 dramadaal different after she cane in contact with 3 Mr. =, where her testimony then changed to 4 son of a hostile and had claims of -- claims never nude 5 before, never made to anyone before. and allegations 6 that Eve read in her Complaint that that had been 7 dramatically different from the ones she had spoken to 8 the FBI about, sir.¶

9 Q. Is it your contention that L.M.'s siatematt to 10 the FBI was true?¶

11 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Scarola, unfortunately, 13 today with respect to that question, Ern going to 14 have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment 15 Right Though I know — I believe you know the 16 answer to that question, I can't answer the 17 question under advice of Counsel. And he's told me 18 if I chose to do so, I risk losing his 9 representation.¶

20 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

21 Q. What is the basis of your belief that I know 22 the answer to the question?¶

23 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

24 THE WITNESS: You — I believe you have seen 25 this, because you're supposed to be a decent¶

1 according to you, she met Mr. and changed her 2 testimony, true?¶

3 A. Did she change her testimony? Is that — yes, 4 her testimony was changed.¶

5 Q. My question to you is: Was her testimony 6 which you contend was changed true testimony?¶

7 A. Your question is not a good question. Is it 8 her testimony before or after?¶

10 after she met Mr. which you contend was 9 Q. Was the Stint testimony given by L.M. 11 different from her testimony before the FBI, was the 12 subsequent testimony true or false?¶

13 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

14 THE WITNESS: Sir, I'm going, at least today,¶

15 Em going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 16 14th Amendment Right.¶

17 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

18 Q. Did you ever engage in any sexual conduct with 19 L.M.?¶

20 A. I would like to answer that question, but — 21 Q. You don't need to tell me what you'd like to 22 do, Mr. Epstein. You just need to do it, please.¶

23 Al'.THE WITNESS: Please —¶

24 NIS. PIKE: Mr. Scarola, please let the witness 25/' his response.¶

2 3 4 lawyer, you've read the testimony. I would guess you've read the difference in her testimony to FBI versus her testimony after she's met client and his partners, who are current) .#11t' 1.¶

5 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

6 7 Q. How does that respond to my question whether you contend that her testimony to the FBI was true or false?¶

9 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

10 11 THE WITNESS: I don't believe that was your question. Will you repeat?¶

12 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

13 14 Q. Okay. Well, let's — let me rephrase the question then,¶

15 16 Is it your contention that LM.'s statement to the FBI was true?¶

17 18 19 A. Sir, on advice of Counsel, at least today, l'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right.¶

20 21 Q. Was L.M.'s statement to the FBI false in any respect?¶

22 23 24 A. Sir, at least, again, today, on advice of Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right.¶

25 Q. Was L.M.'s subsequent testimony after, 4 5 6 7 8 MR. PIKE: In your mind it may not be a response. In a Judge's mind, it may be. We may have to certify it to the Court. If such a procedure even exists, we can take it up with the Court. But please let the witness finish his response.¶

9 THE WITNESS: Again, please?¶

10 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

1/ 12 Q. Did you engage ever engage in any sexual conduct with L.M.?¶

13 14 15 16 A. I would like to answer that question; however, today I'm going to have to assert my rights as provided by the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment to that question, sir.¶

1.7 18 Q. Have you ever exchanged anything of value with L.M.?¶

19 20 21 22 THE WITNESS: At least today, Ern going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right, sir.¶

23 BY MIL SCAROLA:¶

24 25 Q. Did you ever direct anyone to deliver anything of value to L.M.?¶

MR. SCAROLA: That's not a response to my question.¶

MR. PEKE: Form.¶

1 MR. PIKE: Form. 2 THE WITNESS: At least today, I'm going to 3 have to refuse to answer that question based on the 4 Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q Do You laxAMS 7 A. At least today, sir, I'm going to have to 8 refuse to testify about that question. Based on advice 9 of Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth 10 and 14th Amendment Ri t. 11 Q Di introduce you to L.M.? 12 A. Sir, respectfully, I'd like to answer that 13 question today. As I said, I'd like to answer each and 14 every one of your questions. However, on advice of my 15 Ovum) today, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, 16 Sixth and 14th Amendment Right. 17 Q. Did L.M. suffer any damage as a consequence of 18 any interaction between you and L.M.? 19 MR. PIKE: Form. 20 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question, 21 please? 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. Did LM. suffer any damage as a consequence of 24 any interaction between you and L.M.? 25 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

1 which is outrageous. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA.: 3 Q. How much have you settled claims for? 4 MR. PIKE: I'm going to instruct you not to 5 answer that question. 6 MR SCAROLA: And the basis of that 7 instruction is? 8 MR. PIKE: Confidential settlement agreements, 9 to the extent that they exist And the terms would 10 be confidential. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. Have you settled claims? 13 A. Yes, I have. 14 Q. What is the nature of the claims you settled? 15 MR. PIKE: I'm • 'tistnal you not to 16 answer that quest 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. How many claims have you settled? 19 MR. PBC& rm going to instruct you not to 20 answer that question as well. 21 MR. SCAROLA: What is the basis for those 22 23 MR. PIKE: Confidential, as well as there is a 24 's Right Statute that may - you may be 25 oeing into the identity of —¶

1 Y Page 21 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not tiptoeing anywhere. MR. PIKE: Let me finish my objection, 3 Mr. Scarola. 4 You may be tiptoeing into the identity of 5 various alleged victims underneath the Victims 6 Right Statute, as well as ongoing investigations or 7 past investigations that have remained open with 8 the State, as well as the Federal Government. 9 So in that regard, we would have to put the 10 State Attorney, as well as the Federal Government 11 on notice that you were seeking to potentially back 12 door certain identities at this deposition. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. Other than having alt en different 15 testimony beargagg, met Mr then given after 16 she met Mr.MM, did L.M. do anything else that 17 forms the basis for your claim against her? 18 MR. PIKE: Form. Asked and answered. 19 THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that 20 question, as well as every one of your questions 21 with respect to L.M. here today; however, on advice 22 of Coal, at least today, Mr. Scarola, rm going 23 to have to assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth 24 Amendment and 14th Amendment Right. 25 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 19 THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each and t(c 44)0 every one of your questions here today, Mr. Scarola; however, on advice of Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Si 14th Amendment Right. BY MR SCAROLA: Q. Your Complaint in this action alleges that L.M. made claims for damages out of proportion to her alleged damages. What does that mean? A. It means what it says. Q. I don't understand it. Explain it to me. MR PEKE: To the extent you can answer that question without disclosing my conversations with you or Mr. Milton's conversations with you, as well as my work product, you can answer the question, THE WITNESS: 1 believe that as part of the scheme to defraud investors in South Florida out of millions of dollars, claims of outrageous sums of money were made on behalf of alleged victims across the board. And the only way -- in fact, Scott Rothstein sits in jail. And what rye read in the paper, claims that Eve settled cases for $200-million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of serious sum of money,¶

1 Q. Did L.M. fail to do anything that she had an 2 obligation, duty or responsibility to do — 3 MR. PIKE: Form. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. — that forms the basis for your claim against 6 her? 7 MR. PIKE: I apologize. Form. 8 THE WITNESS: Again? I'm sorry. Has she 9 failed to do? Can you repeat? :0 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. Yes, sir. Lawsuits are generally based, civil 12 lawsuits are generally based on a claim that someone has 13 done something that they shouldn't have done or failed 14 to do something that they should have done. 15 I asked you whether L.M. did anything that she 16 shouldn't have done and you asserted a Fifth Amendment 17 privilege in refusing to answer that question. 18 rm now attempting to find out whether L.M. 19 failed to do something that she should have done that 20 fonns the basis of your claims against her. 21 Did L.M. do anything that she should have done 22 that forms the basis of your claims against her? 23 MR. PIKE: Form. 24 THE WITNESS: On advice of Counsel, at least 25 today, Mr. Scarola, I'm going to have to refuse to¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 answer that question based on my Fifth Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did Brad do anything 'Statist 't have done that forms the basis of your Wont him? / MR. PIKE: Form THE WITNESS: Yes, many things.- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. List than for me, please. A. He has — he has gone to the media out of, l believe, in an attempt to gin up these allegations. He has contacted the media. He has used the media for his own purposes. He has brought discovery — he has engaged in discovery proceedings that bear no relationship to any case filed against me by any of his clients. His firm, which he's the partner of, has been accused of forging a Federal Juthriaature. Q. I want to know what Mr. MR. PIKE: One second. THE WONESS: Excuse me. Fm answering. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I want to know what Mr. did. I'm not asking you about allegations concerning his law firm.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR PIKE: Mr. Scarola, that's the second time that Fm going to ask you not to interrupt the witness when he's giving a response. He is giving a response. When he finishes his response, you can go on with your next question or you can -- you can elicit any sort of information you intend to elicit from the witness. MR SCAROLA: He's being unresponsive. MR. PIKE: No, that's your contention. MR SCAROLA: No, that's a fact. MR PIKE: And you can take it up with a Judge. And if we want to continue going back and forth end bantering, not allowing the witness to answer the question -- we're here for you today, for you to ask the questions and for you to get answers. But if you continue to banter with the witness and interrupt the witness, I will adjourn the deposition. This Is not proper and we certainly can take it up with the Judge. So that's the second warning, Mr. Scarola. Please — MR SCAROLA: How many do I get? MR. PIKE: I'm not sure yet today. ANC:: SCAROLA: Okay. PIKE: Okay? MR. SCAROLA: Good. Then let's move on.¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 MR PIKE: But I can tell you one thing: On a professional nature, just because you arc intemmting the witness and bantering with me, I will adjourn the deposition. BY MR SCAROLA: Q. Besides having gone to the media in an attempt to, quote, gin up, unquote, these allegations and engaged in what you contend to latitant discovery proceedings, what else did Mr. , personally, do that forms for this lawsuit? A. Mr. , personally, engaged with his partners, Scott Rothstein, who sits in a Federal jail cell, potentially for the rest of his life, he shared information, what I've been told and -- excuse me what I've read in the newspapers, 13 boxes of information that had my name on it, with other attorneys at his fun. He counseled his clients to maintain a position alleging multi-million dollar damages in order for them to scam local investors out of millions of dollars. He and his — many of his other partners already under investigation by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney have been accused by the U.S. Attorney of running a criminal enterprise.¶

1 Q. Anything else? 2 MR. PIKE: Form. 3 THE WITNESS: Not I can think of at the 4 moment. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. Okay. What media did Mr. go to? 7 A. I am aware of at least the Daily News in New 8 York City. 9 I have been told by other people that there 10 were other media, local media. 11. I've been told that the — his investigator 12 was senttollia to harass people representing 13 his — Brad investigator — representing 14 fictitiously, fraudulently that he %aim agent to 15 try to gather information for Mr. Claims. 16 Q. Does that have something to do with going to 17 the media? 18 MR. PIKE: Form. 19 THE WITNESS: I've answered your question. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 Q. Does the investigator going to California to 22 do something have something to do with the media? 23 A. I believe I've also told that you that he's 24 gone to the Daily News, sir; is that correct? 25 MR. PIKE: Form. Mischaracterizes the¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B .10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you understand the question you're supposed to be answering, Mr. Epstein? MR. PIKE: And I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question right now because as your Counsel I cannot let you answer that question until I understand what question is on the table. There's been a lot of bantering back and forth, so, Mr. Scarola, if you would respectfully repeat the question and then you may be able to ask him whether or not he understands the question. But I cannot allow him to answer a question that I don't understand is on the table. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What does an Si ator going to California have to do with lulu. going the mod in an attempt to, quote, gin up, unquote, these allegations? MR. PIKE: Please answer the question. THE WITNESS: Good. It's pan of Mr. IM scheme to involve people who have nothing to do with any of his cases in order to, in fact, go back media and gin up his stories and make false ns of people that have sexually charged \hit cases in order to attempt to fleece vestors, local investors out of millions of¶

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 Page 27 witness' testimony as well. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you understand the question that supposed to be answering? MR. PIKE: Well, let's go ahead and repeat). MR. SCAROLA: No, let's get ei teg6t an answer to that question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you understand the question you're supposed to be answering? A. When — MR. PIKE: I'm confused. Wait one second. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. PIKE: Fin confused as to what question is on the table. MR. SCAROLA: And when your deposition is being taken, your confusion is relevant and material. MR. PIKE: Right. And ifs - MR. SCAROLA: When Mr. — excuse me — when Mr. Epstein's deposition is being taken, I'm concerned with whether he understands the question being asked. MR PIKE: Right. So... BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 dollars. His firm has been accused by the U.S. Attorney of manipulating the media, by hiring investigators, by illegal wire taps, by illegal methods of eavesdropping in order to go to the media and generate cases BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. When did Mr. go to the Daily News? A. I don't know. Q. How did he go to the Daily News? A. I don't know. Q. What did he Daily News? A. I believe Mr. knows that. I don't know exactly what be said. Q. What is the source of your information that he went to the Daily News at all, ever? MR. PIKE: To the extent you can answer that question without violating any attorney/client privileges, you can answer the questions. THE WITNESS: It's attorney/client BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. You said you were told by other people that he went to other media representatives? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who are the other people that told you that?¶

1 A. I don't recall at the moment.
2 Q. What did these other people who you don't
3 remember tell you Mr. [REDACTED] did with respect to other
4 media representatives besides the Daily News?¶

5 A. Again, the question again?
6 Q. What did these other people tell you
7 Mr. [REDACTED] did with respect to going to other media?¶

8 MR. PIKE: Form.
9 THE WITNESS: Mr. [REDACTED] went to the media to
10 gin up his cases in order that the Rothstein firm
11 could generate profits, falsely taking in
12 investors, creating false stories to the local
13 medias and making statements to local press
14 regarding false claims made by his clients in order
15 that Scott Rothstein, who currently sits in jail,
16 could defraud, along with his other partners of his
17 firm, local Florida investors, Mr. Scarola, out of
18 millions of dollars.¶

19 BY MR. SCAROLA:
20 Q. When did these other people whose identity you
21 can't remember tell you these things that Brad [REDACTED]
22 did?¶

23 A. Sometime in the past year.
24 Q. How many other people were there who told you
25 these things about Mr. [REDACTED]?¶

1 A. I don't recall with specificity.
2 Q. Well, do you recall in any degree how many
3 there were?
4 A. I would say, probably five to ten.
5 Q. Where were you when these conversations took
6 place that you can't -- the identity of whose
7 participants you can't remember?¶

8 MR. PIKE: So we're clear, within the last
9 year -- correct? -- timewise?
10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's what your client
11 said. I don't believe a word he says, but that's
12 what he said.¶

13 MR. PIKE: Form. Objection. Overbroad.¶

14 THE WITNESS: Again, sir?¶

15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. Yes, sir. Where did these conversations with
17 these five to ten people take place whose identity you
18 can't remember?¶

19 MR. PIKE: Form.
20 THE WITNESS: On the telephone.¶

21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 Q. Who initiated the phone calls?
23 A. Sir, these questions, I have no -- I don't
24 have any recollection.
25 Q. Did the people who were on the phone identify¶

1 themselves or were these anonymous callers?¶

2 MR. PIKE: Form.
3 THE WITNESS: Sitting here today, Mr. Scarola,
4 I don't recall with specificity.¶

5 BY MR. SCAROLA:
6 Q. What specifically did Mr. [REDACTED] allegedly
7 communicate to the Daily News to, quote, gin up these
8 allegations, unquote?¶

9 A. The newspapers have quoted Mr. [REDACTED] -- not
10 quoted Mr. -- newspapers have made allegations referred
11 to as Mr. [REDACTED] statements.¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: Would you read the question
13 back, please, Sandy?¶

14 (Pending question was read.)
15 MR. PIKE: Did he answer your question?¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: No.
17 MR. PIKE: Are you asking him again?¶

18 THE WITNESS: So you're asking the question
19 again?¶

20 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

21 Q. Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Could you repeat the
23 question again?¶

24 (Pending question was read.)
25 THE WITNESS: He alleged that third parties¶

1 had already been involved in some allegations to do
2 with sexual misconduct.¶

3 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

4 Q. Which third parties?
5 A. I don't recall sitting here today.
6 Q. Involved how?¶

7 MR. PIKE: Form.
8 THE WITNESS: If I recall with specificity, if
9 I had the articles in front of me, I would be able
10 to recall. Maybe next time.¶

11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 Q. What does "gin up these allegations" mean?
13 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

14 THE WITNESS: It means craft allegations of
15 multi-million dollar cases; in fact, alleging in
16 L.M.'s case damages of $50-million, settlements in
17 order for Scott Rothstein and the rest of
18 Mr. [REDACTED] partners to fleece unsuspecting
19 investors out of millions and millions of dollars
20 based on cases that didn't exist or alleged cases
21 that I had settled.¶

22 Can I take a break?
23 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off video record, 10:50.
24 (Brief recess.)
25 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on video record at¶

10:57 a.m.¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q. Was your reference to, quote, gin up these 4 allegations, unquote, a reference to allegations made 5 against you?¶

6 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

7 THE WITNESS: As pert of the vast conspiracy 8 of the Rothstein firm and Mr. 9 participation in it, it has been alleged that many 10 cases were fraudulently brought alleged that 11 have been brought; ginned up, meaning, crafted, 12 multi-million dollar numbers put on cases in order 13 to fleece investors, where his Peltier, Scott 14 Rothstein, currently sits in jail for just those 15 purposes, Mr. Scarola.¶

16 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

17 Q. My question to you is: Did the reference to, 18 quote, gin up these allegations refer to allegations 19 against you?¶

20 A. Reported in the newspaper the answer is, yes. 21 And others, but specifically me, yes, by the newspaper 22 reports.¶

23 Q. Specifically what are Sity.tions the against 24 you which you contend Mr. ginned up?¶

25 A. I would lie to answer that question. A, many¶

10 11¶

12 for your lawsuit? specific discovery proceedings did Mriiallengage i in which you contend form the basis¶

13 A. The discovery proceedings of Singing my 14 attorneys to various people that had nothing to do with 15 any of his clients or these lawsuits.¶

16 Q. Which various people? Who?¶

17 MIL PIKE: Form. 18 THE WITNESS: For example, he tried to depose¶

19 Bill Clinton, strictly as a means of getting 20 publicity sothat he and his firm could 21 fraudulently steal, craft money from unsuspecting 22 investors in South Florida out of millions of 23 A damn.¶

24 ilar.MR.SCAFtOLA:¶

25 11, Who else besides Bill Clinton is included in¶

1 Q. I want to know whether when you use the phrase 2 "gin up" and the word "crafted," which you have told us 3 is synonymous with gin up, --¶

4 A. Yes.¶

5 Q. you mean fabricated?¶

6 A. I'm sorry. On advice of Counsel, sir, and 7 I've answered that question before, but if you didn't 8 bear me the first time. I must assert my Fifth, Sixth 9 and 14th Amendment Right.¶

1 of the files and documents that we've requested from 2 Mr. and the Rothstein firm are still 3 unavailable.¶

4 With respect to anything that I can 5 today, Pm, tmfortunately, going to have to, 6 Fifth Amendment on that, Sixth and 1¶

7 Q. You seemed to be defining 8 crafted; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct.¶

10 Q. Does ginned up or crafted mean fabricated? 11 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

12 THE WITNESS: Pm sorry, Mr. Scarola. I 13 understand that you are trying to back door your 14 way into a waiver of my Fifth Amendment. But 15 respect to that question, I'm going to have assert 16 my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th 17 Amendment Right.¶

18 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

19 Q. So you are asserting your Fifth Amendment, 20 Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment Right to remain 21 silent about what you mean when you use the words "gin 22 up" and "crafted;" is that correct?¶

23 A. I don't believe that was your question.¶

24 Q. Yes, sir, that's exactly my question.¶

25 A. Would you repeat the question for me?¶

your reference to various people?¶

A. There are people in California. There are people in New York.¶

Q. Would you name them for us, please?¶

A. I'm sorry. Sitting here today, Mr. Scarola, Fm going to have to assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment Right.¶

Q. Let's then talk about Bill Clinton, by whom1 assume you mean former President Clinton; is that cored?¶

A. That's correct.¶

Q. All right. Do you know former President Clinton personally?¶

A. I'm sorry. As I sit here today, though I'd like to answer that question, on advice of my Counsel, at least today, I'm going to have to take the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment.¶

Q. You said something about Mr. sharing 13 boxes of information with somebody —¶

A. Yes.¶

Q. — as forminSthe basis for your lawsuit against Mr. correct?¶

A. Correct.¶

Q. All right. With whom did Mr. share these 13 boxes of information?¶

in the Scherer Complaint rith the partners of his firm ied by the U.S. Attorney, prise. for purposes —¶

y question? e shared it with? rm, sir. basis of your lawsuit is embers of his own law firm to is that correct? My claim is that the were shown to investors by txes that we've been told by ises, fraudulently -- and if ed in order to fleece 13 boxes were shared with partners and some nder inditement, the others¶

er whether ginned up and you asserted your Filth¶

1 Amendment Right, sir. 2 Q. Your Complaint also makes reference to a claim 3 on behalf of Jane Doe, referred to as Jane Doe versus 4 Epstein, case number 08-CIV-80893, a case pendingin the 5 United States District Court for the Southern District 6 of Florida.¶

7 Is it your contention that the claim on behalf 8 of Jane Doe is a fabricated claim?¶

9 A. Sir, though I'd like to answer that question, 10 as well as every one of your other questions here today, 11 today I'm going to have to assert my rights as under the 12 Constitution of the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment.¶

13 Q. Do you know the real name of the person 14 referred to as Jane Doe in that case?¶

15 A. I don't know which — IM sorry, sir. I do 16 not, sitting here today.¶

17 Q. Did you ever have personal contact with the 18 person referred to by the name Jane Doe in that lawsuit?¶

19 A. I'm sorry, sir. Sitting here today, I'm going 20 to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment¶

21 Right. 22 Q. When did you first meet the person referred to`¶

23 as Jane Doe? 24 A. Sir, though I'd like to answer each and every¶

25 one of your questions here today, at least JfQth respect /AIL t Page 41¶

us that there were claims cated by Mr. n assert my Fifth, Sixth and r. :the newspapers are very bricated. aid which case was¶

said most of the cases weft Ilection. lint alleged many fabricated n cases do you¶

sted most of the ruptcy [WSW. We've been not given us the total file, al, 1 would have -- at the ;sat my Fifth, Sixth and 14th¶

wen questions about whether . was fabricated: is that¶

ry answered that, but, if r Fifth, Sixth and 14th¶

1 to that question, I'm going to a to assert my rights 2 wider the Sixth Amendment, Amendment and Fifth¶

3 Amendment 4 Q. Where did you fast person referred¶

5 to as Jane Doe? 6 A. Sir, though I'd like totinswer that question¶

7 here today, at least today on advice of Counsel, I'm 8 going to have to assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth¶

9 Amendment and 14th Amendment Right. 10 Q. How many times have you been in the physical¶

11 presence of the person referred to as Jane Doe? 'The person referred to as Jane Doe? 12¶

13 Q Yeah. How many times have you been in her 19 physical presence?¶

15 MR. PIKE: Form. \1; 3 THE WITNESS: At least — at least sitting¶

here today, Mr. Scarola, I'm going to have to 18 assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th¶

19 Amendment Right. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

21 Q. Did you ever have any physical contact with 22 Jane Doe?¶

23 MR. PIKE: Form. 24 THE WITNESS: Now, for this purposes. you're¶

25 assuming this Jane Doe is somebody I know? 1 don't¶

I¶

1¶

J¶

r. A. It has been reported 2 that he shared those boxes n¶

3 that was then formally aocw 4 sir, of being a criminal enter¶

5 MR. PIKE: And just¶

6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Do you remember in 8 A. You asked me who h¶

9 Q. Yes. 10 A. The partners of his fl¶

11 Q. Okay. So pan of the 12 that Mr. allowed m¶

see 13 boxes of information; A. No, that's not correct¶

13 boxes of information that Mr. n .partners, 13 N¶

17 the press contain multiple et 18 you like the word fabrica¶

The 20 Investors, Mr. 19 investors out of moo . Mr.¶

21 of those partners currently u 22 already sitting in jail.¶

23 Q. I had asked you earli 24 waited meant fabricated au¶

25 AmeuJu,at privilege.¶

1 Are you now telling 2 against you that were fabri¶

3 A. I'm going to again 4 14th Amendment Right, si¶

I would respond that 6 clear that the cases were fa¶

7 Q. Which newspaper 5 8 fabricated?¶

9 A. Bob Norman's Moe 10 fabricated, to my best reco¶

11 The Scherer Compla 12 cases, sir.¶

13 Q. Well, which of Mr. 14 contend were fabricated?¶

15 A. Again, we've reque 16 information from the bank¶

17 unable — Mr. has 18 but respect to any individu¶

19 moment I would have to as 20 Amendment claim, sir.¶

21 Q. So you will not ans 22 the claim on behalf of L.M¶

23 coital? 24 A. believe I've ahead¶

25 again, I'll have to assert my¶

1 think so, since this question snakes no sense to me¶

2 BY M:R. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q. You have alleged in your Complaint that there 4 is a claim on behalf of lane Doe versus Epstein pending 5 in the Federal District Court of the Southern District 6 of Florida.¶

t would like to know whether you ever had any 8 physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe 9 in that Complaint?¶

10 A. Alt, that Jane Doe. I'm sorry. But sitting¶

11 here today, Mr. Scarola. IM going to have to refuse to 12 answer that question based on the Fifth Amendment, Sixth 13 Amendment and 14th Amendment.¶

14 Q. Did you ever exchange any money or gifts with 15 Jane Doe?¶

16 A. Again, Mr. Scarola, sitting here today, Fm 17 going to have to on advice of Camsel assert my Sixth¶

18 Amendment, Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendment Right¶

19 Q. Your Complaint makes reference to a case¶

20 styled, E.W. versus Epstein, case number 21 502008CA02805/0OOOCMBAB, a case pending in the Circuit 22 Court of Palm Bach County, Florida.¶

23 Do you ICAOW who E.W. is?¶

24 A. Sitting has today, Mr. Scuola, I'm going to 25 have to assert my rights as under the Fifth, Sixth and¶

1 14th Amendment.¶

2 Q. Have you ever lamed the real name of E.¶

3 A. Yes, sir.¶

4 5 Q. Did that person whose real name ever spend any time in your physical pre¶

6 7 8 9 A. Sir, at least sitting here today, I would I to answer each and every one of your questions regarding your E.W. and — are we not allowed to use the names of these people, sir?¶

10 1.1 12 MR. PIKE: In the past in the past cases the names of these individuals have been utilized for deposition¶

13 14 15 Brad sitting here today, knows that we have used; however, any documents that are filed with the Court will redact those names.¶

16 17 18 19 So the answer to the question is, yes, for purposes of this deposition, to the extent you know the names of individuals you can utilize them with¶

20 21 22 : I have no problem with that. THE WITNESS: I think to avoid confusion, so there's not --1 know who you're talking about.¶

23 24 That's all. BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

25 Q. What is the real name of the person referred 3 4 S¶

7¶

to as E.W.?¶

A. I believe it is E.W.¶

Q. How long have you known E.W.?¶

A. Well, with respect to that question, Mr. Scarola, Pm going to have to assert my Filth. Sixth and 14th Amendment Rights, though I'd like to answer every, single question you have about E.W.¶

Q. How many times have you been in the physical presence of E.W.?¶

A. Pd like to answer every question about E.W. that you have today, Mr. Scarola; however, on advice of Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right.¶

Q. How old is E.W.?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. How old was she whist you met her?¶

A. Mr. Scarola, I'm going to have to assert my rights under the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment on advice of Counsel, though I would like to answer every one of these questions.¶

Q. Did you ever have any physical contact with¶

Mr. Scarola, once again, I would like to each one of your questions here today, but on of Counsel I'm going to have to assert my Fifth,¶

Sixth and 14th Amendment Right¶

Q. Did you ever exchange any money or gifts with E.W.?¶

A. Sir, I'd like to answer every question you have about E.W.; however, today, on advice of Counsel I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, sixth and 14th Amendment Right.¶

Q. Did you ever cause any money or gifts to be delivered to E.W.?¶

A. Mr. Scarola, as I've answered most of your questions here today regarding E.W., I would like to answer every question regarding E.W.; however, today, on advice of Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth. Sixth and 14th Amendment Right because though I would choose to do so, I've been told that if I do so, I risk losing my Counsel's representation.¶

Q. What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Relevance.¶

THE WITNESS: Sir, though Pd like to answer every question about E.W. and her claims and the claims of your other people, on advice of Counsel here today, I cannot do so. I must assert my rights under the Sixth, Filth and 14th Amendment.¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

1 Q. Would your answer be the same with regard to 2 1-14 and to Jane Doe? 3 MR. PIKE: Pm going to instruct you if your 4 answer is the same, to invoke in full. 5 THE WITNESS: With respect to, I believe, Jane 6 Doe -- and who is the other person? I'm sorry. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. L.M. 9 A. L.M. Though ra like to answer claims 10 with respect to all three of Mr. clients, on 11 advice of Counsel, at least today, Fm going to have to 12 invoke my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Rights. 13 Though I'd prefer to answer the question, I've been told 14 that if I choose to do so, I risk losing their 15 representation. 16 Q. Among those items listed by you as wrongdoing 17 on the part of Mr. forming the basis for this 18 lawsuit is that he, quote, counseled his clients to make 19 multi-million dollar claims against you; is that 20 correct? 21 MR. PIKE: Form. Document speaks for itself. 22 THE WITNESS: Document speaks for itself. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. I'm not asking about a document. I'm asking 25 you about the list of wrongdoing that you gave us during¶

1 A. No. I answered that question, which is, I'd 2 like to know. 3 Q. Yes. But that isn't an answer to nan. 4 My question is: By whom was Mr. 5 employed at the time that he initiated litigation 6 against you? Do you know the answer to that question? 7 A. I'd have no way of knowing the answer to that 8 question, sir. 9 Among the allegations of wrongdoing against 10 Mr. which you contend form the basis of this 11 lawsuit is something having to do with sending an 12 investigator to California. 13 Would you tell iz• lease, more specifically 14 what it is that Mr. EIMI did with regard to sending 15 an investigator to California whichotend 16 justifies a legal claim against Mr. 17 MR. PIKE: Form. And also mischaracterizes 18 the witness' testimony. 19 11 WITNESS: Reported widely in the 20 newspapers is the use of illegal activities, wire 21 taps. and methods by the Rothstein firm while 22 Mr, had basically been bringing these 23 eases. 24 The investigator, Mr. Fisten, who's mentioned 25 in the Complaint, represented himself as an FBI¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the cause of this deposition, which allege form the basis for your claim against Mr. Air contention that among those thinyrk, Mr. did that form the basis for your lawsuit to have counseled his clients to make multienlnione",) dollar claims against you? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: What the newspapefs have said is that the claims purported to have been made by the Rothstein firm and its partners allege multi-million dollar claims where no claims exist. However, respect specifically to my claim today, I'm going to have assert my Fifth. Sixth and 14th Amendment Right. MR. PIKE: Also, the question mischaraaerizes the witnesetestimony. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. By whom was employed when he initiated litigation against you? A. I would like to know the answer to that question. Q. So the answer to that question is,Idat't know? A. I would like — Q. Correct?¶

1 agent, falsely represented himself as an FBI agent. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of anything 4 that Mr. Fisten did while Mr. Fisten was in California? 5 MR. PUCE: To the extent that you can answer 6 that question without disclosing my conversation or 7 my firm's conversation or any of your attorneys' 8 conversations with you, you can answer the 9 question. 1.0 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Based on 11 attomeyfclient privilege, I can't answer. 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 Q. Is it your contention that Mr. 14 involved in an illegal wire tap? 15 A. It was widely reported in the newspaper — 16 Q. I'm not asking it was reported — 17 A. Excuse me. 18 Q. in the newspaper. 19 A. Excuse me. ²⁰q. I q,vant to know whether your contention is that 21 Mr. was involved in an illegal wire tap. 22 MR. PIKE: Try once again to answer that 23 question. 24 THE WITNESS: Ifs been widely reported in the 25 newspaper that his firm and his partners were was¶

1 involved in illegal wire taps, eavesdropping. hired 2 former FBI and law enforcement officials in order 3 to fabricate cases of a sexually charged nature 4 against me and others.¶

5 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

6 Wow have any personal knowledge of 7 Mr. ever having engaged in any illegal wire tap?¶

8 A. I have no personal knowledge; however, what I 9 read in the newspapers and is widely reported is that 10 his firm, and] believe Mr. Sakowitz went to the FBI 11 after he was told that the firm was engaged in illegal 12 wire taps and his partners were engaged in illegal wire 13 taps.¶

14 The FBI, the U.S. Attorney has accused his 15 firm of RICO, being the largest criminal fraud 16 enterprise in South Florida's history and engaged in 17 illegal wire taps. But the answer specifically to your 18 question about personal knowledge, sir, no.¶

19 . Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of 20 Mr ever having been involved in any illegal or 21 improper eavesdropping?¶

22 A. It's been widely r ed in the newspapers in 23 South Florida that Mr. firm, his partners were 24 involved in illegal wire taps, illegal fact gathering, 25 using what the newspapers quoted as sophisticated¶

1 Jeffrey Epstein, separate and apart from the 2 allegations of fraud by his partners, I cannot 3 answer that question because of attorney/client 4 privilege.¶

5 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

6 fi have l any personal knowledge that 7 was involved in any egregious civil 8 litigation abuses?¶

9 MR. PIKE: Form. Confusing.¶

20 THE WITNESS: Ws widely reported in the 11 newspaper that Mr. MI firm engaged in ■ 12 discovery processes, illegal activities, illegal 13 eavesdropping in order to fleece unsuspecting 14 investors in South Florida oat of millions in 15 dollars by crafting, fabricating malicious cases of 16 a sexually charged nature in order to perpetrate a 17 fraud.¶

18 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

19 20 Save any, personal knowledge that ever forged Federal Court Orders and/or 21 Opinion'?¶

22 A. It's attorney/client privilege.¶

23 ANDialave any personal knowledge that 24 was ever involved in the marketing of 25 nabffisting Epstein settlements?¶

Page 51¶

1 methods. Mr. Sakowitz, who was approached as an 2 investor, and Mr. Scherer, who's filed a Comp 3 alleges similar activities. But personal km:mi. 4 myself, sir, no.¶

5 6 Q. Do rothave oi any personal knowledge was ever involved in obstruct. 7 justice?¶

⁸MR. PIKE: To the extent that you can answer 9 that question without disclosing any 10 attorney/client communications with any of your 11 attorneys, you can answer that question.¶

12 THE WITNESS: Its attorney/client privilege, 13 I'm afraid.¶

14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 16 Q. Do have any personal knowledge that was ever involved in any actionable 17 frauds?¶

18 MR. PIKE: Same — same instruction, with any 19 of your lawyers.¶

20 771E WITNESS: Yes. Outside of the newspapers, 21 which have accused his firm of a monstrous fraud, 22 purported to be the largest fraud in South 23 Florida's history, accused by the U.S. Attorney 24 where his partner sits in jail -- excuse me — 25 reported in the newspapers of boxes of material on¶

MR.. PIKE: Same instruction. 771E WITNESS: I'm sorry. I would like to 3 answer that question, but on attorney/client 4 privilege I cannot today.¶

S BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

6 Q. It is alleged in your Complaint that you were 7 subject to, quote, abusive investigatory tactics.¶

8 Other than those matters previously t'kiled 9 to in earlietaistions, is it your contention that 10 had any personal involvement in any 11 other, quote, abusive investigatory tactics?¶

12 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

13 771E WITNESS: It's been widely reported In the 14 newspapers that Mr. II=1 firm was engaged in 15 widely — wildly abusive practices throughout the 16 State of Florida in order to fleece unsuspecting 17 investors out of millions of dollars.¶

18 The U.S. Attorney's Complaint alleges his fmn 19 engaged in a corrupt criminal enterprise.¶

20 Mr. Scherer's Complaint alleges monstrous 21 amounts of fraud and discovery abuse.¶

22 I have no personal Imowledgc, separate from 23 the attomey/clienigleged information, 24 regarding Mr.¶

25 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

sonal knowledge that legal papers that were ; to object to form. I can answer that question twenty/client y of your attorneys, I'm Aver that question. afraid it's attorney/client¶

rsonal knowledge that lved in any conduct that, a values of both State and outh Florida?¶

n you just ask — can you near by "personal¶

ee, hear, smell, taste, or skated to you directly and not bird person or newspaper ersonally involved in es of both State and Federal¶

1 were adversely affected by the misconduct that is the 2 subject of this Complaint," unquote.¶

3 Who are those hardworking and honest lawyers 4 that you are seeking to vindicate?¶

5 MR. PIKE: Form. 6 Give me a minute. What page of the Complaint¶

7 are you referring to? 8 MR. SCAROLA: Page 2.¶

9 MR. PIKE Give me one second. 10 THE WITNESS: Can we go off the record just¶

11 fora second? 12 MR. PIKE If it's okay with Mr. --¶

13 THE WITNESS: It's a bathroom break 14 MR. PIKE: There's a question pending and¶

15 'totally 16 THE WITNESS: Sorry.¶

17 MR. PIKE Just give me a second. 18 Okay.¶

19 THE WITNESS: Where is it? 20 MR. PIKE Ifs page 2 of the Complaint,¶

21 has my notes on it down here, the last sentence 22 And to the extent that you have lmowl¶

23 can answer that question, you can do so. 24 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the queitt:on¶

25 forme, sir?¶

pride?¶

II regard to s. Are you suggesting that cifically or things that 1 eifically relate to him, is • me for?¶

ly right.¶

tr something, that's not mi somebody else.¶

ear it from, besides¶

directly yourself.¶

only person, sir? pn that's correct.¶

person, separate from *mot answer that.¶

kes reference to a purpose in "vindicate the¶

vyers and their clients who¶

1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Yes, sir. Your Complaint makes reference to a¶

3 purpose in filing this lawsuit — 4 A. Yes.¶

5 Q. — to vindicate the hardworking and honest 6 lawyers and their clients who were adversely affected by¶

7 the misconduct that is the subject of this Complaint. 8 A. Yes, sir.¶

9 Q. Who are those hardworking and honest lawyer 10 on whose behalf you are bringing this Complaint?¶

11 MW PIKE: Okay. Form. Miseharacterizes the 12 Complaint itself.¶

13 To the extent you understand that question, 14 you can attempt to answer, if you recall.¶

15 - THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 The U.S. Attorney, sir, has accused the¶

Rothstein firm of misusing the entire legal system, 18 a level of abuse never seen before in the United¶

19 States history, of forging documents, an affront to 20 any decent lawyer, signing Judge's Orders, sending¶

21 false statements to other lawyers. The people who 22 have been — excuse me the Complaint by the U.S.¶

23 Anomey, in fact, describes the behavior of the 24 law .4s well as Mr. — my Complaint says,¶

25 Mr. being a part of that.¶

15 (Pages 54 to 57)¶

1 2 ire Pe ever filed any ever¶

3 4 MR. PIKE: I'm goin:¶

5 6 And to the extent yot without disclosing any a¶

7 8 communications with an going to allow you to an¶

9 10 THE WITNESS: Dr privilege.¶

11 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: O. o krouhave any ire¶

17 18 THE WITNESS: Ca define for me what you¶

19 20 knowledge," sir? BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

21 22 Q. Yes. Did you ever t touch anything that comma¶

23 24 throw that was;¶

25 compromising the core valu¶

Mr. was ever invo quote, compromised the ca¶

Federal justice systems in 5 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

1 justice systems in South Fl. 2 MR. PIKE Form.¶

3 Same instruction wit 4 attorney/client.¶

5 THE WITNESS: Ye 6 anyone who told me spe¶

7 might have mad that spa 8 not what you've been as¶

9 BY MR.. SCAROLA: 10 Q. Yes, sir, that's exact¶

11 A. You told me if I het 12 personal knowledge.¶

13 4 Not if you hear it fn 14 A. Who else would I b¶

15 somebody else, sir? 16 Q. Well, if you heard il¶

17 A. From who? 18 Q. Maybe Mr. Edward!¶

29 A. Uh-huh. Is that the 20 Q. That's the only pets,¶

21 A. Well, if it's the only 22 attorney/client privilege¶

23 Q. Your Complaint 24 filing this lawsuit to, quote,¶

25 hardworking and honest Is¶

Will in fact, :lauding¶

e to¶

U¶

d?¶

are¶

his working¶

id to the¶

age 61¶

th State icate eats who s the¶

88 aced to ocl their Suet¶

read ;lc ;, is¶

1 BY MR SCAROLA:¶

2 Q. Now, before you answered that question, you 3 reviewed a document, right?¶

4 A. The Complaint, sir.¶

5 Q. rd like to see it, please.¶

6 MR. PIKE: Definitely not, Mr. Scarola.¶

7 My notes are on that and that's 8 attorney/client. I allowed the witness to take a 9 look at the document and he did not write anything 10 on the document. He looked at the document. 11 That's my client. And you will certainly not be 12 looking at my notes, which are all over this 13 document.¶

14 MR. SCAROLA: He didn't look at everything. 15 He looked at one page. I would like that one page, 16 please.¶

17 MR. PIKE: Absolutely not, Mr. Scarola.¶

18 MR. SCAROLA: I would like that page marked as 19 an Exhibit to this deposition.¶

20 MR. PIKE: Absolutely not, Mr. Scarola.¶

21 MR. SCAROLA: I would state for the record 22 that it is my intention, since that page with witness during the course of this depositioppiNett o 23 handwritten notations on it was reviewed by a question was pending, I went that page¶

24 25¶

3 24 25¶

We have asked for Scott Rothstein's deposition. We hopefully will get it. Maybe he give us some insight on how other lawyers have, been handled and the abuses they've undergone, forging a Federal Judge's signature, sir.¶

Q. Now, was it your intention in this sentenc say that you were trying to vindicate the hardwor and honest lawyers and their clients?¶

A. Its attorney/client. I'm sorry.¶

Q. Your intention is attorney/client privilege¶

MR. PUCE: Form. I'm not quite —¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Is that what you're telling us?¶

10. PIKE: Wait a second. rm not quite a

I understand the question. THE WITNESS: What's the question?¶

MR. SCAROLA:¶

D. Were you attempting to communicate in t¶

taint a desire on your part to vindicate hard and honest lawyers and their clients?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

HIE WITNESS: In this Complaint, I inter get to the truth of Mr. Mt behavior and¶

Rothstein firm, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

1 so that the Court can make a determination as to 2 whether I am entitled to see it¶

3 MR. PIKE: I would object based upon 4 attomey/client and work product in that regard. 5 THE WITNESS: Now can we take a bathroom 6 break?¶

7 Wit SCAROLA: No, sir, because you still 8 haven't answered my question.¶

9 THE WITNESS: Okay.¶

10 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

11 / Q. I want to know who the, quote, "hardworking 12 l'and honest lawyers" are that are referred to in that 13 on of your Complaint.¶

4 I A. My attorneys, at least, are honest.¶

Q. Which ones?¶

A. All of them Q. And you say that you want to vindicate the 18 hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients?¶

19 A. That's correct.¶

20 Q. Which clients? 21 A. Me, some of the other clients, in fact abused¶

22 by the Rothstein firm. I don't know the full extent. 23 Hopefully when we get to trial, we're ping to find out 24 the extent of the I the lawyers, the clients that 25 were abused by Mr. and the Rothstein firm.¶

1 Q. Well, what this sentence says is, quote, 2 A. Yes.¶

3 Q. — "the Rothstein racketeering enterprise 4 endeavored to compromise the core values of hot 5 and Federal systems in South Florida and to vind 6 the hardworking and honest lawyers and their cli 7 were adversely affected by the misconduct that k 8 subject of this Complaint."¶

9 Is that what you meant to communicate?¶

10 A. It says what it says, sir.¶

11 Q. Well, I know it says what it says. rm tryi 12 to find out if that's what you meant to say; that is 13 that the Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeav 14 vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers en 15 clients who were adversely affected by the misc.( 16 that is the subject of this Complaint¶

17 MR. PIKE: Form. Mischaracterizes the 18 language of the document¶

19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think you've mis 20 that again. You want to — !certainly didn't as 21 for the Rothstein fine to vindicate the lawyer 22 what you've just -¶

23 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

24 Q. Well, that's what rm trying to find out, 25 whether you meant to say what you said in this Complaint.¶

Did you read the Complaint before it was filed?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. THE WITNESS: Thank you., sir.¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Did you read the Complaint before it was filed?¶

A. It was a while ago, yes, sir.¶

Q. And did you approve the Complaint prior to its filing?¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

Q. And did you mean to say what this sentence says, "the Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeavored to vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients, who were adversely affected by the misconduct that is the subject of this Complaint?'¶

MR. PIKE: Okay. I'm going to move to strike. Mischaracteriza the language of the document.¶

The document reads as follows, for purposes of the record: "The Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeavored to compromise the core values of both State and Federal justice systems in South Florida and to vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients who were adversely affected by¶

1 Q. Knowingly part of a criminal enterprise?¶

2 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

3 THE WITNESS: Attorney/client privilege.¶

4 5 MR. SCAROLA: You wanted to take a break and before I move on to another subject, we'll do that.¶

6 7 But I want — I want to observe for the record that¶

8 the last break was less than an hour ago. While I want to by to make reasonable accommodations to¶

9 10 witnesses so as not to impose unnecessarily upon their physical comfort, I will object to breaks¶

11 12 occurring at less than one hour intervals during the course of this deposition.¶

13 14 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now off video record-4 is 11:34 a.m.¶

15 16 (Brief recess.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on vi¶

17 18 record. It is 11:45 am. and we are on media h' numbs two.¶

19 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

20 21 Q. What knowledge do you have of Brad ever having personally engaged in mail fraud?¶

22 A. It's been widely reported in the press —¶

23 24 Q. I'm going to withdraw my question. What personal knowledge do you have of¶

25 ever having been engaged in any mail fraud?¶

the misconduct that is the subject of this Complaint?¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Is that what you meant to say?¶

A. What I meant to say, it is — seems to me somewhat unclear — is that the Rothstein firm, along with Mr. S is part of a criminal enterprise, the largest — excuse me the largest criminal enterprise in South Florida's history, forging Judges' si engaging in illegal wire taps, illegal behaviors. part of this lawsuit should vindicate, which means, believe should set right.¶

And if it's not clear, the Rothstein firm compromised the core values of our legal justice system. It abused every — many of the precepts, the most basic values of the American justice system.¶

And, in fact, I believe this lawsuit, part of the reason for filing this lawsuit, it will disclose the various techniques of attorney/client privilege, abuse of technique, abuse of discovery, illegal wire forging signatures engaged in by both Mr. and his firm.¶

Q. So it is your contention that Mr. part of a criminal enterprise? Was¶

A. Yes, it is.¶

1 2 A. Will you describe what you mean by "personal ledge," sir?¶

3 I mean direct observation through your senses Part.¶

9 10 witnessed ever having engaged in mail fraud.¶

11 12 13 A. I'm not sure how that's possible for anybody to witness a mail laud, so would you inform me how it's done?¶

14 15 Q. So the answer to my question is, you don't know; is that correct?¶

16 A. My answer to your question is —¶

17 MR PIKE: Form. Mischamcterion the¶

18 19 witness' testimony. THE WITNESS: I've asked for a clarification.¶

20 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

21 Q. Have you ever personally witnessed¶

22 23 engaging in mail fraud? MR. PIKE: Form.¶

24 THE WITNESS: No, sir.¶

25 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

7 'messed him sending something directly, putting physically in the mail, sir?¶

A. So are you asking me whether or not I've¶

Q. I'm asking whether you have ever personally¶

nally witnessed I in wire fraud? n not sure how anyone would lowledge, witness someone ss they were simply sitting at their bank accounts. So, to say, no, sir. Sly witnessed laundering?¶

ain, sir, the U.S. Attorney's :in firm alleges money nail fraud, RICO claims of id his firm, calling the enterprise in South of fabricating malicious hogged nature in order ,uth Floridians out of¶

id out, Mr. Epstein, ace whatsoever that y participated in any of that nation, to the extent you¶

1 payout settlement? 2 MR. PIKE: Form. 7 investors. 12 privilege. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Complaint?¶

3 THE WITNESS: I'd like to anausr that question 4 by saying that the newspapers have reported that 5 his firrn was engaged in fraudulent snuctured 6 settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida 8 With respect to my personal knowledge, I'm 9 unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward 10 to at some point being able to disclose it, today 11 I'm going to have to assert the attomey/client 14 Q. Your Complaint alleges that Rothstein and 15 others in RRA were using RRA to market investments. 16 Who are the others referred to in the 18 A. From my understanding of the U.S. Attorney's 19 Complaint, from Mr. Scherefs Complaint, it is the 20 partners and people who held themselves out to be 21 partners of the Roth — Scott Rothstein, including 22 Mr. Berger, Mr. Adler, Mr. and other oc 23 associated with the firm like Mr. Paten, Diane 1 24 M, if that's how you pronounce her mune, 25 Adler, and many of the other partners of its firm¶

olating attorney/client and nswer the question. I afraid it will be, sir.¶

idence — knowledge of any 4r. ever participated kind of investment in attomey/client¶

edge of any evidence ds was ever a participant ' ich were sold purported r a structured payout¶

I blogs have widely reported ted — would you repeat the¶

Cm sorry. now whether have any personally g a plan through which were assignments of a structured¶

Page 69¶

1 currently under investigation by either the Florida Bar 2 or the U.S. Attorney or FBI or all of the above, sir. 3 Q. Which — which source of information 4 referenced in that ansWer specifically made reference to 7 Q. But you do have a recollection that one or 8 more of them did; is that correct? 10 Q. So you want to withdraw the earlier hapunse ¹¹efkat you made and your real answer is, I don't know; is 1 MR. PIKE: Tfischaracterizes the witness' testimony. Move to strike. -7 A. My answer stays the same, sir. 18 Q. la it your contention that one or more 19 lawsuits was fabricated against you? 20 A. It's been widely reported in the newspapers — 21 Q. Tits not my question. 22 A. Excuse me. l was answering. 23 MR. PIKE: Please let the witness answer the¶

5¶

6 A. I don't recall, sir. 9 A. I don't recall, sir. 12 that correct? 1 Q. Your response, sir? 24 question, Mr. Scarola. 25 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

9 10 11 12', 15 6 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 Q. Havensu ever parse 2 Edward — engages 3 A. How would one 4 personal — have personal kr 5 engaging in wire fraud, unit 6 over their computer looking 7 unfortunately, I would have ⁸ ..Have you ever pale engaged in money MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Ag Complaint of the Rothste laundaivire fraud, n Mr. partners as firm the largest criminal Florida's history, accuser cases, sir of a sexually c to fleece unsuspecting S. millions of dollars. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. And I'm trying to fin whethisu have any nide Mr. ever personal! wrongdoing? MR. PIKE: To that q¶

can answer it without vi 2 work product, you can a 3 THE WITNESS: Frt. 4 attorney/client privilege 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. Do you have any ev 7 evidence whatsoever that I% 8 in any effort to market any 9 anything? 10 A. I would have to clai L1 privilege on that, sir. 12 MR. PIKE Form. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. Do you have know), 15 whatsoever that Mr. Edwar 16 devising a plan through wh 17 confidential assignments of 18 settlement? 19 A. Tlwapers am 20 that Mr. fimi cral 21 question for me, again, sir? 22 Q. Yes, sir. I want to li 23 knowledge of evidence that 24 ever participated in devisin 25 sold purported confidential¶

ering my question. y said three words, so you answering your question or¶

lidn't ask him anything about n about his contention. 1 airing my question.¶

id, Mr. Epstein, and you can more time. g to move to strike. u want to repeat the question?¶

ce to know whether it is more lawsuits have been¶

is that the firm of ithstein, fabricated many and the U.S. Attorney, others of a sexually charged rectors of South Florida out¶

spect to my individual filed in these three cases, I only today at least, on¶

1 potential defendants could be, in essence, blackmailed.¶

2 MR. PIKE: Would you identify for me, 3 Mr. Seattle, what page?¶

4 MR. SCAROLA: Page 8, paragraph 19.¶

5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. Did anyone ever sift through your garbage 7 looking for damaging evidence?¶

8 MR. NICE: One second.¶

9 In light of clarity. Mr. Scarola, would you 10 please read the entire paragraph so Mr. Epstein 11 understands the tenor of the paragraph?¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: No. I want to know whether 13 anyone ever sifted through Mr.EM'garbage-14 through Mr. Epstein's garbage. That's the pending 15 question.¶

16 MR. PIKE: To the extent you understand the 17 question, you can answer.¶

18 THE WITNESS: I think the question is poorly 19 phrased. Did anyone ever sift through my garbage? 20 What does that mean?¶

21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. You don't know what sifting through gar 23 means?¶

24 A. Does that mean the garbage man? 25 include the garbage man? Pm sure be silted¶

to have to assert my Fifth, sir.¶

limiting my question to i your Complaint. I want to hat any claim against you has¶

verbroad and confining and¶

question makes no sense to b better.¶

claim against you which¶

n going to have to h, Sixth and 1401 Ame¶

A.¶

that was manufacturing false and/or r Orders? tege.¶

es reference to someone ifendant's garbage looking e with investors to show how 1 garbage.¶

2 Q. Which garbage man sifted through your garbage? 3 A. I'm sure people who go through garbage sift¶

4 through the garbage. I have no idea. 5 Q. Did anyoneever sift through your garbage 6 looking for damaging evidence?¶

7 A. It's been widely reported in the newspapers, 8 sir, that the Rothstein firm engaged in sifting through 9 many peer/garbage in order — in an attempt to 10 blackmail them.¶

11 ( ,9. Yea. But 1 didn't ask you what some newspaper 12 is alleged to have reported.¶

13 What I did ask you is whether anyone ever 1 fted through your garbage looking for damaging¶

evidence. And the answer to that question, I think, can 17 be either yes, no, or I don't know.¶

18 MR. PIKE: Move to strike. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

20 Q. Or you could refuse to answer it on the 21 grounds that it may tend to incriminate you.¶

22 A. I think you might —¶

23 MR. PIKE: Move to strike.¶

24 THE WITNESS: I would like to answer my own 25 questions. If you'd like to answer all my¶

19 (Pages 70 to 73)¶

1 Q. No, you're not ansv¶

2 MR. PIKE: He's onl 3 don't know whether he't 4 not.¶

5 MR. SCAROLA: I i 6 newspapers. I asked hii¶

7 don't know he's not ens¶

8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. But you can go she¶

10 make your silly speech one 11 MR. PIKE: rm goin¶

12 THE WITNESS: Yc¶

13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. Yes, sir. I would Iil¶

15 your contention that one or 6 fabricated against you.¶

17 18 A. contention, sir,¶

' partners, Scott RA 19 cases, reported by the prey¶

20 amongst people like me am 21 nature in order to fleece im¶

22 of millions of dollars.¶

23 Do I Intaggaith 24 cases that MIS has¶

25 I'm unfortunately today, am¶

advice of Counsel I'm going Sixth and 14th Amendment,¶

Q. Okay. Well, ltn not¶

the three cases referenced it know whether you contend I¶

been fabricated?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. O it's compound.¶

THE WITNESS: 11w me. Fin sure you could¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Is there any pending you contend is fabricated?¶

A. At least today, sir, 15 respond by asserting my Fitt¶

Right.¶

MR. PIKE: Form, alt BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Is it your contention ever personally involved in¶

fraudulent Court Opinions o¶

A. Attomey/cliau privi Q. Your Complaint mat¶

sifting through a potential di for damaging evidence to us¶

(561) 832-7500¶

xirsonal vhich 1 duct testion Be¶

4¶

moot¶

e¶

hing¶

your /our¶

thing the¶

that yore¶

nlits le about had¶

he U.S. at¶

4 rf¶

dwards¶

ponsive¶

t:¶

d for Bents,¶

ra. Sdwards¶

7 8 MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: 1 don't know.¶

10 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did you eves have damaging evidence in your garbage?¶

12 13 14 A. What's damaging evidence, sir? Q. Evidence tending to implicate you in criminal conduct.¶

15 16 MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: At least today, Mr. Scarola,¶

1 questions, Mr. Scarola, Pm more than happy to sit 2 here and answer them. Would you like to continue?¶

3 BY MR.. SCAROLA: 4 Q. Yes. I'd like to know what the answer to that 5 question is. Did anyone ever sift through your garbage 6 looking for damaging evidence?¶

17 with these — with your questions and your claims 18 and your defense of Mr. and his firm, the 19 Rothstein firm, while his partner sits in jail, 20 today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth 21 and 14th Amendment Right, sir.¶

22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. Did you ever have any evidence in your-Cal:4e,¶

24 that would subject you to blackmail? 25 MR. PIKE: Form. Same —Me objection. 1 You've been interchanging knowledge with 2 knowledge. And many of the objections to • 3 am asserting an attorney/client and work pre 4 privilege are based upon your malphrased m 5 and use of personal knowledge and knowled 6 interchangeably with those questions.¶

7 So if you want to rephrase your question 8 attempt to click a response -- let me finish - 9 then I have no objection to that. However, I 10 going to sit here and allow my client to wah 11 attorney/client and work product.¶

12 Now, to the extent you're saying Fm coat 13 the witness, r object to that because I am 14 certainty not. The witness is here to answer 15 questions and I believe has been answering 16 / questions today to the best of his ability.¶

17 1' MR. SCAROLA: I am saying you're cow 18 witness.¶

19 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Could you answer the question?¶

MR. PIKE: Same objection. THE WITNESS: You'll have to repeat it¶

BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 is Do have any information indicating¶

25 ever had any knowledge of an¶

Page 75¶

1 THE WITNESS: Again, Ill respectfully answer 2 the question by asserting my Fifth, Sixth and 14th¶

3 Amendment Right 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

5 Q. Your Complaintinparagmph 21, page 9, says 6 that "Upon information and belief, Rothstein, David¶

7 Boden, Debbie. Andrew Barnett, Michael Finest 8 and Kenneth Jenne, all employees of RRA, through brokers¶

9 or middle men would stage regular meetings during which 10 false statesibents were made about the number of¶

sdaesiclialtidtst existed or RRA had against Epstein 12 farid the value thereof"¶

13 Do you have any knowledge that Mr. 4 4 knew about such meetings being conducted?¶

MR. PIKE: Form. To the extent you understand the question and¶

it will not violate any attorney/client or work B product privilege information, you can answer that¶

19 question. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Pike, it has become evident¶

21 that that speaking instruction to your witness is 22 an instruction for him to assert an attorney/client¶

23 privilege, regardless of whether it is or is not 24 valid and I object to it.¶

25 MR. PIKE: Let me make the record clear.¶

1 2 3 4 associated with the Rothstein (inn holding meeti during which, quote, "false statements were mad the number of cases/clients that existed or RRA against Epstein and the value thereof," unquote?¶

5 6 MR. PIKE: Form. Same objection. THE WITNESS: My best recollection is I¶

7 8 Attorney has accused the Rothstein firm ofju those types of meetings where the partners gc¶

10 together, schemed to defraud local investors millions of dollars by fabricating cases of a¶

1/ 12 sexually charged nature. And whether Mr. E personally participated, Cm going to at least¶

13 14 today, sir, have to assert the attorney/client privilege, but look forward to one day disclos¶

15 16 it MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike all urtrw¶

17 18 portions of the answer. BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

19 20 Q. Paragraph 23 of our Complaint says the "RRA, Rothstein and, claiming the nee¶

21 22 anonymity with regard to existing or fabricated c they were able to effectively use initials it_" et cete¶

23 24 Do you have any knowledge that fabricated a client to bring a claim against you?¶

25 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

1 THE WITNESS: I believe Mr. Scherer's 2 Complaint — 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Q. I'm not asking about Mr. Scherefs Complaint. 5 I'm asking about any evidence that you have. 6 MR. PIKE: The witness is basically been five 7 words into his sentence and you're not allowing him 8 to finish, once again. 9 So if you recall the question, then please 10 respond. 11 THE WITNESS: Please repeat it back, please? 12 MR. PIKE: Madame Court Reporter, if you 13 would. 14 (Pending question was mad.) 15 MR. PIKE: Form. 16 THE WITNESS: The pleadings of Mr. Scherer and 17 his claim against the Rothstein (inn for a massive 18 fraud, as well as Mr. Sakowiiz's claims to at 19 least in the described in the public press, 20 because he wan to the FBI, for fabricating cases 21 that included initials. 22 WitAiect to anything specific with 23 Mr. , I'm going to have to claim the 24 attorney/client privilege today, sir. 25 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you have any --do you have know] e of the existence of any evidence that that Rothstein was utilizing RRA as a front for scheme? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: That's attorn privilege. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you have knoclicl i?fany evidence that would indicate should have known that Rothstein was utilizing RRA as a front for a Ponzi scheme? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: At least today — MR. PUCE: Wait. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. PIKE: Form. Same objections. Same attorney/client, work product as to the last question. Same objections here, attorney/client work product THE WITNESS: And today I'm going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege. MR. PIKE: To the extent you can answer that question — THE WITNESS: I understand.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 ti MR. PIKE: — then, please, — THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. PIKE: — answer Mr. Scarola's question. THE WITNESS: Separate from -- MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Coaching the wimess. THE WITNESS: Separate from the corrununication I've had with my attorneys, I can't answer that question. MR. PIKE: Mr. Seaton, Pm confused. I started objecting to form in the beginning of this deposition. You then instructed me, which is against the rules, Mr. Pike, I don't know what's wrong with the form. I object to you objecting to form. Then I assert theattorney/drag, work product, and now you're telling me I'm coaching the witness. So tell me, Mr. Soarola, whet is the — what is the smythat you would like me to object in this deposition, and maybe I can conform that way for width may or may not be consistent with the ida Rules of Civil Procedure. SCAROLA: Mr. Pike, — 5k MR. PIKE: Yes, sir.¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: - if you don't know the difference between a form objection and a privilege objection — MR PIKE: Right MR. SCAROLA: — then this deposition is not the proper context in which for you to learn the difference between a form objection and a privilege action. MR. PIKE: I'm pretty clear on what a form objection is and what a privilege objection is and I'm pretty knowledgeable on that. The problem — MR. SCAROLA: Then we don't need to engage in any further discussion. MR. — I want to by to make the record clear, because initially you didn't want me to object to form. You wanted me to speak. So I'm thinking you're conceding to that point. What my question is, is: What's wrong with my objecting to attorney/client, work product? So I guess Pm asking you what you were asking me earlier on. What's wrong with the form? We can just move forward. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. In your lain identify the RRA law firm, Rothstein and as the, quote, "litigation¶

1 team; unquote. 2 You then go on to say in paragraph 31 of your 3 Complaint at page 12 that: "Rothstein and the 4 litigation team" — 5 MR. PEKE: Wait a minute. Put that down for a 6 second. Hold on. 7 THE WITNESS; You can read it. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. "Individually and in a concerted effort may 10 have unethically and illegally engaged in certain 11 specified conduct" 12 May we correctly conclude from that statement 13 that you don't have any knowledge as to whether the, 14 quote, "litigation team," including Mr.M, engaged 15 in any unethical and illegal conduct? 16 MR. PIKE: For now, while Pm reviewing the 17 document itself, I'm just going to just tell you to 18 hold off — 19 THE WITNESS: Sure. 20 MR. PM. — on answering that question. 21 You may want to go off the record, so we don't 22 have a lag in — 23 MR. SCAROLA: No, rd l0ce it on the record. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. PIKE: Mr. Scare's, did you bring an extra¶

1 individually and personally, sold, allowed to 2 be sold and/or assisted with the sale of an interest in 3 non-settled personal injury lawsuits? 4 MR. PUCE: Before you answer that question, 5 Madame Court Reporter, will you please read that 6 question back to me? 7 (Pending question was read.) B MR. PIKE: To the extent you can answer that 9 question without divulging attorney/client or work 10 product information, you may answer that question. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Coaching. 12 THE WITNESS: You said, allowed to be sold. 13 rm going to assert attorney/client privilege to 14 the answer, I'm afraid, but rd like to answer that 15 question. 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Q. Do youjimslips . of any evidence 18 indicating that ever reached agreements 19 to share attorney's fees with non-lawyers? 20 MR. PIKE: I'm sorry. Mr. Scarola, can you 21 tell me what page of the Complaint you're referring 22 to, if you are? 23 NiMR. SCAROLA: I'm not referring to any page of 24 the Complaint, although I will tell you that that 254). ise allegation is made in the Complaint.¶

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 copy of the Complaint that you're questioning Mr. Epstein on for Mr. Epstein to look at? MR. SCAROLA: No. MR. PIKE: Okay. I'm going to have to go get him a copy so he can the paragraphs of this Complaint are very long and the Complaint i in excess of — it was approximately 33 pages, MR. SCAROLA: I'll withdraw the question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you have any evidence that Brad sold, allowed to be sold and/or assisted with the sale of an interest in non-settled personal injury lawsuits? MR. PIKE; Form THE WITNESS: The newspapers have widely reported that the Rothstein firm engaged in illegal structured settlements of cases of a sexual nature, including specificallxt me. We have subpoenaed the documents from Mr. MM and his firm and we have not been able to get them as of yet am confident that once we do, I will be able to answer your questions with more specificity. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. As you sit here today, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support an assertion that¶

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: In fact, Mr. Scarola, we have subpoenaed Mr.EM' documents and documents from his fro that I believe will, in fact, give me more specificity with the answers to that question. I'm looking forward to getting the — that specific evidence. With respect to what we currently know, sitting here today, I'm unfortunately going to have to claim my attorney/client privilege. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do yoifila ihave evidence to support an assertion that ever used investor money to pay L.M., E.W., and/or Jane Doe up-front money, such that they would refuse to settle civil actions? MR. PEKE: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: You'll have to get — I need to hear the first part of the question. Do 1 have any evidence? Do I have knowledge of evidence? rm sorry. What was the — BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you have knowledge of any evidence to support that assertion? MR. PIKE: To the extent you can answer that question without violating attomey/cliart, work product, please do so.¶

1 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Coaching. 2 THE WITNESS: Fm going to have to assert the 3 attomey/client privilege, Pm afraid, though N 4 like to answer that question as well, sir. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. Do you have all iance to support the 7 assertion that conducted searches, wire 8 taps or intercepted conversations in violation of State 9 or Federal laws and Bar rules? 10 A. Yaestion, once again, asked did Mr. — 11 was Mr. personally involved in the 12 eavesdropping? Did he walk to someone's house and sort 13 of put a bug in their house? Did he, personally, stand 14 outside? 15 The question is, did Mr. =11m) engage 16 in this behavior in an attempt to defraud local 17 investors out of millions of dollars? The U.S. attorney 18 has filed a Complaint saying that they did. The 19 Complaints filed by Scherer saying that his firm did. 20 The Scherer Complaint says my name and the 21 boxes of files that we've subpoenaed used my name, sir. 22 We have requested information, but up until 23 today have not received any. 24 To give you a more specific answer, Irm afraid 25 I cannot¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To the extent ybu can answer the question without disclosing attorney/client or work product information, do so. THE WITNESS: The pleadings of Mr. Scherer with respect to the largest Porui scheme in South Florida's history engaged in by Mr. finn and Scott Rothstein, who currently sits in jail, probably for the rest of his life for engaging in, not only illegal wire taps and eavesdropping, but an abuse of the entire legal system, l believe speaks for itself. Unfortunately, with Wain( to Mr. today, Itin going to have to alert the attorney/client, work privilege, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is it your contention that Mr. Scherer's Complaint even contains the name A. I don't recall, sir. Q. Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger? MR. PIKE Form. Relevance. THE WITNESS: At least — I would like to each and every one of your questions here \40 , Mr. Scarola. But at least today, I'm going have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ..Dirilave knowledge of any evidence that ever conducted searches, wire tam Page tlt's?" intercepted conversations in violation of State Federal laws and Bar rules? MR. PIKE: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: The AttomSISt,mplaint widely Mr. firm and people hired firm, investigators hired by his lint fraudulently representing themselves as IlBfagents engaged in just those activities, sir. BY MR- SCAROLA: l i t you any knowledge of any evidence that was ever aware of any such activities? A. I'm going to have to -- MR. Pr: Same objection. THE WITNESS: - assert the attorney/client privilege to that, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you have any knowledge that ever participated in or was aware of actions that utilized the judicial process, including, but not limited to, unreasonable and unnecessary discovery for the sole purpose of furthering a Ponzi scheme? MR. PIKE: Same objection.¶

Page 89 Amendment Rights as provided by the U.S. Constitution. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Q. Does a flight log kept fora private jet used 5 by you contain the names of celebrities, dignitaries or 6 International figures? 7 A. At least today, sir, I'm going to have to 8 respectfully decline to answer based on my Fifth, Sixth 9 and 14th Amendment Right, though I'd like to answer that 10 question. 11 Q. Have you ever had a personal relationship with 12 Donald Trump? 13 A. What do you mean by 'personal relationship," 14 sir? 15 Q. Have you socialized with him? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. Yes? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in 20 the presence of females under the age of 18? 21 A. Though I'd like to answer that question, at 22 least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth 23 and 14th Amendment Right, sir. 24 Q. Have you socialized with Alan Dershowitz? 25 A. Yes, sir. He's my attorney, as well as a¶

1 friend. 2 Q. Have you ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz 3 in the presence of females under the age of 18? 4 MR. PIKE: Form. 5 THE WITNESS: Sir, at least here today, I'm 6 going to have to assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment Rights. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Have you ever socialized with Tommy Mottola? 10 A. This is the type of questions where people who 11 have nothing to do with this case whatsoever have been 12 brought into the case by Mr. in an attempt to 13 simply imperil my relationships with social friends and 14 serves as anale of why this case has been brought 15 against Mr. and his firm, sir. 16 MR. PIKE: Form as 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Well, do you know who brought those persons' 19 names into this lawsuit? 20 MR. PIKE: Form. 21 And just to be dear, what Mr. Scarola, I 22 believe, talking about this lawsuit, Epstein versus 23 RRA? 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 25 Q. Yes, sir, that's the lawsuit fm tenting¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 this — just this type of behavior, the answer is, today, et leasci must assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right, though I'd lila to answer each and every one of your questions, Mr. Scarola. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Have you had a social relationship with David Copperfield? A. Asa reaction to, once Win, the abusive discovery process of bringing in names of peo i le t )at . have absolutely nothing to do with any of Mr. Mr. Rothstein's or their clients' claims, by bringing in the names of friends of mine strictly in an attempt to stress my relationships, imperil mybusiness relationships, I'm going to say, yes, I do know Mr. Copperfield. Q. Have you ever socialized with David Copperfield? A. Again, as — MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Sony. ra a typical M.Rothstein strategy of rug to involve well-known people in maliciously 'rated cases in order to fleece investors out •ASik if millions of dollars. They brought up names in attempts at abuse of discovery process to try and¶

1 about. The one in which your deposition is being talc Page ; 2 today. 3 Do you know who brought those 4 into this lawsuit? 5 A. As a reactiotband only as a reaction to 6 misbehavior on Mr. part, and the Comp 7 obviously written by my attorneys, sir. 8 Q. So you know that those names are in your 9 Complaint, right? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Okay. So because those names are in your 12 Complaint, Fm asking you about the people you named. 13 Have you had a social relationship with Tommy 14 Mottola? 15 A. The names in my Complaint are strictly as a 16 reaction to the abusive discovery process by 17 Mr. M. his pumas, Scott Rothstein, who sits in 18 jail, in an attempt to imperil my friendships. 19 But, yes, I have socialized with Mr. Mottola. 20 Q. Have you ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in 21 the presence of females under the age of 18? 22 MR. PIKE: Form. 23 THE WITNESS: At least today, the typical to 24 the contagion of bringing cases of a 25 malicious nature where his partner sits in jail for¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 take discovery of people who have nothing to do with this case. Did I socialize with David Copperfield? The answer is, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Did you ever socialize with David Copperfield in the presence of females under the age of 18? A. tin suretahi t s question is a typical question of Mr. othstein scheme to defraud investors, asking questions knowing it serves no purpose or relationship relevance to their case whatsoever. At least today, though I'd like to answer that question, on advice of my Counsel, and only on advice of my Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right. MR. PIKE: Form as well. BY MR. SCAROLA: Bill . Have ou ever had a social relationship with Governor of New Mexico end formerly U.S. Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: As is typical of the scheme, along with his partner, Scott Rothstein. who sits in jail, what they attempted to do was¶

'or celebrity I might have known, in people, in an attempt to strictly relationships with these people where >le have no bearing whatsoever on any of 'IS Of cases. So have a social relationship.¶

IROLA: you ever socialized with Mr.¶

of females under the age of 18? RE: Form. ffTNESS: Again, typical of the tothstein scheme of bringing in well-known¶

■ them ridiculous questions, questions in an attempt strictly to r relationships with these people where absolutely nothing to do with anything to 'wards, Rothstein or any of their alleged e answer to your question is, yes, I lized.¶

'ROLA: out that wasn't my question. *non was: Have you ever socialized lards in the presence of females under the¶

ICE: Form.¶

1 2 3 question, I'm told by my Counsel that if I choose to do so, which is my preference. I risk losing their representation.¶

4 5 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. How many children have you sexually abused? MR. PIKE: Form.¶

7 And I just want to be clear on the record.¶

8 10 11 12 13 14 These types of questions are argumentative and harassing. And, moreover, it's my contention that these types of questions are not related to this lawsuit by any stretch of the imagination. In this deposition, while rve been liberal in allowing these questions, are being utilized in an attempt to provoke a waiver of the Fifth Amendment Right.¶

15 16 There has been an Order entered by, ! believe, Judge Hafele regarding these types of questions.¶

17 18 19 20 So with that caution, Mr. Scarola, I would ask you that you refrain from asking abusive and harassing questions that are not relevant to this¶

21 22 23 24 MR. SCAROLA: Well, it's very interesting that you claim they're not relevant when they are directly taken from the allegations in your Complaint.¶

25 And I agree with you that they are not¶

ITNESS: In response to your question, WI answer was, typical of the othstein scheme to ask questions of a gal nature, crafted cases, the U.S. is called his fuze the largest fraud in r, fleecing investors out of millions of engaging in just these types of¶

Though I would like to answer each and ion about every one of these people, on ft Counsel today, ! must take — assert mendrnan, Sixth Amendment and 14th it Right. Though Pd prefer to answer the was told that if I choose to do so, I their representation, sir.¶

ROLA: ou ever sexually abused chi LE: Form.¶

TNESS: On advice of Counsel, and only s of Counsel, though I'd like to answer n, as well asaother one of your gbt by Mr. and his partner, who s in jail, sir, I would like to answer ens. But today at least, I have to at Amendment, 14th Amendment and Fifth t Right. Though I'd prefer to answer the¶

1 2 3 4 relevant because there is no basis whatsoever for this claim against Mr. Edwards. But since you've made these baseless allegations, l am obliged to pursue the allegations by asking these questions.¶

5 6 7 Sowell move on from there. And whenever you f think its appropriate to terminate this deposition because you believe that Fve acted inappropriately, be my guest.¶

9 10 MR. PIKE: I appreciate your invitation, \Z s" Mr. Scarola.¶

11 I'm going to move to strike.¶

12 14 The fact is, Mr. Scarola, is that, these types of questions have already been ruled upon as being argumentative and harassing.¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 If you want to direct some questions relevant to your lawsuit, I invite you to do so. But attempting to use this deposition process as a mechanism to provoke a waiver of the Fifth Amendment and to obtain information that is more or potentially more relevant to Mr. cases in which he is lead Counsel on, [think is improper.¶

22 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

23 24 25 Q. Did you have staff members that assisted you in scheduling appointments with underage females; that is, females under the age of 187¶

25 (Pages 94 to 97)¶

1 2 3 4 5 bring in a imperil m these pea their Wain¶

6 Yes, I¶

7 8 BY MR. SC, Q. Have¶

9 in the presen¶

10 MR. P¶

11 THE V¶

12 13 people, as¶

14 ridiculous¶

15 imperil nr¶

16 17 they have do with Et¶

18 victims, ft¶

19 have sods¶

20 21 BY MR. SC/ Q. Yes,1¶

22 My qui¶

23 with Mr. Rid¶

24 25 age of IS? MR. PI¶

1 THEW¶

2 3¶

4 AR sexual char¶

5 Attorney hi¶

6 7 U.S. histor dollars by e¶

8 questions.¶

9 every quest¶

10 11 advice of it my Fifth A:¶

12 Amendmes¶

13 question, l¶

14 15 risk losing BY MR. SCA:¶

16 Q. Hovey¶

17 MR. PI?¶

18 19 THE WI upon advio¶

20 that questic¶

21 claims brow¶

22 23 currently si those quest¶

24 assert my S¶

25 Amaidmen¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 MR. SCAROLA: Uh-huh. 2 MR. PIKE: Okay. Do you have an objecti 3 us taking a quick bathroom break and — 4 THE WITNESS: I'll just walk out 5 MR. SCAROLA: If Mr. Epstein 6 the bathroom, Mr. Epstein needs to 7 bathroom. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 9 MR. PIKE: Then we're off the record? YIDEOGRAPFIER: Were off the record. (Brief recess.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back at video record at 12:43 p.m. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I think when we went off the record you had requested that the last answer that you gave and the question asked of you based on that answer be read back, so we'll start there. MR. PIKE: Madame Court Reporter. (Previous question and answer were read.) THE WITNESS: Sounds like a complete answer to me. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. No, sir. My question to you farming that answer was: Who are the others to whom you made¶

1 A. So along with nutty of the other claims that 2 the Rothstein firm crafted with malicious claims against 3 people like me and others of a sexually charged nature 4 In order to simply fleece investors out of millions of 5 dollars in South Florida, these types of questions, 6 though I'd like to answer today, at least this specific 7 question, I'm going to have to assert, unfortunately, my 8 Fifth, Sixth and 14th Anukinsurt Right, though I'd prefer 9 to answer the question. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. Who are the others referred to in that 12 response? 13 A. Again, sir? 14 Q. You said you and others. Who are the others 15 that you were referring to? 16 A. You'll have to read my answer back. 17 MR. PIKE: Pm sorry. Madame Court Reporter, 18 would you please read the witness' answer back? 19 THE WITNESS: You'll have to — I have to mice 20 a bathroom break. 21 MR. PIKE: Actually I don't one second. 22 For the record, we're going on 12:30 now. Is 23 there — do you have a time frame as to when you — 24 MR. SCAROLA: About a half hour. 25 MR. PIKE: You have a half hour left?¶

1 reference in that response? You said, "me and others." 2 Who are the others? 3 A. Can you repeat where it says me and others? 4 I'm sorry. 5 MR. SCAROLA: Read it back again, please. 6 Sandy. 7 (Answer was read.) 8 THE WITNESS: The others are people reported 9 in the press to be many people in South Florida who 10 were the victims of the Rothstein scam. 11 I'm glad I'm happy to answer the others. 12 rd like to know the others. In fact, we've 13 subpoenaed documents from the bankruptcy trustee of 14 Brad M' firm in an attempt to find out more 15 details of the others that you've just asked about. 16 People — I believe the Attorney Scherer has 17 filed a Complaint for some of the others who have 18 been defrauded, as well as some of the investors 19 who were told about many others, sir. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 So you don't know any names; is that correct? 22 /MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike. 23 scharacterizes the witness' testimony. 24 THE WITNESS: Pm sure that's an — it's an 2 way of saying that as a response to the¶

1¶

questions and subpoenas we've asked Mr. to produce so we can find out the specific names of the others who have been — the U.S. Attorney has claimed have been blackmailed and victims of the Rothstein firm. I'd be happy, and hopefully at the end of this trial everyone will know some of the names of the others, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you know the names of any of the others? A. No, sir, I do not. However, the U.S. Attorney, we believe, is Ass Lo file more charges against Mr. Roth — Mr. partners. And Mr. Scherer and us have subpoenaed the bankruptcy trustee for the names of the others. So sitting here today, I do not. Hopefully sometime before trial we will have names of the others, sir. Q. Have you ever pled guilty to any criminal wrongdoing? A. Yes, sir. Q. What criminal wrongdoing did you plead guilty to? A. A solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution, sir.¶

1 2 Q. On how many occasions did you solicit prostitution?¶

3 A. Under — excuse me? Again?¶

4 5 Q. On how many occasions did you solicit prostitution?¶

6 7 8 A. At least sitting here today, I'm going to have to, on advice of Counsel, assert my Fifth Amendment, 16th Amendment (sic) and Fourth (sic) Amendment Right.¶

9 10 Q. On how many occasions did you plead guilty to soliciting prostitution?¶

11 A. Once, sir.¶

12 13 Q. How many acts of solicitation of prostitution did you plead guilty to?¶

14 A. Three.¶

15 16 Q. What are the names of the individuals who you pled guilty to soliciting as prostitutes?¶

17 A. I do not know.¶

18 Q. When did those acts occur?¶

19 A. I do not )(now.¶

20 Q. How many prostitutes have you solicited?¶

21 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

22 23 THE WITNESS: On advice of Counsel, at least sitting here today, sir, I'd like to answer each¶

24 one of those questions. However, today I'm going¶

25 to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th 1 MR. PIKE: Form. And relevance.¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q. How many minors have you procured for 4 prostitution?¶

5 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

6 THE WITNESS: On advice of Counsel, sir, Fm 7 going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th¶

8 Amendment Right, though I pled guilty to procuring 9 a single minor.¶

10 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

11 Q. Yes, but my question wasn't about what you 12 pled guilty to. I just want to know how many minors you 13 have procured for prostitution.¶

14 MR. PIKE: Asked and answered.¶

15 THE WITNESS: Again, at least with respect to 16 what I've pled guilty toj PledSuihy to 17 procuring a single minor.¶

18 With respect to the rest of your question, Pm 19 going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th¶

20 Amendmeat Rights as provided by my Counsel.¶

21 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

22 When did you procure the minor for 23 ion as to which procurement you pled guilty? ~; ~ 'y\¶

24¶

PIKE: Form.¶

25 THE WITNESS: I don't know.¶

1 Amendment Right.¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q. Who are the minors who you solicited f 4 prostitution?¶

5 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

6 THE WITNESS: Who are the -- gu 7 soliciting prostitution. There was nosoliciting minors charge, sir.¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: Could you mad back the response 10 to the question about what Mr:Epstein pled guilty 11 to, please?¶

12 MR. PIKE: About tour questions back.¶

13 (Previous question and answer were read.)¶

14 MR. PIKE; And bis answer?¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: That was his answer.¶

16 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

17 Q. Who are the minors who you procured for 18 prostitution?¶

19 MR. PIKE: Pont.¶

2D THE WITNESS: ! believe if you — my answer 21 was procuring a minor, sir, not minors.¶

22 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

23 Q. Who is the minor that you procured for 24 prostitution?¶

25 A. I do not know.¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Was there a time before you entered your guilty plea when you knew the identity of the prostitutes that you solicited?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

THE WITNESS: Again?¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Was there a time before the entry of your guilty plea when you knew the identity of the prostitutes you solicited?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

THE WITNESS: I don't recall.¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Was there a time before the entry of your guilty plea when you knew the identity of the minor that you pled guilty to procuring for prostitution?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

THE WITNESS: I don't know.¶

BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. Did you plead guilty because you were, in fact, guilty?¶

MR. PIKE: Form.¶

That's attorney/client, work product.¶

Attorney/client.¶

MR. SCAROLA: I haven't asked anything about¶

1 any communication. 2 MR. PIKE: It definitely could get into a 3 communication with Mr. Epstein's lawyers at the 4 time of the criminal proceeding. 5 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir, it can't 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. 1 yam to !mow whether you pled guilty because 8 you were, in fact, guilty. 9 A. I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth 10 and 14th Amendment, sir. 11 Q. Do you understand the term John to be a slang 1.2 reference to the customer of a prostitute? 13 MR. PIKE: Fonn. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 Q. How many times were you one of L.M.'s 17 customers? 18 MR. PIKE: Form. 19 THE WITNESS: L.M.'s customers. 20 You'll have to rephrase the question, sir. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. Your Complaint says — 23 MR. PIKE: What page were you reading from? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Page 22. 25 MR. PIKE: Thank you.¶

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 crafting cases of a sexual nature against people in South Florida, me and others, the others yet to be determined. However, today, though I'd like to answer every one of his questions, on advice of Counsel, at least today, Fm going to have to assts my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. How many times have you engaged in fondling underage females? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: This is relevance here at some point? MR. PIKE: To the extent you can answer the question. THE WITNESS: Again, as another one of the irrelevant questions asked of this lawsuit with respect as a client how I was abused by the Rothstein firm for his -- the practices, the abuse of the legal system, the -- hopefully, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will be able to see through some of these ridiculous questions with t to questions that today, at least, I must s iee the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment, but 1 e are obvious to the ladies and gentlemen of jury what you're trying to do here,

1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Paragraph 46(a), last sentence: "Under the 3 circumstances, her claim for damages against E 4 one of1..M.'s many Johns during that same 5 cetera. 6 You have identified yourself In this Comp' 7 as one of L.M.'s many Johns. which youlacknowledge to be 8 a reference to a customer of a prostitute. 9 How many times were you one of L.M.'s 10 customers for purposes of prostitution? I I A. Well, now that you've now put on the record 12 that L.M., I believe, in her deposition is an admitted 13 prostiwte, I would like to answer that question, but on 14 advice of Counsel, sir, I'm going to have to 15 respectfully decline. But I am happy to hear you 16 finally admit it in your own questions that your L.M. is 17 an admitted prostitute. 18 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike. Unresponsive. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 Q. Have you ever coerced, induced or enticed any 21 minor to engage in any sexual act with you? 22 MR. PIKE: Form. 23 THE WITNESS: A typical bu tion from 24 Mr. Scuola representing Mr. and the firm 25 of Rothstein, who Scott Rothstein sits in jail for Page 10' e S :\E¶

1 4 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 109 Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike. Unresponsive. MR. PIKE: No. That's fine. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. How many times have you engaged in illegal sexual touching of minors? MR. PIKE: Form. Relevance. THE WITNESS: Again, an irrelevant question to this lawsuit, strictly as a continued attempt to bring in irrelevant facts to the fact of what the Rothstein firm has done to both me and others in South Florida, defrauding investors of millions of dollars, bowing that at least today Fm going to have to with respect to that particular question assert my Fourth — excuse me — Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Rights. MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as unresponsive. MR. PIKE: Mr. Scarola, hes answering your question. You're asking abusive and harassing questions that are unrelated to this lawsuit If you can direct me to anywhere in the Complaint that even remotely addresses your two questions that you've just posed to Mr. Epstein, I'd be happy to look at the section in the Complaint. But moving to strike the witness'¶

1 answer when he's answering your abusive and 2 harassing questions is improper.¶

3 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

4 Q. How many times have you engaged in oral sex 5 with females under the age of 18?¶

6 MR. PIKE: Objection. Relevance. Abusive and 7 harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to 8 discovery of admissible evidence in this case.¶

9 THE WITNESS: A typical question posed by 10 Mr. Scarola in an attempt to dal&¶

11 away from the wrongdoing of his 12 partner, Scott Rothstein, who sits in jail for 13 defrauding investors of South Florida of millions 14 of dollars, by crafting malicious cases of a sexual 15 nature just in order to fleece investors, called by 16 the U.S. Attorney one of the largest frauds in 17 South Florida's history.¶

18 Mr. Scarola, as I would like to respond to the 19 questions regarding of your underage girls, the 20 fondling or the other questions you've asked me 21 here today, unfortunately, I cannot on advice of 22 Counsel answer those questions, so I must assert my 23 Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Rights, though 24 these questions are totally irrelevant to this 25 lawsuit.¶

1 Harassing. And not reasonably calculated to lead 2 to admissible evidence in this case.¶

3 THE WITNESS: One more of Mr. Scarola's 4 irrelevant questions designed nothing more to try 5 to harass me to divert attention from the fact 6 that Mr. and his fun perpetrated one of the largest frauds in South Florida's history by 8 using people like me and others in an attempt to 9 fleece South Florida investors out of millions of 10 dollars, where the U.S. Attorney has accused his 11 firm of being the largest criminal entsise in 12 South Florida's history, where Mr. partner 13 sits in prison, potentially for the rest of his 14 life.¶

15 I'd like to answer all of your questions here 16 today, Mr. Scarola, even though there irrelevant; 17 however, on advice of Counsel, at least today, fm 18 going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th 19 Amendment Right¶

20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as unresponsive.¶

21 BY MRLSCAROLA:¶

22 . Complaint at page 27, paragraph 49, says 23 and the litigation team took an emotionally 24 of facts involving alleged innocent, 25 mg, underage females and a Palm Beach¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 4 Q. Do you have a personal sexual preference for children?¶

5 6 7 MR. PIKE: Fonn. Relevance. Abusive. Harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.¶

8 9 question to this lawsuit, Mr. THE WITNESS: Another staairrelevant behavior, in¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 an attempt to strictly divert attention from the wrongdoing of the Rothstein firm in this matter by asking sexually charged questions in a case where the Rothstein firm has been charged by the U.S. Attorney of fabricating claims of a malicious nature, hiding behind attorney/client privilege, forging documents — excuse me but as with respect to these questions designed for nothing more than to harass me, Mr. Scarola, I'm going to have to, unfortunately, take the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment.¶

21 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as unresponsive.¶

22 23 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

24 Q. Have you ever acted on a sexual preference for children?¶

25 MR. PIKE: Form. Irrelevant. Abusive.¶

MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as unresponsive.¶

3 4 Who is the Palm Beach billionaire referred to in that sentence?¶

5 6 7 A. On advice of Counsel today, Mr. Scarola, though 1 would like to answer each one of your questions, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right.¶

9 10 Q. What is the emotionally driven set of facts to which you make reference in that sentence?¶

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. it's the same set of facts that were used by the Rothstein firm to fleece unsuspecting investors out of millions of dollars, crafting, fabricating malicious cases of a sexually charged nature with no fundamental basis whatsoever, reported wild) the press. The U.S. Attorney has accused Mr. partner of nor - excuse me Mr. partner sits currently in jail, pled guilty to some of these charges. There are other members of his firm under investigation for just these types of questions and fabrications.¶

21 22 23 24 25 But, however, today, though fd like to answer every one of your questions with specificity, on advice of Counsel Pm not going to be able to, Mr. Scarola, and respectfully decline based on my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right¶

billionaire, and sought to turn it into a gold mine," end of quote.¶

Q. What day are you prepared to answer all these 2 questions? 3 MR. PIKE: Form. Attorney/client and work 4 product. 5 THE WITNESS: That's attorney I wish I 6 could answer that question as well, but it's 7 attorney/client privilege, sir. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Your Complaint says that: "Rather than 10 evaluating and resolving the cases based on the merits," 11 open parens, "i.e., facts," close parens, "which 12 included knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual actions 13 by each of the claimants," et cetera. 14 Who are the claimants that are referenced 15 there? 16 A. It's - l'm sorry. You have to repeal the 17 question. 18 Q. Yes, sir. Your Complaint says,: - 19 MR. PIKE: Page? 20 Q. -. "rather than evaluating" -- 21 MR. PIKE: Can you give me a page, sir? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Page 27, paragraph 49, second 23 sentence. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 25 Q. Quote, "rather than evaluating and resolving¶

1 the cases based on the merits, that is, facts which 2 included knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual 3 by each of the claimants." 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Who are the claimants that you're 6 there? 7 A. They're the prostitutes you referred to in the 8 past, sir. 9 Q. What are their names? 10 A. I think the prostitutes' names were -- the 11 prostitute that you described before was L.M. 12 With respect to the others, I'm going to have 13 to claim the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment, sir. 14 Q. So one of the inividnaLs that you're 15 referencing there is L.M.; is that correct? 16 A. It's — the individual I've referenced is a 17 person who flied a claim against me. 18 Q. Is it L.M.? 19 A. It is L.M., as far as Ilmow from the claim, 20 sir. 21 Q. Okay. So one of the people that you're 22 referring to is L.M., who you've identified as L.M.; is 23 that correct? 24 A. With respect to that question, sir, on advice 25 of Counsel, I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth¶

1 and 14th Amendment. 2 Q. What are the voluntary and consensual actions 3 by L.M. that you are referencing there? 4 A. Sir, though rd like to answer each one of 5 your questions here today, I'm going to have to 6 respectfully decline based on advice of my Counsel, and 7 have to assert my Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment Right. 8 Q. What are the damages that you claim to have 9 suffered as a consequence of any wrongdoing on the part 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ofa MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: The cost of ridiculous litigation, of having my attorneys prepare responses to wildly irrelevant discovery in various locations at a minimum, sir. BY Mat. SCAROLA: Q. Which lawyers? A. Burman Critton, Jack Goldberger, and a bunch of the others, sir. Q. Which ones? Name them for me, please. A. Specifically — I have so many lawyers defending me here against Mr. M t can't sit hat — at the moment I can't recall n 4ipecificity. le Youdon't remember any of your lawyers' names?¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. ■Ido. Q. Besides Mr. -- besides the Burman Critton firm and Mr. Goldberger? A. Are you asking me for the firm, sir, or are you asking me for the names? Q. I want as much information as you can give me about this element of damage which you claim; and, that is, the cost of legal services that you claim to be damages in this case. A. Okay. MR. PIKE: Form. And move to strike. THE WITNESS: Mr. Roy Black. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. Who else? A. Mr. Marty Weinberger. Mr. Alan Dershowia. Mr. Jay Lelkowim. The firm of Burman Critton Luther. That's it for the moment. Q. How much have you paid the law firrn of Burman Critt011and Luttier which you claim is damages? A. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, sir. Q. How much? A. I don't have that figure offhand. Q. Can you give us any better figure than hundreds of thousands of dollars? A. No, not sitting here today.¶

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 Q. Are you paying them on an hourly basis? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the hourly rate at which you are compensating members of the law firm? A. ma ordinary rates. Q. What are they? A. I don't know. Q How much have you paid Mr. Goldberger? A. I'm not aware total amount, sir. Q. What is the hourly rate at which you're paying Mr. Goldberger'? A. His normal hourly rate. Q. How much is that? A. I don't know. Q. How much have you paid Mr. Black which you 15 claim as damages in this case? 16 A. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. 17 Q. Are you paying him on an hourly basis? 18 A. I believe so. 19 Q. What is the hourly rate? 20 A. I'm not — 'do not )(now, sir. 21 Q. How much have you paid Marty Weinberger? 22 A. 1 don't know the exact amount, sir. 23 Q. What's your best estimate? 24 A. More than a hundred thousand dollars.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A. I don't know. Q. Does someone do that on your behalf? A. I would guess so. Q. Who? A. I don't know. MR. PIKE: Form. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Who are the people who are authorized to make payment on your behalf? A. With respect to that question, I'm going to have to assert the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment, sir. Q. Are there any other elements of damage, apart from the money paid to lawyers? A. Yes, sir. Q. What? A. The stress and emotional damage of imperiling my friendships and business relationships with no relevance whatsoever to these cases, brought by a firm that whose partner sits in a Federal prison, who engaged in discovery to harass my fiends and social contacts with no consideration or relevance to this case whatsoever, in an attempt to simply fleece — partly fleece investors in South Florida out of millions of \ ollars, sir. Q. What is the value of those losses? )14/¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 1 Q. Are you paying him on an hourly basis? A. I believe so. Q. What's the hourly rate? A. I don't know, sir. Q. How much have you paid AlanDetsitowitz? A. Hundreds of thousands of dqliars. Q. Are you paying him on an ly hails? A. I believe so. Q. At what hourly rate? A. I don't know, sir. Q. How much are you paying Jay — how much have you paid Jay Lefkowitz? A. I'm not sure, sir. Q. Do you have any idea at all? A. More than a hundred thousand dollars. Q. Are you paying him on an hourly basis? A. Yes, sir. Q. What's the hourly rate? A. I don't know. Q. What is the form of payment to your lawyers? How do you transfer money to them? A. I don't know, sir. MR. PIKE: Form. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Pardon me?¶

✓2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 121 MR. PIKE: Form. THE. WITNESS: I'm not stne yet, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you have any idea at all? A. Not sitting here today. Q. More or less than 510? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: I would guess it's more than $10, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. More or less than a hundred? A. I would guess it's quite an aimtmt of money. Q. Is it more or less than a hundred? A. Yes, sir. Q. More or less than a thousand? A. I would say it's more than 150,000. Q. More or less than a million? A. I don't know, sir. Q. So somewhere between 150,000 and a million? A. No, sir. It's not -- MR. PIKE: Form. Mischaracterizes the witness' testimony. THE WITNESS: No, sir. That's not what I said. I said, I did not know. BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Do you attribute all of the damages that you 3 have described to Mr. conduct? 4 MR. PIKE: Form. 6 how to the conduct as opposed to 7 Mr. and his panne/ who sits in jail. I guess the U.S. Attorney will also make a decision 9 to how much the conduct and proportion is relevant 10 to both damages and anything else he's done in this 11 case, sir. 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 Q. But fin not asking you about what the U.S. 14 Attorneys opinion is. 15 I want to know whether you hold Mr. 17 have described to us. 18 A. It's a difficult question to answer, 19 Mr. Scarola. 20 Q. No, it's easy. Yes, no, or I don't know. 21 MR. PIKE: Mr. Scarola, you know as well as I 22 do, the witness is attempting to answer your 23 question. 24 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think so. I think he's 25 attempting to evade all of my questions.¶

5 THE WITNESS: As a participant — I don't 'mow 16 responsible for all of those elements of damage that you 1 Q. Maybe more than a million? 2 A. Maybe. 3 Q. More or less than a billion? 4 MR. PIKE: Form. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Maybe more than a billion? 8 A. Maybe more. 9 Q. How are you going to go about finding out what 10 the value of that loss is? 11 MR. PIKE: Attorney/client, work product 12 To the extent you can answer without 13 disclosing our conversations or the conversations 14 with your other attorneys that you've delineated, 15 you can doss 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Q. Or you can just take the signal and say, I 18 refine to answer because it's attorney/elicit privilege. 19 A. I resent that 20 MR. PIKE: Move to strike. THE WITNESS: But it's okay. You can continue to try to harass me, sir. It doesn't work. The ladies and gentlemen of the jury, hopefully when they see the deposition will recognize and see these pile of tricks. The answer —¶

1 MR. PIKE: And I understand your contention. 2 However, if you would, allow Mr. Epstein to finish 3 his response. 4 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat your q 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. Do you hold Mr. responsible j<or all 7 the damages that you have described? 8 MR. PEKE: Form. 9 THE WITNESS: It's difficult 10 proportion the dame that I have 11 between Mr. his Firmer, who is curremly 12 in jail, his — the other people awned in the 13 Complaint. Hopefully a jury vrill do that. 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 Q. Do you hold L.M. responsible for all of the 16 damages you have described? 17 MR. PIKE: Penn. 18 THE WITNESS: Again, these questions, these 19 ambiguous questions, as opposed to who 20 participated, I would let Mr. and his 21 clients and his partners decide whose proportionate 22 responsibility it is, sir. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. So you defer to them? 25 MR. PIKE: Form.¶

Page 12¶

MR. SCAROLA: Hopefully they will. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MR. PIKE: Move to strike. 4 THE WITNESS: I will respectfully decline to 5 answer that. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. On what basis? 8 A. Attorney/client privilege. 9 MR. PIKE: And work product. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. Any other elements of damage? 32 A. Not — there might be, but sifting here today, 13 I can't think of them. 14 Q. Do you have written contracts with any of your 15 lawyers? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Who does? 18 A. I don't know. 19 MR. SCAROLA: let's take a short break. We 20 may be finished. 21 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off the record at 22 1:12 p.m. 23 (Brief recess.) 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: We we back on video record at 25 1:18 p.m.¶

9¶

1 THE WITNESS: As • e to the amount 2 of damages, l think Mr played a vital 4 role. I've only had any contact with Mr, 3 role. I believe his partners potentially pai l 5 sir.¶

6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Which partners? 8 A. Beg your pardon? 9 Q. Which partners, besides Ma and 10 Mr. Rothstein, do you claim engaged in conduct that 11 renders them liable to you?¶

32 A. I believe ifs in the Complaint, sir. And I 13 believe ifs Mr. Adler, Mr. Berger. There's Mr. Jenne, 14 Mr. Fisten, but those are not partners.¶

15 So Mr. Berger, Mr. Adler — and I forgot the 16 names of the others at the moment, sir, but it's in the 17 Complaint¶

18 Q. Why didn't you sue them? 19 MR. PIKE: Form. 20 THE WITNESS: Attorney/client privilege, sir. 21 MR. PIKE: Work product. 22 MR. SCAROLA: I have no further questions. 23 : I have dm or four questi 24 That's it¶

25 MR. PIKE: Okay. I just want to be clear for¶

1 contention on the record. 2 Okay.¶

3 CROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MR¶

5 Q. Mr. Epstein, is your sole basis for your claim 6 against L.M. that she changed her testimony from the 7 time she testified to the FBI in 2007?¶

8 MR. PIKE: Form. To the extent you can answer 9 that question without invading attorney/client, 10 work product, you can do so.¶

11 THE WITNESS: Unfortunately, I'd like to 12 answer that question, but I cant do so without 13 inaclient privilege.¶

14 BY 15 Q. Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was 16 filed against you in September of 2008 which you content 17 to be false?¶

18 MR. PIKE: Asked and answered. 19 THE WITNESS: I recognize, Mr. again. 20 concept of attempting me to get to waive my Fifth Amendment privilege; however, in this lawsuit I've answered questions with respect to your 24 asked, I'm going to have to, unfortunately, assert, lawsuit. And with regard to the question you just 25 my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and 14th¶

Page 127¶

1 the record. Mr. Scarola represents Mr.= in 2 this case• is that correct, Mr. Scarola? 3 MR. That's correct. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 5 MR. PIKE: And in this patticulia l¶

6 Epstein versus Rothstein, et al, Mr. who 7 do youspecifically represent? 8 MR. : L.M. 9 MR. PIKE: Okay. I believe that if you follow¶

10 through with questioning, you have an 11 irreconcilable conflict with regard to the other 12 casein which you represent L.M. and L.M.¶

13 I cannot stop you from asking any questions; 14 if you do move forward with asking 15 as, I will take the appropriate action.¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: And on behalf — on behalf of my 17 dient —¶

18 MR. PIKE: Yes, sir. 19 MR. SCAROLA: -- we do not accept your 20 assessment of Mr. ethical 21 responsibilities.¶

22 MR. PIKE; That is absolutely flue for you to 2 3 do that. I just wanted to put it on the record 24 that I am, by no means, going to prevent you from 25 questioning today. However, I wanted to put my¶

1 Amendment Right. 2 But I'm willing to listen to any other 3 questiot ave.¶

4 MR. : Finished. 5 MR. PIKE: I have a couple questions.¶

6 CROSS EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. PIKE:¶

8 Q. Mr. Epstein, earlier in the deposition 9 Mr. Scarola was reading from page 2 of the Complaint 10 filed in the Epstein versus Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and 11 Adler, et al. Do you recall that?¶

12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. And then I showed you page 2 of a Complaint 14 that I had my notes on, correct?¶

15 A. Yet 16 Q. Did you read the black type or did you read 17 the handwritten notes in the corners of the Complaint, 18 that particular page that I showed you?¶

19 A. Unfortunately, my eyesight is not good enough 20 to read the notes. I only read the black letter. 21 Q. And it was that one sentence, correct?¶

22 A. It was two sentences, I believe, but, yes. 23 MR. PIKE: Thank you. 24 Well read. 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION¶

1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. What is your eyesight? 3 A. Sorry? 4 Q. What is your eyesight? 5 A. My eyesight? ' 6 Q. Yes, sir. You said that your eyesight was not 7 good enough to be able to read the handwritten 8 notations. What is your eyesight? 9 A. Are we on the record or off? 10 Q. We're on the record. 11 MR. PIKE: We're on the record. 12 THE WITNESS: I need 3.5 glasses. 13 BY MK SCAROLA: 14 Q. And you had those on when you were reading the 15 Complaint, didn't you? 16 A. But these aren't my 3.5s, sir. 17 Q. What are they? 18 A. I don't blow. 19 Q. Let's hand them ova, if you would. Let's 20 take a look at them 21 A. Sure. 22 Do you see anything? 23 Q. No. 24 Is it your contention that those glasses were 25 inadequate to enable you to read the handwritten¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 notations on the Complaint? MR. PIKE: Form. Mischaracterizes testi THE WITNESS: My testimony was, I the black letter and partially because I thoroughly through these glasses, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is it your contention that those glasses did not sufficiently correct your vision to be able to read the handwritten notations on the papers that were handed to you? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Again, we can play this game back and forth. What I just said, and I think I was very clear, that I did not read the notes. I said — BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What you said was, you couldn't read the notes? MR. PIKE: Allow the witness to finish. THE WITNESS: Let me fmish. And what I said was, with these glasses it would be almost impossible for me to read the notes on the page. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Yes, sir. So your contention is, that those glasses do not adequately correct your vision to be able¶

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on notice that they are relevant and material to issues involved in this lawsuit and need to be preserved. 4 MR. PIKE: All right. well mark the glasses. 5 We'll mark the glasses as an Exhibit. Okay? And I 6 will keep them here in my office. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR PIKE: That's fine. VEDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's videotaped deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. The time is 1:27. (Exhibit number 1 was marked for identification purposes and retained by Counsel for Plaintiff.) (Witness excused.) (Deposition was concluded.)¶

1 to read the handwritten notations; is that correct? 2 MR. PIKE: Form. 3 THE WITNESS: In this particular instance, 4 sir, these glasses did not. not saying they 5 cannot, but did not allow me to read the notes, 6 that's correct. 7 MR. SCAROLA: I would like those glasses 8 marked as an Exhibit to this deposition. 9 MR. PIKE: I don't think so. 10 MR. SCAROLA: You're refusing to allow that to 11 happen? 12 MR. PIKE: I don't see how you can mark a set 13 of glasses as an Exhibit to a deposition. 14 The witness has already said dtat he did not 15 read the handwritten notes in the corner or the 16 comas of page 2 of the Complaint. 17 MR. SCAROLA: The witness is a liar. The 18 witness' testimony Is totally incredible. The 19 witness made up a response and I want to be able to 20 demonstrate to the Court and jury that the witness 21 lied when be said that those glasses did not 22 his vision sufficiently to be able to read 23 handwritten notes. 24 I want the glasses marked as an Exhibit. 2 If you refuse to mark them, I am placing you¶

1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH
2 STATE OF FLORIDA
3 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

4 I, the undersigned authority, certify that
5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN personally appeared before me and was
6 duly sworn on the 17th day of March, 2010.¶

7 Dated this 26th day of March, 2010.
8
9¶

10 Sandra Townsend¶

¶

11 Sandra W. Townsend, Court Reporter
12 Notary Public - State of Florida
13 My Commission Expires: 6/26/12
14 My Commission No.: DD 793913
15 Job #1358¶

1 DATE: March 26, 2010
2 TO: JEFFREY EPSTEIN Job #1358
3 c/o Michael Pike, Esquire
4 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

4 IN RE: Epstein vs. [REDACTED] et al
5
6 CASE NO: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

7 Please take notice that on Wednesday, the 17th
8 of March, 2010, you gave your deposition in the
9 above-referred matter. At that time, you did not waive
10 signature. It is now necessary that you sign your
11 deposition.¶

9 Please call our office at the below-listed
12 number to schedule an appointment between the hours of
13 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the
14 Esquire office located nearest you.¶

11 If you do not read and sign the deposition
12 within a reasonable time, the original, which has
13 already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be
14 filed with the Clerk of the Court. If you wish to waive
15 your signature, sign your name in the blank at the
16 bottom of this letter and return it to us.¶

17 Very truly yours,¶

18 Sandra W. Townsend, PPR
19 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY
20 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1500
21 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
22 Phone: 561.832.7500
23 I do hereby waive my signature.¶

24 JEFFREY EPSTEIN
25 I do hereby waive my signature:
26 cc: Via transcript: All Counsel of Record; file copy¶

1 CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF FLORIDA
3 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

4 I, Sandra W. Townsend, Court Reporter and
5 Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large,
6 do hereby certify that the aforementioned witness was by
7 me first duly sworn to testify the whole truth; that I
8 was authorized to and did report said deposition in
9 stenotype; and that the foregoing pages numbered -
10 to - inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of
11 my shorthand notes of said deposition.¶

12 I further certify that said deposition was
13 taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and
14 that the taking of said deposition was commenced and
15 completed as hereinabove set out.¶

16 I further certify that I am not attorney or
17 counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
18 employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected
19 with the action, nor am I financially interested in the
20 action.¶

21 The foregoing certification of this transcript
22 does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any
23 means unless under the direct control and/or direction
24 of the certifying reporter.¶

25 Dated this 26th day of March, 2010.¶

26 Sandra Townsend¶

27 Sandra W. Townsend, Court Reporter
28 Job #1358¶

1 CERTIFICATE
2 ---
3 THE STATE OF FLORIDA
4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

5 I hereby certify that I have read the
6 foregoing deposition by me given, and that the
7 statements contained herein are true and correct to the
8 best of my knowledge and belief, with the exception of
9 any corrections or notations made on the errata sheet,
10 if one was executed.¶

11 Dated this ___ day of ___,
12 2010.¶

13 _____
14 JEFFREY EPSTEIN
15 Job #1358¶

1 E R RAT¶

2 IN RE: EPSTEIN VS. ET AL at S. TOWNSEND 3 DEPOSITION OF: - 4 TAKEN: 3/17/10 EB NO.: 1358¶

6 DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT -ENTER CHANGES HERE PAGE. LINEN CHANGE REASON¶

³C11S 5: 3 18 Please fbeward the original signed arm tat to this office so that copies may be distributed to ail pieties. lit penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read my 20 'Sept and that it is true and correct subject to any ~Inform or substance entered Int. 24 SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT: <2/¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY. FLORIDA¶

RAZORBACK FUNDING, LLC. D3 CAPITAL CLUB. LLC, BFMC INVESTMENT, LLC, LINDA VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST. D&L PARTNERS, LP, DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST. ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST, and lerkRETSCHMAR,¶

Plaintiffs,¶

CASE NO.: 09-062943 (191¶

v.¶

SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, DAVID BODEN, DEBRA , ANDREW BARNETT, IRENE STAY TD BANK, 'S 4)9 N.A., 11 SPINOSA, JENNIFER 777 KERSTETTER, ROSANNE CARETSKY, BANYON INCOME FUND. L.P., BANYON USVI LLC LEVIN PREVF. MICHA SZAERANSKI, ONYX OPTIONS CONSULTANTS CORPORATION. .pd BERENFELD SPRITZER SHECHTER SHEER. LLP, _¶

Defendants.¶

AMENDED COMPLAINT¶

~tiffs, RAZORBACK FUNDING, LLC: D3 CAPITAL CLUB, LLC; BFMC ." INVESTMENT, LLC: LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; D&L PARTNERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and KRETSCHMAR (collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs") hereby sue the Defendants. SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN; DAVID BODEN; DEBRA¶

ANDREW BARNETT- IRENE STAY; ID BANK, N.A.; SPINOSA; JENNIFER KERSI L I LR; ROSANNE CARETSKY; BANYON INCOME FUND. L.P.; BANYON U$V1. LL G. LEVIN, PREVE; MICHAEL SZAFRANSKI: ONYX OPTIONS CONSULTANTS CORPORATION; and BERENFELD SPRrIZER SI IliCITTERASER, LLP¶

(collectively referred to herein as "Defendants"), and allege as follows:¶

Plaintiffs' Claims¶

• 1. The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants and seek the followin
  • a. Compensatory damages in excess interest, and other amounts to proximate result of Defendi \ts
    • i. conversion; ii, fraudulent misrepresentation;
    • iii. I negligent misrepresentation;
  • iv. negligent supervision; ' O

• vi. breach of fiduciary duty; civil conspiracy: and + vii. aiding and abetting fraud, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty;

  • b. punitive damages upon obtaining leave of court;

• c. taxable costs and attorney's fees; and os 000,000.00, pre-judgment 'ctilarized at trial as a direct and ission of the following:

• d. any such further relief this court deems etinitabk. tail-just under the circumstances.

Overview¶

2. This action arises out of a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Scott W. Rothstein. who bilked investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Rothstein. throughtlusc of his law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. (collectively referred to herd AS e "Principal Conspirators" and more fully described, infra), devised an elaborat to assign putative plaintiffs' confidential settlements with structured payments to i rs at a lump sum I discounted rate. In reality, while some of the cases use g to' estor funding were real, all of the confidential settlements were purely fabricat returns to earlier investors were not made via structured payments, but instead with the principal obtained from later investors--a classic Ponzi scheme.i

3. However, the Princi o rators did not act alone. Defendant, TD BANK, N.A. (hereinafter, "TD Bank"), subs 'ary of Toronto Dominion Bank, was complicit in this c i) scheme, serving as a 'cal lynchpin "legitimizing" the Principal Conspirators' plot and facilitating crucial induceme s to investor action. Specifically, investors were duped by TD Bank employees c' g with the Principal Conspirators to manipulate TD Bank's trust account statem diving investors with false senses of security predicated on written assurances that settle flt funds existed and would only be released directly to them. It is these bank

A Ponzi scheme is generally recognized as a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or from monies paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi who became notorious for using the technique in early 1920.¶

declarations, tantamount to a guaranty, which gravely impacted investor risk-evaluation analysis and unduly influenced investors to close their deals.¶

4. Moreover, demonstrative of TD Bank's participation or alternatively, evidence of their gross negligence and wanton disregard. is the bank's reckless disregard of numerous "red flags." Irrefutably, TD Bank knew that Rothstein Rosendfeldt Adler, P.A. (hereinafter, "RRA") was moving hundreds of millions of dollars through its TD Bank trust accounts. In fact, in October 2009 alone, almost a half of a billion dollars moved in and out of RR A's Fort Lauderdale based trust accounts--more money than most bank branches would likely see in a decade. Yet, despite the massive amount of funds being moved by one client, TD Bank never sought independent verification of the source of monies, choosing instead to stand idly by. The Ponzi scheme simply could not have gained traction without TD Bank's involvement in sanctioning or, otherwise. willfully failing to authenticate the origin of the• Nonnous amounts of money coming through its 11 doors.

5. Unfortunately, only pending case which alleges a TD Bank affiliate as a complicit actor involv in a Po scheme. On August 29. 2009. TD Bank's parent, Toronto Dominion Bank, was sued r "knowing assistance and/or dishonest assistance" in a Ponzi scheme based upon. inter alio, holding over $20,000,000.00 in fraudulent proceeds and transferring hundreds of millions of dollars through the alleged perpetrator's accounts. See a copy of the Dynasty Furniture Manufacturing, Ltd., et at, v. Toronto Dominion Bank. Statement of Claim attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "A."

6. Based on the allegations set forth herein, Plaintiffs aver that, at all materials times, TD Bank had actual knowledge of its complicit involvement in a highly-organized Ponzi scheme

and/or was recklessly or willfully blind to its role in materially supporting the scheme. TD Bank's acts and/or omissions in assisting, facilitating, and actively participating in the Ponzi scheme. renders TD Bank as a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' losses and, therefore, is liable for the damages Plaintiffs incurred.¶

7. Furthermore, as alleged in detail infra, the Principal Conspirators' inn -circle of facilitators (Villegas. Boden. Barnett, Stay and Berenfeld) and promoters ( vi l eye, Banyon, Szafranski and Onvx) were essential to the perpetration of this systemic rd d their actions equally as culpable. Indeed. Rothstein in a November 23. 2009 into I eve with the Sun-Sentinel stated that "karma has caught up with him, hut it will eatc others too . . . You're in a town full of thieves, and at the end of the day, everyon 'II leave it at that."

8. LINDA VON ALLMENflrustet of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST (hereinafter. "Dynasty Trust"), Broward County, Florida. In a r the summer of 2009. the Dynasty Trust invested $2,000,000.00 into the P through Banyon Income Fund. trust with its principal place of administration in

9. PIa D& PARTNERS, LP (hereinafter, "D&L Partners"), is a Missouri limited partnership its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. In or around the summer D&L Partners invested approximately $45,000,000.00 into the Ponzi scheme through Banyon Income Fund. Doug Von Allmen is the general partner of D&L Partners.

10. DAVID VON ALLMEN. is Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST (hereinafter. "DVA Trust"), a revocable trust with its principal place of administration in

Saint Louis County, Missouri. On or about August 26 2009, the DVA Trust invested $275.000.00 into the Ponzi scheme through Banyon Income Fund.¶

II. ANN VON ALLMEN, is Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST (hereinafter. "AVA Trust"), a revocable trust with its principal place of administration in Saint Louis County, Missouri. On or about August 28, 2009, the AVA Trust invested $2%(1.00 into the Ponzi scheme through Banyon Income Fund.¶

S 12. Plaintiff, KRETSCHMAR (hereinafter, "Kretsc an individual residing in Broward County, Florida. On or about June 12009, Kretschmar invested $8,000,000.00 into the Ponzi scheme through Banyon Income Fund.¶

13. RAZORBACK FUNDING, LLC, (here' rback"), is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of bu toward County, Florida. Razorback invested $32,000,000.00 into the Ponzi Banyon USVI, LLC. Dynasty Trust, D&L Partners and Kretchmar were also ma in Razorback.

14. Plaintiff, D3 B, LW (hereinafter, "D3"), is a Delaware limited liability company with its i place of business in Broward County, Florida. D3 invested $13,500,000.00 into Po scheme. Dynasty Trust, D&L Partners and !Creamer were major S investors in D II.

15. tiff, BFMC INVESTMENT, LW (hereinafter, "BFMC"), is a Florida limited liability ec bpany with its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. On or about October 2009, BFMC invested $2,400,000.00 into the Ponzi scheme.

TD Bank Defendants¶

18. TD Bank is a f national banking association registered to do business in Florida. TD Bank maintains:substantial contact with Florida though its multiple branches throughout the s TD Bank was the financial epicenter of the Ponzi scheme. Among other e things, Tr) o nspired, induced, and facilitated the Principal Conspirators' deceptive practi s, mg Principal Conspirators to divert hundreds of millions of investor dollars through TD Bank accounts.

The Defendants - Principal Conspirators¶

16. Scott W. Rothstein, Esq. (hereinafter, "Rothstein") is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was one of Rothstein, Rosenfeld( Adler, P.A.'s founders, its managing partner and CEO. Rothstein is the principal organizer of the Ponzi scheme.

17. Non-party RRA is a Florida professional association with its ipal place of business in Broward County, Florida. RRA was used as the front to serving as the purported law firm representing putative plaintiffs in confidential settlements. RRA's trust accounts were all defendants' settlement funds and used to receive inv collectively referred to as the "Principal Conspirators", Ponzi scheme, n with their pm-suit, to receive the putative ents. Rothstein and RRA are

The Del' etii's ..,- Co-Conspirators¶

19. SPINOSA (hereinafter, "Spinosa"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was a senior vice-president of operations for 1D Bank. Spinosa participated in the scheme by, among other things, meeting with investors, verifying

RRA Defendants¶

22. <()* DAVID BOO E' (hereinafter. "Boden"). is an individual residing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and, at, all times relevant hereto, was a partner and general counsel for RRA. Boden was Roth "right-hand man" and an essential participant in the scheme by, among other things, recruiting soliciting investors and drafting documents to induce investors into funding the settlement while having actual and/or constructive knowledge that the investments were part of a Ponzi scheme.

account statements and providing investors with purported irrevocable "lock letters" securing investor funds.¶

20. JENNIFER KERSTETTER (hereinafter, "Kerstetter"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was an assistant manager for TD Bank. Kerstetter participated in the scheme by, among other things, meeting with invc verifying account statements, and providing investors with purported irrevocable "lock ers" securing 0 investor funds.

21. ROSEANNE CARETSKY (hereinafter, "Caretsky"), i ndividual residing in Broward County. Florida, and, at all times relevant hcreto¶ sistant vice president and branch manager for TD Bank. Caretsky participated in by. among other things, meeting with investors, verifying account statements, and rovding i investors with purported irrevocable "lock letters" securing investor funds.

22. DEBRA E. (hereinafter, a), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was the chief operating officer at RRA. a, Rothstein's number two at RRA, participated in the scheme by. among other things, furnishing false bank account statements and wire transfers to investors for the purpose of inducing investor funding despite having actual or constructive knowledge that the investments were a Ponzi scheme.

23. ANDREW BARNET!' (hereinafter. "Barnett"), is an individual residing in Brower(' County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was the Director of Corporate De.4%-nent for RRA. Barnett, participated in the scheme by, among other things. recruitf soliciting and inducing investor funding despite having actual or constructive know the investments were a Ponzi scheme.

24. IRENE STAY (hereinafter, "Stay"), is an siding in Bmward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was the chief fi n to cer of RRA. Stay participated in the scheme by furnishing investors with falsif account statements and wire transfer confirmations used to induce investor fundin avine actual or constructive knowledge that

Banyon Defendant¶

26. County. Florida at6 all times relevant hereto, was the chief executive officer of Banyon USVI, LLC and B on ome Fund. Levin who previously owned and operated CIGL Industries. Inc. d/b/a C a. t for Carriages, a company convicted of federal fraud charges. actively participated in the scheme by. among other things. recruiting, inducing and securine investor funding despite having, actual or constructive knowledge that the investments were a Ponzi scheme. IN (hereinafter, "Levin"). is an individual residing in Bmward

27. J. PREVE (hereinafter, "neve"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was the chief operating officer or agent of Banyon USVI, LW and Banyon Income Fund who maintained an office at RRA. Preve, a convicted bank fraud and embezzlement felon' participated in the scheme by, among other things, recruiting, inducing and securing investor funding despite having actual or constructive knowledge that the investments were a Ponzi scheme.

28. BANYON INCOME FUND. L.P. (hereinafter, "BIF'). is a Dejw limited aartnership which Levin and Prove operated as a putative investment entity t ase the Ponzi scheme settlements with investor funds.

29. BANYON USVI, (hereinafter. "Banyon IJSVI'). is ware limited liability company which Levin and Preve operated as a putative in scheme settlements with investor funds. tity to purchase the Ponzi

Onyx Defendants¶

30. MICHAEL SZAFRA NS reNter. "Szafranski"). is an individual residing in Miami-Dade County. Florida and s relevant hereto. was the president of Onyx Options Consultants C ration tined an office inside RRA. Szafranski was hired as an "independent" third-party alf of BlE Banyon USVI, Razorback and D3 tasked with verifying critical aspects o rted investment deals. Specifically, Szafranski was the only person authorized ee unredacted settlement documents, to confirm the Principal Conspirators' finances TD Bank and to offer an opinion as to the authenticity of the settlement deals. Szafranski participated in the scheme by. among other things. making material misrepresentations,

Preve plead guilty to bank embezzlement charges in 1985 and received ten (10) years probation an a 10,000.00 fine for falsifying loan documents in connection with a scheme that resulted in losses exceeding $2,300,000.00.¶

false verifications and actively inducing investor funding despite having actual or constructive knowledte that the investments were a Ponzi scheme.¶

31. ONYX OPTIONS CONSULTANTS CORPORATION d/b/a/ ONYX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (hereinafter. "Onyx"). is a Florida limited liability company which Szafranski owns and operates as a third-party verifier and putative investment entity employed "lit e and induce investor funding into the Ponzi scheme.

CPA Defendant¶

32. BERENFELD SPRITZER SHECHTER SH CPA'S LLP (hereinafter, "Berenfeld"). is a Florida limited liability partnership who relevant hereto, served as the auditing firm for BIF and Banvon USVI and as4 a rtinting Jinn for RRA. Berenfeld participated in the scheme by. among othe \s, ' tionspiring. inducing, and facilitating the Principal Conspirators' deceptive prat roviding audited financial statements which purported to authenticate hundr as of dollars of false receivables, allowing Principal Conspirators to perpetrate a fraulll

The Ponzi Scheme¶

The Rothstein Facade¶

33. From humble beginnings in 2003, Rothstein built RRA into one of the fastest growing Florida-based law firms. Under Rothstein's stewardship, RRA grew from seven attorneys to over seventy and amassed over two hundred and fifty in staff. odg with its dramatic growth in size, RRA rapidly emerged as a legal, political 4S philanthropic, powerhouse. 0

34. Not surprisingly, Rothstein amassed an enormous pt of assets including more than sixteen real estate properties, twenty-five cars, yen foot yacht, and various interests in a myriad of businesses ranging from wa aurants to vodka. See a list of Rothstein's assets seized by the federal govern in' nil with estimates of their value attached hereto as Exhibit "A-r

35. Rothstein lived lavis SVC' nt prolifically--critical components necessary to set his scheme in motion.

36. With RRA's tire marketing efforts and meteoric rise into prominence, Rothstein quickly s into preeminent social circles, rubbing elbows with high networth individ political luminaries, the perfect breeding grounds to lure wealthy investors. as up and running.

The Plan¶

37. Rothstein seized upon his new found stature to entice investors into what would eventually become a Ponzi scheme using his budding employment and labor practice at RRA as his conduit.

38. The scheme was predicated on the Principal Conspirators self-professed pipeline of pre-suit, confidential settlement agreements as the "preeminent sexual harassment and labor employment law firm in the country." Investors were told that the Principal Conspirators had an extensive in-house private investigative team, including former F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents, whose singular task was to obtain compromising evidence against high-profile putative_defendants. Rothstein's story was that the evidence and surveillance acquired, often su of action ranging from sexual harassment to mass tort cover-ups to w presented to the putative defendant who was then offered an opportu the negative publicity associated therewith by agreeing to re.so through a confidential settlement with the putative plaintlif. civil causes blotver claims, was t6 avoid litigation and matter voluntarily by and

39. Once the putative defendant agreed, the confidential settlement always included two main ingredients: (I) that structured payments to a putative plaintiff be made over time. generally a three to nine month time period; and (2) that the putative defendant would fund the entire settlement up front to be held in RRA's TD Bank trust account and disbursed to the putative plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the confidential settlement agreement.

The Pitch¶

S" \ 40. :rein informed investors that the putative plaintiffs did not want to wait for the sync Monthly payouts and would agree to assign their rights to the structured payout for a lump-sum payment typically at a discount in the range of 20-40% of the settlements' facevalue. _Rothstein always had a plethora of plausible explanations as to why a putative plaintiff wanted their money now and simply could not wait for the structured monthly payments.¶

in claimed to want nothing from the deal and was only presenting the ative plaintiffs benefit and to facilitate recovery of RRA's contingent fee.¶

would often boast that if not for his professional and legal conflicts irchasing these assignments.¶

means to induce investor action, Rothstein would show investors the tgreement in an attempt to substantiate the deal; however, because the suit and confidential, the names of the putative plaintiffs and putative ed.¶

natty, the Principal Conspirators would provide: (I) confirmationoA kc balance at TD Bank evidencing the putative defendants fully ja tihic (2) a "lock letter", drafted and executed by a TD Bank ; that the respective settlement proceeds in RRA's trust ac un fd only investor's designated account which, in most cases<Zs, count at TD titles for an independent third-party verifier to uthe te the underlying and funding of settlement proceeds.¶

i¶

, Rothstein was hyper-vigilant re rig ess to RRA accounts under iality. In fact, potential in c Id only access TD Bank account wo ways. Either Roth tei invite the investor to his office to view vided by himself or Stay r he would "authorize" TD Bank to provide ments and wire transfers prepared and delivered by TD Bank executives 41. Rothstc¶

"opportunity" for a pu¶

Notwithstanding, Roil he would be the one pi¶

42. Asa r purported settlement settlements were predefendants were redact

43. Additio

RRA's trust account settlement proceeds; irrevocably confirming be paid directly to the Bank; and (3) opportut settlement, assignment¶

44. Notably

the guise of confident information in one of t the online balance copies of account state¶

which is an October 6. 2009 on-line screen shot of RRA's 113 Bank accounts v Irene Shannon which is Irene Stay's maiden name. ("Welcome. Irene xl in on Tuesday. October 06, 2009 4:37 PM.")¶

^{1 3} See Exhibit "W" infra. accessed (logged in) h Shannon! You lust logs¶

id Caretsky. On numerous occasions. TD Bank vice-president Spinosa, .stetter, and assistant vice president Caretsky, physically handed the trust .othstein in the immediate presence of an investor.¶

final piece to persuade an investment, Rothstein would offer to personally In. This personal guaranty, secured by the significant assets (as discussed, Iponent which tacitly lent credibility and security to the transaction.¶

a investor was interested, the Principal Conspirators, in conjunction with ement for the assignment of the settlement agreement and proceeds.¶

xecution of the assignment, the investor would wire transfer to RRA' ip sum payment for immediate disbursement to the putative plait¶

Dbligated to make payment from the funds previously verified : TD Bank directly to the investor's lock letter trust accoyQt at ank in the terms of the purported settlement agreement.¶

Spinosa, Kerstetter a assistant manager Kc account statement to I¶

45. As the guaranty the transactii supra), was a vital cor

46. Once a Boden, drafted an agn

47. Upon c trust account the lun Thereafter, RRA was

RRA's trust account ai strict accordance with¶

Ponzi Scheme In Action¶

Fabricated Settlements Premised on Real Cases¶

48. In certain instances, the purported settlements, albeit fraudulent, were based on actual cases being handled by RRA. For example, one of the settlements involved herein was based upon facts surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous billionaire financier. act, RRA did have inside information due to its representation of one of Epstein's alleg tms in a civil case styled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Esptein, pending in the Sou et of Florida. Representatives of D3 were offered "the opportunity" to invest in suit $30,000,000.00, court settlement against Epstein arising from the same se tive facts as the Jane Doe case, but involving a different underage female Alai e-mail dated October 6. 2009 referencing Epstein which is attached hereto and c rate herein as Exhibit "B." To augment his concocted story Rothstein invited D3 tt otlIce to view the thirteen banker's boxes of actual case files in Jane Doe in o emonstrate that the claims against Epstein were legitimate and that the evident agai pstein was real. In particular, Rothstein claimed that his investigative team diseovere that there were high-profile witnesses onboard Epstein's private jet where some of the alleged sexual assaults took place and showed D3 copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries and international figures. Because of these potentially explosive facts, putative defendant Epstein had allegedly offered $200,000,000.00 for settlement of the claims held by various young women who were his victims. Adding fuel to the fire, the investigative team representative privately told a ID3 representative that they found three additional claimants which Rothstein did not yet know about.

Further, Preve was present for this meeting, despite the fact that he was not involved as an investor or representative in the D3 deal.¶

49. Additionally, Rothstein used RRA's representation in the Epstein case to pursue issues and evidence unrelated to the underlying litigation but which was potentially beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme. For instance, RRA relentlessly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with other famous individuals knowing full well that no under age women were on board and no illicit activi ecj t' k place. RRA also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebriti ' deliberate effort to bolster Rothstein's lies.

50. Conspicuously, and contrary to Ban 's leiations4, Prove and Szafranski shared an office at RRA one floor down from s 2roviding them access to Rothstein to assist in the furtherance of the Ponzi sch me. phis fact helps explain why Prcvc attended the aforementioned D3 meeting despite *S1 involvement as an investor or representative.

51. Another actual c wi Rothstein attempted to use as a false predicate for his scheme was a mass tort case against Chiquita Brands International. In this instance, Rothstein claimed to be representing plaintiffs in 450 wrongful death cases on the verge of settling for $2,000,000.00 each. Rothstein told investors to begin raising funds in order to purchase this settlement. See e-mail dated October 14, 2009 referencing Chiquita which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C." While the cases against Chiquita are real, Rothstein did not represent any of the plaintiffs and the cases remain pending.

¹_10. a November 23. 2009. "Confidential Update From Ranyon". Levin erroneously alleges that —The allegation that Mr. Preve had an office at the Rothstein law firm, or that he may have helped the Rothstein firm to mislead potential investors is a total lie. Period."¶

nvestments:¶

Income Fund¶

BIF was formed in May 2009, and served as an original feeder fund for the onspirators settlement deals.¶

According to &coffering materials provided by Levin and Preve BIF's stated goal was to purchase: Cos¶

discount settlements and related periodic revenue stream from individual plaintiffs who have settled their labor and employment related lawsuits or claims, and who would otherwise receive their settlement amounts over a period of time. The purchased settlements are secured by the full settlement amounts which will have been deposited in a trust account established by the plaintiff's attorney for benefit of the plaintiff prior to purchase by Banyon Fund. LP. These settlements are released to Income Fund, LP over time to liquidate the settlement.¶

!rnial Offering Memorandum dated April 30, 2009, hick is attached hereto rated herein as Composite Exhibit "D."¶

Not coincidentally. BIF's loves nt stra gy is identical to the purported vehicle offered by the Principal C picot at the center of the Ponzi scheme. s sm¶

? In fact, the Confidential 'nMemorandum avers that "loInce a structure of anentation was put in lac relationship established with Rothstein. the General able to achieve a lame n up in business volume . . . lwhichl have stabilized at fly $60.000.000 - $75.000,000 in funded business per month." and that the "If unding ivities has come from credit facilities with institutional hedge fund lenders as well as capital of Mr. Levin." Id.¶

Plaintiffr'¶

1. Daiwa¶

Principal C¶

investment¶

See Confidi¶

and incorpc¶

investment¶

formal doci¶

Partner ww¶

apnroximat¶

for these kW¶

the persona¶

56. Significantly, Banvon's Confidential Offering Memorandum relies heavily upon an audited financial statement prepared by Ekren&Id which purportedly details Banvon's stageering myth and astounding returns verifying . inter (that that:

• a. Levin, by and through Banvon affiliated companies. was doing as much as $75,000,000.00 in business a month with Rothstein.
• b. Through March 2009, Banyan affiliated companies d over SI.I billion dollars worth of legal settlements fro t for a cost of 5657.000,000.00;
• c. By the end of March 2009. the Bannon fill ed companies had realized over $53 I .000.0(10AX) million i
• d. Banvon affiliated co listed receivables in excess of 1559,00().000.00 from settlements investments.

5:ajd,¶

57. BIF's Confident' Memorandum provided investors a window into the Principal Conspirators' h use o rds, as the hedge fund was just one of the investment consortiums fcedin c Po it scheme's voracious appetite.

58. bstantially all of BIF's assets were funneled into the Principal e which served as rocket fuel blasting the obscure investment vehicle to

59. In the spring of 2009, Barry Bekkedam from Ballamor Capital Management. LLC (hereinafter, 'Ballamor")5 and promoter of BIF, met Doug Von Allmen (D&L Partners) to I discuss D&L Partners' participation in BM.

60. During that discussion, Mr. Von Allmen learned that BM was started by Levin, a professed mentor and confidant of Rothstein, and that the settlements BIF was p turibc • ing were through an exclusive arrangement negotiated between Rothstein and Levin on bL f of BIF.

61. Mr. Von Allmen was told by Mr. Bekkedam that Levi nally worth in excess of $406,000,000.00 and would personally guarantee the settle

62. Additionally, Mr. Bekkedam told Mr. Vo ¶that the settlements were I already fully-funded in the attorneys'trust accounts q ig Four_ auditing firm would verify them quarterly, and that Ballamor had c coif'14,, balances and would oversee Banyon's 4hi • • .., o s dependent verifier to monitor and confirm the settlement transaction. s unfettered access to the trust account

63. Finally. Mr. Vo was told by Mr. Bekkedam that it would take two signatures to move the mo t ey, one o which would be someone from IMF.

64. In re • cc o, these purported security anti verification procedures, on or about May 4, 2009. on lmen (through D&L Partners) and his wife Linda Von Allmen (through Dynasty wired BIF f approximately one month later, his son and daughter-in-law David and n Von Allmen (through the DVA Trust and AVA Trust) and his step-son,

Ballamor Capital Management, LLC is an S.E.C. registered investment advisor specializing in managing investments on behalf of high and ultra-high net worth individuals¶

h As it turns ow. the "Big Four" accounting firm referenced was Bereaifeld,¶

ly referred to herein as "Banyon Investors") also funded investments as
and Mr. Bekkedam.¶

o investing, each Banyon Investor received a "the aforementioned
Memorandum describing the terms and conditions of the investment structure
composite Exhibit "D."¶

antly, the Confidential Offering Memorandum provided that a receipt of the
re transfer of the full settlement proceeds into RRA's trust account would be
ent third party (see Szafranski, infra). Id.¶

ally, the Banyon Investors were assured that in cooperation with TD Bank
ed out to be Spinosa, Kerstetter and Caretsky), that BIF's third-party verifier
ss to banking records for each deposit account and admission into all records
settlements and settlement trust accounts. Id.¶

nore, the Memorandum states that while "Ballamor will receive no
participation or investment recommendation . . . George Levin has an
with Ballamor and its principal, Barry R. Bekkedam, with respect to an
ballamor by Mr. Levin and a loan to Mr. Bekkedam, the final terms of
termined."⁷ Id.¶

ki, president of Onyx Capital Management, acted as an the designated
verifier for the Banyon Investors and BIF. Prior to and during the course of¶

Kretschmar (collective)
directed by Ballamor a¶

65. Prior 1
    Confidential Offering 1
    in greater detail. See C

66. Signific
    putative defendant's wi
    verified by an indepen

67. Additio
    executives (which turn
    would have online acc
    related to the purchased

68. Further
    compensation for its
    agreement in principle
    equity investment in
    which have not been d

69. Szafranski
    independent, third-party

hat Ballamor and Mr. Bekkedam received $5,000,000.00 from Levin for their
scheme along with a $18,000,000.00 investment through Ballamor into Nova
k.¶

⁷ In fact we now know
involvement in this Ponti
Bank, a Pennsylvania bank¶

his investigation, Szafranski obtained the following information demonstrative of TD Bank's involvement:¶

a. October 29. 2008 letter signed by Caretsky, assistant branch manager with Commerce Banks enclosing three trust account statements for RRA: (1) account number containing $166,922,339.00; (2) account number containing $40,125,685.44; and (3) account number containing $348,229,463.21. All three trust account statements for RRA are attached hereto and incorporated herein, "Composite Exhibit "E ,t¶

b. March 20.2009 letter signed by Kerstetter an assistant manager for TD Bank enclosing three trust account statement for RRA: (1) account number showing a balance of $104,211,711.22; (2) account number $368,333,133.20; and (3) account number A three account statements referenced an Exhibit "F." C .S ) showing a balance of showing a balance of $110,331,563.13. All hereto and incorporated herein as Composite¶

c. Ap 17, 2x69 letter signed by Caretsky as a TI.) Bank Assistant Vice President, enclosing RRA trtst account statement for: (I) account number showing a balance of $61,117,_) RRA trust account statement for account number showing a balance of $80978,935.31; (3) RRA trust account statement for account number showing a balance of $136,122,322.87; (4) RRA trust account statement for account number showing a balance of $198,644,311.13; and (5) RRA trust account statement for account number showing a balance of $483,668,999.39. All five trust account¶

⁸ Commerce Bank was a predecessor in interest to TD Bank as a result of -1-14-Bank. . *5- hillit4hptifeht-e of ( 'ointit-Fee-tiattIri-pp March 2008 purchaNc.¶

attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "I": e. June 22. 2009 Commerce Bank wire transfer to RRA trust acc ending xin the amount of $2,680,000.00 and purporting to be a funded settlement • l i y of which is 0¶

statements referenced are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "G."¶

d. June 22, 2009 Commerce Bank wire transfer to RRA trust account ending xin the amount of $1,957,500.00 and purporting to be a funded settlement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "II";¶

f. June 22, 2009 Commerce Bank wire transfer to ulust account ending xin the amount of $695,000.00 and purporting to be a fundojilllement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "1':¶

g. June 30, 2009 Commerce Bank wire transfer to RRA trust account ending xin the amount of $2,208.000.00 and purporting to be a funded settlement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "K";¶

h. July I, 2009 Commerce Bank wire transfer to RRA trust account ending xin the amount of $6,072,000.00 and purporting to be a funded settlement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "L";¶

I July 13. 2009 letter signed by Kerstetter from TD Bank enclosing RRA trust account statement for account number showing a balance of $14,286,000.00. a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "M"; and¶

j. July 17, 2009 TD Bank wire transfer to RRA trust account ending x= in the amount of $22.348,221.00 and purporting to be a funded settlement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "N";¶

70. In reliance on the foregoing, as confirmed by Szafranski. the Banyon Investors collectively invested $60,550,000.00 into RIF and into the Ponzi scheme.

2. Razorback Funding, LLC¶

71. Razorback was formed September 24, 2009 for purposes of investing in two RRA settlements: (I) a $40,600,000.00 structured settlement, payable in four e monthly installments, offered in exchange for a lump sum payment of $23,200, and (2) a $26,100,000.00 structured settlement, payable in three equal monthl ents, offered in exchange for a lump sum payment of $17,400,000.00. See Confiden Se4tlement Agreements and Releases which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "O."

72. In particular, the deal was structured so Razorback would fund $32,000,000.00 towards the purchase of these settlements by means of a loan to Banyon USVI, LLC. Banyon USVI in turn would contribute $8.600,000.001 purchase the settlement proceeds from the Principal Conspirators. See Acknow g e of Assignment/Purchase of Settlement Proceeds and Sale and Transfer Agreemc is win is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "P."

73. On oSo kut cptember 18, 2009, as part of its due diligence, Razorback obtained a copy of a TD B "I letter" signed by Spinosa used in a prior deal. See September 18, 2009 lock letter Bank which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "()." The lock letter indicates that TD Bank had been irrevocably instructed to pay the fund identified in a particular RRA trust account only to the investor's bank account.

74. On October 1, 2009, Szafranski, who was utilized as the independent reviewer for Razorback as well met with Rothstein to review and verify all of the documents supporting the Razorback deal. In that meeting. Szafranski purportedly witnessed Rothstein sign on to the 'I'D Bank on-line banking website and verified that all of the wire transfers for the underlying Razorback settlement deals had been received by RRA and were held in RRA's trust account ending in x-MI. A copy of the October I, 2009 email from Szafranski verifying the abovereferenced account is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "it.'',

75. Szafranski also verified that a "lock letter" had been received by Spinosa as Regional Vice President of TD Bank dated October 1, 2009 statingMeiollowing:

( --- : Pursuant to your written instructions'to us of September 30. 2009. please be advised that all funds contained in the above referenced account shall only be distributed upon your or Stuart Rosenfcldt's instruction and shall only be distributed to Banyon USVI (Del), LLV, do Razorback Funding, I.LC, Debt & Equity Re-Payment Account: TD Bank. NA, 319 Glen Head Road. Old Brookville, NY. ABA: 0260(3673, Account # . Your letter is understood not to convey ownership of the account or access to the account to any other party, but rather is meant to irrevocably restrict conveyances as follows: conveyances shall only be made from the account referenced above to the Banyon USVI account. I

¶

See October 1, 2009 letter which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "S."¶

76. Spinosa e-mailed the "lock letter" to Rothstein earlier that day with a message stating that at Rothstein's "request and instructions, this account [RRA's trust account] has been irrevocably locked as to destination of all disbursements [which was Razorback's account, also at TD Bank]. The letter confirming same is attached. Please do not deposit any funds into this account that are not soley (sic) to be directed to the entity set forth in the irrevocable instruction." A copy of the October I. 2009 email from Spinosa is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "'F."

I copies of two wire transfers from a total of $66,700,000.00 (the full A in its trust account with TD Bank. hereto and incorporated herein as¶

an email from Rothstein providing: o RRA's trust account; and (2) that •eceived the $32,000,000.00 from Rothstein is attached hereto and¶

intact Spinosa to verify the details of to reach Spinosa but did receive : letter and that Spinosa signed it.¶

nail from Preve which contained an ing a balance of $66,700,000.00. A i'dxhibit " W. "¶

:lain with Rothstein and veri teir disbursements by )bcr 22, 2009 confirming email is¶

erred the sum of $32,000,000.00 to¶

AS" (S " lock letter. The Razorback representative was unable 9. On October 3, 2009, Razorback attempted to cc confirmation from Spinosa's assistant that she prepared the loci¶

77. Also on October 1, 2009, Razorback receive Preve. a Banyon USVI representative, demonstrating that settlement funding being purchased) had been received by RR A copy of the October I. 2009 wire transfers is attached Composite Exhibit "U."

78. On the, Preve forwarded Razorback (I) confirmation of •%rported $8,000,000.00 wire ini no disbursement e deal would be made until he ; Razorb opy of the October I, 2009 email frorr the d herein as Exhibit "V." cd4s,

79. On October 7, 2009, Razorback received an a on-line screen shot of an RRA trust account at TD Bank indicai copy of the TD Bank account screen shot is attached hereto as I

80. Finally, on October 22, 2009, Szafranski met a all of the putative plaintiffs in the Razorback deals received II Bank's on-line banking website. A copy of Szafranski Oct attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "X."

81. In reliance on the foregoing, Razorback transf RRA's trust account.

3. D3 Capital Cub, LLC¶

83. 1)3 was formed October 4, 2009 for purposes of investing in a $30,000,000.00 RRA structured settlement, payable in six equal monthly installments of $5,000,000.00. offered in exchange for $18,000,000.00. See Confidential Settlement Agreements and Releases which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "Y."

84. A D3 representative, who was also a representative of R management team, had knowledge of and relied upon the contacts and representa r' 6 by TD Bank in connection with the Razorback transaction.

85. On or about October 15, 2009, as part of its due diligence, 1)3 obtained a copy of a TD Bank "lock letter" signed by Spinosa stating the following:

Pursuant to your written instructions to us of October 14, 2009, please be advised that all funds contained in the above referenced account shall only be distributed upon your or Stuart Rosenfeldt's instruction and shall only be distributed to D3 Capital Club, LLC, 2833 NE 35th Court, Port Lauderdale. FL 33308, TI) Bank NA, Account #

¶

Your letter is understood not to convey ownership of the account or access to the account to any other party, but rather is meant to irrevocably restrict conveyances as follows: conveyances shall only be made from the account referenced above to the TD bank account belonging to D3 Capital Club, LLC.

¶

See Oct oA 1 " lock letter attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "Z."¶

\ n October 15. 2009, Spinosa signed another letter enclosing a copy of RRA's trust account bank statement showing a balance in excess of $30,000,000.00. See October 15, 2009 letter attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "AA."¶

87. Furthermore, on October 15. 2009, Kerstetter drafted a letter to RRA enclosing a copy of RRA's trust account bank statement for the D3 settlement showing a balance in excess of $30,000,000.00. This letter was personally delivered by Kerstetter to Rothstein in a D3 representative's presence while inside the TD Bank Fort Lauderdale branch. See October 15. 2009 letter attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "AA-1." Later that day. Kerstetter met again with that same D3 representative at a location outside of the bank in order to sign the paperwork to open a D3 account at TD Bank. Aftisc

88. On October 16, 2009 and again on October 19, 2009, a D3 rep ye sent emails to Spinosa and Kerstetter advising that Di had opened its account for doing business with RRA and asked about the mechanics of the irrevocable lock letterthat D3 had with RRA account number A copy of the October 16, 2009 and October 19, 2009 emails are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Composite Exhibit "BB."

89. Spinosa responded to the October 19, 2009 email with a phone call to the 1)3 representative. During the conversation, the luck letter was acknowledged by Spinosa who refuseLito provide any further details about the Principal Conspirators' accounts.

90. Finally, on October 19, 2009, Stafranski met with Rothstein and verified that the sum of $30,000,000.00 was wired from the putative defendant into the RRA trust account ending x-1629. A copy of the October 19, 2009 email is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "CC."

91 ht=rtliance on the foregoing, D3 transferred the sum of $13,500,000.00 to RRA's trust account¶

4. Investment, LLC¶

92. BFMC was formed in November 1998 to fund investment opportunities.

93. On September 28 2009, BFMC principal, Barry Florescue ("Florescue") met socially with Andrew Barnett ("Barnett"), Director of Corporate Development for RRA.

94. During this meeting, Barnett described his role at RRA and invi cue to meet Rothstein later that week to discuss a lucrative investment opportuni orescue was aware of Rothstein given Rothstein's prominence in the Fort Laude ness and social community, and a meeting was scheduled at RRA on September 30,

95. Florescue and his employee, Mark Seigel ("S ved in RRA's offices and were initially introduced to Boden. Coincidentally, B many years earlier, worked as a junior staff member with Florescue's corpora and had actively worked on one of Florescue's previous financing transactions.

96. After several minutes, Boden and Barnett led Florescue and Seigel into Rothstein's private office.

97. After introductions, Rothstein described an investment opportunity involving purchasing various settlements with structured payments explaining as follows:

( A whistleblow wits against employers. RRA has specific expertise in a specific type of litigation c ed Qui Tam litigation, in which the defendant is also accused of defrauding the United States government. RRA became a magnet for Qui Tam cases following its success as co-counsel in a 2008 Eli Lilly Qui Tam case, which resulted in a $1 billion plus settlement. \ORA is a nationally recognized firm representing whistleblowers in¶

b. RRA was currently representing whistleblower plaintiffs inside a Fortune 500 company that had allegedly defrauded the United States government. Citing confidentiality. Rothstein could not share the name of the defendant, but he described it as a large food conglomerate that had substituted cheaper ingredients into food supplies sold to the government under national contracts. Rothstein was rounding up dozens of whistleblowers inside the company who had been threatened by senior management to remain regarding the company's fraud.¶

c. RRA had negotiated numerous settlement or .000.00 for various whistleblower clients, but &defendant insisted on paying jhe ents out over four months. The plaintiffs wanted their cash up front.¶

d. Rothstein explained that u ye plaintiffs were willing to take a large discount up front because: (i) they had a of concern over whether defendant would attempt to prevent them from receiv ents after settling and, (ii) Rothstein explained in detail a legal concept called "Citity' plaintiff was "in privity" with the defendant which subjected their settlement, to reversal by the federal government. Rothstein represented that a third party buyer of the settlement rights would not be subject to such reversal as the third party was not "in privity" with the defendant.¶

e. The settlement documents were drafted and ready to be settled, but Rothstein needed to find an investor to fund the settlement. Rothstein explained that such a transaction was legal, because the settlement agreement had no "anti-assignment rights", but that any third party investor couldn't be given any details about the parties involved in the settlement. because it was by nature highly confidential and did contain strong confidentiality provisions.¶

f. Due to the fact that a "funder" could not be given any information about the case, the defendant, or the plaintiff, and given the fact that Rothstein needed a high degree of confidentiality about even the existence of the funding arrangement (in order to prevent defendants from explicitly prohibiting this type of arrangement going forward), Rothstein could only engage in such transaction with local friends with whom he trusted.¶

g. RRA's clients were willing to accept $800,000.00 up fro nd exc ange for their rights to the $1,400,000.00 settlement, payable over 4 months.¶

h. Rothstein could not personally fund the struct d sttlements because it was illegal for him or his firm to profit from a structured settlement in which he represented the plaintiff. However, it was in his firm's interest to find a fonder so that the firm could settle the case and get paid its contingency fee.¶

i. Rothstein remarked that the transaction would be substantiated and verified, that he would provide evidence of the settlement in his office, and that he would get on the phone with Spinosa of TO, Bank to confirm that the putative defendant's funds had been wired into a Florida Bar trust account with instructions to only release the funds in that account to the specified funder.¶

98. Upon concluding the meeting. Barnett walked Florescue and Seigel out to the elevator. During -a debrief, Barnett revealed that the defendant was Dole Foods, which had knowingly supplied the U.S. Government with impure orange juice in a major juice contract that called for 100% pure orange juice. Barnett said that Rothstein had offered to sign a corporate and personal guaranty as a further inducement to make the investment.

consent. 100. During the first week of October 2009, Florescue telephoned Spinosa, who Florescue knew professionally based on various banking activities previously engaged in, to inquire about Rothstein. Spinosa said that he could not talk about Rothstein withgrail4 othstein's¶

99. Between September 30, 2009 and October 15, 2009, BFMC worked with their counsel and 13oden on various transaction documents necessary to close the deal.

AS 101. In early October, 2009, Boden finalized the deal for BFMC's investment in three identical RRA settlements: (1) a $1,400,000. tuned settlement, payable in four equal monthly installments, offered in cx r a lump sum payment of $800,000.00; (2) a second $1,400,000.00 structured payable in four equal monthly installments, offered in exchange for a lump ent of $800,000.00: and (3) a third $1,400,000.00 structured settlement, paya %f r equal monthly installments, offered in exchange for a lump sum payment 00. See correspondence from David Bodcn which is attached hereto and i in as Exhibit "DD."¶

102. BFMC's e licit u erstanding from Boden and Rothstein was that the putative defendant's funds w to held in RRA's trust account and could only he released directly to BFMC's ace' rstilttt to an irrevocable "lock letter."

103. about October 15, 2009, as part of its due diligence, BFMC obtained a copy of a TD Bank k letter" signed by Spinosa stating that:

[p]ursuant to your written instructions to us of October 14, 2009, please be advised that all funds contained in the above referenced account shall only be distributed upon your or Stuart Rosenfeldt's instruction and shall only be distributed to BB&T (FICA: Colonial Bank), Pompano Beach Branch # 32083, (954) 943-6550, ABA#

¶

062001319, for further credit to: BFMC Investment, LLC Account #¶

Your letter is understood not to convey ownership of the account or access to the account to any other party, but rather is meant to irrevocably restrict conveyances as follows: conveyances shall only he made from the account referenced above to the BB&T (FICA: Colonial Bank) account # belonging to BFMC Investment, LLC.¶

See October 15. 2009 lock letter attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "EE."¶

104. Later that day, and in reliance on the foregoing, BFMC wired $2,400,000.00 to '.." 1 RRA's TD Bank account number

Implosion of Rothstein's PoriCSehc¶

105. In October 2009, the Ponzi scheme reached critical mass. October was a huge month for investor settlement redemptions and Rothstein knew that the influx of new investor capital could not satisfy all previous investor obligations. Sensing that the end was near. Rothstein began planning his escape.

106. On October 17. 2009. Rothstein sent a firm-wide e-mail at RRA asking for help to determine whether a "clieneiwho is facing a multitude of criminal charges in the United States- including fraud, money laundering and embezzlement--could be extradited to the United States or Israel from abroad after renouncing his United States citizenship. Rothstein's email asked for countries which did not have extradition treaties with the United States or Israel9 and concluded by stating that "it]his client is related to a very powerful client of ours and so time is of the essence. Lets rock and roll... there is a very large fee attached to this case. Thanks Love ya

Not coincidentally Morocco. Rothstein's destination on October 27. 2009. was one of the countries that does not have an extradition treaty with either the United States or Israel,¶

Scott." See Sun-Sentinel article dated November 16, 2009 referencing the October 17, 2009 email which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "FF." Suffice it to say, Rothstein was the purported "client" and this is the first clear written indication that he knew his fate.¶

107. By the end of October 2009. Rothstein and RRA began to default on the investors' structured payments and the Ponzi scheme began to unravel.

108. On October 26, 2009, Linda Von Al!men spoke with Ro Bova restaurant who, in between martinis, admitted that he was "having a had day.' t,btein was joined by a woman and his bodyguard, believed to be Joe Alu, who ma ',ha v. iesscd this exchange.

109. On October 27, 2009, Richard Pearson,'`+tithoi Cf invested $18,000.000.00 in the Ponzi scheme, confronted Rothstein who was sitting with Spinosa inside of Bova restaurant. Pearson, in Spinosa's presence, demanded to know why he had not received two scheduled payments due to him the week prior. i ) attempted to diffuse the situation leaving Spinosa visibly shaken.

110. Shortly thereafter, cothstein proceeded to methodically drain the TD Bank RRA accounts dry, depleting virtually all of the remaining investors' money as well as the money of many of the firms' clients.

11 9n Me evening of October 27, 2009. Rothstein secretly boarded a private G-5 jet destined foIMorocco, but not before completing a $16,000,000.00 wire transfer to a Moroccan bank.¶

112. By October 30, 2009, investors began to scramble desperately attempting to reach Rothstein for answers. Unbeknownst to them Rothstein was already gone, along with their investments, as the Ponzi scheme finally buckled under the pressure of obligations due.

113. Alarmed investors frantically reached out to RRA executives and attorneys begging for information as to the whereabouts of Rothstein and their more than $ .000.00 in overdue payments. Stuart Rosenfeldt thereinafter. "Rosenfeldt") assembl am including Boden, Stay and Grant at RRA to begin answering, the deluge of yes )r calls by first confirming with Stay (RRA's C.F.O.) that RRA's gyrating and rust accOunts contained more than $1 billion dollars. Shamefully. Stay refused to D senfeldt the confirmation requested. Growing ever agitated. Rosenfeldt and ill firmed to press Stay demanding a to know what was going on and that she pmdw. ,ti • ti v i t account statements. Eventually Stay relented and began inconsolably crying he phrase. "I don't want to go to iail.' Rosenfeldt proceeded to conferenc 1 nisoa who initially declined to provide account balance verification but after in ch ca g finally informed Rosenfeldt that the RRA accounts had been almost complete deplet

Devastating Fallout¶

114 locity at which the Ponii scheme cratered sent a sonic boom felt through nancial and legal world.¶

115. Reeling from its shameful missteps in connection with the Rothstein scandal, an emergency receiver was appointed for RRA on November 4, 2009 for the purpose of winding down its operations.

116. As the dust begins to settle, critical details have emerged revealing the scope and magnitude of this the nefarious scheme. By way of example Plaintiffs have discovered that:

• a. the entirety of Plaintiffs' more than $100,000,000.00 investment is gone;
• b. plaintiffs' lock letter" accounts were never funded with the purported settlement money and contained only a nominal deposit of 440'0;
• c. even after Rothstein's October 27, 2009 departure to M cO, millions of dollars continued to flow out of RRA accounts Fort Lauderdale TD Bank accounts, indicative of an insider(s)'maintaining operations of the Ponzi scheme including, but not Matt

i.	Shimon Levy
ii.	Shimon Levy
iii.	Onyx
iv.	Barhe
v.	Shimon
vi.	Ohich
vii.	R stet
	kowitz	$225,000.00
	Varon	3313
	ink Ponatchio	$280,000.00
	ranicl Minkowitz	$200.000,00
	Daniel Minkowitz	$100.000.00
	Shimon Levy	$366.666.00
	Shimon Levy	$337.500.(X)
	Onyx Capital	$275,000.00
	Obidia Levy	$268,000.00
	Obidia Levy	$175,000.00
	Mott' Ban-Adon	$132,000.00
	Benzion Varon	$33,333.00
	Ahnick Kahlid	$16,000,000.00
	BWS Investments	$300.000.00
	Pirulin Group	$300,000.00
	Condorde Capital	$300.000.00
	National Financial	$150.000.00;

• d. in April 2009. $53,060,000.00 in credits and 551,560,000.00 in debits were transacted through four RRA trust accounts at TD Bank;
• e. in October 2009 $235,000,000.00 in credits and $232,000,000.00 in debits were transacted through the RRA accounts at TD Bank;
• f. the $8,000,000.00 wire transfer confirmation used by Preve othstein to induce Razorback's $32,000,000.00 payment was in 11 R ever, received by RRA or TD Bank; 0
• g. on November 1, 2009, Mel Lifshitz of DE rides whose group invested nearly $100,000,000.00 into i scheme, advised a group of investor° victims that he with Spinosa at TD Bank and verified investment accou
• h. during that same meet informed the group that he reached out to Rothstein in ro> Etting him know that Banvon stood ready to provide s ancing if he was having trouble making payments. MI ndin Levin's revealing admission took the group by surprise cca on the c re "deal" tenants insured against an ssible deficit requiring a putative defendant's settlement to be funded orior to an investors lump sum purchase. Thus. any shortfall, even the smallest one, is patently contrary to the investment structure and obvious evidence that the monies arc either being misused or are a part of a Ponzi scheme.

^&quot;'The group of investors attending the November I. 2009 meeting include:. Krctsclunar, Ted Morse, Ed Morse, Richard Pearson,_ Ira Sochet. Mel Lifshit, elvin. Mark Nordlicht. Jack Sinwmv. Steve Jacket, Laurence King. Steve Levin. Levin, MPreve. Barry Bekkedam, and Michael Szatranski,¶

• i. Plaintiffs now believe that Levin's statement was a thinly-veiled attempt to cover his tracks after Rothstein rcj. led Levin's last-ditch efforts to persuade Rothstein to keep the Ponzi scheme going. In support. Plaintiffs rely on a Oct ber 31. 2009 email from Pine to Rothstein stating that "We 'Levin and Prevel understand that the shortage is now 30sJjch is still nuntareable if we have your cooperation. Let m Rothstein responds. "What is not the shortage money needed to give the investors back their I really just need to end it M. It will make it easier f (emphasis added). The attempt to try and "manage" th ed now presumes that Levin and Preve had knowledge o r deficit and serves as an unwitting admisskm of their invaly n in the perpetuation of the Ponzi scheme; sometime in or Summer of 2009, Ted Morse was personally provided th ritten account balance statement by Caretsky at TD Algi*," to which s the amount of a ro rt w* h an sed val of 7.750.00 to for "love and affection" and $100.00. Notwithstanding, owning the property free and clear. who earned $150.000 00 a year, decided to null $100.000.00 out of the property days prior to the IRS filing of a forfeiture in rent complaint against the property;
• 1. Berenfeld's audited financial statements for the affiliated Banyon entities confirmed finance receivables of $517,404,505.00 due from RRA

settlements worth more than $1,100,000,000.00. See Composite Exhibit¶

“D.” As now discovered, these verified finance receivables were pure fiction. Incontrovertibly, Berenfeld either willfully participated in this fraud or knew or should have known as part of the audit process that the finance receivables were fabricated and incapable of being independently verify;¶

• m. Berenfeld's complicity in the Ponzi scheme is further compounded by their role as accountants for RRA and Rothstein and Rosenfeldt individually providing them with first-hand knowledge of the patent inconsistencies between Banyon's purported verified audited receivables and RRA's actual numbers;
• n. due to the vast complexity in maintaining the Ponzi scheme's fraudulent accounting, it is only sophisticated accountants could have accounted for "phantom" investments over a period of four years allowing the Principal Conspirators to generate falsefied statements necessary to dupe investors;
• o. Ballamor and Mr. Bekkedam received a $5,000,000.00 "loan" from Levin for procuring investor funds along with a $18,000,000.00 investment through Ballamor into Nova Bank, a Pennsylvania bank;
• p. the TD Bank account statements provided and verified by Szafranski were completely fabricated and incapable of being confirmed. In most instances, there was either no money in the settlement accounts or the amounts contained were hundreds of millions less than what was

in the statements (see Comparison Chart of Actual Account h Provided Deal Account Statements as attached hereto and herein as Composite Exhibit "CG."); and¶

her knew or certainly should have known of the criminality irregularities of RRA's operations. Alternatively. TD Bank's or omissions in not conducting any due diligence inquiry into icious activities, unorthodox settlement structures. lack of xument and vigilant (if not obsessive) control over account Cher deliberate or reckless.¶

not he operated without insider help. Plaintiffs believe that ling its non-lawycr investigators, were used by Rothstein to he Ponzi scheme. The details of these individuals or e resently unknown but further allegations and cou d information concerning the complicity of tl se in duals¶

,jurisdiction and Venue¶

iction over this matter for damages in excess of ys' fees, costs and int¶

Broward County, Florida, pursuant to § 47.011, Fla. Stat., froward County, Florida and the cause of action accrued in ent, if any, have been met, waived or excused.¶

A Co's q. TD Bank ei¶

117. A Ponzi scheme cat additional members of RRA. inclw perpetuate, promote and facilitate t involvement and participation is p added as discovery is conducted an or entities is confirmed.

¶

represented¶

Balances w¶

incorporate(¶

and/or gross¶

actions and/¶

RRA's suss¶

supporting d¶

access was e¶

118. This court has jurisc $100,000,000.00 exclusive of attorni

119. Venue is appropriat because the Defendants' reside in Broward County, Florida.

120. All conditions preco

Auxilad_Complaint¶

vied firm and have agreed to pay it¶

ISREPRESENTATION¶

tothstein)¶

ontained in paragraphs I through t 07121 as¶

sentation.¶

Lein was operating a Ponzi scheme through¶

Rothstein knowingly made material false¶

imited to representing that the settlement¶

they had been fully funded, and that they¶

cited u Ie.¶

vestors to act on his knowingly false¶

Cf<2¶

d upon Rothstein's rcpresentatio' the ar¶

Rothstein's false sta Qe Banvon¶

Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY¶

LLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON¶

, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN¶

121. Plaintiffs have retained the undcrs

reasonable fee.¶

COUNT 11- FRAUDULENT M¶

(against Scott¶

122. Plaintiffs orporate the allegations c

if restated herein.¶

123.E a claim for fraudulent misrepre¶

s described more fully above. Rotho¶

and throu h TD Bank.¶

125. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme,

statements and representations. including but not¶

agreements purchased by investors were real. that¶

would be paid out to investors over a predetermined s¶

126. Rothstein intended the Bannon In

representations.¶

127. The Bannon Investors justifiably relic

detriment.¶

128. As a direct and proximate result of

Investors have sustained damages.¶

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN: as¶

TRUST;: D&L PARTNERS. LP.; DAVID VON A¶

ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN¶

LIVING TRUST; and [REDACTED] KRETSCHMAR request judgment against SCOTT ROTHSTEIN for compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT #2 - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against Jennifer Kerstetter)¶

1. 129. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 407[21] as restated herein.
2. 130. This is a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
3. 131. As described more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through [REDACTED] in this firm, RRA, and through TD Bank.
4. 132. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme, Kerstetter knowingly made material false statements and representations including, but not limited to, supplying investors with false bank account statements.
5. 133. Kerstetter intended the Banyon Investors to act on her knowingly false representations.
6. 134. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Kerstetter's representations to their etriment.
7. 135. As a direct and proximate result of Kerstetter's false statements, the Banyon investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, THE LINDA VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN YNASTY TRUST; D&L PARTNERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID¶

VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALI MEN as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR request judgment against JENNIFER KERSTETTER for compensatory damziges, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 1143 - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENIATIQN (against Roseanne Caretsks )¶

136. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contain Aphs I through it):111 as if restated herein.

137. This is a claim for fraudulent mis tEation.

138. As described more fully abos the in was operating a Ponzi scheme through his firm. RRA, and through TD Ban

139. In furtherance zi scheme. Caret; ky knowingly made material false statements and represent, account statements.s r as ine ding, but not limited to supplying, investors with false bank

140. — intended the Banvon Investors to act on her knowingly false representati

146e The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Carctslor's representations to their detriment.¶

142. As a direct and proximate result of Carctsky's false statements, the Banvon Investors have sustained damages.

E, TI11 LINDA VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN¶

D&L PARTNERS. LP;; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID¶

NG TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN¶

grd KRETSCHMAR request judgment against ROSEANNE¶

ivensatory damages. together with court costs and such further relief as the¶

co¶

WHEREFORI¶

DYNASTY TRUST:;¶

VON ALLMEN LIVI¶

LIVING TRUST; ^k¶

CARETSKY for coin¶

Court deems proper.¶

COUNT - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (against TD Bank, N.A.¶

143. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 1443121 as if restated herein.

144. This is a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

145. At all times material hereto, Kerstetter was acting in the scope c r lovmene as an assistant manager of TD Bank.

146. At all times material hereto, Caretskv was acting in of her employment as an assistant vice president and branch manager of TD Ban

147. As described more fully above. Rothsteip vii op Sting a Ponzi scheme through his firm, RRA. and through TD Bank.

148. In furtherance of the Ponzi s ili T Bank. through Kerstetter and Caretsky, knowingly made material false state and .presentations including, hut not limited to supplying investors with false ba ug statements.

149. TD Bank throu letter and Caretsky. intended the Banyon Investors to act on their knowingly false ntations.

150. I nvon Investors justifiably relied upon TD Bank's through Kerstetter's and Caretsky' Cations to their detriment.

As a direct and proximate result of TD Bank's. made through Kerstetter's and Caretskv's. false statements, the Banvon Investors have sustained damages.¶

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN: as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST:: D&L PARTNERS, LP:: DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: anda KRETSCHMAR request judgment against TD BANK. N.A., for compensatory damages. together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper¶

COUNT VS - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (against G. Levin)¶

152. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 ;21 as if restated herein.

153. This is a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

154. As described more fully above, Rothstein was g a Ponzi scheme through his firm, RRA, and thmugh TD Bank.

155. In furtherance of the Ponzi sche knowingly made material false statements and representations including, b not ed to. representing that the settlement agreements purchased by investors we t they had been fully funded, and that they would be paid out to investors ove c he...) • ned schedule.

156. Levin intended Banvon representations. Investors to act on his knowingly false

157. Th von 'Investors justifiably relied upon Levin's representations to their detriment.

15 s a direct and proximate result of Levin's false statements, the Banyan Investors have sustained damages.¶

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as Tmstee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: D&L PARTNERS. LP: DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN¶

[REDACTED] KRETSCHMAR request judgment against [REDACTED] LEVIN for [REDACTED] s, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems¶

COURT 6 - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against [REDACTED] Preve)¶

[REDACTED] is incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 121 as if [REDACTED] a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.¶

[REDACTED] ribed more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through [REDACTED] ough TD Bank.¶

[REDACTED] erance of the Ponzi scheme, Preve knowingly made material false [REDACTED] entations including, but not limited to, representing that the settlement [REDACTED] by investors were real, that they had been fully funded, and that they [REDACTED] vestors over a predetermined schedule.¶

[REDACTED] intended the Banyon Investors to act on his knowingly false [REDACTED] by investors justifiably relied upon Preve's representations to their [REDACTED]¶

[REDACTED] act and proximate result of Preve's false statements, the Banyon Investors [REDACTED]¶

LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY
IERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON
IERS; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN¶

LIVING TRUST; and
compensatory damage
proper.¶

Ct¶

159. Plaintil
     restated herein.

160. This is

161. As desc
     his firm, RRA, and the

162. In furth
     statements and repres
     agreements purchased
     would be paid out to in

163. Preve
     representations.

164. The Ba
     detriment.

165. As a dir
     have sustained damage

WHEREFORE
TRUST; D&L PART
ALLMEN LIVING T¶

LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR request judgment against PREVE for compensatory damages. together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 7 - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (against Banyon Income Fund, LP. and Banyon USVI, LLC)¶

• 166. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 u 2l as if restated herein.
  • 167. This is a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
• 168. At all times material hereto. Levin was acti the chief executive ofreer of Banyon USVI and BIF.
• 169. At all times material hereto, Preve aeIjin the scope of his employment as the chief operating officer or agent of Banyon d IF.
• 170. As described more fully ve R thstein was operating. a Ponzi scheme through his fimi, RRA, and through TI) B
• 171. In furtherance ( he onzi scheme. Banton USVI and BIF. through Levin and Preve, knowingly made false statements and representations including. but not limited to. renresenting IOtte settlement agreements purchased y investors were real, that they had been fully and that they would be paid out to investors over a predetermined schedule. /I\ . anvon USVI and ME through Levin and Preve, intended the Banyon Investors to act on their knowingly false representations.
• 173. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Banyon USV1's and BIF's, through 1.evin's and Preve's, representations to their detriment. scope of his employment as

174. As a direct and proximate result of Banvon USVI's and BIF's, made through Levin's and Preve's, false statements and representations, the Baryon Investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST:. D&L PARTNERS. LP: DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the ID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the AN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR moues( judgment agaias N ALLMEN YON INCOME FUND, LP, and BANYON USVI. LLC., for compensatorydamag ther with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems Proper. A¶

al COUNT 8 - FRAUDULENT MI§N ENTATION (against Michaekk )¶

175. Plaintiffs incorporate the alle ti tamed in paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein.

176. This is a claim for e misrepresentation.

177. As described v above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through his firm, RRA. and throu ank.

178. ranee of the Ponzi scheme. Szfranski knowingly made material false statement sr ntations including, but not limited to, verifying false bank statements and deal doctqc

179. Szfranski intended the Banvon Investors to act on his knowingly false representations.

180. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Szfranski's representations to their detriment.

181. As a direct and proximate result of Szfranski's false statements. the Banyon Investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: D&L PARTNERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of IIØNN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and KRETSCIIMAR request nt against_ MICHAEL SZFRANSKI for compensatory damages, together with coc ) such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 9 - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (against Onyx Capital Management)¶

182. Plaintiffs incomprate th all \SPY contained in paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein.

183. This is a dai (tt frau S H\ulent misrepresentation.

184. At all t. tat hereto, Szfranski was acting in the scope of his employment as president of Onv

185. scribed more hilly above. Rothstein was operating, a Ponzi scheme through RA. and through TD Bank.

186. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. Onyx, through Szfranski, knowingly material statements and re resentations includit hu not li i ed to verif in false hank statements and deal documents.

187. Onyx, through Szfranski, intended the Banyon Investors to act on its knowingly false representations.

restated herein. 190. Plaintiffs insarate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 121 as if 'Sr¶

as the Court deems proper. WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the V LLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: D&L PARTNERS. LP: DAVID VON ALLMEN a. tee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN. as the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and KRETSCHMAR re uest ern against ONYX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT. for comoensatory damages, "g i with court costs and such further relief¶

188. The Banvon Investors justi tably relied upon Onyx's. through Szfranski's, representations to their detriment.

189. As a direct and proximate result of Onyx's, made through Szfranski's. false representations, the Banyon Investors have sustained damages.

COUNT 10- FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION kitainst Berenfelppritzer Shealer Sheer, LLP1¶

191. This • a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

192. scribed more fully above. Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through RA, and through TD Bank. r

193. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. Berenfeld knowingly made material false Cements and representations including, but not limited to providing false auditing documents relating to Banvon and RRA.

194. j3erenfeld intended the Banvon Investors to act on its knowingly false representations.

195. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Berenfeld's representations to their detriment.

196. As a direct and proximate result of Berenfeld's false statements, the Banyon Investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; D&L PARTNERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and [REDACTED] KRETSCHMAR request judgment against BERENFELD SPRITZER SHECHTER SHEER, LLP, for compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 11 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against Jennifer Kerstetter)¶

197. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 40721 as if restated herein.

198. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

199. As described more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through his firm, RRA, and through TD Bank.

200. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme, Kerstetter made material false statements and representations including, but not limited to, supplying investors with false bank account statements.

201. When making the false statements and representations, Kerstetter either knew or reasonably should have known that they were false.

Kerstetter owed the Banyon Investors a duty of care because she knew or had now that the Banyon Investors were placing trust and confidence in her and relying on them in them.¶

Kerstetter breached her duty to the Banyon investors-Investors by making false informations with the intention that the Banyon Investors rely on them.¶

The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Kerstetter's representations to their ave sustained damages.¶

HEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY & L PARTNERS, LP.; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN TRUST; and [REDACTED] KRETSCHMAR request judgment against JENNIFER TER for compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as leems proper.¶

COUNT #412 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against Roseanne Caretsky)¶

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through #47121 as herein.¶

This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.¶

As described more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through RA, and through TD Bank.¶

202
reason to R
her to info
representation
detriment.
203
Investors In
WH
TRUST.;
ALLMEN
LIVING
KERSTET
the Court c¶

209. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. Caretskv made material false statements and representations. including. but not limited to. showing investors false statements of the amounts in RRA trust accounts.

210. When making the false statements and representations. Caretsky either knew or reasonably should have known that they were false.

211. Carctsky owed the Rayon Investors a duty of c cCause she knew or had mason to know that the Banyan Investors were placing tru • o i idence in her and relying on her to inform them.

212. Caretsky breached her dut A by making false representations with the intention that the vestors rely on them.

213. As a direct and pr • result of Curetskv's false statements, the Banvon Invest rs

WHEREFORE, N ALLMEN; as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY ; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN L VING ST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN V N T T. and KRETSCHMAR reswest judgment against ROSEANNE C TS for compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the cans proper.¶

trough TD Bank. iu4)C icribed more fully above. Rothstein was oisratigg a Ponzi scheme t¶

ULT44113 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (against TI) Bank. N.A.)¶

ffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 1-0-7121 as¶

a claim for negligent misrepresentation.¶

:lines material hereto. Kerstetter was acting in the scope of her employment er of TD Bank.¶

times material hereto. Caretsky was acting in the scope of her employment esident and branch manager of TD Bank.¶

:herance of the Ponzi scheme. TD Bank. through Kerstett Nit statements and representations. including, but not showing lents of the amounts in RRA trust accounts.¶

making the false statements and represe do • TD Bank. through ky. either knew or reasonably should hay n that they were false.¶

tnk owed the Banyon Investors y of c re because it knew or had reason won Investors were piaci d confidence in it and relying on it to¶

lank breached its duty to the Banvon Investors by making false¶

igh Kerstetter and Caretsky, with the intention that the Banyon Investors¶

GO¶

CO¶

214. Plainti

if restated herein.¶

215. This it

216. At all

as an assistant manag¶

217. At all

as an assistant vice p¶

218. As de:

his firm. RRA. and It¶

219. In fun

made material false¶

investors false statem¶

220. When

Kerstetter and Carets¶

221. TD

to know that the Bat inform them.¶

222. TD I

representations, thro rely on them.¶

stetter's and¶

ade through¶

DYNASTY¶

AVID VON¶

ALLMEN¶

K. N.A., for¶

Court deems¶

gh 121 as if¶

eme through¶

ements and¶

agreements¶

uld be paid¶

er knew or¶

223. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon TD Bank's, through Kerstetter Caretsky's, representations to their detriment.

224. As a direct and proximate result of TD Bank's representations, many Kerstetter and Caretsky, the Banyon Investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN TRUST; D&L PARTNERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and [REDACTED] KRETSCHMAR request judgment against TD BANK compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT VH14 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against [REDACTED] G. Levin)¶

225. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 22.
     restated herein.

226. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

227. As described more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi schedule his firm, RRA, and through TD Bank.

228. In furtherance of the Ponzi schedule, Levin made material false statements representations including, but not limited to, representing that the settlement purchased by investors were real, that they had been fully funded, and that they were out to investors over a predetermined schedule.

229. When making the false statements and representations, Levin either reasonably should have known that they were false.

230. Levin owed the Banyon Investors a duty of care because he knew or had reason to
     the Banyon Investors were placing trust and confidence in him and relying on him to
     em.

231. Levin breached his duty to the Banyon investors by making false representations
     intention that the Banyon Investors rely on them.

232. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Levin's representations to their
     detriment

233. As a direct and proximate result of Levin's false statements, the Banyon Investors
     aimed damages.

HEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY
D&L PARTNERS, LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON
LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN
TRUST; and [REDACTED] KRETSCHMAR request judgment against [REDACTED] LEVIN for
their damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems¶

2
know th
inform th
with the
2
detriment
2
have sust
W
TRUST;
ALLMEN
LIVING
compensa
proper.¶

COUNT 15 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against [REDACTED] Preve)¶

24. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 121 as if
    erein.
25. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
26. As described more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through
    RRA, and through TD Bank.

23
restated h
2
2
his firm.¶

237. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme, Preve made material false statements and icoresentations including, but not limited to. representity, that the settlement agreements purchased by investors were real, that they had been fully funded. and that they would be paid out to investors over a predetermined schedule.

238. When making the false statements and representations. Preve r knew or reasonably should have known that they were false.

239. Preve owed the Banyon Investors a duty of care becau or had reason to know that the Banyon Investors were placiog_trust and confidence i and relying on him to inform them.

240. Preve breached his duty to the Banyo by making false representations with the intention that the Banyon Investors rcl

241. The Banyon Investors * s( detriment. lied upon Prcve's representations to their

242. As a direct and have sustained damages result of Preve's false statements. the Banyon Investors

WHEREF E, L DA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; D ERS LP. DAVID VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING UST: and KRETSCHMAR request judgment against PREVE for compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems pmea¶

COUNT 16 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (against Banvon Income Fund, LP, and Banyon USVI, LLC)¶

243. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein.

244. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

245. At all times material hereto. Levin was actin in the sco ment as the chief executive officer of Banvon USVI and BIF.

246. At all times material hereto. Preve was acting in the ipe is employment as the chief operating officer or agent of Banyon US VI and BIF.

247. As described more fully above. Rothsteiywgl vp>fating a Ponzi scheme through his firm. RRA. and through TD Bank.

248. In furtherance of the Ponzi m nvon USVI and RIF. through Levin and Preve. made material false stateme d presentations including. but not limited to, representing that the settlement purchased by investors were real, that they had been fully funded, and that they wo aid_out to investors over a predetermined schedule.

249. When ma e false statements and representations. Banyon USVI and BIF, through Levin ye.. either knew or reasonably should have known that they were false.

•n USVI and BIF owed the Banyon Investors a duty of care because it knew or ha to know that the Banyon Investors were placing trust and confidence in it and relying on it to inform them.¶

251. Banyon USVI and BIF breached its duty to the Banyon Investors by making false representations, through Levin and Preve, with the intention that the Banyon Investors rely on them.

252. The Banvon Investors justifiably relied noon Banyon USVI's and BIF's. through Levin's and Preve's, representations to their detriment.

253. As a direct and proximate result of Banvon USVI's and BIF's representations made through Levin and Prove, the Damn Investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMENAk YNASTY e TRUST: D&L PARTNERS, LP: DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR request judgment a ' • BANYON INCOME FUND, LP, and BANYON USVI. LLC.. for compensa and such further relief as the Court deems proper. A s, together with court costs¶

COUNT 17 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (against Michael Szfranski)¶

254. plaintiffs incorporate th atiaris contained in paragraphs 1 through 121 as if restated herein.

AS' ) 255. This is a claim C)ne ligent misrenresentation,¶

256. As descn re fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through his firm. RRA. rough TD Bank.

25 rtherance of the Ponzi scheme. Szfranski made material false statements and repres s including, but not limited to, verifying false hank statements and deal documents.¶

258. When making the false statements and representations. Szfranski either knew or reasonably should have known that they were false.

259. Szfranski owed the Banyon Investors a duty of care because he knew or had reason to know that, as an independent verifier, the Banyon Investors were placing trust and confidence in him and relying on him to inform them.

260. Szfranski breached his duty to the Banton investors by making false representations with the intention that the Banvon Investors rely on them,

261. The Banyon Investors justifiably relied uoon Szfranski's re ditions to their detriment.

262. As a direct and proximate result of Szfranski's fal. ements. the Banyon jnvestors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as T VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; D&L PARTNERS. LP; DAVID VO EN as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON L S'as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and AR request judgment against MICHAEL SZFRANSKI for compensatory Court deems proper. together with court costs and such further relief as the¶

18 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION lagainst Onyx Capital Management)¶

263 ffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 121 as if¶

264. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

265. At all times material hereto. Szfranski was acting in the scope of his employment as president of Onyx

266. As described more fully above, Rothstein was operating a Ponzi scheme through his firm. RRA. and through TD Bunk

267. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. Onyx, through Szfranski, made material false statements and representations, including, hut not limited to verifying false hank statements and deal documents.

268. When making the false statements and representations. Onyx ugh . zfranski, either knew or reasonably should have known that they were false

269. Onyx owed the Banyon Investors a duty of care bec ,knew or had reason to know that, as an independent verifier. the Banyan Investor ^ icing trust and confidence in it and relying on it to inform them.

270. Onyx breached its duty to the B through Szfranski, with the intention that Ihb HgQyoInvestors rely on them. Investors by making false representations,

271. The Banyon lnvest9rs ably relied umin Onyx's, throggh Szfranski's, representations to their detrin

272. As a di t an 'ornate result of Onyx's representations. made through Szfranski. the Ban Inv stars have sustained damages.

WHE -FORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: RTNERS. LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEMLIV1NG TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR reswest judgment against ONYX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT for compensatory damages, together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 19 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (against Berenfeld Spritzer Shechter Sheer, LLP1¶

273. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein,

274. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

275. As described more fully above. Rothstein was operating a Pon p pt through his firm. RRA, and through TD Bank.

276. In furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. Berenfeld made ateri alse statements and representations including, but not limited to. providing fa itine documents relating to Banvon and RRA.

277. When making the false statement sentations. Berenfeld either knew or reasonably alse.

278. should known that they we 278. Bcrcnfeld owed the Ba n cstors a duty of care because it knew or had reason to know that, as an Ind n uditor. the Banyon Investors were placing trust and confidence in it and relying on form them.

279. Berenfelcl lDached its duty to the Banyon investors by making false representations t he intention that the Banyon Investors rely on them.

Banyon Investors justifiably relied upon Berenfeld's representations to their¶

281. As a direct and proximate result of Berenfeld's false statements, the Banyon Investors have sustained damages.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: D&L PARTNERS. LP; DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON¶

ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR request judgment against BERENFELD SPRITZER SHECHTER SHEER, LLP, for compensatory damages. together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 20 - AIDING AND ABETTIN BREACH OF FIDUCIARY ainst S inosa¶

282. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragr eh 121 as if restated herein.

C 283. This is a claim for aiding and abetting breach Ao laity duty.¶

284. Spinosa was aware that as trustee of the st account where the Banvon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposi ein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty. and care to the Banvon Investors. S o also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust account containing the funds to 'eh t Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect in the near future. Roth. t Banvon Investors. duciary duties of honesty. loyalty. and care to the

285. Spinosa that Rothstein was financially exploiting the investors to their detriment, and v jware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary obligations to the Banyan Investors, 0

Spinosa actively assisted, and provided substantial assistance. to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the Banyon Investors and his breaches of fiduciasy duty.¶

287. 5pinosa's actions have directly caused injury and damage to the Banyon Investors.

prgper. WHEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: D&L PARTNERS, LP: DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and KRETSCHMAR request judgment against A. SPINOSA loi compensatory damages. together with court costs and such further relief as t C urt deems¶

if restated herein. 288. Plaintiffs income the allegations conta. graphs I through ;4412 I as il,ki,¶

O S¶

COUNT 211- AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (against Jennifer Kerstetter¶

289. This is a claim for aiding and tipsti4\ ach of fiduciary duty.

290. Kerstetter was aware t s tru. tee of the attorney trust accounts where the Banyon Investors' purported sett f ds were deposited. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty. and care to t Bar on Investors. Kerstetter was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust account ning the funds to which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect itynear ture, Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty. loyalty, and care to the Ban o I

erstetter was aware that Rothstein was financially exploiting the investors to their detriment, and was aware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary obligations to the Banvon Investors.¶

292. Kerstetter actively assisted, and provided substantial assistance, to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the Banyon Investors and his breaches of fiduciary duty.

293. Kerstetter's actions have directly caused injury and damage to the Banvon Investors.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST:: D&L PARTNERS. LP:: DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN V ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: a KRETSCIIMAR request Warne's_ a J NNIFER KERSTETTER for compensatory damages, together with court costs further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT IX22 - AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF DUCIARY DUTY (against Roseanne Ca¶

294. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegation Qtai d'in paragraphs I through It 17 I21 as if restated herein.

2%. Caretsky was awl t • trustee of the attorney trust accounts where the ( - Banyon Investors' purported sett] ,ent funds were deposited. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty, and care miff Banvon Investors. Caretsky was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust ac con loins the funds to which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect ip n r future. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty, and care to the Banyon¶

295. This is a claim for aidin ng breach of fiduciary duty.

296. Caretskv was aware that Rothstein was financially exploiting the investors to their detriment, and was aware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary obligations to the Banvon Investors.

297. TD Bank was aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts where the Banyon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty. loyalty, and care to the Runyon Investors. TD Bank was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts containing the funds to which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive

298. caretskv actively assisted, and provided substantial assistance. to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the Banyon Investors and his breaches of fiduciary duty.

299. Caretsky's actions have directly caused injury and damage to the Banyon Investors.

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the VON ALLME NASTY TRUST;: D&L PARTNERS, LP:: DAVID VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of AVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN as Trustee oft ON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR request iud me ht CARETSKY for compensatory damages, together with co d such further relief as the Court deems proper. ag)ainst ROSEANNE¶

COUNT X23 - AIDING AND ABETFINcass EACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (against 4, .A.1¶

300. Plaintiffs incorporate the alio contained in paragraphs I through 14)-7171 as if restated herein.

301. This is a claim fo ganturbetting breach of fiduciary duty.

302. At all times pal hereto. Kerstetter was acting in the scope of her employment as an assistant maf of Bank.

303,r times material hereto. Caretsky was acting in the scope of her employment ce president and branch manager of TD Bank.¶

right to collect in the neatfuture. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty. Loyalty, and care to the Banvon Investors.¶

305. ID Bank was aware that Rothstein was financially exploiting the investors to their detriment. and was aware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary obligations to the Banvon Investors.

A 306. TD Bank. through its employees acting within the scope "IS employment. exploitation of actively assisted, and provided substantial assistance. to Rothstein in hjai the Banvon Investors and his breaches of fiduciary duty.¶

307. TD Bank's actions have directly caused,Mjik ghd damage to the Ramon Investors.

WHEREFORE LINDA V TRUST-: D&L PARTNERS. LPe DA ALLMEN, as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANNi MEN. as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; and VON A LME D MAR nxiuest judgment against TD BANK. N.A., for compensatory damages. ether with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems¶

proper. (SAIDIN ' AND ABETTIN ' BREACH F FIDUCIARY DUTY (against Debra¶

Plaintiff's incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 107121 as if restated herein.¶

309. This is a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

310. was aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts where the Banvon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty, and care to the Banyon Investors. was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts containing, the funds to which the Bannon Investors had an exclusive right to collect in the near future. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty. loyalty, and care to the Banyon Investors,

311. was aware that Rothstein was Inanciallv exploiting the ittytst to it detriment, and was aware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary ohligatio S o the Banyon 0 Investors.

312. actively assisted, and provided substantial ass • to Rothssein in his financial exploitation of the Banvon Investors and his breaches' jars,duty,

313. Investors. actions have directly caul ¢ and damage to the Banyan

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON A TRUST: D&L PARTNERS. LP-; \ as rustce of the VON AL1.MEN DYNASTY N ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ALLMEN as Trusux of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and CHMAR request iudgment against DEBRA for compensatory dam s. together with coon costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

X1125 - AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (against Irene Stay)¶

314. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 121 as if restated herein.

315. This is aclaim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

316. Stay was aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts where the Banyon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited, Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty. and care to the Banyon Investors. Stay was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts containing the funds to which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect in the near future. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty. loyalty, aarkt. Flaw/on Investors.

317. Slay was aware that Rothstein was financially cxploi vestors to their detriment, and was aware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary ations to the Banyon Investors.

318. Stay actively assisted, and provided to ' rassistance, to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the Banyon Investors s aches of fiduciary duty.

319. Stay's actions have directly c nu IN and damage to the Banyon Investors.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VO as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; D&L PARTNERS D VON AI,LMEN as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: A ON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMF,N LIVING TRUST: c DIV KRETSCHMAR renuest judgment against IRENE STAY for compensatory Og e together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

NT 26 - AIDIN AND ETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY¶

320. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein.

321. This is a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,

322. Levin was aware that as trustee of the attorney.trust accounts where the Banvon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty loyalty, and care to the Banyon Investors. Levin was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts containing the funds to which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect in the near future, Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty. re to the Banyon Investors.

323. Levin was aware that Rothstein was financially explo'tin vestors to their ^Idetriment, and was aware that Rothstein was breaching, his fiduciary obligations to the Banyon investors.

itc ) 324. Levin actively assisted. and provided assistance. to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the Banvon Investors is aches of fiduciary duty.¶

325. Levin's actions have direct a jury and damage to the Banyon Investors.

WHEREFORE. LINDA VO • as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST: D&L PARTNERS. VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRU T: VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST; a KRETSCHMAR request judgment against G. LEVIN for compensatory together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

DIN AND ABETTIN REACH OF U IARY D Y Y Preve)¶

326. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein.

327. This is a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

328. Preve was aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts where the Banyon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited, Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty, and care to the Banyon Investors. Preve was also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts containing the funds to which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect in the near future. Rothstein had fiduciary duties of honesty. loyalty. re to the Banyan Investors.

329. Preve was aware that Rothstein was financially cm:doc -tinid vestors to their detriment, and was aware that Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary ations to the Banyon Investors,

330. Preve actively assisted, and pros,' assistance. to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the Banvon Investors aru 'aches of fiduciary duty

331. Pren's actions have direct! i jury and damage to the Banyon Investors.

WHEREFORE, LINDA VO TRUST; Da PARTNERS as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TR T: AN1T VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: x i DE N KRETSCHMAR mututest judgment against PREVE for compensator compensatory] aN;/ together with court costs and such further relief as the Court deems¶

COk1NT 28 - AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (against Banvon Income Fund, LP, and Banvon USVI. LLC)¶

332. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 121 as if restated herein.

333. This is a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduci • y duty.

334. At all times material hereto, Levin was acting in the scope of his employment as the chief executive officer of Banyon USVI and 13IF.

335. At all times material hereto, Preve was acting in the scope of his employment us the chief operating officer or agent of Banvon USVI and BB:.

336. flanvon USVI and BIF were aware that as trustee of the attorneyru where the Banvon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited Rot duties of honesty, loyalty, and care to the Banyon Investors. Banyon accounts had fiduciary BIF were also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust accounts containing the which the Banyon Investors had an exclusive right to collect in the near fut in had fiduciary duties of honesty, loyalty. and care to the Banyon Investors.

337. Banvon USVI and BIF were aw Rothstein was financially exploiting the investors to their detriment, and were obligations to the Banvon Investors. al\ th t Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary

338. Banyon US VI rough its employees acting within the scope of their employment, actively as 'sted. an provided substantial assistance, to Rothstein in his financial exploitation of the von vectors and his breaches of fiduciary duty

339. o SVI's and B1F's actions have directly caused injury and damage to the Banvon Inv

W BEFORE, LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; Da PARTNERS. U': DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: and KRETSCHMAR rattiest judgment against BANYON INCOME¶

FUND. LP, and BANYON USVI. LLC., for compensatory damages. together with court cost and such further relief as the Court deems proper.¶

COUNT 29 - AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY fasainst Michael Szfranski)¶

340. Plaintiffs incorpgrate the allegations contained in paragraphs I thr u I as if restated herein.

341. This is a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary d

342. Szfranski was aware that as tmstee of the attorne mist accounts where the Banyon Investors' purported settlement funds were deposited ein had fiduciary duties of honesty. loyalty, and care to the Banyon Investors. Sz also aware that as trustee of the attorney trust ac wilts containing the funds to anvon Investors ha an exclusive right to collect in the near future, Rothstein I fi ry duties of honesty, loyalty. and care to the Banvon Investors.

343. Szfranski was aw their detriment, and was awa Rothstein was breaching his fiduciary obligations to the Banyon Investors. thstcin was financially exploiting the investors to

344. Sz 1ti<ki actively assisted, and provided substantial assistance, to Rothstein in his financial l a ^t of the Banyon Investors and his breaches of fiduciary duty.

Szfranski's actions have directly caused injury and damage to the Banyon Investors.¶

WHEREFORE. LINDA VON ALLMEN as Trustee of the VON ALLMEN DYNASTY TRUST; D&L PARTNERS, It DAVID VON ALLMEN. as Trustee of the DAVID VON ALLMEN LIVING TRUST: ANN VON ALLMEN, as Trustee of the ANN VON ALLMEN¶