Draft: efta02773844

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

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

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, J. , individually,¶

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

NOTICE OF E-FILING EXHI¶

cos¶

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

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

/s/ Tonja Haddad ColemanAsa,¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman,¶

Florida Bar No.: 1767¶

Tonja Haddad, PA¶

5315 SE 7th Stre¶

Suite 301¶

Fort Lauderdal ida 33301¶

954.467. l 223¶

954.337.3716 (facsimile)¶

Attsneys for Epstein¶

SERVICE LIST¶

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

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

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

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

J. Esq. bratathtojustice.com Jaffe Weissing 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Flori¶

Fred I laddad, Rek Dee@FredfladdadLaw.com 1 Financial Plaza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

W. Chester =, Jr., Esq. wcblaw441.tol.com. wcbcg®aol.com W. Chester M, Jr., P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

(con't)¶

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

cos¶

ATTACHMENTS TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD MENT ON DEFENANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF FOURTH AMENDED COUTNERCLAIM AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW¶

• A. Fourth Amended Counterclaim

• B. Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Edwards's Fourth Amended Counterclaim

• C. Deposition Transcript of dated March 23, 2010

• D. Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein tt "In Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR

• F. Information Charging Scott W. Ctft4ste in United States of America v. Scott Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN

• E. jno Exhibit "F")

• G. Pleadings and Docket Sheet in LM v. 502008CA02851XXXXMB AB

• H. Pleadings and Docket Sheet in EW v. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB

• I. Pleadings and Docket Sheet in Jane Doe v. Jeffiey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marrallohnson

• J. Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein

• K. Amended Complaint of Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19)

• L. The Florida Bar Daily News Summary dated November 23, 2009

• M. Letter dated July 22, 2009 from M, attached to his deposition of March 23, 2010

• N. Copies of Subpoenas

• O. Initial Complaint Filed by Epstein Dated December 9, 2009 re: Rothstein Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein,

• P. Plea Agreement between United States of America and Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN

• Q. Privilege Log of Framer, Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, Dated February 23, 2011

• R. Privile a Lo Filed b as to Communications between and

• S. Electronic Communications between and Various Members of the Press

• T. LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 09-81092 Marra,_

• U. Order in Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Dated November 5, 2009, 08-CV-80119

• V. Electronic Communications from Cara July 29, 2009 to dated

• W. Deposition Transcript of Scott Rothstein dated December 12, 2011

• X. Affidavit of Jeffrey Epste ( . la es S0pport y of his Motion for Summary Judgment

G"¢¶

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

CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTI 'STE individually, J. , individually, and L.M.,¶

Defendant,¶

FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM¶

J. ( ) sues Jeffrey Epstein (EPSTEIN) and alleges:¶

COUNT I-ABUSE OF PROCESS¶

• 1. This is an action for es in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
• 2. Counter/plaintiff, S, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, and is an attorney licensed to ra ice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto.
• 3. Counter/ckfendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida
• 4. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of female children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal laws.

just value. 6. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive questions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extraordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legi ut'n sts claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their¶

7. victims circumstances, EPSTEIN's tactics have proven successful, while other far withstood this continued assault upon them and persisted in the prosecution of their claims. clients are among those who continued the prosecution of their claims and the assertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).

8. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases against him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agencies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molestation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children including victims represented by

9. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct nor has taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise.

10. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and client, L.M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, L.M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. His sole purpose in both filing and prosecuting claims against was never the stated purpose of collecting money damages from EDWARDS since EPSTEIN knew that he had never suffered any damage as a consequence of any wrongdoing by . Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert from the prosecution of legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require to expend time, energy resources on his own defense, to embarrass and impugn his integrity, and with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of haVtg to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on L.M., and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press release issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege.

11. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S primary purpose in both filing and continuing to prosecute each of the claims against was to inflict a maximum economic burden on in having to defend against the spurious claims, to distract from the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN arising out of EPS'1E1N'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort into abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against I .

• 11. The claims filed by EPSTEIN against included the thllowing:
  • a. violation of F.S. §§772.101, et. seq.— Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act;
  • b. Florida RICO—"Racketeer S Intl) ed and Corrupt Organization Act" pursuant to F.S. §§895.01etwiii
  • c. abuse of process; ' N-
  • d. fraud; < C0)
  • e. conspiracy commit fraud.

12. EPSTEIN, in his Complaint, directly alleged that was a knowing participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speculation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual support for his spurious allegations. Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate for his claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil theft claim.

13. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his failed prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful conclusion because:

• a. they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief or suspicion that they were true;
• b. he had suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of EDWARDS;
• c. he had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination in order to provide the relevant and material discovery that would be necessary in the course of prosecuting the claims, (even if they bad any reasonable basis), and he knew that his prosecution would consequently be barred by the sword-shield doctrine;
• d. EDWARDS' conduct in the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN could not support the prosecution of a separate civil lawsuit against use of the absolute protection of the litigation privilege.

14. ulterior acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had d purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously detailed in Paragraph 9.

15. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against recklessly and purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meritorious claims.

16. Each and every pleading filed by and on behalf of EPSTEIN in his prosecution of every claim against every motion, every request for production, every subpoena issued, and every deposition taken as detailed on the docket sheet was intended with respect to solely and exclusively to advance EPSTEIN'S efforts at extortion as previously detailed, and constituted a perversion of process after its initial service.

17. As a result of EPSTEIN's wrongful conduct as alleged, has suffered and will continue to suffer the following special damages:

• a. injury to his reputation;
• b. mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety;
• c. fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family;
• d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities;
• e. the cestojdefending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims.

demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, d such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff, I=E, having satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the assertion of a claim for punitive damages and having been granted leave of Court to assert such a claim does hereby also assert a claim for punitive damages.¶

Counter/plaintiff, further demands trial by jury.¶

COUNT II-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION¶

18. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

19. Counter/plaintiff, is sui juris, resides in Brow-ard County, Florida, and is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto.

20. Counter/defendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

21. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he effectively conceded his having engag an illicit illicitsexual activity with a large number of female children over extended period o iin mlation of both State and Federal criminal laws. clie w

22. EPSTEIN was sue by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases against him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agencies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molestation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children including victims represented by

23. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive just value. questions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extraordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substanCr ,%an -th their

24. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf, of his clients, has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct nor has EDWARDS taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise.

25. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against and client, L.M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate L.M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. His sole pur,poicn filing claims against was never the stated purpose of collecting mo eeages from since EPSTEIN knew that he had never suffered any damag nsequence of any wrongdoing by Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert from the prosecution of legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require to expend time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass and impugn his integrity, and deter

others with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of having to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on L.M., and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press release issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege.¶

26. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S primary purpose in filing each of the claims against as to inflict a maximum economic burden on in having to defend ag urious claims, to distract from the prosecution of claims against sing out of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort E mto abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against

27. The claims filed by EPS JIM against were the following:

• a. violation of F.S. §§772.101, et. seq.— Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act;
• b. orida RICO—"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" t to F.S. §§895.01, et. seq.; abuse of process;
• d. fraud;
• e. conspiracy to commit fraud.

28. EPSTEIN, in his Complaint, directly alleged that was a knowing participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise and that he had conspired to and did engage in

a fraud against EPSTEIN when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speculation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual support for his spurious allegations. Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate for his claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the ' 'dation of a civil theft claim.¶

29. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the s aims and throughout his failed prosecution of those claims that he could not p egtittJl & claims to a successful conclusion because:

• a. they were both false rted by any reasonable belief or suspicion that they true;
• b. he had suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of ;
• c. he had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against sel f-Acrimination in order to provide the relevant and material discovery that Owould be necessary in the course of prosecuting the claims, (even if they had any reasonable basis), and he knew that his prosecution would consequently be barred by the sword-shield doctrine;
• d. EMM conduct in the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN could not support the prosecution of a separate civil lawsuit against because of the absolute protection of the litigation privilege.

30. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously detailed in Paragraph 25.

31. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against reeldessly and purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meritorious claims.

32. After unsuccessful efforts to defend and amend his maliciously filed and prosecuted claims over a period of almost two years, EPSTEIN abandoned each of the claims described in Paragraph 27 except for an ongoing effort to salvage his abuse of process claim. That abandonment brings to successful conclusion defense against each of the other abandoned claims and constitutes a specific bona fide termination in favor of the prior prosecution of each abandoned claim.

33. As a result of EPSTE1N's wrongful conduct as alleged, has suffered and will continue er the following special damages:

• a. his reputation; tal anguish, embarrassment and anxiety;
• c. fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family;
• d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities;
• e. the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims.

WHEREFORE, [REDACTED] demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff, [REDACTED], having satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the assertion of a claim for punitive damages and having been granted leave of Court to assert such a claim does hereby also assert a claim for punitive damages.¶

Counter/plaintiff, [REDACTED], further demands trial by jury.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 9th day of January, 2013.¶

JACK SCAROLA
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Primary E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
Secondary E-mail(s): mep@searcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9451
Attorney for [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]¶

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800)0CaMBAG Fourth Amended Counterclaim Page 13 of 13¶

COUNSEL LIST¶

Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire jgoldberger@agwpa.com; smahoney@agwpa.com Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Fl, 33401 Phone: (561)-659-8300 Fax: (561)-835-8691 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

J. Esquire bje.efile®pathtojustice.com; staff.effie@pathtojustice.t Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, FL 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822¶

Fred Haddad, Esquire Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com; laaddadfm@aol.com Fred Haddad, P.A. One Financial Plaza, Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954)-467-6767 Fax: (954)467-3599 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Marc S. Nurik, Esquire marc@nuriklaw.com Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-745-5849 Fax: (954)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein¶

Lilly Ann M, Esquire lsanchez@thelsfirm.com The L-S Law Firm 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305)-503-5503 Fax: (305)-503-6801 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire tonja@tonjahaddad.com; Debbie@Tonjahaddad.com Tonja Haddad, P.A. 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 ,fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 'shone: (954)467-1223 ax: (954)-337-3716 ttorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff.¶

VS.¶

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

Defendants.¶

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

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
[REDACTED] COUNTERCLAIM¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff [REDACTED] ("[REDACTED]") Counterclaim, and states:¶

1. 1. Epstein admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amount within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that Edwards is entitled to said amount.
2. 2. Epstein is without knowledge as to [REDACTED] residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.
3. 3. Epstein Denies that he is a resident of Palm Beach County, but admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.
4. 4. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agreement speak for themselves. To the extent that [REDACTED] has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 4 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations.

5. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought forth by purported victims. and that civil actions to which Epstein was a party settled, but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, any pending civil cases against Epstein by any purported victims. and = relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

6. Epstein admits that, at certain times in the litigation. he asserted his rig nst self-incrimination as afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment to the ed States Constitution. Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained ' ph 6 and demands strict proof thereof.

7. Epstein denies Paragraph 7. except lbr the allega n stating that is involved in pending litigation in Federal Court \ it Federal Crime Victims' Right's Act.

K. Epstein denies each and every all Ssg ' ASI, ICe ntained in Paragrapgh 8 and demands strict proof thereof.¶

9. Epstein denies each ev !legation contained in Paragrapgh 9 and demands strict proof thereof.

''' 10. Epstein d 'es each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 10 and demands z strict proof ca' ^N¶

mits that the causes of action asserted by hint against in Epstein 'nitial Complaint are listed in Paragraph II and its subparts. However. I I.¶

fails to either attach the Complaint to which he is referring or otherwise identify the Complaint from which he derives his assertion. To the extent that has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 11 of his Counterclaim. Epstein denies the allegations.¶

12. Epstein admits that in his initial Complaint he asserted causes of action against as specifically stated in Paragraph 11 and its subparts, but denies that he has ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against as alleged in Paragraph 12. To the extent that has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any ision of Epstein's "Complaint" in Paragraph 12 of his Counterclaim.I Epstet cities the allegations. Epstein further denies the remaining allegations cont ' graph 12 and demands strict proof thereof.

13. Epstein denies each and every allegation containefttt r rang]) 13, including its subparts. and demands strict proof thereof.

14. Epstein denies each and every allegati ' c wined in Paragrapgh 14 and demands strict proof thereof.

?S' 15. Epstein denies each and ev m contained in Paragrapgh 15 and demands strict proof thereof.¶

16. Epstein denies each an cry allegation contained in t'aragrapgh 16 and demands strict proof therco

17. Eps Ct. • each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Parag lALl. including its subparts. and demands strict proof thereof.

IS. , admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amout within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that is entitled to said amount.¶

Mils to attach a copy of Epstein's Complaint or even reference the version of the C'otnplaint to which he refers in this allegation.¶

19. Epstein is without knowledge as to-' residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.

20. Epstein Denies that he is a resident of Palm Beach County. hut admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20.

21. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agree speak for themselves. To the extent that has inaccurately summarived terpretcd any provision thereof in Paragraph 21 of his Counterclaim, Epstein* allegations.

22. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought With by purported victims. and that civil actions to which Epstein was .a party) settled. but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, any pending civil cases against Epstein by any purported victim at r relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies thi egations and demands strict proof thereof.

23. Epstein admits that, at ce es in the litigation, he asserted his rights against sell incrimination as afford by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Epstei deniesTfic remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 and demands strict proof the eo .

24. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 24 and demands strict proof thereof

25. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 25 and demands strict proof thereof.

26. Epestein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 26 and demands strict proof thereof,

27. Epstein admits that the causes of action asserted by him against in Epstein's initial Complaint are listed in Paragraph 27 and its subparts. However. fails to either attach the Complaint to which he is referring or otherwise identify the Complaint from which he derives his assertion. To the extent that has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 27 of his Counterclaim. Epstein denies the allegations.

Ask' 28. Epstein admits that in his initial Complaint he asserted causes o a S n against as specifically stated in Paragraph 27 and its subparts, b hat Epstein has ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against Wards as alleged in Paragraph 28. To the extent that has inaccu any provision of Epstein's "Complaint- in Paragra denies the allegations. Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained therein and marized or interpreted tie Counterclaim.' Epstein demands strict proof thereof.¶

29. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 29. including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof.

30. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 30 and demands strict proof thereof.

31. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 31 and demands strict proof thereof

32. Epstein admits that he has Amended his Complaint over the course of this litigation. and submits that while some counts were dismissed by the Court. without prejudice, this constitutes neither abandonment of Epstein's claims nor a bona fide

fails to either attach the Complaint to his Counterclaim or reference the specific Complaint to which he is referring in Paragraph 28.¶

termination thereof. As such, Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32 and demands strict proof thereof.¶

33. Epstein denies each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Paragrapgh 33. including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES¶

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE¶

For his First Affirmative Defense. Epstein states that M' Mu Of Process S, claim fails to stale a claim upon which relief can be granted as i • under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. did not, n will he ever be able to. assert the three requisites required to properly plc • to wit: I) an illegal, improper. or perverted use of process after it issue roper willful acts during the course of a prior action or after the Filing omplain!): 2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal. impro o perverted process: and 3) damages resulting therefrom. 5 & l Mrs. r Pi • e' srs-Flea Mkt_ Inc. 36 So. 3d 909. 917 (Ha. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis add (Ha. 4th DCA 1987). mia v. Nova Unit'.. inc., 512 So. 2d 1051. 1055¶

17FtOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE¶

For .hiS Second Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Malicious Prosecution clan)) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is required under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff' as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not been, nor can it be, satisfied. See¶

Alamo rem-A-Car v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352. 1355 (Ha. 1994). The "original proceeding" to which refers in his Counterclaim is, in fact, the current litigation that is pending against him; to which there has not been an "ending in a manner indicating 1 innocence of the charges or allegations contained in the first suit." Sec Dust v. Bank of America, N.A.. 857 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also }Mier r. Adrialico, 459 So. 2d 449. 451 (Ha. 5th DCA 1984) (stating that n of malicious prosecution requires. as an element, the prior termination ol aim and therefore malicious prosecution may not be brought as a countered¶

Indeed. it is well :settled law that an action for Malicious ution cannot be filed until the original action is concluded, and that a Complaint that are dismissed without prejudice are not deemed a " termination" in that party's favor. "Where dismissal is on technical or procedural reasons, or any other reason not consistent with the guilt of c, it does not constitute a favorable determination." Union Oil of 468 So. 2d 349 (3d DCA 1985). Accordingly. fails aim upon which relief may be granted.¶

AT V DEFENSE¶

For his 'rd A i it:native Defense, Epstein states that ' Counterclaim fails to p p his damages as required as required under the Florida Rules of Civil c See Miami National Bank r. Nunez, 541 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 9) (stating that a litigant cannot recover as damages his own time for participating in a litigation when counsel is engaged to represent him). further pleads damages for injury to his reputation. mental anguish, anxiety. and en barassment. which are impermissible and improperly plead.¶

Most importantly, however, Epstein submits that has not, nor will he. suffer any damages as a result of any actions allegedly taken by Epstein. In fact. still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new Finn Jaffe. Weissing. Fistos. & Lehrman to disparage Epstein. to seek new clients on whose behalf he can sue Epstein. to attract additional plaintiffs for whom he can tile suit. and to achieve notoriety with the press. See Composite Exhibit ,4 attached h • ). -"Itte¶

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE¶

For his Fourth Affirmative Defense, Epstein asserts that is ed absolute immunity pursuant to the "Litigation Privilege" because times his actions were connected with. relevant to, and material to. his ea against The Litigation Privilege protects actions taken th etionally tied to the judicial and -arises immediately upon of any act required or pi:mined by law in the due course of the judicial cedi frgs or as necessarily preliminary thereto.- &Work* r. Fridavich. 598 S •la. 1992). Epstein has not taken any action "outside the context of tl oal proceeding. such as...actions estrinsie to the litigation.- 5:senile rv. , in. 2011 WL 181.1665, p.413 (S.D. Flu. 20111 Kiting to interican Nat. e & ...craw of Florida. Inc. v. Guarantee Title & feast. ('a. 748 So. 2d 1054''056 la. 4th DCA 1999)); See also, Mont& v. Memorial Medical l' • 935 So. 2d 1266. 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).¶

Defendant specifically reserves the right herein to amend these defenses and plead other affirmative defenses that may become known during his continuing investigation of this action and during discovery in this case.¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served.¶

via electronic and US Mail, to all parties on the attached service list, this July 31, 2012.¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.¶

Florida Bar No.: 176737¶

Tonja Haddad, PA¶

524 South Andrews Avenue¶

Suite 200N¶

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301¶

954.467.1223¶

954.337.3716 (facsimile)¶

Attorneys for Plaintiff¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

SERVICE LIST¶

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAO¶

Jack Scarola. Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Reach, FL ³³⁴⁰⁹¶

Jack Goldberger. Esq. Atterbury. Goldberger, & Weiss. PA 250Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340i¶

Fon 1.auderdale. FL ³³³⁰¹ Marc Nurik. Esq. ^IEast Broward Blvd. Suitt 700¶

an Pl ⁱJa. ^eeissmEgilliglistos Leis: 4- Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fon Lauderdale. Florida ³³³⁰¹¶

Lilly Ann Esq. LS Law Firm Pour Seasons 'lower 15th Floor ¹⁴⁴¹Bri 1l elute Miami ¹³¹¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2009CA040800XXXXXMB AG Complex Litigation, Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1201¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, -vs- VOLUME II OF II¶

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

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE¶

Tuesday, March 23, 20010 10:00 - 5:07 p.m¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes, Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

Reported By: Cynthia [REDACTED], RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Job No.: 1333¶

1 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiff: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Phone: 561.842.2820¶

2 and JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 230 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5012 Phone: 561.659.8300¶

3 and On behalf of the Plaintiff: ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Hauster 520 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Phone: 617.496.2020 On behalf of the Defendant: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: 561.686.6300¶

4 ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Epstein [REDACTED] Kozak, Videographer Prose Reporting Services¶

1 PROCEEDINGS¶

2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the record at 1:54 p.m. Volume 2.¶

3 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRITTON:¶

4 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], when we broke, we were talking a little bit about, we were talking about [REDACTED] Rush and different, many people that you had spoken with and you said you had spoken with Mr. Rush approximately five times, correct?¶

5 A. Correct.¶

6 Q. With regard to Mr. Rush, did you ever provide him with any documents?¶

7 A. I don't believe so.¶

8 Q. Did you tell Mr. Rush, did you EVER advise or did Mr. Rush ever ask you who your clients were, I mean not by name but as to how your clients factored into any of the conversations that you were having?¶

9 A. I don't remember that.¶

10 Q. Do you recall discussing with Mr. Rush Ghislaine Maxwell? Or in fact, let me ask it this way: Did you talk with Mr. Rush about Ghislaine Maxwell in any way?¶

1 A. I'm not sure. 2 Q. Why would you — did any of your clients 3 claim or have any of your clients claimed to have 4 any contact with Ohislaine Maxwell at all? A That is something that certainly calls for 6 attorney client privilege and not something that I am 7 going to be answering today. B Q. With regard to at least you have attended 9 the deposition of both Jane Doe and of LM, correct? 10 A. Yes. 1.2 Q. Okay. And have you heard them reference 12 Ohislaine Maxwell during the course of those 13 depositions? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Would it be a correct statement that none 16 of the three of your clients -- let's take a look at 17 the two that have testified. Both of the two that 18 have testified, Jane Doe and I-M. have testified 19 that they did not ever take, travel with or were 20 transported in any way by Mr. Epstein, correct? 2]. A. No, that is incorrect. 22 Q. Okay. Did, who, which? 23 A. !believe. 24 Q. I am sorry? 25 A. I guess the transcript will speak for itself.¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I don't remember their specific — Q. Is it your belief that Jane Doe ever traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, is the qu tio limited to the testimony — MR. CRITTON: Correct.' MR. SCAROLA: — that has been given? MR. CRITTON: Correct. - THE WITNESS: No. I do not believe she testified that she traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane. BY MR. CRITION: Q. All tight. And same would be true with L.M., she did not testify that she traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane, true? I believe that's true as well. Q> Okay. Are you aware of any other information front any other source that either Jane Doe or L.M. traveled on Mr. Epstein's plane? A. No. Q. Did you, did you indicate to -- well, let me strike that. Did you tell Mr. Rush that none of your clients had ever traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane or any, on his plane or with him in any fashion, in any other manner? Page A15 s"¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2k A. I don't mmembcr that subject coming up in the conversations with Mr. Rush. Had he asked -- I. I don't remember that conversation. Q. You're not denying it. You are just saying you don't remember it or arc you — A. Correct Q. saying it didn't happen? A. No. I ant saying I just don't remember. Q. Did you, did you tell Mr. Rush that Mr. Epstein had transported females on his plane for the purposes of having sex with other individuals? A. I don't know. Q. Well, why -- A. ljust don't remember. Q. If Mr. Rush would testify that you told him that other fentske had traveled on Mr. Epstein's plane and had bad sex dining the time they were on the planes, why would you have had that discussion with him? A. You're asking a hypothetical if I said that, would have I have said that? Q We4l. let the rephrase it this way. With Rush, if I asked you to assume that he would that you, you told him about the ion, that Mr. Epstein transported other¶

Page 155 1 women on the plane to have sex with them, what 2 information did you have that was the basis for that 3 claim at that time'! 4 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the 5 form of the question. It assumes facts not in 6 evidence. It has no proper predicate. 7 RV MR. C' ajti aai i.: a Q. Mr. , did you have Ohislaine 9 Maxwell served in this case with a subpoena? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. For what purpose? I mean, obviously to 12 take her deposition. 13 A. Exactly, to take her deposition. 14 Q. All right. Do you, is she neither, would 15 you agree that neither Jane Doe nor L.M. have 16 testified to any, that they had any connection 17 whatsoever with Ghislaine Maxwell? 18 A. Yes, I would agree. 19 Q. And what, what was, what is the purpose; 20 that is, with regard to your three clients and only 21 your three clients is they -- what connection if 22 any, did Ghislaine Maxwell have to those 23 individuals? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, work-product. 25 Instruct you to not answer.¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

2 Q. When you originally started working with
3 the Rothstein firm, did you have any discussions
4 with Mr. Rothstein regarding how your cases would be
5 funded; that is, your personal, your personal injury
6 cases and specifically the cases relating to
7 Mr. Epstein?¶

8 A. No.¶

9 Q. Okay. With regard to, prior to taking
10 your cases to, prior to starting at RRA, you were
11 responsible for the funding of your personal injury
12 cases or any contingency fee case, correct?¶

13 A. Right.¶

14 Q. And I assume you had either your own
15 personal funds or you had a line of credit or both?¶

16 A. Right.¶

17 Q. And when you came to RRA and you brought
18 the cases with you; that is, the personal injury
19 cases and as well, the Epstein cases, were you
20 reimbursed for the costs that you had already
21 expended thus far on those cases?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 Q. Did you request that you be reimbursed?¶

24 A. Yes.¶

25 Q. And with, to whom was the request made?¶

1 A. I didn't do that.¶

2 Q. You didn't. Did you choose not to do
3 that?¶

4 A. No. I, I, the statement was made to me by
5 Scott Rothstein that the costs would be reimbursed. And
6 I anticipated that the costs would be reimbursed. I was
7 there for a fairly short period of time and I didn't
8 know Scott Rothstein personally. So, I didn't go to him
9 additionally to tell him something that we already had a
10 meeting of the minds about.¶

11 Q. Well, how much in costs did you have
12 outstanding at the time from your cases, including
13 the Epstein cases when you went to the firm, RRA, in
14 April of '09?¶

15 A. I don't know the total.¶

16 Q. Was it $1,000? Was it $50,000? Was it
17 $100,000?¶

18 A. More than 100.¶

19 Q. And did you have that both from, was it,
20 the debt, was that comprised of both your own money
21 and as well as LOC, line of credit money through a
22 bank?¶

23 A. Correct.¶

24 Q. Was it more than 150?¶

25 A. I'm not sure.¶

1 A. Directly to Scott Rothstein.¶

2 Q. Was that at the ten minute meeting that
3 you had?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

5 Q. At BOVA?¶

6 A. Yes.¶

7 Q. And what did he say?¶

8 A. No problem.¶

9 Q. He said he would reimburse you?¶

10 A. Correct.¶

11 Q. And did that, in fact, take place?¶

12 A. No.¶

13 Q. And how did you attempt to get reimbursed
14 for the costs that you had thus far incurred on your
15 personal injury cases including Mr. Epstein's case
16 when you went, when you started at RRA?¶

17 A. What do you mean?¶

18 Q. Well, you said that Mr. Rothstein agreed
19 in the ten minute conversation that RRA would
20 reimburse those costs?¶

21 A. Correct.¶

22 Q. You go to RRA in April of '09, and I
23 assume you had to ask someone and say, look, I had a
24 conversation with Scott Rothstein. He said he would
25 reimburse my costs.¶

1 Q. Was it someplace between 100 and $200,000
2 your best estimate?¶

3 A. That is my best estimate.¶

4 Q. Did you find that to be a significant
5 amount of money?¶

6 A. Of course.¶

7 Q. Okay. And you said you were at RRA for
8 only a short period of time. In fact, you were
9 there April, May, June, July, August, September,
10 October. You were there seven months, true?¶

11 A. Yes.¶

12 Q. Okay. And at no time, even though
13 Mr. Rothstein said he would reimburse those funds or
14 the firm would reimburse those funds to you, at no
15 time during those seven months which you have
16 described as a short period of time, did you ever
17 make a request that you be reimbursed; is that
18 correct?¶

19 A. I never made a, well, I don't know the process
20 for getting reimbursed, but I never made a formal
21 request. I said it to, at least to [redacted] Adler on
22 several occasions. And it was always told to me, don't
23 worry about it; the firm is growing; there is a lot of
24 things to deal with right now; he operates under the
25 system of fairness; you will get reimbursed.¶

1 And obviously nobody expected the ending 2 to the law fine that ultimately occurred.¶

3 Q. With regard to the facia -wine you 4 settled a couple of personal injury cases during the 5 seven months you were there, yes?¶

6 A. Yes, you assume that. 7 Q. That's correct? Let me ask the question.¶

8 Did you settle any contingency fee caws during the 9 sevens months that you were at the RRA ruin?¶

10 A. Yes.¶

11 Q. And when you settled those cases did you, 12 and they closed, they were settled through, did you 13 have any control of the Rust account?¶

14 A- No.¶

15 Q. Okay. Settlement monies oome in on a 16 personal injury case. What did you do with the 17 money once the, once the client had endorsed the 18 check?¶

19 A. I, I didn't personally do anything with the 20 money. It was not handled by me.¶

21 Q. Okay. Were you there --¶

22 A. That's why I'm confused. Did I settle the 23 case? I mean, Rothstein Rosenfeld( Adler firm settled 24 personal injury cases while I was there. There were no 25 eases that were solely my cases They were firm cases¶

2 3 Q. Let me rephrase the question. You brought, you brought cases to the Erni, A. That is correct.¶

4 5 Q. Of any of the cases that you brought, you settle those cases?¶

6 A. No.¶

8 9 10 Q. Okay. So, you never had an instance so there was. nove.r n at of eircumpotswanes whom nal would have been reimbursed for costs as a result of a settlement?¶

2.1 A. That's correct¶

12 13 14 15 Q. All right And, and so during the seven months that you were there, you were never reimbursed a nickel of the one to S200,000 that you had outstanding in costs?¶

16 A. That is correct.¶

17 18 19 20 21 Q. All right. With regard to the costs that were to be incurred for prosecuting the cases, specifically the Epstein cases, what was your understanding — was that ever discussed with Mr. Rothstein at the ten-minute meeting?¶

22¶

23 24 25 A. Repeat that I'm sorry. Q. Sure. How were, how were costs investigation costs, deposition costs, travel expenses to be reimbursed?¶

A. Well, you've thrown a lot of things in there. 2 Travel expenses come back with your receipts, hand them 3 over to, I would hand them over to my secretary. And 4 the would get them to the appropriate place in the 5 machine known as Rothstein Rosenfeld( Adler. And in my 6 next -- and I would get a check, I believe,¶

7 Q. All tight. How about depositions, I mean 8 during the time that we, we took depositions Rorn 9 the time you were at RRA, transcripts were ordered 10 of depositions. They were expedited of various 11 hearings. You took traps. You took a trip to New 12 York to take the deposition of Mark Eiperein, 13 correct; all those things occurred?,¶

14 A. Ycs, all of those thitigs occurred.¶

15 Q. So, when you weitildibt a bill in for the 16 trip for to go up and see Mark Epstein. or to take 17 Mark Epstein's deposition, yeti had travel coats 18 associated with that and you had plane fate, 19 taxicab, hotel, whatever else you had, correct?¶

20 A. costs associated with that.¶

21 Q. All right. And when you met with Mr.¶

22 in initially, what was your understanding or 23 di hive an understanding as to how costs would 24 h ed; that is. how they would be paid on cases brought to the firm?¶

\ 1 A. It was unspoken but I had some understanding 2 just based on logic.¶

3 Q Separate and apart from logic, did anybody 4 tell you that you bad; that is, that RRA would pay 5 all of the costs associated with prosecution of the 6 Epstein cases?¶

⁷A. Did anybody tell me No.¶

is e..2. (-okay. were you ever required to draw 9 against either your personal funds or your personal 10 LOC after you started with RRA to fund the Epstein 11 codes?¶

12 A. I don't know how to answer your question,¶

13 Mr. Critton, because if I were to go out of town and 14 purchase a plane ticket, yeah, I would purchase that 15 personally and then I would be reimbursed. If I ordered 16 a deposition transcript, which is a totally different 17 category, that gets billed to the firm. I never see the 18 bill or anything else. So, you're just throwing a bunch 19 of things together that don't necessarily go together. ²⁰I ern trying my hest for you.¶

21 Q. No, that's fine. Commonly in a personal 22 injury closing, you would see the recover, you would 23 see a list of the costs. The costs would include 24 court reporters, investigation fees, subpoenas, 25 things of that nature, correct?¶

1 A. I have seen than before, yes, sir. 2 Q. Okay. And as well there would be 3 reimbursabk expenses such as when you went to New 4 York and took Mark Epatein's deposition. You, you 5 paid for the expense up front but, in fact, it was 6 then reimbursed by the firm, correct? 7 A. Now we're specifically, specifically talking e about Mark Epstein's deposition, yes, that, what you 9 just said is comet. 10 Q. Okay. Not only was the, and if l 11 understand your testimony is the deposition was paid 12 for directly by the fum. With regard to your 13 travel, any hotel, other expenses that you had, you 14 put in a request for reimbursement and the firm 15 would reimburse you? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. All right And with regard to those 18 costs, you said you and Mr. Rothstein never had a 19 discussion about that; is that correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. All rights. But you did speak with 22 Mr. Adler about how costs would be handled on your 23 cases including Mr. Epstein's case after you started 24 with ItRA? 25 A. Correct.¶

Q. Okay. And is he the only one who 2 explained what the procedure was? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what did be tell you? Well, 5 ask you this: Did betel' you what that j 6 the firm would pay for all of the m' 7 either costs and/or reimbursements fix' oasts 8 were incurred in prosecuting the Epstein files and 9 any other files that you had? 10 A. Can you split this question up so that we're 11 not talking about mintbrounnehthd costs and things 12 like that 13 Q. Sure. With itkr A. d to costs such m 14 depositions 15 Okay. 16 Q. - coma reporters, court reporter fees, 17 video depositions, transcripts of hearing, whether 18 they were expedited or whether they more asked on a 19 routine basis? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. What would the — who was responsible for 22 paying those bills? 23 A. The bifirwoad, to my to the best of my 24 losowledgr would be billed to the law firm of Rothstein 25 Rosenfeldt Adler, md it would be their financial ti¶

2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S responsibility to pay dill Q. And is that with Adler told you? A. Yes. Q. Did you ' that with anyone else in the firm Adler? A. l Adler. Q. So, if the bill came in for one of those types of costs, you would give to your secretary or would she handle it automatically? A. I never would see the bill. Why would it come into my name? It just didn't do — that never happened. It was billed to Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. Q. So, you would never see the bill that came in? A. Correct. lig- even if it was a RRA attention Brad, you wouldn't see that? MilirPresuming that happened, attention, Brad l still never saw it. No, I never saw a bill to my recollection right now the whole time I was at Rothstein Roeenfeldt Adler. Q. Did Mr. Rothstein ever discuss with you 4%ier there would be a budget associated with how money you could spend on a particular case? No.¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Did anyone at the firm ever talk to you about whether or not there would be a budget associated with how much you could spend on an Epstein case or any personal injury case? A. No. Q. In terms of authorization, if you wanted to order a deposition expedited or if you wanted to pay for a specific expense, whether it was an outside investigator or to send an investigator to a location, whose decision was that? Is that you and you alone to incur that cost? A. Which question do you want me to - you asked a bunch of things there that some of them may have been my decision. Other parts of that would obviously be somebody else's. But you're throwing five or six items in there and you want me to give you an answer. Q. Let me break it them down. With regard to any costs that you wanted to incur, incur relating to a Jeffrey Epstein matter, was there an authorization process; that is, did you have to get someone's okay before you could spend X amount of dollars? A. No. Q. Okay. It was, and who told you that you never had to get an approval for any expense¶

1 associated with the Jeffrey Epstein case? 2 A. I didn't say that anybody did. So, no, 3 nobody, nobody. 4 Q. You could just spend whatever money you 5 wanted to in prosecuting your cases- is that 6 correct? 7 A. No, I didn't say that either. Q. What was the procedure then? 9 A. That if I was at a deposition and there was a 10 need in my judgment for the transcript to be expedited 11 then I would order it expedited and nobody ever told me 12 that they had a problem with my judgment as to those 13 things. And not as to those things. As to that firing 14 which we were talking about which right now is 15 expediting deposition transcripts. 16 Q. With regard to so any, how about an 17 expense associated with hiring, with either 18 directing well, let me strike that With tepid 19 to Epstein, did, were you ever required or did you 20 ever hire outside investigators to do work 21 associated with the Epstein case? 22 By outside I mean someone who was not an 23 employee of RRA and now I mean dealing with the time 24 that you were at RRA 25 A. Right. And your question is did I ever hire¶

1 Q. Did you meet, did you know Mr. Fisten 2 before you started working at RRA? 3 A. Same answer, no. 4 Q. No. All tight. And Mr. Fisten, did you 5 direct Mr. Fitton to do investigations in Martha's 6 Vineyard? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did you direct Mr. Fisten to do 9 investigations in California? 10 A. I directed Mr. Fisten to interview people and 11 ultimately it was learned that they lived in California. 12 Q. And did Mr. Fisten go to California to 13 interview those individuals? 14 A. To the best of my knowledge he did. 15 Q. Okay. And who did he go and interview? 16 MR. SCAROLA: That is work-product and I 17 instruct you not to answer. 18 BY MR. CRITTON: 19 Q. Did Mr. Vista interview a person by the 20 name of Wfichael Sanka (phonetic)? 21 MR. SCAROLA: That is work-product and l 22 InStruet you not to answer. 23 'MR.CRITTON: Did Mr. Fisted interview a 24 'sridual by the name of Michael a 25 \ {phonetic)?¶

1 an outside investigator to perform work on Jeffrey 2 Epstein's case? 3 Q. Correct? 4 A. The answer is no. 5 Q. Were, were all the investigations that 6 were done during the tint that you were employ-id by 7 RRA, were they done by in-house investigators? B A. I don't know. 9 Q. Well, if you wanted investigation done on 10 Mr. Epstein, how would you go about authorizing that 11 or directing that that be done?, 12 A. I would ask one of the investigators to do it. 13 Q. So, you would direct the specific 14 investigator? 15 A. Yeah. There were plenty of times where I 16 directed the specific investigator. I want you to talk 17 to this witsen or so-and-so, yes, just like you would 18 in any case. 19 Q. In this particular instance associated 20 with Mr. Epstein, what investigators worked on 21 Mr. Epstein's case during the time you were at RRA? 22 A. If you want an exclusive Est, I drat know. 23 Q. [want to know? 24 A. I can tell you Michael Platen did because I 25 couuramicated with him directly.¶

1 MR. SCAROLA: That is work-product and I 2 instruct you not to answer — 3 MR. CRITTON: Mr. Fisten -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: — except to the extent as 5 may have already been disclosed to the defense 6 in any of the three cases that are currently 7 pending. Any and all questions about 8 investigative work will meet with the same 9 objection and same instruction. 10 BY MR. CRITTON: 11 Q. Did you direct Mr. Fisten that he could 12 represent that he was an agent of the FBI in 13 interviewing individuals in California? 14 A. Of course not. 15 Q. Did you — and if in fact Mr. Fisten 16 represented he was an agent of the FBI, you would 17 find that reprehensible, true? 18 A. This is some hypothetical question that I do 19 not believe exists. 20 Q. I'm asking you to assume that Mr. Fisten 21 represented that he was an agent of the FBI. You 22 would find that type of conduct by the investigator 23 to be inappropriate, correct? 24 A. I'm not going to render an opinion on a 25 Vothetical that doesn't exist.¶

6 (Pages 168 to 171)¶

Q. So, you're refusing to answer that question?¶

A. You're asking me about my definition of reprehensible as it pertains to aspecific hypothetical ^Sthat you've just created.¶

Q. Let me ask you --¶

A. Now, you want me to try to analyze that particular hypothetical and tell you whether it meets the definition of reprehensible?¶

Q. I will let you — if Mr. Fisten, if I ask¶

you to assume that Mr. Fisten represented to ^a witness out in California that he was an agent or working for the FBI, would you find that conduct appropriate by Mr. Fisten?¶

1.5 MR. SCAROLA: And I will tell you that you are not obliged to answer hypothetical questions.¶

THE WITNESS: And therefore I am nut going to answer that question.¶

BY MR_ CR1TTON:¶

Q. If Mr. Fisten represented that he was associated with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find that conduct inappropriate?¶

MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would¶

also observe with regard to each of the¶

hypothetical questions that you are asked that¶

they are incomplete. And without knowing all of the surrounding circumstances, it would be¶

impossible for any witness to pass judgment¶

upon what may have occurred. -¶

BY MR. CRITTON:¶

a Q. So, Mr.-- would it be acorrect statement¶

at least as you understood it, Mr. that¶

Mr. Fisten was not an agent, was not I agent during the time that he worked foe RRA?¶

A. You're asking me was he an FBI agent or did he¶

work for RRA He waked for RRA Q. Correct. He was not an FBI agent, true,¶

to the best of knowledge during the time he¶

worked for¶

A. Okay. Q. I am not talking about any other time¶

period right now. A. Okay. Then the answer is be was not an FBI¶

agent at the time he was working for RRA¶

Q. During the time he worked for RRA he as well was not associated with Miami-Dade Police¶

Department, correct?¶

A. Si don't know that. h¶

Q. Could he — is it your --¶

A. How would I know associate, he may have been?¶

Q. Let me ask you this, was he employed by the Miami-Dade Police Department in addition to RRA during the time he worked there?¶

A. To the best of my knowledge, no.¶

Q. Did — with regard to Mr. Epstein's cases was there any type of cost account set up for, for them?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. Could you access any of the financial files within the RRA fum?¶

A. No.¶

Q. Could you access any files that were associated with your specific, excuse me, clients or your specific case Such as if you wanted to know how¶

much in costs had been incurred by Mr. Epstein — on Jane Doe's case while at the RRA firm, could you request that, could you access that intonation?¶

A. I *sit know.¶

Q. Did you ever ay to access that MfinMatfOn?¶

• 'No.

Q. At any time did you request that anybody / provide you copies of what the costs were associated¶

with Mr. Epstein's cases?¶

A. No.¶

Q. Since you left the firm have you requested any type of detailed billing or cost analysis such¶

as to the cost of any of the costs that were¶

incurred on any of Mr. Epstein's cases?¶

A Of course.¶

Q. Okay. And did you receive those costs?¶

Did you receive that information?¶

A. Yes. 13. Q. And what costs have been incurred in the¶

cases, in the Epstein cases associated up — let me¶

strike that. What costs, what is the total amount of costs that were incurred in the Epstein cases¶

during the time that those files existed in the RRA firm?¶

MR. SCAROLA: If you're able to answer¶

that question with regard only as to amount¶

3.9 without specifying any of the specific cost expenditures, then I think we can answer that¶

question only as to amount.¶

THE WITNESS: And the question as to the¶

aggregate in the three cases?¶

MR. CRITTON: Correct¶

THE WITNESS: Because I can't delineate¶

(561) 832-7500¶

PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506¶

1 for you.
2 MR. CRITTON: Your best estimate.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay. I believe more than
4 $300,000.
5 BY MR. CRITTON:
6 Q. With regard to, if investigation was done
7 on, on a Epstein case, was the investigator charged,
8 that is for his time, as an example Mr. Fisten, if
9 he did work in California would his time, I'm not
10 talking about his expenses, would that be billed as
11 a cost to the file?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. On the cost that you received, well, let
14 me strike that. If I understood it, up to 300,000
15 approximately $300,000 that's been spent on the
16 Epstein file, were you able to look --
17 A. It would be more than that. I am just saying
18 it's at least $300,000.
19 Q. Something between three and $400,000,
20 could it --
21 A. Something that I would say is definitely
22 between 300 and $500,000, but I'm not sure. It could be
23 301. It could be 450. I really don't know.
24 Q. When was the last time that you looked at
25 that ledger or the printout associated with the¶

1 firm had you, you had spent some of your own money
2 and/or LLC money on the files; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Approximately how much is that amount?
5 A. I'm, I'm not sure. I think as you're aware
6 most of the depositions and costly work that was done on
7 the files happened to have been done during that time
8 period for all of the respective cases or claims against
9 Mr. Epstein during that time period of last summer of
10 2009.
11 Q. All right. But in terms of your costs
12 prior to coming to RRA, what's your best estimate of
13 the costs that you have paid either out of pocket or
14 are responsible to a bank to repay?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. More than 25,000, less than 25,000?
17 A. I'm not sure.
18 Q. More than 100,000?
19 A. No.
20 Q. More than 50,000?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. That's a record obviously you could pull
up, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. All right. Now, with regard to, prior to¶

1 Epstein files?
2 A. I have never looked at the printout.
3 Q. Okay. How, how do you know what is amount
4 is then? That is how do you have the estimate of it
5 being between 350, I'm sorry between 300 and
6 $500,000, the cost associated with Epstein?
7 A. I asked a paralegal within my current firm for
8 the total amount of costs on these three cases that is
9 being claimed by Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. And I
10 remember the cost number in the aggregate being given to
11 me reflecting an amount what I just told you.
12 Q. Have you requested a copy of the -- let me
13 strike that. Did she say she had, that is did
14 she -- did you actually receive a document that
15 reflects the breakdown of the costs from the
16 trustee?
17 A. I personally have not seen that.
18 Q. Okay. Has your firm received it?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. I assume -- would it be a correct
21 statement that the three to $500,000 is, includes
22 only the time between April of '09 and October of
23 '09 when you were with the firm?
24 A. It's a good question. I, I believe so.
25 Q. And approximately, prior to joining the¶

1 your coming to RRA, had there been any investigation
2 work that you had done on the Epstein files -- and
3 let me strike that. Had you hired or retained an
4 investigator to do any work for you on the Epstein
5 files prior to coming to RRA?
6 A. I don't think so.
7 Q. All right.
8 A. It would have been around that time. I don't
9 remember whether the initial investigator was hired by
10 me from my previous, from my [redacted] firm or was hired by
11 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. I can't say.
12 Q. Who was the first investigator that you
13 believe was involved in investigating the Epstein
14 cases? Just a name not topic?
15 MR. SCAROLA: Work-product, instruct you
16 not to answer.
17 BY MR. CRITTON:
18 Q. Was the first person that was retained as
19 an investigator someone who ultimately became
20 employed by RRA?
21 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 BY MR. CRITTON:
24 Q. The, the person who you hired to -- and by
25 investigation I mean something other than looking up¶

8 (Pages 176 to 179)(561) 832-7500PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.(561) 832-7506Electronically signed by cynthia [redacted] (601-051-976-2934)
Electronically signed by cynthia [redacted] (601-051-976-2934)
Electronically signed by cynthia [redacted] (601-051-976-2934)¶

1 an address to serve a subpoena or, or doing some
2 minimal background.
3 A. I am glad you clarified because I am using
4 that same definition.
5 Q. All right. So, it's, it's your best
6 recollection that you did or did not hire an
7 investigator to do real investigative work with,
8 associated with Mr. Epstein prior to joining RRA?
9 A. I believe I did, but it was after a time when
10 I had, I was contemplating or at least to myself had
11 committed to going to RRA. So, it was within that time
12 period I believe that I hired that person prior to RRA.
13 Q. When you then went to -- now you had
14 committed to go to RRA or at least mentally
15 committed to go to RRA. As soon as you started with
16 RRA, did you terminate the services of that
17 investigator?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did that investigator continue to do work?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Has, does he or she or it continue
22 to do work today for you?
23 A. No. On Mr. Epstein's case you're asking,
24 right?
25 Q. Yes, sir.¶

1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. For how long a time period did that
3 person continue to do the work before it got
4 transferred to Mr. Fisten or other investigators?
5 A. Question doesn't make sense.
6 Q. Okay. How long did the investigator that
7 you may have hired prior to joining RRA work on the
8 Epstein files before you ceased that work after you
9 started working for Epstein in April of '09? I'm
10 sorry, for RRA in '09.
11 A. The person was hired in either March or April
12 of 2009, which is why I can't say with absolute
13 certainty whether I was at RRA or not. And that person
14 continued to do investigative work in some capacity
15 probably throughout the entire time that I was at RRA.
16 Q. Were all of the bills for that
17 investigator paid by RRA?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. With regard to the payments for the
20 investigators -- well, let me strike that. Who
21 other than Mr. Fisten from an investigator, from an
22 internal investigator at RRA employee worked on
23 doing investigation on the Epstein files?
24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
25 instruction.¶

1 MR. CRITTON: You are claiming
2 work-product?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Yes.
4 BY MR. CRITTON:
5 Q. The investigators, did you understand them
6 to be salaried employees of RRA?
7 A. I really have no idea.
8 Q. Did you ever ask them?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you know whether the, do you have any
11 knowledge as to whether the investigators kept time
12 records?
13 A. I do not have that knowledge.
14 Q. In terms of when an investigator would
15 come back -- well, do you know how the investigators
16 were paid?
17 A. With money.
18 Q. From RRA?
19 A. I would presume. Totally speculation.
20 Q. Would the RRA -- were the investigators
21 for RRA bonused?
22 A. I have no idea.
23 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Fisten what
24 his financial compensation was associated with RRA?
25 A. No.¶

1 Q. Did, did you ever promise either
2 Mr. Fisten or any other investigator that when the
3 case settled, they would get a bonus from an Epstein
4 case?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Fisten ever inquire of you
7 as to whether he would get a bonus if, in fact, the
8 cases on which he worked including the Epstein cases
9 settled for a favorable verdict or result came in?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you have any understanding from either
12 your conversations from Mr. Rothstein whether
13 investigators were bonused based upon the work that
14 they did?
15 A. Excuse me?
16 Q. Did you ever have an understanding from
17 Mr. Rothstein that, that investigators would be
18 bonused from cases on which they worked based upon
19 their work product or their contribution?
20 A. No. I had no understanding.
21 Q. Did you, from -- I assume you've read a
22 number of the news reports associated with
23 Mr. Rothstein and the implosion of the firm?
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. I assume you have seen a number of them?¶

1 2 3 4 A. What do you mean by a number? Q. More than one. A. Yes I have seen more than one. Q. Have you seen articles were it's alleged 5 that investigators that were employed by Rothstein, 5 Q. Did you ever? 6 by RRA would go through the garbage of ;nova-live 6 MR. SCAROLA: Mr.M will not answer 7 Defendants to search for incriminating or favorable, 7 any questions regarding what he did or didn't 8 incriminating evidence against the Defendant or 8 do. 9 favorable evidence for a Plaintiff who might be 9 MR. CRITION: I understand. I just want 10 working or who might be a client of the firm? 10 to make it certain it's for the court on some 11 A. I have not seen an article saying that. 1 11 of these issues. 12 think i have heard your client say that before. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Well, for the court I am 13 Q. Separate and apart — 13 telling you he is not going to answer any of 14 A. Right. 14 those questions. And continuing to ask them in 15 Q. You don't have to rely on anything my is light of the fact that we have told you and 16 client has said before, the testimony — 16 made it clear the Scope of our assertion of 17 MR. SCAROLA: I am sure we won't. 17 privilege serves no useful purpose. 18 MR. CRITTON: I am confident of that. 18 BY MR. C ': IlAr • : 19 BY MR. CRITTON: 19 Q. Mr. , at any time, did you — well, 20 Q. In terms of, were you aware from the 20 let me strike that. Did you ever direct the 21 articles, did you see in the article -- let me 21 investigators to, during the time you were at RRA, 22 strike that. Did you ever direct your investigators 22 to conduct asurveillance on Mr. Epstein's property? 23 to go through Mr. Epstein's trash? 23 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 24 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object, 24 instruction. 25 work-product, attorney-client privilege. 23¶

1 2 3 4 representing Mr. Epstein including myself? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, sane instruction BY MR. CRITTON:¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON: 1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. Have you directed, did you ever direct — 2 Q. Since the time you have left RRA in your 3 this is the investigators during the time you were 3 current firm, have you conducted surveillance on Mr. 4 at RRA and that's the question you're claiming the' 4 Epstein's property? 5 privilege over, correct? :, - ,, ...., / , 6 . MR SCAROLA: I am claiming at prfillege 6 instruction. 7 with r to any action thatWas taken by 7 BY MR. CIUT1ON: 8 Mr. or at Mr. Edward's direction in — 8 Q. Have you instructed anyone, either of the 9 . ' ON: Tell you what, I will 9 in-house investigators to conduct surveillance of 10 withdraw the last question. 10 Mr. Epstein's property? 11 MR. SCAROLA: -- in connection with the 11 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 12 investigation in ixosecudon of the claims 12 instruction. 13 against Mr. Epstein. 13 BY MR. CRITTON: 14 BY MR. CRITION: 14 Q. Have you authorized investigators employed 15 make my question clear, 15 by RRA, either employees of the firm or an outside 16 Mr. With regard to your investigators, you arne 17 gave direction with regarding the Epstein cases, 17 Mr. Epstein's home on or about March 17th of 2010? 18 during the time you were with RRA did you ever tell 18 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 19 them or direct them to go through Mr. Epstein's 19 instruction. 20 trash? 20 THE WITNESS: What's the date? 21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 21 MR. CRITTON: 010. 22 instruction. 22 MR. SCAROLA: St. Day. Did you 23 BY MR. CRITTON: 23 employ any leprechauns? 24 Q. Did you ever direct the investigators to 24 THE WITNESS: Actually -- !L a g through the trash of the lawyers who were 25¶

5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 16 investigation firm, to walk around the perimeter of¶

1 BY MR. CRITFON: 2 Q. With regard m the, regard to the 3 investigators, with regard to the investigation 4 bills that would come in from outside investigators, 5 specifically the one that you — well, let me strike 6 that. 7 The investigator that you hired before you 8 went to ERA, I think you testified that bill was 9 paid by RRA, correct? 10 A. Yea 11 Q. All right. And in tams of the 12 inwsfistatmslAto were employed by RRA for *Morn 13 investigation you directed theism do, those 14 individuals were also paid from buts from RRA 15 correct? 16 A. During the time period when t was at RRA 17 you're asking about specifically, correct? le Q. Correct 19 A. Them the answer is, yes. 2 0 Q. Was there any specific mg account that 21 was set up for Mr. Epstein's cases? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Did you ever week with the — 24 A. Again wem talking about the time period at 25 RRA?¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25, ' Q Okay. Well, if you could authorize any expenditure that you wanted and nobody ever told you not to, that you couldn't spend the particular money, what controls, if any, existed with regard to mocks spent on the Epstein cases? A. The presupposition that you just created is incorrect, so I cannot answer that question. You began with I have no limit to how 1 can spend money and that there is no regulation. Inca% that's just not true, so I don't understand what to tell you. Q. What limits if any did you have in spending money in prosecuting Mr. Epstein's case? A. We went through expediting tmnsaipts and I used my own judgment. Q. I understand that. A. If we have another specific example, I will address it and I will tell you whether I had that authority or somebody else may have had that authority. But specifically related to expediting transcripts and things involving depositions, ordering depositions, I used my judgment and it was never questioned. Q. Separate and apart from transcripts, if, if you've testified that the expenditures for costs that the firm or the trustee is seeking back, atRItA is seeking back, is seeking relating to any¶

1 Q At RRA 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. During the time you were at RRA did 51{Zar, 4 ever speak with the accounting department or 5 accounting department ever call you to talk about 6 the amount of costs, assuming they was something 7 between 300 and $500,000 that were being expended on 8 Mr. Epstein files? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did, did anyone at theft= ever call you 11 to discuss the issue of the amount of costs between 12 300 and $500,000 that were being incurred to 13 prosecute Mr. Epstein'. cases? 14 A. No. IS Q. Okay.' Who had checked -- did you have any 16 check-signing authority at RRA? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Who did sign the checks? 1.9 A. I don't know. I was - 20 Q In terms of the, the work that was being 21 done or the, the work that was, that is the costs 22 that were being incurred including reimbursable 23 costs, did you understand that you had a, basically 24 an unlimited budget to prosecute those cases? 25 A. No.¶

recovery in any Epstein cases is between three and 2 $500,000, correct? 73 A. Correct. 4 Q. All right So, separate and apart from 5 expedited transcripts or video depositions or 6 serving subpoenas, that, there has to be, you know, 7 hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional 8 expenses that were associated with prosecuting 9 Mr. Epstein's cases, correct? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. And with regard to those types of 12 expenditures that are in the hundreds of thousands 13 of dollars, who authorized those types of 14 expenditures? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Well, you said that you used judgment 17 certainly with regard to transcripts. So, who, if, 18 if spending an extra two, three, $400,000 separate 19 and apart Born transcripts, serving subpoenas is not 20 a limitless budget, how would you describe it; that 21 is, what controls if any did you have in prosecuting 22 the Epstein cases? 23 A. First, I haven't seen the delineation of that 24 amount and I don't brow that we agree with Rothstein 25 Rosenfeldt Adler as to their costs, but that is what¶

1 they're claiming. I never juxtaposed that with what I 2 believe should be the proper amount. But beginning with 3 the fact that I do recognize that as the amount that 4 they are claiming, l was not aware that the costs were s that high. 6 The cases were firm cases, paid for by the 7 firm. I was simply an employee and I made judgment calls. If somebody had told me at any given time, 9 we shouldn't serve these subpoenas, or we shouldn't 1O take this deposition, I wouldn't have done it. 11 Q. In fact, with regard to — well, let me 12 ask you this: Were any informants, did you 13 authorize your investigators to hire informant, 14 informants? 15 MR. SCAROLA: Sarre objection, same 16 instruction. 17 BY MR. CftITTON: 18 Q. Did you authorize your investigators to do 19 electronic eve's dropping? 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 21 instruction. 22 BY MR. CROTON: 23 Q. You indicated that you were just an 24 employee, correct? 25 A. Yes.¶

1 suggests that those terns are mutually 2 exclusive. 3 THE WITNESS: That was a part of my answer 4 is that, I don't know MR. CRITTON: I am shocked to hear that. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know that being an 7 employee means that you can't also be a 8 partner. There are equity partners and 9 non-equity partners to nearly every single 1O large firm, so I was a non-equity partner 11 otherwise known as a salaried employee. That's 12 just the way it was. 13 BY MR. CRITTON: 14 Q. But your card just reflected partner as 15 did your 16 A. Rather than that whole script I just told you. 17 Q. Right. Rather than the qualifying 18 provisions. 19 A. Yes, you're right. The qualifying positions 20 didn't make the card. 21 Q. With regard to the monies that was, that 22 were being paid by, by Rothstein, I'm sorry, by the 23 114E4 fur for the costs — let me strike that. 24 Dam the time that you were at the RRA firm, the 2V pit months that you were there from April through¶

Page 193 1 Q. Okay. In fact, you, on various 2 reflected that you were a partner of the firm, 3 correct? 4 A.. Yes, document, documents do 5 title, of course, yeah. 6 Q. And if' had asked for a card 7 time that you started at RRA up until the tine of 8 the implosion of the firm in late October of '09, 9 would your card have also reflected that you were a 10 partner of the firm? 11 A. I think you did request a card. I think I 12 gave it to you and I believe that it did say partner on 13 it. 14 Q. And you would agree that at least up until 15 the time of the implosion of RRA you held yourself 16 out to the public, and including other lawyers, as 17 being a partner of RRA, true? 18 A What do you mean by held myself out to the 19 public? 20 Q. You called yourself a partner. You didn't 21 say inn an employee; I'm not a partner, correct? 22 You held yourself out to the public as being a 23 partner? 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the 25 form of thearestion to the extent that it¶

3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 23 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the end of October, do you recall any significant settlements that were coming into the fine; that is. that were publicized? A. Do I recall significant settlements — Q. Correct A. -- coming into the firm that were publicized? Q. Correct? A. I believe, I can't say with any degree of specificity whether I remember anything that falls into all of those categories. Q Now, I forgot my question for a minute. If I understand, and assuming I remember my question, Mryiiiir, you don't recall any significant settlements coming into the firm that were, that were publicized either internally within the firm or within the newspapers; is that a fair statement? A. Fair statement. Q. Where did you think all of the money that was coming from let me strike that. At that time how many lawyers were there in the Fort Lauderdale office; that is, during the time you were there? A. I don't know. Q. Best estimate? A SeventLe.¶

1 Q. Okay. And the support, how many floors
2 did RRA occupy in the Fort Lauderdale --
3 A. I believe six.
4 Q. And approximately how many square feet on
5 each floor?
6 A. I don't know. A lot.
7 Q. More than 10,000 square feet on each
8 floor?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. And what was the support staff at the time
11 that you were there approximately?
12 A. In quantity or quality?
13 Q. Quantity, the number of people.
14 A. I don't know. A lot of people.
15 Q. Did you do any hourly billing yourself at
16 all or were you strictly a contingency fee person?
17 A. 90 percent contingency.
18 Q. And with regard to the monies that were --
19 separate and apart from the Epstein, Epstein cases
20 where at least you now know that they cost between
21 three and $500,000, you were, I assume, incurring
22 other expenses on other cases, true?
23 A. True.
24 Q. All right. And where did you, where did
25 you think that the money was coming from; that is,¶

1 the source of the money to pay the extensive bills
2 that were being incurred on Epstein and other cases?
3 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the
4 extent the question calls -- excuse me, I'm
5 going to object because there is no proper
6 predicate to the question, and that is that it
7 was a matter that was ever given a thought by
8 Mr. [REDACTED].
9 MR. CRITTON: Is that form? Form is
10 adequate so you don't have to instruct him.
11 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: What's the question?
13 BY MR. CRITTON:
14 Q. What did you consider, what did you
15 believe was the cost; that is, the source of the
16 money that was used to be paying these extensive
17 costs that were being incurred in Epstein and other
18 cases?
19 MR. SCAROLA: Objection.
20 MR. CRITTON: Just of yours and yours
21 alone?
22 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, form and
23 compound.
24 THE WITNESS: The law firm.
25¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:
2 Q. Where did you think the law firm -- let me
3 strike that. Did you ever discuss with anyone
4 whether it was from current cash that was being used
5 or whether they had a line of credit or both?
6 A. Didn't know.
7 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], did you come to learn that
8 investigators had, that investigators had gone to
9 Mr. Epstein's property on March 17th, 2010?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever authorize any investigators
12 to enter Mr. property (sic), Mr. Epstein's property
13 on March 17th, 2010?
14 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Instruct you not
15 to answer on the basis of work-product
16 privilege.
17 BY MR. CRITTON:
18 Q. Let me just be clear. Are, are you aware
19 of any investigators who entered Mr. Epstein's
20 property on March 17th, 2010?
21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection as well as
22 attorney-client privilege and instruct you not
23 to answer.
24 BY MR. CRITTON:
25 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], did you authorize any¶

1 investigators to trespass on Mr. Epstein's property
2 on March 17th of 2010?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
4 instruction.
5 BY MR. CRITTON:
6 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], did you authorize
7 investigators to hide in the bushes at Mr. Epstein's
8 house in order to take photographs of either
9 Mr. Epstein or any associated objects on his
10 property?
11 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
12 instruction.
13 BY MR. CRITTON:
14 Q. Mr. Epstein -- Mr. Epstein. Mr. [REDACTED]
15 do you know a lady name Christina Kitterman?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And who -- how do you know her?
18 A. She was a lawyer at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
19 when I was a lawyer at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.
20 Q. Did you have any dealings with her on any
21 of your cases?
22 A. None.
23 Q. What did you understand her area of
24 practice?
25 A. Never knew.¶

1 Q. Did you know an individual by the name of
2 [REDACTED]?¶

3 A. Yes.¶

4 Q. Okay. And who is Mr. [REDACTED] during that
5 is, what did Mr. [REDACTED] do for RRA?¶

6 A. He was an investigator.¶

7 Q. Did he ever perform investigation work on
8 any of the Epstein files?¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
10 instruction.¶

11 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

12 Q. Did you ever authorize Mr. [REDACTED] to
13 perform investigation on the Epstein files?¶

14 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
15 instruction.¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

17 Q. All right. I asked you earlier about
18 Richard Fandrey, F-a-n-d-r-e-y. I think you said
19 you don't know who that -- you knew someone named
20 Rick; is that correct?¶

21 A. I know an investigator named Rick.¶

22 Q. Did Rick, did Rick perform any
23 investigation on the Epstein, did you authorize Rick
24 to perform any investigation on the Epstein files?¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and¶

1 instruction.¶

2 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

3 Q. And I believe we talked a little bit
4 about, we certainly talked about Mr. Jenne, did you
5 ever authorize or direct Mr. Jenne to perform any
6 investigation on the Epstein files?¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
8 instruction.¶

9 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

10 Q. Are you familiar with the company called
11 Blue Line Research and Development?¶

12 A. No.¶

13 Q. Are you, are you aware at the current time
14 that there is an entity called Blue Line Research
15 and Development which is composed of Mr. [REDACTED],
16 Mr. Richard Fandrey, Mr. Michael Fisten and Ken
17 Jenne?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 Q. If you're unaware of the existence of the
20 entity called Blue Line Research and Development,
21 LLC, would it be a correct statement that you have
22 never authorized anyone from Blue Line Research and
23 Development, LLC, to conduct any investigation of
24 Jeffrey Epstein?¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same¶

1 instruction.¶

2 MR. CRITTON: Says he doesn't know them.
3 How can that be an instruction?¶

4 MR. SCAROLA: Well, because I am not going
5 to tell you, we're not going to permit
6 Mr. [REDACTED] to answer any questions about
7 either what he did or what he didn't do that
8 are part of the work product involved in his
9 representation of the Plaintiffs with claims
10 against Mr. Epstein whom Mr. [REDACTED] is
11 representing.¶

12 MR. CRITTON: Did you ever --¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: So, in light of that and
14 what I have attempted to make very clear with
15 regard to the scope of our objections, if you
16 continue to ask questions which it is clear
17 fall within the scope of my instructions to
18 Mr. [REDACTED] and my announced intention with
19 regard to the scope of those instructions, then
20 we will terminate this deposition so that I can
21 seek a protective order.¶

22 My suggestion is that you move onto other
23 areas that are outside the scope of that
24 instruction, if you have any other questions
25 outside the scope.¶

1 MR. CRITTON: [REDACTED] I have a lot of other
2 questions.¶

3 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.¶

4 MR. CRITTON: Let me be clear with you
5 with regard to any, for purposes of following,
6 asking any follow-up questions should the court
7 determine that I am entitled to this
8 information, you would agree that should the
9 court determine I am entitled to ask the name
10 of these individuals and possibly other
11 questions is, is that by not asking questions I
12 am in no way waiving my right to ask as many
13 questions as the court ultimately determines as
14 appropriate, proper, and as the court allows,
15 correct?¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: I absolutely agree.¶

17 MR. CRITTON: All right.¶

18 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

19 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], are you familiar with a
20 person named Alfredo Rodriguez?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

22 Q. And how do you know Mr. Rodriguez?¶

23 A. Who do I know him to be? How do I know him?
24 I met him the same -- well, I met him after you did,
25 after you and your investigators pre-depoed him on three¶

1 various occasions for a total of about 15 hours before
2 we took this deposition. I met him for the first time
3 during that deposition.¶

4 MR. CRITTON: Let me move to strike as
5 nonresponsive.¶

6 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

7 Q. My question to you is when did you first
8 meet Mr. Rodriguez?¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: And you have an answer to
10 that question.¶

11 THE WITNESS: It's a very complete answer.
12 I, the day of his deposition.¶

13 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

14 Q. Had you ever spoken with Mr. Rodriguez
15 before that time?¶

16 A. No.¶

17 Q. Okay. Had anyone on your behalf spoken
18 with Mr. Rodriguez?¶

19 A. No.¶

20 Q. Mr. Rodriguez's deposition occurred over a
21 two-day period; is that correct? Two separate days.¶

22 A. I believe that's right.¶

23 Q. And you were present for both of those
24 depositions; is that correct?¶

25 A. Yes.¶

1 Q. And the first one I believe at least in
2 looking at the transcript the first one occurred on
3 January 29th of '09?¶

4 A. I'm assuming.¶

5 Q. And the second, the follow-up was on
6 August 7th, 2009, correct?¶

7 A. When was the first, January you said?¶

8 Q. Excuse me. I'm sorry. July 29th, 2009.¶

9 A. Okay.¶

10 Q. With the follow-up July, I'm sorry
11 August 7th, 2009.¶

12 A. If you say so. I'm not quarreling with that.¶

13 Q. And I will just represent that is what I
14 read off the transcripts. Between those two dates,
15 that is July 29th and August 7th of '09, did you
16 speak with Mr. Rodriguez at all?¶

17 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
18 instruction to the extent that any such
19 conversation may have occurred in connection
20 with your representation of the Plaintiffs and
21 claims against Mr. Epstein.¶

22 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

23 Q. All I am asking right now, not the
24 substance but just so the record is clear I am just
25 asking, did you speak with Mr. Rodriguez between¶

1 July 29th and August 7th?¶

2 A. And if I did or if I didn't, either way that's
3 going to be protected by the work-product privilege and
4 I'm not going to give you that information because
5 you're not entitled to it.¶

6 Q. I disagree even in a simple
7 attorney-client privilege you also, you identify the
8 date, you don't identify the subject, but you
9 identify the date, who may have been present.¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: We understand your position
11 and it's not necessary to articulate it on the
12 record.¶

13 MR. CRITTON: I just want to be clear.
14 And your position is the [REDACTED] is you're not
15 talking.¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: Work-product.¶

17 MR. CRITTON: Work-product, correct?¶

18 MR. SCAROLA: That's correct.¶

19 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

20 Q. Mr. Rodriguez was requested to bring
21 documents to his second deposition that he had
22 referenced that he might have. Do you recall that
23 from the first deposition, Mr. [REDACTED]?¶

24 A. I do.¶

25 Q. And in fact when he came to the second¶

1 deposition, he didn't bring any documents with him,
2 did he?¶

3 A. I don't remember.¶

4 Q. Well, do you remember him producing any
5 documents at the second, at his completion of his
6 deposition?¶

7 A. I don't remember.¶

8 Q. Do you recall him saying that he might
9 have some sort of book or some sort of list of names
10 and addresses and/or names, excuse me, of females
11 who may have come to Mr. Epstein's house along with
12 phone numbers?¶

13 A. I don't remember if he said that or it says
14 that in the police report, but I remember that
15 information at some point in time.¶

16 Q. All right. And subsequent, at the
17 conclusion -- well, let me strike that.¶

18 Do you recall receiving any documents from
19 Mr. Rodriguez that were produced at his deposition
20 that had the names and addresses and/or phone
21 numbers of any other females?¶

22 A. I don't know. Do you? We were there together
23 I don't remember specifically. I think the answer is
24 no.¶

25 Q. And I think you're right.¶

1 A. Okay. 1 instruction. 2 Q. We agree on that. 2 BY MR. CRITIC:0N: 3 A. Okay. 3 Q. Did W. Mr. Rodriguez ever make a request 4 Q. Subsequent to the deposition; that is, 4 of you at any time for any type of monies for 5 after Mr. Rodriguets deposition, did Mr. Rodriguez 5 testimony, documents, or any other information 6 contact you? 6 associated with any existing or potential claimants 1 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, instruct you not 7 directed to Mr. Epstein? 8 to answer. 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and 9 MR. CRITTON: Well, thisji=ily. This 9 instruction. 10 is a third party contacting Mr. . AU 10 BY MR. CRITTON: 11 right. 11 Q. Subsequent, after Mr. Rodriguez or from 12 MR. SCAROLA: It is not — 12 the tint that Mr. Rodriguez completed his deposition 13 MR. CRITTON: It's just a yes or no Pm 13 on August 7th of 2009, did you have tun occasion to 14 looking for. 14 speak with either the FBI, well, with the FBI 15 MR. SCAROLA: It is a witness in these 15 regarding Alfredo Rodriguez? 16 proceedings. 16 MR. SCAROLA: Sant objection and 17 MR. CRITTON: So. 17 instruction. /8 OLA: So, anything that 18 BY MR. CRITTON: 19 Mr. has done or may have done in 19 Q. Did you Idler Mr. Rodriguez's completion 20 connection with his investigation and 20 of his deposition on August 7th, 2009, did you have 21 prosecution of the claims against Mr. Rothstein 21 an occasion to speak with any representative, a 22 it is our position is not the appropriate 22 professional attorney, professional slash attorney 23 subject matter of inquiry in the context of 23 for the US. Attorney's Office? 24 this lawsuit, and is an attempt to invade the 24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and 25 attorney-client and work-product privileges. I 25 instruction.¶

Page 209 Page 211 5 respond to them. 5 MR. CRITTON: Let me show you what I will¶

1 am instructing him not to answer. 1. BY MR. C alT• _Fa% 2 if the court, if the court determines that 2 Q. Mr. , are you familiar with the, 3 the scope of the privilege permits a response 3 the criminal complaint that was filed relating to 4 to these questions, we would be happy to 4 Alfredo Rodriguez? 6 But we have an obligation to, to 6 mark as Exhibit 1 to the deposition. 7 Mr. Edward's clients to protect their rights to 7 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. I was marked for a a fair trial and their rights to 8 identification.) 9 confidentiality, and for that reason we are 9 MR. SCAROLA: By that question, does that 10 obliged to interpret those privileges in their 10 mean has he seen it before? 11 broadest sense unless and until the court 11 MR. CRITTON: First, let me show you 12 decides that a more restrictive interpretation 12 Exhibit 1. Do you — it's a criminal 13 should be applied. 13 complaint, the United States of America versus 14 BY MR. CRITTON: 14 Alfredo Rodriguez. 15 Q. Between the first and second deposition of 15 MR. SCAROLA: Is your question has he seen 16 Mr. Rodriguez, I think you, I think you indicated 16 it before? 17 that you did not speak with him; is that correct? 17 MR. CRITTON: Yes. 18 A. You're asking me if I indicated to you 18 MR. SCAROLA: Pm not sure what "are you 19 previously during this deposition whether -- 19 familiar with it" means. 20 Q. Right. 20 BY MR. CRITTON: 21 A. —I spoke to him or not? I, I don't 21 Q. Have you seen this criminal complaint 22 remember. 22 before today? 23 Q. Did you speak with Mr. Rodriguez between 23 A. Yes. 24 his first and second. 24 Q. When did you first see this document? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 25 A. I — I don't know.¶

1 Q. Did you, did you see Exhibit 1, the
2 criminal complaint, prior to the time that it was
3 filed in the United States District Court?
4 A. Did I see it prior to it being filed?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. No, no.
7 Q. Okay. Did you provide an affidavit to any
8 individual at the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's Office
9 in support of, although not attached to this, to
10 Exhibit 1, the criminal complaint?
11 A. Repeat.
12 Q. Did you sign any affidavit or give, give
13 any sworn testimony associated with the criminal
14 complaint that was filed by the United States of
15 America versus Mr. Rodriguez?
16 A. It's obvious to me that you're trying to
17 circumvent the privileges that have been placed on the
18 record. I will answer that question that, no, I did
19 not, but I am not here to divulge anything that may
20 waive my attorney-client or work-product privilege or
21 otherwise jeopardize the claims that my three clients
22 are pursuing against Jeffrey Epstein for their being
23 sexually molested by him when they were underage minor
24 females.
25 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], are you the cooperating¶

1 during your years that you had worked as a State
2 Attorney?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Did you meet her only as a result
5 of Epstein related matters?
6 A. Yes, in its broadest sense I suppose.
7 Q. Did you, did you have, before you began
8 representing E.W., did you know who [REDACTED] Villafana
9 was?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. What, what was your first association or
12 what contact was, what was your first contact with
13 [REDACTED] Villafana ever?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. But if I understand correctly you only
16 know her through the context of the Jeffrey Epstein
17 matter; is that correct?
18 A. Her involvement with, yes.
19 Q. And that you only knew of her involvement
20 in the Jeffrey Epstein matter after you began
21 representing E.W.?
22 A. I don't believe that to be accurate.
23 Q. What involvement could you possibly, what
24 involvement would you have had with Mrs. Villafana
25 before you became involved in representing someone¶

1 witness who was referenced in the criminal
2 complaint, Exhibit 1?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Could you explain to us for
4 the record, please, how that line of inquiry is
5 reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
6 evidence in this case?
7 MR. CRITTON: I am not prepared to do that
8 right now.
9 MR. SCAROLA: Then I am not prepared to
10 allow Mr. [REDACTED] to answer that question
11 outside the presence of an Assistant United
12 States Attorney who can make a judgment as to
13 whether that is information that ought to be
14 disclosed.
15 BY MR. CRITTON:
16 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], you knew or you first [REDACTED]
17 Villafana through the complaint you filed on behalf
18 of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in July of 2008,
19 correct?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Had you spoken with her before that period
22 of time; that is, before the complaint was ever
23 filed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I am now -- did you know Ms. Villafana¶

1 associated with the Epstein matter?
2 A. I believe that I had read her name in the
3 newspaper related to some involvement with Jeffrey
4 Epstein's criminal investigation and/or case. I think
5 that's the first time I saw her name, I believe.
6 Q. Before, before you filed a lawsuit against
7 the United States of America, and I may have asked
8 you this earlier, so I apologize, did you ever speak
9 with Mrs. Villafana?
10 A. I believe that any communications that I would
11 have had with respect to Mrs. Villafana would have only
12 been in the interest of pursuing claims on behalf of the
13 clients that I represented. And therefore I am going to
14 claim a work-product privilege as to those
15 communications.
16 Q. Okay. My, my question was is only did you
17 speak with her prior to filing that complaint? Just
18 a yes or a no, and I am looking, that question is
19 not asking for the substance. I am just asking for
20 a yes or no.
21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
22 instruction.
23 BY MR. CRITTON:
24 Q. During the course of the litigation with
25 the United States Attorney's Office, I assume you¶

1 had conversations with Mrs. Villafana from time to 2 time?¶

3 A. Okay.¶

4 Q. Is that true?¶

5 A. Is your assumption true?¶

6 Q. Correct.¶

7 A. I have spoken with Ms. Villafana.¶

8 Q. And when you spoke with Ms. Villafana¶

9 let me strike that. Have the versations 10 that you have had with Mr. Villafana or¶

11 Villafana, have they only been in the context of 12 Jane Doe I and 2 versus United States of America, 13 only in the context of that case?¶

14 MR.. SCAROLA Same objection.¶

15 MR. CRITTON: And I will separate out to 16 the extent that you were at the June 12th,¶

17 2009, hearing in front of Judge Marra where she 18 was present.¶

19 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 20 instruction.¶

21 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

22 Q. Has Ms.— have you spoken, have you had an 23 occasion to speak with Ms. Villafana with regard to 24 the criminal complaint, Exhibit No. I, involving 25 Alfredo Rodriguez, Mr. Rodriguez?¶

1 2 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction.¶

3 BY MR.¶

4 5 6 Q. Mr. have you ever been interviewed y FBI or the U.S. Attorneys oe lerg with regard to any of your clients?¶

7 8 MR. SCAROLA: Any of the three clients who have claims against Mr. Epstein?¶

9 MR. CRITION: Correct.¶

10 11 SCAROLA: Sane objection, same instruction.¶

12 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

13 Q. Do you know Agent Nesbitt, sir?¶

14 A. Yes.¶

15 16 Q. And bow do you know Agent Nesbitt from the FBI?¶

17 A. I Can answer if you want.¶

18 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. That's fine.¶

19 MR. CRITTON: Nesbitt Kirkendall!.¶

20 THE WITNESS: I don't laiow her last name¶

21 but I do lcnow the first name is, the fast name¶

22 is obviously an unusual name, so I do know who¶

23 that is. I met her outside of the courtroom¶

24 related to the Jane Doe 1 and 2 versus United¶

25 States of America case. 1 BY MR. CRMON:¶

2 Q. Did you speak with Agent Nesbitt at that 3 time?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

Q. Okay. And what did, what did, did she 6 initiate the conversation or did you?¶

7 A. The court initiated the conversation.¶

8 Q. Did the court say go outside and talk?¶

9 A. Right¶

10 Q. The court being Judge Marra?¶

11 A. Correct.¶

12 Q. And who else was present for drat 13 conversation?¶

14 A. I don't remember. MVillafana.¶

15 Q. Okay. What was the discussion about that 16 the court ordered?¶

17 A. The failure of U.S. Attorney's Offir,e to 18 meaningfully confer with thenumerous victims of Jeffrey 19 Epstein's sexual ibuse prior to negotiating a plea in 20 his criminal matter.¶

21 Q. flow bug did the conversation last?¶

22 Laos than ten minutes.¶

23 Q "-Was Agent Jason Richards there as well?¶

24 There was a male agent there. I don't bow AA52C name, but there was another FBI agent.¶

V Q. Did Agent Nesbitt Kirkendahl, did she say 2 anything? Did she participate in the conversation?¶

A. No. 3¶

Q. Okay. Was it just Mrs. Villafana? 4¶

A. There was another U.S. Attorney there.¶

Q. A U.S.A.O. there? 6¶

A. Yes.¶

Q. Do you remember a he or a abe? 8¶

A. He. 9¶

Q. Do you remember his name? 10¶

A. Lee. 11¶

Q. Lee? 12¶

A. I think that's his last name. Dexter Lee. 13¶

Q. Did Mr. did Dexter Lee, is he the one who conducted the conversation with you? 14 15¶

A. Yes. 16¶

Q. What was his response to your statement? 17¶

A. That this conversation is more complicated than the time constraints that we have right now will allow. We are not going to come to a resolution at this point on any issues that you or your clients believe are pertinent to the case you filed. 15 19 20 21 22¶

Q. That was the end of the conversation? 23¶

A. I mean. I am not quoting verbatim, but, yes that was the statutory. 24 25¶

1 Q. And did you go back in front of Judge
2 Marra that same day?¶

3 A. I can't remember.¶

4 Q. Did he issue an order based upon that
5 hearing?¶

6 A. The, the record in the case will speak for
7 itself. I really, I don't remember right now.¶

8 Q. Have you had any other conversations with
9 Nesbitt Kirkendahl other that? Well, I mean any
10 other face-to-face conversations with her other than
11 that one day back in July of, July or August of
12 2008?¶

13 A. No.¶

14 Q. Have you seen Nesbitt, Agent Nesbitt
15 Kirkendahl since July, July or August of 2008 during
16 that short conference as physically seen her
17 someplace?¶

18 A. Unless she was at the hearing we all attended
19 on your motion to stay that day when there were a lot of
20 people in the courtroom, the answer is no.¶

21 Q. Okay. Have you seen Agent Jason, assuming
22 the male agent's name was Jason Richards or Richard,
23 have you seen him since that day in July or August
24 of 2008?¶

25 A. I do not believe I have.¶

1 Q. Have you spoken with either Nesbitt
2 Kirkendahl or Jason Richard relating to any Epstein
3 related matter since July or August of 2008?¶

4 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to instruct you
5 not to answer on the basis of the privilege as
6 previously described.¶

7 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

8 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], have you spoken with any rep,
9 has any representative of the FBI attempted to speak
10 with you regarding your association with the RRA
11 firm?¶

12 A. No.¶

13 Q. Has any member of the U.S. Attorney's
14 Office discussed with you any aspect of your tenure
15 or employment at the RRA firm?¶

16 A. No.¶

17 Q. In any conversations that you, that you
18 had that you've had with the United States
19 Attorney's Office at any time, has anyone ever asked
20 you any questions about Scott Rothstein?¶

21 A. You're presupposing that I had conversations,
22 but I will answer the question whether I have or have
23 not had conversations. Nobody has asked me any
24 questions from the State Attorney's Office, U.S.
25 Attorney Office, FBI, or other agency related to Scott¶

1 Rothstein.¶

2 Q. So, it would be a correct, and I am going
3 to expand it, would it be a correct statement that
4 no representative of the federal government and by
5 that I mean the Department of Justice, FBI, any
6 other law enforcement agency nor any state
7 governmental agency has ever asked you or quizzed
8 you or questioned you about your association with
9 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler during the seven,
10 approximately seven months you were there; is that
11 correct?¶

12 A. That's correct.¶

13 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], has, has anyone from the
14 United States Attorney's Office discussed the
15 topic -- well, let me strike that. Have you been
16 granted immunity with regard to any aspect of your
17 work associated with either the Epstein files or the
18 Rothstein prosecution?¶

19 A. I don't understand your question.¶

20 Q. Okay. You're aware that Mr. --¶

21 A. I can answer, no. I haven't been granted
22 immunity to anything, so it doesn't matter what your
23 question is.¶

24 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any conversations
25 with any of the probation officers in Palm Beach¶

1 County regarding Mr. Epstein?¶

2 A. No.¶

3 Q. Have you directed that anyone have any
4 discussions with the probation officers in Palm
5 Beach County regarding Mr. Epstein?¶

6 A. That is clearly calling for work-product
7 privilege information. I'm not going to answer the
8 question.¶

9 Q. Have you had any discussion with any of
10 the other lawyers who represent clients in the
11 Epstein, in Epstein related matters regarding
12 Mr. Epstein's probation?¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
14 instructions, and I would add to those
15 objections the objection based upon a joint
16 prosecution interest.¶

17 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

18 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], among the Plaintiffs'
19 lawyers, is there any type of joint prosecution
20 agreement related to Mr. Epstein?¶

21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
22 instruction.¶

23 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

24 Q. Did you have -- did you engage in weekly
25 or monthly meetings among the Plaintiffs' lawyer to¶

1 share investigative material regarding, that you had
2 obtained regarding Mr. Epstein?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Same objections and
4 instructions.
5 BY MR. CRITTON:
6 Q. Did you provide any of the investigative
7 materials that had been acquired by you to any other
8 person outside of the RRA firm and the [REDACTED], Jaffe
9 firm up through the current date?
10 MR. SCAROLA: Would you read that question
11 back?
12 BY MR. CRITTON:
13 Q. Let me ask it. During the time that you
14 were with RRA, excuse me, and had investigation done
15 on Mr. Epstein, was any of your investigation that
16 you had performed turned over to any person outside
17 of RRA or your clients?
18 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
19 instruction to the extent that that would
20 encompass other attorneys with a shared
21 interest in the prosecution of Mr. Epstein.
22 If any of those materials were turned over
23 to persons who did not have a direct interest
24 to lawyers who did not have a direct interest
25 in the prosecution of the claims against¶

1 Mr. Epstein or to clients who did not have, to
2 persons who did not have a direct interest in
3 the pursuit of their claims against
4 Mr. Epstein, then you can answer to that
5 extent.
6 THE WITNESS: Privileged.
7 BY MR. CRITTON:
8 Q. And I just want to be clear is, is there
9 any written agreement and I know you, I want to make
10 certain that the objection is there, is as we both
11 know there are a number of claims. There are a
12 number of claims that are outstanding against
13 Mr. Epstein brought by a number of different
14 lawyers.
15 MR. SCAROLA: The objection extends to
16 both written agreements and oral agreements.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. We both know that
18 there are a lot of claims against Mr. Epstein
19 for basically the same conduct.
20 BY MR. CRITTON:
21 Q. And my question to you is is, is there any
22 written agreement between the Plaintiff lawyers who
23 have filed claims against Mr. Epstein regarding the
24 sharing of information?
25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same¶

1 instruction.
2 BY MR. CRITTON:
3 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], do any of the
4 investigators -- let me strike that. Did any of the
5 investigators who worked for RRA refer any Epstein
6 client to you?
7 A. What is an Epstein client?
8 Q. I am sorry. Did any of the investigators
9 who worked for RRA refer a perspective claimant
10 against Mr. Epstein to you?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did any of your, did any of the RRA
13 investigators ever meet with your three clients?
14 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
15 instruction.
16 MR. CRITTON: Okay. And I'm looking for
17 is a yes/no.
18 MR. SCAROLA: Correct. Same objection,
19 same instruction.
20 BY MR. CRITTON:
21 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], during the time that you were
22 with RRA, did you, your e-mail, was your only e-mail
23 address bedwards@rra-law.com?
24 A. I only had one e-mail address.
25 Q. All right. Did you ever receive any¶

1 information regarding your cases at your home
2 e-mail?
3 A. I don't remember.
4 Q. Okay. What is your home e-mail address,
5 please.
6 THE WITNESS: Do I give this?
7 MR. SCAROLA: (Mr. Scarola nods his head.)
8 THE WITNESS: B-r-a-d-d-6-9@hotmail.com.
9 BY MR. CRITTON:
10 Q. Did you have a separate fax number at RRA
11 when you were there; that is, just so a fax would
12 come directly to either yours or an area where you
13 were located?
14 A. No.
15 Q. In any of the directions that you ever
16 gave to the investigators, did you ever put that in
17 the form of a memo; that is, would you give them
18 written directions?
19 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
20 instruction.
21 BY MR. CRITTON:
22 Q. To your knowledge did any of the
23 investigations that were done regarding Mr. Epstein,
24 were they provided to any other person at RRA?
25 A. Excuse me?¶

1 Q. You have testified that investigations 2 were done during the time, on Mr., relating to 3 Mr. Epstein during the time that you were at RRA 4 A. Right. 5 Q. My question to you is, did you -- first of 6 all did you receive written reports in addition to 7 =imports? 8 A. Prom the investigators? 9 Q. Yes, sir. 10 THE WITNESS: Answer? 11. MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. 12 THE WITNESS: The reports were — yes,1 13 did. 14 BY MR. CRITTON: 15 Q. And were the reports provided by e-mail or 16 were they provided by, in the form of a memo that 17 would be sent from the investigator to you or both? 18 A. I, I do not remember there being any in the 19 form of an e-mail. Does not mean that there was not. I 20 did communicate by e-mail with other members of the firm 21 and other members of the investigative team on all cases 22 as has been my practice all along practicing law. These 23 were memos, though, that were given to me that were not 24 e-mail form that were the standard memos that I would 25 incorporate into a witness memo file.¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 and Fm using just as an example, is that he came in or Scott Rothstein came in and looked at a particular file of yours, whether it related to Mr. Epstein or not, you don't know? A. I can't answer that question accurately. Q. Okay. Did you ever send investigative reports to other lawyers regarding Mr. Epstein; that is, if you got an investigative report from Mr. Fisten or Mr. Jenne or whomever, would you send those on to certain lawyers on a regular basis? MR. SCAROLA: You tan answer that question. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. CRI1TON: _ Q. What lawyers, other fitan yourself, were involved in the Epstein casts during the time you were associated with RRA? A. What do you mean by "were involved?" I guess all. Q. What, what lawyers actually worked on the file? liznow Mr. Berger worked on the Epstein, coma? A; In some limited capacity, correct. Okay. Mr. Adler I know attended %Stein's deposition, correct?¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And again that would just be in your, would that be in your electronic storage as well as in the hard copies? A. The version I saw was the electron" Q. So, that would be stored in the F program? A. That's correct. Q. All right. And again other individuals in the firm, other lawyers in the firm mightbe able to access that program, you just dolt know,/ A. Right Well, the progiain, obviously that's the program that the finn used; Now, whether they could access, if you could go across cases that weren't cases you worked on, 1 really just don't know. Q. As an example could Mr. Fisten, on the, on the Fortis, could he access your, your file on an Epstein case? A. I don't know. Q. If someone accessed your file, accessed your electronic file, would you necessarily know that? A. No. Q. All right So -- A. I don't believe so. Q. It wouldn't show up that Michael Platen,¶

4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. Did, did any other lawyers other than Mr. Adler or Mr. Berger attend any depositions? A. Your memory is going to be as good as mine there. I'm thinking. Mark Epstein's deposition was attend by Mier. Q. He went with you to New York? A. No. He didn't go with me to New York. He attended the deposition, and I also attended the deposition. Q. Both in person? A. Right. Q. Was he then for another file or did he meet you there to specifically attend Mark Epstein's deposition? A. Coincidence that he was in New York during the time when his deposition was being taken. Q. Any other lawyer that you can recall being at a deposition other than Adler, Berger and yourself? A. Not right now. If you remind me, I,1 may rien..niba. I don't remember right now. Q. Did other lawyers in the firm at RRA perform services on the files; that is, and by that I mean did they, were the),involved in drafting¶

motions, research, appeals, pleadings, papers that were filed? MR. SCAROLA: You can, you can answer whether they were, there were other lawyers involved in drafting tasks without identifying what those may have been. THE WITNESS: Other lawyers contributed to some extent to the prosecution of those cases. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Who? Names. I'm not asking for tasks. MR. SCAROLA: You can answer. MR. CRITTON: I am asking for names. THE WITNESS: Bill Berger, Judge ^a Adler, Rob Buschel. BY ,RITTON: MI Q. B-o-u-c-h-e-1? A. I don't know how to spell it. B-u, I don't know how, B-u-s-c-h-e-I, I believe. Q. All right. Is he cturemly with you now? 20 A. No. Q. Any other lawyers? A. And you're asking for no matter how minimal, just anything done by any lawyers? Q. Correct. A. Michael, I think his name is Michael. It was¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another lawyer. That's, that's — those are the area that I can remember right now. Q. Were there ever meetings that occunnd, well, not — were there ever specific meetings were attended by various lawyers to disc Epstein's cases? MR. SCAROLA: You can answer were meetings. me WITNESS: There wenmeetings to discuss every case including Jeffrey Epstein's cases. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. And when you say there were meetings to discuss every case, were there routine meetings that were held to discuss your cases or cases in general? A. It's how the firm worked. If you wanted to discuss cases, or the case was a case that was thought to need more than one or more than two attorneys, then ^a meeting weld easily be assembled within RRA to sit around the table and discuss issues related to any case And yes, that happened with respect to cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein. Q. And so there could have been additional lawyers in addition to Adler, Ili Berger, and Rob Buschel and yourself that would have commented on an ?<IS / there¶

Epstein case? 2 A. When I was giving you that list of names, was picturing one of the couple meetings related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Could there have been other lawyers in the room, yes, but I think that is the exclusive list. Q. Did Mr., did anyone ever attend by phone meetings associated -- A. I understand. Q. -- that involved Mr. Epstein? A. 1 understand. No. Q. Did Scott Rothstein ever attend any meetings wherein strategy was discussed regarding the Epstein cases? 15 A. No. Q. The one meeting that you bad in Mr., Mr. Rothstein's office with IIIMAdler and some unknown person on the phone, were you given any direction at that time that certain discovery should be done cc certain tactics should be used with regard to prosecuting the Epstein cases? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same I ctfons. . CRITTON: " Did you ever receive any e-mail¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correspondence from Scott Rothstein that detailed or that set forth discovery that would be, that should be undertaken with regard to the Epstein cases? MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that with ^a yes arm THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Did you ever have, did you ever receive any correspondence directly, Mr., Mr. Rothstein to you, during the tint that you wore at RRA? A. Yes. Q. Did any of the correspondence ever involve Epstein or communication ever involve Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that. THE WITNESS: To some extent, yes. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Okay. And what did, what did, what information did Mr. Rothstein send you that involved Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Is the information that you received or the communication you received from Mr. Rothstein regarding, that involved Mr. Epstein, was that by¶

1 way of e-mail?¶

2 A. Yes.¶

3 Q. Did you ever receive any memorandum from
4 him; that is, a typewritten memo that was then sent
5 to you through office mail that was not electronic
6 involving Mr. Epstein?¶

7 A. No.¶

8 Q. At the meetings that you, at the meetings
9 that occurred where these various lawyers, Berger,
10 Adler, [REDACTED] Rob Buschel were present and Epstein
11 was discussed, was the discovery that, discovery
12 and/or investigation regarding Mr. Epstein was that
13 ever discussed?¶

14 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
15 instruction.¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

17 Q. Mr. [REDACTED] are you aware as a former
18 state prosecutor that there are laws against
19 conducting certain financial transactions in money
20 that's derived from a crime?¶

21 A. I don't understand your question.¶

22 Q. Okay. Well, you were a former state
23 prosecutor; is that correct?¶

24 A. Right. Yes.¶

25 Q. Right. Are you aware that there are¶

1 certain laws both state and federal that, that are,
2 that preclude conducting certain financial
3 transaction, transactions in money that is derived
4 from a crime?¶

5 A. Still don't understand your question. But
6 first before I try to answer your question, are you
7 taking me back to a time when I was a State Attorney and
8 asking back then did I know and then your question?¶

9 Q. Yes.¶

10 A. Back when I was a State Attorney did I know
11 that there are crimes related to money transactions?¶

12 Q. No.¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: Could I help you? Do you
14 want to ask him whether he was aware of the
15 existence of a state RICO statute?¶

16 MR. CRITTON: No.¶

17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.¶

18 MR. CRITTON: I am okay with that first,
19 but I am still going to ask my question.¶

20 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

21 Q. I assume you're aware of the existence of
22 a state RICO statute, correct?¶

23 A. I don't know that I was aware of that back
24 then. I just can't remember whether I knew about RICO
25 back at the State Attorney's Office. I never prosecuted¶

1 RICO claims.¶

2 Q. But you certain have brought RICO claims
3 against Mr. Epstein?¶

4 A. I know about one now.¶

5 Q. Okay. At the time that you were at the
6 State Attorney's Office, what kind of -- how long
7 were you there?¶

8 A. Three years.¶

9 Q. And what kind of crimes did you prosecute?¶

10 A. Beginning with DUP's through attempted murders
11 and everything in between. No -- well, not no, very few
12 economic crimes, some insurance fraud cases but very
13 few, otherwise drugs, guns, robberies, burglaries
14 attempted murder, aggravated batteries, those types of
15 crimes, false imprisonment.¶

16 Q. Well, were you ever, do you know what
17 money laundering means in a criminal context?¶

18 A. In some basic sense I do know what money
19 laundering means.¶

20 Q. What do you understand that to be?¶

21 A. That you, that the criminal takes money and
22 through some illegal means attempts to make bad money
23 legitimate.¶

24 MR. CRITTON: Let me show you what I will
25 mark as Exhibit 2 which is the complaint that¶

1 was filed against Mr. Rothstein, yourself, and
2 L.M.¶

3 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for
4 identification.)¶

5 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

6 Q. You're familiar with this complaint, sir?¶

7 A. Unfortunately I have read this frivolous
8 complaint.¶

9 MR. CRITTON: Move to strike as
10 nonresponsive. You've seen -- all I want is a
11 yes or no.¶

12 Are you familiar with this document?¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the
14 form of the question. It is vague and
15 ambiguous. I don't know what familiarity
16 means. He has seen it before.¶

17 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

18 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], you have seen and read the
19 entire complaint along with the attachments,
20 Exhibit 2?¶

21 A. I've read the complaint. I have never read in
22 the entirety Exhibit 2.¶

23 Q. Are you familiar, do you know what an
24 information is?¶

25 A. Yes.¶

1 Q. And that's Exhibit 1 attached to the 2 complaint, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And you're aware that, and this is the 5 information that was brought by the United States of 6 America, U.S.A. versus Scott Rothstein, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you're aware that within the well 9 let me strike that. Are you aware that 10 Mr. Rothstein has pled guilty to, excuse me, the 11 information that was brought against him by the 12 U.S.A.? 13 A. lam aware that he pled guilty to something. 14 Q. With regard to the complaint brought by 15 the U.SA., I am sorry, the information brought by 16 U.S.A. against Mr. Rothstein, I assume you have read 17 the allegations associated with the racketeering 18 conspiracy, the pattern of racketeering activity, 19 correct? 20 A. I haven't. 21 Q. Okay. If you turn to Page 3, Paragraph 4, 22 were you await, were you aware prior to coming in 23 here today that Mr. Rothstein was, that the charges 24 that were brought against him were for under, under 25 RICO but with regard to mail fraud, wire fraud,¶

1 asserted that the firm was a racketeering 2 enterprise, correct? 3 A. Not necessarily — no. 4 Q. Well, if you look in Paragraph 2, see 5 where the firm is identified as the enterprise of 6 the racketeering conspiracy? 7 A. Law firm. Paragraph 2 of the information says 8 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., was a law firm with 9 offices located at 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort 10 Lauderdale, Florida, and elsewhere. The law finn 11 employed approximately 70 attorneys and engaged in the 12 practice of law involving a wide rangeof specialties 13 including labor and employment law; 14 Q. Are you in Paragraph 2? is A. Of the information, yes. 16 Q. I'm sorry. I am looking at— my 17 apologies. On P111117111t12 under Count I, my error. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. See where the law firm is identified as 20 the racketeering enterprise? 21 A. I'm sorry. Your question is am I, do I 22 recognize that the law firm is categorized as an 23 enterprise. Yes, in that paragraph I see that. 24 Q. Have you had an occasion to discuss with 25". any, with either Mr. Adler or Mr. Rosenfeldt any of¶

1 laundering of monetary instruments, engaging in / 2 monetary transactions, and conspiracy to launder 3 monetary instruments and engage in monetary 4 transactions? A. I, I have read that in the newspapers. I have 6 been told that by numerous people. So; yes, I wee aware 7 of that. Q. And within the complaint at Paragraph 6 it 9 says the Defendant — 10 A. The information or the eon:plaint? 11 Q. I'msorry. Within the ittforrnation, 12 Exhibit 1 to the complaint, in Paragraph 6 where it 13 speaks in teem of the Defendant and his 14 co-Conspirators, conspinttOts agreed, agreed to 15 engage in a pattern of racketeering activity through 16 its base of opetatiorf at the offices of RRA Do you 17 see then -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. Do you know who the, do you know 20 any of the co-conspirators in addition who re 21 associated with Mr. Rothstein? 22 A. Assuming that they are former employees of 23 RRA, which I would presume several of them are, lam 24 sure that I probably know than. 25 Q. And you're aware that the government has¶

the allegations directed to Mr. Rothstein — 2 A. No. 3 Q. in the criminal complaint? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Since the implosion at the firm have you 6 had an occasion to talk about or speak or discuss 7 any rum business regarding Mr. Rothstein and the 8 ponzi scheme that he was running at RRA? 9 A. Have I had an occasion where I could have 10 talked - 11 Q. No, I'm sorry. Have you had an occasion 12 to discuss with Mr. Adler since you left the firm or 13 since the implosion any aspects of the, of the ponri 14 scheme that Mr. Rothstein and his co-conspirators 15 were running through the firm? 16 MR. SCAROLA: Are you asking whether he 17 did have such a discussion or whether he had an 18 occasion to have such a discussion? 19 BY MR. CRITTON: 20 Q. Did you have such a discussion? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Have you discussed that or have you 23 seen Mr. Adler at all other than hi, hello, since — 24 A. Yes. So, the occasion existed. We just 25 didn't have that discussion.¶

1 Q. Have you, and if I understand correctly 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off video 3 Mr. Adler since the implosion; is that correct? 3 MR SCAROLA: That will be a refreshing 5 Q. Any firm RRA business? 5 THE VIDEOORAPHER: We are now off video 9 A. None. 9 THE VIDEOGRAP • re back on video 14 your existing partners have you had an occasion to 14 the Epstein cases and your other cases when you came 24 A. No, way. 24 disCovety, that was your decision and your decision¶

2 you haven't discussed any firm business with 2 record — 4 A. Firm business? 4 change. 6 A. Right, no. 6 record at 3:44 p.m. 7 Q. How about with Mr. Rosenfeldt, have you 7 (A brief recess was held. . 8 had any discussions with him -- 8 MR. CRITTON: Mr. -- 10 Q. — since the implosion of the finn in late 10 record. It is 3:59 p.m. 11 October of '09? 11 BY MR. CRITTON: 12 A. No. 12 Q Mr. . when you joined RRA, if I 13 Q. If you wanted, if you had any, other than 13 understood your ear ler testimony, with regard to 15 speak with any other partners or former partners of 15 there as far as you were concerned is you had the 16 the firm regarding the implosion -- well, let me 16 ability to spend whatever money was necessary to 17 strike that — regarding the ponzi scheme that was 17 prosecute the Epstein eases (kir statement? 18 being run by Mr. Rothstein through the firm? 18 A. 1 don't know that that's true or ifs not true 19 A. I have spoken to my current partners about it. 19 I mean. 20 Q. Are your current partners, are you aware 20 Q. Well — 21 of any of your cumin partners being a target of an 21 A. My judgment was never questioned. 22 investigation as a potential co-conspirator with 22 Q. Correct. And therefore whatever monies 23 Mr. Rothstein? 23 you spent dther in investigation, in doing 25 Q. You're not aware of or no one has told you 25% - alone, Due?¶

1 that, correct? 1 A. Whatever money that I spent was my decision -- 2 A. lam not aware of that and nobody has told me 2 Q. No. Whatever money you spent on 3 that. ' 3 investigators, on doing depositions, on requesting 4 Q. Mr. Rothstein founded what was, what - -a-- 4 transcripts, on doing what was necessary to 5 ultimately became RRA in Improximatekir'2,2.. \ Were 5 prosecute the Epstein cases, that was your decision? ⁶you aware of that fact? . 6 A. No. The actions were my decisions in terms of 8 Q. How long did you think Mr. Rothstein had 8 per exercise was not my decision nor was I privy to that 9 been — well, let me strike that. How long did you 9 information. 10 think RRA had been in existence prior to your 10 Q. Well, but, you were the one who directed 11 joining the fun? What were you told? 11 that the particular task be taken, correct? 12 A. !don't know what I was ever told. I think 12 MR. SCAROLA: This is, this is 13 that I learned that information when the implosion, as 13 repetitious. 14 you call it, occulted. 14 MR. CRITION: I am setting a stage. 15 Q. And were you, in tenm of what the 15 MR. SCAROLA: This is repetitious of areas 16 revenues of the fora were, were you ever advised 16 of examination that were covered thoroughly in 17 what the :event= of the firm were? 17 the earlier portions of this deposition. 18 A. Na 18 THE WITNESS: If I wanted a witness 19 Q. Okay. Were you, were you familiar with 19 interviewed, I could ask an investigator to 20 what the expenses were associated with operating the 20 interview. The investigator, how they were 21. RRA firm? 21 paid, how much they were paid, whether they 22 A. No. 22 were paid is not something that I had any 23 Q. Were you in anyway -- well, let me strike 23 knowledge of at all. 24 that. With regard to -- let me take a five minute 24 BY MR. CRITTON: 25 break and let me collect my thoughts. 25 Q. Okay. When you ran your own finn you¶

7 A. Na 7 how to prosecute the case. The amount of money to spend¶

1 obviously knew what, whether hiring an investigator 2 or what a particular cost was because you had to pay 3 it, correct?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

5 Q. Okay. And I think as you described 6 earlier is that there had been very little discovery 7 up until the time you started working for RRA in 8 your three cases, true?¶

A. Not very little discovery. Obviously we had 10 gone through interrogatories, responses, request for 11 production, responses or lack of responses, however, the majority of the depositions that were taken, the cases just happened to be right last summer for most of those depositions to take place, and that's what happened.¶

15 Q. Not only depositions but as well the 16 investigation as you have described, your 17 investigator that you hired as an outside person 18 didn't really start until late March or early April 19 in conjunction with the other investigation that you 20 did during the time you were with RRA, correct?¶

21 A. Fair statement.¶

22 Q. All tight And when you were at RRA you 23 described earlier, and I won't belabor it, but you 24 described the compound I think is the word that you 25 used that Mr. Rothstein kept himself in when he was 1 2 Q. Okay. Were they all on the, were they, were they —¶

3 4 5 A. Some were B.S.O as well. Some were Broward Sheriffs Office. Some were from Fort Lauderdale. it was both.¶

6 7 8 Q With, with regard to the police officers and the Sheriffs Deputy's that were present, where they on every floor of RRA?¶

10 11 12 13 14 Q And had you ever been in a, in a law finer either as a visitor or as an employee or partner where you had seen armed guards than either a Sheriffs Office or a police department roaming the halls?¶

15 A. No.¶

16 17 Q. Had you ever been to the RRA offices before you accepted the job?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 20 21 22 Q. When you got there and you saw the armed guards patrolling the floors, did you ever have a conversation with Adler or anyone else as like what in heaven's name is going on here?¶

23 tem' rtA. I didn't sec them when I first got there.¶

24 25. V s How much time passed before you saw the¶

4 everyone else, true?¶

S A. Right¶

3 Q. Right. And he was not accessible toccila l¶

1 at the firm, correct?¶

2 A. Correct.¶

orvias la Kt '', 6 Q. And was he on your floor 7 completely separate floor? poi tiwi¶

8 MR. SCAROLA: As op Lo t partly 9 separate floor.¶

10 1'HE WITNESS: Fri most pan he was on 11 a separate floor.¶

12 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

13 Q. Okay. And were there guards during the 14 time that you were at, at the RRA firm, RRA, were 15 there MS guards that patrolled the hallways?¶

16 A. Yes. ----)¶

17 QkAnd was that from the day you started?¶

18 A. I believe so.¶

19 Q. And had you ever been in a firm where -¶

20 bless you. Had you ever been in a firm where 21 there - well, let me strike that. The guards were 22 what, Broward County Sheriffs Officers?¶

23 A. I don't remember the agency but they were¶

24 armed uniformed police officers. I believe Fort 25 Lauderdale.¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 a A. When I first started I believe that the people patrolling, I'm not sure that they initially were Broward Sheriffs or Fort Lauderdale police. I think that may have been a month after I began. From what I n.nrnriba seeing, and I can envision the people in my head, they were private security people. At least that was the appearance or the interpretation that I had. And I didn't question it at the time who they were.¶

9 Q. Within --¶

10 A. I don't think.¶

11 12 13 Q. Within a shon period of time though you recognized that they were either Sheriffs Deputies or police officers?¶

14 15 16 17 18 A. At the point in time where I recognized that they were armed uniformed police offices in the firm, yes, I questioned it not only to Adler but to anybody else, anybody else, because all of the lawyers in the firm thought it was strange.¶

19 Q. Okay. And what did Adler tell you?¶

20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That Scott Rothstein has a lot of money, prior to you being here, a female attorney was murdered and he wants to make sure that his friends and family are as secured as possible, that while he has this extra money to spend on security, he is going to do that for all of our safety.¶

A. It seemed that way.¶

1 Q. Did you understand as well that he had,
2 that the firm was paying for armed guards to guard
3 his house 24 hours a day?
4 A. No.
5 Q. When did you learn that fact?
6 A. After the disbandment of RRA
7 Q. Did Mr. Adler tell you that Mr. Rothstein
8 had amazing or substantial wealth?
9 A. I don't know in those words, but I, I
10 definitely understood that.
11 Q. Okay. In meeting Mr. Rothstein initially,
12 initially for the ten minutes as you were
13 contemplating taking a job and on the two other
14 occasions or the one other occasion when you saw him
15 out in the restaurant, I think you described him as
16 flamboyant?
17 A. I'm not sure I used that word but probably one
18 synonymous, and, yes, I would describe him as such.
19 Q. Was he someone that at least -- well, let
20 me strike that. Were you aware that he had a, a
21 watch collection of hundreds of watches?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you see him wear expensive jewelry
24 when you saw him; that is, the few occasions that
25 you saw him?¶

1 A. I went there one time.
2 Q. For what occasion?
3 A. I don't remember the occasion, but it was a
4 gathering that he had at his house and he asked, during
5 the course of me working there were ten occasions where
6 everybody was invited to go to his house for various
7 events and on one occasion, I went.
8 Q. █ all right. And from being in his
9 house did you recognize immediately that this was a
10 multi-million dollar house?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Was it on the water?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could you tell from the interior
15 design or the decorations that existed that this was
16 at least a man, a man that had significant wealth?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. And could you, did you have an
19 opportunity to see his collection of automobiles?
20 A. No.
21 Q. During the time that you were in the
22 house, did you have an opportunity, did, did you
23 walk around the house?
24 A. No.
25 Q. How many people were there, best estimate?¶

1 A. Never. I didn't take notice of that.
2 Q. Okay. When you saw him, was he dressed in
3 a suit or was he dressed in business, or in casual,
4 more casual clothes?
5 A. Always a suit.
6 Q. And looking like a million bucks?
7 A. Looking ridiculous.
8 Q. But something that looked very expense,
9 flashy, showy?
10 A. I couldn't tell how expensive it was, but
11 flashy and showy, yes. It may be a pink shirt with a
12 purple tie and a blue suit, something that you would
13 never expect a lawyer to be wearing, yes.
14 Q. And in terms of the, in terms of the, of
15 his personal wealth or his, his personal assets,
16 were you aware of where he lived?
17 A. Was I aware when?
18 Q. During the time you worked for RRA
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And were you aware that he was
21 living in a multi-million dollar house?
22 A. When, when I went to the house I, I recognized
23 it as such.
24 Q. You said you want to the house. Did you
25 go to Mr. Rothstein's house?¶

1 Are we talking like ten or 12?
2 A. No, no, no. 250.
3 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Rothstein at all?
4 A. Not even for a second.
5 Q. Could you walk anyplace in the house that
6 you wanted?
7 A. The party, at least to the extent that I
8 participated in it, was outside. So I, I don't know if
9 I could have walked around the house, but I did not walk
10 around the house nor did I really walk inside the house
11 other than to go in the front door, straight out back,
12 and then leave the exact same pathway that I entered.
13 Q. What his property located on Castillo
14 Island?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Were you aware or did you become aware
17 that Mr., during the time that you were there that
18 Mr. Rothstein had investments in multiple real
19 properties?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Were you aware at the time that you met
22 him first at the BOVA restaurant that he had an
23 interest in BOVA restaurant?
24 A. When I met him, no.
25 Q. Did he have an interest in BOVA restaurant¶

1 at that time?
2 A. I heard that sometime after I began working
3 there. He certainly acted like he did.
4 Q. Did you learn that he had investments in
5 other business entities, whether they were other
6 restaurants or other business entities --
7 A. Through --
8 Q. -- during the time that you worked at RRA?
9 A. Through rumors.
10 Q. And rumor was he had his fingers in many
11 different businesses?
12 A. It sounded like hundreds.
13 Q. And did you understand that he had a
14 substantial collection of automobiles?
15 A. What do you mean by substantial selection or
16 collection?
17 Q. Well, were you, during the time that you
18 were at RRA were you aware that he had Ferraris?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Multiple Ferraris?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Were you aware that he had a [REDACTED]?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were you aware that he had a Bugatti?
25 A. I heard that.¶

1 A. No.
2 Q. Were you aware that he had multiple jet
3 skis?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Were you aware that he had a 55-foot Sea
6 Ray?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you aware that he owned a
9 Lamborghini?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Again during the time that you were at
12 RRA?
13 A. I understand that. The answer is no.
14 Q. In addition to the, to the business of
15 owning BOVA what other business ventures did you
16 understand he had? I think you said you thought he
17 was in hundreds of businesses.
18 A. Through a rumor.
19 Q. Right.
20 A. I understood that he owned a Vodka. I
21 understood generically that he owned or purchased
22 various patents. I understood -- I didn't know what the
23 patents were. I understood that he owned other
24 restaurants. I understood that he owned or was partial
25 owner of Cafe Iguana.¶

1 Q. Were you aware that he had a Rolls Royce?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Were you aware that he had multiple
4 Corvettes?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Either a Corvette or multiple Corvettes?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you aware that he had multiple
9 Mercedes Benz?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Were you aware that he owned a yacht?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And was that parked behind his
14 house?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you aware that he also -- and did it,
17 if I was to say it was approximately an 85 to
18 90-foot yacht or, in fact, an 87-foot yacht?
19 A. I wouldn't quarrel with that.
20 Q. Did it also appear that he had a
21 substantial sport fisherman that was parked out
22 there as well?
23 A. I didn't see that.
24 Q. Were you aware that he had 33-foot Aqua,
25 Aquaviva?¶

1 At some point in time I learned that he
2 was owner or partial owner of the Versace mansion.
3 And I think in general it was always explained to me
4 or I overheard he had, he has his hands in all of
5 these, this assortment of businesses and those
6 business ventures have done very well, and that is
7 the source of his apparent extreme amount of wealth.
8 Q. Who told you that?
9 A. I don't, I don't know. More, more than one
10 person. I mean, that was just kind of the word around
11 the campfire so to speak.
12 Q. Did you inquire as to -- let me strike
13 that. Did you ever see any documents that reflected
14 or documents or read any information about
15 Mr. Rothstein that preexisted 2002 which was kind of
16 the start of the RRA firm?
17 A. I don't understand.
18 Q. Okay. Well, I think we established
19 earlier that your understanding was that RRA kind of
20 started as a firm in the 2002 time frame.
21 A. Well, you told me that and I have been told
22 that after the implosion that that was the time period
23 that RRA started. I didn't know anything about Scott
24 Rothstein until the year 2009 at all.
25 Q. Did you do any research with regard to¶

1 Mr. Rothstein prior to going to the firm and by 2 research I mean people Google. Did you Google him? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you, did the firm have a brochure? 5 A. I don't Imow. 6 Q. Did you ever see brochures in the waiting 7 morn or the reception rooms that described the firm when it was founded, background of the fiat,, et 9 cetera? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Was it on your web site? 12 A. Was what on my web site? 13 Q. The history or the background of the firm. 14 Let me strike that. RRA had a website? 15 A. RRA had a website. 16 Q. That's no longer in existence, true? 17 A. True. 18 Q. And -- 19 A. To my knowledge. 20 Q. Did you ever go on the website and 21 checkout the web site for the history or the 22 background of RRA and Mr. Rothstein? 23 A. I went on the website. I don't Imow that the 24 website even had a history. If it did, I &Ill tertian 25 ever looking at it.¶

1 Q. Did it, did, at least front what you saw 2 and observed of Mr. Rothstein, did it appear to 3 that the, his wealth far exceeded the type of 4 business that it appeared to you that the 5 doing? 6 A. I have no understanding wh 7 that's not something that ever crossed my a Q. Well, under these circumstances is. is 9 when you went to the firm, you had the ability to 10 your discretion to spend whatever monies you wanted 11 in prosecuting your personal injury and Epstein 3.2 cases. You, no one ever turned down a request 13 either for a reimbursement or told you not to expend 14 any money, trite? 15 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound and 16 repetitious. - 17 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the 18 question. 19 BY MR. CRITTON: 20 Q. No one, as to any expenditure that you 21 ever wade on an Epstein case 22 MIt SCAROLA: Isn't this about the fourth 23 time that you're eliciting exactly the same 2 4 testimony? Isn't it very clear the extent to 25 which Mr. _had control over financial¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 matters with regard -- MR. CRITTON: Form? MR. SCAROLA: — to these cases? MR. CRGION: Form? MR. SCAROLA: No, no. It's a, ifs a speaking inquiry. BY MR. CRI170N: Q. Mr.M hdic. icvet have any dealings wi A. No. Q. Am I saying it right? A. I don't know. A. lye seen the name. - ' Q. Did you lmow veto she was? A. In what way? - Q. As it related A_ I knew that she worked for the firm. Q. What did you understand her position was? A. Roglisteit a, Q. Did you to be the COO of, of the rum'? Right. I don't know if COO or whatever. but hand man; that's the person who gets him what ts. That's at least in a broad term what I¶

\ Cl I e- understood her position to be. Q. Did you understand she was a financial 3 person? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Or an administrative person? 6 A. My understanding was administrative. 7 Q. With regard to Mr. Rothstein's; that is, 8 his real property, his vehicles, his boats, his 9 business interests, would it be a correct statement, 10 sir, that you weraft concerned about the source of 11 his wealth? 12 A. You went through a list of the things that I 13 knew or did not know him to have in terms of assets. 14 And 'told you for the most part I didn't even brow that 15 he had those things. In fact, while you were out of the 16 wont, I just educated myself by reading the information 17 on some of the things he had and I didn't know until 18 right now that he had those things. But certainly while 19 1 was working at RRA 1 didn't know that he had those 20 things. 21 Q. That let me be specific. With regard to 22 the, with regard to the house that you knew he had, 23 with regard to the yacht that you knew he had, with 24 regard to the vehicles that you knew he had, with 25 regard to the business interests, at least BOVA and¶

at least what was rumored to be his business interest, did you believe that the source of his, of his apparent wealth was as aresult of the law fimi? A I believe that the source of his wealth was the law firm as well as the, what I have described as an assortment of businesses that he had his hands in of which only a fraction I was aware. Q. Well, what did you understand to be the source of the funding of the, of the Epstein cases and the other lawsuits that you had? A The checks I believe were written by the law 12 firm. Q. Okay. And what did you believe was the source of the monies that the law 6nn got to expend some, just on the three cases that you had with Mr. flpstein, some three to 5500,000, I mean separate and apart from all of the, your other personal injury cases and separate and apart from all of the other 69 lawyers who were in the law fine who also had 20 cases? A. I didn't have abelief at all as to the source of any of the monies that were used for any of the case. Q. Was it your position it really wasn't your concern; that is, wherever the money came from, it didn't bother you; all you knew is that the funi was¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 funding your cases" MR. SCAROLA: Objection, argumentative. THE WITNESS: Yeah. At the time I that I am working at awell recognized ^I with good people and that is ^a firm and this is the way that law level operate, and right, I didn't BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Didn't care? A. Right, I didn't care. I didn't question it. Q. With, with regard to, let me ask you some names and see if you recognize the names. Do you know ^aperson by the name of Barry Belckadan, B-e-k-k-a-d.a.n? A. Never heard the name until right now. Q. AL Discala? A" Again same answer. Q. Clockviork Capital Advisers? A. No,- never heard of them. Q. Razorback Funding? A. Nerve heard of it. Q. Michael Szafranski, S-z-a-f-r-a-n-s-k-i? A. Heard that name Q. And — A. — only after implosion and through papers and¶

"Go¶

things of that nature. Q. And that's my question to you: Did you hear these names before or during the time that you were at RRA as distinct from now? A. Of that list you just read until right this second, Michael Szafransld is the only one that I have ever heard of and that was after implosion of RRA Q. And again this question is specific to the time frame — A. Sure. Q. -- that you were there? Doopnic Ponatchio, P-o-n-a-t-c-h-i-o. 13 A. NO. Q. Moto, M-o-t-o, Ad6tt, A-d-o-n? 15 A. No. Q. Ever heard c) Vara V-a-r-o-n? "._A, 18 A. No. 1.9 Q. Onyx Capital?) A No.. - Q.. Onyx Options Consultants? 22 23 ²⁴Pio. 25S (./.' Pin tin, P-i-r-u-l-i-n. Group? ElVi'S Investments?¶

\ S" 73 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Shimone (phonetic) Levy, L-e-v-y? A No. Q. Obidia Levy, O-b-i-d-e, I'm cony, d-i-a? A. No. Q. Daniel Minkowitz, M-i-n-k-o-w-i-t-z? A. No. Q. Fortress. an entity know as Fortress Investments or Fortress Capital? A. No. Q. Drawbridge? A. No. Q. Capital or funding? A. No. Q. Do you know an individual by the name of, have you ever heard of, heard during that time period, did you hear of or know ^aperson named 0. Q. Banyan Investment Fund? A. No. Q. Did you know or hear of the name - Preve, P-r-e-v-e? A. No. Q. CV. Mr. Preve iuurportedly, was¶

1 purported to have an office within RRA's offices. 2 Have you seen that? 3 A. Have I seen what? 4 Q. Have you seen that in any of the news media, that Mr. Breve had an office within BRA? 6 A That name doesn't sound familiar at all. So, 7 no, the answer to your question is no, I haven't seen a that. 9 Q. Bill Brock? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Who is Mr. Brock? 12 A. In the law firm he went by the name Uncle 13 Bill. 14 Q. Okay. All right. Who is Uncle Bill? 15 A. Who do I understand him to be? I don't know 16 who be really was. At this point in time looking back, 17 there is no telling what anyone, what anyone or anything 18 was. But at the time I believe that he was a relative 19 of Scott Rothstein's. 20 Q. What did he do? What did, what did Uncle 21 Bill do -- 22 A. Some -- 23 Q. -- at the firm? 24 A. Something with money. 25 Q. Did he have an office at the firm?¶

1 A. I think the trustees an still trying to 2 figure out what he exactly did do. 3 Q. Did you have any dealings with him? 4 A. Dealings, no, I didn't have dealings. Q. Dealings of any kind? 6 A. I talked to him. 7 Q. Did you ever discuss any of 8 was he_ he wasn't a lawyer? 9 A. Far from it. 10 Q. All right. Did you everllecmy of 11 , 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your cases with him? A. No. Q. Just a hi, hello? A. Hi, hello, ad I was one of the lawyers who would cone in often and work on weekends ancl he waild be there. That's when I Would see him, and he would kind of, hey, bow taro doing wt eekend. Q. And do you know aSt Kreschrnar, K-r-e-t-e-h-m-a-r? A. No. Q. Same question again, do, these names during the time period, Doug Van Allman, A-I-I-m-a-n? A. No. Q. Ted Morse? *r <S \ 2¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 -7- A. No. Q. Ed Morse? A. No. Q. Richard Pearson, P-e-a-r-s-o-n? A- No. Q. Steven Levin, L-e-v-i-n? A. No. Q. Ira Sochet? S-h or Sochet, A. No. Q. Mark Melvin? A. No. Q. Jack Sasnoney (phonetic)? A in A. No. Q. Steve Jackeli A. No. Q. Have siu ever heard an attorney name Michael Legarnaro? A. Na Q. Kevin Dreher, D-r-a-h-e-r? , A. No. Q. David Boden, do you know David Roden? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Who is Mr. Roden, an associate —¶

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Are you asking me what I know now or what thought then? Q. Who did you understand Mr. Boden, David Boden to be when you became employed or associated with RRA in April of '09? A. In April of '09 I had not heard the name but let's just skip to it. Sometime in let's say June or July, I am guessing, sometime during the summer, I understood him to be a lawyer at the firm. Q. Did you understand, did you understand he was a Florida lawyer or you just understood he was a lawyer? A. I understood he was a lawyer. I made the presumption or assumption at that time that since he was a lawyer for RICA that he was a Florida lawyer. I have subsequently learned otherwise. Q. Did you know, did you ever have any business dealings with Mr. Boden? A. Never spoke a word to the guy. Q. What did you understand that he actually did at the firm? A. Had no idea. Q. How about Andrew Bamett? A. Don't know who that is. Q. There was an individual, he is described¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 as the director of Corporate Development for RRA A. I don't know even know what that means. Q. Have you ever heard of the Centurion Credit Fund or the Platinum Management Fund? A. No. Q. Man Sakowitz? A. No. Wait. Man Sakowitz. I have heard that name recently. I don't know why. I believe I actually heard that name in a response. Never nund. In some nonresponsive answer that your client gave, I heard that name.¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Keep going. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Mr. with regard to your phone, did you have a direct line at RRA? A. Yes. Q. What was that phone number? A I don't remember. Q. And is your cellphone today the same as it was back then? A Yes. Q. And what's that number, please? MR. SCAROLA: Cellphone number? THE WITNESS: 954294-9544.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fistos is my partner now. Marc Nurik is the lawyer who represents Scott Rothstein now. I don't know which it was, but it was one of the two. Q. Okay. Were you ever present at a meeting where someone who you didn't know was present when the Epstein case was discussed? A. No. Q. Were you ever asked to get on a phone call where the Epstein cases were discussed that you didn't, that you couldn't confirm who, wa have someone who may have said this is Joe on the other line, but where you discussed the Epstein case over the phone with another lawyer from your fur? A. I don't understand that question. Q. Did you ever make a phone call or did you ever receive a phone call where you discussed the Epstein case withanother lawyer in your firm; that is, that person 4 Q. 7061~1de orNe office? A. Obviously you would get calls \ \A. Even you. Q. — the confines of your office. Right. I¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It BY MR. CRJTTON: ,/ Q. Did you ever have a firm eellpheybe or justyour own personal cellphone? - yl A. No. Just my own personal cellphone, Q. During the time that you were at the faun, were you ever involved in making any type of ay} presentation to anyone regarding the Epstein eases? A. Including other lawyers wittier the firm? Q. Let me rephrase it lam going to rephrase. You already told us that you have talked about the Epstein cases with other lawyers, correct? A. Right. Q. Were you ever present in a meeting where there was a person wheat you did not know wherein the Epstein, where the Epstein cases were discussed? A. No. Q. At the, 0when you met with Mr. Rothstein in his office when Mr. Adler or whoever asked you to come up that one time and there was Adler, Rothstein and yourself, you said there was an individual on the phone? A Right. It was another lawyer with the firm. Q And how do you know it was another lawyer with the firm? A. It was either Marc Nurik or Mark Fistos, Mark¶

Page 273¶

%,y- understand that. A. You fall in that category. lam having a hard 3 time. 4 Q. The question is did you ever have, were you ever conferenced in on a call that was supposed 6 to be among RRA lawyers regarding an Epstein case? 7 A. No. Q. Did anyone ever request that you prepare a 9 summary of any of your Epstein cases that you in 10 turn sent by either e-mail or memo to anyone else? 11 A. I don't believe so. 12 Q. After you joined the RRA firm in April of 13 '09, did there come a point in time when you 14 requested that, that you requested the depositions 15 be taken out of state of a number of witness? Well, 16 let yrs ask you this question. 17 Mit CRITTON: Let me, let make it easy. 18 Let me show what I will it as Exhibit 3. 19 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 3 was marked for 20 identification.) 21 BY MR CRITTON: 22 Q. Before I get to that, Mr. M. were 23 you aware of any cases that Mr. Rothstein himself 24 settled for over $5 million while you were employed 25 at the firrn?¶

1 A. I was never aware of any cases that Rothstein 2 even handled much less settled.¶

3 Q. Were you aware of whether, did anyone ever 4 tell you whether Mr. Rothstein even did legal work 5 at the firm or whether he was just a rainmaker?¶

6 A. I no, no one ever told me one way or the 7 other.¶

8 Q. Would it be a correct statement that you 9 never saw him perform any legal work during the time 10 you were at the firm?¶

11 A. That's a correct statement.¶

12 Q. Would it be a correct statement as far as 13 you knew he was kind of a gadfly going to his 14 various business ventures and then he would hole 15 himself up in the office.¶

16 A. He was the guy on the billboards and at the 17 Triple A arena and everything else marketing the firm 18 and bringing business in, and that's at least what I 19 believe he did. If it's true or not, I don't know to 20 this day.¶

21 Q. With regard to Exhibit 3, do you recognize 22 this e-mail?¶

23 A. I, I don't recognize the e-mail.¶

24 Q. Do you recognize, and I will represent to 25 you that I received the email. It was sent to me¶

1 Q. Do you recall sending or directing that 2 this facsimile be sent. Or let me strike that Who 3 was your secretary at that time? Who is, well, BYE a is you. Who is the MOL?¶

5 A. Who is the MGL? Let's sec.¶

6 li Onhaa.There are your initials, J. BJE, and then MGL. Do you 8 recognize that?¶

9 A. No. I man, as you are very aware problems 10 with secretaries during that period of time, I, I had 11 more than my share and that could have been a time 12 period where I did not have a legal assistant at all. 13 And I do not recognize the initialsMGL to identify 14 anybody that I know.¶

15 Q. With regard to the individuals who were 16 listed in Exhibit 3, specifically Donald Trump, 17 Leslie Wexner, Bill Clinton, with those individuals, 18 you sent out this facsimile or at least your office 19 sent out the fax, Exhibit 3, requesting dates for 20 these individuals to be deposed, correct?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

²²Q. All fight. Prior to your joining RRA you 23 had never requested either that the deposition of 24 AaMr. Trump be taken, Mr. Wexner, nor Bill Clinton, 2V', ect?¶

1 2 as well although I am not shown as a recipient, IA received e-mail.¶

3 4 THE WITNESS: Are you talking fax?¶

5 MR. CRI1TON: I am sorry,¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: Exhibit, Eidtib¶

7 8 MR CRITTON: Exhibit 3. Let me again. Exhibit 3 is a fax.¶

9 THE WITNESS: Correct¶

10 MR. CRITTON: Dated July 22nd, 2009.¶

11 THE WITNESS: I recognize that.¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 BY MR. CRITTON: Q. And do you recognize on Page 2, it says very truly yours, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Alder and then there is a, wiltjalIbtalignature and under that it says pprsJ. Esquire, partner fart (sic) the firm. Do you see that?¶

18 A. Yes, l see that.¶

19 Q. Do you recognize the signature?¶

20 A. No.¶

21 Q. Is that how you sign your name?¶

22 23 24 A. No. Q. Do you know whose signature that is or purports to be?¶

25 A. I have absolutelxno idea. Page 277¶

2 A. I never requested a deposition to be taken including any deposition of those three individuals.¶

3 Q. 1 understand but all right.¶

4 A. The answer to your question is, yes.¶

5 6 Q. All right Thank you. Paula Heil, do you know who that person is?¶

7 8 9 A. Do I know who it is? I know that it's somebody who was involved with Rear Sterns at some point in time.¶

10 11 12 Q. You also requested dates, and in fact served a subpoena on Men Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, correct?¶

13 14 15 A. Correct Q. And Mr. Dershowitz you were aware was one of Mr. Epstein's criminal defense lawyers, correct?¶

16 17 A. At some point in time I knew that in the past he had been an attorney of Mr. Epstein.¶

18 19 20 Q. Well, you had, you had certain records from the State Attorneys Office. didn't you, or from the police report?¶

21 22 23 A. And that's what I'm saying, yes, involved in the civil cases with us, no, I didn't know that he had involvement. But, yes, I did know he was a former —¶

24 Q. rrn sorry, go ahead —¶

25 A. I did 'mow that he was a former attorney of¶

1 Jeff Epstein.
2 Q. Well, you also understood Mr. Epstein has
3 had ongoing criminal law issues even during the time
4 of the civil case, correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Sure. Well, you were aware that
7 Mr. Epstein was operating under the nonprosecution
8 agreement, that he was bound by the, a
9 nonprosecution agreement, correct?
10 A. I'm aware of the existence of a nonprosecution
11 agreement.
12 Q. Well, and in fact you came into possession
13 of the nonprosecution agreement sometime in 2008
14 because Judge Marra ordered that, ordered the United
15 States Government to turn over to all of the
16 attorneys and the clients who were listed as alleged
17 victims, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So, you had possession of the N.P.A. as of
20 sometime in the year 2008, correct?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. All right. And so you, and you were aware
23 that under the nonprosecution agreement Mr. Epstein
24 was required to meet certain requirements, that
25 Mr. Epstein had a requirement to meet certain¶

1 Tommy Mottola was listed. Do you know who
2 Mr. Mottola is?
3 A. Generally I think I know who that is.
4 Q. Who did you understand Mr. Mottola was?
5 A. Something to do with the music industry.
6 Q. All right. And the name David Copperfield
7 was also referenced as a potential witness in the
8 case, correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. All right. And did you -- and you, in
11 fact, attempted to coordinate a deposition for
12 Mr. Copperfield; is that correct?
13 MR. SCAROLA: Are you asking about whether
14 communications occurred with you --
15 MR. CRITTON: Sure.
16 MR. SCAROLA: -- regarding such a
17 deposition.
18 BY MR. CRITTON:
19 Q. Let me rephrase it. With regard to the
20 lawyers in the case, including myself, you attempted
21 to coordinate a time for completing or taking the
22 deposition of Mr. Copperfield, Mr. Mottola, who I
23 will represent is the former president of Sony
24 Records, former president Bill Clinton, Alan
25 Dershowitz, Donald Trump, and Leslie Wexner, true?¶

1 standards or certain provisions of the agreement
2 otherwise the U.S.A. could potentially declare there
3 was a breach of the agreement, true?
4 A. I suppose.
5 Q. Well, you're a former prosecutors too, so
6 you knew what a nonprosecution agreement was, true?
7 A. No, I had never seen a nonprosecution
8 agreement in my life before this one.
9 Q. When you got the nonprosecution agreement,
10 you reviewed it?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. So, you were familiar with?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And you understood from at least looking
15 at the police report that you had access to, that
16 Mr. Dershowitz had represented Mr. Epstein with
17 regard to negotiating his plea that ultimately was
18 reached in negotiations with the federal government,
19 true?
20 A. I knew he played a role.
21 Q. Now, with regard to Mr., with regard to
22 the depositions of -- well, let me strike that.
23 Also listed both on your, on Jane Doe's and L.W.'s
24 and E.W.'s updated interrogatory answers which were
25 provided during the year 2009, an individual named¶

1 A. False.
2 Q. Which of those, as to which one of those
3 is that false?
4 A. Tommy Mottola.
5 Q. So, but you did attempt to coordinate the
6 depositions of Donald Trump, Mr. Dershowitz former
7 president Clinton, David Copperfield, and Leslie
8 Wexner, correct?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. And with regard to Mr., well, let me
11 strike that. In setting these depositions; that is,
12 in requesting these deposition be taken sometime in
13 June and July of 2009 or requesting dates for them,
14 did you have discussions with other attorneys in
15 your firm as to the benefits that would exist in
16 your case, your three cases against Mr. Epstein by
17 taking these individuals' depositions?
18 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same as grounds
19 previously stated; instruct you not to answer.
20 BY MR. CRITTON:
21 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], were you involved in the
22 discussions regarding the deposing of any of the
23 people of these individuals, Mr. Trump; that is, in
24 discussions with any other lawyers in your firm
25 including Scott Rothstein?¶

MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Same question with regard to ^SMr. Dershowitz, former president Clinton, Tommy Mottola, David CopperfieId, and Leslie Went. THE WITNESS: No. MR SCAROLA: Sant objection, same instruction? THE WITNESS: And with respect to Tommy Mottola,l, that was not my firrn that was ^a separate law firm that intended to take his deposition. BY MR. CR1TTON: Q. Who was it that you understood was taking Mr. Mottola's deposition? A. Searcy, Denney. Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Rothstein or anyone on his behalf the value of taking the depositions of Thew, Dershowitz, former president Clinton, David Copperfield, and Leslie Wexner as an inducement to get Mr. Epstein to settle his lawsuits? MR. SCAROLA: You have already inquired of Mr. about the communications that he¶

BY MR. CRTTTON: Q. First, my question in the broad sense. Were you involved in the decision to pursue flight data associated with any planes purportedly own by Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: My objection - MR. CRIITON: In terms of the discussions within your firm. MR. SCAROLA: My objection and my instruction stands. BY MR. CIO-LION: Q. Did you have discussions within your firm with regard to taking the depositions of celebrities or famous people who were on, purportedly on Mr. Epstein's planes so that they could be deposed such that that would be an inducement to Mr. Epstein to settle his lawsuit? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. BY MR. CRTITON: Q. Isn't it true, Mr. MI that in taking the deposition or in anonym-Ig ^otake the deposition of Donald Trump, you had no information that Mr: nunp had any imowledge of any female, having; that is, underage female ever having been on¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mr. rein? 18 to had with Mr. Epstein. He has responded to y those questions previously. So, any further questioning along those lines is entirel repetitious. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Can you answer that question, you like it read back? MR. SCAROLA: Beyond has already responded, we would object on the of work-product and attorrietaitat privilege and ^Iinstruct you not to ansWit. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. CRTM3N: Q. Were you involved in any of the decision to pursue obtaining flight data from Mr. Epstein? Well, let me strike that. Were you involved in the decision to pursue flight data associated with any ^planes that were purportedly owned by ^r MR. SCAROLA: will allow Mr. acknowledge whether he did or did not communicate about such matters with opposing counsel. But beyond that I would assert attorney-client and work-product pnvileges and instruct you not to answer.¶

25¶

2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Epstein's plane and been, and having been assaulted by him? MR. SCAROLA: What Mr. knew or didn't know in connection with prosecution of pending claims is protected by ^aprivilege. I instruct him not to answer. BY MR. CRAYON: Q. Mr. IME did you know Officer Rooney? ^Imean, I knovrnoutave meet him now because you have seen him at his deposition, correct? A. Correct. Q. Did you ever meet with, did you ever meet Mr. or Officer Recarey at any time prior to his deposition in person? A. No. Q. Have you ever spoken with Officer Recarey at any time prior to his deposition, by phone or otherwise? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what context were you speaking with Officer Recarey? THE WITNESS: Answer? BY MR CROTON: 24 Q. Well, first of all, let me withdraw that ²⁵uestion. Excuse me. On how many occasions have O¶

1 you spoken with Officer Recarey prior to his
2 deposition?¶

3 A. One time.¶

4 Q. And when was that?¶

5 A. 2008.¶

6 Q. What was the purpose of the -- let me
7 strike that. Did you initiate the conversation or
8 did he?¶

9 THE WITNESS: Answer?¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that.¶

11 THE WITNESS: I did.¶

12 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

13 Q. Okay. What was the purpose of your
14 conversation?¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that the
16 purpose of your conversation was unrelated to
17 any pending legal matter, including in
18 particular the claims against Mr. Epstein, you
19 may answer. To the extent that it had anything
20 at all to do with Mr. Epstein, you should not
21 respond on the basis of privilege.¶

22 THE WITNESS: Privilege.¶

23 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

24 Q. Did you ever speak with Chief Reiter at
25 any time -- well, let me strike that. You were not¶

1 proceeding relating to any matter during the year
2 2008 or 2009?¶

3 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer.¶

4 THE WITNESS: No.¶

5 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

6 Q. Did Jane Doe ever come -- let me strike
7 that. Did Jane Doe ever come to your firm, the RRA
8 firm for any reason?¶

9 A. Yes.¶

10 Q. On how many occasions did she come to your
11 firm, to RRA?¶

12 A. I believe one time.¶

13 Q. In addition to, I assume you met with her
14 on that occasion?¶

15 A. Right.¶

16 Q. Was anyone else present?¶

17 A. I don't believe so.¶

18 Q. Did L.M. ever come to your firm at RRA?¶

19 A. No.¶

20 Q. Did E.W. ever come to your firm at RRA?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

22 Q. On how many occasions?¶

23 A. One time.¶

24 Q. Did anyone meet with her other than
25 yourself?¶

1 at his deposition, were you?¶

2 A. No.¶

3 Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken with Chief
4 Reiter at any time for any purpose as it relates to
5 Mr. Epstein?¶

6 THE WITNESS: Answer?¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: Only to the extent that --
8 well, you asked specifically whether the
9 conversation related to Epstein?¶

10 THE WITNESS: Did the conversation occur
11 is the question.¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: Relating to Epstein. Read
13 the question back if you would, please.¶

14 MR. CRITTON: Let me rephrase it.¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

17 Q. With regard to Chief Reiter, have you ever
18 spoken with Chief Reiter or now former Chief Reiter
19 from the Palm Beach Police Department for any
20 reason?¶

21 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer the "for any
22 reason" part.¶

23 THE WITNESS: No.¶

24 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

25 Q. Have you ever testified in a grand jury¶

1 A. Yes.¶

2 Q. Who was present?¶

3 A. Bill Berger.¶

4 Q. Did any RRA lawyer ever have an occasion
5 to meet with Jane Doe at, at a location other than
6 your office; that is, did you ever request that some
7 other lawyer meet with her, Jane Doe, for a specific
8 reason? Don't want to know the reason just whether
9 another lawyer met with her.¶

10 A. No.¶

11 Q. Did any other RRA lawyer meet with L.M.
12 separate, at any time?¶

13 A. No.¶

14 Q. Did any other lawyer ever met with E.W.
15 separate and apart from the one meeting that you had
16 with Bill Berger and yourself in 2000 -- I'm sorry
17 did --¶

18 A. We're talking always about the time period at
19 RRA I understand that.¶

20 Q. Correct. Did any lawyer from RRA ever
21 meet with E.W. separate from the single occasion
22 that you and Mr. Berger met with her at RRA's
23 office?¶

24 A. No.¶

25 Q. Did, did you ever have any type of¶

3. communication, and by that I mean either a 2 conversation or any writing with Mr. Scott Rothstein 3 about the value of the J — of the Jeffrey Ppstein 4 cases?

5 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no. 6 THE WITNESS: No. 7 BY MR. CRITTON: 8 Q. Did you ever have a conversation or 9 COntrattiCalioll where Scott Rothstein was present and 10 the value of the Epstein cases was discussed?¶

11 A. No. 12 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with 13 other attorneys at RRA regarding the value of the J., 14 of the Epstein cases that you had?¶

15 A. Yes. ¹⁶Q. 26x, With whom? 17 A. =II Adler, Bill Berger. I believe that's 18 it.¶

19 Q. From, from your observations when you were 20 at RRA, did it appear that certain individuals had 21 access to Mr. Rothstein; that is, other lawyers in 22 the firm had access to him?¶

23 A. It appeared to me like nobody had access to 24 him. 25 Q. In the particular instance that you got¶

1 not, just did you just not have an understanding?¶

2 A. i had an understanding.¶

3 4 Q. Okay. What was your understanding and what was it based on?¶

5 A. Based on numerous conversations with=¶

6 7 Adler that even he had a very difficult time gaining access to Scott Rothstein for any reason.¶

9 10 to pass on information to Mr. Rothstein about the Epstein cases?¶

11 12 A. No.¶

13 14 Q. Other than Mr. Ice who would make, h think you indicated earlier, on eight to ten occasions ask you about the Rothstein, I am sorry,¶

15 16 asked you about the Epstein cases, did any other person inquire on a somewhat regular basis or even¶

17 18 an irregular basis asto the status of the Epstein cases?¶

19 A. Yes.¶

20 21 Q. Who? SCAROLA: Again I assume you're¶

22 about pasons within the firm?¶

23 24 ON: Cornet. I'm back to only¶

25 You understood that, didn't you,¶

1 called up to his office, Mr. Adler was present along 2 with Mr. Rothstein and either Mr. Nurik or someb 3 else who was on the phone, correct? We 4 established that?¶

5 A. Correct. 6 Q. From your observations and 7 conversations with Mr. Adler, did ybu get 8 impression that Mr. Adler could have or would have 9 access to Mr. Rothstein?¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: By that I assume you mean 11 unfettered access?¶

12 MR. CRITTON: No, just easy access. 13 Unfettered suggests someone can walk in and out 14 of the office sod you already told me it was a 15 compound. Let me reask my question.¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

17 Q. From what Mr. Adler told you, if you had a 18 conversation with Mr. Adler about a particular, 19 whether it was an Epstein case or another case, was 20 it your understanding that Mr. Adler had regular, 21 some form of regular corranunication with¶

22 Mr. Rothstein?¶

23 A. No.¶

24 Q Okay. Did you understand that he didn't 25 have any connication with Mr. Rothstein or did you¶

Q. Did Mr. Adler, did you ever ask Mr. Adler¶

THE WITNESS: No, i didn't. I thought you¶

2 meant anybody. 3 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

4 Q. Okay. Then I am back within RRA because I 5 had asked you about Mr. Jenne.¶

6 A. Got¶

7 Q. So, l wouldn't go out. I want to stay 8 within the firm. Did anyone ask you or inquire of 9 you about the status of the Mk cases it was either 10 a lawyer or an investigator within the firm?¶

11 A. Maybe but, but none that I can really picture 12 as somebody who would do it regularly. If I was talking¶

13 in sane lawyer's office about any case or any issue,¶

14 there were times where i remember generally how is this¶

15 specific case going or that specific case, and at times 16 it was Jeffrey Epstein case.¶

17 Q. With regard to Mr. Jenne, what did you is understand with regard to what his position was in 19 the firm?¶

20 A. Something to do with the investigative¶

21 department.¶

22 Q. Okay. What did you understand about 23 Mr. Jenne's background. Let me strike that. Were¶

24 you a State Attorney's when Mr. Jenne was a Steward¶

25 County Sheriff?¶

1 A. I believe so.¶

2 Q. Were you still a State Attorney when
3 Mr. Jenne was indicted and then eventually ended up
4 in jail?¶

5 A. No.¶

6 Q. Were you in private practice at that
7 point?¶

8 A. Correct.¶

9 Q. But you lived then in Broward County, so
10 you followed the developments of Mr. Jenne's
11 downfall in becoming a convicted felon?¶

12 A. I was aware.¶

13 Q. All right. Was Mr. Jenne, would it be a
14 correct statement that Mr. Jenne and Mr. Fisten and
15 Mr. [REDACTED] were all at the RRA firm when you
16 started in April of '09?¶

17 A. I don't believe so.¶

18 Q. Which one was there when you started?
19 When I say "there," was already employed by RRA when
20 you started?¶

21 A. I am not sure if any of the three were there
22 but perhaps all of them were there.¶

23 Q. All you know is at some point you came to
24 be involved with them as investigators?¶

25 A. Correct.¶

1 Q. All right. With regard to Mr. Jenne, was
2 his office on the same floor as yours?¶

3 A. No.¶

4 Q. Where, was his office in any way near
5 Mr. Rothstein's?¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: What does any way near Mr.¶

7 Rothstein's mean?¶

8 MR. CRITTON: Same floor.¶

9 THE WITNESS: No.¶

10 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

11 Q. Did it appear to you that -- well, let me
12 strike that. You said that Mr. Jenne had something
13 to do with investigation, correct?¶

14 A. Correct.¶

15 Q. Okay. Did he ever describe for you what
16 he did for the firm?¶

17 A. No.¶

18 Q. And I think you said, did you say what his
19 title was?¶

20 A. I didn't know his title. I don't know what
21 his title is now.¶

22 Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Jenne why he was
23 asking you questions about the Epstein case or
24 engaging you in a dialogue regarding the Epstein
25 cases?¶

1 A. No.¶

2 Q. Did you ever find it strange that
3 Mr. Jenne was asking you questions about the Epstein
4 cases?¶

5 A. No.¶

6 Q. Did you ever ask [REDACTED] Adler as to why
7 Mr. Jenne would be asking you questions about the
8 Epstein cases?¶

9 A. No.¶

10 Q. And I think you told me earlier, but I may
11 be wrong so I want to clear this up. I don't want
12 to be repetitious here. Did Mr. --¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: When did you change your
14 mind about that?¶

15 MR. CRITTON: Earlier.¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

17 Q. Did Mr. Jenne, did you ever direct
18 Mr. Jenne to do any investigation on the Epstein
19 cases?¶

20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, work-product.¶

21 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

22 Q. Did Mr. Jenne ever do any investigation on
23 the Epstein files?¶

24 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, work-product.¶

25¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

2 Q. Did Mr., were you aware that Mr. Jenne was
3 attempting to shop the Epstein cases to investors
4 during the time you were at the RRA firm?¶

5 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, assumes facts.¶

6 THE WITNESS: No.¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: That's all right.¶

8 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

9 Q. Do you know Bill Scherer, Attorney Bill
10 Scherer?¶

11 A. No, I know of him.¶

12 Q. You are aware that he has a pending
13 lawsuit against various individuals including TD
14 Bank and other Defendants on behalf of various
15 investors; is that a fair statement?¶

16 A. I remember when that first came out. I have
17 not followed it. I don't know if it's active, if it's
18 still pending, or what the status is at all. But I do
19 remember a lawsuit being filed on behalf of somebody
20 against Scott Rothstein and others.¶

21 Q. All right. And do you remember, it's
22 within Paragraph 20 of the complaint it's a --¶

23 A. Of?¶

24 Q. Of, I'm sorry, of Exhibit No. 2. And it
25 states Fort Lauderdale attorney William Scherer¶

1 represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He
2 indicated in an article that RRA, slash, Rothstein
3 had used the Epstein ploy as a showpiece, as a
4 showpiece, as bait. That's, and the quote is,
5 Epstein ploy, as a showpiece, as bait. That's the
6 way he raised all the money.¶

7 He would use cases as bait for luring
8 investors into fictional cases. All the cases he
9 allegedly structured were fictional. I don't
10 believe there was a real one there.¶

11 Okay. If I asked you to assume that that
12 quote is accurate from Mr. Scherer, would it be a
13 correct, would it be a correct statement -- well,
14 let me strike that.¶

15 Were you aware that Rothstein and other
16 individuals were using the Epstein ploy; that is,
17 the Epstein cases in order to, as bait in order to
18 raise money for, for the firm and Mr. Rothstein?¶

19 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the
20 form of the question, but you can certainly
21 answer it.¶

22 THE WITNESS: Okay. I am going to answer
23 it to the extent that I understand it. No, I
24 was not aware that the Epstein cases were being
25 used as a showpiece, as bait. But you are also¶

1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Scott Rothstein
3 had represented to other individuals that he had
4 multiple other cases, multiple other Jane Doe's
5 which he was trying to market to investors?¶

6 A. No.
7 Q. Were you aware that -- do you have any
8 knowledge that Ken -- let me strike that.¶

9 Were you aware that Ken Jenne was
10 attempting to market or shop non-existent Epstein
11 cases to investors?¶

12 A. I wasn't aware then nor am I aware of that
13 now, so, no.¶

14 Q. Do you have any knowledge that Mr. Fisten
15 and/or Mr. Jenne would cart boxes of Epstein related
16 materials; that is, existing Epstein related
17 materials relating to Jane Doe and show those to
18 other investors?¶

19 A. Do I have knowledge that somebody carted?
20 Q. Yeah, are you aware that Mr. Fisten or do
21 you have any knowledge that Mr. Fisten brought boxes
22 of Epstein-related materials to show perspective
23 investors?¶

24 A. No.
25 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, assumes, Assumes¶

1 asked me to assume that the statement that you
2 have injected as Paragraph 20 of the complaint
3 is true and it begins with, or ends with I
4 don't believe there was a real one in there,
5 talks, speaking as to all the cases. And you
6 know and I know that that statement is
7 absolutely false in that you know each and
8 every one of the claims that have been asserted
9 against Mr. Epstein related to his molestation
10 of children, they are all true including the
11 three that I have against Mr. Epstein.¶

12 So, if you're asking me to assume that
13 this is it true, no, I did not know that they
14 were being used for anything.¶

15 BY MR. CRITTON:
16 Q. Okay. Well, as to whether Mr. Scherer was
17 aware as to whether there were three pending cases
18 or he assumed that they were all just made-up cases,
19 neither you nor I know what he was thinking,
20 correct?¶

21 A. Yeah, I don't know.
22 Q. All right. With regard to the Epstein
23 ploy, with regard to Epstein cases, were you aware
24 that Scott Rothstein was trying to market Epstein
25 cases; that is, three, three cases that existed?¶

1 facts not in evidence, no proper predicate.
2 BY MR. CRITTON:
3 Q. Do you have any knowledge that Mr. Jenne
4 either directly or directed someone else to bring
5 boxes of Epstein-related materials to show
6 investors?¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, assumes facts not
8 in evidence, no proper predicate.¶

9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

11 Q. If, based on your earlier testimony, if
12 there were boxes of Epstein materials on existing
13 cases, Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W., again if I
14 understood your testimony, that information would
15 have been available someplace in the firm and
16 someone who had access to the room could have
17 grabbed those files or taken those files and done
18 whatever they wanted to them, with them, and then
19 brought them back for storage, correct, and you
20 wouldn't know?¶

21 A. As is the case with every case in every law
22 firm in America, yes.¶

23 Q. With regard to the three cases that you
24 have now, does any law firm other than your current
25 firm, which is Farmer, Jaffe?¶

1 A. Weissing. 2 Q. Or RRA, Mr. Howell, or Mr. Cassell have 3 any interest in those cases? 4 A. No. 5 Q. At any time leetda that. You 6 arc aware that Mr. Affr has pled guilty to 7 an obstruction of justice cha on the news? 8 A. I don't know Alfredoe at all. 9 . Sorry about that. The head of Alfredo 10 . With regard Mr. Rodriguez, Alfredo 11 odriguez, are you aware through news reports that 12 he pled guilty to obstruction of justice? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. At any time have you been given access to 15 the pamphlet book and/or any of the yellow pages 16 that have been referenced in the criminal 17 indictment? 18 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to instruct you 19 not answer that question on the basis of 20 attorney-client and work-product privilege. 21 BY MR. CRITTON: 22 Q. Has the, have you been, have you had any 23 contact with the criminal defense lawyer for 24 Mr. Rodriguez? 25 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no.¶

1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 BY MIL CFUTION: 3 Q. Have you had any communication, 4 conversation but any communication with 5 defense lawyer about obtaining a copy 6 pamphlet and/or the pamphlet book or 7 pages that am referenced in the criminal i B that were at one tint in the possession of Mr. 9 Rodriguez and that he apparently was trying to sell 10 to the cooperating witness? 11 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to instruct you 12 not to answer any question about anything that 13 you may have done in connection with the 14 fulfillment of your responsibilities as counsel 15 for the Plaintiffs in the three pending cases. 3.6 BY MR. CRFITON: 17 Q. Again, of course you're going to continue 18 to follow Mr. Scarola's direction? 19 A. On what I have done or what I have not done, 20 all of that is work-product. 21 Q. Well, you have filed a motion to obtain a 22 copy of the pamphlet book and the yellow pages of 23 Mr. Rodriguez, correct? I am sorry, either a 24 motion — well, strike that You have filed a 25 motion in federal court to obtain a copy of the, of¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the information that is held by the FBI which would include the pamphlet and the yellow, the pamphlet and the yellow pages, true? A. I have. Adam Horowitz has, and I may or may not have piggybacked his motion. But as sitting here right now, I, I don't remember drafting that motion. Q. Are you sure he hasn't piggybacked your motion? A. Fm not sure. If you shown my motion, lean tell you whether I drafted it or not. Q. Have you — A. That, that was certainly Q. Have, have you also also served a motion to obtain Fel files that relate to Mr. Epstein; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Have you spoken as a result of the motion that you filed, has the government, have you spoken with the United States Attorneys Office or representatives for the FBI with regard to the motion whichyou filed? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, privilege and you not to answer. JR CRITTON: 44cQ. Have you received any type of response¶

from the United States Attorney's Office or the FBI 2 with regard to the motion that you have filed? MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that only 4 with respect to those matters that are matters 5 of public record; that is, if a response has 6 been filed with the court or provided to you in 7 the form of a pleading, you may respond. 8 THE WITNESS: I cannot respond to that 9 question. 10 MR. CRITTON: All right. We're going to 11 quit at 5. I don't want to go on. 12 MR. SCAROLA: You already, you already 13 missed that 14 MR. CRITTON: All right. Well, let's, 15 III adjourn the deposition today, and I will 16 arrange with you for a time to finish. 17 MR, SCAROLA: Well, so that the record is 18 clear, it is our position that you have had 19 more than adequate time to con 20 appropriate examination of Mr. , and we 21 will resist any further effort to depose him. 22 MR. CRITTON: I understand your position. 23 Disagree with it but understand it. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 25 THE YIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's¶

1 videotape deposition of Scott Rothstein. The
2 time is --
3 THE WITNESS: Whoa, whoa.
4 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. [REDACTED]
5 [REDACTED]
6 THE WITNESS: Please don't lump me in with
7 that guy, man.
8 MR. SCAROLA: This concludes the
9 deposition of Mr. [REDACTED].
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm sorry. This
11 concludes the deposition of Mr. [REDACTED].
12 The time is 5:07 p.m.
13 (A discussion was held off the record.)
14 THE COURT REPORTER: Did you want to order
15 this?
16 MR. CRITTON: Ask me tomorrow.
17 MR. SCAROLA: I will take a copy of it.
18 Let's stay on the record. We don't need to be
19 on the video record but I want to make the
20 statement that we would consider it entirely
21 inappropriate for any portion of this
22 deposition to be used for any reason whatsoever
23 that is not directly connected with the
24 prosecution of the pending claim against
25 Mr. [REDACTED] or the defense of the¶

1 DATE: April 30, 2010
2 TO: [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] S. ESQUIRE¶

3 O'Jack Scarola, Enquire
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA,
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
4 2139 Pain Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

IN RE: Epstein vs. Rotharie¶

Please take notice that on Tuesday, the 23rd of March, 20 you gave your deposition in the above-referred matter. At that time, you did not waive signature. It is now necessary that you sign your deposition.¶

As previously agreed to, the transcript will be furnished to you through your coursel. Please read the following instructions carefully:¶

At the end of the transcript you will find an errata sheet. As you read your deposition, any changes or corrections that you wish to make should be noted on the errata sheet, citing page and line number of paid changes. DO NOT write on the transcript itself. Once you have read the transcript and noted any change¶

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

19¶

20 Cynthia J. Hopkins
21¶

44 Cynthia Hogkins, RPR, FPR.¶

23 I do hereby waive my signature.¶

24 [REDACTED] JT [REDACTED] S, ESQUIRE
25¶

CERTIFICATE¶

THE STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

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

Dated this _____ day of _____,
2010.¶

[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], ESQUITRE
Job #1333¶

1	DATE: April 30, 2010	1	ERRATA SHEET
2	TO: [REDACTED] / [REDACTED] S. ESQUIRE o/o Jack Scarola, Broquere	2	IN RE: EPSTEIN VS. ROTHSTEIN
3	SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.	3	CR: Cynthia [R

Please forward the original signed errata sheet to this office so that copies may be distributed to all parties.¶

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read my deposition and that it is true and correct subject to any changes in form or substance entered here.¶

DATE: _____¶

SIGNATURE OF¶

SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT: _____¶

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION¶

In re:¶

Case No. 09-34791-SEC-RIM¶

Chapter 11¶

ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A.,¶

Debtor.¶

RULE 2004 EXAMINATION OF SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN¶

Taken on behalf of the Chapter C¶

DATE TAKEN:¶

TIME: 8:30 a. 04 p.m.¶

OAs,¶

December 1¶

PLACE: Jameci "ireflce Federal¶

ilding¶

Fourth Street¶

oom 11-3¶

AC4';4"4IK¶

Florida 33128¶

Examination of the witness taken before: Michele L.,Ervoy, Registered Professional Reporter united Reporting, Inc. 1218 S.E. Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (954) 525-2221 V¶

United Reporting, Inc. (954) 525- 2221

¶

1 2 3 the Ponzi scheme, and then, second, so we can do this quicker, if they knew of the Ponzi scheme, even though they may not have known what was going on.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A Let me just -- you got to clarify. I don't mean to be a pain in the butt on this, but you have to clarify Ponzi scheme for me. Because, again, you have multiple levels of criminal act in the law firm that you may not think was to the Ponzi scheme, but which you'll se on urther investigation was related to the Pon hems.¶

11 12 So you want to know wh in ief is as to whether or not they wore at any level?¶

13 14 15 Q Well, how about if I then and say that if MQII I:fte activity at the fl change the question involved in illegal¶

16 A Fair¶

17 4¶

18 ^Aat, sir.¶

19 20 21 Q Ywe will go back and we'll talk about whether or not that any of these people knew and IL_ then, third, what they would have done had they 21 11?.k mown.¶

23 A Okay.¶

24 25 Q So first question is this pertains to lawyers that participated.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Barksi? A No. Q Bill Berger? A No. Q Cirulniok? A No. Q Jodi A No. Q Pedro Dijols? A No. Q Ben Dishowitz? A No. Q Brad A No. Q Gary 1/714 74 SY A No. • A maNo. t: ) 02 </Sr No. 0 ^Q Seth Lerhman? gile. A No. 23 Q Arthur Neiwirth? 24 25 A On the periphery, I believe he had some knowledge of illegal activity just because of things¶

United Reporting, Inc. (954) 525- 2221

¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

he was working on, but he was not directly involved.¶

Q Okay. You mention Mr. Nurik.¶

Barry¶

A No.¶

Q Osvaldo 9¶

A No. .464sv¶

COS¶

Richard Wolfe? Q¶

Q Weissing? Matthew Weissing?¶

A No.¶

A No.¶

Q So that's a fairly subs lftumber of lawyers that worked at the fi dn't know about the Ponzi scheme. 777¶

A I mean, there a a hole section¶

Q Of those, did any of those names that I just mantle. you, excepting who you identified as being possibly Mr. Neiwirth, did they have any knowledge that you were involved in any illeg 1 activity? Forget the term Ponzi scheme.¶

To my knowledge, no.¶

Okay. Did you believe those were honest lawyers?¶

A For the most part, yes.¶

Q Okay. Each of them had obligations with respect to trust account maintenance under the rules 1¶

2 3 Do you know that, generally, because you're you were a Florida lawyer, right?¶

5 6 Q Did any of those lawyers know about the trust account defalcations that existed at the firm? Aelft,Sv¶

7 8 9 10 A here today, I don't knew who knew out of C:652S Certain people had I believe had information to know, but to my knowledge as people that you just read to me. On hos¶

11 12 Q When you say -- can your 1 what you mean when you say they had information to know.¶

13 14 15 16 17 A Well, for exampl thrMr. Neiwirth, there were times when ask for trust checks, and they were delay forl6 significant period of time. As a law know that there should be no delay in get rust check.¶

18 19 20 21 Ire tay had a standing order, which I believe t would take up to 30 days to get a the k. And that was to facilitate moving the y in and out of the trust account.¶

23 Q So you're saying that it was a red flag, as an example, for Mr. Neiwirth?¶

24 A That's my opinion, yes.¶

25 Q Okay. You never had conversations with¶

of the Florida Bar.¶

A Correct.¶

United Reporting, Inc. (954) 525- 2221¶

him where you admitted to him that you were engaged 2 in any illegal activity, did you?¶

3 A No.¶

4 5 6 8 9 10 Q Okay. with respect to the lawyers who were already identified au not being complicit in any of the crimes or having knowledge of it, do y have any understanding or belief as to, for have done? instance, we'll take Mr. Berger. Had he lea itn :ar AC;;:re the illegal activity, what do you belie he OUld Ns) w¶

11 A I believe he would have d it.¶

12 13 Q And how about with ros account defalcations? trust¶

14 1.5 A I believe Bi Berger would have reported it.¶

16 ASI: ^f Att Q Would ki have reported it?¶

17 A Ye .¶

18 Q Ill c activity?¶

19 A believe so.¶

20 Trust account defalcations?¶

21 A I believe so.¶

23 Q How about Mr. Cirulnick, would he have reported illegal activity?¶

24 A I don't know if he would have reported it.¶

25 He would have gone to Lippman, and then how Lippman 9 Okay. Q¶

10 11 A And understand, that is j judgment call, knowing them as I knew th¶

12 I don't know that¶

13 You're asking speculate.¶

14 15 Q Pedro Dijola, knew of the illegal activity¶

16 A He would have reported it.¶

17 18 Q And if he had learned of the trust account defalca tIlizilit s, he would have reported it?¶

19 "C es¶

20 21 Ire;Cil How about Hen Dishowitz? Would he have * Nfeperted illegal activity?¶

2 A Yes.¶

23 24 Q And same with respect to trust account issues?¶

25 A Yes.¶

1 would have reacted is your guess.¶

2 3 Q How about Jodi Do you believe she would have reported it?¶

5 A She probably would have gone to Lippman also.¶

6 7 Q They both, meaning Cirulnick and Jodi, 464 worked for Lippman?¶

8 A Yes.¶

O 'S¶

C¶

I¶

I¶

Q Brad, would he have reported illegal activity?¶

A I don't know.¶

Q Would he have reported trust account defalcations?¶

A I don't know.¶

Q How about Gary, would he have reported it?¶

CO¶

A Yes.¶

Q Yen, as to both questions?¶

A Yes.¶

Q Mark Fistos?¶

A Yes to both que O¶

Q Julio¶

A Yes, as tO both.¶

Q¶

A Pr¶

Q . NUrik?¶

solutely.¶

MR. NURIK: I would have shot you.¶

coe d¶

A Probably.¶

BY MR. LICHTMAN:¶

Q Barry ?¶

A Yes. Absolutely.¶

Q Osvaldo ?¶

1 I yield to Mr. Lichtman at this time.¶

2 Thank you.¶

3¶

4 BY MR. LICHTMAN:¶

5 Q I just have a few quick points.¶

6 A Okay.¶

7 8 9 10 Q Earlier in my discussion with you, you mentioned some of the lawyers at RRA who knew about or were complicit in varying degrees in the commission of the Ponzi scheme.¶

11 A In commission of il ivity.¶

12 Q Illegal activity¶

13 A Yes.¶

14 Q Yea. ? S '¶

15 You meAdo xM . Adler.¶

16 A Ye¶

17 Q as Mr. Adler's role?¶

18 A S veral.¶

19 20 Let me give you his key roles and see if Kth lead to other things.¶

21,r 22 23 24 25 Probably the most significant thing he did for us in helping perpetuate and really save the Ponzi from exploding was the New York hedge funds wanted to come down and do additional due diligence on our investment.¶

FURTHER EXAMINATION¶

44Se¶

's,e2¶

1 2 3 There were back and forth between me and the hedge funds and me and the Banyan people trying to facilitate the due diligence they wanted to do.¶

4 5 6 8 What ended up happening was Brian Jedwab, who was probably one of the more, I guess observant people in that group, decided it would be a good idea to give him -- and probably Gil colter also in the category of more observant pe i¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Huberfeld's groups, decided that t - the deal flow that we were saying exis suspicious, highly unusual, y mpossible, things of that nature is where up north and back to us dog and pony show to survive. Be u r we can't show the deal flow, one of two t i.ngs, going to happen: Either hearing from e needed to put on a if this thing were going they're lust g3Tng to cut us off or they're going to cut us of and the thing is going to explode.¶

19 20 Obviously, we couldn't allow that to¶

22 23 24 25 So initially what happened was they just wanted to talk to some of our referring groups. So I sent out an email to the entire firm -- I think it was the entire firm -- at least to the shareholders and partners. But it may have been to the all the¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 lawyers saying, We need people that refer us labor/employment cases to answer a couple of simple quustions. And I think I outlined the questions and specifically said, These ace the questions that ate going to be asked: Do you refer us business - labor employment business, and are you happy?¶

7 8 9 10 11 Then it got to the point where the d to that. Then they unagreed to that. clear that they wanted to come down. certain point in time, it became gl at the due diligence was going beyond th .¶

12 13 14 15 16 Before that, whe email, I had gotten ba out the firm-wide le of people. Russ had sent me people 1 ink Stu sent me some people. Maybe u other people sent me - possible re rrin awyers who would vouch for us.¶

17 18 19 20 Whe t got to the point that -- that then wen by e'wayside, because it became clear through s ng to Mr. Preve and speaking to Jack Simony, was for lack of a bettor term one of our ileic onficiants, one of the people who we wore closer to at the Huberfeld group of hedge funds, that they wanted to do significant due diligence and actually meet with the people that were sending us cases, that, of course, was a huge problem for us 22 23 24 25¶

ES • SErlirr TIC¶

1 because no one was sending us cases.¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 I went to Russ and so -- and I don't recall going to Lippman. But to Russ and to Stu. And said, Listen: We need to get some people together. These guys want to come down. The hedge funds are going to cut us off. This will destroy us. We need to get some people together.¶

8 9 Russ jumped right into the breach -and said, I got some people.¶

10 11 I said okay. Are these you trust? Yes.¶

12 13 14 15 16 AS%Iiiiv A he )1/4 All right. This • ha we're going to need them to do, and I t out for him. I told him very specifical We ed them to say that they sent us in the n re of cases on a monthly basis and --¶

17 18 Q And lMt would have been an untrue statement 0 tract?¶

19 20 Yeah. Everything that I'm telling you t now, we -- they needed to lie.¶

22 23 Q And these are lawyers that you're alluding to?¶

24 A Yes.¶

25 Q Outside of the firm?¶

Okay.¶

1 A Yeah. I'll tell you who they are.¶

2 Q Yes.¶

3 4 5 A These poople needed to lie to the hedge fund due diligence people to substantiate our deal flow.¶

6 7 8 Aimemc That's the conversation Russ and I had. We had to specifically say they sent us hunts' cases, which would have been false.¶

9 10 11 They needed to say that these were big dollar cases, in the millions a ars, which was false.¶

12 13 And they needed g hat we sent them huge dollar referral f ; false.¶

14 15 ;"( Huge doll me ing hundreds of thousands if not million 4tdo rs in referral feels.¶

16 So ther ere three main false components.¶

17 18 19 20 know. Wha uss did to find the people, I don't re he had conversations with them bdea e they needed to be instructed on which lies ell and how to handle this.¶

22 Q And indeed lawyers stepped into the role to perform for you and lie, correct?¶

23 A Yes.¶

24 25 What ended up happening was I got one legal -- legal group to do it, mutual friends of¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE N 109_ta?; 34"¶

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

18 U.S.C. §1962(d) 18 U.S.C. §1956(h) 18 U.S.C. §1349 18 U.S.C. §1343 18 U.S.C. § 2 18 U.S.C. §1963 18 U.S.C. §982(a)(1) 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1XCk¶

CO¶

INFORMATION¶

CR -COHN mkGinktivitUR ROZA&¶

Sr¶

FILED by O.C.¶

DEC 0 I 2009;¶

STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U. S. DIST. CT. S. D. W FLA. - FT. LAUD.¶

The United States Attorney charges that, at all times relevant to this Information:¶

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS¶

• 1. Scott W. Rothstein was an attorney admitted to practice law in Florida. Defendant Rothstein was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chairman of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.
• 2. Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. was a law firm with offices located at 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida and elsewhere. The law firm employed approximately seventy (70) attorneys and engaged in the practice of law involving a wide range of specialties, including labor and employment law.

COUNT 1¶

(Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. §1962(d))¶

• 1. The General Allegations of this Information are realleged and expressly incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

THE ENTERPRISE¶

• 2. The law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. (hereinafter referred to as RRA) was a legal entity organized under the laws of the State of Florida and constituted an Enterprise as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4). The Enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce.

THE RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY¶

• 3. From in or about 2005 and continuing through in or about November 2009, in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN,¶

being a person employed by and associated with the Enterprise described above, which was engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with persons known and unknown to the United States Attorney, to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c); that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and (5), as set forth herein below at paragraph 4.¶

THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY¶

4. The pattern of racketeering activity as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5), through which the defendant and his co-conspirators agreed to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Enterprise consisted of multiple acts indictable under the laws of the United States, namely:

• i. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 (mail fraud); 4 ,
• ii. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (wire fraud
• iii. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l) (laundering of monetary instruments);
• iv. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 (engaging in monetary transactions); and
• v. Tide 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h) (conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and engage in monetary transactions.

THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE RACKETEERING ACTIVITY¶

5. The principal purpose of the racketeering conspiracy was to generate money for the defendant and his co-conspirators through the operation of the Enterprise and through various criminal activities, including mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.

6. The defendant and his co-conspirators agreed to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity through its base of operation at the offices of RRA. The conspirators also utilized other locations to further the objectives of the Enterprise. RRA was utilized by the defendant and his coconspirators to unlawfully obtain approximately $1.2 billion from investors by fraud in connection with an investment scheme commonly known as a "Ponzi" scheme, in which new investors' funds arc utilized to pay previous investors in the absence of any underlying security, legitimate investment vehicle or other commodity.

THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSPIRATORS¶

7. The roles of the conspirators were as follows:

A. Defendant SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN was a shareholder, Chairman and CEO of RRA.¶

Through his position at RRA, defendant ROTHSTEIN promoted, managed, and supervised the --N administration of the Enterprise by fraudulently inducing investors through * use of false CM statements, documents, and computer records to (I) loan money to purported borrowers based upon fraudulent promissory notes and fictitious bridge loans, and (2) invest funds based upon anticipated pay-outs from purported confidential settlement agreements vit lied been reached between and among certain individuals and business entities. These sedliment agreements were falsely presented as having been reached between putative plaintiffs is $ ' cases and putative defendants based upon the forbearance of civil claims in sexual harasSM and/or whistle-blower cases.¶

B. Other conspirators, yard unknown to the United States Attorney, agreed with one another and with defend aCROTHSTEIN to take actions to further the operation and success of the "Ponzi" scheme, including presenting the aforesaid investments to potential investors as legitimate investment veld&s, when in fact they were not; fraudulently inducing investors to place funds into these investment vehicles by making material misstatements of facts as set forth below; assuririg— potential investors and investors that sufficient funds existed to pay returns on these investments, when in fact such funds did not exist; creating, and transferring funds into and from, various accounts at financial institutions in order to further the unlawful scheme; and realizing alleged in the instant Information in order to personally enrich themselves income and sustain the daily operation of RRA. 9. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators initiated the criminal conduct supplement the¶

r 10. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators fraudulently solicited investors to loan money based upon promissory notes and bridge loans toid from purported clients of RRA. Defendant ROTHSTEIN falsely alleged that clients ,e quested short-term financing for undisclosed business deals. Defendant ROTHSTEIN falsely alleged that the purported clients were willing to pay high rates of return on loans negotifred2 Defendant ROTHSTEIN. In fact, defendant ROTHSTEIN was aware that no such clients or requests for business financing actually existed.¶

profits from the operation of the Ponzi scheme through the acquisition of money generated as proceeds from the scheme and through the acquisition of real and personal property.¶

MANNER AND MEANS OF THE RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY¶

8. It was part of the conspiracy that the defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the Enterprise.

9. Defendant RO TEjN and other co-conspirators participated in an investment scheme commonly known as a "Ponzi" scheme. The "Ponzi" scheme involved the sale of purported confidential settlement agreements in sexual harassment and/or whistle-blower cases. The potential investors tol y defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators that confidential settlement agreements were available for purchase. The purported settlements were allegedly available in amounts ranging from hundreds of thousands of dol lars to millions of dollars and could be purchased at a discount and repaid to the investors at face value over time.

10. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators utilized the offices of RRA and the offices of other co-conspirators to convince potential investors of the legitimacy and success of the law firm, which enhanced the credibility of the purported investment opportunity.

11. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators made false and misleading statements and omissions which were intended to fraudulently induce potential investors into purchasing the confidential settlements.

12. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators made the following fraudulent representations to potential investors in order to induce them to purch bpurported settlements:

• A. That the purported settlements were highly confidential in order to protect the reputation of the company authorizing the ttlement and the executives involved;

• B. That the plaintiffs in the purported sexual harassment and/or whistle-blower cases preferredcsett' the cases in order to avoid the emotional emb of pursuing a claim in a public forum;

• C. That Rktoriginated its own cases from reputation, internal staff and outside referrals from other law firms; \c? That RRA retained a company that owned internet sites and well-placed "800" numbers designed to attract a large volume of high quality cases; That RRA rigorously screened the purported sexual harassment and/or whistle-blower settlement agreements;

• F. That RRA utilized former law enforcement personnel and employed highly sophisticated investigative methods in selecting and pursuing claims against purported defendants;

• G. That RRA or other law firms pursued purported settlements with defendant companies prior to the initiation of litigation;

• H. That RRA or other law firms negotiated with the purpo defendant company after such company was made aware of the alleged claim by the O plaintiff; C 1

• I. That RRA or other law firms purportedly rte tiated with the defendant company and reached an agreement which codlained the settlement amount and the payment terms;

• J. That because the purported settlrents occurred prior to the initiation of litigation, there was tuNcourt or governmental entity involved in the transaction; e )

• K. That the leged defendant companies sent by wire transfer to RRA or other r law firms' trust accounts the full proceeds of the purported settlements; That during the settlement conference or other settlement negotiations when a purported plaintiff protested the extended payment schedule, RRA or other law firms presented the purported plaintiff with the option of receiving a discounted lump sum payment from an unrelated confidential funding source;

• M. That RRA or other co-conspirators prepared a purported Assignment of Settlement Agreement in which the investor agreed to acquire the right to the

purported settlement payments for a discounted lump sum payment made to the purported plaintiff;¶

• N. That when RRA received the payment by the investor it immediately disbursed those funds to the purported plaintiff; and
• 0. That RRA made payment to the investor pursuant to the purported payment schedule set forth in the purported settlement agreement.

IS. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other coconspirators falsely informed potential investors that funds were maintained in designated trust accounts for re b iefi ) .'rof the individual investor and that these funds were verified on a regular basis, weekly if not more often, by two independent verification sources, one being an attorney and ing an independent financial advisor (hereinafter referred to "independent verify¶

16. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and conspirators falsely informed potential investors that RRA's trust accounts were n with a well established international banking institution, in accordance with regulations of the Florida Bar, and that access to balances in the trust accounts was allegedly monitored by one of the two independent verifiers.

17. Defendant4.0THSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely informed potential investors that due diligent would be undertaken with the following provisions:

• An "independent verifier" would be permitted to ask questions of Defendant ROTHSTEIN and/or other co-conspirators to review the opportunity and structure;

• B. The "independent verifier" would have the opportunity to randomly review selected completed transactions to confirm the veracity of the information;

• C. The "independent verifier" had already reviewed current transactions, including wire transfers received from defendants and payments made to plaintiffs;

• D. The "independent verifier" would have the opportunity to visit and speak with a senior banking officer at the local branch of the financial institution to confirm current trust account bank balances through bank statements provided on line; and

• E. The "independent verifier" had the opportunity t a senior banking i officer to verify that the trust accounts A yze "locked" and to verify the strength of RRA's financial position and lationship with the bank.

18. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other coAtknspirators established numerous trust accounts in the name of RRA in order to convince poterOal and current investors of the legitimacy of the confidential settlement a tiseunity of such investments.

19. Defendant ROTHS other co-conspirators prepared and used altered bank statements, purportedly issue(fint, a well-established international financial institution, to fraudulently convince potential and current investors that funds had been received from the purported defendant compan, .\tmd were maintained in trust accounts.

2a • er to deceive investors, defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators created, and/or maintained fictitious online banking information regarding the purported trust accounts which falsely reflected the amount of funds maintained in such accounts, the receipt of funds wired from the alleged defendant companies and the transmission of funds by wire to the alleged plaintiffs,¶

agreements. 23. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators made false statements to current investors in order to convince them to re-invest in additio ni purported confidential settlement N(/¶

21. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators created false and fictitious documents, including confidential settlement agreements, assignment of settlement agreements and proceeds, sale and transfer agreements, and personal guaranties by Defendant ROTHSTEIN, among other documents.

22. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators facilitated the movement and transfer of funds between and among numerous trust accounts and operating accounts in order to perpetuate the scheme. The movement and transfer ofsuch funds insured that m 4• were available in the individual trust accounts in order to make scheduled payments to investors.

23. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other irators facilitated the creation of false and fictitious "lock letters" which were issued by an executive at the financial institution where the trust and operating accounts were maintained. Such "lock letters" falsely reflected that the funds maintained in specific trust aewunts would only be disbursed to specific investors. N-_-_

24. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators utilized funds received from investors to pay the promiied "return on investment" to earlier investors.

25. c ...., Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators also initiated and conducted a d clients of RRA in order to perpetuate the "Ponzi" scheme. Such clients had retained RRA to institute and file a civil lawsuit. Unknown to the clients, RRA settled the lawsuit and obligated the clients to pay $500,000 to the defendant. In order to commit the fraud and deceive the clients, defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators created a false and fraudulent court order purportedly signed by a Federal District Court Judge which falsely alleged that the clients had prevailed in the lawsuit and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent court order also falsely stated that the defendant had transferred funds to the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying the judgement.

26. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators falsely advised the clients on several occasions that in order to recover the defendant's funds, they had to post bon i to t be held in the RRA trust account. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators iulently caused the clients to wire transfer approximately $57 million over several years to a trust account controlled by defendant ROTHSTEIN, purportedly to satisfy the bonds.

27. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators caused the funds transmitted by the clients to be transferred to other RRA trust accounts it \Aef to perpetuate the "Ponzi" scheme and to enrich those co-conspirators who were as with the Enterprise.

28. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators were questioned by the clients as to the progress of the alleged lawsuit. In order to delay the return of funds to the clients, defendant ROTHSTEIN fraudulently c a false Federal court order purportedly issued by a United States Magistrate Judge allegedly ordering RRA to return the transmitted funds by a later date.

the "Ponzi by the hiring of additional attorneys and support staff, to fund salaries and bonuses, and to acquire larger and more elaborate office space and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the Enterprise. 30. Defendant kOTHSTErN and other co-conspirators utilized funds obtained through to supplement and support the operation and activities of RRA, to expand RRA¶

31. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators utilized funds illegally obtained through the "Ponzi" scheme to make political contributions to local, state and federal political candidates, in a manner designed to conceal the true source of such funds and to circumvent state and federal laws governing the limitations and contribution of such funds.

32. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators used other corporations in order to launder proceeds generated from the "Ponzi" scheme to conceal the source of the hinds utilized to make political contributions in order to promote the "Pont" scheme.

33. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators paid large bonuses to employees of RRA purportedly as an award for exemplary work. Prior to the receipt of the bonuses, the employees were instructed to make large contributions candidates in the employees' names. Such conduct was designed to conceal the true of the contribution and to illegally circumvent campaign finance laws.

34. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and otheico-conspirators distributed lavish gifts including exotic cars, jewelry, boats, loans, cash and bonuses to individuals and members of RRA in order to engender goodwill and loyal d, create the appearance of a successful law firm.

35. Defend anr OTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators made large charitable contributions to public private charitable institutions, including hospitals and other legitimate charitable and nonprofit organizations using hinds derived from the "Ponzi" scheme.

Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators utilized funds illegally obtained through the "Ponzi" scheme to hire members of local police departments purportedly to provide security for RRA and defendant ROTHSTEIN's personal residence. "Ponzi" scheme funds were also used to provide gratuities to high ranking members of police agencies in order to curry favor with such police personnel and to deflect law enforcement scrutiny of the activities of RRA and defendant ROTHSTEIN.¶

37. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators utilized funds obtained through the "Pont" scheme in order to purchase controlling interests in restaurants located in the Southern District of Florida. Such restaurants were used in part as a mechanism to give gratuities to individuals, including politicians, business associates and attorneys, in order to foster goodwill and --)r loyalty, as a location to solicit potential investors and as a secure location for c Aci orial r meetings.

38. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators r ⁱand politically affluent connected individuals in order to lure wealthy investo MO the "Ponzi" scheme.

39. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirats associated with well known sports figures and politicians, in public forums and elsewhere, in older to gain greater notoriety and to create the appearance of wealth and legitimacy. Such acts were calculated in part to enhance defendant ROTHSTEIN's ability to solicit potNal investors in the "Pont" scheme.

40. Defendant ROTHS Id other co-conspirators used funds derived from the " "Ponzi" scheme to maintain the appayance of affluence and wealth, by purchasing expensive real and personal property, in order to convince potential investors of the legitimacy of RRA and of the purported investment opp4unities. Defendant ROTHSTEIN purchased expensive real property, personal propert;Natusiness interests, vessels, vehicles and other indicia of success and wealth.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section I962(d).¶

COUNT 2¶

(Money Laundering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. §1956(h))¶

1. The General Allegations and paragraphs 5 through 40 of Count 1 of the Information are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

2. TD Bank, N.A., (hereinafter referred to as TD Bank) was a commercial bank with branch offices in thirteen (13) states, including a branch office in Weston, Florida. The executive offices of TD Bank were located in Portland, Maine and Cherry M, New Jersey. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and RRA maintained approximately thirty-eight (38) bank accounts at TD Bank, which were utilized during the course of the "Ponzi" scheme. I

3. Gibraltar Private Bank and Trust (hereinafter referred to as Gibraltar Bank) was a commercial bank with seven (7) branch offices, including ihbt, ch office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Defendant ROTHSTEIN and RRA maintained at least four (4) bank accounts at Gibraltar Bank, which were utilized during the course o,She "ortzi" scheme.

4. From in or about * 2005/ ". nd continuing thereafter through in or about November 2009, in Broward County, in the Southern ' -. ' of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

AOTT W. RO cliSTEIN,¶

\ did knowingly conspire, 7.7arderate, and agree with persons known and unknown to the United States Attorney, to commit offenses against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956 and 1957, that is:¶

i. to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate and foreign commerce, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, that is, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343, with the intent to promote the carrying on of said specified unlawful activities, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transactions knew that the property involved in the financial¶

transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section I956(a)(l)(A)(i);¶

ii. to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce and foreign commerce, which transactions involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, that is, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343, knowing that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transactions, knew that the property involved in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, in violation of Title IS,Ury States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); and¶

iii. to knowingly engage and attempt to engage, in monetary transactions by, through or to a financial institution, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, which property having been derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is, mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.¶

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).¶

GLINT 3¶

(Mail and Wire Fraud Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1349)¶

• I. The General Allegations and paragraphs 5 through 40 of Count 1 of the Information are realleged and incorporated ifry reference.
• 2. From in or about 2005 and continuing thereafter through in or about November 2009, in Broward County,c the ibuthem District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN,¶

did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with other persons known and unknown to the United States Attorney to commit offenses against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343, that is:¶

i. to knowingly and with intent to defraud devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property from others by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that they were false and fraudulent when made, and causing to be delivered certain mail matter by any private and commercial interstate carrier, according to the directions thereon, for the purpose of executing the scheme, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341¶

ii. to knowingly and with intent to defraud devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property from others by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that they were false and fraudulent when made, and transmitting and causing to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, certain signs, signals and sounds, for the purpose of executing the scheme, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1)43.¶

j THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY¶

3. The purpose and object of the conspiracy vis4o defendant ROTHSTEIN and his co-conspirators by illegally obtaining money from rs and converting the investors' money to their own use and benefit through the operation toic ye-described "Ponzi" scheme.

\k, All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.¶

I. The General AlleC • s and paragraphs 5 through 40 of Count I of the Information are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.¶

COUNTS 4 and 5 Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1343)¶

2. Cor about the dates enumerated as to each count below, at Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, in-the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN,¶

did knowingly and with intent to defraud devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property from others by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,¶

representations, and promises, knowing that such pretenses, representations, and promises were false and fraudulent when made, and for the purpose of executing the scheme, transmitted and caused to be transmitted certain wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, as more particularly described below:¶

COUNT	DATE	WIRE COMMUNICATION
4	December 2, 2008	Interstate wire transfer sent from TD Bank to
5	October 16, 2009	Interstate wire transfer sent to TD Bank from JP

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. N.¶

FORFEITURE AL LE NS¶

I. The allegations of this Information areNtalleged and by this reference fully incorporated herein for the purpose of alleging forfeitures to the United States of America of certain property in which the defendant has an interest pursuant to 7(c)(2) and 32.2(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Forfeiture is ght pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1963(a), 982(a) aod)981(aX1)(C), as made applicable hereto by Title 28, United States Code, Section 246¶

2. Upon conviction of the offense of RICO Conspiracy set forth in Count 1 of the Information, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, shall forfeit to the United States the followi perry:

• i. Any interest acquired or maintained pursuant to Section 1962;
• ii. Any interest in, security of, claim against, or property or contractual rights of any kind affording a source of influence over, the

enterprise described in the Information which was established, operated, controlled and conducted pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962; and¶

iii. Any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly and indirectly from racketeering activity pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962.¶

3. Upon conviction of the offense of Money Laundering Conspire forth in Count 2 of the Information, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, shall fort* to United States all property, real or personal, involved in or traceable to the offense which property shall include:

i. all money and other property that * like subject of each transaction, transportation, transmission and sfer in violation of Section 1956(h);

¶

ii. all commissions, fees and r iter property constituting proceeds obtained se as a result of tho .00s; and¶

iii. all prope rtC use,in any manner and part to commit and to facilitate the commission of those violations.¶

4. IJItconvIction of the offense of Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud Fraud as set forth in Counts 3, 4, and 5 of the Information, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, shall forfeit to the United States, all property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense.

5. The property subject to forfeiture, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1963, 982(a)(1) and 981(a)(I XC), includes but is not limited to:

• A. A sum of money equal to $1,200,000,000 in United States currency.

B. Real Properties ("RP"):¶

(RP1) 2307 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RPI," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15.31 B Lot 2 Blk 5 with a Folio Number of 5042 12 13 0210, 8 (RP2) 2308 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also refe "Defendant RP2," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, and casements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 2 BIk 4 with a Folio ber of 5042 12 13 0020; (RP3) 2316 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hettifter also referred to as "Defendant RP3," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, mg is oretarticularly described as: Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 31st Lot 4 W 'A Blk 4 with a Folio Number of 5042 12 13 0030; (RP4) 30 Isla Bahia Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP4," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Isla Bahia 47-27 B -7. Lot 63 with a Folio Number of 5042 13 16 0640; (RP5) 29 Isla Bahia Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP5," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements¶

found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Isla Bahia 47-27 B Lot 35 with a Folio Number of 5042 13 16 0360;¶

(RP6) 350 SE 2nO Street, Unit 2840, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP6," includes that portion of the condominium, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: 350 Las Olas Place Condo Unit 2840 with a Folio Number of 5042 10 AN 1490;¶

(RP8) 2133 Imperial Point Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, "Defendant RP8," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and isr ularly described as: Imperial Point 1 Sec 53-44 B Lot 11 Blk 22 wi olio Number of 4942 12 07 2020;¶

(RP9) 2627 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale,c hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP9," includes all buildievements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Lauderdale Shores Reamem Plat 15-31 B Lot 22 Blk 5 with a Folio Number of 5042 12 13 0380;¶

(RPI0)10630 NW, t 4oth147/ Street, Apt. 110, Plantation, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP10," includes that portion of the condominium/townhomc, c irs t tro rnents, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: OPTIMA VILLAGE 1-"C" CONDO UNIT 201 BLDG 2 with a Folio Number of 4941 31 AC 0110;¶

(RP 11) 227 Garden Court, Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant R131 I ," includes that portion of the buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: SILVER SHORES UNIT A 28-39 B POR of Lot 4, BLK 5 DESC AS TO BEG AT SE COR SAID LOT 4, N 79.37 W 37.75, S 79.37, E 35.75 TO PO8 AKA: UNIT E MARINA VILLAGE TOWNHOMES 227GARDEN with a Folio Number of 4943 18 24 0050;¶

(RP12) 708 Spangler Boulevard, Bay 1, Hollywood, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant R1312," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: HARBOR VIEW 10-5 B PORTION OF LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 2 DESC AS COMM 25 S OF NE COR OF LOT 2 ON E/L, W 20.52 ALG S/WW/L OF ST RD 84, S 15.72 TO POB, S 7.25, E 12.59, S 24.40, W 29.92, N 7.66, W 31.74, N 24.00, E 49.07 TO POB AKA: BAY 1 PORTSIDE with a Folio Number of 5042 23 28 0010;¶

(RP13) 1012 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP13," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: BEVERLY HEIGHTS 1-30 B LOT 1 W 100, LOT 2 W 100 BLK 17 with a Folio Number of 5042 11 07 0540;¶

(RP14) 950 N Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP14," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: 31-4843 S 150 OD FOL DESC, BEG INTER E R/W/L ST RD 5, N TO POB with a Folio Number of 4843 31 00 0401;¶

(RP15) 350 Las Olas Boulevard, Commercial Unit 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP I 5," includes all portion of that condominium, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: 350 LAS OLAS PLACE COMM CONDO UNIT CU2 with a Folio Number of 5042 10 AP 0020;¶

(RP16) 361 SE 9 Lane, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as "Decadent RP16," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments andQements found therein or thereon; C O)¶

(RP I 7) 1198 N Old Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP17," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon; A \ A'c 2 '.._¶

(RP18) 1299 N Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP18," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon;¶

(RP19) 151 East 58 Street, Apartment 421), New York, New York hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP19," includes all portion of that condominium, improvements, firktures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon;¶

luff . Cove Farm, Narragansett, Rhode Island hereafter also referred to as Defendant RP20," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon;¶

(RP21) 15 Bluff. Cove Farm, Narragansett, Rhode Island hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP21," includes all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon;¶

(RP22) 353 4 Ave., Unit 12-H, Brooklyn, NY hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP22," includes all portion of that condominium, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon;¶

(RP23) 290W 11th St 41C, NY, NY hereafter also referred to as "DefendantSP23," includes all portion of that condominium, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or thereon; and¶

(RP24) Versace Mansion/Casa Casuarina-10% eiship hereafter also referred to as "Defendant RP24," includes all buildings, ements, fixtures, attachments and easements found therein or them*¶

C. Vehicles and Vessels ("V_V");\¶

(VV I) 1990 Red Ferrari F ,VIN: ZFFMN34A5L0087066;¶

(VV2) 2009 Cfnvenible, VIN: SCBDR33W29C059672;¶

(VV3) 2008 Yellow McLaren Mercedes Benz SLR, VIN: WDDAK76F98M001788;¶

(VV4) 2007 Black Limousine ■ Expedition, VIN: 1F1FK15557LA59223;¶

(VV 2 Red Ferrari 430 Spider, VIN: TIFEW59A380163011;¶

(42007 Silver Rolls Royce Convertible, VIN: SCA1L68557UX23044;¶

(VV7) 2006 Silver Hummer HI, VIN: 137PH84396E220665;¶

(VV8) 2008 Cadillac Escalade, VIN: 1GYEC63858R234458;¶

(VV9) 1967 Red Convertible Corvette, VIN: 194677S104745;¶

(T5) (T1) 304 pieces of jewelry, watt and earrings seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from the resi axe of Scott and Kimberly Rothstein; (T2) 16 DuPont Lighten seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from the residence of Scott and Kimberly Rothstein; (T3) 3 pieces sports memorabilia seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from the residfcce of Scott and Kimberly Rothstein; C?)'1,160 in United States currency seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from the residence of Scott and Kimberly Rothstein; $1,500 in United States currency, seized on about Wednesday, November 4, 2009, from the office of Scott W. Rothstein at the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.;¶

(VVIO) 2009 Black Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4, VIN: VF9SA25C28M795153;¶

(VV 11)2008 Blue Rolls Royce Drophead Convertible, VIN: SCA2D68528UX 16071;¶

(VV17) 2007 87' =, Hull # WAR87777B707;¶

(VV18) 33' Aquariva, Hull # XFA33R74G405;¶

(VV19) 2009 11' Yamaha Jet Ski, Hull # YAMA36611809;¶

(VV20) 2009 11' Yamaha VS, Hull # YAMA3626I809;¶

(VV21) 2009 11' Yamaha VS, Hull #YAMA2679G809;¶

(VV22) 1999 55' Sea Ray 540 Sundancer, SERY001899;¶

(VV23) 2009 Yamaha Jet Ski, Hull # YAMA4288K809; and¶

O AS¶

(VV 24) 2010 Lamborghini 1p-670sv, VIN; ZHWBUSAHXALA03837.¶

D. Tangibles ("T")¶

• (17) (T6) $30,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein, obtained from UPS on or about November 12, 2009; $50,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein, obtained from UPS on or about November 13, 2009; (TS) 5 additional watches being voluntarily turned over to the United States; and (T9) Guitar collection of Scott W. Rothstein, located at the residence of Scott and Kimberley Rothstein, valued between $10,000 and $20,000. S p

Account, in the name of Scott W. Rothstein, valued at (BA1) Fidelity Investments approximately $1,263,780; (BA2) Gibraltar Bank account ■ (BA3) Gibraltar Bank account (BA4) Gibraltar Bank account (BAS) Gibraltar Bank account (BA6) Bank account in the approximate amount of $484,900.68; in the approximate amount of $53,448.51; in the approximate amount of $71,793.06; in the approximate amount of $995,521.42; at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Scott Rothstein, in the approximate amount of $12,000,000; (BA7) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Ahnick Khalid, up to A Bank the...jamount of $2,000,000; IIT account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Steve Caputi, up to the amount of $1,000,000;¶

E. Bank Accounts ("BA")¶

(BA9) Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $54,021.27;¶

(BA10)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of S10,085.00;¶

(BA11)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A, Attorney Trust Account 3, which, on or about November 1 I, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $720,892.08;¶

(BAl2)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account in the name of DJB Financial Holding, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $64,970.00;¶

(BAI3)Toronto Dominion Bank,24, iunt the name of RRA Sports and Entertainment LLC, whi)rolart or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $10,490.10;¶

(BA14)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account in the name of RRA Goal Line Management, LLC, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $25,216.27;¶

(BA15)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., which, on or about November 1I, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $20,080.00.¶

F. Business Interests ("BI")¶

• (B11) certificates, if issued, or the beneficial interest in such shares, of 50,000 shares of capital M, in Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust, a federally chartered savings association, purchased in or about September 2009 by GBPT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property Management, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott W. Rothstein; (BI2) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask;
• (813) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank co Commerce;
• (814) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bova Ristorante, A (BI5) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bovty€t (BI6) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest ' Bova Prime; (B17) Scott W. Rothstein's equity intere sit 4 Iguana, Pembroke Pines, Florida; (BI8) Scott W. Rothstein's equity int eat in Cart Shield USA, LLC;
• (819) Scott W. Rothstein' ',interest in Renato Watches; -A, (BI10) Scott W. Rothstein's Equity interest in Edify LLC; (B111) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in V Georgia Vodka; (B112) S W. Rothstein's equity interest in Sea Club; (BileW. Rothstein's equity interest in North Star Mortgage; (B1I 4\4) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Kip Hunter Marketing; (BI I 5) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in RRA Sports and Entertainment, LLC; (8116) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Versace Mansion/Casa Casuarina, including 10 year Operating Agreement with 2 ten year options;

(8117) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest, and licensing rights, in Alternative Biofuel Company;¶

(8I18) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in RRA Goal Line Management;¶

(B119) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Iron Street Management, LLC;¶

(BI20) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in, and loan to, Africat Equity IG Decide;¶

(BI21) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in, and rents derived from 1198 Dixie LLC;¶

(B122) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in, and rents derived from 1299 Federal LLC;¶

(BI23) Promissory Note by Uniglobe in favor of Scott W. Rot¶

(B124) All equity interest held by or on behalf of Scott W. pth ein, in the following corporations and entities:¶

• a. 29 Bahia LLC;

• b. 235 GC LLC;

• c. 350 LOP#2840 LLC/S,

• d. 353 BR LLC;

• C.

• f. 708 Spangler LLC;

• g. ? S 1t,012 froward LLC; 2133 IP LLC; 198 Dixie LLC; 1299 Federal LLC;

• k. 15158 LLC;

• I. AANG LLC; 10630 #116 ,

• m.

• n.

• o.

• P.

• q.

• r.

• s.

• t.

• u.

• v.

• w.

• x.

• Y.

• z. AAMGI LLC; AAMM Holdings; ABT Investments LLC; Advanced Solutions; Bahia Property Management LLC; Boat Management LLC; BOSM Holdings LLC; BOVA Prime LLC; BOVA Restaurant Group LLC; The BOVA Group LLC; BOVA Smoke LLC; BOVCU LLC; BOVRI LLC; Broward Financial oldings, Inc.; aa. CI07 LLC; ab. CI08 LLC; *SC116 LLC; C127 LLC; ae. CSU LLC; af. D & D Management & Investment LLC; ag. D & S Management and Investment LW; ah. DJB Financial Holdings LLC;

DYMMU LLC;¶

ai. I¶

Full Circle Fort Lauderdale LLC;¶

aj. I¶

Full Circle Trademark Holdings LLC;¶

ak.¶

GHW1 LLC;¶

al. C¶

DNL GEAH LLC;¶

am. I¶

LK3 LLC;¶

an. I¶

S Management LLC;¶

ao. I¶

RCL LLC;¶

ap. I¶

Judah LLC;¶

aq. I¶

Kendall Sports Bar;¶

ar. I¶

Kip Hunter Marketing LLC;¶

as. I¶

NF Servicing LLC;¶

at. I¶

NRI 11 LLC;¶

au. I¶

NRI 15 LLC;¶

av. I¶

NS Holdings LLC;¶

aw. I¶

PRCH LLC;¶

ax. I¶

PK Adventures LLC;¶

ay. I¶

PK's █ Ride Ltd;¶

az. I¶

Rothstein Family Foundation;¶

ba. I¶

RRA Consulting Inc.;¶

bb. I¶

RRA Goal Line Management LLC;¶

bc. I¶

RRA Sports and Entertainment LLC;¶

bd. I¶

bx. WAWW 11 LLC;¶

be. RSA 111° Street LLC;¶

bf. RW Collections LLC;¶

bg. S & KEA LLC;¶

bh. Scorh LLC;¶

bi. Tipp LLC;¶

bj. VGS LLC;¶

bk. The Walter Family LLC;¶

bl. Walter Industries LLC;¶

bm. WPBRS LLC;¶

bn. WAWW;¶

bo. WAWW 2 LLC;¶

bp. WAWW 3 LLC;¶

bq. WAWW 4 LLC;¶

br. WAWW 5 '.4 ....'¶

bs. WAWW 6 LI9¶

bt. WAWW 7 LLC;¶

bu. WAWW 8 LLC;¶

O WAWW 9 LLC;¶

• WAWW 10 LLC:¶

by. WAWW 12 LLC;¶

bz. WAWW 14 LLC;¶

• ca. WAWW 15 LLC; cb. WAWW 16 LLC:
• cc. WAWW 17 LLC; cd. WAWW 18 LLC; ce. WAWW 19 LLC; cf. WAWW 20 LLC; cg. WAWW 21 LLC; ch. WAWW 22 LLC;
• ci. JB Boca M Holdings LLC;

and¶

• AC2SA )
• G. Contributions ("C"), hereinafter collectively referred to as "the defendant contributions:" (C I) S6,000 in campaign contributions made to Alex Sink and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States on behalf of Alex Sink; (C2) S40,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida, "Florida" account and voluntarily offend, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; (C3) V, in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida, "Federal" unt and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; (C4) S90,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida;

(C5) $5,000 in campaign contributions to Republican Party of Florida by Rothstein business entity known as WAWW and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida; (C6) $800,000 Charitable Donation to Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital, which hospital voluntarily advised the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family Foundation, for the purpose of facilitating forfeiture; (C7) $1,000,000 Charitable Donation to Holy Cross Hospital, which hos voluntarily advised the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family Foundation, for the purpose of facilitating forfeiture; (C8) $9,600 in campaign contributions to Govemor Charlie Crist, voluntarily offered, and A turned over, to the United States by the offiat-of Charlie Crist; and (C9) All funds voluntarily turned over to the United States (IRS/FBI), since in or about October 28, 2009, in response to publicity regarding Scott W. Rothstein.¶

6. If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act and omission of the defendant -

• i. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
• ii. has been transfentior sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
• iii. has beyond the jurisdiction of the court; iv: has been substantially diminished in value; or
• v. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(m), and pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), made applicable hereto by Title 18, United¶

States Code, Section 982(b), and pursuant to Rule 32.2 Fed. R. Crim. P., to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described above.¶

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963, Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) made applicable through Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461; and the procedures outlined at Title 21, United States Code, Section 853.¶

JEFFREY H. SLOMAN
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY¶

PAUL F. [REDACTED]
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY¶

JEFFREY N. KAPLAN
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY¶

LAWRENCE D. LAVECCHIO
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY¶

vs.¶

CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY*¶

SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN¶

Defendant. _____¶

Superseding Case Information:¶

Court Division: (Select One)¶

New Defendant(s) Yes No
Number of New Defendants _____
Total number of counts _____¶

Miami Key West
FTL WPB FTP¶

I do hereby certify that:¶

• 1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the indictment/information attached hereto.
• 2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 3161.
• 3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) _____
     List language and/or dialect _____
• 4. This case will take 0 days for the parties to try.
• 5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below:
     (Check only one) (Check only one)
• I 0 to 5 days Petty
• II 6 to 10 days Minor
• III 11 to 20 days Misdem.
• IV 21 to 60 days Felony
• V 61 days and over
• 6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) No
• If yes: Judge: _____ Case No. _____
  (Attach copy of dispositive order)
  Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) No
• If yes: Magistrate Case No. _____
  Related Miscellaneous numbers: _____
  Defendant(s) in federal custody as of _____
  Defendant(s) in state custody as of _____
  Rule 20 from the _____ District of _____

Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No¶

• 7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 2003? Yes No
• 8. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the U. S. Attorney's Office prior to April 1, 1999? Yes No
     If yes, was it pending in the Central Region? Yes No
• 9. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes No
• 10. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Narcotics Section (Miami) prior to May 18, 2003? Yes No
• 11. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? Yes No

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

PENALTY SHEET¶

Defendant's Name: SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN¶

Count #: I 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); RICO Conspiracy;¶

Max.Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine¶

Count #: 2 18 U.S.C. § 1956(b); Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering;¶

• Max.Peaalty: 20 years imprisonment, $500,000 fine or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction.¶

Count #: 3 18 U.S.C. § 1349; Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud;¶

• Max.Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine¶

Counts #: 4-5 18 U.S.C. §§ 2; 1343; Wire Fraud¶

• Max.Penalty: 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine¶

•Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT¶

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
Plaintiff )¶

CASE NUMBER: CR 09-60331-STI¶

-vs- )¶

REPORT COMMENCING CRIMINAL ACTION¶

Seatt Ratherford )
Defendant¶

91256 004¶

¶

TO: CLERK'S OFFICE MIAMI FT. LAUDERDALE W. PALM BEACH
U.S. DISTRICT COURT (circle one)¶

NOTE: CIRCLE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR APPEARANCE IN MAGISTRATES COURT ABOVE.¶

¶

COMPLETE ALL ITEMS. INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE ENTER N/A.¶

(1) DATE AND TIME OF ARREST: 12/1/09 Z: 30 a.m.p.m.¶

(2) LANGUAGE(S) SPOKEN: English¶

(3) OFFENSE(S) CHARGED: Racket bearing Confidency USSC 1962;¶

Wire Found USSC 1873; Many Sameling Confidency USSC 1976¶

(4) UNITED STATES CITIZEN: (X) YES ( ) NO ( ) UNKNOWN¶

(5) DATE OF BIRTH: 6/2¶

(6) TYPE OF CHARGING DOCUMENT: (CHECK ONE) Information
[ ] INDICTMENT [ ] COMPLAINT CASE #¶

[ ] BENCH WARRANT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR¶

[ ] PAROLE VIOLATION WARRANT¶

ORIGINATING DISTRICT: SFL¶

COPY OF WARRANT LEFT WITH BOOKING OFFICER? [ ] YES [ ] NO¶

AMOUNT OF BOND: $ Defendant WHO SET BOND?¶

(7) REMARKS:¶

(8) DATE: 12/1/09 (9) ARRESTING OFFICER Seatt Nevide¶

(10) AGENCY FBI (11) PHONE # 705-949-9101¶

(12) COMMENTS:¶

Report Selection Criteria¶

Case ID: 502008CA028051XXXXMB¶

Docket Start Date:¶

Docket Ending Date:¶

Case Description¶

Case ID: 502008CA028051XXXXMB¶

Case Caption: L M V JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶

Division: AB - GILLEN¶

Filing Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2008¶

Court: CA - CIRCUIT CIVIL¶

Location: MB - MAIN BRANCH¶

Jury: Y-Jury¶

Type: ON - OTHER NEGLIGENCE¶

Status: DAO - DISPOSED AFTER OTHER¶

Related Cases¶

No related cases were found.¶

Case Event Schedule¶

No case events were found.¶

Case Parties Cr*¶

Go¶

Seq #	Assoc	Expn Date	Type	ID	Name
1			PLAINTIFF	<u>@1516767</u>	M, L	<b>Aliases:</b> none
2	1		ATTORNEY	<u>0542075</u>	BRAD	<b>Aliases:</b> none
3			DEFENDANT	<u>@1516768</u>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY	<b>Aliases:</b> none
4		24-APR-	JUDGE	<u>AD</u>	KEYSER, JUDGE	<b>Aliases:</b> none

		2009		GREGORY M
5	3		ATTORNEY	0224162	CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE	Aliases:	none
6			DEFENDANT	@1653702		Aliases:	none
7	3		ATTORNEY	0262013	GOLDBERGER, ESQ, JACK A	Aliases:	none
8			JUDGE	AB	GILLEN, JUDGE JEFFREY DANA	Aliases:	none
9	1		ATTORNEY	0225657	HOWELL ESQ, JAY	Aliases:	none

Docket Entries¶

<b>Docket Number</b>	<b>Docket Type</b>	<b>Book and Page No.</b>	<b>Attached To:</b>
	00000 - ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
<b>Filing Date:</b>	11-SEP-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	none.
	800FF - CAFF
<b>Filing Date:</b>	11-SEP-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>	M, L
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	none.
	PE - PENDING
<b>Filing Date:</b>	11-SEP-2008

Filing Party: , Disposition Amount:	L-- t 1
Docket Text:	none.
1	CMP - COMPLAINT
Filing Date:	11-SEP-2008
Filing Party: Disposition Amount	M, L _J _I
Docket Text:	Inone.
2	CCS - CIVIL COVER SHEET
Filing Date:	11-SEP-2008
Filing Party: IbispositionAmount	M, L
Docket Text:	Inone. I
3	r iMOT - MOTION
	C r-7 — j
Filing Date:	I11-SEP-2008
Filing Party: Disposition Amount	M, L J
Docket Text:	none.
4	' SMIS - SUMMONS ISSUED
Filing Date:	111-SEP-2008
Filing Party:	' EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
Disposition Amount	1,*
Docket Text:	ISM-08-162222 I RCPT - RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT
, Filing Date:	18-SEP-2008
frying Party: Disposition Amount	M, L -I I
Docket Text:	i A Payment of -$311.00 was made on receipt CAMB243362. ai
5	i ORDG - ORDER GRANTING
Filing Date: Filing Party: LDisposition Amount:	19-SEP-2008

<b>Docket Text:</b>	MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY, GRANTED. D E [REDACTED]
6	ORDG - ORDER GRANTING
<b>Filing Date:</b>	19-SEP-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY, GRANTED. D E [REDACTED]
7	NOAP - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
<b>Filing Date:</b>	07-OCT-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>	CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	AS COUNSEL FOR DFT JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
8	MDIS - MOTION TO DISMISS
<b>Filing Date:</b>	08-OCT-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND TO STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLT LM'S COMPLAINT.
9	RESP - RESPONSE TO:
<b>Filing Date:</b>	16-OCT-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>	M, L
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	DFT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR MOER DEFINITE STATEMENT AND TO STRIKE COMPLINT.
10	ORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING
<b>Filing Date:</b>	17-OCT-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	(SPECIALLY) FOR 12/5/08 FROM 9:45 AM TO 10 AM. D E [REDACTED]
11	MDIS - MOTION TO DISMISS
<b>Filing Date:</b>	29-OCT-2008
<b>Filing Party:</b>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>

Docket Text: I - __ _ - (DFT'S SUPPLEMENT TO) COUNT IV OF PLT'S COMPLAINT. __¶

12 1 ORD - ORDER I i¶

Filing Date: 10-DEC-2008¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: ON DFT'S MOTION TO DISM ' NTED IN PART & PART VIEW ORDER. D E DENIED IN I ! J¶

^I13 i REQP - REQUEST TO PRODUCE¶

iFiling Date: 11-DEC-2008¶

Filing Parry: — EPSTEIN, JEFFREY J¶

Disposition Amount¶

, Docket Text: (DFT'S FIRST) TO PLT.¶

14 I NOS - NOTICE OF SERVICE,¶

!Filing Date: 111-DEC-2008¶

FF-iling Party: lEPSTEIN, JEFFREY V' -- -----¶

Disposition Amount: 4.¶

Docket Text: FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLT.¶

15 [NOUN - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY a I¶

Filing Date: 23-DEC-2008¶

Filing Party: M, L¶

-- --- Disposition Amount: j )¶

lD1 ocket Text: FROM 2/23/09 THROUGH 2/27/09 AMD FROM 5/14/09 THROUGH 5/18/09.¶

-r 16 ) r--, CMP - COMPLAINT LI---- ----1- 'rn11" ------ ⁷¶

Filing Date: 29-DEC-2008¶

Filing Party: M, L¶

Disposition Amount: I¶

Docket Text: (AMENDED) AS TO¶

17 ' MEXT - TIME _ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF¶

Filing Date: I 30-DEC-2008 - -¶

[ Filing Party: - — — -- -- — EPSTEIN, JEFFREY,¶

'Disposition Amount: I¶

Docket Text:	ITO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT.
18	AGOR - AGREED ORDER
rgFilir	-1,t06-JAN-2009
Docket Text:	'ON DFT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF RESPOND TO
19	MDIS - MOTION TO DISMISS
Docket	Text_:
20	- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Filing Date:	16-JAN-2009
Filing Party:	GOLDBERGER, ESQ, JAC
Docket Text:	AS COUNSEL FOR DFT JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
21	R ORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING TJ
j Filing Date:	23-JAN-2009- '7
	) FIirsPosItion Amount:
Docket Text:	FOR 3/6/09 FROM 9:15 TO 9:30 AM. D E
22	RESP - RESPONSE TO:
	[ , AND MOTION TO STRIKE
23	NOS - NOTICE OF SERVICE
Filing Date:	26-JAN-2009

24 iSMIS - SUMMONS ISSUED I¶

!¶

Filing Date:¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:T.¶

I Docket Text: 1SM-09-040539¶

-- — -- —¶

I RCPT - RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT¶

IFiling Date: .24-FEB-2009¶

Filing Party: M, L¶

Disposition Amount: _¶

Docket Text: IA Payment of -$10.00 was made on receipt CA B2 286. ,¶

25 RPRS _- REPLY/RESPONSE¶

I, J¶

Filing Date: -...._ _ 25-FEB-2009¶

Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

Disposition Amount: /`¶

Docket Text: - - - - TO PLT'S RESPOSNE TO DFT'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION — MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT TO STRIKE. IV OF¶

26 , MOT - MOTION¶

IFiling Date: I 17-MAR-2009 ,),¶

Filing Party: i EPSTEIN,(JEF¶

Disposition Amount: V_..)¶

Docket Text: - - ITO REASSIGN AND/OR TRANSFER¶

27 ' NOTD - DEPOSITION --- NOTICE OF TAKING¶

I Filing Date: I¶

Filing Party: RAD -I —__—....--¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: [OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN ON 04/30/09¶

28 NOH - NOTICE OF HEARING¶

Filing Date: [20-MAR-2009¶

[Filing Party: . CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE¶

iDisposition Amount:¶

I¶

29 ORD - ORDER¶

Filing Date: !20-MAR-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

1¶

Docket Text: 1 ON DFT'S MTN TO DISMISS CT IV OF PLTF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT-GRANTED AS STATED¶

30 NOS - NOTICE OF SERVICE¶

FETIrre71 I j 23-MAR-2009¶

Filing Party: JM, L¶

Disposition Amount: 1¶

Docket Text: j OF PLT EXPERT WITNESS INTERGS TO DFT¶

31 RQAD - REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS¶

Filing Date:__ 23-MAR-2009¶

Filing Party: M, L¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: FIRST-¶

, 32 NOS - NOTICE OF SERVICE¶

tFiling Date:¶

Filing Party:¶

I Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: qOF PLT FIRST SET OF INTERGS¶

33 REQ - REQUEST¶

Filing Date: 23-MAR-2009¶

Filing Party: M, L¶

rnDispositio nount:¶

Docket Text: FIRST- FOR PRODUCTION TO DFT¶

34 I MOT - MOTION¶

Filing Date: __. _.. _ .26-MAR-2009¶

VFiling Party: IIEPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: TO STAY AND OR CONTINUE ACTION...¶

35	NOTD - NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
<b>Filing Date:</b>	30-MAR-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	OF DOMINIQUE HYPPOLITE ON 04/28/09
36	NNAC - NOTICE -NAME/ADDRESS CHANGE
<b>Filing Date:</b>	06-APR-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	M, L
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	AS TO COUNSEL
37	ANAD - ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
<b>Filing Date:</b>	07-APR-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	TO PLT AMENDED COMPLAINT
38	MCMP - MOTION TO COMPEL
<b>Filing Date:</b>	08-APR-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	<i>none.</i>
39	MCMP - MOTION TO COMPEL
<b>Filing Date:</b>	08-APR-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	<i>none.</i>
40	ORD - ORDER
<b>Filing Date:</b>	09-APR-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>

41 NOF - NOTICE OF FILING¶

Filing Date: 14-APR-2009¶

Filing Party: CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: none.¶

SRTN - SERVICE RETURN (ATTACHED)¶

Filing Date: 15-APR-2009¶

Filing Party: [REDACTED]¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: NOT SERVED¶

42 ORD - ORDER¶

Filing Date: 20-APR-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: ON MTN TO TRANSFER-AAS STATED-DHAFELE¶

43 NOT - NOTICE¶

Filing Date: 20-APR-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: OF REASSIGNMENT TO DIVISION AB¶

44 NOTD - NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION¶

Filing Date: 06-MAY-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: E W¶

45 MOT - MOTION¶

Filing Date: 07-MAY-2009¶

46 MOT - MOTION L - --- --- - -- Filing Date: ,07-MAY-2009¶

Filing Party: , BRAD¶

:Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: 1FORPROTECTIVE ORDER¶

47 INOT - NOTICE¶

, Filing Date: . . ,¶

11-MAY-2009¶

Filing Party: _ ' EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

Disposition Amount_'¶

Docket Text: !LOF PROPOUNDING EXPERT INTERROGATORIES TO PLT.¶

48 RESP - RESPONSE TO:¶

---- ____, A --..•-• -MAY-2009 _¶

Filing Date: ; 14¶

-..a..,--. -- ---.. .¶

Filing Party: : M, L ^l¶

Disposition Amount¶

Docket Text: FIN OPPOSITION OT DFT MOTIONN: )¶

r49 ORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING I i : Filing Date: : 14-MAY-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount: I¶

Docket Text: FOR 5/29/09. D FELE.¶

50 . NOH - NOTICE IFT OF HEARING 1¶

Filing Date: 15-MAY-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: 18/4/09 8:45AM -2. - -¶

51 NOH - NOTICE — -_ OF HEARING _ - ------, -,¶

Filing Date: 18--MAY--2009¶

Filing Party: CRTIT 0NJR—, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE¶

iDisposition Amount¶

Docket Text: 6/10/09¶

..- .¶

52¶

__¶

1 NOH - NOTICE _ _, OF HEARING .--...".¶

7¶

,¶

(Filing Date: 08-MAY-2009 . . _¶

Filing Party: CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE¶

Disposition AMount: i ..__J¶

Docket Text: i5/28/09 I¶

53 NOH - NOTICE OF HEARING '1¶

IFiling Date: 18-MAY-2009 i¶

Filing Party: i CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: 6/2/09 i¶

54 NOH - NOTICE OF HEARING¶

Filing Date: 18-MAY-2009 (-'''' •¶

Filing Party: CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEES--- ---¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: M9 f':\¶

. 55 I RESP - RESPONSE TO: _. . 7¶

frying Date: 18-MAY-2009¶

iFiling Party: - EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

-----1¶

Disposition Amount:¶

' Docket Text: , AND OBJECTIONS-TO FIRST REQ FOR PRODUCTION¶

56 ANS - ANSWER¶

Filing Date: 18-MAY-2009 1¶

Filing Party: EPST IN; JEFFREY¶

i Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: AND OBJECTIONS TO PLT INTERGS ... -=--¶

---1. 57 1 RESP - RESPONSE TO: _ . I¶

'Filing Date: 18-MAY-2009¶

Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

Disposition Amount:¶

' Docket Text: -- AND OBJECTIONS TO PLT INTERGS¶

58 ANS - ANSWER¶

Filing Date: '18-MAY-2009¶

Disposition Amount:	'
Docket Text:	, ___ ,
	TO PLT REQ FOR ADMISSIONS _ ,
59	I NOF - NOTICE OF FILING I
Filing Date:	j 21-MAY-2009 I
Filing Party:	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
Text: __	"none
60	NOF - NOTICE OF FILING
Filing Date:	22-MAY-2009 — -
Filing Party	CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE
Docket Text:	PLTF'S ANSWERS
61	SUP - SUPPLEMENT
Filing Date:	26-MAY-2009
Docket Text:	_, IBRIEF IN SUPPORT ^ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
62	MOT - MOTION
	r27-MAY-2009 — -
Filing Party:	M, L
Docket Text:	1TO
163	i RPRS - REPLY/RESPONSE I i____ I
Filing Date:	,28-MAY-2009
Filing Party:	1 EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
Disposition Amount:	J
¶Docket Text:	IN OPPOSITION TO PLTF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
64	NOS - NOTICE OF SERVICE
Docket Text:	none.

ORDER
12-JUN-2009
DENIED. D HAFELE.
MOTION
24-JUN-2009
M, L
FOR LEAVE TO ADD COUNT FOR BATTERY AND SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
NOTICE OF HEARING
25-JUN-2009
CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE
ON 7/7/09.
NOTICE
29-JUN-2009
none.
ORDER
01-JUL-2009
ON MTN TO COMPEL-MTN IS MOOT SEE ORDER
- AGREED ORDER
01-JUL-2009
ON DFT'S MTN TO COMPEL-GRANTED
- AGREED ORDER

65 Filing Date: Filing Party: Docket Text: 66 Filing Date: Filing Party: Docket Text: 67 Filing Date: Filing Party: Docket Text:	I ORD • Disposition Amount MOT Disposition Amount: [NOH --I Disposition Amount:
68	1 NOT - Disposition Amount:
69	ORD - Disposition Amount:
70	AGOR Disposition Amount:
71	AGOR

, Filing Date:	01-JUL-2009
Filing Party:	i
Docket Text:	ON DFT'S MTN TO COMPEL
72	ORD - ORDER
Filing Date:	,01-JUL-2009
Docket Text:	ON NON-PARTY'S MTN FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER-AS IN ORDER
73	ORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING
Filing Date:	09-JUL-2009 ___i
pocket Texi:—.—I	n2/09
74	IORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING
Filing Date:	13-JUL-2009
;Docket Text:	'ON 07/16/09
175	1 RESP - RESPONSE TO: T
Filing Date:	) 14-JUL-2009
Filing Party:	GRITTQN JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE
Docket Text:	na /TO MTN FOR LEAVE
76	MCMP - MOTION TO COMPEL
!Filing Date:	j14-JUL-2009
Filing Party:	CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE
Docket Text:	! none.
77	NOF - NOTICE OF FILING
Filing Date:	••16-JUL-2009 1

Disposition Amount: i¶

Docket Text: ATTACHED.¶

78 fORD - ORDER¶

Filing Date: r. 16-JUL-2009¶

__ ___ _¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount: :¶

Docket Text: ION DFT'S MTN TO COMPEL-SEE ORDER¶

79 NOT - NOTICE¶

i Filing Date: 1:17-JUL-2009¶

Filing Party: .._ GSLDBERGER—, ESQ—, JACK A¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: :`none.¶

1_80 J NOF - NOTICE OF FILING¶

Filing Date: 17-JUL-2009¶

[Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

Disposition Amount: I¶

(Docket Text: !EXHIBIT A¶

181 INOH - NOTICE OF HEARING¶

Filing Date: 1 21-JUL-2009¶

Filing Party: IEDWARDS-BRAD¶

Disposition Amount _ I¶

Docket Text: I ON 71 109¶

i 82 1 _, NOF - NOTICE OF FILING I. a r '¶

nigiDate7 Filit e-- '22-JUL-2009¶

Filing Party: CRITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE 1¶

Disposition Amount:¶

!Docket Text: i none.¶

83 I NOF - NOTICE OF FILING¶

i Filing Date: 28-JUL-2009¶

Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

18; ORD - C ORDER ___C1 _¶

Filing Date: i 31-JUL-2009¶

Filing Party:¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: ION MTN FOR LEAVE -GRANTED¶

85 i NOH - NOTICE OF HEARING I _¶

7¶

Filing Date: ' 0-AUG-2009¶

Filing Party: ,BRAD¶

i Disposition Amount: I,¶

Docket Text: ON 8/20/09¶

86 , MOT - MOTION¶

Filing Date: t 10-AUG-2009 ______a _Nv i¶

Filing Party: IM, L¶

Disposition Amount: i¶

Docket Text: FOR STAY OF4li 3 , 2009 ORDERS.¶

87 . REQ - REQUEST I A¶

Filing Date: 12-AUG-2009 _¶

Filing Party: IM, lAbli¶

Disposition Amount: -¶

Docket Text: T FOR'PRODUCTION¶

88 - NOTICE OF HEARING¶

Filing Date: 113-AUG-2009¶

Filing Party: 12RITTON JR, ESQ, ROBERT DEWEESE¶

Disposition Amount: j¶

tDocket Text: none.¶

^F —n:z- ^IMCMP - MOTION TO COMPEL .¶

A-----¶

Filing Date: 13-AUG-2009¶

Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY¶

Disposition Amount:¶

Docket Text: COMPLIANCE. . . .¶

<b>Filing Date:</b>	13-AUG-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	EPSTEIN, JEFFREY
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	IN OPPOSITION . . .
<b>91</b>	NPNP - NOTICE OF PRODUCTION NON PARTY
<b>Filing Date:</b>	17-AUG-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	[REDACTED], BRAD
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	<i>none.</i>
<b>92</b>	NOTD - NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
<b>Filing Date:</b>	17-AUG-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	OF WILLIAM "BILL" [REDACTED]
<b>93</b>	NPNP - NOTICE OF PRODUCTION NON PARTY
<b>Filing Date:</b>	17-AUG-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	[REDACTED], BRAD
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	<i>none.</i>
<b>94</b>	NPNP - NOTICE OF PRODUCTION NON PARTY
<b>Filing Date:</b>	17-AUG-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	[REDACTED], BRAD
<b>Disposition Amount:</b>
<b>Docket Text:</b>	<i>none.</i>
<b>95</b>	NPNP - NOTICE OF PRODUCTION NON PARTY
<b>Filing Date:</b>	17-AUG-2009
<b>Filing Party:</b>	[REDACTED], BRAD