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

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

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

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