Epstein Secrets

- and I think it nay have been the 14 De her 22 dace -- I'm not sure about that exact 13 la date -- but exhibits that were not specifically By PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE 14 IC disclosed would net be permitted CO be used at. 25 For Jeffrey Epstein: 17 trial. You nada it clear that catchall listings 16

ow all of S to whom have you distributed them? And those are 8 the lewyer0 involved. , questions that we still don't have answered. 9 And Hr. Cassell is going to address free the 10 what we get frog the other side is, 'Well, 10 perspective of the client. the concern that they 11 they could ha

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

ntroduce to Your Honor II 12 For Non-Parties L.M.. E.M. 4 Jane Doe 13 University of Utah Law Professor Paul 13 HATCH. JAMES 4 DODGE, P.C. 14 Cassell, former Federal Judge Paul Cassell, 15 who will present that matter to the court. 14 Y 16 MR. CASSELL: Good morning, Your Honor. 15 17 Since

For Non-Parties L.M.. E.M. 4 Jane Doe 13 University of Utah Law Professor Paul 13 HATCH. JAMES 4 DODGE, P.C. 14 Cassell, former Federal Judge Paul Cassell, 15 who will present that matter to the court. 14 Y 16 MR. CASSELL: Good morning, Your Honor. 15 17 Since this is an unopposed motion, it wi

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

- and I think it nay have been the 14 De her 22 dice -- I'm not sure about that exact 13 la date -- bat exhibits that were not specifically By PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE 14 1a disclosed would net be penn/Lted CO be used at. 25 For Jeffrey Epstein: 17 trial. You rude it clear that catchall listings 16

ow all of S to whom have you distributed them? And those are 8 the lewyer0 involved. , questions that we still don't have answered. 9 And Hr. Cassell is going to address free the 10 what we get frog the other side is, 'Well, 10 perspective of the client. the concern that they 11 they could ha

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

for very, very high number of -- in dollars 1 4 5 4 s * Is II 12 13 IS Is 14 17 Is Is 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 But you do recall Paul Cassell 's involvement. What about other local lawyers? Wore there other local lawyers who were participants in the prosecution of she cases against Jeffrey

cases after he joined ARA. Be had already filed these cases, I believe. I know ho had shoe -- the ladies as clients before he joined the firm. And Cassell was co-counsel with him on those. So in terns of attorneys that were co-counsel wish ua, he was a co-counsel representing the three young woman th

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