Epstein Secrets

do that transaction on II against Brad Edward➢ accusing him of having been a II behalf of Jeffrey Epstein•a victims? 12 knowing participant in Scott Rothstein'➢ Rani 12 MR. LINK: Object to the form. 13 scheme -- 13 NITHESS: Nell, it was the right 14 MR. LINK: Object to the form. 14 thing to do.

e had reached the point where in 2008 you faced the economic reality of having to leave the bench. where did you than go? A I was hired by the Rothstein, Rosonfoldt a Adler firm. O How did that cone about? A As I said, I was interviewing with two firms. 10 There wore two largo firma that had

nd I think I met Spencer Kuvin. I just 7 believe the witness has finished his 7 can't place exactly where it wan. It wasn't at the 8 response. S Rothstein office. And I just don't -- it was somewhere 1 THE WITNESS: And wo keep talking about t in Went Palm Beach -- at a law firm in West Palm. 10 mo

hree child victims? A No. Q Dld there coma a tine when you learned that Rothstein had used the cases that we have been referring to to attract Ponsi schema investor➢? A I learned that sometime in the beginning of November of 2009 by -- , by reading it in the paper. Q prior to that tine, w

KR. SCAROLA: May I now to this podium now? JEFFREY EPSTEIN, biaintirs/countor -Defendant, vs 4 THE CO1RT: Sure. 'at. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; • Your 110nOr, have we decided what notions were BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, , going to hoar? boranciants/countor -Plaintiffs

ng CO your Honor that 12 during a very CUTUICUOUSI period of CIAO these would I) the first notice we got of an Intent CO attempt. to to be the Rothstein fines, erployee. 14 use chose documents was March S. The first notice 14 KR. SMOLA: Yes, air. Let ne go through IS wo got of an intent CO attem

ding this. I Combine Investments versus Rothstein. 0 believe that prejudice outweighs any, any value it I Interestingly, a natter related to the Ponsi a might have, any relevance in this action, because , schma. 10 he needs co show damages proximately caused and not 10 And those two eases to

at has JEFFREY EPSTEIN, S transpired is of extreme consternation to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. 4 the court. It has caused me to have to SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; 7 engage in an inordinate amount of time to BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, 8 the exclusion of other natters that needed Defendan

ion for trial on May 24th, 2017. There is no dispute. And Mr. Edwards has actually pointed it out, Mr. Epstein did not have a default against Mr. Rothstein. Contrary to what Mr. Edwards' suggestion is, is to cure this issue -- 10 THE COURT: Mr. Epstein did not have a 11 default against Mr. Rothstein

ou 23 the difference. 23 can't fix today what was wrong in May, 24 If I put his language In, which tied it 24 that's the problem. 25 to the Ponsi scheme, be wouldn't have added 25 THE COURT: The pretrial stipulation, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793892 2 3 4 5

KR. SCAROLA: May I now to this podium now? JEFFREY EPSTEIN, biaintirs/countor -Defendant, vs 4 THE CWRT: Sure. 'at. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; • Your Honor, have we wowed what notions were BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, boranciants/countor -Plaintiffs. , 10 going to hoa

ng CO your Honor that 12 during a very CUTUICUOUSI period of CIAO these would I) the first notice we got of an Intent CO attempt. to to be the Rothstein fines, erployee. 14 use chose documents was March S. The first notice 14 KR. SMOLA: Yes, air. Let ne go through IS wo got of an intent CO attem

ding this. I Combine Investments versus Rothstein. 0 believe that prejudice outweighs any, any value it I Interestingly, a natter related to the Ponsi a might have, any relevance in this action, because , schma. 10 he needs co show damages proximately caused and not 10 And those two eases to