1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL„ Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. / VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ VOLUME 1 Pages 1 through 179 Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m. Cole Scott & Kissane 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator EFTA00601154

2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of Plaintiffs: 3 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. 6 [email protected] 7 8 On behalf of Defendant: 9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. [email protected] 12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone) [email protected] 13 --and-- 14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP 131 Oliver Street 15 Boston, MA 02110 BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ. 16 [email protected] 17 --and-- 18 WILEY, REIN 17769 K Street NW 19 Washington, DC 20006 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ. 20 [email protected] BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ. 21 [email protected] 22 23 24 25 EFTA00601155

3 1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 2 3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 4 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 5 Boston, MA 02116 BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG. ESQ. (Via phone) 6 [email protected] 7 --and-- 8 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. 9 New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) 10 11 On behalf of 12 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ. 14 [email protected] 15 16 ALSO PRESENT: 17 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 18 Travis Gallagher, Videographer 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00601156

4 1 INDEX 2 3 4 Examination Page 5 6 VOLUME 1 (Pages 1 - 179) 7 Direct By Mr. Scarola 6 8 Certificate of Oath 176 Certificate of Reporter 177 9 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 178 Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 179 10 11 No exhibits marked to Volume 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00601157

5 1 Thereupon, 2 the following proceedings began at 9:31 a.m.: 3 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 15th day of 09:31:40 4 October, 2015. The time is approximately 9:31 5 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Alan 6 M. Dershowitz in the matter of Bradley J. 7 Edwards and Paul Cassell versus Alan M. 8 Dershowitz. This deposition is being held at 9 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 1850, Fort 10 Lauderdale, Florida, 33301. 11 My name is Travis Gallagher. I'm the 09:31:40 12 videographer representing Above & Beyond 13 Reprographics. 14 Will the attorneys please announce their 09:31:46 15 appearances for the record. 16 MR. SCAROLA: My name is Jack Scarola. 09:31:48 17 I'm counsel on behalf of Bradley Edwards and 18 Professor Paul Cassell. Mr. Edwards and 19 Mr. Cassell are also present. 20 Also with us from the Utah Attorney 09:31:58 21 General's office is Joni Jones. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley. I'm with 09:32:06 23 the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner on 24 behalf of 25 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Tom Scott on 09:32:12 EFTA00601158

6 1 behalf of the Defendant Professor Dershowitz. 2 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of 09:32:18 3 Professor Dershowitz. 4 MR. SWEDER: Ken Sweder on behalf of 09:32:22 5 Defendant and Counterclaimant Alan M. 6 Dershowitz. 7 MR. WEINBERG: This is Martin Weinberg 09:32:29 8 appearing by telephone. Thank you for allowing 9 that on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. 10 MR. SAFRA: This is Steven Safra also on 09:32:37 11 behalf of Professor Dershowitz. 12 MR. INDYKE: This is Darren Indyke on 09:32:43 13 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. 14 MS. RICHARDSON: Nicole Richardson on 09:32:46 15 behalf of Professor Dershowitz. 16 Thereupon: 09:32:47 17 ALAN DERSHOWITZ 09:32:47 18 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 09:32:47 19 testified as follows: 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 09:32:47 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:32:54 22 Q. Would you please state your full name, 09:32:55 23 sir? 24 A. Alan Morton Dershowitz. 09:32:57 25 Q. And where did you live? 09:32:59 EFTA00601159

7 1 A. Well, I live in three places. We have a 09:33:00 2 home in Miami Beach, a small condo apartment where 3 we spend the winters. We live in the fall and part 4 of the spring in an apartment in New York, and then 5 we have a summer place on Martha's Vineyard. 6 Q. Within the last ten years, have you had 09:33:21 7 other residence besides those that you've described? 8 A. Yes. 09:33:27 9 Q. And where are they? 09:33:27 10 A. We owned a home in Cambridge, 09:33:30 11 Massachusetts about a mile away from the Harvard Law 12 School. 13 Q. And at what point in time did you no 09:33:39 14 longer have the Cambridge home? 15 A. Well, we moved out of it a couple of years 09:33:45 16 ago and then it was on the market for a while. And 17 then it was sold. I don't have exact dates in my 18 mind. 19 Q. Sometime within the last three years 09:33:57 20 approximately? 21 A. Certainly was sold within the last three 09:34:02 22 years, yes. 23 Q. And you moved out when? 09:34:04 24 A. Moved out earlier than that. Moved out 09:34:06 25 when we put it on the market. And when I came back EFTA00601160

8 1 to teach at Harvard for my last semester, we stayed 2 in the Charles Hotel. 3 Q. How long have you had the apartment in 09:34:20 4 New York? 5 A. This apartment, it's been a couple of 09:34:23 6 years. 7 Q. And prior to that, was there a period of 09:34:26 8 time when you maintained another residence in 9 New York? 10 A. Yes. 09:34:31 11 Q. And what period of time was that? 09:34:32 12 A. Probably 30 years, around 30 years. 09:34:37 13 Q. Beginning approximately 30 years ago? 09:34:42 14 A. Yes, beginning approximately 30 years ago, 09:34:46 15 yes. 16 Q. So, have you maintained a residence in 09:34:49 17 New York continuously for approximately the last 18 30 years? 19 A. We have not maintained a residence as that 09:34:56 20 term's legally applied. We have had a pied-a-terre 21 in New York that we occasionally visited over the 22 past 30 years, yes. 23 Q. You had property where you could stay 09:35:07 24 overnight, you had access to that property in 25 New York continuously for the past 30 years? EFTA00601161

9 1 A. That's correct. 09:35:20 2 Q. Is that accurate? 09:35:21 3 A. That's correct, yes. 09:35:22 4 Q. All right. Can you tell me, please, 09:35:23 5 whether you agree or disagree with the following 6 statement: "According to our philosophical and 7 ethical traditions, reputation is sacrosanct"? 8 MR. SCOTT: Can I ask what you're 09:35:39 9 publishing from? 10 MR. SCAROLA: I'm just asking a question. 09:35:41 11 A. I believe reputation is sacrosanct and I 09:35:43 12 believe that an effort has been made to destroy mine 13 by false and malicious charges, yes. 14 MR. SCAROLA: I would move to strike the 09:35:53 15 unresponsive portion of the answer. 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:35:56 17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:35:56 18 following: "A good name is more desirable than 19 great riches"? 20 A. I certainly agree with that. And there's 09:36:02 21 been an effort to destroy my good name by false and 22 mendacious charges. 23 MR. SCAROLA: I move to strike the 09:36:09 24 unresponsive portion of the answer. 25 EFTA00601162

10 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:36:12 2 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:36:13 3 following statement: "While throughout history 4 reputation has been recognized as a priceless 5 treasure, it is fragile"? 6 A. I think that the longer one maintains a 09:36:28 7 good reputation, as I have for over 50 years, the 8 less fragile it is; but, yes, it is fragile and one 9 false allegation maliciously made by a serial liar 10 with the help of her unethical lawyers could destroy 11 a fragile or hurt a fragile reputation. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:36:59 13 unresponsive portion of the answer. 14 MR. SCOTT: Obviously we take a different 09:37:01 15 position. But go ahead, Jack. 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:04 17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:37:05 18 following statement: "Sensational accusations, even 19 when baseless, often cause damage that is 20 irreversible"? 21 A. That is a perfect description of exactly 09:37:15 22 what happened to me, yes, at the hands of your 23 clients. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:37:24 25 unresponsive portion of the answer. EFTA00601163

11 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:26 2 Q. Do you degree or disagree with the 09:37:27 3 following statement: "There is no presumption of 4 innocence in the court of public opinion"? 5 A. I think there's some truth to that. But 09:37:35 6 when you have a good reputation, there are some who 7 do presume innocence, particularly when the charges 8 made against you are so clearly filled with the lies 9 and financial motivation as were in the instance 10 when your clients directed false accusations against 11 me. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:38:06 13 unresponsive portion of the answer. 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:08 15 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:38:09 16 following statement: "The usual reaction to ugly 17 accusations assumes that fire lies beneath the 18 smoke, rather than that the smoke lies"? 19 MR. SCOTT: You want that read back? You 09:38:25 20 got it all? 21 A. Can you -- can you show me where that 09:38:31 22 comes from? 23 09:38:34 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:34 25 Q. I'm only asking ultimately whether you 09:38:35 EFTA00601164

12 1 agree or disagree with the statement. 2 MR. SCOTT: It's our position that you're 09:38:38 3 reading from something that -- especially if 4 you're reading something that he's published, 5 he has the option to see it in order to -- if 6 you're quoting from it, we would like to ask 7 you to produce it so he can read it. 8 A. It's -- it's a metaphorical statement 09:38:53 9 whose general thrust I agree with, yes. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:58 11 Q. Thank you. 09:38:59 12 A. Thank you very much for reading from my -- 09:39:01 13 from my book. Appreciate it. 14 Q. In light of your agreement with the 09:39:10 15 principles that I have just read, can we also agree 16 that a serious injury to a reputation requires 17 serious monetary compensation if the injury is 18 unjustified? 19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, conclusion, 09:39:28 20 speculation. 21 A. I don't think that there is any possible 09:39:32 22 monetary compensation for the attempt to damage my 23 reputation which your clients have maliciously and 24 deliberately set out to do for their own financial 25 reasons. EFTA00601165

13 1 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. That, however, is not a response to the 4 question that I asked. So let me try again. 5 MR. SCAROLA: And I move to strike that. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Can we agree that in light of the 8 9 10 unjustified injury to reputation is a serious injury 11 that requires serious compensation? 12 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 13 A. I don't think that question can be 14 answered in a yes or no way. I will just reiterate 15 that I think the damage to my reputation exceeds any 16 possible amount of money. If I had been offered 17 $10 million in exchange for somebody making the 18 kinds of baseless accusations that your clients made 19 against me, I would have turned down that 20 21 possible other than a complete apology and 22 withdrawal of the false accusations, especially 23 since your clients know that the accusations made 24 against me are baseless and false. 25 statements that you have recognized to be accurate regarding the priceless value of reputation, that an $10 million. I think that there is no compensation 09:39:47 09:39:47 09:39:47 09:39:50 09:39:52 09:39:53 09:40:17 09:40:18 EFTA00601166

14 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:02 2 Q. Do you agree that if an injury to 09:41:03 3 reputation is done purposefully and with malice, it 4 is deserving of punishment? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion, 09:41:13 6 form, speculation. 7 A. I believe that the accusations leveled 09:41:18 8 against me were made with malice and with deliberate 9 intention, which is why I am going to be seeking 10 disciplinary action, including disbarment, against 11 your unethical and mendacious clients. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as 09:41:36 13 unresponsive to my question. 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:38 15 Q. The question I'm posing to you, sir, is: 09:41:39 16 Do you agree that if an injury to reputation is done 17 without factual basis and intentionally, it is 18 deserving of punishment? 19 A. What you have done is to describe with 09:41:58 20 great precision what your clients did to me. And so 21 the answer to my question is -- the answer to your 22 question is yes, I think your -- I think your 23 clients are deserving of punishment, yes. 24 Q. Do you believe that you are a special 09:42:09 25 case; that is, that intentional injury to your EFTA00601167

15 1 reputation is deserving of punishment but 2 intentional injury to the reputation of others is 3 not deserving of punishment? 4 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 09:42:24 5 argumentative, compound. 6 A. I certainly don't think I'm a special 09:42:26 7 case. I think that I have been defamed and 8 deliberately by your clients and I don't think 9 lawyers who engage in such deliberate conduct should 10 be allowed to practice law, which is why I am going 11 to seek their their their disbarment and 12 other -- other sanctions. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:42:49 14 Q. In fact, you have been making public 09:42:50 15 statements of your intention to seek the disbarment 16 of Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell for 17 approximately ten months, correct? 18 A. That's right. That's correct. 09:43:03 19 Q. You are aware of the ethical obligation 09:43:05 20 that a lawyer has when that lawyer has direct 21 knowledge of unethical conduct on the part of 22 another member of the Bar -- 23 A. That's right. 09:43:16 24 Q. -- to report that unethical conduct, 09:43:16 25 correct? EFTA00601168

16 1 A. Yes. 09:43:19 2 Q. Have you done that? 09:43:20 3 A. I have conferred with three leading ethics 09:43:21 4 experts and I have been advised that to file a 5 report while there is ongoing litigation is not the 6 proper approach. But rather to gather the evidence 7 and the information and to make sure that all of the 8 allegations I make are well founded, unlike what 9 your clients did, and then at the appropriate time, 10 when the litigation is concluded, seek the 11 disbarment of Bar associations. I am advised by my 12 ethics experts do not look kindly on attempts to 13 disbar lawyers that can be perceived as part of an 14 ongoing litigation strategy. 15 I fully intend to seek disbarment, as I 09:44:10 16 said, of your clients because I believe they engaged 17 in unprofessional, unethical and disbarrable 18 conduct. And I've continued to do so until as 19 recently as last week. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:44:28 21 unresponsive portion of that answer. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:44:32 23 Q. Who are the three leading experts with 09:44:33 24 whom you've conferred? 25 A. The expert I conferred with initially was 09:44:37 EFTA00601169

17 1 Dean Monroe Freedman of the Hofstra law school who 2 had been my kind of ethical guru for my entire 3 career. I spent an extensive amount of time with 4 him conferring about all aspects of this case. 5 I then conferred with Professor Stephen 09:44:59 6 Gillers, who is wildly regarded as the leading 7 current ethics expert in the United States who is a 8 professor at NYU law school. 9 I also conferred with Professor Ronald 09:45:12 10 Rotunda, and in the process of also received advice, 11 some unsolicited some solicited from a variety of 12 lawyers and other experts. I'll give you an 13 example. 14 For example, when I was speaking at an 09:45:33 15 event in Florida, a man came over to me who I -- I 16 don't recall his name, but he worked for a big firm 17 and was on the -- on some ethics committee of a 18 Florida Bar Association. And he advised me to bring 19 ethics charges saying that from what he had seen, 20 the conduct of the lawyers were unethical and 21 unprofessional and deserved disbarment. But also 22 advised me not to do it until litigation was 23 concluded. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:46:07 25 unresponsive portions of that answer. EFTA00601170

18 1 And I would ask, Mr. Scott, that you 09:46:10 2 counsel your client to be responsive to the 3 questions in order that we have some reasonable 4 expectation of being able to finish this 5 deposition within my lifetime. 6 MR. SCOTT: I'm not here to exchange 09:46:26 7 sarcastic comments, Jack, with you. I believe 8 my client is trying to answer your questions. 9 MR. SCAROLA: The question asked for names 09:46:32 10 of three individuals. What I got was a speech. 11 What I have gotten repeatedly in response to 12 direct questions are speeches. I would ask 13 that you counsel your client to please respond 14 to the questions. 15 MR. SCOTT: When we take a break, I'll 09:46:45 16 speak to my client in general based upon what I 17 think is appropriate. Let's proceed. 18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 09:46:54 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:46:54 20 Q. In an interview with Hala Gorani on 09:46:55 21 January 5 of this year, broadcast on CNN Live, you 22 said, "I have a superb memory." 23 Do you acknowledge having made that 09:47:08 24 statement? 25 A. I have a superb memory, so I must have 09:47:10 EFTA00601171

19 1 made that statement. My mother had an extraordinary 2 memory and when I was in college and I was on the 3 4 5 6 7 8 take 9 10 11 12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 13 unresponsive portions of the answer. 14 Would you like to take a break now, 15 Mr. Scott, so that -- 16 MR. SCOTT: No, I'd like to proceed. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 18 A. Me too. 19 20 Q. 21 have a superb memory? 22 A. No. My contention is that I have a very 23 24 25 now remembering names of people I've just met, but I debate team, my mother allowed me to debate on the Sabbath, which was Jewish rest day, only on the condition that I not take notes or write. And at that point I discovered that I have a very good memory and don't have to -- generally didn't have to notes. My memory, obviously, at the age of 77 has slipped a bit; but do I have a very good memory, yes. BY MR. SCAROLA: So it is your contention that you still good memory and that at the age of 77, occasionally my memory slips. I particularly have difficult time 09:47:41 09:47:48 09:47:51 09:47:55 09:47:56 09:47:57 09:47:58 09:47:58 09:48:00 EFTA00601172

20 1 remember events very well. And when I argue cases 2 in front of courts, I generally don't need to have 3 notes in front of me because I remember the cases 4 very well. And I remember the transcript very well, 5 and so I have always relied on my good memory in my 6 professional life. 7 Q. So, on January 5, when you were 09:48:29 8 interviewed on CNN Live, your memory at that time 9 was superb but in the ensuing ten months, it has 10 become less than superb? 11 A. No -- 09:48:41 12 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:48:41 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:48:42 14 Q. Is that correct? 09:48:42 15 A. No, that's not correct. 09:48:42 16 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection, form, 09:48:44 17 conclusion, not what he said. 18 A. Memory is a matter of degree and memories 09:48:48 19 don't -- unless there's an illness or trauma, 20 don't -- don't suddenly change. I've had no -- 21 nothing in my life to dramatically change. But as I 22 said, as a 77-year-old, my memory is not what it was 23 when I was a 25-year-old. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:49:11 25 Q. Are you under the influence today of any 09:49:11 EFTA00601173

21 1 drugs or alcohol that might have an affect on your 2 memory? 3 A. No. 09:49:18 4 Q. Are you having any physical problems that 09:49:19 5 might make it difficult for you to understand or 6 properly respond to my questions? 7 A. No. 09:49:24 8 Q. Did you get a good night's sleep last 09:49:25 9 night? 10 A. Yes. 09:49:28 11 Q. What is the general condition of your 09:49:28 12 health? 13 A. As a result of some of the tensions caused 09:49:31 14 by these false accusations, I've had a recurrence of 15 my atrial fibrillation and a recurrence of some 16 experiences of high blood pressure. But beyond 17 that, my general health is satisfactory. 18 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed the 09:49:58 19 recurrence of your atrial fibrillation to 20 involvement in the circumstances that gave rise to 21 this litigation? 22 A. My cardiologist asked me whether or not 09:50:15 23 there were any tense or tension-causing episodes 24 recently that might explain my recurrence of the 25 atrial fibrillation. And in response I did describe EFTA00601174

22 1 the current false accusations against me in an 2 attempt to destroy my reputation by false and 3 malicious charges, yes. 4 Q. What is the name of your cardiologist? 09:50:39 5 A. Jeremy Ruskin, R-U-S-K-I-N. He's the 09:50:41 6 chief of electro cardio physiology at Massachusetts 7 General Hospital. 8 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed 09:50:53 9 your high blood pressure to events that are the 10 subject of this litigation? 11 A. Again, when I complained about high blood 09:51:01 12 pressure, one of the first questions that I'm asked 13 is whether or not there's any tension or any tense 14 experiences occurring in my life and the doctor 15 who's treated me for high blood pressure is 16 Dr. Harold Solomon, S-O-'-O-M-O-N, in Brookline, 17 Massachusetts. 18 Q. Has Dr. Solomon -- 09:51:24 19 A. Right. 09:51:27 20 Q. -- attributed your high blood pressure to 09:51:27 21 events related to this litigation? 22 A. I think all of my doctors have 09:51:34 23 concluded -- you'll have to ask them -- that this 24 lawsuit has been a contributing factor to some of 25 the health issues -- let me withdraw that. That the EFTA00601175

23 1 false accusations against me from your client have 2 contributed to some of my health problems, yes. 3 Q. When did your atrial fibrillation recur? 09:52:00 4 A. About a month ago. About a month ago. 09:52:07 5 I -- I could get you the exact date because I keep a 6 record with a small cardiogram of my afib pretty 7 much every day. 8 Q. When did your blood pressure increase as a 09:52:23 9 result of events related to this litigation? 10 A. Well, it's been up and down. I've had 09:52:31 11 recurring episodes of high blood pressure. And I 12 think particularly since the beginning of the false 13 charges, not the litigation, but it's the false 14 charges, the outrageous allegations, baseless 15 outrageous allegations against me have certainly 16 contributed in my view to my variation in blood 17 pressure, yes. 18 Q. When were you initially diagnosed with 09:53:07 19 atrial fibrillation? 20 A. About two and a half years ago I had -- 09:53:17 21 let's see, December -- two and a half years ago 22 December I was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital with 23 an episode. It then basically went away. And then 24 it returned as atrial flutter. 25 And then I had an ablation, which cured or 09:53:48 EFTA00601176

24 1 relieved any symptoms of atrial fibrillation or 2 atrial flutter, until they recurred -- until it 3 recurred about a month or maybe it's a month and a 4 half now. I can give you the exact dates. Because, 5 as I say, I have it on my -- on my machine. 6 Q. When did the atrial flutter occur? 09:54:16 7 A. I told you that I don't have the exact 09:54:20 8 date, but it occurred about a month, month and a 9 half ago, I think sometime in August of this year. 10 But I can give you the exact date. As I said, I 11 have it on my machine. 12 Q. So, what you have described as a 09:54:33 13 recurrence of atrial fibrillation you are now 14 describing as an atrial flutter? 15 A. You're confused, sir. Please listen to my 09:54:42 16 answers. What I've said was that I had atrial 17 flutter. Atrial flutter occurred after my initial 18 atrial fib. I then had an ablation. The flutter 19 and the fib both disappeared after the ablation. 20 And my atrial fib has returned. 21 Q. Given your superb memory, would you please 09:55:13 22 name for us each of the lawyers who has represented 23 you in this case? 24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:55:22 25 Argumentative. EFTA00601177

25 1 If you need a document or anything to 09:55:29 2 refresh your memory, please let us know. 3 A. Well, I'll start with the names of my 09:55:34 4 lawyers. I've been represented by Judge Scott and 5 his law firm, including several associates and 6 paralegals. I don't know their status, whether 7 they're partners, associates or paralegals, but I've 8 had contact with them. 9 I have been represented by Mr. Simpson's 09:55:54 10 law firm, including several partners, associates, 11 and paralegals. I've been represented by Kenneth 12 Sweder and presumably some of his partners and 13 associates. 14 I've been represented by Kendall Coffey 09:56:15 15 and several of his associates and partners. I would 16 say those are my main lawyers. But I've also had 17 others. 18 I have sought the legal advice of Mark 09:56:34 19 Fabiani, who was my former research assistant at 20 Harvard. I've sought the advice of Mitchell Webber, 21 who was my former research assistant at Harvard. 22 I was offered legal advice by Carlos 09:56:52 23 Sires, who was -- who is a partner in the Boise firm 24 who -- who volunteered to represent me along with 25 one of his partners, but then withdraw from the EFTA00601178

26 1 representation when he discovered that I had a 2 conflict of interest. 3 I've had consultations with a variety of 09:57:18 4 other lawyers over particular issues in the case, 5 Floyd Abrams, who is probably the leading lawyer in 6 the world on First Amendment, has advised me on my 7 First Amendment rights to have said what I said 8 truthfully and expressed my opinion about your 9 clients. 10 I mean, that's the very beginning. But 09:57:51 11 when the events first occurred, I got calls from 12 dozens of lawyers outraged by the unethical conduct 13 of your clients and offering to represent me 14 pro bono, offering to do anything they could to see 15 that these lawyers were appropriately punished and 16 disciplined. 17 David Markus, for example, of the Miami 09:58:17 18 Bar called and keeps calling asking if there's 19 anything he can do to help me. 20 There's a lawyer in Broward named Diner, 09:58:28 21 who has offered to represent me. It goes on and on 22 and on. The offers are still coming in. People are 23 just absolutely outraged by the unprofessional and 24 unethical conduct of your clients and are offering 25 to help me right a wrong and undo an injustice. EFTA00601179

27 1 MR. SCOTT: Just hold it. Somebody's 09:59:00 2 making noise on the phone and it's causing a 3 little disruption here. So, you know, I'm not 4 sure who it is, one of you-all on the phone. 5 Thanks. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:16 7 Q. Mr. Scott is obviously still representing 09:59:21 8 you now; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 09:59:24 10 Q. Richard Simpson is still representing you 09:59:25 11 now; is that correct? 12 A. That's correct. 09:59:27 13 Q. Ken Sweder is representing you now; is 09:59:28 14 that correct? 15 A. That's correct, yes. 09:59:30 16 Q. Is Kendall Coffey representing you now? 09:59:30 17 A. Yes. 09:59:33 18 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now? 09:59:35 19 A. Yes. 09:59:37 20 Q. And when I ask "are they representing you 09:59:38 21 now," they're representing you now in this 22 litigation; is that correct? 23 MR. SCOTT: I don't think that -- 09:59:45 24 objection, form. I don't think that was 25 specified. EFTA00601180

28 1 MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's why I'm asking. 09:59:48 2 MR. SCOTT: As opposed to general advice. 09:59:50 3 A. Yes. Yes. 09:59:52 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:53 5 Q. And Mark Fabiani is representing you with 09:59:53 6 regard to this litigation; is that correct? 7 A. Yes, yes. 09:59:57 8 Q. Floyd Abrams is representing you now with 09:59:58 9 regard to this litigation; is that correct? 10 A. Yes. 10:00:01 11 Q. Mitch Webber is representing you now with 10:00:02 12 regard to this litigation; is that correct? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 10:00:06 14 Q. Is Steven Safra representing you with 10:00:11 15 regard to this litigation? 16 A. Yes. 10:00:15 17 Q. Is Mary Borja representing you now with 10:00:15 18 regard to this litigation? 19 A. Yes. 10:00:19 20 Q. Is Ashley Eiler representing you now with 10:00:20 21 regard to this litigation? 22 A. That's not a name that immediately comes 10:00:24 23 to my head, but I believe it's an associate in one 24 of the law firms. I don't know the names of all the 25 lawyers who are doing the background work on the EFTA00601181

29 1 case for the law firms. 2 Q. Is Nicole Richardson representing you now 10:00:37 3 with regard to this litigation? 4 A. Again, yes, yes. 10:00:41 5 Q. Is Gabe Groisman representing you now with 10:00:46 6 regard to this litigation? 7 A. Yes. 10:00:49 8 Q. Is Ben Brodsky representing you now with 10:00:51 9 regard to this litigation? 10 A. Ben Brodsky? I would have to check on 10:00:59 11 that. 12 Q. Is Neely representing you now with 10:01:06 13 regard to this litigation? 14 A. Neely has been my assistant and 10:01:09 15 paralegal for the last some years and I have used 16 her to perform paralegal work for me in this 17 litigation. 18 Q. Is Nicholas Maisel representing you now 10:01:27 19 with regard to this litigation? 20 A. Nicholas Maisel is my research assistant 10:01:31 21 and paralegal on this litigation, yes. 22 Q. Is your wife representing you with regard 10:01:39 23 to this litigation? 24 A. My wife has been instrumental in helping 10:01:42 25 me gather all the records and information. She EFTA00601182

30 1 knows more about records and where my records are 2 kept and I've asked her to perform paralegal service 3 in addition to her loving service as my wife. 4 Q. Is Harvey Silverglate representing you now 10:02:04 5 with regard to this litigation? 6 A. Yes. 10:02:08 7 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now with 10:02:09 8 regard to this litigation? 9 A. You've asked me that question and the 10:02:12 10 answer is -- 11 Q. No, I asked you, sir, if he was your 10:02:14 12 lawyer; but I haven't asked you whether he's 13 representing you now with regard to this litigation. 14 A. The answer is yes. 10:02:20 15 Q. Is Floyd Abrams representing you now with 10:02:22 16 regard to this litigation? 17 A. Yes. 10:02:25 18 Q. Is Jamin Dershowitz representing you now 10:02:26 19 with regard to this litigation? 20 A. Yes. 10:02:30 21 Q. Is Nancy Gertner representing you now with 10:02:32 22 regard to this litigation? 23 A. That requires a lengthier answer, if you 10:02:36 24 will permit me. 25 Q. I haven't stopped you yet. 10:02:41 EFTA00601183

31 1 A. You've tried. 10:02:43 2 Q. Much as I may have liked to. 10:02:44 3 A. You've tried. 10:02:45 4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, that's probably 10:02:47 5 one of the few times you and I agree on 6 something. 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, we've agreed on a lot, 10:02:52 8 Tom. 9 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we -- I'm kidding you. 10:02:55 10 I'm kidding you. 11 MR. SCAROLA: I know you are. 10:02:57 12 A. Nancy Gertner is one of the attorneys who 10:02:58 13 called me immediately and expressed outrage at what 14 was happening to me and offered to help me. 15 Initially she wanted to help me by calling your 16 client, Professor Cassell, and explaining to him 17 that what I've been accused of could not possibly 18 have happened and there must have been a mistake or 19 something. And clearly she had confused me with 20 someone else. 21 And as I understand it, Nancy Gertner made 10:03:29 22 that phone call to your client, Professor Cassell, 23 and Professor Cassell reiterated his false 24 accusation against me. 25 Thereafter, Nancy Gertner volunteered to 10:03:42 EFTA00601184

32 1 become part of my legal team and to examine some of 2 the witnesses in this case. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:03:55 4 Q. Did you ever accept that offer from Nancy 10:03:56 5 Gertner -- 6 A. Yes. 10:03:59 7 Q. -- so as to establish an attorney-client 10:03:59 8 relationship with -- 9 A. Yes. 10:04:04 10 Q. So she is one of your lawyers -- 10:04:04 11 A. She is currently -- I regard her currently 10:04:05 12 as one of my lawyers, yes. 13 Q. And is Mitch Webber one of your lawyers in 10:04:08 14 this case? 15 A. Yes. 10:04:11 16 Q. But if I just give you a name without 10:04:12 17 repeating the second part, "is that one of the 18 lawyers in your case," will you understand 19 A. I understand. 10:04:21 20 Q. -- that I'm asking you with regard to 10:04:22 21 these -- each of these individuals whether they are 22 a lawyer representing you in this case? 23 A. Yes. 10:04:30 24 Q. Okay. Anthony Julius? 10:04:30 25 A. Anthony Julius is a British barrister and 10:04:35 EFTA00601185

33 1 solicitor who I conferred with regarding the 2 possibility of filing lawsuits against your clients 3 in Great Britain. I continue to confer with him on 4 matters relating to defamation. 5 Q. So you consider him to be one of your 10:04:54 6 lawyers representing you with regard to matters 7 relating to this lawsuit? 8 A. I'll stand by -- 10:05:00 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:05:01 10 A. -- my answer. I'll stand by my answer. 10:05:02 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:05:04 12 Q. Charles Ogletree? 10:05:05 13 A. Charles Ogletree is a close personal 10:05:06 14 friend and colleague at the Harvard Law School with 15 whom I have conferred about this case. I always 16 have regarded him as a personal attorney and 17 continue to confer with him about this case and the 18 general picture. So, I do regard him as one of my 19 lawyers in this litigation, yes. I certainly regard 20 him as having been given privileged information as 21 part of a lawyer-client privilege, yes. 22 Q. There -- there may be a time when I need 10:05:47 23 more than just an answer to the question that I'm 24 asking as to whether these individuals are or are 25 not your lawyers in this case. That's not now. EFTA00601186

34 1 So if you would, please, I would 10:06:01 2 appreciate it if you would tell me only whether 3 these individuals are or are not your lawyers in 4 this case. 5 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot comply with that. 10:06:09 6 I'm -- 7 Q. Well, you can but you refuse to. 10:06:12 8 MR. SCOTT: Let's not interrupt him. 10:06:14 9 A. Let me complete my answer, please. 10:06:16 10 MR. SCOTT: It doesn't help the court 10:06:17 11 reporter or the record. 12 A. I've been teaching legal ethics for close 10:06:19 13 to 40 years. I understand the complexity of the 14 lawyer-client relationship. And it's impossible as 15 to some of the names you've mentioned to simply give 16 a yes or no answer to whether they are representing 17 me in this case. 18 What I can do is give you the facts and 10:06:39 19 then you and others can draw legal conclusions from 20 those facts. But I -- I cannot, under my oath to 21 tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 22 truth, respond to questions with yes or no answers 23 when those questions do not call for simplistic yes 24 or no answers. 25 EFTA00601187

35 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 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Is Philip Heymann a lawyer representing you in this case? A. I have conferred with Philip Heymann on several occasions about several aspects of this case and I regard him, for purposes of lawyer-client privilege, as one of my lawyers on this case. Q. David Oscar Markus, same question? MR. SCOTT: We covered him, didn't we? A. David Oscar Markus is a former student and research assistant of mine. Lives in Miami and practices law. And he has repeatedly called and offered me legal representation. Has offered to help me in the legal context of this case. And I've conferred with him on lawyer-client confidential basis about this case on several occasion. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q• Thomas Wiegand? A. Thomas Wiegand is a litigator in Chicago with whom I worked along with Carlos Sires and Sigrid McCawley on the Guma Aguiar case in Florida. And as soon as this case occurred, Thomas Wiegand was one of those lawyers who called and offered to represent me and do whatever he could to help undo the injustice that had been perpetrated on me by 10:07:01 10:07:01 10:07:04 10:07:18 10:07:22 10:07:23 10:07:49 10:07:49 10:07:51 EFTA00601188

36 1 your clients' false and mendacious allegations 2 regarding me and 3 Q. Jeanne Baker? 10:08:30 4 A. Jeanne Baker is a long-term associate, 10:08:32 5 legal associate and friend who also called and 6 offered me legal help, legal representation, and I 7 continue to confer with her on a privileged basis. 8 Q. Rick Pildes? 10:08:51 9 A. Rick Pildes is a professor at New York 10:08:53 10 University law school and I sought his legal advice 11 on a particular issue in this case. And continue to 12 seek his legal advice. 13 Q. Susan Rosen? 10:09:03 14 A. Susan Rosen is a prominent lawyer in 10:09:04 15 Charleston, South Carolina and a cousin of my 16 wife's. And she has offered me legal advice about 17 this case as recently as two days ago. 18 Q. Alex MacDonald? 10:09:24 19 A. Alex MacDonald is my personal lawyer in 10:09:25 20 several instances in Massachusetts and he has 21 offered me advice and consultation on this case, 22 again volunteering in an effort to undo the horrible 23 injustice that was done to me by your clients' 24 mendacious willful and unprofessional conduct and 25 leveling of false charges, sexual misconduct against EFTA00601189

37 1 me at a time when they knew it wasn't true and 2 seeking to repeat that charge after they knew that 3 it was impossible that I could have engaged in any 4 of the conduct that they have accused me of. 5 Q. Barbara Gillers? 10:10:05 6 A. Barbara Gillers is at professor at NYU law 10:10:06 7 school and also the wife of Steven Gillers and she, 8 along with Steven Gillers, have advised me and 9 conferred with me about the legal ethics aspects of 10 this case. 11 Q. So you consider her to be one of your 10:10:19 12 lawyers in this case, is that -- 13 A. I can -- 10:10:22 14 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form. Go ahead. 10:10:23 15 Let me make an objection. I know you're just 16 trying to answer, but go ahead, you can answer, 17 sir. 18 A. Sorry. I regard my conversations with her 10:10:29 19 as having come within the lawyer-client privilege. 20 We've conferred on a number of occasions about the 21 ethical misconduct of your clients. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:10:43 23 Q. Rana Dershowitz? 10:10:43 24 A. Rana Dershowitz is my niece and Harvard 10:10:45 25 law school graduate, former chief counsel for the EFTA00601190

38 1 U.S. Olympic Committee and a prominent lawyer in 2 Colorado. And I've conferred with her on numerous 3 occasions about litigation and strategy and aspects 4 of this case. 5 Q. Ella Dershowitz? 10:11:05 6 A. Ella Dershowitz is my daughter and she has 10:11:06 7 served as a paralegal helping me gather material. I 8 don't think I regard her -- I certainly don't regard 9 her as a lawyer in the case. But I regard her as 10 somebody who has been a part of our kind of legal 11 team. 12 Q. Ellen Dershowitz? 10:11:29 13 A. Ellen -- 10:11:32 14 Q. Elon? 10:11:33 15 A. Elon Dershowitz is my oldest son, child, 10:11:34 16 and he has served repeatedly in a paralegal capacity 17 in this case helping me to gather information and 18 evidence and doing some investigative work for me. 19 Q. Nathan Dershowitz? 10:11:52 20 A. Nathan Dershowitz is my brother. He's a 10:11:52 21 distinguished attorney in New York, had his own law 22 firm. And he and I did a lot of our legal cases 23 together and as soon as this case emerged, I 24 conferred with him and have conferred with him on 25 numerous occasions about this case. EFTA00601191

39 1 Q. You consider him to be one of your lawyers 10:12:14 2 in this case? 3 A. Yes. 10:12:16 4 Q. Ben Brafman? 10:12:17 5 A. Ben Brafman is one of the leading criminal 10:12:19 6 lawyers and general lawyers in the City of New York? 7 He has volunteered to help me in any way he could in 8 this case and we have conferred and I have sought 9 legal advice from him in this in this matter. 10 Q. Arthur Aidala? 10:12:36 11 A. Arthur Aidala is a distinguished member of 10:12:38 12 the who's president of the Brooklyn Bar Association 13 and a former district attorney in Brooklyn. He has 14 volunteered to help me. He was outraged at the 15 unethical behavior of your clients and has sought 16 the opportunity to do everything in his power to try 17 to undo the injustice perpetrated on me by your 18 clients' mendacious and false and unethical 19 allegations against me, and I continue to confer 20 with him. 21 Q. David Zornow? 10:13:15 22 A. David Zornow is the senior litigating 10:13:17 23 partner at Skadden Arps in New York. He has offered 24 to assist me in this matter and I've conferred with 25 him and sought his legal advice. EFTA00601192

40 1 Q. Charles Johnson? 10:13:31 2 A. Charles Johnson is my former research 10:13:32 3 assistant and paralegal. I think we've taken his 4 name off the list of lawyers because he now, I 5 think, performs more of a journalistic job than a 6 legal one, though he has offered to help me gather 7 information on your clients. 8 Q. When did you cease considering Charles 10:14:02 9 Johnson to be your lawyer with regard to matters 10 relating to this case? 11 A. After a conference with my attorneys in 10:14:10 12 Washington, D.C. about ten days ago or so. We went 13 through the list and that was one that I said was 14 too close a question and I would regard him more as 15 a blogger and a journalist than as a lawyer. But 16 it's a close question. 17 Q. David Efron? 10:14:32 18 A. David Efron is a prominent lawyer in 10:14:33 19 Miami, Florida and Puerto Rico. He was one who 20 called me immediately and offered his assistance, 21 the assistance of his law firm. I've conferred with 22 him repeatedly about this case. 23 Q. In an attorney-client capacity; is that 10:14:54 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. 10:14:57 EFTA00601193

41 1 Q. Ashe? 10:14:57 2 A. Thomas Ashe is not a lawyer. He was one 10:14:58 3 of the first people I called on the day I was 4 informed of the lies being spread by your clients. 5 Because he could help me gather all the information 6 necessary to prove that the only time I was ever in 7 New Mexico was visiting him and his wife, who is a 8 prominent film person, and his daughter, who is a 9 sex offender prosecutor in the Brooklyn District 10 Attorney's Office who specializes in sex 11 trafficking. 12 I needed to call them to prove what I knew 10:15:49 13 immediately, that the only time I was ever at 14 Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was when I went to visit the 15 Ashes in New Mexico. I spoke to their daughter, the 16 prosecutor's, class. She was then in high school, 17 and took a day trip to Santa Fe. 18 Ashe had known -- had heard that Jeffrey 10:16:15 19 Epstein had bought a ranch, a very large ranch in 20 New Mexico and Ashe was very interested in the 21 outdoors and asked me if I would do him a favor and 22 call to see if we could just take a look at what the 23 ranch looked like. And I did that. 24 And we spent about an hour looking around 10:16:35 25 the house that was under construction. And I needed EFTA00601194

42 1 Ashe to gather all the evidence for me, including 2 journal entries in his daughter's journal, 3 photographs, other evidence and proof of our visit 4 to the ranch, which your client encouraged 5 to include in an affidavit -- perjurious 6 affidavit, that she submitted with details, false 7 and mendacious details that could not have occurred 8 about an alleged sexual encounter between her and me 9 at the ranch in New Mexico. 10 Q. Which of my clients are you swearing under 10:17:30 11 oath encouraged to include 12 allegations of an encounter with you at the 13 New Mexico ranch? 14 A. Both of them, both of your clients, both 10:17:49 15 Judge Cassell and Mr. Edwards were both involved in 16 encouraging your client to file a perjurious 17 affidavit that they knew or should have known was 18 perjurious and did know was perjurious recently when 19 they sought to file another defamatory allegation in 20 the federal proceeding. 21 Q. Was the encouragement such that what you 10:18:21 22 are charging Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul 23 Cassell with doing was suborning perjury? 24 A. Absolutely. 10:18:34 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:18:35 EFTA00601195

43 1 Go ahead. 10:18:36 2 A. Absolutely. If you ask me the question, I 10:18:37 3 am directly charging Judge Cassell and Bradley 4 Edwards with suborning perjury. I have been advised 5 that did not want to mention me, 6 told her friends that she did not want to mention 7 me. And was, quote, pressured by her lawyers into 8 including me and including these totally false 9 allegations against me. Yes, your clients are 10 guilty of suborning perjury. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:19:06 12 Q. Who told you that Bradley Edwards 10:19:06 13 pressured into falsely identifying 14 you? 15 A. A friend of who called 10:19:17 16 me out of the blue, and told me that she was 17 horrified by what was happening to me, and that she 18 recently had meetings with and 19 had told her that she never 20 mentioned me previously. That the lawyers pressured 21 her into mentioning me. And mentioning me over her 22 desire not to mention me, yes. 23 Q. Do you remember what the question is? 10:19:55 24 A. Yes, and I answered it. 10:19:57 25 Q. What do you understand the question to be 10:19:59 EFTA00601196

44 1 that you were answering? 2 MR. SCOTT: Object to form. 10:20:01 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:20:01 4 Q. Based upon your superb memory, what is it 10:20:02 5 that I asked you? 6 A. I think you asked me to tell me how I 10:20:07 7 found out who told me that your clients had suborned 8 perjury. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:20:14 10 Q. No, sir. What I asked you was to give me 10:20:14 11 a name. Who? 12 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 10:20:17 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:20:18 14 Q. Who? What's the name of the person? 10:20:18 15 A. Her name is -- her first name is Rebecca. 10:20:20 16 Q. Yes. 10:20:25 17 A. I don't know her last name. 10:20:26 18 Q. Did you attempt to find out her last name? 10:20:28 19 A. I have her last name written down but -- 10:20:30 20 Q. Where? 10:20:32 21 A. It's in my -- in my notes. And I could 10:20:34 22 get it for you. 23 Q. When did you -- 10:20:40 24 A. I have told -- 10:20:41 25 Q. When did you write Rebecca's name down? 10:20:43 EFTA00601197

45 1 A. When she -- when she first called me 10:20:45 2 let me be very clear since you've asked me the 3 question. 4 At first her husband and she called me on 10:20:50 5 the phone. They would not give me their names. 6 They did not want to disclose their names. But they 7 told me the story. We had a series of phone 8 conversations in which I asked them, please, to tell 9 me their names. And after a period of time, after 10 she told me the story in great detail, she was 11 willing to give me her name. She asked me to 12 promise that I would not disclose her identity 13 without her permission. I have been trying to call 14 her. Called her as recently as this morning and 15 last night. 16 I want to recall -- I don't think I called 10:21:35 17 her this morning. I called her twice last night to 18 try to get her permission to reveal her complete 19 name and identity. But I have the name and I will 20 be happy to give it to you. I just don't have it on 21 off the top of my head. 22 Q. You obviously had her telephone number 10:21:52 23 also? 24 A. No. She called me and she wouldn't give 10:21:54 25 me a phone number, initially. And she said and her EFTA00601198

46 1 2 3 husband said she would call me back. They were being quite circumspect about this. Ultimately I got her phone number. Yes, I have her phone number. 4 Q. I'm a little bit confused. 10:22:10 5 A. There's no reason -- 10:22:12 6 Q. Is the answer -- 10:22:12 7 A. There's no reason for you to be confused. 10:22:12 8 Q. Well, I am. Is the answer to the question 10:22:14 9 10 you do have her phone number or MR. SCOTT: Counsel, you're arguing with 10:22:19 11 12 the witness. BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:22:19 13 Q. -- you do have her phone number or you 10:22:19 14 don't have her phone number? 15 A. I don't have the phone number in my head. 10:22:21 16 I have the phone number written down, yes. 17 Q. And the last time you called her was -- 10:22:27 18 A. Last night. 10:22:29 19 Q. -- last night? 10:22:29 20 A. That's right. Left a message. 10:22:30 21 Q. From where? 10:22:32 22 A. From my apartment in Miami Beach. 10:22:33 23 24 Q. landline? Did you call her from a cell phone or a 10:22:41 25 A. Cell phone. 10:22:44 EFTA00601199

47 1 Q. Is it the cell phone that you have with 10:22:49 2 you right now? 3 A. It is a cell phone that I have with me 10:22:54 4 right now. 5 Q. Would you take out your cell phone and 10:22:56 6 tell us what that number is, please. 7 MR. SCOTT: We'll do -- I'm not going to 10:23:00 8 have him do that. At a break I'll speak to him 9 and we'll provide you the number, as he's 10 indicated. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:23:07 12 Q. How many phone conversations did you have 10:23:12 13 with this person Rebecca? 14 A. More than six. Probably between six and 10:23:21 15 ten, maybe closer to ten. The first few she called 16 me and after I got their number I called her a 17 number of times. 18 Q. What is her husband's name? 10:23:43 19 A. Michael. Different last name from hers, 10:23:44 20 but again. . 21 Q. Where do they live? 10:23:50 22 A. Palm Beach. Or West Palm Beach, in the 10:23:51 23 Palm Beach area. They have been friends of 24 since she was a young child. 25 Q. Were there any witnesses to any of these 10:24:03 EFTA00601200

48 1 phone conversations other than Rebecca, Michael and 2 you? 3 A. Yes. 10:24:10 4 Q. Who? 10:24:11 5 A. My wife. 10:24:11 6 Q. When did the first conversation occur? 10:24:14 7 A. I can probably get you specific 10:24:17 8 information about that. But it was months ago. 9 When the story was in the newspapers, she called and 10 related the entire story to me and related to me 11 that this was part of a massive extortion plot. 12 MR. SCOTT: When you're ready to take a 10:24:39 13 break, let's take break. You've been going 14 about an hour. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:24:43 16 Q. How long after the filing of the Crime 10:24:44 17 Act pleading in which you were 18 referenced did you receive the phone call, the first 19 phone call from Rebecca? 20 A. I would be speculating, but it would 10:24:58 21 probably be about a month or two after that. 22 MR. SCOTT: Don't speculate, sir. If you 10:25:03 23 know the facts. 24 A. I -- I don't recall. 10:25:06 25 EFTA00601201

49 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Your best estimate as you sit here today 3 is? 4 5 6 beginning of March, but I can get you those specific 7 dates. There's no secret about that. 8 9 10 11 12 Q. Did you take contemporaneous notes of 13 those phone conversations? 14 15 notes of the substance, no. 16 Q. Have you ever made notes with regard to 17 18 19 20 conversations. I had these conversations. And I 21 22 23 24 25 10:25:06 10:25:06 A. Two -- two months, probably. So let's say 10:25:08 January, February -- probably end of February, MR. SCOTT: Want to take a break? MR. SCAROLA: In just a moment. MR. SCOTT: Certainly. BY MR. SCAROLA: the substance of any communication that you allegedly had with Rebecca and/or Michael? A. I didn't allegedly have these don't recall taking any notes of these conversations. MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 10:25:22 10:25:24 10:25:26 10:25:26 10:25:30 A. No. I took notes of names, but not really 10:25:36 10:25:48 10:25:58 10:26:09 10:26:10 10:26:12 EFTA00601202

50 1 time is approximately 10:26 a.m. 2 (Recess was held from 10:26 a.m. until 10:44 a.m.) 10:26:16 3 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 10:44:08 4 The time is approximately 10:44 a.m. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:44:11 6 Q. How many phone calls did you have with 10:44:13 7 this person Rebecca before she informed you as to 8 the reason why she was calling you? 9 A. She informed me the first time. 10:44:29 10 Q. The very first conversation? 10:44:31 11 A. Yes. 10:44:32 12 Q. How many phone calls was it before she 10:44:34 13 asked you for money? 14 A. Never asked me for money. 10:44:38 15 Q. How many phone calls was it before her 10:44:40 16 husband asked you for money? 17 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:44:43 18 A. I was never asked for money, ever. 10:44:43 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:44:45 20 Q. Do you know how it is that these people 10:44:47 21 knew how to contact you? 22 A. They told me they went on my website and 10:44:54 23 got my number and left a message for me to call. 24 Yeah, that's what happened. Oh, no, they sent me 25 they went on my website and sent me an e-mail and EFTA00601203

51 1 asked me -- and the e-mail had a blank name but a 2 way to respond. And so I responded to the e-mail 3 with my phone number and then they called, is my 4 recollection. That's my best recollection. 5 Q. Is that an e-mail that you produced in 10:45:26 6 discovery? 7 A. I have no idea. 10:45:28 8 MR. SIMPSON: The attorneys have handled 10:45:30 9 discovery. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:45:33 11 Q. Have you ever seen that e-mail since it 10:45:34 12 was received? 13 A. I have no recollection. 10:45:39 14 Q. Certainly you recognized the significance 10:45:40 15 of preserving that e-mail? 16 A. I'm sure I have it. 10:45:46 17 Q. You sure you have it? 10:45:47 18 A. I'm positive, of course. 10:45:48 19 Q. So from the very first conversation that 10:45:55 20 you had with this person, you had information 21 indicating that this person was informing you that 22 Bradley Edwards had engaged in unethical conduct, 23 correct? 24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:46:19 25 A. Let me just be very clear what -- what she 10:46:20 EFTA00601204

52 1 said to me. She said to me that she had been told 2 directly by her friend, , who stayed 3 with her overnight for a period of time, that she 4 never wanted to mention me in any of the pleadings. 5 And that her two lawyers in the pleadings, or her 6 lawyers who filed the pleadings, pressured her in to 7 including my name and the details. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:46:52 9 Q. Did Rebecca ever suggest to you that the 10:46:53 10 details sworn to by with regard to 11 you were false? 12 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead. 10:47:08 13 A. She certainly suggested that, yes. She 10:47:09 14 mentioned to me that had never, 15 ever mentioned to her me, among any of the people 16 that she had had any contact with until she -- until 17 she was pressured into doing so by her lawyers, yes. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:47:28 19 Q. So, from the very first conversation, the 10:47:29 20 impression you had was that this was a witness who 21 could provide information that Bradley Edwards and 22 Paul Cassell had acted unethically and dishonestly, 23 correct? 24 A. I wasn't sure she could provide the 10:47:48 25 information because she was very reluctant to come EFTA00601205

53 1 forward. She didn't want to be involved. She 2 didn't want her name involved. But I knew she had 3 provided me with information, yes, but I didn't 4 know, and still don't know, whether she is prepared 5 to be a witness. I don't know the answer to that 6 question. 7 Q. Well, there is a difference, is there not, 10:48:09 8 sir, between what she could do and what she would 9 do? 10 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:48:16 11 Argumentative. 12 A. I don't understand. 10:48:18 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:48:18 14 Q. You don't understand that? 10:48:19 15 A. I don't understand that. She could do or 10:48:19 16 would do. 17 Q. She was telling you that she had the 10:48:22 18 ability to impeach ' assertions 19 against you? 20 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 10:48:31 21 A. What she told me was the truth, is that 10:48:32 22 never wanted to mention me, but 23 that she was pressured by her lawyer into mentioning 24 me. And that was the truth. 25 EFTA00601206

54 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:48:46 2 Q. Well, you also have told us that not only 10:48:47 3 did she suggest to you that didn't 4 want to mention you, but that had 5 not had the sexual encounters with you that she has 6 sworn under oath she did have, correct? 7 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Go ahead. 10:49:07 8 A. What she told me was that she didn't 10:49:09 9 believe -- that is, this woman didn't believe that 10 there had been any contact between me and 11 because had never mentioned 12 me previously until her lawyers pressured her 13 into -- into allowing my name to be included in the 14 pleading, that's what she told me. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:49:31 16 Q. Did you have the impression that there was 10:49:32 17 improper pressure that had been exerted on 18 based upon what you were being told by this 19 woman? 20 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:49:47 21 A. Absolutely. Of course. 10:49:48 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. So this was based upon what this woman was 10:49:50 24 telling you, evidence of unethical, unprofessional 25 dishonest conduct on the part of Bradley Edwards and EFTA00601207

55 1 Paul Cassell, right? 2 A. That was certainly the impression I got 10:50:04 3 and certainly an impression that confirmed what I 4 already believed. I mean, I've known from day one 5 that they were engaged in unethical, unprofessional, 6 in my view and my opinion, disbarrable conduct. 7 This simply confirmed that. 8 Q. Yes, sir. We're going to get to that 10:50:20 9 shortly, but I want to stay focused right now on 10 these communications that you claim to have had -- 11 A. Not claimed to have had. 10:50:28 12 Q. -- with Rebecca. 10:50:29 13 A. Communications that I had. Let's be 10:50:30 14 clear. Communications that I had. No claim. I had 15 them. 16 Q. Let's first try, if we could, to pinpoint 10:50:39 17 a little better when the first of these 18 conversations occurred. Do you recall having been 19 propounded interrogatories in this case that asked 20 you to identify all persons with knowledge of any 21 circumstance in which it is alleged that Bradley 22 Edwards engaged in unethical conduct, unprofessional 23 conduct or dishonest conduct? 24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:51:13 25 A. I have no recollection as to the sequence 10:51:14 EFTA00601208

56 1 or chronology. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:51:17 3 Q. Well, let me hand you for purposes of 10:51:18 4 refreshing your recollection the answers to 5 interrogatories that were filed as of February 23, 6 2015. 7 A. What was the date again? I missed that. 10:51:55 8 MR. SCOTT: He's going to show you the 10:51:58 9 exhibit. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:52:00 11 Q. The answers to interrogatories bear a 10:52:01 12 certificate of service dated February 23, 2015 and a 13 verification -- 14 MR. SCOTT: Are you going to mark that as 10:52:15 15 an exhibit, please? 16 MR. SCAROLA: I will in just a moment. 10:52:17 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:52:18 18 Q. And a verification that appears to be your 10:52:19 19 signature. 20 A. It is. 10:52:22 21 Q. Is that, in fact, your signature? 10:52:23 22 A. It is, in fact, my signature. 10:52:24 23 Q. Were you verifying those answers intending 10:52:25 24 them to be your sworn responses to those 25 interrogatories? EFTA00601209

57 1 A. I was verifying my lawyer's responses, 10:52:30 2 yes. 3 Q. Well, were they your responses or were 10:52:35 4 they your lawyer's responses? 5 A. My lawyers 10:52:38 6 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 10:52:40 7 You can answer it. 10:52:42 8 A. My lawyers drafted the responses. I was 10:52:42 9 asked to look over them. I looked over them and I 10 signed, yes. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:52:47 12 Q. You signed them -- 10:52:48 13 A. Yes. 10:52:48 14 Q. -- and swore to their truthfulness, 10:52:49 15 correct? 16 A. Let me just read what it says. 10:52:51 17 Yes, they were true to the best of my 10:52:57 18 knowledge and belief, yes. 19 Q. Since there is no reference in those 10:53:05 20 answers to interrogatories to Rebecca or Michael, 21 can we assume that the first of your phone calls 22 must have occurred some time after February 23 when 23 you verified the answers to those interrogatories? 24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, asked and 10:53:26 25 answered. EFTA00601210

58 1 A. I don't have a specific recollection as to 10:53:28 2 the exact date of when the call came. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:53:32 4 Q. Well, you certainly would not have sworn 10:53:32 5 to the accuracy of those answers which ask you to 6 identify every person with knowledge of any 7 unethical, unprofessional, or dishonest conduct on 8 the part of Bradley Edwards, and omitted the name of 9 Rebecca and Michael -- 10 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 10:53:57 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:53:58 12 Q. -- if they already called you? 10:53:58 13 MR. SCOTT: Argumentative and compound. 10:54:01 14 A. I don't recall when Rebecca and Michael 10:54:03 15 called me, but I do recall that they made me promise 16 that I would not disclose the information that they 17 had revealed until they gave me permission to do so. 18 They also did not give me their names, initially, 19 and I only learned both the names over time and the 20 information. 21 The information came out gradually. But 10:54:23 22 there was a time when I did have the information 23 that the two clients pressured -- that was her word, 24 "pressured" -- into naming me, 25 right. EFTA00601211

59 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:54:43 2 Q. You certainly considered the communication 10:54:53 3 that you were having with these individuals to be a 4 matter of significance from the timing of the first 5 phone call, correct, since it was in the first phone 6 call that they disclosed to you the essence of what 7 you are saying they said? 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection, compound. 10:55:10 9 A. I wasn't sure whether it would be 10:55:11 10 significant or not because I didn't know at the time 11 whether I would be free to reveal it or to use it. 12 I'm still -- I just wasn't sure whether I 10:55:24 13 would be free to reveal it. It would not be 14 particularly significant except to my own 15 confirmation of what I knew to be true; namely, that 16 your clients had engaged in unethical and 17 unprofessional conduct. I knew that to be true. 18 But this provided me with some confirmation of that. 19 But I didn't know whether I was going to 10:55:42 20 be able to use that confirmation because I had made 21 a promise that was elicited from me by them that I 22 would not disclose this information without their 23 permission. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:55:55 25 Q. All right. Permission that you swore to a 10:55:56 EFTA00601212

60 1 little while ago you still haven't received, 2 correct? 3 A. I have not received the permission to 10:56:01 4 identify them by name, that's right. 5 By the way, in the recess oh, no, 10:56:10 6 that's enough. Okay. 7 Q. What happened in the recess? 10:56:15 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection -- 10:56:17 9 A. I spoke to my lawyers. 10:56:18 10 MR. SCOTT: -- don't answer that. It's 10:56:19 11 conversations with counsel. 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:56:20 13 Q. You spoke to whom? 10:56:20 14 A. I spoke to my lawyers. 10:56:21 15 Q. Was your promise to these people that you 10:56:29 16 wouldn't disclose their last name? 17 A. My promise to the people was that I would 10:56:36 18 not identify them so that they would not be hassled 19 and harassed and any pressure put on them. That was 20 their concern, that they didn't want to be receiving 21 phone calls and they didn't want to be part of what 22 they regarded as a media circus. 23 Q. Well, you know you have broken that 10:56:57 24 promise at this point, haven't -- 25 A. No, I haven't -- 10:57:01 EFTA00601213

61 1 MR. SCOTT: Objection -- 10:57:01 2 A. -- broken that promise. 10:57:01 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:57:02 4 Q. You have not? 10:57:02 5 A. No. 10:57:02 6 Q. You don't think that they will be able to 10:57:02 7 be identified by the first names that you have 8 given? The fact that they live in Palm Beach, and 9 the fact that lived together with 10 them for some period of time, that's not identifying 11 information? 12 A. Not -- 10:57:18 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 10:57:19 14 A. Not for the media, which is what they're 10:57:19 15 concerned about. They're concerned about getting 16 calls from the media and being harassed. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:57:25 18 Q. Well, you are aware of the fact that 10:57:25 19 there's a press representative sitting in this room, 20 aren't you? 21 A. Yes. I don't think there's enough 10:57:29 22 information for them to identify these folks unless 23 you provide them with that information. 24 Q. How long have you been a member of the 10:57:37 25 Bar? EFTA00601214

62 1 A. Over 50 years. 10:57:47 2 Q. And during that period of time, you've 10:57:48 3 been involved in many, many litigated matters, 4 correct? 5 A. I'm mostly an appellate lawyer, but I have 10:57:56 6 been involved in many appeals, yes. 7 Q. You do understand that you cannot make a 10:58:01 8 binding promise to a potential witness that would 9 authorize you to withhold information that you are 10 required to give in the course of discovery 11 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:58:22 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:58:22 13 Q. -- correct? 10:58:22 14 A. I told them in the course of my 10:58:23 15 conversations with them that I would not violate any 16 court orders, that I would not break the law, that I 17 would do my best to maintain what they wanted 18 because it was very important for me to get as much 19 information from them as I could. I did not want to 20 cut off my sources of information. I think I have a 21 right to obtain that information. 22 And so there was a back and forth. And 10:58:49 23 ultimately I think we all realized ultimately 24 probably their names will be revealed, yes. 25 EFTA00601215

63 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:59:02 2 Q. What is their phone number? 10:59:02 3 A. I don't have it. 10:59:04 4 MR. SCOTT: You can make a request when 10:59:06 5 you want to and we'll take it under 6 consideration for the information that you've 7 asked my client about. He's not the lawyer. I 8 am. There's confidentiality orders. I have to 9 review all of that. You can take whatever 10 appropriate discovery you want on that. 11 MR. SCAROLA: What -- what confidentiality 10:59:17 12 orders? 13 MR. SCOTT: There's a confidentiality 10:59:19 14 order by the Court. 15 MR. SCAROLA: That covers the phone number 10:59:21 16 of a witness? 17 MR. SCOTT: That covers various issues and 10:59:24 18 I have to review it. And so you can -- I'm 19 just telling you that you can make any formal 20 request you want and we will take it up. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:59:33 22 Q. Was it your understanding in February of 10:59:37 23 this year that you had the authority to withhold in 24 answers to interrogatories the names of these 25 individuals if questions were asked that called for EFTA00601216

64 1 the disclosure of those names? 2 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered 10:59:58 3 several times. 4 A. Obviously I confer with my lawyers about 11:00:00 5 matters of that kind. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:00:05 7 Q. That's not my question to you. Was it 11:00:05 8 your understanding in February of 2015, on 9 February 23, 2015, when you signed these answers to 10 interrogatories under oath, that you had the 11 authority to withhold the names of these individuals 12 who you claim to be witnesses? 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion. 11:00:27 14 A. I don't believe I had their names on 11:00:28 15 February 23. I would have to check. But my belief 16 is that I didn't have their names. It took quite 17 quite a bit of effort for me to obtain their names 18 under promises of confidentiality. 19 I think these are very, very hard legal 11:00:41 20 and ethical questions. There's obviously a right to 21 investigate and to try to get information, 22 particularly information that would proffer that 23 your clients had engaged in criminal actions, 24 subornation of perjury and pressuring witnesses. 25 And I know that many of you are former 11:01:00 EFTA00601217

65 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 prosecutors. I know that prosecutors also try very hard to obtain such information and make promises and the Courts have varying approaches to how these promises will be dealt with. So it was a complicated question. And I sought my legal advice based on it being a complicated question. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. When did you first seek legal advice with regards to these matters? A. When I first found out about it, I told my lawyers that the information had come -- that it hadn't been -- I hadn't gotten permission. That I was getting it in dribs and drabs. And that I was anxious to pursue it. I told my lawyers not to call her at all, not to call them. Because I thought that would shut down the flow of information. Q. Which lawyers did you take these disclosures to? MR. SCOTT: Let him ask that question. MR. SIMPSON: Just the names. A. My recollection is Ken Sweder, and I would have to check my records but probably -- probably Mr. Simpson, probably. Probably Mr. Scott. But I'm not positive about Mr. Scott at this point, about 11:01:18 11:01:24 11:01:25 11:01:29 11:01:53 11:02:02 11:02:04 11:02:05 EFTA00601218

66 1 Judge Scott. I'm not positive about that. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:02:32 3 Q. And what is it that you disclosed to 11:02:33 4 Mr. Sweder? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Don't answer that. 11:02:38 6 Attorney-client privilege and work product. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Our position is that it's 11:02:41 8 already been waived voluntarily by virtue of 9 the testimony that was just given. 10 MR. SCOTT: I understand your position. 11:02:45 11 We don't agree. 12 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. I know you 11:02:47 13 don't. 14 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 11:02:49 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:02:49 16 Q. What information did you give to 11:02:50 17 Mr. Simpson with regard to this -- 18 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 11:02:54 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:02:54 20 Q. -- communication? 11:02:55 21 MR. SCOTT: Don't answer that. 11:02:57 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:02:59 23 Q. And since you don't remember whether you 11:03:00 24 did or did not tell Mr. Scott, I assume you don't 25 remember what information you may have given to EFTA00601219

67 1 Mr. Scott if you did speak to him; is that correct? 2 MR. SCOTT: The same objection. Don't 11:03:08 3 answer that. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:03:14 5 Q. Since you were -- well, did you make these 11:03:15 6 disclosures to your lawyers as soon as you got the 7 first phone call? 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Don't answer that. 11:03:29 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:03:33 10 Q. You obviously considered this to be a 11:03:37 11 significant communication, correct? 12 A. Potentially -- 11:03:41 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. 11:03:42 14 You've asked that several times. 15 A. Potentially significant, but I did not 11:03:44 16 know -- well, it was significant to me because it 17 confirmed my own knowledge that your clients had 18 engaged in behavior which was unprofessional and 19 possibly criminal. And it confirmed it in my own 20 mind. So it was very gratifying to me. 21 But I had -- didn't know at that point 11:04:07 22 whether I could in any way use that information to 23 produce the truth in the litigation. I wasn't sure 24 of that. 25 EFTA00601220

68 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:04:16 2 Q. You knew that you might be able to and so 11:04:17 3 it was significant to you 4 MR. SCOTT: Object. 11:04:21 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:04:21 6 Q. -- is that correct? 11:04:22 7 MR. SCOTT: Form. 11:04:23 8 A. It was significant to me psychologically 11:04:24 9 because it confirmed my firm belief that your 10 clients had engaged in unethical behavior, yes. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:04:34 12 Q. As an experienced criminal defense lawyer, 11:04:34 13 you certainly recognize the importance of a 14 contemporaneous record of significant 15 communications, don't you? 16 A. Sometimes. But it's more important to me 11:04:45 17 to have the conversation and to try to be in the 18 moment and elicit the information. And that was 19 what my focus was at the time. 20 Q. Was there something that prevented you 11:04:56 21 from taking contemporaneous notes with regard to 22 these communications? 23 A. I -- I generally don't take 11:05:04 24 contemporaneous notes. 25 Q. That's not my question, sir. 11:05:07 EFTA00601221

69 1 MR. SCOTT: Don't cut him off, please. 11:05:07 2 A. I generally don't take notes. I find that 11:05:08 3 it's much more important to concentrate. In fact, I 4 tell my students in my classes not to take notes but 5 rather to listen, listen carefully to what's being 6 said. I'm not a particular advocate of note taking. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:05:23 8 Q. And since you have a superb memory, the 11:05:23 9 notes don't have much value to you? 10 A. In fact -- 11:05:28 11 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 11:05:29 12 A. In fact, my memory is one of the reasons 11:05:30 13 that I don't focus on notes as much as some other 14 people may. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:05:37 16 Q. So let's go through these conversations 11:05:37 17 one at a time then. 18 A. Okay. 11:05:40 19 Q. And I want you to tell us, based upon your 11:05:41 20 superb memory, as best you are able to relate, 21 word-for-word exactly how the first conversation 22 went. 23 A. Okay. 11:05:55 24 Q. Who placed the call to whom? 11:05:56 25 A. The first conversation came as a result of 11:05:59 EFTA00601222

70 1 me getting a phone number from them by an e-mail or 2 text correspondence. I then placed -- this is my 3 best memory. I then placed the conversation and I 4 spoke to Michael. 5 Q. You then placed the phone call? 11:06:19 6 A. I then placed the phone call. And I spoke 11:06:20 7 to Michael. Michael told me that his wife, Rebecca, 8 felt terrible about what was going on in relation to 9 me, but that she was not willing to talk to me about 10 it. But he then said to me that if she did talk to 11 me, she would tell me that I was not mentioned by 12 ever previously until this case occurred, 13 and that she was pressured into mentioning me. 14 I said that would be important to me, I 11:07:04 15 would really like to talk to Rebecca. 16 Well, he said, she's very emotional about 11:07:07 17 this, she's a very close friend of , she 18 likes , and she just doesn't want to get 19 involved. 20 And I said, well, let's have -- please 11:07:21 21 have her think about it. And let's see if we can 22 talk again. 23 I then made a second phone call. 11:07:29 24 Q. I'm sorry, I was still on the first one. 11:07:31 25 A. Okay. That was the first phone call. 11:07:33 EFTA00601223

71 1 That's about the first phone call. 2 Q. Thank you. All right. Now, during the 11:07:36 3 course of that phone call, did you ever ask Michael, 4 why did you ask me to contact you if your wife 5 doesn't want to talk to me? 6 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 11:07:46 7 argumentative. 8 A. I did not. 11:07:48 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:07:48 10 Q. Why not? 11:07:49 11 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 11:07:51 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:07:51 13 Q. Did that seem strange to you? 11:07:51 14 A. No, never occurred to me. He was 11:07:53 15 obviously reaching out to me. There was obviously 16 some ambivalence. They wanted to talk to me. They 17 didn't want to get involved. They were testing the 18 waters. They wanted to see if I was a reliable 19 person. I think they wanted to get a sense of me, 20 just as I was trying to get a sense of them. 21 Q. Did they tell you at that point in time 11:08:16 22 that they lived in the Palm Beach area in the first 23 conversation? 24 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 11:08:25 25 A. I don't recall, but I think they did. I 11:08:26 EFTA00601224

72 1 think they did. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:08:31 3 Q. They or he? 11:08:31 4 A. He. He's the only one who spoke to me. I 11:08:32 5 also had their phone number, which I think I recall 6 is in that area generally. I didn't know 7 specifically where they lived. I did not have their 8 address. 9 Q. Were arrangements made during the first 11:08:52 10 conversation for a subsequent communication? 11 A. No. 11:08:56 12 Q. Was any request made by you for a meeting? 11:08:59 13 A. Yes. 11:09:02 14 Q. Let me back up then, if I could, please. 11:09:05 15 Because what I want you to do, based upon your 16 superb memory, is to tell us in as much detail as 17 you possibly can recall everything that was said. 18 And when I asked you to do that, you didn't say 19 anything about a request for a meeting. 20 A. I'm not sure -- 11:09:28 21 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered. 11:09:29 22 A. I'm not sure the request for the meeting 11:09:30 23 came in the first call or the second call. But 24 there was ultimately a request for a meeting. It 25 wouldn't surprise me if it came in the first call. EFTA00601225

73 1 The first call was basically, I'd really 11:09:41 2 like to talk to your wife about this. I'm happy to 3 fly down. I'm happy to talk to you on the phone. 4 And we left it that they would think -- that she 5 would -- that he would ask her to think about it. 6 And that I could call back in a -- in a few days and 7 find out what her -- what her current feelings were. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:10:09 9 Q. Where were you when you received this 11:10:09 10 phone call -- or when you made this phone call? 11 Sorry. 12 A. I think I was in New York. 11:10:14 13 Q. Do you know whether that phone call was 11:10:23 14 made on a cell phone or a landline? 15 A. I don't remember. 11:10:26 16 Q. Have you attempted to gather your 11:10:37 17 telephone records for purposes of responding to 18 discovery requests in this case? 19 A. I left that to my lawyers. I know that we 11:10:47 20 did produce telephone records during the relevant 21 periods of time when knew Jeffrey 22 Epstein and those telephone records established that 23 I could not have been at the locations and at the 24 times that claimed to have had -- 25 falsely claimed to have sexual contact with me. EFTA00601226

74 1 Q. I promise you we're going to get to those. 11:11:15 2 A. Good. 11:11:18 3 Q. Promise you. Along with all the flight 11:11:18 4 logs that you claim exonerate you. 5 A. Is that a question? 11:11:25 6 Q. It wasn't. It was a comment. 11:11:26 7 MR. SCOTT: I object. 11:11:28 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:11:29 9 Q. In response to your comment. 11:11:29 10 MR. SCOTT: Let me just say this to you, I 11:11:31 11 think it's inappropriate to have comments by 12 counsel. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:11:36 14 Q. Let's go to the very second contact that 11:11:37 15 you had with either Michael or Rebecca. Who 16 initiated the second contact? 17 A. I think I did. I called and got Michael 11:11:48 18 on the phone. 19 Q. Where did you call from? 11:11:53 20 A. I think New York. 11:11:54 21 Q. Tell me in as much detail as your superb 11:12:02 22 memory allows you to recall everything that was said 23 during the course of that phone conversation. 24 MR. SCOTT: Let's object to the form and 11:12:14 25 the continued use of the word "superb." He's EFTA00601227

75 1 described his memory. That's your 2 characterization. Go ahead. 3 MR. SCAROLA: No, I think that that was 11:12:24 4 Mr. Dershowitz's characterization, which I have 5 adopted. 6 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Go ahead. 11:12:29 7 A. I called, spoke to Michael. I asked 11:12:31 8 Michael if he had spoken to his wife. She said yes 9 and she was still reluctant to talk to me. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:12:41 11 Q. I'm sorry, she said yes when you asked 11:12:41 12 Michael if he had spoken to his wife? 13 A. He said yes. And that she was still 11:12:46 14 reluctant to talk to me. I suggested to him that 15 perhaps she could talk to me briefly just so that 16 she hears what I have to say. And he could listen 17 and remain on the phone and she could stop at any 18 time she wanted. 19 And there came a time during that 11:13:07 20 conversation when she did get on the phone, and 21 here's what she told me. She said she had grown up 22 with . That they were very, very 23 close friends as young people. That 24 came to stay with her for a number of days, 25 I think it was over Halloween, and they had gone out EFTA00601228

76 1 and had dinner, just the two of them. And that she 2 confided in her, confided in 3 Rebecca that she had never wanted to mention me in 4 any of the pleadings, but she was pressured by her 5 lawyer into doing so. 6 Rebecca then said that I was not the 11:14:09 7 object of this effort. The object of the effort was 8 a billionaire who lives in Columbus, Ohio and who 9 owns Victoria's Secret and the Limited, Too. 10 Rebecca told me she did not know the name of that 11 billionaire, but that and her lawyers hoped 12 to get 1 billion, B-I-I-I-I-O-N, $1 billion or half 13 of his net worth from him by alleging that he had 14 improperly engaged in sexual misconduct with 15 16 That that money would be divided three 11:15:12 17 ways: A third of it to , a third of 18 it to a charity that she and her lawyers were 19 setting up for battered women, and a third of it to 20 the lawyers. 21 She then told me that they were trying to 11:15:35 22 get ABC News to interview so as to 23 give her credibility in order to pressure the 24 billionaire from Columbus, Ohio into paying a large 25 sum of money. And that I was named as an effort to EFTA00601229

77 1 try to show the billionaire what could happen to 2 somebody if they were accused of sexual misconduct. 3 And that would encourage him to settle a lawsuit or 4 pay money in exchange for his name not being 5 mentioned or revealed. 6 I had no idea about this. And I didn't -- 11:16:44 7 I didn't ask about this. She just stated this. And 8 I then corroborated the fact that she was absolutely 9 correct in everything she had said to me. 10 Q. You corroborated the fact that she was 11:17:09 11 absolutely correct in everything that she had said 12 to you? 13 A. That's right. 11:17:15 14 Q. How? 11:17:20 15 A. Okay. Let me answer that question. I was 11:17:21 16 very -- I wasn't sure, so I called Leslie Wexner. I 17 got his wife on the phone, Abigail Wexner. 18 Obviously I knew that the only billionaire in 19 Columbus, Ohio who owned Limited, Too and who owned 20 Victoria's Secret was Leslie Wexner. 21 I had met Leslie Wexner on two occasions, 11:17:47 22 I think, and his wife. I called Abigail on the 23 phone and I said, I think you ought to know that 24 there is an extortion plot being directed against 25 your husband by unscrupulous lawyers in -- in EFTA00601230

78 1 Florida. 2 And she said, oh, we're aware of that, 11:18:09 3 they've already been in contact with us, which 4 surprised me. But was confirmation of that. 5 I then also -- I can't give you the 11:18:24 6 chronology of that. I then was in touch with ABC and 7 found out she was absolutely correct about her 8 efforts to try to get interviewed on ABC television. 9 In fact, I learned that your client, Brad 11:18:41 10 Edwards, had sent a communication to people in 11 the -- in the area urging them to watch her 12 interview that was scheduled to be on three 13 television programs. If I'm not mistaken, it was 14 Good Day Show, the evening news, and the show 15 Nightline -- and Nightline. 16 I then was in communication with ABC and 11:19:10 17 helped to persuade them that they would be putting 18 false information on the air if they allowed 19 to tell her false story. 20 So, I was able to corroborate that. I 11:19:28 21 then also corroborated the fact that she had never 22 mentioned me when her boyfriend appeared on 23 television and publically stated that she had never 24 mentioned me in any of her description of people who 25 she had sexual contact with. EFTA00601231

79 1 So, I was then completely satisfied that 11:19:53 2 Rebecca was telling me the complete truth. And that 3 in my view, there was an extortion plot directed 4 against Leslie Wexner, a criminal extortion plot 5 directed against Leslie Wexner, and that your 6 clients were involved in that extortion plot. 7 Q. If we were to try to fix the time of this 11:20:16 8 second phone call, one way in which we would fix the 9 time of this second phone call, in addition to 10 getting your telephone records, would be to find out 11 when this ABC interview took place, correct? Since 12 the phone call you're telling us came after the ABC 13 interview, that you convinced ABC not to air? 14 A. No, I didn't state that. Let me be very 11:20:51 15 clear. 16 I found out from her that there was going 11:20:53 17 to be an ABC television interview. I don't think I 18 was aware of the fact that there was going to be a 19 television interview at that point. 20 I remember then getting a -- either a 11:21:05 21 phone call or e-mail from ABC informing me of that. 22 And that corroborated to my mind the fact that she 23 was telling me the truth about the ABC interview. 24 She also told me -- and this was 11:21:27 25 corroborated, she also told me that the television EFTA00601232

80 1 interview with ABC had to be postponed because her 2 husband, ' husband, had beaten her 3 up so badly that she was hospitalized and that she 4 could not appear on television with the bruises 5 because she didn't want to have to explain that her 6 husband had beaten her up. 7 And I ultimately corroborated that 11:21:56 8 information as well by investigating the fact that 9 she, in fact, filed a complaint against her husband 10 and had been hospitalized. 11 So everything that Rebecca told me has 11:22:08 12 proved to be absolutely true and absolutely 13 corroborated. And, therefore, I believe it and 14 believe that your clients were engaged in what I 15 believe is an extortion plot against Leslie Wexner, 16 conspiracy to commit extortion in which I was a 17 victim, as well as Leslie Wexner, of being a victim. 18 Q. Did you speak directly to Leslie Wexner or 11:22:36 19 only to his wife? 20 A. Only to his wife and to his lawyers. 11:22:41 21 Q. And you spoke by telephone? 11:22:42 22 A. Yes. 11:22:43 23 Q. Where were you and where was she? 11:22:44 24 A. I called from, I think, New York and I 11:22:48 25 spoke to her about it. I told her what I said I EFTA00601233

81 1 said. She said what I said she said. 2 And then she said that her lawyers would 11:23:00 3 be in touch with me. And her lawyer then called me 4 and corroborated again that there had been contact 5 and eventually there was greater contact. 6 Q. Contact by whom with whom? 11:23:15 7 A. Contact by -- by ' lawyer, 11:23:17 8 lawyers. I wasn't -- it wasn't clear at that point. 9 Q. Which lawyer or lawyers? 11:23:26 10 A. I wasn't clear at that point. They didn't 11:23:27 11 indicate to me which lawyer or lawyers 12 Q. Didn't you ask? 11:23:31 13 A. -- contact. 11:23:32 14 Q. Didn't you want to know, is this Bradley 11:23:32 15 Edwards or Professor Paul Cassell who is -- 16 A. I asked -- 11:23:35 17 Q. -- making this 11:23:36 18 A. I asked -- 11:23:36 19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead. 11:23:37 20 A. I asked whether there was a letter and 11:23:39 21 they wouldn't show me a letter. I asked if there 22 were phone calls. They were a -- they wanted to be 23 discreet about how the contact had occurred. But 24 they told me that the contact had occurred. 25 EFTA00601234

82 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:23:52 2 Q. But they wouldn't tell you who? 11:23:53 3 A. They wouldn't show me any letter. 11:23:55 4 Q. That's not my question. Did they tell 11:23:58 5 you -- did you ask who contacted Leslie Wexner? 6 A. The first answer was 11:24:07 7 lawyer. 8 I then subsequently learned that among 11:24:11 9 those who contacted Leslie Wexner's lawyers was 10 David Boies and Sigrid McCawley. 11 Q. Not Bradley Edwards, correct? 11:24:24 12 MR. SCOTT: Objection as to the form. 11:24:27 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:24:28 14 Q. Correct? 11:24:29 15 A. I was not given the name Bradley Edwards 11:24:30 16 at that time. But was subsequently told by David 17 Boies that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell -- 18 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 11:24:43 19 extent this reveals any conversations that 20 happened in the context of settlement 21 discussions. 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Note your objection. 11:24:48 23 Go ahead. 24 A. That I was ultimately told by David Boies 11:24:52 25 that he had done an extensive investigation of the EFTA00601235

83 1 allegations against Leslie Wexner and had concluded 2 that they were 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object 11:25:05 4 to this has happened in the context of 5 settlement -- 6 A. -- false. 11:25:07 7 MS. McCAWLEY: -- negotiations. I'm going 11:25:07 8 to move for sanctions if information is 9 revealed that happened in the context of 10 settlement discussions. 11 MR. SCOTT: I don't know whether -- I 11:25:12 12 don't believe there were settlement 13 discussions. But even if they weren't, they 14 would still be admissible. 15 A. Let me continue -- 11:25:21 16 MR. SCOTT: For discovery purposes. 11:25:22 17 A. -- that David Boies had done -- 11:25:23 18 MS. McCAWLEY: I disagree. I think we're 11:25:24 19 going to have to take this to the judge, then; 20 if we're going to reveal settlement 21 conversations in this conversation, then we 22 need to go to the judge on it. 23 MR. SCOTT: Whatever you need to do. 11:25:31 24 A. Let me continue the -- what he told me. 11:25:33 25 That David Boies had -- EFTA00601236

84 1 MS. McCAWLEY: No, we're -- 11:25:35 2 MR. SIMPSON: No, no, no. 11:25:37 3 MS. McCAWLEY: -- going to discontinue. 11:25:38 4 We will contact the judge. 5 MR. SCAROLA: We'll move on to another 11:25:41 6 area and address that issue with the judge as 7 to whether or not a protective order is 8 appropriate. 9 A. Would you like to establish the foundation 11:25:46 10 for why it's not protected? 11 MR. SWEDER: Alan 11:25:50 12 MR. SCOTT: Alan, just let it alone. Let 11:25:51 13 it alone. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:25:53 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:25:55 16 Q. This second conversation you've told us 11:26:00 17 was conducted while you were in New York, correct? 18 A. That's my best recollection. 11:26:06 19 Q. The first conversation also conducted 11:26:09 20 while you were in New York? 21 A. That's my best recollection. 11:26:12 22 Q. Are you aware that New York is a one-party 11:26:17 23 consent state for purposes of permitting the 24 recording of communications, correct? 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Do you know? 11:26:31 EFTA00601237

85 1 A. I'm -- I think that's right, yeah. 11:26:34 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:26:40 3 Q. Okay. So you knew that these significant 11:26:41 4 conversations could have been recorded by you had 5 you chosen to record them, correct? 6 A. I don't think I thought about that at the 11:26:52 7 time. I certainly -- I didn't think about that at 8 the time, no. 9 Q. How many conversations in total did you 11:27:00 10 have with Rebecca and/or Michael when you were in 11 New York and had the legal right, had you chosen to, 12 not only to make contemporaneous notes but to 13 actually record the conversations? 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered. 11:27:20 15 A. I think I was in New York for two of the 11:27:21 16 conversations. I think I was in Massachusetts for 17 several of the conversations. I don't think I was 18 in Florida. I think it was New York and 19 Massachusetts. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:27:33 21 Q. Massachusetts is also a one-party consent 11:27:33 22 state, is it not? 23 A. You don't know the law, sir, no. 11:27:36 24 Q. It is not? 11:27:38 25 A. No. 11:27:38 EFTA00601238

86 1 Q. Okay. 11:27:39 2 A. It is clearly not. 11:27:39 3 Q. Okay. So, you -- you recognize the 11:27:40 4 significant distinction between making the phone 5 call from New York and making the phone call from 6 Massachusetts because in New York you would be 7 permitted to -- excuse me, to record the phone call; 8 whereas, in Massachusetts you could not record it 9 without the consent of all parties involved? 10 A. It never -- 11:27:58 11 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 11:27:58 12 A. It never occurred to me. 11:28:00 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:28:02 14 Q. Never occurred to you? 11:28:02 15 A. No. 11:28:03 16 Q. Have we covered the entire content of the 11:28:09 17 second conversation? 18 A. I think so, yes. I continued to ask her 11:28:25 19 if -- if I could use her -- if she was willing to 20 give me -- allow me to use her name. But that's 21 all. There were -- the substance of what she told 22 me I think I've covered fairly thoroughly, yes. 23 Q. Did Michael ever tell you that 11:28:46 24 had said she never met you? 25 MR. SCOTT: Read that back, will you, for 11:28:53 EFTA00601239

87 1 me. Sorry. 2 (Requested portion read back.) 11:28:54 3 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Thank you. 11:29:00 4 A. Michael and I did not discuss the 11:29:04 5 substance of conversations with Rebecca 6 because the conversations were between and 7 Rebecca. So there was no conversation about that. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:29:18 9 Q. Did Rebecca ever tell you that 11:29:19 10 ever said that she had never met you? 11 A. The implication was quite clear that she 11:29:25 12 had never mentioned me, that she didn't want to 13 mention me, and that the lawyers pressured her into 14 falsely accusing me of an act that simply never 15 occurred. 16 Q. Okay. I'm not asking you about what you 11:29:44 17 implied from what was said. 18 A. Inferred. 11:29:47 19 Q. Inferred. 11:29:49 20 A. Right. 11:29:50 21 Q. Inferred from what was said. 11:29:51 22 What I am asking you is whether Rebecca 11:29:53 23 ever told you that said she had never met 24 you. 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered. 11:30:03 EFTA00601240

88 1 A. Not in those words. 11:30:04 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:30:06 3 Q. Did she say any words that conveyed that 11:30:06 4 message? 5 A. Yes. 11:30:09 6 Q. What words did she say? 11:30:10 7 A. That she had never mentioned me 11:30:12 8 previously. And that she was pressured into 9 mentioning me by her lawyers and that certainly gave 10 rise to an inference on my part that the story -- an 11 inference that simply confirmed what I knew to be 12 the fact, that her allegations against me were 13 completely, totally and entirely made up out of 14 whole cloth. 15 Q. Let's see if we can make sure that we're 11:30:37 16 understanding one another, sir. 17 Do you recognize that there's a 11:30:44 18 distinction between having met you, 19 having been sexually abused by you on multiple 20 occasions, but not wanting to name you, as opposed 21 to never having met you and never 22 having been sexually abused by you? 23 MR. SCOTT: Objection -- 11:31:12 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:31:12 25 Q. Are those two things different in your 11:31:13 EFTA00601241

89 1 mind? 2 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and 11:31:15 3 compound. 4 A. Not in the context of this case. Because 11:31:17 5 said that she was going to seek 6 justice from everybody that had abused her. And if 7 she didn't want to name me, I think the inference is 8 inescapable that I was not among those people that 9 she had had any sexual contact with. So that was 10 certainly the inference I drew and I think it's an 11 inescapable inference. 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:31:45 13 Q. When did say she was 11:31:45 14 going to seek justice from everyone who had abused 15 her? 16 A. In her -- in her depositions, in her 11:31:50 17 interviews with the media, certainly that's been a 18 common theme, that it was time that -- that Jeffrey 19 Epstein's friends who had abused her were brought to 20 justice and were not seen as above the law. Just go 21 back and check, you'll see there are repeated 22 references to that in her statements. 23 Q. Which depositions? 11:32:17 24 A. You'll have to check those. You know 11:32:18 25 those as well as I do. EFTA00601242

90 1 Q. Well, I'm -- I'm sorry. My memory is not 11:32:22 2 superb. 3 A. Okay. So let me go over them. 11:32:26 4 Q. And -- and I would like you to tell us 11:32:29 5 based -- 6 MR. SCOTT: Objection. Please just ask 11:32:29 7 questions, Counsel. 8 MR. SCAROLA: I am doing that. 11:32:32 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:32:32 10 Q. I would like you to tell us which 11:32:33 11 depositions said -- in which 12 depositions said, I am going to 13 seek justice from everyone who abused me. 14 A. My recollection is she said it on multiple 11:32:44 15 occasions. She may have said it in her 16 conversations -- in her telephone interview with 17 Bradley Edwards and you. She may have said it in 18 her interviews with various British media for which 19 she was apparently paid. She may have said it in 20 her two false affidavits that she filed in the 21 federal court. 22 I'm not sure where she said it, but I'm 11:33:18 23 completely confident that she said it. 24 Q. What is a deposition? 11:33:25 25 A. What we're having here now. 11:33:27 EFTA00601243

91 1 Q. Your testimony was that 11:33:35 2 made these statements in depositions, plural. You 3 then went on to talk about a telephone interview and 4 interviews with the British media. Let's go back to 5 my question, if we could. 6 When you made the statement under oath 11:33:50 7 that said she was going to seek 8 justice from everyone who abused her in depositions, 9 which depositions were you talking about? 10 A. I was using -- 11:34:05 11 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered. 11:34:06 12 He's already provided -- 13 A. I was using the term loosely, I apologize. 11:34:08 14 I meant in statements, including statements under 15 oath. So I withdraw the statement about 16 depositions. But I insist that she made statements 17 along those lines in her interviews of both formal 18 and informal, both legal and to the media, so that I 19 was entitled to draw the conclusion, the reasonable 20 inference, that when she did not want to name me, it 21 was because that I -- I never had any sexual or any 22 other contact with her, which I know to be the 23 truth. So that's an inference that I draw. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:34:47 25 Q. Okay. And it is an inference that you 11:34:47 EFTA00601244

92 1 drew, not something that either Rebecca or Michael 2 ever told you, correct? 3 A. I certainly believe that they believe 11:34:57 4 that. But Rebecca was very careful about the words 5 that she communicated to me and she told me 6 precisely what it was that had told 7 her and didn't go beyond that and didn't draw any 8 and didn't tell me any words that weren't, in fact, 9 recited by 10 So the words were she never mentioned you 11:35:24 11 before all this stuff in the media, and she told me 12 expressly that she did not want to include you in 13 any of the allegations of sexual misconduct but her 14 lawyers pressured her into doing it. 15 MR. SCOTT: I'd like to take a break in 11:35:47 16 another five minutes or so. We've been going 17 another hour. So where ever you think is good, 18 Jack. 19 MR. SCAROLA: We're not quite there yet. 11:35:55 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:35:58 21 Q. Who are the people that Rebecca says 11:35:58 22 had previously told her that was 23 abused by? 24 A. I never asked her that question. 11:36:10 25 Q. Did you ask her was Les Wexner one of the 11:36:14 EFTA00601245

93 1 people that abused 2 A. I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21 3 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48 4 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your 5 name had come up repeatedly in connection with 6 Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? 7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16 8 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware 11:37:17 9 that never before 2014, end of December, was it 10 ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way 11 inappropriately with regard to 12 that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I 13 had ever been with her. I was completely aware of 14 that. There had never been any allegation. 15 She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48 16 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no 17 notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are 18 a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as 19 a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an 20 entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 21 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I 22 think she's lying through her teeth when she says 23 that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any 24 such information. 25 But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24 EFTA00601246

94 1 absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely 2 aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal 3 pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never 4 alleged that I had any sexual contact with 5 6 I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46 7 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that 8 was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey 9 Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, 10 something that you have falsely denied. And I stand 11 on the record. The record is clear that I have 12 categorically denied I was ever a witness to any 13 abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing 14 anybody. 15 And -- and the very idea that I would 11:39:18 16 stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was 17 receiving oral sex from , which she 18 swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so 19 preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't 20 believe it was true. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm 11:39:40 22 not going to allow you to reveal any 23 conversations that happened in the context of a 24 settlement discussion. 25 THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46 EFTA00601247

95 1 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection 11:39:47 2 and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to -- 3 THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have 11:39:49 4 standing in this deposition? 5 MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a 11:39:51 6 minute, okay? 7 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has 11:39:54 8 standing. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the 11:39:57 10 speech? 11 MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- 11:39:58 12 MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the 11:39:59 13 speech so that we can get to my question and 14 then we can take a break. 15 A. So the question -- the answer to your 11:40:02 16 question is -- 17 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 11:40:04 18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose 19 something that she has a right to raise that 20 objection if she wants to. 21 MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14 23 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. 11:40:17 24 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back 11:40:20 25 the last couple of sentences. EFTA00601248

96 1 MR. SCAROLA: No, how about just reading 11:40:22 2 back the last question and maybe we can get an 3 answer to the question. 4 MR. SCOTT: Again, I move to strike your 11:40:27 5 comments, Counsel, because it's inappropriate 6 and you're too good a lawyer to know that 7 that's not true -- 8 MR. SCAROLA: Nothing inappropriate about 11:40:33 9 my insisting upon an answer to the question 10 that I asked instead of a speech. 11 MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, he's trying to 11:40:37 12 answer your question to the best of his 13 ability. Counsel objected to it. I wanted to 14 take a break to make sure that we explained to 15 him the position so that we didn't have a 16 problem, and I was trying to protect everybody 17 in this room. But if you want to proceed, we 18 can do it. 19 MR. SCAROLA: Well, if we simply answer 11:40:52 20 the questions that are asked, there won't be a 21 problem. 22 MR. SCOTT: Well, I guess everybody -- you 11:40:59 23 can characterize it one way, I can characterize 24 it another, that he's doing the best he can to 25 answer your questions. EFTA00601249

97 1 MR. SCAROLA: And ultimately Judge Lynch 11:41:05 2 will make that determination. 3 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely. Sobeit. 11:41:08 4 MR. SCAROLA: So read back the last 11:41:08 5 question, if you would, please. We'll get a 6 hopefully get an answer to that and then we can 7 take a break. 8 MR. SCOTT: Again, I object to the 11:41:14 9 comments, Counsel. 10 (Requested portion read back as follows:) 11:41:16 11 THE COURT REPORTER: "Are you aware that 11:41:39 12 years before December of 2014, when the CVRA 13 pleading was filed, that your name had come up 14 repeatedly in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's 15 abuse of minors, correct?" 16 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered 11:41:41 17 several times. Go ahead. 18 A. I have answered that question. If you 11:41:45 19 would like, I will answer it again. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11:41:50 21 Q. I would like an answer to that question. 11:41:50 22 A. I am aware -- 11:41:51 23 Q. Seems to me it calls for yes or no 11:41:52 24 response. 25 A. It does not -- 11:41:54 EFTA00601250

98 1 Q. Yes, I am aware that my name is -- 11:41:55 2 MR. SCOTT: Again, I object to -- I'm not 11:41:57 3 trying to get into a fight with you, Jack, but 4 I object to the comments, you know. Really 5 just let him answer the question. 6 MR. SCAROLA: You and I don't need to 11:42:02 7 fight. 8 MR. SCOTT: I agree. 11:42:04 9 A. The word "in connection" is what requires 11:42:05 10 a longer answer. Yes, I am aware that it was 11 falsely alleged by you that multiple witnesses had 12 placed me at places and scenes where multiple 13 victims had been abused by Jeffrey Epstein. That 14 statement by you, Mr. Scarola, was a false 15 statement. It is not true that multiple witnesses 16 have said that. And you misstated that. 17 I am aware that there were false 11:42:35 18 allegations that I was a witness but never a 19 participant in any improper conduct. And I 20 categorically responded in letters to you, and to 21 Mr. Edwards, I think, that there was no truth to 22 that. That if any witness had so testified, they 23 would be committing perjury. 24 MR. SCAROLA: You have requested a break. 11:43:04 25 MR. SCOTT: Let's do it. Good point. 11:43:06 EFTA00601251

99 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 11:43:07 2 time is approximately 11:43 a.m. 3 (Recess was held from 11:43 a.m. until 12:02 p.m.) 11:43:11 4 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 12:02:12 5 The time is approximately 12:02 p.m. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12:02:16 7 Q. Have we completely covered the content of 12:02:17 8 phone call number 2? 9 A. To my best of my recollection, yes. 12:02:22 10 Q. Okay. Let's go to the very next 12:02:25 11 communication between you and either Rebecca or 12 Michael. 13 A. My recollection is that I asked them if 12:02:37 14 they had anything else that they were aware of, any 15 other information, I asked her whether she had been 16 in touch with . I think in the 17 third conversation we also talked about the charity. 18 And she agreed. 19 Q. I'm sorry, I need to stop you for a just a 12:03:01 20 moment. Who contacted whom and when? 21 A. I think I contacted them. Normally the 12:03:08 22 procedure was I speak to Michael, he would pick up 23 the phone, I only had his number. I only had his 24 phone number, not hers. 25 Q. So this was the third phone call initiated 12:03:18 EFTA00601252

100 1 by you? 2 A. By me to the best of my recollection. 12:03:22 3 I called him and he would always be the 12:03:23 4 kind of gatekeeper and often she was putting the 5 babies to sleep, and sometimes she couldn't come to 6 the phone. The third conversation, substantive 7 conversation -- there may have been conversations 8 where I called and Michael wasn't there or I left a 9 message, or where Michael was there but she was 10 putting the babies to sleep and either she said they 11 would -- either he said they would call me back or I 12 called them back. 13 But the third substantive conversation, to 12:03:48 14 the best -- 15 Q. Where were you? 12:03:51 16 A. Huh? 12:03:52 17 Q. Where were you when you 12:03:53 18 A. Probably -- 12:03:54 19 Q. -- initiated this call? 12:03:55 20 A. Probably in Massachusetts at this point. 12:03:55 21 And then -- we discussed the charity. And 12:04:04 22 I think it was called ■, which is her initials, 23 , and also it stood for something, I 24 don't know, or something like that. 25 And she said that the lawyers had contributed EFTA00601253