IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION -AG
CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and J. individually,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
A Cos
# NO.1ICE OF FILING COP O J TIyAIJSCTIPT OP HEARING PROC OF 1/27/14
Plaintiff; JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by of the Transcript of the Hearing vond Judgment his undersigned attorney, hereby files a copy nary 27, 2014 on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
I HEREBY CERT r t a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to counsel on the atta Ic S ye List by electronic mail this 6ih day of February, 2014.
> /s/ W. Chester W. CIIESTat JR. Florida Bar No.: 0261858 W. Chester =, Jr., P.A. Attorney for Counter-Defendant Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: 561-6554777 Facsimile: 561-835-8691 Primary email: weblaw@aol.com Secondary email: webeg@aol_com
#### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN,.individually, and J. individually,
Defendants.
DATE TAKEN TIME: PLACE: ay, January 27, 2014 0 p.m. - 4:23 p.m. alm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway Courtroom 9C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Donald Hafele, Circuit Judge
c
### TRANSC 0 HEARING INGS
cOFY
This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were stenographically reported by:
> Robyn Maxwell, RPR, FPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator
## APPEARANCES:
3 On behalf of the Plaintiff:
W. CHESTER I I, JR., P.A.
4 250 South Australian Avenue
Suite 1400
5 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561.655.4777
6 BY: W. CHESTER MM, JR., ESQUIRE
wcblaw@aol.com
8 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, PA N
250 Sough Australian Avenue 9 Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
10 561.659.8300
om 11 jgoldberger@agwpa:c
BY: JACK A. GOLDBERGER,
TONJA HADDAD, PA
Suite 301
1.4 Fort Lauderd 33301
954.467.1
15 BY: TONJC1 COLEMAN, ESQUIRE
tonja@t nja ddad.com
of J.
18 < ARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
9 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
19 hest Palm Beach, FL 33409 561.686.6300
0 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
JSX@searcylaw.com
21 BY: WILLIAM B. IIII, ESQUIRE
Wbk@searcylaw.com
1 Thereupon,
2 the following proceedings began at 3:00 p.m.:
3 TEE COURT: Good afternoon, everybody.
4 Thank you so much. Have a seat. Welcome.
5 MR. Good afternoon, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: I had the opportunity1 read 7 the binder and the materials sent to y 8 respective counsel. I don't thi tcase should 9 take two hours.
C
10 MR. : No.
11 THE COURT: So w going to ask you to 12 do is kindly tail arguments to one-half 13 hour apiece. h movant may split up the time 14 to save so mom is for rebuttal. And I think 15 that s re than adequately deal with the 16 matt
17 18 I : :Pd the 194Sor20 minutes a side. So if that can be done in that 2 O 5i, i, amount of time, I think we can take care of this. think the United States Supreme Court vs. Board Of Education and gave
21 And, of course, you all realize -- and I 22 don't think this has anything whatsoever to do 23 with the matter, but I should let you know that I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a significant
13 THE COURT: N. you be arguing on behalf 14 Mr. Epstei
16 Mr. rew will be 17 u can hear, I No, Judge. I don't have - arguing on our behalf because, have a cold.
21 wanted to clarify one matter which I believe to be 22 of some significance. MR. SCAROLA: I did, Your Honor. I just
23 THE COURT: Sure. Of course.
24 MR. SCAROLA: And that is Your Honor 25 referenced a claim against the Rothstein entities
amount of familiarity with the claims that were made. However, until I met with Judge involving this case, I had no knowledge whatsoever that a separate and independent action had been brought by Mr. Epstein against the Rothstein entities and Mr. So to that e nt, I just to want let you know, as you p ly already did already know, that I handled cases I 4(. believe to their conclusion, or near the time that I left that divisio years ago or so.
> Okay. So are y added?
MS. HADDAD:
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Scarola, did you want to say something?
1 and that is not the case.
2 3 THE COURT: It was just Rothstein individually?
4 MR. SCAROLA: It was just against 5 Mr. Rothstein individually. That claim has never 6 7 8 A really been defended and -- against Mr dwards. And the focus of these motions is o on Mr. ' claims for abuse of s and 9 malicious prosecution.
10 TES COURT: The la 4 knew. My apologies 11 for misstating the n defendants involved.
12 MR. SCAROLA ology necessary, sir.
13 THE 14 C only defendants involved - and they ha been voluntarily dismissed 15 withou ice; is that accurate?
16 Cial LA: There was a voluntary 17 smissal of the initial claims brought against 18 19 'summary M judgment hearing. , that's correct, sir, on the eve of
24. 21 in your papers. THE COURT: I remember that being written
22 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir.
23 24 THE COURT: So is Epstein's claim against Rothstein still viable at this juncture?
25 MS. HADDAD: Yes, Your Honor, it is.
1 THE COURT: So the dismissed case without prejudice was to -- was as to Mr. only.
3 MR. SCARDIA: The claims against LM, one of 4 5 victims of Mr. Epstein's conduct, those claims are also dismissed.
6 7 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for clarification. I much appreciate i
8 Mr.
9 10 11 0 MR. : Yes, sir. ell first of all, Your Honor, I'm Chester appearing on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
12 13 14 15 16 17 We have bef SS, today a motion for summary judgme 9 1 6 on behalf Mr. Epstein with regard to noun rclaim that was filed by Mr. Edw Your 18 he case is currently set before specially set I might say, for a ee-week or proposed three-week trial, and it is rently set for May the 6th of this year.
19 4S c 202 ) 21 history is in the package that was provided to you 22 by counsel for. Mr. there is a statement or 23 interview that is with a young lady by the name of 24 . Now, I don't know whether you 25 have had an opportunity to read it or not. One thing that I did want to talk to the Court about before going into the procedural
1 THE COURT: I didn't. I saw the reference 2 to . Who is she?
3 MR. was an alleged 4 victim of Mr. Epstein. There was an interview 5 6 7 taken of her by Mr. Scarola and I believe Mr. . There's a transcript of t a interview which is neither sworn to ev n 8 signed. It's something that coul •e used for 9 any purpose in the trial of t s m tter, even for 10 impeachment. So if Your on. has not read it, I 11 won't go into it.
12 TER COURT: o eve not read it. I just 13 saw the name V' i 14 several di en occasions, so that's all I know. 15 And as c tell, I didn't know her 16 rela p to the case. bandied about on
17 MR. : Okay. Your Honor, the 18 p cedural history here is there were a number of 19 claims brought by alleged victims of Mr. Epstein. 25I0 21 There were a number of different attorneys that were involved. And a number of different cases 22 were filed both in federal court and in state 23 court on behalf of these alleged victims. The 24 cases proceeded, as you've said, some of them were 25 before you. They have all now -- per my
information, they have now all concluded although 2 there may still be some investigations.
3 THE COURT: Mr. at his latest 4 5 6 deposition indicated that there's still the victim's case that's going on in the federal court.
7 MR. 8 for a quite some period of time Nothing has happle r that nw
9 The --
10 MR. : Judge, may, in response to 11 12 your question. that's I'm referencin . what victim's case -- all of the cases --
13 was a federal statutory -- THE s SiCi t"
14
15 -- that Mr. indicates 16 he's pro bono on behalf of two of the 17 lege victims.
18 MR. : You're correct.
19 THE COURT: In the Epstein matters.
20 MR.\_: That's correct. Sorry for the 21 interruption.
22 THE COURT: That's okay.
23 MR. : During the course of those 24 cases, there was some rather unusual discovery 25 that was taking place. And it was learned, and I
4 5 6 Mr. and LM who is one of the a.lI ged 7 victims. Ono of the counts in that 8 malicious -- I believe it's -- h ad abuse 9 of process along with some otter unts. I'll get into this towards the end of my presentation, but there were a number of things that were learned by Mr. Epstein in and around November of 2009 -- November/December 2009. He filed a lawsuit against Mr. Rothstein,
10 In response to tha laint, Mr. Scarola 11 on behalf of Mr. Edwa -d a counterclaim. 12 That counterclaim, p rough several amendments, 13 but the fourth 14 causes of ion that is abuse of process and 15 malicio ecution. So those are what we're 16 here to k about today, is abuse of process and 17 18 licious prosecution M Irv? Epstein's original as it relates to claim against Mr. counterclaim speaks to two
19 20 eli, there were a number of affirmative 21A 22 23 24 25 41;y In response to Mr. ' counterclaim, defenses raised, but one of them that was raised was the litigation privilege. And we are here today to talk with you about the litigation privilege and its current state as espoused by the Florida Supreme Court and the Third District Court Of
1 Appeals and, in fact, the Fourth District Court Of 2 Appeals.
3 THE COURT: One thing I wanted to interrupt 4 you on is this Wolfe case and its current status 3 and the -- I'll call the -- I'll call.it the 6 side to make things be easier. t the side has raised the issue t rently this Wolfe case is still in rehe therefore of no precedential luej to the court.
10 Mr. , did you 11 that? speak briefly to
12 MR. e submitted a notice of 13 correction toj eltly sser the other day who stood 14 in for you tlhepage extension.
15 T j T~: Right.
16 : We gave her that and asked her 17 t turn that over to you.
18 THE COURT: I didn't get it.
4S y 19 MR. : Okay. What's actually happened 20 is -- and it's confusing because Westlaw's whole 21' e li, history on this, and Mr. also understands 22 this because he ran into the same problem.
23 My reading of the history that Westlaw 24 contains indicates that the mandate has issued but 25 they still use the caveat "this is a Westlaw
1 citation only, it's not in the final published 2 format, and therefore it can be changed at any 3 4 5 time." But with the issuance of the mandate, that signifies that it is -- the rehearing is denied and it is now final.
6 7 TER COURT: Okay. Thank you for . did not know that until right now.
8 9 AS MR. : So let's get i Wolfe case. That's where we're hea xt. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cas here s the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria :2 13 14 15 16 17 18 I'm somewhere close to pronouncing th cd ctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them de \\ t litigation privilege which 1 0 dates back 19 . And I think that we are all most f 'a with the standard that defamation case he, quote, alleged defamation occurred ring b protected by the litigation privilege and no 19 action could be taken on them. the course of a judicial proceeding would
21 Over the years different courts looked at it. There was an attempt -- there were attempts 22 made to determine how far and to which causes of 23 action the litigation privilege would apply.
24 The seminal case now for us, I guess, now 25 is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was
1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 caso went up to the Florida Supreme Court. And 3 the issue before them was how far is this 4 privilege or to what causes of action should this 5 privilege apply?
6 And the Levin court came out and a d that 7 it would apply to all torts, includ he one 8 that was before them which was to 9 interference. And that the s nda d for 10 determining whether the a complained of would 11 be whether that action relation to the 12 proceeding, the j receding.
13 Later on q stion came up, Well, should 14 that -- it' the - we've already determined that 15 it appl j.t all torts. And so, does it also 16 appl atutory violations or cases involving 17 atutory violations? And that's the Echevarria 18 c e, also in front of the Florida Supreme Court, 19 some 13 or 14 years after Levin, and they found, 20 yes, that it does apply to, essentially, all civil 21Al!e i. judicial proceedings.
22 Now, the issues before us are the 23 litigation privilege as it applies to abuse of 24 process and malicious prosecution. That was all 25 brought to a head in the Wolfe case. In the Wolfe 2 3 case, the Third District Court Of Appeal was faced with the issue of do the -- does the litigation privilege apply in those two causes of action.
4 5 6 8 trilogy. The answer was yes. The Wolfe case or the Wolfe court went back and essentially referred back to and analyzed the Levin and Eche a ria 4,4R: cases. And that's why I say it's k' f
9 0 And in the Wolfe case itlwasldetermined 10 that this was not -- not j1iIA was it privileged 11 for any actions that ated to the judicial 12 process, it was a te privilege.
16 pros 13 Now, in r a we have exactly the same 14 issue. We' \` ggoa complaint that was filed that 15 is elle i he counterclaim to be malicious We also have the pleadings, 17 18 19 yclaimed to be an abuse of process. rything that was filed after the initiation of judicial pleading -- judicial process. It's
2131 i i0i. In fact, in answers to interrogatories and 21 all of the discovery that has been had from the 22 side, they have said that the filing of 23 the complaint was in itself it was untrue, the 24 information that was there was untrue; Epstein 25 should have known it was untrue, and that he had a
1 bad purpose in filing which was to intimidate or 2 extort Mr. and his client.
3 That's been put to bed in the Wolfe case 4 because the litigation privilege absolutely 5 6 7 applies and is absolute. The Wolfe case states that they could think or the Wolfe c u t stated 4lt they could think of no action that W br more 8 related to the judicial process t filing of 9 a complaint. So a complaint, he ling of the 10 complaint is privileged.
11 Then going back en as they related 12 to the Levin case Echevarria case, they 13 said anything w'IS related to the judictal 14 process -- co ry, depositions, 1.5 interro r s -- as long as they were related, 16 they wer rotected by -- the participants were 77 otected by the litigation privilege.
\:8 They -- in the trilogy, and I forget which :9 Acne of the cases it was, but they go even further 251ib0.1 and clarify that the claim "a bad motive" is 21 really irrelevant to these causes of action when 22 you were talking about the litigation privilege. 23 The -- let me see, where am I here?
24 In the Wolfe case it was a motion for 25 judgment on the pleadings. In some of these other 1 cases it was motion for summary judgment. And in 2 all of these cases they found that the litigation 3 4 privilege barred the causes of action that were being claimed.
5 6 7 8 10 11 12 The argument has been made by the other sides that because Mr. or, e se me, because Mr. Epstein had no reason tq le he original complaint that he filed somehow or another the litigation privile e should not apply. c)g that he did And that because he show have filed the original complaint, thereafter was ann, f process.
13 14 15 :6 17 18 Appe andard We woul ~u~ ' 1\[\[YY to Your Honor that's not the standa as 116poused by the Third District Court t, the Fourth District Court Of the Florida Supreme Court. The is: Did the action have some relation to judicial proceeding?
19 21 22 23 24 25 more global approach, the TIER COURT: I think at least in trying to distinguish Wolfe, but at the same time taking a ' side is suggesting that timing and the length of time subsequent to the settlement of the pending claims and his continuing to prosecute the suit more so on the malicious prosecution side would distance
1 itself from Wolfe, because in Wolfe I believe the 2 court made clear that it was a brief prosecution 3 of the action and was not protracted. How do you 4 respond to that concern?
5 MR. : I respond by quoting the 6 Florida Supreme Court, which is: If th ction 7 and whether they're talking one act 20 actions 8 or 40 actions, if the action is = to the 9 judicial preceding, then you ve litigation 10 privilege.
11 TRZ COURT: And n go on essentially 12 forever in your
13 MR. on't know that it can go on 14 forever be se so they were talking, 15 particu 'n the Levin case, about protections 16 that wou be afforded to litigants. But those 17 otections would not be through a cause of action 18 f malicious prosecution or abuse of process; 19 rather, it would be through the court with 20 O contempt proceedings, perhaps. It would be 21 through the Florida Bar for, you know, 22 inappropriate actions taken by an attorney. It 23 could be perjury for a litigant which would be 24 handled by the state.
25 THE COURT: I don't think perjury. Not if
1 it's guised in the litigation privilege, but 2 perhaps you're right that it could be met with 3 57.105 standards.
4 MR. : 57.105 was the one I was just 5 getting ready to get to, Your Honor. So there are 6 protections against what you're talking a out, but 7 again, I have to go back to what didee S preme 8 Court tell us.
9 I did want to touch als on nother point 10 that was raised in our mo which is that the 11 Complaint, at least i o s malicious 12 prosecution, has ecause there is probable 13 cause demonstr 1811% Mr. Epstein to have filed 14 or at leas ave eason to believe that he could 15 file p ly file the claim that he -- that he 16 did ilea)
17 THE COURT: Is probable cause always a 18 1 al -- purely legal determination?
19 MR. : No. No. If there are 20 O questions of fact that are involved with the 21 probable cause, the questions of fact are for the 22 determination of the jury. The jury -- the judge 23 then takes those determinations of the jury to 24 make a finding of probable cause. But it is in 25 the -- at the end of the day the court -- the
1 issue of probable cause is a matter of law for 2 determination by the court.
3 But the threshold for establishing' probable 4 cause in a civil action is really rather low. 5 Because it is whether the defendant could have 6 reasonable -- what the what the defe nt could 7 have reasonably believed at the tim as erting 8 the claim.
0 9 So I want to go briefly hro gh what 10 Mr. Epstein knew or was a . . -ble to him at the 11 time November/Decembe 9. SA was a td
\:2 13 First, undi,\19r: und. The Supreme Court has addressed it in the roast specifically. And one cannot lightly accept 21 itself has indicated -- implicitly indicated at 22 least that the litigation privilege would not bar 23 a malicious prosecution claim. That the Supreme 24 Court itself would not adhere to the those rulings 25 and overturn a century of law recognizing the tort the proposition that the Supreme Court, which
1 of malicious prosecution.
2 We also submit that Wolfe is
3 4 distinguishable because the litigation privilege was applied to the attorneys in that case. The 5 attorneys were involved, and I need not go over 6 all of the facts of the case, but it wa very, 7 very brief involvement by the lawye As I 8 suggested in the brief, lawyers up being 9 given a broader immunity unde the litigation 10 privilege because of the igations to their 11 clients to carry out gal and ethical 12 responsibilities.
13 And the 14 compelling 0t the attorneys who make a brief 15 appears s ldn't be exposed to all of this. 16. Mayb th -- maybe the thought process was 17 ething along the lines, well, we don't want to 1.8 p the attorneys through this. This should be 19 cut out right at the beginning. that case are somewhat
204'le 0 THE COURT: Off the record for one second.
MR. 21 : Yes.
22 ;Discussion off the record.)
23 MR. : And I cited the Taylor case, 24 which was a Supreme Court of Idaho decision, which 25 discusses that issue and which shows that for
1 those very reasons that I identified, lawyers 2 should have a greater opportunity to -- 3 opportunity to seize upon immunity which would cut 4 off their liability early on. So whether it's a 5 qualified immunity or absolute immunity discussed 6 in that decision, whatever, perhaps th e 7 the -- a factor or although they do it to 8 Taylor, but maybe that's a factor fe.
9 TES COURT: I guess I u ers and your 13 position that you're taki terms of in the 11 Wolfe context, becaus A 12 Mr. during a point to inc eSSi ot ument, the court made it e very brief involvement of 14 the Kenny hw ter. firm. Rut since I did ask 13 15 my ques op the record, I'll indicate what I 16 17 1.8 a egations now made by Mr. . And Mr. 19: did resented ndicated to whether or not Mr. Epstein was at all times material to the has answered in the affirmative.
29 21 22 23 24 25 I'm having difficulty then with trying to reconcile why the claim was only brought against Mr. Epstein as opposed to his attorneys, especially where the emphasis has been made quite strongly that despite the settlements that went on Epstein, essentially himself as related to the
1 court, was the guiding influence here in 2 proceeding against Mr. in a -- for a -- 3 for a time period.that you believe is actionable.
4 lit. : Well, one response, without 5 going into the entire tortured history of 6 Mr. Epstein's actions and the various inations 7 that he undertook, the initial comp t w ich 8 charged Mr. with all sor orrific 9 crimes -- fraud, perjury, con it y to commit 10 perjury, securities frau eral fraud, 11 12 13 14 4(IgiV extorsion, all -- all c crimes that were alleged against h(' ,'lawyers who were involved in that case h ell. They abandoned those claims.
15 16 Ilk) can't ask them why, but I submit that wha appens is the evolution of that case 17 - en becomes a case involving merely I 18 s uldn't say merely abuse of process, abuse of 19 O process. So one response is that's a situation 20 that -- that you -- that is sort of suggested by, 21 perhaps, the court in Wolfe and in desiring to 22 protecting lawyers who recognize what happened and 23 then get out of the case.
24 They realize that whatever they were told 25 by their client, and we submit that, for example,
1 2 3 4 5 18 : ? S e
the attorneys would not necessarily know what Mr. Epstein had in his mind. We know what Epstein had in his mind because I have outlined somewhat in the papers here the huge amount of evidence accumulated by not only Mr. but the federal government, by the state goverr t which 7 showed that not only was -- did he 8 Mr. ' clients repeatedly om a time they 9 were 14 and 15 years old, he 4s abusing girls as 10 young as 12 years old. 11 having orgies on his 12 indications that 13 their papers r er made reference here about 14 why was di ver pursued by Mr. 11::13 having -- he was, one of those have had reference to in
15 h -- the lawyers are just not -- A, 16 they re sued. That's not a situation that 17 yore facing here.
2190 Taylor talks about, it's just unwise, it seems to 21 me, to pursue lawyers in a case where you may know 22 inside what's going on with Epstein and why he's 23 doing what he's doing. MR. : And for the very reasons that
24 And that's a fine line that the lawyers 25 have to face in every case; when do I step out?
TIM COURT: I know that.
The original lawyers in this case did step out. And those claims were all abandoned. And I think 3 that speaks volumes. All of that, of course, goes 4 in part to the issues of malicious prosecution, 5 which we would ultimately argue if I had to get 6 into those facts.
I hope that answers your ques mean, 8 Epstein stands in our -- from our ..oint, in a 9 completely different position anjthe lawyers at 13 4 this stage of the procee ' despite the fact that after he settles c ) ims he then continues 12 to pursue the all
13 And to u, uY review of the size of those 14 settlement oul have an impact on all of the 15 issues, this particular issue that we're 16 talk ng ut now. But if we had to get into 17 ose facts and the court took a look at what 18 t se settlements were in camera, then we would 19 believe that that would be -- that's a strong 20 O indication that all of this stuff that he seized 21 upon, that seized upon --
22 MR. : Excuse me, Your Honor. Motion 23 For Summary Judgment is supposed to be something 24 that is in evidence and in record and it's not.
25 THE COURT: Yeah, I have no plans on
1 reviewing the size of the settlement amounts. 2 They don't phase me at all. And I -- I don't -- 3 it seems since they agreed to be confidential, I 4 think we should respect that.
5 6 7 8 9 MR. : And I understand, and since we're not even discussing these, and I a be going further than what your concernflere about the lawyer's involvement in the d why they wouldn't be sued in a case lily th
10 THE COURT: What I' ing is I can 11 understand both sides' -nt. But on the ore 12 hand, it's intere i at the line of cases here 13 14 15 16 17 •andoned the claims immediately, there's a more 18 c servative approach. And I tend to -- tended -- 19 tended to notice that while I was reviewing the 22' e 0k cases, which is understandable, certainly. SS' on this immuni s often bears on the facts of As ti the cases. can g, the most repugnant they 44Z 7e t take -- r 's a more liberal approach. The ca where the Kenny Knachwalter firm
21 But the -- the -- what i said about both 22 sides is, yes, I can see in a situation where the 23 attorneys quickly abandoned the case there's the 24 indication that a claim would not lie. However, 25 where I -- where I have the representation made
without controvert that Epstein was represented throughout the process, so to speak, even after the settlements were effectuated, but represented nonetheless by counsel, I can also see the other side where it could -- it could weaken the argument that Epstein would be at the c n rol so to speak.
1G. : Well, it -- it's osition that the mass of evidence whi have, some of 10 which I just outlined, re s that Mr. Epstein 11 seized upon a conveni ation, the RRA 12 implosion, to use, a sword against 13 Mr. came -- it was personal 14 with him, ew that the allegations against :5 him by o his own clients were true. And as 16 you w,1 ltimately, what happens is the 17 -torneys dismiss the case on the eve of the 18 0SorM ion For Summary Judgment. And
20 those the earlier stage, but he indicates that two 21 sets of lawyers got out. Mr. Scarola corrects me. I wasn't in in
22 THE COURT: That's okay. That's fine.
MR. : But in any event, then on the 24 eve of the summary judgment motion we submit that the last set of lawyers gets out because -- they
6 documents were filed. They took his depo ition withdraw those claims or dismiss those claims because they are faced with the knowledge that they couldn't uncover one iota of evidence that Mr. was guilty of anything. His name never appeared in the public, in any public 7 for days. They have never been able uncover 8 one piece of evidence that would y suggest 9 that he was involved. So the ott m line is -- I 10 really probably have gon her than the 11 Court
12 THE COURT: at all.
13 MR. d I apologize for that.
14 THE : I just want to give you a 15 ten-in:Mt ning now, but
\:6 MR. RING: All right.
".7 THE COURT: Don't these cases, though, 18 t ch us that essentially no matter how repugnant 19 the judicial conduct process -- the conduct during 200 the judicial proceedings, I should say, no matter 21 how far repugnant the conduct during the judicial 22 proceedings may be, as long as they are within the 23 judicial proceeding there is this immunity that 24 exists, particularly for an abuse of process 25 claim?
16 both : We acknowledged in the memo that Third and the Fourth -- in the Fourth :7 the American National Title Case, both applied :8 doctrine to the abuse of process claim.
The malicious prosecution claim I am more on the fence. But on, as far as the abuse of process claim is concerned, and there's that balancing that is taken into account that I believe it's talked about primarily in the Levin case about the full disclosure within t lawsuit venue versus someone facing liabili eca se of what may be alleged in a complai ring a deposition or something along hos lines. As long as it's within the ' al proceeding, and, again, no matter how t it may be, is there ~TT not this immunity d by the appellate courts S '" that would ext t east to the abuse of process claim? An (-ell SM e, if not, why not, please.
2945The full import of how far that will go because each of those cases again involved 21 lawyers. But the question is: Will that in the 22 future -- because, again, that tort, abuse of 23 process, has been around a long time. But the 24 American National case was 1999. And also the 25 LatAm case, which was a precursor to Wolfe on that
1 2 3 issue, the litigation privilege and the abuse as it applied to the abuse of process, that case was cited by Wolfe.
4 5 6 7 9 So you had -- you had some rational prongs that Wolfe could latch onto in terms of the issue of the application of litigation privil to abuse of process. And we would dis Quis it on -- we would distinguish those eased on the fact that lawyers only wed involved.
1C We would also main - - hat/ that --
11 12 13 14 15 16 TES COURT: I, what it comes down to is, p 't lawyers know better S S' than the liti t t emselves? And, again, if -- I would be bit Sitore receptive to your argument if I w 1 Epstein filed these documents pro cause he is at least, you know, to a 17 ree an educated individual. He has a 18 b kground, I believe, in finance. So, you know, 19 there could be those facts that could be developed 29÷ O . 211 experience purview, within his own personal vendettas that he may have with Mr. within his educational purview, within his
23 But, again, shouldn't lawyers know better? 24 The lawyers are continuing this plight on behalf 25 their client. Why is Epstein the one who is the focal point of this abuse of process claim?
2 MR. : And, again, I would go back to 3 the role that lawyers have in walking that ethical 4 line, walking that legal line, walking the 5 line where they have to advance their client's 6 cause as best they can. And when it co e to that 7 point where they recognize that, no se claims 8 are false, there's no basis for oceed, 9 then they get out.
C 10 And now, as I'm adv 11 before. The last fi n and dropped ra 12 their -- dropped aims on the eve of 13 summary judg two firms did that
14 So o t2Me, as -- I shouldn't say that. 15 To -- . dwards in this particular case we 16 see distinction. And that distinction is 17 u don t go after the lawyers for these claims if 18 y recognize that there is a -- that they have 19 acted within the bounds of arguably of their 2,9 1? ImiT.0) ethical responsibilities and legal 21 responsibilities to their client. They have to 22 zealously advocate for him. But that doesn't 23 excuse him. That doesn't excuse an individual who 24 over all those years were committing those heinous 25 acts against not only Mr. ' clients, but
many, many others.
TEE COURT: But those heinous acts as have you communicated, and I won't take a position one 4 way or the other on the acts, but I'm just picking 5 up on what you just said, but they have nothing to do with this case itself on the claims process and malicious prosecution. simply don't. I mean, you may su j abuse of st Al o me that 9 they have something to do wit the from the 10 standpoint of Epstein's isfaction with the settlement or whateve 9= ve been attributed to 12 that, but they re e nothing to do with 13 these claims.
14 MR. ' :1Stell, with the litigation 15 privile '11 acknowledge other than what I 16 have y argued the situation was different 17 rein, in, for example, Wolfe he had the brief ,a earance by the lawyer and Judge, it was - elements, and malicious prosecution doesn't even 22 exist here. Let's get rid of it. Judge Shepherd, in his concurring opinion, didn't embrace that. What he said was, Look, there's two
\::)
2.3 THE COURT: Right.
MR. : I would just suggest that the 25 facts that I have outlined, and which we have in
1 2 3 4 all of the materials that we submitted to you, all of those facts are -- they -- they do go to the other issues that you aren't addressing here; the factual issues on good faith and the factual 5 issues on bona fide termination.
6 7 8 9 And so with that reservation, Iwud the e facts are so significant is because an sitting -- a court sitting back and lookin at phe landscape suggest that the only other reason 10 here would have to ask i s ves, look, in light 11 of -- for example, Ju e er's opinion, and the 12 reasons why we ha ious prosecution claims 13 and why they w s vive is because of something 14 just like s. nd I'm getting back to the 15 litiga vilege and malicious prosecution.
16 lly have ended my comments on that but 17 ust wanted to address your concerns about why 18 of these facts might impact.
124:5 9 C MR. : And those facts impact because 21 what it does is it cries out and it shows you that 22 this is why a malicious prosecution claim should 23 survive the litigation privilege. When you have a 24 torrent of evidence that he's comitted these acts 25 and that he knows that the attorney for those
THE COURT: No. Go right ahead.
1 2 3 4 clients has acted appropriately and at every stage he was involved before he ever got associated - before Mr. ever got associated with RRA and he continued them on after he did it.
5 6 7 8 He does pro bono work for clients, as you know, in the federal case. He knows t Epstein knows that. And that's why faLts are important to malicious prosecuti s because, 9 as Judge Sasser says, the ide the concept 10 here on a malicious pros n claim is, this 11 is -- this is the kin s is why the 12 privilege shouldn' because the vexatious 13 prosecution of is something that the law 14 will recog .
15 d v ything that we have put into the 16 reco d a t Epstein's involvement shows that this 17 of that lawsuit was a pretext. And that he 18 'ha every evil motive in the world to pursue these 19 claims and continue those claims after Mr. settled those claims -- Mr. Epstein settled those 21 claims.
22 So my only other comments is to try to 23 address your concerns vis-a-vis the issue of abuse 24 of process. That's more difficult. It's more 25 difficult because we have the Fourth's opinion and 1 the Third's precursor opinion, so it -- it -- it clearly is problematic.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 We our -- our position on it is essentially this: Judge Corrigan in his opinion in the case that I cited says the privilege shouldn't apply either. Then you have what we submit r egregious facts which should -- ino i 'ng a settlement and he continued pros afterwards, which we submit i is going to be - the light's going to go nd say, Whoa, wait a minute, we can't -- count this the application of pr, in the context of these facts. Your are legitimate and well expressed. tter how egregious the facts, perhap k on't make a difference to the app n of the privilege to -- to an abuse of claim, perhaps.
18 1 15'ss 14S r But we submit for the reasons that we have O 19 identified that the litigation privilege should 294.? 6, equally not apply to the abuse of process claim 21 for those reasons.
22 TIM COURT: Malicious prosecution.
23 MR. : Okay. Well, certainly to 24 25 concern - malicious prosecution. But also your last the abuse of process claim. MR. : But certainly not malicious prosecution for the reasons that are well-articulated by Judge Sasser and oOrs. And lit with regard to the reasons I've jus r ssed to
9 And make sure I didn't anything --
10 THE COURT: Three es to wrap up.
11 MR. SCAROLA: 12 them, if : may, going to use two of
13 THE objection?
14 Yes, Your Honor; They're not 15 allowe. it. This is not, you know, a 16 reb n their part.
17 COURT: I agree. THE
18 ¶ So they're not allowed to 19 MR. split
2,(434 . MR. SCAROLA: May I have just a moment?
21 22 But I do believe that protocol would dictate only 23 one attorney speak to the issues. THE COURT: Absolutely. Take your time.
24 MR. : Right.
25 THE COURT: Thank you.
1 THE COURT: Your position is I think it does apply to abuse of process.
MR. : Right.
1 I have Judge Sasser's opinion. I have it right here or, I should say, her order as opposed to the opinion.
MR. All right. You have that. And just to wrap up then, Judge, with regard to the 6 comments in Levin about the other -- th V availability of other remedies that -- that 8 would exist against attorneys if you know, 9 if the privilege were not app ed o the attorneys 10 as in Levin, there are a d that the court 11 has. Much more diffi n it comes to an 12 individual. And - ink there was one other 13 comment made. just double-check my notes.
14 Court ha referenced the abuse of process 15 claim afdjih her the facts support the abuse of 1.6 proc 17 ey do. . We submit from that standpoint We've satisfied all of the elements.
18 They they -- and the last comment I'll 19 make here is their focus was you can't have an 21 all of these actions that were taken during the abuse of process claim based upon the pursuit of 22 course of the proceedings. And we submit that 23 under the circumstances of this case, where this 24 claim was commenced against Mr. during the 25 course of his prosecution of the underlying claims
1 and while multiple other claims were being pursued 2 against him, that under those circumstances the 3 abuse of process claim does survive a challenge to 4 whether or not we have satisfied the elements.
5 The process that's involved in the abuse of 6 process claim is the lawsuit. The subs Oat 7 actions that all of the cases talk e in 8 our case, the pursuit of all of forts 9 during the course of the o tha case. And 10 they were all done for a rior motive. We've 11 satisfied those eleme
4 12 I don't hair e to get into all of 13 the facts. I give you the essence of 14 what we ha cuing to the statement of 15 undisp s, Mr. ' affidavit, the 16 mate is elating to the filing of our motion for 17 itive damages which was granted. We gave you 18 depositions because, unfortunately, to really 19 ''grasp the entire background on this, you almost have to read the entire depos. 1 tried 21 highlighting and pulling them ou.. for you, but I 22 couldn't really do that. So I apologize.
23 THE COURT: No, that's okay.
24 MR. : But that would end my argument. 25 I appreciate your courtesy.
1 THE COURT: Thank you and Mr. 2 your - r
3 MR. : A few moments, Your Honor?
4 THE COURT: Sure.
5 6 7 MR. : I forgot to ask you if I could address you from the chair here rather h n the podium.
8 THE COURT: That's fine.
9 10 11 Mr. appreciate very much O No, I wanted to thank M King and V for their init' rguments, and I essional.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 rii?kSegranting 20 21 22 onor, you seemed to be a little bit mq.;;::se ed with regard to the malicious ec ion aspects here. I'd like to point o JC 7W:71 t o u that in the case, the Wolfe case, spec is y they stated "because the law is clear t the litigation privilege applies to abuse of ptilt' cess, we affirm the trial court's order judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants below as to that cause of action. Although the law is not as clear whether the litigation privilege also applies for the cause of 23 action for malicious prosecution, we conclude that 2.4 it does and affirm the trial court's order finding 25 that the litigation privilege also applies to a
1 cause of action for malicious prosecution."
2 That was actually the issue before them 3 because it had already been determined that the 4 litigation privilege applied to the abuse of 5 process in both the Third and the Fourth District 6 Courts of Appeal. That's admitted by 7 the counterclaim in their motion in si ion.
8 I wanted to speak about th that the 9 Epstein and/or 10 11 12 13 worst -- the actions were of his attorneys that someh another there's a sliding scale. And i rked longer on the case, or if you p that somehow Xt8 rthat would have an effect. re pleadings or whatever,
14 15 16 17 vilege applies, it's an absolute privilege. 18 .svA olute. s6IS" That' ot omething that I have seen anyway trilogy of cases. In fact, what is said in trilogy of cases is if the litigation
19 The Olson vs. was mentioned to you 2;i! .14) 1 to say that to indicate that the -- that malicious 2 prosecution can still survive and exist. And, in 22 fact, the Olson case, which was a case in which 23 three ladies accused this guy of stalking, filed a 24 false police report. The guy got arrested. 25 Actually, I think -- I'm not sure if he went to
1 2 3 4 trial, but he was able to establish that he was six miles away at the time of the alleged stalking. And the ladies just lied to get him in trouble.
5 The Olson case was addressed in the Wolfe 6 case, and it said, Wait a minute, that s -- a 7 cause of action for malicious prose n ill 8 stand there because that was an hat was 9 taken outside of the judicial roc ss.
10 TIM COURT: And th and that's, you 11 know, where, you know I sk Mr. to 12 briefly address t ell. But, you know, the 13 dilemma the co iNic t here is the language that is 14 reaffirmed ' Wo e and extracted from the 15 Echeva ter from the Florida Supreme Court. 16 And oted and say that Echevarria reaffirmed 17 a proposition -- and I'm using my own words by 18 s ing "the proposition" -- that, quote, absolute 19 immunity must be afforded to any act occurring 0 2,2e., 21 22 And they clarify that although not all statements 23 made outside of the formal judicial process are 24 during the course of a judicial proceeding so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding. protected by the litigation privilege, an absolute 25 immunity applies to conduct occurring during the
1 2 3 course of the proceedings.
So that seems to tell me that if Epstein is filing a complaint, if Epstein is seeking 4 discovery, if Epstein is making obnoxious 5 allegations against -- and I'm, again, not 6 taking a position one side or the other hat's 7 why I'm using the word "if" to pref- 11 of my 8 commentary, as long as it has so ion to the 9 proceeding -- it is afforded sol to immunity.
10 If you're sitting shoes, Mr. la, 11 or better yet sitting ' shoes, what 12 would be his best r t to defeat your motion 13 on malicious p s u on?
14 MR. I don't know that they have 15 one, Yo o r, in light of Wolfe. Not at this 16 leve
17 THE COURT: Is there anything that you can 18 f hom as an officer of the Court that they are 19 claiming Epstein did in either the abuse of process or the malicious prosecution claim -- and as I said, I'm more concerned with the malicious 22 prosecution claim -- that Epstein did outside of 23 the judicial proceedings? Is there anything 24 alleged here that he did outside of the judicial 25 proceeding, such as -- I saw in the damages
7. portion of the argument made by the side, 2 and I think it may have had some relation to 3 4 Judge questions about damages relating to Mr. but I saw that there were 5 sone --that -- that Mr. felt there was 6 7 8 9 him or his family? some threat to his or -- to him and hilly. Has there been any such threats mad yo r knowledge by Mr. Epstein that wo e gone to
10 MR. : Your I I'm late to the 11 game. I was not a pa t or counsel here 12 until, II, probab h or four months ago. I 13 have done my b t -o amiliarize myself in what 14 has gone o rio, but it's voluminous. And so I 15 can't s e you that I've read everything or 16 seen eve hing. I, however, have no knowledge of 17 . Epstein making any threats to towards 18
19 44;svM THE COURT: I'm just using that as an 20 eli, 0 example.
21A MR.-: Well, I don't have any 22 knowledge of him making threats to Mr. or 23 to his family.
'24 THE COURT: Anything outside of the 25 judicial proceeding as potentially or allegedly
1 obnoxious? And as Mr. brought out earlier 2 the allegations being horrifying, egregious, no 3 matter how you might identify those allegations 4 that were quickly withdrawn, anything that you're 5 aware of that went on outside of the judicial 6 process that is being alleged here?
7 km. Not that is bein eg d 8 here, Your Honor, no.
O TBRCOOBT: Mr. an hi g that's being 10 alleged here that goes ou of the broad 11 spectrum that I have o the record that has 12 13 its genesis in Ech and was quoted by the Wolfe Third DA i SI ourt of Appeal opinion?
14 MR. :c here's nothing alleged.
15 16 17 18 19 that forms the basis for the malicious prosecution 20 or the abuse of process claim. It's not 21! e li, specifically set forth in the pleadings. Mr. Edw 1 stimony, though, was that he was bein ed by an investigator which gave him additional concern. But that's not cifically alleged as a matter that, you know,
22 THE COURT: How do I get around this 23 Echevarria language? Again, I recognize what's 24 gone on here, but personal empathy doesn't have 25 any part in a courtroom. It just doesn't and
1 shouldn't. I ruled in your favor and I've ruled\
2 against you. I've ruled in Mr. Goldberger's\
3 favor; I've ruled against him. I've ruled in\
4 favor of Mr. [REDACTED] ' claims and contentions; I've\
5 ruled against him.
6 But I'm just having difficulty coming away\
7 from the reaffirmation of the Florida Supreme\
8 Court's blanket statement here that absent extra\
9 judicial activity, everything that is occurring\
10 during the course of a judicial proceeding, so\
11 long as the act has some relation to the\
12 proceeding, is subject to absolute immunity.
13 **MR. KING:** If I may?
14 **THE COURT:** Absolutely.
15 **MR. KING:** Levin -- neither Levin nor\
16 Echevarria dealt with the malicious prosecution\
17 claim, which is really what I'm going to focus on\
18 now.
19 **THE COURT:** But now I'm dealing with --\
20 and, again, forgive me for interrupting, but just\
21 to make clear the precedential value that I have\
22 to ascribe to Wolfe, and as you indicated, the\
23 Fourth in its case seems to, at least from the\
24 abuse of process part of the matter, align itself\
25 with that same side. The Third District Court of
1 Appeal is an appellate court that I must follow 2 3 4 unless there's a specific ruling to the contrary by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. And the Third is crystal clear in its analysis.
5 Whether you or I agree with it is not for 6 me to say. But its analysis is abundan clear 7 and it, again, reaffirms the Supremo C urt 8 language that talks about where w ithin the 9 judicial proceeding, as repug nt s it may be, as 13 long as it bears relatio e relation, just let this be the rather br uage utilized by the 12 Supreme Court of absent extrajudicial 13 process -- ext j idial actions, better stated, 14 I'm left w th legal analysis while cogent, 15 it's c ile short it's clear.
16 : But that is why all of the 17 itions that I have articulated that would 18 19 4S vs malicious prosecution claim because it is gest that Levin nor Echevarria would apply to a 2,90 .) 4 21 Judge Sasser says, "It's not something that is 22 going on during the course of proceedings. It's 23 the proceeding itself." distinctly different from the nature of -- just as
24 Now that's what Wolfe -- Wolfe takes the 25 position otherwise. It says, Well, that -- that 1 clearly falls within the privilege.
2 TER COURT: And Wolfe is the binding 3 precedent. With all due respect to my suite mate, 4 she's not. And, you know, as a fellow circuit 5 6 7 9 court judge, again, her opinion is meticulous and 4 well-written, but it flies in the face o precedential value here, and that i e lfe case that ties the bow, so to sp ound the malicious prosecution case.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NiliDr Where there may ha n before something to hang one's hat on, obable cause issue, as I described befor ly a factual issue. Whether the c in a bona fide termination in favor o r. wards, subject certainly to factua r vs IIIII7e . Rut that -- but the elements are tak aw rom us, in my view, from a trial urt s decision-making and we're left with the bal analysis that was rendered by the Third District Court Of Appeal.
21 22 23 24 25 And the bow is tied to include malicious prosecution cases as long as those actions, as alleged and conceded by you, and I appreciate incredibly the concession, but as conceded that all of the allegations contained in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint relate to the judicial
1 proceeding in some form.
2 MR. : If I may, Judge, just a final 3 conclusionary remark?
4 TEE COURT: Absolutely. Please
MR. : I would harken back to the impact of Olson, which even though it not 7 deal with a post-civil complaint is- suc as you 8 have here, the language of the o is the 9 litigation privilege does not ppl to malicious 10 prosecution. There is - ubmit that that sets 11 forth at least a conf that issue that 12 allows you to the all of the issues that I 13 discussed. \\
14 THE : Let me look at that Olson case 15 specif please.
C a : I have a copy here if you 17 ld like, Your Honor.
18 TER COURT: No. You have both done an 19 excellent job in tabbing all of these materials, and I want to again compliment both sides on their 21 presentations and their performance as well as 22 well presentations. It's extremely gratifying, 23 especially when I've had I think 14 hearings in addition to the 8:45s today to see the kind of advocacy that I'm seeing here at this hearing.
0
11 12 13 14 15 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Olson case that is cited in, and I've read somewhat quickly, but I believe I've picked up the genesis. And the import of the opinion deals with prelitigation statements ma y an individual who is accusing Olson of lki g. And the court distinguished that clai p lege from a defamation case that was ad d in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fri, 598 So2d. 65, Florida Supreme Court 92, in which the Supreme Court was rgs ed with a certified F eSIt question of w h S" person who makes statements to law enf eme about another individual prior to the CI0417e • tion of judicial proceedings.
16 17 17 hat is important here I think in our view of the case since those statements that 18 19 e made allegedly by the accuser in Olson were made prior to the instigation of judicial 29÷ 0 . 21 protected by an absolute privilege for liability 22 against defamation, and the court held that 23 defamatory statements voluntarily made by private 24 individuals to the police or to the State's 25 Attorney's Office before institution of criminal proceedings and whether those statements were
1 2 But I will take a quick look at that Tab 16 that I have. Thank you.
1 2 3 4 5 charges are presumptively qualifiedly privileged. And such voluntary statements are treated differently than statements made under the State Attorney's investigatory subpoena, which are encompassed within a judicial proceeding and thus 6 are absolutely privileged.
7 So there is that distinguishi 8 characteristic here as well. And i, the 9 issue was met head on by Wolf was not 10 discussed in the Olson ca espectfully, that I 11 can gather here. So the Third District f4 6 12 Court's decisions4 e quoting in large part 13 from the Flori 14 Echevarria, Als here all of the allegations 15 made in h he abuse of process claim and the 16 mali rosecution claim, as conceded by the 17 ds side, are acts occurring during the course 18 arjudicial proceeding and bear some relation to 19 (4c:he proceeding, the Court has no other alternative 20 than to grant the motion on both counts. me Court's decision in
21Al!eli. MR. : Your Honor, .1 have prepared an 22 23 24 25 order which I think fairly closely -- it does not have in it about the conceding the points, but iL does grant the motion based upon the cases that you have just indicated.
1 TER COURT: I would ask you to kindly go ahead and order the transcript and track the language that I have tried to utilize here distinguishing Olson, as well in following the 5 Supreme Court's directive in Echevarria and the 6 Third District Court of Appeal dictates the 7 Wolfe case.
8 MR. : Yes, Your Honor
9 THE COURT: That's the me of the 10 Court's decision.
11 Again, thank yo a ry, very much for 12 your input and yo 13 arguments. No n c 14 both sides/40r ank 'ssionalism and your ld have done a better job on you very much.
15 /BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 17 (HE COURT: grter. Thank you, Madam Court
18 19 O (thereupon, the proceedings were concluded at 4:23 p.m.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
21
22
23
24
25
COURT CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )\
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
I, Robyn Maxwell, Registered Professional\
Court Reporter, State of Florida at Large, certify that I\
was authorized to and did stenographically report the\
foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true\
and complete record of my stenographic notes.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2014.

*Robyn Maxwell*\
ROBYN MAXWELL, RPR, FPR, CLR\
REALTIME SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS
| A | accused (1)
50:23 | 43:17 44:23
49:6 51:12 | 43:19 61:2
airplane (1)
34:11 | 13:4
answered (1)
32:19 | |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- |
| abandoned (4)
33:13 35:2
36:17,23 | accuser (1)
59:18 | addressed (3)
30:18 51:5 59:9 | align (1)
55:24 | answers (2)
13:20 35:7 | |
| able (2)
38:7 51:1 | accusing (1)
59:7 | addressing (1)
43:3 | allegations (9)
19:17 32:18
35:12 37:14
52:5 54:2,3
57:24 60:14 | anybody (1)
43:8 | |
| absent (2)
55:8 56:12 | acknowledge (...)
42:15 | adequately (1)
3:15 | alleged (18)
7:3,19,23 8:17
9:6 11:16
13:15 22:10
33:12 39:8
51:2 52:24
54:6,7,10,14
54:18 57:22 | anyway (1)
50:15 | |
| absolute (11)
13:12 14:5
21:20 32:5
50:17,18 51:18
51:24 52:9
55:12 59:21 | acknowledged...
39:15 | adhere (1)
30:24 | alleged (18)
allegedly (2)
53:25 59:18
allowed (2)
46:15,18
allows (1)
58:12
alternative (1)
60:19
amended (2)
9:13 57:25
amendments (1)
9:12
American (2)
39:17,24
amount (3)
3:20 4:1 34:4
amounts (1)
36:1
analysis (4)
56:4,6,14 57:18
analyzed (1)
13:6
ancient (1)
30:17
and/or (1)
50:9
Angelides (1)
29:7
answer (1) | apologies (1)
5:10
apologize (2)
38:13 48:22
apology (1)
5:12
apparently (1)
10:7
Appeal (9)
13:1 15:15,16
50:6 54:13
56:1,3 57:19
61:6
Appeals (2)
10:1,2
appearance (2)
31:15 42:18
APPEARAN...
2:1
appeared (2)
18:21 38:5
appearing (1)
6:10
appellate (2)
39:12 56:1
applicable (1)
30:12
application (3)
40:6 45:12,16
applied (5)
31:4 39:17 40:2
47:9 50:4
applies (9)
12:15,23 14:5
21:22 49:17,22
49:25 50:17 | |
| abandoned (4)
33:13 35:2
36:17,23 | accuser (1)
59:18 | addressed (3)
30:18 51:5 59:9 | | | |
| able (2)
38:7 51:1 | accusing (1)
59:7 | addressing (1)
43:3 | | | |
| absent (2)
55:8 56:12 | acknowledge (...)
42:15 | adequately (1)
3:15 | | | |
| absolute (11)
13:12 14:5
21:20 32:5
50:17,18 51:18
51:24 52:9
55:12 59:21 | acknowledged...
39:15 | adhere (1)
30:24 | | | |
| absolutely (6)
14:4 21:22
46:21 55:14
58:4 60:6 | Acquisition (1)
28:22 | Administrator...
1:25 | alleged (18)
allegedly (2)
53:25 59:18
allowed (2)
46:15,18
allows (1)
58:12
alternative (1)
60:19
amended (2)
9:13 57:25
amendments (1)
9:12
American (2)
39:17,24
amount (3)
3:20 4:1 34:4
amounts (1)
36:1
analysis (4)
56:4,6,14 57:18
analyzed (1)
13:6
ancient (1)
30:17
and/or (1)
50:9
Angelides (1)
29:7
answer (1) | apologies (1)
5:10
apologize (2)
38:13 48:22
apology (1)
5:12
apparently (1)
10:7
Appeal (9)
13:1 15:15,16
50:6 54:13
56:1,3 57:19
61:6
Appeals (2)
10:1,2
appearance (2)
31:15 42:18
APPEARAN...
2:1
appeared (2)
18:21 38:5
appearing (1)
6:10
appellate (2)
39:12 56:1
applicable (1)
30:12
application (3)
40:6 45:12,16
applied (5)
31:4 39:17 40:2
47:9 50:4
applies (9)
12:15,23 14:5
21:22 49:17,22
49:25 50:17 | |
| abandantly (1)
56:6 | act (3)
51:19,21 55:11 | advance (1)
41:5 | allegedly (2)
53:25 59:18
allowed (2)
46:15,18
allows (1)
58:12
alternative (1)
60:19
amended (2)
9:13 57:25
amendments (1)
9:12
American (2)
39:17,24
amount (3)
3:20 4:1 34:4
amounts (1)
36:1
analysis (4)
56:4,6,14 57:18
analyzed (1)
13:6
ancient (1)
30:17
and/or (1)
50:9
Angelides (1)
29:7
answer (1) | | |
| abandantly (1)
56:6 | actionable (1)
33:3 | advocacy (1)
58:25 | allegedly (2)
53:25 59:18
allowed (2)
46:15,18
allows (1)
58:12
alternative (1)
60:19
amended (2)
9:13 57:25
amendments (1)
9:12
American (2)
39:17,24
amount (3)
3:20 4:1 34:4
amounts (1)
36:1
analysis (4)
56:4,6,14 57:18
analyzed (1)
13:6
ancient (1)
30:17
and/or (1)
50:9
Angelides (1)
29:7
answer (1) | | |
| actionable (1)
33:3 | actions (12)
13:11 16:7,8,22 | affidavit (1)
48:15 | allegedly (2)
53:25 59:18
allowed (2)
46:15,18
allows (1)
58:12
alternative (1)
60:19
amended (2)
9:13 57:25
amendments (1)
9:12
American (2)
39:17,24
amount (3)
3:20 4:1 34:4
amounts (1)
36:1
analysis (4)
56:4,6,14 57:18
analyzed (1)
13:6
ancient (1)
30:17
and/or (1)
50:9
Angelides (1)
29:7
answer (1) | | |
| actions (12)
13:11 16:7,8,22 | acts (5)
41:25 42:2,4
43:24 60:17 | affirm (2)
49:18,24 | allegedly (2)
53:25 59:18
allowed (2)
46:15,18
allows (1)
58:12
alternative (1)
60:19
amended (2)
9:13 57:25
amendments (1)
9:12
American (2)
39:17,24
amount (3)
3:20 4:1 34:4
amounts (1)
36:1
analysis (4)
56:4,6,14 57:18
analyzed (1)
13:6
ancient (1)
30:17
and/or (1)
50:9
Angelides (1)
29:7
answer (1) | | |
| addition (1)
58:24 | additional (1)
54:17 | ago (2)
4:10 53:12 | | | |
| additionally (2)
19:18 24:12 | additionally (2)
19:18 24:12 | agree (3)
24:20 46:17
56:5 | | | |
| address (7)
26:4 27:1 28:8 | address (7)
26:4 27:1 28:8 | agreed (1)
36:3 | | | |
| | | ahead (2) | | | |
| 51:25 | 49:14 | 27:22 41:2 | begins (1) | bounds (1) |
| ------------------------ | ----------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------- | ---------------------- |
| apply (15) | asserting (1) | 43:9,14 58:5 | 20:21 | 41:19 |
| 11:23 12:5,7,16 | 18:7 | background (2) | behalf (11) | bow (2) |
| 12:20 13:3 | assertion (1) | 40:18 48:19 | 2:3,17 4:13,16 | 57:8,20 |
| 15:9 26:7 | 29:17 | bad (2) | 6:10,13 7:23 | [REDACTED] (2) |
| 29:19 44:12 | associated (2) | 14:1,20 | 8:16 9:11 | 1:7 2:17 |
| 45:5,20 46:2 | 44:2,3 | balancing (1) | 19:15 40:24 | [REDACTED] (48) |
| 56:18 58:9 | attempt (1) | 39:4 | believe (14) | 2:3,6 3:5,10 |
| appreciate (4) | 11:21 | bandied (1) | 4:9,21 7:5 9:8 | 4:16 6:8,9,10 |
| 6:7 48:25 49:11 | attempts (2) | 7:13 | 16:1 17:14 | 7:3,17 8:7,23 |
| 57:22 | 11:21 18:21 | bar (5) | 19:7 24:9 33:3 | 10:21 11:8 |
| approach (3) | 2:8 | 16:21 22:7 | 35:19 39:5 | 16:5,13 17:4 |
| 15:21 36:15,18 | ATTERBUR... | 25:23 28:19 | 40:18 46:22 | 17:19 19:14 |
| appropriately ... | attorney (10) | 30:22 | 59:4 | 20:8,11,12,14 |
| 44:1 | 16:22 18:17 | BARNHART ... | believed (1) | 20:16,19 22:15 |
| arguably (1) | 20:17,21 21:5 | 2:18 | 18:7 | 23:19,20,23 |
| 41:19 | 21:8,18 22:13 | barred (5) | beneficial (1) | 32:12 35:22 |
| argue (1) | 43:25 46:23 | 15:3 25:13 29:5 | 19:21 | 46:3,14,18 |
| 35:5 | attorneys (13) | 29:11 30:2 | best (3) | 49:1,3,5,10,12 |
| argued (1) | 7:20 21:1 31:4,5 | bars (1) | 41:6 52:12 | 52:10,14 53:10 |
| 42:16 | 31:14,18 32:22 | 25:8 | 53:13 | 53:21 54:7 |
| arguing (3) | 34:1 36:23 | based (4) | better (5) | 58:16 60:21 |
| 4:13,16 22:16 | 37:17 47:8,9 | 40:8 47:20 | 40:12,23 52:11 | 61:8,15 |
| argument (9) | 50:10 | 60:11,24 | 56:13 61:13 | brief (7) |
| 15:5 19:25 | Attorney's (2) | baseless (1) | Bill (1) | 16:2 24:17 31:7 |
| 32:12 36:11 | 59:25 60:4 | 30:6 | 19:6 | 31:8,14 32:13 |
| 37:6 40:14 | attributed (1) | Basic (1) | binder (1) | 42:17 |
| 48:24 52:12 | 42:11 | 21:18 | 3:7 | briefly (3) |
| 53:1 | Australian (2) | basically (1) | binding (1) | 10:10 18:9 |
| arguments (5) | 2:4,8 | 23:13 | 57:2 | 51:12 |
| 3:12 29:15,16 | authorized (1) | basis (3) | bit (2) | broad (2) |
| 49:10 61:13 | 62:10 | 21:24 41:8 | 40:14 49:13 | 54:10 56:11 |
| arrest (1) | availability (1) | 54:19 | blanket (1) | broader (1) |
| 26:3 | 47:7 | Beach (8) | 55:8 | 31:9 |
| arrested (1) | available (2) | 1:1,16,17 2:5,9 | Board (1) | brought (8) |
| 50:24 | 18:10 22:3 | 2:18,19 62:5 | 3:18 | 4:5 5:17 7:19 |
| articulate (1) | Avenue (2) | bear (3) | Boca (1) | 12:25 18:18 |
| 27:15 | 2:4,8 | 23:11 26:19 | 27:7 | 19:6 32:21 |
| articulated (2) | aware (2) | 60:18 | bona (5) | 54:1 |
| 29:13 56:17 | 30:15 54:5 | bears (2) | 23:8 24:11,18 | Broward (1) |
| ascribe (1) | | 36:13 56:10 | 43:5 57:13 | 19:7 |
| 55:22 | B | bed (1) | bono (2) | [REDACTED] (1) |
| asked (1) | B (2) | 14:3 | 8:16 44:5 | 3:18 |
| 10:16 | 2:21 3:25 | began (1) | bottom (2) | |
| aspect (1) | back (10) | 3:2 | 29:2 38:9 | C |
| 20:3 | 11:14 13:5,6 | beginning (1) | Boulevard (1) | call (3) |
| aspects (1) | 14:11 17:7 | 31:19 | 2:18 | 10:5,5 29:25 |
| called (1) | 14:19 15:1,2 | charges (1) | 33:14 35:2,11 | coming (1) |
| ------------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------- |
| 59:10 | 18:18 23:21,25 | 60:1 | 36:17 38:1,1 | 55:6 |
| camera (1) | 24:2 26:10 | Chester (3) | 41:7,12,17 | comitted (1) |
| 35:18 | 36:12,14,20 | 2:3,6 6:10 | 42:6,13 43:12 | 43:24 |
| Capital (1) | 38:17 39:20 | circuit (4) | 44:8,19,19,20 | commenced (1) |
| 28:21 | 40:8 48:7 | 1:1,1,18 57:4 | 44:21 47:25 | 47:24 |
| care (1) | 50:15,16 57:21 | circumstances... | 48:1 55:4 | comment (2) |
| 3:20 | 60:24 | 47:23 48:2 | clarification (1) | 47:13,18 |
| carries (1) | cause (18) | citation (2) | 6:7 | commentary (1) |
| 20:3 | 1:22 16:17 | 11:1 27:20 | clarify (3) | 52:8 |
| carry (1) | 17:13,17,21,24 | cite (1) | 4:21 14:20 | commented (2) |
| 31:11 | 18:1,4 20:3,6 | 32:7 | 51:22 | 28:18 29:3 |
| case (90) | 23:4 24:10 | cited (9) | clear (10) | comments (3) |
| 1:2 3:8 4:3 5:1 | 41:6 49:20,22 | 25:9 26:11 | 16:2 24:21 | 43:16 44:22 |
| 6:1,15 7:16 8:5 | 50:1 51:7 | 27:21 28:20 | 41:16 49:16,21 | 47:6 |
| 8:11 10:4,8 | 57:11 | 29:7 31:23 | 55:21 56:4,6 | commit (1) |
| 11:9,11,11,12 | | 40:3 45:5 59:3 | 56:15,15 | 33:9 |
| 11:24 12:1,2 | causes (6) | citing (1) | clearly (3) | committing (1) |
| 12:18,25 13:1 | 9:14 11:22 12:4 | 48:14 | 45:2 57:1,12 | 41:24 |
| 13:4,9,13 14:3 | 15:3 | civil (3) | client (4) | communicate... |
| 14:5,12,12,24 | caveat (1) | 12:20 18:4 26:5 | 14:2 33:25 | 42:3 |
| 16:15 19:19 | 10:25 | claim (45) | 40:25 41:21 | compelling (2) |
| 22:14,15,15 | ceded (1) | 4:25 5:5,23 9:18 | clients (6) | 29:18 31:14 |
| 23:22 24:2,5 | 23:23 | 14:20 17:15 | 31:11 34:8 | complained (1) |
| 25:10 26:1,3 | century (1) | 18:8 24:7,22 | 37:15 41:25 | 12:10 |
| 26:14 27:19 | 30:25 | 24:23 25:9,24 | 44:1,5 | complaining (1) |
| 28:25 31:4,6 | certainly (4) | 26:2 28:20 | client's (1) | 25:25 |
| 31:13,23 33:13 | 36:20 45:23 | 29:20 30:1,23 | 41:5 | complaint (19) |
| 33:16,17,23 | 46:4 57:14 | 32:21 36:24 | close (5) | 9:10 13:14,23 |
| 34:21,25 35:1 | CERTIFICA... | 38:25 39:1,3 | 11:11 20:9,12 | 14:9,9,10 15:8 |
| 36:8,9,16,23 | 62:1 | 39:14,18 41:1 | 20:14,16 | 15:11 17:11 |
| 37:17 39:6,17 | certified (1) | 43:22 44:10,13 | closely (1) | 19:6,15,17 |
| 39:24,25 40:2 | 59:12 | 45:17,20 46:8 | 60:22 | 22:18 26:5 |
| 41:15 42:6 | certify (1) | 47:15,16,20,24 | CLR (2) | 33:7 39:8 52:3 |
| 44:6 45:4 | 62:9 | 48:3,6 52:20 | 1:24 62:18 | 57:25 58:7 |
| 47:23 48:8,9 | cert's (1) | 52:22 54:20 | cogent (3) | complaints (1) |
| 49:15,15 50:12 | 28:17 | 55:17 56:19 | 26:12 29:12 | 25:25 |
| 50:22,22 51:5 | chair (1) | 59:8 60:15,16 | 56:14 | complete (1) |
| 51:6 55:23 | 49:6 | claimed (2) | cold (1) | 62:12 |
| 57:8,9,13 | challenge (1) | 13:19 15:4 | 4:17 | completely (1) |
| 58:14 59:3,9,9 | 48:3 | claiming (2) | COLEMAN (1) | 35:9 |
| 59:11,17 60:10 | changed (1) | 23:24 52:19 | 2:15 | compliment (1) |
| 61:7 | 11:2 | claims (31) | come (1) | 58:20 |
| cases (28) | characteristic ... | 3:24 4:1 5:8,17 | 28:4 | conceded (3) |
| 4:8 7:21,24 8:12 | 60:8 | 6:3,4 7:19 | comes (3) | 57:22,23 60:16 |
| 8:24 11:10,16 | charged (1) | 15:23 24:4 | 40:12 41:6 | conceding (1) |
| 12:16 13:7 | 33:8 | 25:13 27:25 | 47:11 | 60:23 |
| concept (1) | 55:4 | counterclaim ... | 34:18 35:17,25 | 4:2 20:20,24 |
| ----------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------- |
| 44:9 | context (2) | 6:14 9:11,12,13 | 36:10 37:22 | [REDACTED] (1) |
| concern (3) | 32:11 45:12 | 9:19 13:15 | 38:11,12,14,17 | 53:3 |
| 16:4 45:25 | continue (1) | 50:7 | 40:11 42:2,23 | Cruz (1) |
| 54:17 | 44:19 | counts (4) | 43:9,19 45:22 | 29:7 |
| concerned (2) | continued (2) | 9:7,9 23:24 | 46:1,10,13,17 | crystal (1) |
| 39:3 52:21 | 44:4 45:8 | 60:20 | 46:21,25 47:10 | 56:4 |
| concerns (4) | continues (1) | County (5) | 48:23 49:1,4,8 | current (2) |
| 36:7 43:17 | 35:11 | 1:1,16 19:8,8 | 51:10,13,15 | 9:24 10:4 |
| 44:23 45:13 | continuing (2) | 62:5 | 52:17,18 53:19 | currently (3) |
| concession (1) | 15:24 40:24 | course (18) | 53:24 54:9,13 | 6:15,18 25:7 |
| 57:23 | contradistinct... | 3:21 4:23 8:23 | 54:22 55:14,19 | cut (2) |
| concise (1) | 25:16 28:7,10 | 11:17 21:21,25 | 55:25 56:1,3,7 | 31:19 32:3 |
| 26:25 | contrary (1) | 27:13 29:16,22 | 56:12 57:2,5 | D |
| conclude (1) | 56:2 | 35:3 47:22,25 | 57:19 58:4,14 | Dade (1) |
| 49:23 | control (2) | 48:9 51:20 | 58:18 59:8,11 | 19:8 |
| concluded (2) | 22:4 37:6 | 52:1 55:10 | 59:12,22 60:19 | damages (3) |
| 8:1 61:19 | controvert (1) | 56:22 60:17 | 61:1,6,9,16,16 | 48:17 52:25 |
| conclusion (2) | 37:1 | court (163) | 61:18 62:1,9 | 53:3 |
| 4:9 28:5 | convenient (1) | 1:1 3:3,6,11,17 | courtesy (1) | dare (1) |
| conclusionary... | 37:11 | 4:13,18,23 5:2 | 48:25 | 28:12 |
| 58:3 | Cope (3) | 5:10,13,20,23 | Courthouse (1) | DATE (1) |
| concurring (6) | 27:7,14,19 | 6:1,6,20 7:1,12 | 1:16 | 1:15 |
| 25:19 27:7,9,10 | Cope's (1) | 7:22,23 8:3,6 | courtroom (2) | Dated (1) |
| 28:3 42:19 | 28:3 | 8:13,15,19,22 | 1:17 54:25 | Dated (1) |
| conduct (5) | copies (2) | 9:25,25 10:1,3 | courts (4) | dates (1) |
| 6:4 38:19,19,21 | 21:14,15 | 10:9,15,18 | 11:20 28:18 | 11:14 |
| 51:25 | copy (1) | 11:6 12:2,6,18 | 39:12 50:6 | day (5) |
| confidential (1) | 58:16 | 13:1,5 14:6 | court's (13) | 10:13 17:25 |
| 36:3 | cornerstone (1) | 15:15,15,16,19 | 22:4 23:3 24:13 | 19:11,12 62:14 |
| conflict (2) | 61:9 | 16:2,6,11,19 | 27:20 28:10 | days (1) |
| 25:7 58:11 | correct (3) | 16:25 17:8,17 | 49:18,24 55:8 | 38:7 |
| confused (1) | 5:18 8:18,20 | 17:25 18:2 | 57:17 60:12,13 | DCA (3) |
| 23:18 | correction (1) | 19:9,23 20:10 | 61:5,10 | 27:18,22 29:9 |
| confusing (1) | 10:13 | 20:13,15,18 | cover (1) | DCA's (2) |
| 10:20 | correctly (1) | 21:3,6,13,17 | 24:5 | 25:11 27:16 |
| conservative (1) | 11:12 | 22:3,6,14,19 | covered (2) | deal (4) |
| 36:18 | corrects (1) | 22:22 23:1,2,7 | 23:20,24 | 3:15 11:13 21:9 |
| conspiracy (1) | 37:19 | 23:17 24:15,20 | cries (1) | 58:7 |
| 33:9 | Corrigan (3) | 25:4,5 26:16 | 43:21 | dealing (3) |
| contained (1) | 28:21 29:2 45:4 | 26:17,21,24 | crimes (2) | 25:4 30:3 55:19 |
| 57:24 | counsel (8) | 27:3,9,12,23 | 33:9,11 | deals (3) |
| contains (1) | 3:8 6:22 21:15 | 28:6,14,16,24 | criminal (1) | 21:6,10 59:6 |
| 10:24 | 29:24,25 37:4 | 29:17 30:2,3 | 59:25 | dealt (2) |
| contempt (2) | 47:14 53:11 | 30:15,18,20,24 | cripple (1) | 25:25 55:16 |
| 16:20 22:5 | count (1) | 31:20,24 32:9 | 22:7 | decided (1) |
| contentions (1) | 45:11 | 32:12 33:1,21 | [REDACTED] (3) | |
| 28:24 | desiring (1) | discussed (4) | Dixie (1) | 18:12,17 19:12 |
| ---------------- | ---------------- | ------------------ | ---------------- | --------------- |
| decision (11) | 33:21 | 28:25 32:5 | 1:16 | 19:13 22:16,24 |
| 26:19,22 27:7 | despite (2) | 58:13 60:10 | doctrine (2) | 32:18 33:2,8 |
| 27:16,22 28:21 | 32:24 35:10 | discusses (1) | 28:11 39:18 | 34:5,8,14 |
| 28:23 31:24 | detail (1) | 31:25 | documents (2) | 35:21 37:13 |
| 32:6 60:13 | 23:6 | discussing (1) | 38:6 40:15 | 38:4 40:22 |
| 61:10 | determination... | 36:6 | doing (3) | 41:15,25 44:3 |
| decisions (2) | 17:18,22 18:2 | Discussion (2) | 8:16 34:23,23 | 44:19 47:24 |
| 21:24 60:12 | 23:8 24:11 | 22:21 31:22 | Donald (1) | 48:15 52:5,11 |
| decision-maki... | 17:23 | dismiss (2) | 1:18 | 53:1,4,5,18,22 |
| 57:17 | determination... | 37:17 38:1 | double-check ... | 54:15 55:4 |
| defamation (4) | determine (2) | dismissal (1) | 47:13 | 57:14 60:17 |
| 11:15,16 59:9 | 11:22 21:13 | 5:17 | dropped (2) | effect (1) |
| 59:22 | determined (3) | dismissed (3) | 41:11,12 | 50:13 |
| defamatory (1) | 12:14 13:9 50:3 | 5:14 6:1,5 | due (1) | effectuated (1) |
| 59:23 | determining (1) | disposed (1) | 57:3 | 37:3 |
| defeat (1) | 12:10 | 23:22 | E | efforts (1) |
| 52:12 | developed (1) | disputes (1) | E | 48:8 |
| defendant (3) | 40:19 | 23:12 | earlier (3) | egregious (3) |
| 18:5,6 30:6 | dictate (1) | disqualify (1) | 34:13 37:20 | 45:7,14 54:2 |
| defendants (4) | 46:22 | 29:24 | 54:1 | either (4) |
| 1:8 5:11,13 | dictates (1) | dissatisfaction... | early (1) | 23:14 28:17 |
| 49:20 | 61:6 | 42:10 | 32:4 | 45:6 52:19 |
| defended (1) | difference (1) | distance (1) | easier (1) | elements (7) |
| 5:6 | 45:15 | 15:25 | 10:6 | 24:6,22 42:21 |
| defenses (1) | different (8) | distinction (2) | Echevarria (17) | 47:17 48:4,11 |
| 9:20 | 7:14,20,21 | 41:16,16 | 11:11 12:17 | 57:15 |
| degree (1) | 11:20 30:5 | distinctly (1) | 13:6 14:12 | embrace (1) |
| 40:17 | 35:9 42:16 | 56:20 | 21:10 23:21,25 | 42:20 |
| Delmonico (1) | 56:20 | distinguish (3) | 25:12 28:24 | empathy (1) |
| 21:11 | differently (1) | 15:20 40:7,8 | 51:15,16 54:12 | 54:24 |
| demonstrated ... | 60:3 | distinguishabl... | 54:23 55:16 | emphasis (1) |
| 17:13 | difficult (3) | 31:3 | 56:18 60:14 | 32:23 |
| denied (1) | 44:24,25 47:11 | distinguished ... | 61:5 | encompassed ... |
| 11:4 | difficulty (2) | 59:8 | educated (1) | 60:5 |
| DENNEY (1) | 32:20 55:6 | distinguishing... | 40:17 | ended (2) |
| 2:18 | dilemma (1) | 60:7 61:4 | Education (1) | 43:16 57:13 |
| depos (1) | 51:13 | district (15) | 3:18 | enforcement (1) |
| 48:20 | directive (1) | 9:25 10:1 13:1 | educational (1) | 59:14 |
| deposition (4) | 61:5 | 15:14,15 28:13 | 40:20 | entire (3) |
| 8:4 22:10 38:6 | disclosure (1) | 28:14 29:8 | [REDACTED] (55) | 33:5 48:19,20 |
| 39:9 | 39:6 | 50:5 54:13 | 1:7 2:17 4:6 5:6 | entities (2) |
| depositions (3) | discovery (7) | 55:25 56:3 | 5:8,18 6:2,15 | 4:6,25 |
| 14:14 18:23 | 8:24 13:21 | 57:19 60:11 | 6:22 7:6 8:3,15 | entitled (1) |
| 48:18 | 14:14 18:21 | 61:6 | 9:6,11,18,19 | 22:17 |
| described (1) | 22:1 34:14 | division (2) | 10:6,7 13:22 | Epstein (38) |
| 57:12 | 52:4 | 3:25 4:10 | 14:2 15:6,21 | 1:4 3:24 4:5,14 |
| 6:11,13 7:4,19 | evidence (7) | extrajudicial (2) | family (3) | 19:16 |
| ----------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------ | -------------------- |
| 8:19 9:3 13:24 | 19:20 34:4 | 56:12,13 | 53:6,9,23 | finding (2) |
| 15:7 17:13 | 35:24 37:9 | extremely (1) | far (6) | 17:24 49:24 |
| 18:10,19 19:19 | 38:3,8 43:24 | 58:22 | 11:22 12:3 26:4 | fine (3) |
| 32:16,22,25 | | | 38:21 39:2,19 | 34:24 37:22 |
| 34:2,2,22 35:8 | evil (1) | F | fathom (1) | 49:8 |
| 37:1,6,10 | 44:18 | | 52:18 | firm (7) |
| 40:15,25 44:7 | evolution (1) | face (2) | 52:18 | 18:13,15,19 |
| 44:20 50:9 | 33:16 | 34:25 57:6 | favor (5) | 19:5 32:14 |
| 52:2,3,4,19,22 | exactly (1) | faced (2) | 49:19 55:1,3,4 | 19:5 32:14 |
| 53:8,17 | 13:13 | 13:1 38:2 | 57:14 | 36:16 41:11 |
| Epstein's (8) | example (4) | facing (2) | federal (5) | firms (1) |
| 5:23 6:4 9:18 | 33:25 42:17 | 34:17 39:7 | 7:22 8:5,13 34:6 | 41:10 |
| 18:24 22:18 | 43:11 53:20 | fact (11) | 44:6 | first (2) |
| 33:6 42:10 | excellent (1) | 10:1 13:20 | feel (1) | 6:9 18:12 |
| 44:16 | 58:19 | 17:20,21 24:1 | 20:2 | five (1) |
| equally (1) | excuse (4) | 24:10,19 35:10 | fellow (1) | 19:23 |
| 45:20 | 15:6 35:22 | 40:9 50:15,22 | 57:4 | FL (5) |
| escalating (1) | 41:23,23 | factor (2) | felt (1) | 1:17 2:5,9,14,19 |
| 19:1 | exist (3) | 32:7,8 | 53:5 | Fla (1) |
| especially (2) | 42:22 47:8 | facts (21) | fence (1) | 28:23 |
| 32:23 58:23 | 50:21 | 23:5,10 26:3 | 39:2 | flies (1) |
| espoused (2) | exists (3) | 31:6,13 35:6 | fide (5) | 57:6 |
| 9:24 15:14 | 23:7 25:7 38:24 | 35:17 36:13 | 23:8 24:11,18 | flight (1) |
| ESQUIRE (5) | experience (1) | 40:19 42:25 | 43:5 57:13 | 18:22 |
| 2:6,10,15,20,21 | 40:21 | 43:2,7,18,20 | Fifth (1) | flights (1) |
| essence (1) | explanation (1) | 44:7 45:7,13 | 27:22 | 18:24 |
| 48:13 | 19:4 | 45:14 47:15 | figure (1) | Florida (17) |
| essentially (6) | exposed (1) | 48:13,15 | 26:18 | 1:1 9:24 12:2,18 |
| 12:20 13:5 | 31:15 | factual (6) | file (4) | 15:16 16:6,21 |
| 16:11 32:25 | expressed (2) | 20:4 23:12 43:4 | 15:7 17:15,15 | 18:16 22:6 |
| 38:18 45:3 | 45:14 46:7 | 43:4 57:12,15 | 17:16 | 30:17 51:15 |
| establish (1) | expressly (2) | fail (1) | filed (18) | 55:7 56:12 |
| 51:1 | 29:15 30:10 | 17:12 | 6:13,14 7:22 9:5 | 59:11 60:13 |
| established (1) | extend (1) | fairly (1) | 9:11 13:14,17 | 62:4,9 |
| 21:20 | 39:13 | 60:22 | 15:8,10 17:13 | focal (1) |
| establishing (1) | extension (1) | faith (1) | 19:14 22:11,12 | 41:1 |
| 18:3 | 10:14 | 43:4 | 26:5 30:1 38:6 | focus (4) |
| ethical (3) | extent (1) | falls (1) | 40:15 50:23 | 5:7 25:2 47:19 |
| 31:11 41:3,20 | 4:6 | 57:1 | filing (10) | 55:17 |
| eve (4) | extorsion (1) | false (2) | 13:22 14:1,8,9 | follow (2) |
| 5:18 37:17,24 | 33:11 | 41:8 50:24 | 22:2,7 30:5,12 | 28:15 56:1 |
| 41:12 | extort (1) | familiar (2) | 48:16 52:3 | following (4) |
| event (2) | 14:2 | 11:15 19:9 | final (3) | 1:23 3:2 29:18 |
| 19:14 37:23 | extra (1) | familiarity (1) | 11:1,5 58:2 | 61:4 |
| everybody (1) | 55:8 | 4:1 | finance (1) | footnote (1) |
| 3:3 | extracted (1) | familiarize (1) | 40:18 | 28:4 |
| | 51:14 | 53:13 | find (1) | foregoing (1) |
| 62:11 | further (3) | 46:11 55:17 | hand (1) | holds (2) |
| --------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------------- | ----------------------- | ---------------------- |
| forever (2) | 14:19 36:7 | 56:22 | 36:12 | 25:12,16 |
| 16:12,14 | 38:10 | GOLDBERG... | handle (1) | Honor (27) |
| forget (1) | future (1) | 2:8,10 | 24:24 | 3:5 4:20,24 5:25 |
| 14:18 | 39:22 | Goldberger's ... | handled (3) | 6:10,16 7:10 |
| forgive (1) | F.Supp.2d (1) | 55:2 | 3:24 4:8 16:24 | 7:17 15:13 |
| 55:20 | 28:22 | good (3) | hang (1) | 17:5 21:14,19 |
| forgot (1) | | 3:3,5 43:4 | 57:11 | 22:23,24 35:22 |
| 49:5 | | government (2) | happened (3) | 46:12,14 49:3 |
| form (1) | game (1) | 34:6,6 | 8:7 10:19 33:22 | 49:12 52:15 |
| 58:1 | 53:11 | grant (4) | happens (3) | 53:10 54:8 |
| formal (1) | gather (1) | 20:5 24:8 60:20 | 26:4 33:16 | 58:17 60:21 |
| 51:23 | 60:11 | 60:24 | 37:16 | 61:8,15,18 |
| format (1) | general (1) | granted (1) | happy (1) | hope (1) |
| 11:2 | 33:10 | 48:17 | 21:5 | 35:7 |
| forms (1) | genesis (2) | granting (1) | harken (1) | horrific (1) |
| 54:19 | 54:12 59:5 | 49:19 | 58:5 | 33:8 |
| Fort (1) | getting (2) | grasp (1) | hat (1) | horrifying (1) |
| 2:14 | 17:5 43:14 | 48:19 | 57:11 | 54:2 |
| forth (3) | girls (1) | gratifying (1) | head (2) | hour (1) |
| 25:22 54:21 | 34:9 | 58:22 | 12:25 60:9 | 3:13 |
| 58:11 | give (3) | greater (1) | headed (1) | hours (1) |
| found (2) | 21:3 38:14 | 32:2 | 11:9 | 3:9 |
| 12:19 15:2 | 48:13 | grievances (1) | hear (1) | huge (1) |
| four (1) | given (1) | 22:7 | 4:17 | 34:4 |
| 53:12 | 31:9 | group (2) | heard (2) | |
| fourth (9) | global (3) | 19:15 27:8 | 1:22 3:18 | I |
| 9:13 10:1 15:15 | 15:21 23:20 | gucss (3) | hearing (3) | Idaho (1) |
| 39:16,16 50:5 | 57:18 | 11:24 32:9 | 1:12 5:19 58:25 | 31:24 |
| 55:23 56:3 | 24:4 | 40:11 | hearings (1) | idea (2) |
| 57:25 | go (16) | guiding (1) | 58:23 | 44:9 50:8 |
| 44:25 | 7:11 14:19 | 33:1 | heinous (2) | identified (2) |
| FPR (2) | 16:11,13 17:7 | guilty (1) | 41:24 42:2 | 32:1 45:19 |
| 1:24 62:18 | 18:9 19:17 | 38:4 | held (1) | identify (2) |
| fraud (3) | 26:4 31:5 | guised (1) | 59:22 | 23:6 54:3 |
| 33:9,10,10 | 39:19 41:2,17 | 17:1 | Henry (1) | ignores (2) |
| Fridovich (2) | 43:2,19 45:10 | guy (2) | 27:17 | 27:6,15 |
| 59:10,10 | 61:1 | 50:23,24 | highlighted (2) | immediately (1) |
| front (2) | goes (3) | guys (1) | 21:14,15 | 36:17 |
| 12:18 18:15 | 21:8 35:3 54:10 | 19:25 | highlighting (1) | immunity (11) |
| full (3) | going (15) | Haddad (7) | 48:21 | 31:9 32:3,5,5 |
| 27:16 39:6,19 | 3:11 6:20 8:5 | 2:12,15 4:11,12 | Highway (1) | 36:13 38:23 |
| fundamental... | 14:11 19:4 | 2:12,15 4:11,12 | 1:16 | 39:12 51:19,25 |
| 30:5 | 23:4 28:15 | 4:15 5:25 20:1 | history (6) | 52:9 55:12 |
| Funeral (1) | 33:5 34:22 | Hafele (1) | 6:21 7:18 10:21 | impact (4) |
| 27:16 | 36:7 45:9,10 | 1:18 | 10:23 18:16 | 35:14 43:18,20 |
| | | | 33:5 | 58:6 |
| impeachment ... | 27:5 | 3:24 5:11,13 | Jeffrey (2) | juncture (1) |
| ----------------------- | ------------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------- |
| 7:10 | influence (1) | 7:21 17:20 | 1:4 6:11 | 5:24 |
| implicitly (3) | 33:1 | 29:21 31:5 | jgoldberger@... | jurisdiction (1) |
| 27:22,24 30:21 | information (2) | 33:12 38:9 | 2:11 | 28:17 |
| imploded (1) | 8:1 13:24 | 39:20 40:9 | job (2) | jury (3) |
| 19:5 | inherent (1) | 44:2 48:5 | 58:19 61:13 | 17:22,22,23 |
| implosion (1) | 22:4 | involvement (4) | [REDACTED] (6) | |
| 37:12 | initial (4) | 31:7 32:13 36:8 | 25:10,21,25 | |
| import (2) | 5:17 24:17 33:7 | 44:16 | 26:22 29:14 | |
| 39:19 59:5 | 49:10 | involves (1) | 50:19 | |
| important (2) | initiation (1) | 30:5 | JR (2) | key (1) |
| 44:8 59:16 | 13:17 | involving (3) | 2:3,6 | 25:3 |
| importantly (1) | input (1) | 4:3 12:16 33:17 | JSX@scarcyl... | kind (3) |
| 28:9 | 61:12 | iota (1) | 2:20 | 13:7 44:11 |
| improper (2) | inside (1) | 38:3 | judge (33) | 58:24 |
| 22:1,2 | 34:22 | irrelevant (1) | 1:18 4:2,15 8:10 | kindly (2) |
| inappropriate... | insofar (1) | 14:21 | 10:13 17:22 | 3:12 61:1 |
| 16:22 | 17:11 | issuance (1) | 20:20,24 25:3 | [REDACTED] (55) |
| include (1) | instigation (2) | 11:3 | 25:18 26:9,11 | 2:21 8:10,14,18 |
| 57:20 | 59:15,19 | issue (30) | 26:17,20 27:7 | 8:20 10:10,12 |
| including (2) | institution (1) | 10:7 12:3 13:2 | 27:14,19 28:3 | 10:16,19 22:22 |
| 12:7 45:7 | 59:25 | 13:14 18:1 | 28:21 29:2,14 | 22:23,23 23:3 |
| incredibly (1) | interesting (2) | 20:6,13,14 | 42:18,19 43:11 | 23:17 24:13,16 |
| 57:23 | 27:4 36:12 | 23:4,7,14,20 | 44:9 45:4 46:6 | 25:1,6 26:19 |
| independent (1) | interference (3) | 24:11,12,17 | 47:1,5 53:3 | 26:22,25 27:4 |
| 4:4 | 12:1,9 30:1 | 25:3,8 28:15 | 56:21 57:5 | 27:10,13 31:21 |
| indicate (3) | interrogatorie... | 31:25 35:15 | 58:2 | 31:23 32:18 |
| 32:13,15 50:20 | 13:20 14:15 | 36:13 40:1,5 | judges (1) | 33:4 34:19 |
| indicated (7) | interrupt (1) | 44:23 50:2 | 26:13 | 36:5 37:8,23 |
| 8:4 29:12 30:21 | 10:3 | 57:11,12 58:7 | judgment (11) | 38:13,16 39:15 |
| 30:21 32:11 | interrupting (1) | 58:11 60:9 | 5:19 6:13 14:25 | 40:11 41:2 |
| 55:22 60:25 | 55:20 | issued (1) | 15:1 23:15 | 42:14,24 43:20 |
| indicates (3) | interruption (1) | 10:24 | 24:25 35:23 | 45:23 46:4,24 |
| 8:15 10:24 | 8:21 | issues (13) | 37:18,24 41:13 | 47:4 48:24 |
| 37:20 | interview (3) | 12:22 19:20 | 49:19 | 49:9 51:11 |
| indication (2) | 6:23 7:4,7 | 20:4 21:12,13 | judicial (31) | 54:1,9,14 |
| 35:20 36:24 | intimidate (1) | 26:4 35:4,15 | 1:1 11:17 12:12 | 55:13,15 56:16 |
| indications (1) | 14:1 | 43:3,4,5 46:23 | 12:21 13:11,18 | 58:2,5 |
| 34:12 | investigations ... | 58:12 | 13:18 14:8,13 | Knachwalter (... |
| individual (5) | 8:2 | | 15:18 16:9 | 32:14 36:16 |
| 40:17 41:23 | investigator (1) | J | 38:19,20,21,23 | knew (3) |
| 47:12 59:7,14 | 54:16 | J (2) | 39:10 51:9,20 | 5:10 18:10 |
| individually (4) | investigatory (... | 1:7 2:17 | 51:23 52:23,24 | 37:14 |
| 1:7,7 5:3,5 | 60:4 | Jack (3) | 53:25 54:5 | know (31) |
| individuals (1) | investors (3) | 2:10,20 22:24 | 55:9,10 56:9 | 3:23 4:7,8 6:24 |
| 59:24 | 19:15,22 27:8 | January (2) | 57:25 59:15,19 | 7:14,15 11:7 |
| inexplicable (1) | involved (13) | 1:15 62:14 | 60:5,18 | 16:13,21 19:7 |
| 19:24,25 27:13 | 30:25 44:13 | liability (3) | 45:19 49:17,22 | 27:24 28:19 |
| --------------------- | --------------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------- | -------------------- |
| 34:1,2,18,21 | 49:16,21 59:14 | 32:4 39:7 59:21 | 49:25 50:4,16 | 29:4,10,19 |
| 37:16 40:12,16 | lawsuit (5) | liberal (1) | 51:24 58:9 | 30:4,7,11,13 |
| 40:18,23 44:6 | 9:5 30:4 39:6 | 36:15 | little (1) | 30:16,23 31:1 |
| 46:15 47:8 | 44:17 48:6 | Libow (2) | 49:13 | 35:4 39:1 42:7 |
| 51:11,11,12 | lawyer (1) | 26:23 29:14 | LLC (1) | 42:21 43:12,15 |
| 52:14 54:18 | 42:18 | lie (1) | 28:22 | 43:22 44:8,10 |
| 57:4 | lawyers (19) | 36:24 | LM (2) | 45:22,24 46:4 |
| knowledge (5) | 31:7,8 32:1 | lied (1) | 6:3 9:6 | 49:14,23 50:1 |
| 4:3 38:2 53:8,16 | 33:12,22 34:15 | 51:3 | long (9) | 50:20 51:7 |
| 53:22 | 34:21,24 35:1 | light (3) | 14:15 38:22 | 52:13,20,21 |
| known (1) | 35:9 37:21,25 | 23:3 43:10 | 39:10,23 51:20 | 54:19 55:16 |
| 13:25 | 39:21 40:9,12 | 52:15 | 52:8 55:11 | 56:19 57:9,20 |
| knows (3) | 40:23,24 41:3 | lightly (1) | 56:10 57:21 | 58:9 60:16 |
| 43:25 44:6,7 | 41:17 | 30:19 | longer (3) | mandate (2) |
| Krig (1) | lawyer's (1) | light's (1) | 23:13,14 50:11 | 10:24 11:3 |
| 28:22 | 36:8 | 45:10 | look (5) | manifests (1) |
| L | lead (1) | likewise (3) | 35:17 42:20 | 18:23 |
| ladies (2) | 18:17 | 23:12 24:18 | 43:10 58:14 | mass (1) |
| 50:23 51:3 | leading (1) | 28:18 | 59:1 | 37:9 |
| lady (1) | 26:2 | line (7) | looked (1) | mate (1) |
| 6:23 | learned (2) | 29:2 34:24 | 11:20 | 57:3 |
| Lakes (1) | 8:25 9:3 | 36:12 38:9 | looking (1) | material (1) |
| 2:18 | left (3) | 41:4,4,5 | 43:9 | 32:17 |
| landscape (1) | 4:10 56:14 | lines (2) | low (1) | materials (4) |
| 43:9 | 57:17 | 31:17 39:9 | 18:4 | 3:7 43:1 48:16 |
| language (6) | legal (6) | litigant (1) | lure (1) | 58:19 |
| 51:13 54:23 | 17:18,18 31:11 | 16:23 | 19:22 | matter (15) |
| 56:8,11 58:8 | 41:4,20 56:14 | litigants (3) | M | 3:16,23 4:21 7:9 |
| 61:3 | legitimate (1) | 16:16 22:8 | Mabie (1) | 18:1 20:4 |
| large (2) | 45:13 | 40:13 | 11:25 | 21:23 38:18,20 |
| 60:12 62:9 | length (1) | litigation (54) | machinations ... | 39:11 45:14 |
| largest (1) | 15:22 | 9:22,23 11:13 | 33:6 | 51:15 54:3,18 |
| 18:16 | let's (2) | 11:18,23 12:23 | Madam (1) | 55:24 |
| LatAm (1) | 11:8 42:22 | 13:2 14:4,17 | 61:16 | matters (1) |
| 39:25 | level (1) | 14:22 15:2,9 | maintain (1) | 8:19 |
| latch (1) | 52:16 | 16:9 17:1 | 40:10 | Maxwell (3) |
| 40:5 | Levin (23) | 18:20 19:21 | making (3) | 1:24 62:8,18 |
| late (2) | 11:10,25,25 | 21:6,9,10,19 | making (3) | mean (2) |
| 19:3 53:10 | 12:6,19 13:6 | 21:22,25 22:5 | 52:4 53:17,22 | 35:7 42:8 |
| latest (1) | 14:12 16:15 | 22:9,17 25:2,8 | malicious (56) | Meaning (1) |
| 8:3 | 20:22,22 23:21 | 25:14 26:7 | 5:9 9:8,15,17 | 36:14 |
| Lauderdale (1) | 23:25 25:11 | 27:25 28:19 | 12:24 13:15 | memo (1) |
| 2:14 | 27:20 28:24 | 29:3,5,11 30:2 | 15:25 16:18 | 39:15 |
| law (8) | 29:21,23 39:5 | 30:8,9,11,22 | 17:11 24:4,6 | memorandum... |
| 18:1 20:5 21:13 | 47:6,10 55:15 | 31:3,9 40:1,6 | 24:22 25:9,12 | 27:21 |
| | 55:15 56:18 | 42:14 43:15,23 | 25:24 26:2,8 | mentioned (1) |
| 50:19 | 3:13 | noticed (2) | 25:10,21,24 | 51:9,23 52:22 |
| ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------- |
| merely (2) | move (1) | 22:10,11 | 26:6 29:17 | 52:24 53:24 |
| 33:17,18 | 20:7 | November (2) | 50:19,22 51:5 | 54:5,10 |
| met (4) | multiple (1) | 9:4 19:3 | 58:6,14 59:3,7 | overturn (1) |
| 4:2 17:2 20:2 | 48:1 | November/De... | 59:18 60:10 | 30:25 |
| 60:9 | muster (1) | 9:4 18:11 | 61:4 | |
| meticulous (1) | 24:24 | number (6) | once (2) | |
| 57:5 | myriad (1) | 5:11 7:18,20,21 | 21:20 26:5 | PA (2) |
| Middle (2) | 47:10 | 9:2,20 | one's (1) | 2:8,12 |
| 20:22 29:8 | M.D (1) | numerous (1) | 57:11 | package (1) |
| Middlebrook ... | 28:23 | 18:20 | one-half (1) | 6:21 |
| 20:22 | | | 3:12 | page (1) |
| miles (1) | | | operative (1) | 10:14 |
| 51:2 | | objection (1) | 57:24 | Palm (8) |
| mind (3) | 1:16 | 46:13 | opinion (21) | 1:1,16,17 2:5,9 |
| 16:12 34:2,3 | | obligated (1) | 25:11,19 26:9 | 2:18,19 62:5 |
| minute (3) | 6:23 7:13 38:4 | 22:8 | 26:11 27:9,11 | panel (1) |
| 22:20 45:11 | names (1) | obligations (1) | 27:18 28:3 | 27:19 |
| 51:6 | 18:25 | 31:10 | 29:13,14 42:19 | panel's (2) |
| minutes (2) | National (2) | obnoxious (2) | 43:11 44:25 | 27:16 28:4 |
| 3:19 46:10 | 39:17,24 | 52:4 54:1 | 45:1,4 47:1,3 | papers (3) |
| misconduct (1) | nature (1) | occasions (1) | 54:13 57:5 | 5:21 34:4,13 |
| 21:25 | 56:20 | 7:14 | 58:8 59:5 | part (5) |
| misstating (1) | near (1) | occur (1) | opinions (1) | 35:4 46:16 |
| 5:11 | 4:9 | 21:21 | 27:14 | 54:25 55:24 |
| moment (2) | necessarily (1) | occurred (1) | opportunity (5) | 60:12 |
| 28:25 46:20 | 34:1 | 11:16 | 3:6 6:25 23:6 | participant (1) |
| moments (4) | necessary (1) | occurring (4) | 32:2,3 | 53:11 |
| 3:14 25:18 27:2 | 5:12 | 51:19,25 55:9 | opposed (4) | participants (1) |
| 49:3 | need (1) | 60:17 | 24:23 29:16 | 14:16 |
| Monday (1) | 31:5 | Office (1) | 32:22 47:2 | particular (2) |
| 1:15 | neither (3) | 59:25 | opposing (1) | 35:15 41:15 |
| months (1) | 7:7 29:4 55:15 | officer (1) | 21:15 | particularly (2) |
| 53:12 | never (3) | 52:18 | opposition (1) | 16:15 38:24 |
| motion (15) | 5:5 38:5,7 | ■ (1) | 50:7 | partner (1) |
| 6:12 14:24 15:1 | non (1) | 53:12 | order (5) | 18:13 |
| 17:10 22:11 | 20:6 | okay (16) | 47:2 49:18,24 | pending (1) |
| 24:8 29:24 | 28:21 | 4:11 6:6 7:17 | 60:22 61:2 | 15:23 |
| 35:22 37:18,24 | note (3) | 8:22 10:19 | orgies (1) | people (1) |
| 48:16 50:7 | note (1) | 11:6 20:10 | 34:11 | 18:23 |
| 52:12 60:20,24 | 20:8 27:17,19 | 21:17 22:19,22 | original (4) | performance (1) |
| motions (2) | noted (1) | 24:15 26:24 | 9:18 15:8,11 | 58:21 |
| 5:7 22:2 | 29:17 | 27:12 37:22 | 35:1 | period (3) |
| motive (3) | notes (2) | 45:23 48:23 | outlined (3) | 8:8 19:1 33:3 |
| 14:20 44:18 | 47:13 62:12 | old (2) | 34:3 37:10 | perjury (4) |
| 48:10 | notice (2) | 34:9,10 | 42:25 | 16:23,25 33:9 |
| movant (1) | 10:12 36:19 | Olson (15) | outside (7) | 33:10 |
| person (1) | 60:23 | presentation (1) | 17:12,17,21,24 | 49:18 50:5 |
| --------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------ | ----------------------- | ------------------------ |
| 59:13 | police (2) | 9:2 | 18:1,3 20:3,6 | 51:9,23 52:20 |
| personal (3) | 50:24 59:24 | presentations ... | 23:4 24:10 | 54:6,20 55:24 |
| 37:13 40:21 | policy (1) | 58:21,22 | 57:11 | 56:13 60:15 |
| 54:24 | 21:23 | presented (1) | probably (3) | professional (2) |
| persuasive (1) | Ponzi (2) | 59:12 | 4:7 38:10 53:12 | 49:11 62:8 |
| 25:22 | 18:16 19:22 | presumptively... | problem (2) | professionalis... |
| peruse (1) | portion (1) | 60:1 | 10:22 26:21 | 61:12 |
| 58:12 | 53:1 | pretext (1) | problematic (1) | prominent (3) |
| phase (1) | position (12) | 44:17 | 45:2 | 18:25 20:17 |
| 36:2 | 23:13 25:6,21 | prevent (1) | procedural (2) | 22:13 |
| picked (1) | 28:11 32:10 | 30:8 | 6:20 7:18 | prongs (1) |
| 59:4 | 35:9 37:8 42:3 | primarily (1) | proceed (1) | 40:4 |
| picking (1) | 45:3 46:1 52:6 | 39:5 | 41:8 | pronouncing (1) |
| 42:4 | 56:25 | prior (4) | proceeded (1) | 11:12 |
| piece (1) | 56:25 | prior (4) | 7:24 | properly (1) |
| 38:8 | positions (1) | 27:6 53:14 | proceeding (19) | 17:15 |
| 38:8 | 56:17 | 59:14,19 | 11:17 12:12 | proposed (1) |
| place (3) | 58:7 | 59:23 | 15:18 33:2 | 6:17 |
| 1:16,22 8:25 | Potash (1) | privilege (62) | 38:23 39:10 | proposition (7) |
| Plaintiff (2) | 27:8 | 9:22,23 11:13 | 51:20,21 52:9 | 21:11 25:23 |
| 1:5 2:3 | 27:8 | 11:18,23 12:4 | 52:25 53:25 | 26:6 28:14 |
| plan (1) | 19:21 53:25 | 12:5,23 13:3 | 55:10,12 56:9 | 30:20 51:17,18 |
| 20:18 | power (1) | 13:12 14:4,17 | 56:23 58:1 | propositions (1) |
| planes (1) | 22:4 | 14:22 15:3,9 | 60:5,18,19 | 26:13 |
| 18:24 | powers (1) | 16:10 17:1 | proceedings (... | prosecute (1) |
| plans (1) | 22:5 | 21:7,9,11,12 | 1:13,23 3:2 | 15:24 |
| 35:25 | precedent (3) | 21:19,20,22 | 12:21 16:20 | prosecution (60) |
| pleading (1) | 27:6 28:8 57:3 | 22:17 25:3,8 | 29:22 35:10 | 5:9 9:15,17 |
| 13:18 | 10:9 55:21 57:7 | 25:14 26:7 | 38:20,22 47:22 | 12:24 13:16 |
| pleadings (5) | precedential (3) | 28:1,19 29:3,6 | 52:1,23 56:22 | 15:25 16:2,18 |
| 13:16 14:25 | preceding (2) | 29:11 30:2,9 | 59:15,20 61:19 | 17:12 24:4,6 |
| 49:19 50:12 | 12:12 16:9 | 30:12,22 31:3 | 62:11 | 24:22 25:9,13 |
| 54:21 | preclude (1) | 31:10 40:1,6 | process (50) | 25:24 26:2,8 |
| please (7) | 30:10 | 42:15 43:15,23 | 5:8 9:9,14,16 | 27:24 28:20 |
| 20:7 22:22 23:1 | precursor (2) | 44:12 45:5,12 | 12:24 13:12,18 | 29:4,10,20 |
| 23:2 39:14 | 39:25 45:1 | 45:16,19 47:9 | 13:19 14:8,14 | 30:4,7,8,11,13 |
| 58:4,15 | preface (1) | 49:17,22,25 | 15:12 16:18 | 30:16,23 31:1 |
| plight (1) | 52:7 | 50:4,17,17 | 24:4,23 29:5 | 35:4 39:1 42:7 |
| 40:24 | prejudice (2) | 51:24 57:1 | 31:16 33:18,19 | 42:21 43:12,15 |
| podium (1) | 5:15 6:2 | 58:9 59:8,21 | 37:2 38:19,24 | 43:22 44:8,10 |
| 49:7 | preliminary (1) | 13:10 14:10 | 39:3,13,18,23 | 44:13 45:8,22 |
| 17:9 21:18 24:3 | 23:18 | pro (3) | 40:2,7 41:1 | 45:24 46:5 |
| 24:16 25:17 | prelitigation (1) | 60:1,6 | 42:7 44:24 | 47:25 49:14,23 |
| 27:1 32:13 | 59:6 | prejudice (4) | 45:17,20 46:2 | 50:1,21 51:7 |
| 41:1,7 49:15 | prepared (2) | 8:16 40:16 44:5 | 46:8 47:14,16 | 52:13,20,22 |
| points (1) | 23:10 60:21 | probable (11) | 47:20 48:3,5,6 | 54:19 55:16 |
| 56:19 57:9,21
58:10 60:16
protected (5)
11:18 14:16,17
51:24 59:21
protecting (1)
33:22
protections (3)
16:15,17 17:6
protocol (1)
46:22
protracted (1)
16:3
provided (2)
6:21 21:14
providing (1)
21:15
public (3)
21:23 38:5,5
published (1)
11:1
pulling (1)
48:21
punitive (1)
48:17
purely (1)
17:18
purpose (4)
7:9 14:1 30:7,9
purposes (1)
23:14
Pursuant (1)
23:16
pursue (4)
19:19 34:21
35:12 44:18
pursued (2)
34:14 48:1
pursuit (2)
47:20 48:8
purview (2)
40:20,21
put (5)
14:3 15:13
31:18 44:15
50:12
puts (1) | 23:20
P.A (2)
2:3,18
p.m (4)
1:15,15 3:2
61:20
Q
qualified (1)
32:5
qualifiedly (1)
60:1
question (6)
8:11 12:13
32:15 35:7
39:21 59:13
questions (4)
17:20,21 24:10
53:3
quick (1)
59:1
quickly (3)
36:23 54:4 59:4
quite (2)
8:8 32:23
quote (2)
11:16 51:18
quoted (2)
51:16 54:12
quoting (3)
16:5 20:17
60:12
R
raised (7)
9:21,21 10:7
17:10 23:9
24:16 29:15
ran (1)
10:22
rational (1)
40:4
Razorback (2)
19:16,18
read (12)
3:6 6:25 7:10,12
20:24 28:2,2,3 | 48:20 53:15
54:11 59:4
reading (1)
10:23
ready (1)
17:5
reaffirmation ...
55:7
reaffirmed (2)
51:14,16
reaffirms (1)
56:7
realize (2)
3:21 33:24
really (10)
5:6 11:9 14:21
18:4 38:10
42:12 43:16
48:18,22 55:17
Realtime (2)
1:25 62:19
reason (4)
15:7 17:14 24:5
43:7
reasonable (1)
18:6
reasonably (1)
18:7
reasons (9)
24:9 29:19 32:1
34:19 43:12
45:18,21 46:5
46:7
rebuttal (2)
3:14 46:16
receptive (2)
19:25 40:14
recognize (5)
33:22 41:7,18
44:14 54:23
recognized (1)
30:16
recognizes (2)
27:23,24
recognizing (1)
30:25
reconcile (1) | 32:21
record (9)
22:20,21 31:20
31:22 32:15
35:24 44:16
54:11 62:12
refer (1)
19:16
reference (3)
7:1 34:12,13
referenced (2)
4:25 47:14
referencing (1)
8:12
referred (1)
13:5
reflects (1)
37:10
regard (7)
6:14 21:12
22:17 24:14
46:7 47:5
49:13
regards (1)
25:7
Registered (1)
62:8
rehearing (2)
10:8 11:4
rejects (1)
26:12
relate (1)
57:25
related (8)
13:11 14:8,11
14:13,15 16:8
24:10 32:25
relates (1)
9:17
relating (2)
48:16 53:3
relation (9)
12:11 15:17
51:21 52:8
53:2 55:11
56:10,10 60:18
relationship (1) | 7:16
relative (1)
24:3
relief (1)
20:5
rely (1)
25:19
remark (1)
58:3
remedies (2)
22:3 47:7
remember (5)
5:20 19:11,11
19:13 29:23
remotely (1)
38:8
rendered (1)
57:18
repeatedly (1)
34:8
report (2)
50:24 62:10
reported (1)
1:23
Reporter (3)
61:17,18 62:9
representatio...
19:19 36:25
represented (3)
32:17 37:1,3
repugnant (5)
36:14 38:18,21
39:11 56:9
reservation (1)
43:6
respect (2)
36:4 57:3
respectfully (1)
60:10
respective (1)
3:8
respond (3)
16:4,5 22:8
response (5)
8:10 9:10,19
33:4,19
responsibilitie... |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 31:12 41:20,21 | 10:13 26:17 | second (3) | SHIPLEY (1) | 31:13 34:3 59:4 |
| --------------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------- | ----------------------- |
| resulted (1) | 44:9 46:6 | 25:11 29:9 | 2:18 | sorry (2) |
| 26:1 | 56:21 | 31:20 | shoes (2) | 8:20 29:8 |
| review (3) | Sasser's (5) | securities (1) | 52:10,11 | sort (1) |
| 35:13 57:15 | 26:9,11 29:14 | 33:10 | short (1) | 33:20 |
| 59:17 | 43:11 47:1 | see (5) | 56:15 | sorts (1) |
| reviewing (2) | satisfied (3) | 14:23 36:22 | showed (1) | 33:8 |
| 36:1,19 | 47:17 48:4,11 | 37:4 41:16 | 34:7 | Sounds (1) |
| revoked (1) | save (1) | 58:24 | shows (3) | 20:18 |
| 29:15 | 3:14 | seeing (1) | 31:25 43:21 | South (2) |
| rid (1) | saw (4) | 58:25 | 44:16 | 2:4,8 |
| 42:22 | 7:1,13 52:25 | seeking (1) | side (11) | So2d (5) |
| right (13) | 53:4 | 52:3 | 3:19 10:6,7 | 25:10 27:8,17 |
| 4:18 10:15 11:7 | saying (3) | seen (2) | 13:22 15:21,25 | 29:9 59:10 |
| 17:2 27:3 | 20:21 36:10 | 50:14 53:16 | 37:5 52:6 53:1 | speak (6) |
| 31:19 38:16 | 51:18 | seize (1) | 55:25 60:17 | 10:10 37:2,7 |
| 42:23 43:19 | says (6) | 32:3 | sides (5) | 46:23 50:8 |
| 46:3,24 47:2,4 | 20:24 21:1 44:9 | seized (3) | 15:6 36:11,22 | 57:8 |
| (4) | 45:5 56:21,25 | 35:20,21 37:11 | 58:20 61:14 | speaks (2) |
| 6:24 7:2,3,13 | scale (1) | seminal (1) | signed (1) | 9:13 35:3 |
| Robyn (3) | 50:11 | 11:24 | 7:8 | specially (1) |
| 1:24 62:8,18 | Scarola (17) | sent (1) | significance (1) | 6:16 |
| role (1) | 2:18,20 4:19,20 | 3:7 | 4:22 | specific (3) |
| 41:3 | 4:24 5:4,12,16 | separate (3) | significant (2) | 24:19 33:11 |
| Rothstein (12) | 5:22 6:3 7:5 | 4:4 22:9 30:1 | 3:25 43:8 | 56:2 |
| 1:7 4:5,25 5:2,5 | 9:10 22:13,24 | separately (1) | signifies (1) | specifically (5) |
| 5:24 9:5 18:13 | 37:19 46:11,20 | 24:24 | 11:4 | 30:19 49:16 |
| 18:15,19 19:5 | scheme (1) | Services (1) | simply (2) | 54:18,21 58:15 |
| 19:18 | 19:22 | 27:17 | 23:6 42:8 | spectrum (1) |
| RPR (2) | schemes (1) | set (5) | sir (6) | 54:11 |
| 1:24 62:18 | 18:16 | 6:15,16,18 | 5:12,18,22 6:9 | split (3) |
| RRA (2) | Scherer (1) | 37:25 54:21 | 21:1,9 | 3:13 46:15,19 |
| 37:11 44:3 | 19:6 | sets (3) | sitting (4) | stage (3) |
| RRA's (1) | SCI (3) | 25:21 37:21 | 43:8,9 52:10,11 | 35:10 37:20 |
| 19:19 | 27:16,19 28:4 | 58:10 | situation (6) | 44:1 |
| rule (1) | scope (1) | settled (2) | 29:23 33:19 | stalked (1) |
| 20:4 | 21:21 | 44:20,20 | 34:16 36:22 | 54:16 |
| ruled (6) | SCOTT (1) | settlement (4) | 37:11 42:16 | stalking (3) |
| 55:1,1,2,3,3,5 | 1:7 | 15:23 36:1 | six (2) | 50:23 51:3 59:7 |
| ruling (4) | se (2) | 42:11 45:8 | 19:23 51:2 | stand (2) |
| 23:3 24:14 | 2:13 40:16 | settlements (4) | size (2) | 28:13 51:8 |
| 28:16 56:2 | SEARCY (1) | 32:24 35:14,18 | 35:13 36:1 | standard (4) |
| rulings (1) | 2:18 | 37:3 | sliding (1) | 11:15 12:9 |
| 30:24 | seat (1) | settles (1) | 50:11 | 15:14,17 |
| | 3:4 | 35:11 | somebody (1) | standards (1) |
| S | seated (1) | Shepherd (2) | 22:9 | 17:3 |
| Sasser (5) | 22:25 | 25:18 42:19 | somewhat (3) | standing (2) |
| 24:21 28:6 | 2:13 | support (1) | 1:15 7:5 11:19 | theory (1) |
| ----------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------- | ---------------------- | --------------------- |
| standpoint (3) | strong (1) | 47:15 | 16:22 29:21 | 25:20 |
| 35:8 42:10 | 35:19 | supposed (1) | 39:4 47:21 | thing (2) |
| 47:16 | strongly (1) | 35:23 | 51:9 57:16 | 6:19 10:3 |
| stands (4) | 32:24 | Supreme (24) | takes (2) | things (4) |
| 21:11 25:15 | stuff (1) | 3:17 9:25 12:2 | 17:23 56:24 | 9:2 10:6 18:25 |
| 28:9 35:8 | 35:20 | 12:18 15:16 | talk (4) | 19:4 |
| Star (1) | subject (4) | 16:6 17:7 | 6:19 9:16,23 | think (21) |
| 28:21 | 27:25 29:13 | 27:20,23 28:6 | 48:7 | 3:8,14,17,20,22 |
| state (8) | 55:12 57:14 | 28:10,16 30:18 | talked (1) | 11:14 14:6,7 |
| 3:24 7:22 9:24 | submission (1) | 30:20,23 31:24 | 39:5 | 15:19 16:25 |
| 16:24 34:6 | 23:9 | 51:15 55:7 | talking (7) | 20:1,5 35:2 |
| 60:3 62:4,9 | submit (11) | 56:7,12 59:11 | 14:22 16:7,14 | 36:4 46:1 |
| stated (6) | 26:10 31:2 | 59:12 60:13 | 17:6 22:1 | 47:12 50:25 |
| 14:6 29:4 30:3 | 33:15,25 37:24 | 61:5 | 26:18 35:16 | 53:2 58:23 |
| 30:10 49:16 | 45:6,9,18 | sure (7) | talks (2) | 59:16 60:22 |
| 56:13 | 47:16,22 58:10 | 4:23 8:11 20:1 | 34:20 56:8 | Third (14) |
| statement (4) | submitted (3) | 21:1 46:9 49:4 | Taylor (3) | 9:25 13:1 15:14 |
| 6:22 24:1 48:14 | 10:12 23:10 | 50:25 | 31:23 32:8 | 27:16,18 28:12 |
| 55:8 | 43:1 | survive (5) | 34:20 | 39:16 50:5 |
| statements (9) | subpoena (1) | 30:14 43:13,23 | teach (1) | 54:13 55:25 |
| 23:19 51:22 | 60:4 | 48:3 50:21 | 38:18 | 56:4 57:18 |
| 59:6,13,17,20 | subsequent (2) | swear (1) | tell (4) | 60:11 61:6 |
| 59:23 60:2,3 | 15:23 48:6 | 53:15 | 7:15 17:8 39:14 | Third's (1) |
| states (3) | sued (2) | sword (1) | 52:2 | 45:1 |
| 3:17 14:5 26:6 | 34:16 36:9 | 37:12 | tend (1) | thought (1) |
| State's (1) | suggest (6) | sworn (1) | 36:18 | 31:16 |
| 59:24 | 26:15 38:8 42:8 | 7:7 | tended (2) | thousand (1) |
| status (1) | 42:24 43:7 | system (1) | 36:18,19 | 20:24 |
| 10:4 | 56:18 | 22:8 | ten-minute (1) | threat (1) |
| Statute (1) | suggested (2) | Systems (2) | 38:15 | 53:6 |
| 22:6 | 31:8 33:20 | 1:25 62:19 | termination (3) | threats (3) |
| statutory (3) | suggesting (1) | \_\_\_\_\_ | 24:18 43:5 | 53:7,17,22 |
| 8:13 12:16,17 | 15:22 | T | 57:13 | three (4) |
| stenographie (1) | suggests (1) | Tab (3) | terms (2) | 18:18 46:10 |
| 62:12 | 29:10 | 20:22,23 59:1 | 32:10 40:5 | 50:23 53:12 |
| stenographiea... | suing (1) | tabbing (1) | testimony (1) | three-week (2) |
| 1:23 62:10 | 11:25 | 58:19 | 54:15 | 6:17,17 |
| step (2) | suit (2) | table (2) | thank (16) | threshold (1) |
| 34:25 35:1 | 15:24 30:12 | 22:25 24:7 | 3:4 6:6 11:6 | 18:3 |
| stood (1) | suite (4) | tailor (1) | 20:10 22:23 | tied (1) |
| 10:13 | 2:4,9,13 57:3 | 3:12 | 25:1,5 46:25 | 57:20 |
| stop (1) | summary (9) | take (7) | 49:1,9 59:2 | ties (1) |
| 23:17 | 5:19 6:13 15:1 | 3:9,20 18:23 | 61:11,14,15,16 | 57:8 |
| strange (1) | 23:15 24:24 | 36:15 42:3 | 61:18 | time (19) |
| 19:2 | 35:23 37:18,24 | 46:21 59:1 | Thanks (1) | 1:15,22 3:13,20 |
| Street (1) | 41:13 | taken (9) | 27:3 | 4:9 8:8 11:3 |
| 15:20,22 18:7 | trilogy (6) | unequivocal (1) | view (3) | Wbk@searcyl... |
| ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------- | ------------------------- |
| 18:11,17 19:1 | 11:10 13:8 | 26:6 | 24:3,25 57:16 | 2:21 |
| 33:3 34:8 | 14:18 23:21 | unfortunately ... | violations (2) | wcblaw@aol.c... |
| 39:23 46:21 | 50:15,16 | 48:18 | 12:16,17 | 2:6 |
| 48:12 51:2 | trouble (1) | United (1) | Virginia (2) | weaken (1) |
| times (2) | 51:4 | 3:17 | 6:24 7:13 | 37:5 |
| 20:25 32:17 | troubled (1) | unrelated (3) | vis-a-vis (1) | WEISS (1) |
| timing (1) | 49:13 | 18:21 19:20 | 44:23 | 2:8 |
| 15:22 | true (2) | 22:14 | volumes (1) | Welcome (1) |
| Title (1) | 37:15 62:11 | untrue (3) | 35:3 | 3:4 |
| 39:17 | try (1) | 13:23,24,25 | voluminous (1) | well-articulate... |
| today (6) | 44:22 | unusual (1) | 53:14 | 46:6 |
| 6:12 9:16,22 | trying (4) | 8:24 | voluntarily (2) | well-reasoned ... |
| 23:9 25:4 | 15:19 18:22 | unwise (1) | 5:14 59:23 | 26:12 |
| 58:24 | 26:17 32:20 | 34:20 | voluntary (2) | well-respected... |
| told (2) | turn (1) | use (4) | 5:16 60:2 | 27:14 |
| 33:24 40:15 | 10:17 | 10:25 37:12 | vs (17) | well-written (1) |
| TONJA (2) | two (11) | 44:17 46:11 | 1:6 3:18 20:22 | 57:6 |
| 2:12,15 | 3:9 4:10 8:16 | utilize (1) | 20:22 25:10,21 | went (6) |
| tonja@tonjah... | 9:13 13:3 24:8 | 61:3 | 25:25 26:23 | 9:12 12:2 13:5 |
| 2:15 | 26:13 37:20 | utilized (1) | 27:8,17,21 | 32:24 50:25 |
| torrent (1) | 41:10 42:20 | 56:11 | 28:2,22 29:7 | 54:5 |
| 43:24 | 46:11 | | 29:14 50:19 | West (4) |
| tort (5) | | V | 59:10 | 1:17 2:5,9,19 |
| 30:10,13,17,25 | U | value (3) | W | Westlaw (3) |
| 39:22 | ulterior (1) | 10:9 55:21 57:7 | W (2) | 10:23,25 26:23 |
| tortious (2) | 48:10 | various (1) | 2:3,6 | Westlaw's (1) |
| 12:1,8 | ultimately (3) | 33:6 | wait (2) | 10:20 |
| torts (2) | 29:25 35:5 | vel (1) | 45:10 51:6 | we're (7) |
| 12:7,15 | 37:16 | 20:6 | 45:10 51:6 | 9:15 11:9 34:17 |
| tortured (1) | uncover (2) | vendettas (1) | walking (3) | 35:15 36:6 |
| 33:5 | 38:3,7 | 40:22 | 41:3,4,4 | 56:8 57:17 |
| touch (1) | underlying (2) | venue (1) | want (10) | we've (5) |
| 17:9 | 19:20 47:25 | 39:7 | 4:7,19 6:19 | 12:14 13:14 |
| track (1) | understand (4) | versus (1) | 10:10 17:9 | 23:10 47:17 |
| 61:2 | 24:13 32:9 36:5 | 39:7 | 18:9 24:20 | 48:10 |
| transcript (4) | 36:11 | vexatious (2) | 31:17 38:14 | whatsoever (2) |
| 1:12 7:6 61:2 | 36:20 | 30:8 44:12 | 58:20 | 3:22 4:3 |
| 62:11 | understandab... | viable (1) | wanted (5) | Whoa (1) |
| treated (1) | 36:20 | 5:24 | 4:21 10:3 43:17 | 45:10 |
| 60:2 | understands (1) | victim (1) | 49:9 50:8 | William (2) |
| trial (6) | 10:21 | 7:4 | warning (1) | 2:21 22:23 |
| 6:17 7:9 49:18 | 28:15 | victims (5) | 38:15 | withdraw (1) |
| 49:24 51:1 | undertook (1) | 6:4 7:19,23 8:17 | wasn't (1) | 38:1 |
| 57:16 | 33:7 | 9:7 | 37:19 | withdrawn (1) |
| tried (3) | undisputed (3) | victim's (2) | way (1) | 54:4 |
| 48:13,20 61:3 | 18:12,14 48:15 | 8:5,11 | 42:4 | withdrew (1) |
| 33:13 | 35:25 | 39:24 | 4 | 9 |
| ----------------- | ------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- |
| witness (1) | year (1) | | 4 (2) | 9C (1) |
| 26:1 | 6:18 | 2 | 20:22 27:17 | 1:17 |
| Wolfe (49) | years (6) | 20 (2) | 4:23 (2) | 954.467.1223 (1) |
| 10:4,8 11:8,12 | 4:10 11:20 | 3:19 16:7 | 1:15 61:20 | 2:14 |
| 12:25,25 13:4 | 12:19 34:9,10 | 2000 (1) | 40 (1) | 961 (1) |
| 13:5,9 14:3,5,6 | 41:24 | 27:18 | 16:8 | 25:10 |
| 14:24 15:20 | yesterday (1) | 2007 (1) | 4068409 (1) | |
| 16:1,1 23:22 | 19:13 | 25:11 | 26:23 | |
| 23:25 24:2 | young (2) | 2009 (5) | | |
| 25:15 26:13 | 6:23 34:10 | 9:4,4 18:11 19:3 | 5 | |
| 27:5,5 28:6,9 | Yurko (2) | 28:23 | 502009CA040... | |
| 29:16,19 31:2 | 27:21 28:2 | 2012 (2) | 1:2 | |
| 32:8,11 33:21 | | 26:23,23 | 561.655.4777 (1) | |
| 36:16 39:25 | Z | 2014 (2) | 2:5 | |
| 40:3,5 42:17 | zealously (1) | 1:15 62:14 | 561.659.8300 (1) | |
| 49:15 51:5,14 | 41:22 | 205 (1) | 2:10 | |
| 52:15 54:13 | | 1:16 | 561.686.6300 (1) | |
| 55:22 56:24,24 | 1 | 2139 (1) | 2:19 | |
| 57:2,7 60:9,12 | 12 (1) | 2:18 | 57.105 (3) | |
| 61:7 | 34:10 | 250 (2) | 17:3,4 22:6 | |
| word (1) | 13 (1) | 2:4,8 | 574 (1) | |
| 52:7 | 12:19 | 27 (1) | 29:9 | |
| words (2) | 1324 (1) | 1:15 | 598 (1) | |
| 24:7 51:17 | 28:22 | 273 (1) | 59:10 | |
| work (1) | 14 (3) | 27:8 | | |
| 44:5 | 12:19 34:9 | 278 (1) | 6 | |
| worked (1) | 58:23 | 29:9 | 6th (1) | |
| 50:11 | 1400 (2) | 29th (1) | 6:18 | |
| world (1) | 2:4,9 | 62:14 | 611 (1) | |
| 44:18 | 15 (1) | | 28:22 | |
| worst (1) | 34:9 | 3 | 65 (1) | |
| 50:9 | 15th (1) | 3:00 (2) | 59:10 | |
| wouldn't (1) | 1:1 | 1:15 3:2 | | |
| 36:9 | 16 (1) | 301 (1) | 7 | |
| wrap (2) | 59:1 | 2:13 | 7th (1) | |
| 46:10 47:5 | 18 (1) | 315 (1) | 2:13 | |
| (2) | 20:23 | 2:13 | 702 (1) | |
| 27:20 28:2 | 1917 (1) | 33301 (1) | 27:17 | |
| written (1) | 11:14 | 2:14 | | |
| 5:20 | 1984 (1) | 33401 (3) | 8 | |
| wrongful (1) | 27:22 | 1:17 2:5,9 | 8:45s (1) | |
| 26:2 | 1991 (1) | 33409 (1) | 58:24 | |
| | 29:9 | 2:19 | 835 (1) | |
| | 1992 (1) | 356 (1) | 27:8 | |
| | 59:11 | 25:10 | 839 (1) | |
| Yeah (3) | 1999 (1) | | 27:17 | |
| 10:12 19:9 | | | | |