File 017488

Deposition of Scott Rothstein - Notice of Filing Transcript in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (File 017488)

Notice and deposition transcript from June 14, 2012 in the case of Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, detailing Rothstein's testimony regarding his fraudulent Ponzi scheme at his law firm.
Summary
This document consists of a notice filed by Bradley J. Edwards' attorneys regarding the deposition of Scott Rothstein taken on June 14, 2012, via video conference. Rothstein, an attorney involved in a major Ponzi scheme, provides testimony about the origins and mechanics of his fraudulent operations at his law firm, which began around 2005-2006 as bridge loans before morphing into a larger Ponzi scheme. The deposition includes testimony about his law firm's growth, partnerships, and the financial motivations behind the scheme, with multiple attorneys present representing various parties including Epstein, Edwards, the trustee, and the Department of Justice.
Images
Text
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and
L.M., individually,
Defendant,
NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT IN SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT OF BRADLEY
EDWARDS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant/Counterplaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, by and through his undersigned
attorneys, hereby gives notice of the filing of the transcript of the deposition of Scott Rothstein
taken on June 14, 2012. Specific portions of the deposition on which Mr. Edwards' relies in
support of his motion for summary judgment are highlighted.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
!)
U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attached list is day of June 2012.
JA
Fl
rida
C RdA
ar No.: 169440
Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
21-39 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
est Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9451
Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Notice of Filing Transcript In Supplemental Support of Bradley Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 2
COUNSEL LIST
Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 524-2820
Fax: (954) 524-2822
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 659-8300
Fax: (561) 835-8691
Marc S. Nurik, Esquire
One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 745-5849
Fax: (954) 745-3556
Tortja Haddad Coleman, Esquire
Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A.
524 S Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 467-1223
Fa*: (954) 337-3716
Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esquire
The L-S Law Firm
1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 503-5503
Fax: (305) 503-6801
Page 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
individually,
Defendants.
500 East Broward Boulevard,
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Thursday, June 14, 2012
9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m.
DEPOSITION
Of
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
(Via Video Conference)
Taken on behalf of the Trustee
pursuant to a notice of taking deposition
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-37] -6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 APPEARANCES:
2
LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD: P A. by
3 Tonta Haddad, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff.
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A., by
Jack Goldberger, Esq
Attorney for the Plaintiff.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA ET AL, by
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Attorney for the Defendant. Brad Edwards
MARC NURIK, P.A., by
Marc Nurik, Esq.
Attorney for Scott Rothstein.
(Appearing via Video Conference.)
13 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, by
Laurence LaVecchio, Esq.
Attorney for the Department of Justice.
Page
INDEX
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
(By Ms. Haddad) 5
(By Mr. Goldberger) 92
(By Mr. Scarola) 121
EXHIBITS
PLAINTIFFS FOR IDENTIFICATION
1   64
2   69
3   72
Page 3
1 Thereupon:
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN,
was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: I do.
MS. HADDAD: Good morning, Scott. How are
7 you?
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Tonja. How are
9 you?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HADDAD: Fine, thank you. It's nice to
see you.
THE WITNESS: Good to see you, too.
MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Rothstein, I don't know
that you and I have met. I'm Jack Scarola, I'm
representing Brad Edwards and1know you know Brad
who's to my immediate left.
THE WITNESS: Hey, Brad, how are you?
Jack, good to see you.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Also present is another
Jack, Jack Goldberger, andl also represent Jeffrey
Epstein. To my right is Danyn lndyke --
THE WITNESS: Good morning, Jack.
MR. GOLDBERGER: How are you today?
And to my right is Darryn lndyke, who is
Page 4
Mr. Epstein's in-house counsel.
MR. INDYKE: Good morning.
THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
MR. NURIK: Good morning, everyone.
5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Hi, Marc, how are you?
MR. NUR1K: Good. You'll be seeing my
7 shoulder most of the day.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay.
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MS. HADDAD:
11 Q. Well, Scott, I know you've talked about this
12 probably more than you even care to, but I'd like to
13 start a little bit asking you about the scheme at your
14 firm and how arid when it started and things of that
15 nature just very briefly because] know you've covered
16 it many times.
17 MR. SCAROLA: It has been covered and
18 protocol precludes asking questions that have already
19 been answered and covering areas that have already
20 been covered, so we do object.
21 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted.
22 BY MS. HADDAD:
23 Q. When did this first start?
24 A. It started back in '05, '06. The question
25 is a little bit vague for me because it started in a
Page 5
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
different form than it ended because it started as
2 bridge loans and things of that nature, and then
3 morphed into the Ponzi scheme. But you are looking
4 back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning.
5 Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge
6 loans started?
A. I can't be certain exactly what we were
8 doing. I need to see all the documents to tell you
9 what we were doing at what specific point in time.
1 0 Q. What made you decide to start doing this?
1 1 A. I started doing it out of greed and the need
1 2 to support the law firm, which was having significant
1 3 financial trouble at the time.
1 4 Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401 yet or
1 5 were you still in the building where Colonial Bank
16 was?
1 7 A. I don't remember.
1 8 Q. Do you recall approximately how many
1 9 attorneys you had working for you when it started?
2 0 A. I do not. Between five and ten, Tonja.
2 1 Q. Was it before you started acquiring
2 2 attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches?
2 3 MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the
2 4 question, vague.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
Page
1 BY MS. HADDAD:
2 Q. Well, who were you partners with when it
3 first started?
4 A. Stu Rosenfeldt.
5 Q. Okay. Anyone else?
6 A. Susan Dolin, I believe. It was definitely
7 Stu Rosenfeldt, Michael Pancier, and Susan Dan may
8 have been partners of ours at that time, I'm not
9 certain.
1 0 Q. Because if memory serves me correctly, you
1 1 went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to
1 2 the building across the street, it was Rothstein,
1 3 Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
1 5 Q. And it was some time later that you moved
1 6 into the 401 Building, correct?
1 7 A. You are skipping one step. I went from One
1 8 Financial Plaza to Phillips, Eisinger, Koss, Kusnick,
1 9 Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeldt and I
2 0 broke off and formed Rothstein Rosenfeldt. And then
2 1 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, Pancier over at the
2 2 Colonial Bank Building. And then we took the space in
2 3 the 401 Building and eventually moved over there and
2 4 that's when the real growth started.
2 5 Q. And when you say, "that's when the real
Page
1
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
growth started," do you mean both the scheme -- do you
mean the scheme and the fin-n or either one or both?
A. Both.
Q. Do you recall approximately when you took
the space in the 401 Building?
A. I do not.
Q. At the time everything imploded, how many
partners did you have at the fin-n, do you recall?
A. Are you saying partners and shareholders?
Because remember, we had both, two designations.
Q. I want to start with just attorneys that
had -- not in your firm name but named as "partner" on
the cards, for example.
A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees.
We had a bunch.
Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you
had working there?
A. Approximately 70.
Q. In the year before, do you recall how many
you had?
A. I do not.
Q. So how many equity partners did you have or
shareholders? I'm not sure of the word that we are
using.
A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholders
Page 8
were two, me arid Itti Is sso fekfl .
Q. And evei one else  was just a partner for
title purpoW
A. There were shareholders for title u oses
01.01...._-tnerlialiti5.
1 Q. If someone was called a shareholder for
title purposes then, did they get to receive any of
the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or
s 9 they were not considered shareholders in that sense?
i 10 MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the form of the
' 11 question.
12 THE WITNESS: What kind of funds are you
13 talking about?
14 BY MS. HADDAD:
15 Q. In general from the firm. When you say
1 6 equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu.
17 What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was
1 8 named as a shareholder, why did you call them a
1 9 shareholder as opposed to a partner?
20 A. It was a title oflprestige and achievement.
21 Q. So it was basically an ego thing, it had
22 nothing really to do with the finances or hierarchy of
23 the firm?
24 A. They_got paid more_generally, but it did not
25 1.2.2y_e_nyIlijngIo. 1 ja.....with distributions.
Page 9
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
Q. When you were hiring and bringing in all
2 these new attorneys, did everyone come in as a
3 partner?
1 A. No.
5 Q. How did you decide who came in as a partner
6 and who came in as an associate?
7 A. Depended upon their level of expertise,
8 practice, book of business. It was a decision Stuart
9 and made together on a case-by-case basis.
1 0 Q. So you and Stu where the -- were in charge
11 of hiring?
12 A. Stuart and 1 tried to consult on every
13 hiring decision, yes.
14 Q. Did you guys also decide salaries?
15 A. 1 generally decided the salary and then let
16 Stu know what] was going to do. And he would say if
17 he thought it was okay or if he thought it was too
18 much or too little, but 1 generally had free reign in
19 that regard.
2 0 Q. Did someone's book of business directly
21 correlate to the salary that you would offer?
22 A. That is a very broad question because it
23 depends upon what other needs we had for that
24 individual.
25 Q. What do you mean by "what other needs"?
Page
A. Well, I'll give you a good example. My
2 lawyer, Mr. Nurik, his salary was directly related to
3 the fact that he was a great lawyer and had a solid
4 book of business.
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. David Boden, on the other hand, was, as I
7 previously testified, l don't know if you've had a
8 chance to read the testimony, but David Boden was not
9 only the general counsel to the law firm but he was
1 0 also -- acted as my consigliere in a significant
11 number of illegal operations and he was compensated
12 significantly for that, if that helps you understand
13 the difference.
14 Q. It does.
15 So, for example, when you were hiring former
16 judges, let's use that as an example, Pedro and Julio,
17 clearly they don't have a book of business coming in
18 because they haven't had clients, but they may carry
19 some sort of prestige or give some legitimacy, if you
20 will, to the firm. How would you decide the salary
2 1 for someone like that?
22 A. Stu and I would discuss it. It was more a
23 market issue than anything else, how much are judges
24 coming off the bench getting, how much business do we
25 think they can generate.
Page 11
2
3
5
6
7
110
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Would you need to look at someone's book of
business if they were coming in just solely to be a
rainmaker for the firm prior to hiring them?
A. I discussed it with them. There were not
many people that I recall that 1 actually looked at
their numbers. Once David Boden was working for me
had him check people's numbers, but I rarely looked. I
took most people's words for what they were
generating.
Q. My recollection is, you were always looking
to bring in more people, to hire more people, some of
us were somehow able to resist you while others were
not.  How would you decide  who ou were lookin at to
bring into your firm?
A. We were trying to develoate
side of the law finn, we were try_i_p_g_t2leystos_mi
talent, real practice groups.  I mean, Brad is a
perfect
You know, it was our hope that, you know 1_____j__2s2v_as_g2k)_g
to be one of the people to actually in s
rescue the firm because he had a practice groupb_al
could generate substantial income. You know, on the
le_gitimate side that's what we were trying to do, we
were trying to find the best and the brightest.
Q. 0122.WLtLEp_e_c_f_toj_12L-in_gill_Esople that
Page 12
aPIMUNIAMPIAMISIS.
you thought could bring a book of business, you just
said Brad for exam le that he had a legjtimats
_a-Lc:fiee group with a good book of business. How did
you know that?
A. Everyone in the tort world that I had spoke
yoke extremelyjijalysirad no_only_peopIe 1
already had working for me but other people that knea..
him. He wa_s_ysi_y_-_-cm_y_e_ghighly recommended to
us.
Q-
A.
Like who, for example?
We wanted him in there. We were trying to
develop a significant tort group and we thought that
he'd be a great part of it.
Q. Who besides Russ told you that about Brad?
A. It would have been other people in the tort
group. I don't want to guess, Tonja, as to which
other people told me, but it was -- well more than
Russ.
Q. Was it people within --
A. Might have been people in politics that 1
talked to that knew him because we had significant
input at the gubernatorial level with regard to tort
reform and the like, and there were people there who
knew who Brad was. It was more than one person that
told us that.
Page 13
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 Q. Okay. When you were looking at peoale to
2 bring in as ou La_i_d. Your
3 fin-n had a very unique area of practice and had a very
4 unique environment to which to work. How did you know
5 or  how did you come to decide what people may or may
6 not fit into that?
7 A. Okay. Hang on one second. I think1921 just
8 accidentally misstated my testimony,
9 Iwas not bringing the people in to
1 0 legitimize the law firm. l_was bringing them in to
11 the legitimate side of the law firm. The bulk of the
12 law fi=ct plc the lack of financial success, was  a
13 large group of ve honest, hard workin la ers
14 ..5iLig.12_do their best in difficult economic
15 conditions. There were some that were obviously not
16 legitiinate. And the way I decided to bring people in,
17 again, it's really everything I just told you. Are
18 you looking for how I brought people into the Ponzi
19 scheme?
2 0 Q. No, right now I'm just asking about the firm
21 because, as I said, it's a very unique way in which to
22 practice and a very unique workplace environment with
23 politics and restaurants and parties at your home and
24 things of that nature. I'm asking, personality wise,
25 other than the book of business, how did you decide on
Page 14
people that would be a good fit?
2 A. I looked for people that were outgoing, that
3 had the type of personality. On the legitimate side
4 of the business, people that had charisma that were --
5 that could go out and hustle and try to develop a book
6 of business if they didn't have it. And as one of the
7 50 percent of the shareholders of the firm] was
8 trying to hire people I wanted to work with.
9 Q. Okay. When you would see people from whom
10 you would offer jobs, for example, as you mentioned
11 earlier with Brad and his practice, if somebody stated
12 that people told you that he was a good lawyer, did
13 you need to see him in action, so to speak, prior to
14 your deciding to hire them or would you just take
15 people at their word for it?
16 A. Some of people I saw in action; he wasn't
17 one of them. Steve Osber is an excellent example of
18 that. I hired Steve after he was beating the living
19 daylights out of me on the other side of a case. And
20 I certainly would ask around about the people. But
21 the people that I trusted -- see, I can't remember. I
22 think Gary Farmer was working for me before Brad, and
23 if I'm not mistaken he would have been one of the
24 people that I went to with regard to Brad because we
25 were really developing that whole tort group around
Page 15
that time with Fanner and Fistos and Jaffe and
2 Mr. Edwards.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Edwards was working
when you first learned of him?
A. I don't recall whether he was working for
someone or had his own practice, I don't recall.
Q. When did you first learn about Brad?
A. I don't remember the time frame.
9 Q. Do you recall when you first met with him
10 regarding a job?
11 A. No. The easiest way to figure that out is
12 to go look at his personnel file, it will have the
13 notes saying when he met with me the first time.
14 Q. You don't have any recollection of your
15 first meeting with him?
16 A. No. As you know, I was hiring people left
17 and right and I was also unfortunately very busy doing
18 things I shouldn't have been doing, so I don't have a
19 specific recollection of when I hired him. I barely
20 have a specific recollection of when I hired me.
21 Q. But you did, in fact, meet with him?
22 A. I'm certain I met with him before I hired
23 him. I can't imagine -- although I did hire people
24 without meeting them. I did hire people based on
25 other people's word, if they were people within the
Page 16
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
firm that I trusted. Because] always said, I had a
very simple, you lie or die by what you are telling
me. If you are telling me this guy is good and he's
not good, that's on you, it's going to hurt your
income. So used to tell my partner, people that
were recommending people to me, don't sell me a bill
of goods just to get somebody in here because if you
do that it's going to come back on you, it's going to
affect your income and your ability to grow in the
firm. So with that admonishment, I might have very
well hired someone sight unseen based upon what
someone else told me.
Q. But you did meet with Brad you say before he
came in to work?
A. Now that I'm saying it out loud, I think I
did but really I'm guessing. I don't have a specific
recollection of meeting him.
Q. Do you recall if you knew that he had worked
as an assistant state attorney for a few years prior
to doing tort litigation?
A. I don't recall that one way or the other.
Q. So you wouldn't have asked Howard Scheinberg
or anybody about him before he came to work there?
A. I can't say that I wouldn't have asked
because, like I said, I might have asked. But
Page 17
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
unfortunately, you are taking a little tiny spot out
2 of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the
3 life of the firm, so I can't tell you one way or the
4 other.
5 Q. I know you had a lot going on, I'm just
6 trying to see if you remember anything specific about
7 this.
8 Do you recall what salary you had offered
9 Brad to come join the firm?
10 A. I do not. You have to just try to
11 differentiate that what I knew then is a lot different
12 than what] know now so ...
13 Q. Meaning?
14 A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time
15 that I was hiring him or maybe a year after, I would
1 6 be able to tell you what I was paying him, but now
17 it's insignificant. I don't remember how much I was
18 paying him.
19 Q. Did ou learn about his book of business or
2 0 know what kind of cases he was bringing in prior to
21 hiring him?
22 A. I do know that he -- I discussed either with
23 Russ, well, I know with Russ, and perhaps some other
24 people,1 knew about the Epstein case.
25 Q. What did you know about it?
A.
2 otentiall si ificant value against an extreme]
3 collectible pedophile, for lack of a better word.
4 Q. So was that case your rimaty motive in
5 bringing Brad into the firm?
6 A. I doubt it. I mean, I can't tell you one
7 way or the other, but I doubt that I would bring him
8 in .ust for one case because what if the case  fails,
9 then I'm stu 1Qsa_vithl_amgr who can't do anything,
10 you know. 10
11 I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do 11
12 anything, I'm just saying that if I only relied on one 12
13 case, then if I bring a lawyer in for one case and one 13
14 case only, what do I do with him when the case is 19
15 over. 15
1 6 Q. How did you know that this case would be a 16
17 collectible case then? 17
18 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the 18
1 9 form of the question because it misstated the prior 19
2 0 testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a 20
21 collectible case but that it was a case against a 21
22 "extremely collectible pedophile." 22
23 BY MS. HADDAD: 23
24 Q. What made you think that this case had au. 24
2 5 financial_____value? 25
Page
Page 18
3
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
A.  Epstein was a billionaire.
Q. Okay. Did you know anything about the
legitimacy or  illegitimacy of the, claims  prior to
knowing he was a billionaire?
A. I knew what I was told. I didn't check it
out m self, but I trusted the people that told me.
Q. And who told you?
A. Tile_aily_p=1=e_i_niyiLL1Lssimingil
with, as I sit here todayL is Russ Adler. But if
Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me at the
time, I likely would have discussed it with them as
well.
Q.  So were you aware of this case before lot,t
made an offer to Brad to join the firm?
A. Yes.
Q. You said you didn't --I don't want to
misquote you. You said you heard about it from other
people, but you didn't do anything to know that
personally. Was that before you made the offer of
employment?
A. I made the offer of employment based upon
what other people had told me about Brad.
Q. About Brad and his book of business or just
Brad and his legal skills?
A. Okay. When I say Brad, I mean Brad and his
Page 20
book of business and his legal skills.
Q. Okay.
A. And his ability to generate business in the
future.
Q. You stated that you believed that you first
heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps
from Brad. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up
with these cases, these Epstein cases?
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to
object to the form of the question. It is an
inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has
no predicate. There was no reference about having
heard about these cases from Brad. The names
mentioned were Adler, possibly Fanner, possibly
Jaffe.
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. DJELBJaLsialts ri a j. tiasluip ,
you've already testified you already knew about these
Epstein cases, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you kegobreast of these cases?
A. I didn't.
Q. You didn't know anything about them?
A. I didn't say I didn't know anything. I said
I didn't keep track of it.
Page 21
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 Q. You didn't keep track of it?
2 A. I did not keep track of it. From time to 2
3 time Russ and the other guys in the tort group would
9 tell me what was going on in certain cases, but until
5 I made a decision to utilize that file for an illegal
6 purpose related to something illegal that  I was doinl
..._
7 along with my co-conspirators, I just assumed my
8 layers were going_to work the case and eventually it
9 would hopefully work out well for the law firm. 9
1 0 Q. At your firm, when e-mails would go out to 10
1 1 attorneys at RRA or all attorneys at RRA, were you 11
12 part of that e-mail group? 12
1 3 A. You are talking about all staff? I 13
1 9 Q. No, all it says is attorneys at RRA. 14
1
1 5 A. It's the e-mail group "attorneys"? 15
16 Q. Yes. 16
1 7 A. Yes, I'm a part of that e-mail group. 17
1 8 Q. And I appreciate that you were very busy and 18
1 9 may not have read all of them, but you did receive 19
20 those e-mails when they would go around? 20
2 1
A. Yes, and I tried my best to read them. 21
Q. Okay. At what point did you decide to use 1
22 22
23 this case to further your Ponzi scheme? 23
24 A. I don't remember the date, but I can give 129
25 you the circumstances, if you'd like. 125
Page 22
1 Q. Please do.
2 A. The Ponzi scheme was running  very low on
3 capital. My co-conspirators and I needed to find a
4 new feeder fund, new investment sources. We had a
5 couple of very large, significantly wealthy potential
6 investors out there. I was looking for something that
7 would have been very attractive. We had had a lot of
8 inquiry during the due diligence period with these
9 people that were doing due diligence on the putative
10 cases that we were selling. And when I thou ht about
11 the E stein case, realizing that it was a substantial
12 actual file in the office2I camtjijde
13 that if I created a fake confidential settlement
1 4 circling around -- based upon this actual case, they
15 would be able to increase the Leveloiskuililigeno.
16 thatl was able to offer to my p_plentiajinvestors.
17 Q. How did you know this was a substantial file
18 in your office at that time?
19 A. Again, through the people I spoke to in the
20 office.
21 Q. Such as who?
22 A. Again, same people, Adler, Farmer, Jaffe,
23 Fistos.
24 Q. You never spoke to Brad about this case?
25 A. j'3atbutfljoIjInore
Page 23
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interaction --
Sorry, Tonja, I didn't mean to speak over
you.
tall...._<,12.112s=1_e_i_I the finn if
the are honest with ou, they'll tell you m
interaction was far more significant with Russ Adler,
probably  more so because he was a co-conspirator of
mine. My interaction  yy.id_i_Ru_-..E.e2Le_rly
many, many percents over my interaction with Brad, and
then you go down the line. 1 had more interaction
with Mr. Farmer than I did with Mr. Fistos, more
interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr. Edwards,
and so on.
Q. Russ was the head of your tort group, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So these cases fell under the tort group; is
that correct?
A. Yes, it fell under the -- fell under Russ'
purview ultimately, yes.
Q. And Brad was a partner at your finn during
the time these cases were there, correct?
A. I believe that was his title. He was either
partner or shareholder. I don't think we had made him
a shareholder yet.
Q. But he wasn't coming in as an associate,
Page 24
correct?
A. To the best of my recollection, no.
Q. So you stated that you learned this case
was -- I don't want to misquote you and listen to a
long speaking objection, but what did you call this
case?
MR. SCAROLA: Who wants the quote?
THE WITNESS: It was a substantial case
with a -- what I perceived to be a highly collectible
pedophile as a defendant.
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. Right. How did you know at the time when
you said these investors wanted to investigate and you
said you were going to create a fake settlement, how
did you know that this case was the case that you
could use?
A. From talking to all the people that I just
said, Adler, Fistos, Jaffe, Farmer, Mr. Edwards, to
the extent that I spoke to him about it.
Q. Did you speak with Mr. Edwards about the
case?
A.  I don't have a specific recollection one wa
or the other. I remember speaking to him at least
briefly the day or the day of or the day before the
actual investor's due diligence was going on as to
Page 25
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 what was going on. And I may have spoke to him, I
2 know I spoke to Russ, but] may_laiLs_p_o_l_Ke to him as
well within a couple of days jusLprior to this due
4 dili ence because I was trying to at least et some
5 information in my head that l could use when I was
6 creatin this sto for the investors.
7 Q. Scott, what's Q-task?
8 A. Q-task is a web based software system that]
9 had invested $7 million in.
1 0 Q. And what was the purpose of this intemet
11 system?
12 A. To be able to communicate in a secure
1 3 fashion and in a unique group fashion about specific
1 4 files.
1 5 Q. So forgive me, we all know I'm not good with
1 6 the computer. That was something that would be useful
1 7 within a law firm, why?
1 8 A. Because it allowed you to create groups and
I1 9 have both general and private chats, organize data in
2 0 a very unique fashion. That was, at least to our way
2 1 of thinking, would have been very, very helpful in the
2 2 law firm setting with multiple practice groups.
2 3 Q. Did you belong to any groups on Q-task?
2 4 A. I'm certain that I did. I don't remember
2 5 which groups I belonged to. I never got into the full
Page
1 and with that, with the Q-task and the e-mails, did
someone assist you with reviewing everything and
letting you know what was going on within the groups?
4 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to
object to counsel's testimony. Object to the form of
6 the question as leading.
7 THE WITNESS: I really don't even
understand the question.
Can you try to rephrase it for me. Tonja?
10 BY MS. HADDAD:
11 Q. Of course, I would.
1 2 Did you keep abreast of everything that was
1 3 going on in every practice group or was someone
1 4 through Q-task and e-mails, for example, or was
15 someone giving you information keeping you posted on
1 6 what was going on within the practice?
17 A. Well, as part of the tort group I had a
18 pretty good idea of what was going on there all the
19 time just because of the significant amount of
2 0 interaction, both legitimate and otherwise, that] had
21 with Russ Adler, so I was probably more up-to-date on
that group than any group other than the labor and
employment group, again, because] had such
significant interaction with Stu Rosenfeldt, both
legitimately and illegitimately, so] knew what was
6 Page 28
1 use of it. I tried to, but again, I was very busy
2 doing other things. But I know that Mr. Adler's group
3 used it extensively.
4 Q. Because it was your firm and, as you said,
5 you invested $7 million in it, did you have the
6 ability to access a group if you wanted to?
A. Yes. And if1 couldn't,1 could get Russ to
8 give me access.
9 Q. So you didn't necessarily have to be invited
1 0 into the Q-task group for you to be able to utilize or
1 1 view the communications within it?
1 2 A. No, that's not true. I actually had to be
1 3 invited, that's what I was telling Russ to do, is to
1 4 have me invited.
1 5 Q. But I'm saying, the lawyers wouldn't have to
1 6 personally invite you, you can get someone within your
17 firm to give you access maybe without the lawyers
1 8 knowing?
1 9 A. No, I think it might have had a, quote,
2 0 unquote, confidential, super secret viewing
2 1 capability, but I don't recall it having that, and I'd
22 have no need to utilize that. Just invite me into the
23 group and let me see what's going on.
24 Q. Okay. I know that you are or were a very
25 hands-on person within certain of the practice groups
Page 27
going on in that group.
I tried, as best as I could, given my time
constraints, to stay on top of what was going on, you
know, throughout the firm. But] relied on other
people like Debra Villegas and Irene Stay and David
Boden, Les Stracker to the lesser extent, to monitor
7 what was going on in the different practice groups and
keep me up to speed.
Q. Was there audio and video surveillance
0 throughout the entire firm or only within your office?
11 A. No, through the entire office, not in the
12 individual offices.
13 Hang on. Not in the individual offices but
1 4 throughout the general office space.
Ii1 5 Q. So in 2009 how many floors did you have?
16 A. Three, I think.
1 17 Q. And do you recall approximately how many
18 attorneys you had working there at that time?
19 A. Approximately 70.
20 Q. And when you say "not the individual offices
2 1 but the other areas," do you mean -- would that
22 include conference rooms?
23 A. I didn't have surveillance in the conference
24 rooms.
25 Q. So can you please tell me exactly where you
Page 29
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
2
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had audio and/or video surveillance? We'll start with 1
audio.
A. I don't have a specific recollection of
every place I had video and audio, but it was in --
had it set up so that in all of the common areas,
including our shareholder's lounge, we had -- I had
audio and video capabilities. 7
Q. When you say "capabilities," does that mean
you didn't always turn it on or you just turned it on
when you felt like it?
A. I turned it on when I felt like it, when] 11
felt like seeing what was going on. lsometimes left 12
the screen up becauselhad four computer screens on
my desk, I sometimes left the screen on with the video
of the reception area and some other general areas.
But unlesslwanted to see what was going on or listen
to what was going on, I didn't turn it on. It would
have been too distracting.
Q. Did the attorneys know that this
surveillance existed?
A. You can see it in the -- it wasn't hidden,
you can see it. There were globes up in the ceiling
all over the office.
Q. Did you have -- you said -- you didn't
answer this, you said you didn't recall. Did you have
Page 30
1 any surveillance in the conference rooms?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Other than the common areas you just went
9 over, in the hallways and the reception -- did you
5 have it in the hallways, is that a common -- do you
6 deem that a common area?
7 A. All the hallways pretty much with the
8 exception of a few blind spots, I can see all the
9 hallways.
10 Q. And this was on all three floors?
11 A. Yeah. For some reason I think we might
12 have taken some space on a fourth floor, but I could
13 be mistaken. But yes, on the three floors that we
14 actively had a significant amount of space on,1 tried
15 to have surveillance on all the common areas of all
16 that space.
17 Q. And what floor was Mr. Edwards' office on?
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. Did you have the tort group all together or
20 was it divided up?
21 A. Except for Adler, Adler was on with -- near
22 me, down the hall from me. The rest of the group was
23 all together. I think they were on -- let's see.
24 There were people up on 22. I was on 16. He must
25 have been on the other floor that we were building
Page 31
2
3
5
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out, because I remember building out space and I
remember Jaffe and all those guys moving into that
space.
Q. If you were building up that space, do you
recall when you put the surveillance in there?
A. It would have been while they were building
it out or shortly thereafter.
Q. During 2009 it seems that you hired lots of
former law enforcement people to work at the firm.
Why were they people you wanted to hire?
A. Severalfold. I had a significant amount of
illegal activity going on with various law enforcement
agencies throughout South Florida and hiring people
from former law enforcement assisted me in engendering
support and camaraderie with the law enforcement that
I was actually utilizing in illegal activities.
Q. So you are saying --
A. Secondarily, I wanted to have a very strong
investigative team, ultimately, to do both legitimate
and illegitimate things for the law firm, and hiring
former law enforcement was the best way to do that. I
was hoping to actually ultimately create a group. Ken
Jenne and I had talked about that extensively.
Q. Why did you hire Ken Jenne?
A. Prior to Ken going to prison, he and] were
Page 32
very friendly and he was extremely friendly with
someone that was very close to me, Grant Smith.
During the time that he was down in FDC Miami,] went
down to visit him. And after speaking to him and
after speaking to Grant, I told him, because he was
talking to me about how many people had turned on him
and abandoned him. Andltold him that when he got
out of jail that he had no worries, that] would give
him a job.
Q. And what --
A. And that was the primary reason -- that was
my primary reason for hiring him.
Q. What was it you were hiring him to do
exactly?
A. Ultimate the goal was to head up on
investigative arm within RRA, within the RRA entities.
Q. Well, while he was there, since that didn't
happen, what was his obligation to the firm
day-to-day?
A. He handled firm security issues and he did
handle overseeing certain investigative things. We
had an alcohol and beverage group that was forming and
he was overseeing that. He was helping me find new
people to staff it, that kind of thing.
Q. Did you have a lot of interaction --
Page 33
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 A. He had had significant -- as you know, he
2 also had significant political connections and
3 everyone who is not living under a rock knows] was
4 doing everything I could to garner significant
5 political power.
6 Q. I think many people miss your parties.
7 But, with respect to Mr. Jenne and his
8 political connections, were you hiring him to utilize
9 him with respect to any of the police department
1 0 investigations? You had stated earlier you had
1 1 dealings with police departments. I don't want --
1 2 again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. You
1 3 said you had dealings going on with various police
1 4 agencies?
1 5 A. I had -- I mean, we had a criminal defense
1 6 section in the law firm, so we had legitimate dealings
1 7 with law enforcement. But I also had significant
1 8 illegitimate things with law enforcement that had
1 9 nothing to do with Ken Jenne.
2 0 Q. And how about with respect to former FBI
2 1 agents you were hiring?
2 2 A. They were all people that were operating in
2 3 a legitimate fashion within the law firm.
2 4 Q. In what role was that?
2 5 A. The investigative roles and the alcohol
Page 34
beverage roles and anything else Ken or other staff
2 could think of to have them do.
Q. Let's talk about the investigative roles for
4 a minute.
5 What kind of investigations were these teams
6 running?
7 A. I do not know. You have to speak to lawyers
8 that were actually utilizing them. I put it out there
9 and Ken put it out there, that they were available to
1 0 lawyers in the fin-n for use like in-house
1 1 investigators. And what people did with them
1 2 ultimately was up to them.
1 3 Q. Were they on salary or were their costs and
1 4 fees associated with utilizing them within a specific
1 5 practice group?
1 6 A. They were all on salary with me. The
1 7 ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that
1 8 could bill the law firm and have the clients at least
1 9 defray some of the cost. I don't recall whether or
2 0 not we ever got to that level or not.
2 1 Q. With all that in-house police action, why
2 2 did you have police security surrounding you all the
2 3 time?
2 4 A. I guess the best answer was I was paranoid,
2 5 but 1 mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You
Page 35
3
4
5
6
7
know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For
example,1 -- are you talking about my Fort Lauderdale
police detail?
Q. Yes. You had it at the office and at your
home, correct?
A. Yeah. There's a myriad of facts that
motivated me to do that. One was that I really wanted
the security for the office. Two was, I was paranoid
and this is in no particular order. Three was the
1 0 Melissa Lewis murder that shook the entire law firm
1 1 and shook me terribly. I didn't want that to ever
1 2 have to happen again. And four was, I wanted -- the
1 3 more law enforcement you have around, the
1 4 more legitimacy it adds to you and your appearance to
15 the community. So there were a multitude of reasons.
16 I mean, I hired certain law enforcement to
17 work for me that were just friends of mine that
1 8 were -- that needed additional money, so] wanted to
19 make sure that they had money, both guys that did the
20 illegal stuff for me and guys that didn't do anything
2 1 illegal for me.
22 Q. Let's go back to the Epstein case and when
23 you decided to utilize it -- to use for the investors
24 for your Ponzi scheme.
25 Do you recall approximately when it was that
Page 36
these investors were coming that you decided to use
2 the files?
A. My best recollection it was  in 2009,
sometimes after April of 2009 but l don't have a
5 specific recollection bsyoj___id that.
6 Q. What makes you think it was after April of
7 2009?
A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the
Clockwork Group came in towards the middle of 2009.
1 0 When 1 say Clockwork, that's an umbrella term that
1 1 use to mean the Von Allmen, AJ Discala, and other
12 investors that came in through that feeder fund.
13 Q. So that was around April 2009?
14 A. No, it was after, to the best of my
15 recollection. I mean, you can tell because all you
1 6 have to do is look and see when the first, very first
17 Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint
18 it even closer. Look for the very first settlement
19 deal that we did that was related to the E stein case,
20 within 60 gays prior to that would have been when]
21 was meeting with those due diligence people 30 to
22 60 days before that.
23 Q. _So_ all=t_LcLesige_d_t_o
2 4 me through exactly what you did to familiarize
25 yourself with that case.
Page 37
10 ( Pages 34 to 37)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
A. ltalked to Russ Adler. I my have talked
2 to some of the other lawyers. I flipped throgli
3 certain boxes in the file.
4 Q. How did you get the boxes?
5 A. I  asked someone to bring them to me.
6 Q. Do you know where those files were stored?
7 A. I do not.
8 Q. So you flipped -- sorry, please continue.
9 Flipped through some files?
10 A. I flipped through some files.  1 had the
11 files in my office. The day that the investor group
12 Ken Jenne and some others
13 actually bring me some more of the boxes actually into
14 my office while the investors were there. I already
15 had some of the boxes with me.
16 Q. You say "Ken Jenne and others," who were the
17 others to whom you are referencing?
18 A. Idon't specifically recall who carried them
19 in. 1 was very focused on my investors at that time.
20 Q. Wei-e any of the lers resenvith ou
2 1 when you were meeting with these investoD2
2 2 A.  During the actual meeting with them, no. 1
23 recall that some of the lawyers may have met some of
24 the investors, but 1 don't recall who.
25 Q. Do you recall approximately when that
Page
1
2
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
happened?
A. No, it's the same dates that] was giving
you before.
Q. Okay. So you had, to further your Ponzi
scheme, you had to familiarize yourself with this case
so that you could speak intelligently with the
investors; is that correct?
A. Well, sort of because  most of what 1 told
the  investors,__aiahingLtftgtj_ns_cLe_atjma_,s I
Tvient,
Q. About this particular case, the Epstein
case?
A. Yes, from an investor -- you have to
understand how the inner working of the Ponzi scheme
8
were crafted but --
Q. Please tell me then.
A. I'm telling you -- hang on. From an
investor's standpoint, the investor is simply looking
for is the case believable., And once they get past
that, is it of such case-- excuse me,  is it of such a
nature that it is ossible to be eneratin a
significant amount of settlement dollars. And then
after that, t en- concern is sim_pl on the due
diligence side of making sure we actually have the
Irm_teydh.2111Je_c_Ipsz_nsp_t_s_p_ajj -- the documents
Page 39
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 unrelated to this case, documents related to the
settlements. Other than proving the existence of the
case, there's very little an investor, at least from.
my end, investigates into the actual case. It was
more after having  the case exist and not carin about
Le.aily  what was going on in the case other than a lot
7 of mope was oin o be collected.
Q. Well, with respect to showing them that the
case existed and that there was a likelihood of a
possibility of a payday at the end, how did you
convince them of that? What did you use to convince
them of that?
A.  1 did two main things. One, I put the boxes
in m office while the were there. I told them to
pfi_c_ally_12.2)*Lat a couple of sheet
manifest that was in the file that Russ had shown me.
And I told them that it would be a breach of
attorney/..clihiLt IT,-..i2.se_19rJ1rElq_I2,2,,Lat the
file, but that I was g2i_n_g_t_o_Les_olitiox_a while and
leave them there with the boxes wink. wink and
that's what] did. I stepped out__,.....ni_pols_at
whatever they wanted to look at. I came back in,
were satisfied that it was a real case andl was off
and running,
Q. And ,these were the real legitimate files for
Page
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
this case; is that correct?
A. These were the legitimate fily_es.
Q. Nothing had been created at this time for
them to look through?
A. I didn't add an thin to the case files.
The case files werentemughly_themssty_e_s.
Q. Do you know how long they were in your
office; days, weeks?
A. The people or the boxes?
Q. The boxes.
A. The boxes were in there probably a little
more than a week. I don't have a specific
recollection.
Q. Okay. Did you ever go through them?
A. Yes, I flipped through them at some point in
time.
Q. And what do you recall about what you saw in
the cases? Do you remember anything?
A. ..1=ratel,lesing 1.,g.:11Ln_jf,eAan . I
aig_iy.thiagA§e. I'm sure I looked
at other things, but again,  for my purposes it was
insignificant to me because the actual content of the
boxes was not necessa in the sale of the fake
settlements.
Q. Why was the flight manifest so interesting
Page 41
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 to you?
2 A. Because of who was on it.
3 Q. Who was on it?
4 A. I don't recall, but I do recall saying to
5 the investors -- I recall having a conversation prior
6 to the investors coming in with Russ Adler and Russ
7 had told me that Epstein had flown Bill Clinton on his
8 plane, had flown Prince Andrew on his plane. And]
9 don't remember whether that was on an_y_Ztheilighl
10 manifests or not, but I left that to the investors'
11 imagination as to what they were being told about
12 Mr. Epstein and these other famous people that were
1 3 cavorting with Mr. Epstein and let them look at the
14 file.
15 You have to understand from an investor's
16 perspective -- hang on. From an investor's
17 perspective the only thin that Tatters to ths
1 8 investor is that it's a real case and that they can
19 ysi-jk_172.t.t-eal d9lIgaare beingxaid. The fact
20 that it was a real case was evident, I had a lot of
bco_cs_withml_pding_rs in it and a lot of other
22 information in it. The fact that there was real money
23 lein aid was a fiction that was created b me and m
24 co-conspirators everyone from bankers, to computer
25 people. So the actual role of the case, and I want to
Page 42
1 make sure you understand this, the actual role of the
2 actual physical case in the Ponzi scheme is, from my
3 It waslust another vehicle for
4 me.
5 Q. After that initial meeting with the
6 investors where they looked at the file, what happened
7 with respect to their desire or lack of desire to
8 invest?
9 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to
10 object to the form of the question, it assumes facts
11 not in evidence. There's been no testimony that the
12 investors actually looked at the files, only that
13 they were given the opportunity to look at the files.
14 BY MS. HADDAD:
15 Q. Was your video surveillance on when you left
16 the investors alone in your office?
17 A. No, no, I didn't have cameras in my office.
18 1 didn't let people look in my office when I was in
19 there, that would have been bad.
20 Q. SoysiLleft them alone in there?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 92/2iirecall for approximately how long?
23 A. .N2 t...m-silaaa2,110.  It was a short
24 ,period of time.
25 Q. When you went back in what happened?
Page 43
10
1 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 A. l went back to sellin the Ponzi dea
Q. And did you sell it?
3 A. I believe] did. You'd have to look at the
4 actual settlement documents to see if I put one
together for that, but I'm pretty sure we did.
Q. Do you recall if the investors asked you for
7 any additional information or any additional
documentation?
A. I don't recall one way or the other.
Q. After this initial meetin with the
y_o_t_gt this
particular case?
A. To whom?
Q. To any of the attorneys working on the
Epstein case.
A. No. I didn't interfere in how they were
runnia their cases. They were far more experienced
than I was in that ty_ps...L.LiEnc. JI.t_g__n_t that ipe of
case. Asa matter of fact, was practicing very
little real law at this point in time. I wouldn't
have had time to tell them or to get involved.
Q. Did you—ever keep up with this case after
this initial meeting with the investors?
A. I'm certain that I talked to Russ Adler
about it from time to time, but my main focus by this
Page 44
point in time in 2009 was the Ponzi scheme.
Q. Did you try to sell this particular
settlement to any other investors?
A. I don't recall one way or the other.
Q. Okay. Didiou ever have any conversations
with an of our investors about this E stein case?
A. I don't recall one wa or the other.
Q. I notice there's been a privilege log
produced with respect to e-mails. There seems to be
10 quite a bit of communication between you and Ken Jenne
11 with the topic being the Epstein case. Do you have
12 any recollection what that would be about?
13 A. I don't. As I sit here today, l don't have
14 a specific recollection of having significant e-mail
15 contact with Ken Jenne about the case. But if you are
16 telling me I did, accept that, but I don't recall
17 what it was.
18 Q. lailisLyot._ ...ilaslitatEcillLat_nhstryou were
19 hiring good attorneys such as Mr. Edwards, looking at
20 their book of business was -- I don't want to put
21 words in your mouth --.it was the legitimacy of the
22 practice, it would bring hilsgitimate money to the
23 practice, is that what you were hoping to do?
24 A. Earlier when I testified I specifically
25 testified that I personally did not look at most of
Page 45
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941 df
their book of business. This being said., I was
2 bringing  in legitimate lawyers to form legitimate
.21-ps..tice  mtg._ J=Qp_i___-acticelsgtthijajg..]
4 nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme.
Q. During the year 2009, were there any, to
your knowledge, any big settlements of any cases at
RRA?
8 A. To the best of my recollection, no. We had
9 a dismal year.
1 0 Q. The year 2009 was just dismal across the
1 1 board?
1 2 A. Some people did better than others, but yes,
1 3 overall it was for a firm of 70 lawyers, it was
1 4 dismal.
1 5 Q. So there were no big wins coming into the
1 6 firm as far as a financial windfall other than from
1 7 your other businesses?
1 8 A. The only significant capital coming into the
1 9 firm was money my co-conspirators and I were stealing.
2 0 Q. Was there any particular practice group that
2 1 you can remember that had a particularly non-dismal
22 year in 2009?
2 3 A. Mr. Nurik had a good year.
2 4 Q. Do you recall what the gross revenue was
2 5 from legitimate sources in 2009?
Page
1 A. It was somewhere between eight and
2 $10 million, probably right around the nine million
3 mark.
4 Q. Do you know what your --
5 A. On its best day.
6 Q. What was your overhead for salaries in 2009,
7 do you recall?
8 A. I don't have a clue.
9 Q. Was it more than you brought in
1 0 legitimately?
1 1 A. With what I was paying in salaries, I'm --
12 mean, I'd be guessing. If it wasn't more than, it was
1 3 certainly close to it.
14 Q. That's just salary, that's not talking about
1 5 anything else, rent, overhead, things of that nature?
1 6 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Who was paying for the investigations of the
1 8 cases that were going on in 2009, the deposition
1 9 costs, the filing of complaints, and things of that
2 0 nature? Where did that money come from from your
21 fin-n?
22 A. It varied from case to case.
23 Q. For the tort group?
24 A. It was fronted by the law firm for the most
25 part.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
12 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 47
2
3
4
5
0
11
112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. For the most part.
What wasn't fronted by the law firm?
A. I recall there being a couple of agreements
that various tort lawyers had with certain clients
where they were going to assist in helping to pay the
costs. All the other costs would have been paid by
the law firm, both through legitimate and illegitimate
means.
Q. So when you say by "illegitimate means,"
where would the illegitimate means money come from?
A. It came from the Ponzi scheme, and all the
tentacles of the Ponzi scheme, other illegal activity.
Q. Such as?
A. Things I was doing with law enforcement,
things] was doing in politics, things that I was
doing with organized crime, things I was doing with
politicians, judges, other lawyers, bankers, business
people, things of that nature, I'm sure there's more.
Q. Do you recall if any of these Epstein  cases
underwent significant investigation while the cases
were at your firm?
A. _I'd be guessing.  1 don't remember.
Q. There was a meeting in 2009, July of 2009,
and it appears from the e-mail communications that it
was for everyone in the firm to attend and it was
Page 48
regarding the Epstein case. In fact, there was an
Epstein conference room that was reserved for it.
Were you present at that meeting?
A. I may have been.
Q. Do you recall?
6 A. I don't recall one way or the other.
7 Q. You don't recall it.
Do you recall anything about the Epstein
case in July of 2009?
A. I do not. Do you have something that might
refresh my recollection?
MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a five-minute
break right now?
THE WITNESS: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you.
MS. HADDAD: Thanks.
[Short recess taken.]
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. Scott, I was asking you before we took the
break about a meeting with respect to the Epstein
cases. There was a 159-page privilege log filed,
which I'm sure you don't have and are not aware of.
But in it there are many, many e-mails to both
attorneys at RRA, yourself, and Mr. Nurik regarding
the Epstein litigation. And all this resolved in July
Page 49
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 of 2009 about the Epstein meeting and some additional
2 investigation into the Epstein case. 2
3 Does that refresh your investigation as to
4 when you met with the investors in the
5 Di scal a/CI ockwork Group?
6 A. It does not. The best thing to refresh my 6
7 recollection as to when I met with them would be to 7
8 see the deal documents.
9 Q. Okay. I unfortunately don't have those. 9
10 Do you recall if you took Discala and his 10
1 1 other investors to a football game in 2009? 1 1
1 2 A. Sure.] did. 12
1 3 Q. Okay. Would that be around the time you 13
1 4 were trying to get them to invest in the case? 1 4
1 5 A. It would have been around the time I was 15
1 6 trying to get them to invest in general. It's may 1 6
1 7 have been around the time that I was showing them the 17
18 Epstein file. 18
1 9 Q. Did you show them any files other than the 19
20 Epstein file? 20
21 A. I may have. don't have a specific 21
2 2 recollection one way or the other. 22
23 Q. You testified earlier that you had over a 23
2 4 dozen boxes brought to your office that were related 24
2 5 to the Epstein case. 25
Page 50
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. Counsel,
2 there has been no such testimony.
3 BY MS. HADDAD:
4 Q. You said there were several boxes brought to
5 your office by different people. You don't recall who
6 that is; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, I had some boxes already in my office
8 and I had Ken Jenne and some other people bring some
9 others. I don't remember how many boxes.
1 0 Q. Was it more than three?
1 1 A. Sure, it was more than three boxes, yes.
12 Q. Was it more than 10?
1 3 A. I don't believe so, no.
1 4 Q. You stated that you looked -- I don't want
1 5 to put words in your mouth. What did you look at
1 6 specifically in that case?
1 7 A. Other than looking at the flight manifest
1 8 that Russ Adler told me to look at, I have no specific
1 9 recollection as to what I looked at in that file.
2 0 Q. Do you know if there was more than one case
2 1 being prosecuted by your office against Mr. Epstein?
22 A. To the best of my recollection there were --
2 3 it was multiple plaintiffs.
2 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall if those cases were
2 5 pending in state or federal court?
Page 51
A. I  don't recall.
Q.  Did you check?
A. _1 don't remember one way or the other. It.,
was insignificant to me.
Q. Well, then explain to me. You testified
earlier that what was important to the investors to
see is that there was a real case, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you look at or show them -- what
did you look at, first of all, to see if it was, in
fact, a real case?
A. I knew it was a real case.
Q. How did you know?
A. Because my lawyers told me it was a real
case. I believed them.
Q. What lawyers told you that?
A. I already told you it was a mixture of Russ
and Jaffe and Fistos and Farmer and Mr. Edwards. I
mean, I knew it was a real case. We had all these
boxes, we had people really working on the file --
Q. How do you know --
A. --or they were pulling a hell of a scam on
me. Not that I didn't deserve it but ...
Q. How did you know, you just said you knew
people were working really hard on this case. Who do
Page 52
you know was working on the case?
A. :The only people that 1 knew for certain were
working on the case was Brad Edwards and Russ Adler
ervisory schtick, whatever that was.
her than th at, I ,s12111.1m_cnow which other la ers
..w_e_re assisting Mr. Edwards. Fdidn't get involved at
that level.
As far as the Ponzi scheme goes, the only
thing] cared about, Tonia, was being„able to show the
10 investors that this case that I was utilizing to steal
11 ..1jignificant amount of from th m was a re
12 case. That's all I cared about
13 Q. That case came into your office through
1 4 Mr. Edwards, correct? He brought it with him when he
15 came to RRA?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. He was lead counsel on the case, correct?
1 8 A. I assume he was lead counsel. I never
19 checked to see if he listed himself as lead counsel.
20 Q. Do_you know if any additional complaints
21 were filed while the case was at RRA?
22 A. I have no idea one way or the other.
23 Q. Did you ever instruct, in furtherance of
24 y.291-  Ponzi scheme, Mr. Edwards or anyone in that
25 litigation group to file additional comp?
Page 53
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 A. No.
2 Q. Who is Cara Holmes?
3 A. Who is who?
4 Q. Cara or Cara, C-a-r-a, Holmes?
5 A. To the best of my recollection, she was a
6 former FBI agent or maybe IRS agent. I don't know.
7 She was a fon-ner federal agent.
8 Q. Did you hire her to work for you?
9 A. It was either IRS or FBI.
1 0 Q. Did you hire her to work for you?
1 1 A. Yes, I hired her at the suggestion of Ken
12 Jenne.
13 Q. For what purpose?
14 A. To work in the group that he was overseeing.
15 Q. So what did she do for RRA while she was
1 6 there?
17 A. I don't remember.
1 8 Q. Did you ever mention her to your potential
1 9 investors from the Clockwork group?
20 A. It's a possibility because, as 1 was
2 1 building the Ponzi scheme, I frequently referred to
22 the fact that we had former state and federal law
2 3 enforcement working for us and on our investigative
2 4 teams. It added legitimacy to the Ponzi scheme.
2 5 Q. Didn't you tell investors that she could
Page 54
1 hack into a computer as part of her skills?
2 A. I certainly may have. Itold the investors
3 a whole host of lies about what was going on about
1 with case and what people could do and did do.
5 Q. Did you ever personally utilize Cara Holmes'
6 skills in any of your cases?
7 A. I don't remember.
8 Q. Were you handling any cases during the 2009?
9 A. I was overseeing cases in 2009, but my
10 involvement was mostly supervisory. I was handling
11 very little that was legitimate at that point in time.
1 2 Q. Were you legitimately, when I say
13 "legitimately," were you invited into Q-task on any
1 4 particular cases that you can recall?
15 A. I'm certain I was. I don't recall one way
16 or the other.
17 Q. Do you recall if you were involved in
18 Mr. Epstein's case on Q-task?
19 A. I may very well have been, but don't have
20 a specific recollection one way or the other.
21 Q. Do you know who invited you in?
22 A. 1 have no idea if] was invited in. And if
23 1 was invited in, I have no idea who invited me.
24 Q. Once you decided to use this case in your
25 Ponzi scheme, did you go into Q-task to look at the
Page 55
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 case or any communications --
A. I may have.
Q. Do you recall when that --
A. I may have.
Q. Do you recall when that may have happened?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you recall the first time you looked at
the flight manifest to which you referenced earlier?
A. Prior to the investors coining in. I don't
10 remember the date.
11 Q. Did you instruct anybody, to further your
12 Ponzi scheme, to investi ate or check into an one
13 whose name was listed on the flight manifest?
14 A. I may have, but with this clarification. If
15 I instructed someone to look into somethin•, I did it
16 with2t-son _g(nowin that I was involved  in a
17 Ponzi scheme or that what they were  doing was illegal
18 and it was just to et in additional information to
19 help with2Lay sale  of the fake settlements.
20 Q. So it was to further your --
21 A. Ii ,.(ed -- I may have
22 asked someoneIo_gstiLnn,
23 bt_lt_alLiI1_iere Lolai,Islon't re allsgdn
24 anyone to do anything on the file that was for the
25 jaiEp_o_se of furtherhydhe Ponzi scheme, other than
Page 56
perhaps getting me a piece of information that I
needed.
Q. I'm going TO try to refresh your
4 recollection as to whether or not you attended those
meeting in July of 2009. And it appears that in
between the dates of July 22nd, 2009 and July 24th,
2009, there was a number of communications through
e-mail by and between yourself, Mr. Adler, Brad
Edwards and Ken Jenne regarding an Epstein meeting
that was going to be taking place. Do you remember
that at all?
A. I think what you are referring to, and I'm
not certain, but I think that what you are referring
to is me making sure that the file was in the
condition in which I wanted it at the time the
investors were coming in. I don't think it had
anything to do with the actual functioning of the
Epstein case. I think it had to do with my
illegitimate purpose. That's the best of my
recollection, but if you have documents or something
that you can show me, that would be helpful.
Q. We are not privy to all of the e-mails
because they've been alleged as privileged or work
product, so I unfortunately can't show them to you.
But according to the privilege log between
Page 57
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-37]-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
July 22nd and 23rd there were numerous e-mails sent
about the meeting. It was almost an all-hands-on-deck
type meeting where everybody needed to attend. It was
labelled the Epstein meeting with an Epstein
conference room reserved.
A. Yes.
Okay. What's your question and I will tell
you.
MR. SCAROLA: First I'm going to object to
counsel's testimony, but let's hear the question.
BY MS. I-I.ADDAD:
Q. The question is, does that refresh your
recollection as to whether or not this meeting took
place?
A. To the best of my recollection, I actually
had introduced some of the investors to some of the
people working on the Epstein case, and that is likely
the meeting that you are referring to. But for the
life of me, I don't have a specific recollection of
It.
Q. But it could be the meeting where you
introduced the Epstein litigation team to your Ponzi
investors?
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to
object to the fon-n of the question. It misstates the
Page 58
1 prior testimony. It has no predicate.
2 BY MS. HADDAD:
3 Q. That could have been the meeting in which
4 you introduced the Ponzi investors to people working
5 on the Epstein case?
6 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. The
7 testimony was that there may have been a meeting at
8 which investors may have been introduced to some
people working on the Epstein file. And your efforts
continuously to mischaracterize the prior testimony
are highly improper. I object.
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. Scott, did you or did you not say that you
introduced some of the investors to some of the
lawyers on the Epstein case?
A. No, I actually said, Tonja, that I may have.
I have a recollection that I may have based upon you
just refreshing my recollection, but I just.do rt_o_t
IsIns_ratle....02.22-. This was, in the
scheme of what I was doing, insioificant. I was
_s_i_mlyjaing_t_as..s..t.a1._)lish to th.5,,intors that this
was a real case, with real potential,with real
lawyers working on it. Other than that,  it was of no
interest to me.
Q. How else would you convince them? You've
Page 59
1
2
3
4
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned letting them look through the litigation
boxes, you've mentioned the meeting. What other way
would you have convinced them that it was a real case?
A. I mentioned letting them look at boxes, what
they did when I was out  of the office, that's --
don't know because I couldn't see what they were
doing. Number two,] may have introduced them to
people in the office. Number three, I'm certain that
.A2LIten ht the boxes to my office I
roduced them to whoever was ca in thej19_Les.
And number four the rest of it would have been all
.s_tultea_t_e_dinnation because,again, it
was the sale of something that didn't exist. This was
not settlin There was no real settlement mone
There were no real settlement documents.
manufactured I think, the actual plaintiff, because I
don't recall even knowing the plaintiffs real name or
if I did it was of no significance tome.
Q. How would you have manufactured a
plaintiffs name, would you have created additional
documents to further your Ponzi scheme using
Mr. Epstein as the defendant?
A. No.
Q. How would you --
A. The name 'um on the
Page 60
Eap
Q. Would they have already seen the documents
at that point?
A. I can't tell you one way or the other what
they had seen, because I don't know what they actu_ally
looked at.
Q. Forgive me, you've now confused me so I'm
just going to ask you for some clarification.
You used a lsitimate _case and crssatec_Lf.a,le
10 settlement documents, correct, in the simplest sense?
11 A. If this culminated in an actual sale of a
12 ettlementthentheanswerises.
13 Q. So it was a real case with a real plaintiff
14 and real defendant, just a fake settlement document?
15 A. No. Let me see if I can clarify this for
16 you. Over 90 percent of the settlements that I sold,
17 the fake settlements, were completely fictitious?
18 --Q. Right.
19 A. _lysy§..122..allssi_g_Tenta esittemx_vers_
20 at  leastinsart, on some ty_pe of rep] litigation that
21 stkey_taigssurcarjsAy_occ
22 utilized the Epst_e_L c..aig_t_p_liolsleubs_visual for
23 the investors that a real case existed. Because as
24 these were being sold to more sophisticated investors,
25 the questions kept coming up, was there -- how do we
Page 61
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
FR1EDIVIAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
know this is a real case? So I was finally able to I 1
2 say this is how you know, here is a case file. I may 2
3 have, I don't remember specifically one way or the
4 other, but I ma have utilized actual plaintiff names
5 from_____the cases filed but I ma have made them u
6 -have no s ecific recollection one way or the other. 1
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
24
2 5
,was totally geared toward sim 1 ettin the investor   7
money into the Ponzi scheme.
Q. Were you aware that the day after this   9
tool_s_place July 24th, 2009, a new federal   1 0
.meeting _on complaint was filed ag2jm.LERsIsin with one of the   1 1
same plaintiffs that was already pending in state   1 2
court?   13
A. I don't know that I was aware of that or   14
not. If they were filing it, someone may have told   1 5
me. I don't recall one way or the other.   1 6
Q. Did you ask anyone to file it to further   1 7
your Ponzi scheme   1 8
A. No I don't remember doin that.   1 9
Q. Do you recall any situation where you --   2 0
A. You do realize -- Tonja, hang on. I just   21
want to make sure this record is clear. Other than   22
Russ Adler, the ps_o_ple that were involved in the   2 3
E stein case had absolutel othin to do with the   24
Ponzi scheme.
Page 62
1 Q. Directlyy
2 A. Or indirectl They had nothin to do with
3 it
4 Q. Yet the file was used for you to further
5 your Ponzi scheme. I'm not saying that they gave it
6 to you to use for the Ponzi scheme, I'm asking, you
7 used their case. I'm not -- the question is you used
8 the case?
9 A. I took advantage of some good, innocent
1 0 people for my own and nty_s_oLcir_al2f:_s_illegal
1 1 purposes. Mr. Edwards is one of them, and for that  I
1 2 am sorry, Brad.
13 Q. Did you ask anyone involved in the Epstein
1 4 case to file a federal complaint?
1 5 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, repetitious.
1 6 THE WITNESS: Without seeing a document,
17 Tonja, I can't tell you one way or the other. I
1 8 don't want to -- I do not want to guess. If you have
1 9 an e-mail where I'm saying to someone, file a federal
2 0 case, then obviously I did. But I have no specific
2 1 recollection of that.
22 BY MS. HADDAD:
23 Q. You do have a document with you, it's marked
2 4 for you, it's Bates stamped. It begins at EP 081 and
25 goes through through 264.
Page 63
A. Hold on one second.
Okay. What number am I looking at?
Q. It's a very large document. It's begins
with Bates Stamp Number 081 and ends with 264.
A. It's in the computer, hold on a second.
I have that in front of me.
Q. Do you see the date on that complaint
stamped?
A. I do.
Q. And there's -- give me one second, Scott,
sorry.
What was the date that complaint was filed?
A. What's the last page of the complaint,
what's the Bates number?
Q. The last page is 234. I'm sorry, 263 would
be the last page of the complaint.
[The Complaint referred to was marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit 11
MR. SCAROLA: You may want to call his
attention to the filing stamp on the first page.
MS. HADDAD: I did. I guess he didn't hear
MC.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
MS. HADDAD: It's stamped on the first
page.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 69
THE WITNESS: Hang on, the complaint is
dated July 24th, 2009. It was entered onto the
docket on July 27th, 2009.
MR. SCAROLA: Do you have another question?
MS. HADDAD: 1 thought he was still looking.
Scott, are you done looking?
THE WITNESS: Yes, one second.
MS. HADDAD: That's what I thought.
THE WITNESS: No, hang on one second. It
shows the stamp on the first page says July 24th,
2009. The filing say electronically filed July 24th,
2009. There's an entry onto the docket on July 27,
2009, and the complaint is signed July 24th, 2009.
That's all the dates I have.
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. Okay. And back on Bates Stamp Page Number
263, who's the attorney that filed this complaint?
A. I don't know if that's his signature, but
the name is Brad Edwards.
Q. Okay. And does that e-mail --
A. With the squiggle on top of it.
Q. And does that e-mail address look like the
correct e-mail address for RRA?
A. It is.
Q. So that is, in fact, a legitimate e-mail
Page 65
17 (Pages 62 to 6 5 )
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
address from your firm; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And were you filing any cases back in 2009
4 in federal court? Do you remember how PACER works?
5 MR. SCAROLA: Which question would like
6 answered?
7 THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound.
9 BY MS. HADDAD:
1 0 Q. Do you remember how PACER worked when you
1 1 were filing a case, Scott?
1 2 A. I actually never actually did the actual
1 3 electronic filing procedure. I had people that did
1 4 that. 1 knew that we could file electronically.
1 5 Q. Do you know the purpose of your using your
1 6 e-mail address when you were filing electronically in
17 federal court?
1 8 A. I guess so you can get a receipt, but I have
1 9 no idea.
20 Q. Did you ever receive an e-mail from federal
2 1 court in your e-mail address that showed that a
2 2 document had been filed with the stamps that you see
2 3 on the top of that one?
2 4 MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, are you
2 5 attempting --
Page 66
THE WITNESS: I don't know one way or the
2 other.
3 MR. SCAROLA: Are you attempting to
9 establish that that complaint was filed in federal
5 court by Brad Edwards?
6 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking him if he recalls
7 the way it's drafted and why.
8 MR. SCAROLA: Just ask your question.
9 MS. HADDAD: I'm asking a question. If you
10 have any objection, please lay it on the record.
11 MR. SCAROLA: No, what] want to do is try
12 to save some time. If what you are trying to
13 establish is that Brad filed the complaint in federal
1 4 court on July 24th and used the PACER system, you
15 don't need to ask any more questions about that, it
16 happened.
17 MR. GOLDBERGER: We appreciate that, but
18 when we depose you we'll ask you that question. But
19 we are deposing Rothstein right now so let her ask
2 0 her questions. Don't do this speaking stuff, let her
21 ask the questions, okay?
22 MR. SCAROLA: Maybe.
23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. Go ahead, Tonja.
24 BY MS. HADDAD:
25 Q. Scott, did you ever get e-mails like that
Page 67
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 from federal court?
2 A. I'm certain I did, Tonja. 1 don't have a
3 specific recollection of getting the one pertaining to
this. I don't even know if they sent it to me. I
would imagine they'd send it back to Mr. Edwards.
Q. The filing attorney?
A. I suspect, unless the PACER system is
registered on my name, then maybe it comes to me, but
I am completely guessing.
1 0 Q. But based upon the e-mail communications of
11 July 22nd and the meeting occurring on July 23rd, this
12 complaint was filed the day of this meeting; is that
13 correct?
1 4 A. Okay. But here is the problem with your
15 question, I don't remember whether or not there
16 actually was a meeting. I said there may have been,
17 and] don't have an independent recollection of this
18 being filed. 1 do not have an independent
19 recollection of whether I told someone to file this.
20 And for the life of me, this I am certain of, if 1
1 told Mr. Edwards to file a complaint in federal court,
2 if there wasn't a legitimate reason for him to do it,
3 he wouldn't have done it.
4 Q. Do you recall if this federal case was filed
5 when you decided to use the case for your Ponzi scheme
Page 68
and show it to your investors?
A. It may have been filed around that time,
because I haven't been able to establish the exact
4 time. It also certainly may have been utilized by me
5 to further the Ponzi scheme. Also, I don't have an
6 independent recollection of that either. Without
7 seeing e-mail traffic, I can't tell you one way or the
8 other exactly what was going on at that time.
9 Q. Well, then I'll point you to another e-mail
which is marked as EP 001.
MR. EDWARDS: Let me see it.
MS. HADDAD: I sent a copy to your office.
MR. SCAROLA: He would like to see a copy
now. Thank you.
[The E-mail referred to was marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit 2.]
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. Were you able to find it, Scott?
A. Got it. Yes, I have it.
Q. You have it, okay.
You said Cara Holmes used to be an FBI
agent, correct?
MR. SCAROLA: No. What he said is --
THE WITNESS: FBI or IRS.
Page 69
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARD] & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MS. HADDAD: Q. Or IRS. We'll use the blanket term federal agent. is that a fair assessment?   1 2 3
A. Yes.   4
Q. Thank you.   5
Do you recall when you hired her to work for   6
you?   7
A. I do not.   8
Q. Was it in 2009?   9
A. I don't have a recollection one way or the   10
other.   1 1
Q. Okay. Have you ever seen this e-mail   1 2
before?   13
A. I saw it when I was reviewing your exhibits.   14
Before that I have no independent recollection of   15
having seen it. I'm not copied on it so ...   1 6
Q. Did you ever have any communications with   1 7
Ms. Holmes about people that were close to   18
Mr. Epstein?   1 9
A. I do not remember.   20
Q. You stated earlier that you knew that   21
Mr. Epstein was a wealthy man. Is that a fair   22
statement? You called him "collectible," was that   2.3
because he had money?   24
MR. SCAROLA: He called him a billionaire   25
Page 70
1 too.
2 MS. HADDAD: Billionaire.
3 THE WITNESS: l knew he was a billionaire.
4 BY MS. HADDAD:
5 Q. Do you have any independent recollection in
6 the month of July 2009 of this case being intensified
7 in any way such as going after those close to
8 Mr. Epstein?
9 A. I don't remember that one way or the other.
10 Q. If you knew that Mr. Epstein was a
1 1 billionaire, do you have any recollection of asking
12 someone to investigate those close to Mr. Epstein to
13 further your Ponzi scheme?
14 A. I don't have an independent recollection of
15 that one way or the other.
16 Q. Do you recall if you ever directed the
17 depositions to be taken of the people who were listed
18 on the flight manifest that you saw?
19 A. I don't recall one way or the other. I may
20 have told the investors that I was going to take the
2 1 depositions without ever intending to take them, but I
22 don't recall one way or the other.
23 Q. Are you familiar with a gentleman by the
24 name of Mr. Rodriguez, Alfredo Rodriguez?
25 A. No.
Page 71
Q. Never heard that name before?
A. Alfredo Rodriguez?
Q. Yes.
A. It's not ringing any bells to me.
Q. Do you remember hearing at your office with
respect to Mr. Epstein's case that one of his former
employees was willing to come forward with a big book
of names?
A. I don't remember that one way or the other.
Q. You have no recollection of that.
Do you recall anyone approaching to ask if
the office can purchase this book?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Do you recall instructing any of the
attorneys in your office to get an opinion from
Kendall Coffey whether or not they can legally and
legitimately purchase this book?
A. I don't recall that one way or the other.
[The Complaint referred to was marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit 3.1
BY MS. HADDAD:
Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to
what's now Bates stamped as EP 002, which I'm sure you
haven't seen before since you just said you didn't
know who he was, but I'll give you a minute to look
Page 72
over it.
A. This is rather long. Do you want to direct
me to a specific portion of it?
Q. Sure. If you look at the Page Bates Stamp
EP 004, Paragraph 5 and 6.
A. Okay. I read number five.
7 Q. Would you please read number six as well?
A. Okay.
Q. Does this refresh your memory as to whether
10 or not anyone ever asked you in your office about
11 purchasing a book?
12 A. It does not.
1 3 Q. Do you know that the cooperating witness was
14 an attorney who worked for you at your firm?
15 A. I did not know that until you just said it
16 right now.
1 7 Q. According to Paragraph Number 5, "The
18 deposition of this Mr. Rodriguez occurred on
1 9 July 27th, 2009;" is that correct?
20 MR. SCAROLA: Is it correct that that's
21 what it says? I'm going to object to the form of the
22 question, it's vague and ambiguous.
23 BY MS. HADDAD:
2 4 Q. That's what's listed in the federal
2 5 complaint, correct?
Page 73
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-13554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
A. What does it say? Say it again.
2 Q. It says, "The first deposition occurred on
3 July 27th," correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Some three days after the federal complaint
6 was filed, correct, that we referenced earlier?
7 A. That's correct.
Q. And Paragraph 6 clearly delineates that in
9 August 2009 a phone call was received by the
1 0 cooperating witness that explained that this
11 Mr. Rodriguez had a list of other purported victims or
12 contact information for people who Mr. Edwards could
1 3 also potentially bring lawsuits for-- on behalf of;
14 is that correct?
15 A. I don't know one way or the other. You
1 6 know, Tonja, just so this record is clear, you know,
17 as I'm sitting here, I have a vague recollection of
1 8 perhaps Ken Jenne corning, talking to me and telling me
1 9 that someone in my office was going to cooperate with
2 0 someone in this investigation. But for the life of
21 me. I can't be certain of that. So much time has
22 passed, but as I'm reading this, and it could be
23 completely unrelated to this, l just want to make sure
2 4 the record is a hundred percent clear, it's possible
25 that Ken Jenne discussed that with me, but] don't
Page 74
know who it was.
2 Q. You are testifying that you didn't know it
3 had anything to do with the Epstein case, as you sit
4 here now, you don't remember?
5 A.' No, no, I don't have a specific
6 recollection. and I want to just make sure so I answer
7 all your questions completely, is that as I'm sitting
8 here my recollection was refreshed that] have a vague
9 recollection of having a conversation with Ken Jenne
10 about the fact that someone in our office was going to
11 cooperate as a confidential informant for some law
12 enforcement agency, I just can't remember if it was
13 the Epstein case or not.
14 Q. Do you recall what you said to Mr. Jenne
15 about that?
16 A. No. What I just related to you is all]
17 remember. And I'm not even sure it had anything to do
1 8 with this.
19 Q. Who's Wayne Black?
20 A. Who?
21 Q. Wayne Black.
22 A. Sounds like the name of someone I hired, but
23 I could be mistaken. I don't recall.
24 Q. Okay. You don't recall ever meeting
25 Mr. Black?
Page 75
1 A. I may have. I don't recall one way or the
other. You have something that might refresh my
recollection?
4 Q. Do you know what he does for a living?
A. I do know the name. Sounds familiar to me,
but l can't recall one way or the other who he was or
7 what he did.
Q. Did you instruct your office to begin
investigating Mr. Epstein's pilot or his airplanes?
10 A. I do not recall one way or the other.
11 Q. You did testify that the flight manifest was
12 the one document you recall for sure looking at in
13 Mr. Epstein's case; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And if it did, in fact, contain the names
16 that you are purporting that it claimed or that you
17 knew of, that would be something that would be juicy
18 for the investors to further your Ponzi scheme that it
19 was a collectible case; is that true?
20 A. I'm sorry, you have to repeat the question,
21 Tonja. I don't understand what you just asked me.
22 Q. If these big names were on this list, as you
23 seem to recall they were, that would be most helpful
2 4 to you and your Ponzi scheme investors in convincing
25 them it was a big case, right?
Page 76
10
11
112
13
:14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. If they were on there, or if I lied to them
and told them they were on there, or if Adler told me
they were on there and I repeated, all those things
would have been helpful to the Ponzi scheme.
Q. You stated earlier that you -- the only
thing you looked at was the flight manifest because
you were told to look at it. Is that still true?
A. That's not what I testified to. I testified
that I flipped through other parts of the file and
that I didn't remember what I had flipped through. I
remember looking at the flight manifest because
Mr. Adler told me about it.
Q. You said that you met these investors in
your office, but there were no cameras in your office,
correct?
A. I didn't have cameras specifically in my
office.
Q. You had these investors in your office for
this particular Epstein case?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall if it was during work hours or
after work hours?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Typically when you were meeting with your
potential Ponzi investors, did you meet them during
Page 77
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bedd-ca2d8fe941df
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
work hours or after work hours?
A. Both.
Q. Did you always meet with them in your office
or did you do it more socially down at Bova or
elsewhere?
A. Both.
Q. But with this particular case, do you recall
meeting them at least one time in your office where
they could look through the files?
A. Actually, that group of investors were
looking at a lot of different cases or at least
multiple different cases that we were attempting to
lure them into the Ponzi scheme utilizing, so I met
with them on multiple occasions, both in my office and
at restaurants.
Q. Who is Mike Fisten?
A. Mike Fisten was a law enforcement officer of
some type that I hired.
Q. Why did you hire him?
A.
Q.
He was a Ken Jenne suggestion.
And were you hiring him to start up your
company with Mr. Jenne, as you indicated earlier?
A. I don't recall what the purpose of hiring
him was. It had nothing to do with what Ken Jenne was
doing for us.
1
110
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
121
22
23
24
25
Page 78
Q. So what did he do at IkRA?
A. My best recollection is that he had been a
former ADT officer and so it would reason that he
would be working in our alcohol beverage practice that
we were establishing.
Q. Do you know if he ever did any work for your
firm as an investigator?
A. He may have. I don't have a specific
recollection one way or the other.
Q. Did you ever speak to the press about the
Epstein case?
A. I don't have a recollection one way or the
other.
Q. Did you ever have Kip utilize the Epstein
case to put any publicity or spin out there with
respect to the case?
A. I don't have a specific recollection of that
one way or the other.
Q. Did you ever instruct Brad or Russ to talk
to the press about the case? We'll start with Brad
then Russ.
A. 1 do not specifically recall getting
involved at the publicity level of that case. I don't
have a recollection one way or the other.
Q.
Would that publicity have been good for your
Page 79 I
Ponzi scheme investors?
A. Not really.
Q. Would it have given more legitimacy to your
allegation that it was a good case in which they
should invest?
A. In the way that I was selling the Ponzi
settlements, it would have likely been overkill.
Q. So did you ever instruct them not to speak
to the press about the case?
A. I don't recall that either one way or the
other.
Q. If it had gotten out there that the cases
had not, in fact, settled, as you were claiming when
you were selling the settlement, would that have
hindered your case, your Ponzi investor's case?
A. Not really because they would have no way of
knowing if I had created a fake plaintiffs name. I
mean, there could have been something in the news
that -- and I don't know that there was -- there could
have been something in the news that says none of this
settled. And I just simply would have created a fake
name with my co-conspirators, created a fake set of
settlement documents and handle it that way.
Q. Did you know where Mr. Epstein lived?•
A. I only knew that he was from Palm Beach,
Page 80
other than that, no.
Q. Okay. In 2009, did you ever have any firm
meetings?
A. Of any type?
Q. Of any type, in general, firm meetings.
A. I'm certain I did.
7 Q. Do you recall about how many?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Did you ever have any partner meetings?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you recall how many?
12 A. 1 do not.
13 Q. Do you recall how many partners you had at
14 the firm in 2009?
15 A. I do not.
1 6 Q. Do you recall how many fundraisers you had
17 at your home in 2009?
18 A. 1 do not.
19 Q. More than 10?
20 A. I'd be guessing, Tonja.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. It's easy enough to check, there's state and
23 federal records of all that stuff.
24 Q. In 2009, did you still require the attorneys
25 from your firm to attend the fundraisers you would
Page 81
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
have?
2 A. You said "still require," which would have
3 meant that I testified --
4 Q. Sony.
5 A. -- previously that it was requiring them.
6 Q. Did you require attorneys at your firm to
7 attend your fundraisers?
A. I asked them to, I urged them to, I tried to
9 cajole them into coming, but it wasn't an absolute
1 0 requirement.
1 1 Q. Do you recall between April and July of 2009
1 2 how many fundraisers you would have had?
13 A. I do not.
1 4 Q. Did you have fundraisers anywhere besides
15 your home in 2009?
1 6 A. I probably did, but I don't recall without
1 7 seeing the documents. If you have the invitation or
1 8 the e-mails, that would help me.
1 9 Q. Did you hold fundraisers at your office in
20 2009?
2 1 A. I may have. That wouldn't have been
2 2 unusual, but I don't have a specific recollection.
2 3 Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs in
2 4 the Epstein case?
2 5 A. I don't have a specific recollection of
Page 82
1 that.
2 Q. Do you recall ever revving copies of e-mails
3 from Mr. Jenne with respect to the plaintiffs in the
4 case that the subject matter would say "information we
5 need to use"?
6 A. I don't recall that one way or the other.
7 It's certainly possible.
8 Q. Do you recall ever reviewing anything that
9 was titled "causes of action against Epstein"?
10 A. l do not have a specific recollection of
1 1 that one way or the other.
12 Q. Do you recall ever reviewing with Mr. Jenne
13 or any other investigator in your firm any information
1 4 regarding Mr. Epstein's house staff or airplane staff?
1 5 A. I do don't recall that one way or the other.
1 6 I may have, J may not have.
17 Q. Who is Bill Berger?
18 A. A former Palm Beach judge that we hired.
19 Q. Okay. What was his role at your firm?
20 A. He was a shareholder.
21 Q. What kind of practice?
22 A. Litigating cases.
23 Q. What kind of practice did he litigate? What
24 kind of cases did he litigate?
25 A. I don't recall specifically.
Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. When did you hire him?
A. 2008 or 2009. I don't have a specific
recollection.
Q. If you hired lawyers who didn't have a book
of business, what kind of practice did they do at your
office?
A. It depended upon the lawyer. I would have
tried to get them to work with other lawyers in an
area that they either were proficient in or wanted to
become proficient in.
Q. Okay. You had a meeting at your office
during which you were asking about information
regarding referring attorneys, attorneys who had
referred business to the firm. Do you know what Pm
talking about? I believe it was back in December of
'08 or early 2009.
A. The way you are characterizing that meeting,
I had a lot of meetings like that.
Q. What was the purpose of those?
A. You are going to have to be more specific
for me, Tonja.
Q. Let's start generally then. What was -- you
said you had many meetings like that. Tell me what
these meetings were for?
A. Making sure that we were maximizing
Page 84
generation of business into the law Ruin.
Q. What kind of business, legitimate business
or the other --
A. Legitimate business.
Q. Sorry, I couldn't hear you.
A. Legitimate business. The general meetings
that you are discussing, that was legitimate business.
Q. So there was a meeting for all attorneys to
attend regarding generating business, those meetings
10 were for the legitimate business?
11 A. If it was addressed to all attorneys, yes.
12 Q. Okay. And if an e-mail went out to all
13 attorneys, did paralegals and support staff get it as
14 well or was it just directed to the attorneys?
15 A. Certain support staff probably were on that
1 6 list, like my CFO and COO, and perhaps my IT people,
1 7 but it was general for the attorneys.
18 Q. With respect to your IT people, did you have
19 the capability to review e-mails and interne activity
20 of all of your employees?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. Including attorneys?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. Did you ever utilize that tool?
25 A. Very infrequently. It was a pain because I
Page 85
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 had to have Curtis Renie or Bill actually come into my
2 office, set up a special icon to allow me to do that.
3 It was a real pain. so it was rare.
4 Q. Who else attended the meetings that you had
5 with the Clockwork group with respect to the investors
6 in the Epstein case?
A. There were multiple meetings with what I'll
8 call the Clockwork investors at various points in
9 time. A variety of people came in and out of the
1 0 meetings. Some of the meetings occurred down in Bova.
1 1 Other people came up to the meetings. Some of the
1 2 meetings involved Michael Szafranski, our fake
1 3 independent verifier. Some of the meetings may have
1 4 involved bankers and the like. I cannot tell you
15 specifically who was at those meetings.
1 6 Q. The specific meetings that we are talking
1 7 about with -- where you left the boxes at your office,
1 8 do you recall who else was there with you at that
1 9 meeting?
2 0 A. I only remember there being a handful of
2 1 people from the investment group and myself. I don't
2 2 recall -- and I remember the guys bringing the boxes
2 3 the down, but they didn't stay for the meeting. There
24 may have been other people there, I don't recall one
25 way or the other who it was.
Page 86
1 Q. If the expenditures were being made on a
2 case that were substantial, did you have to approve
3 them or did you have a specific practice for them?
4 A. The head of a practice group could basically
5 approve them but Irene, our CFO, would generally run
6 them by me before she actually cut the check. If]
7 wasn't around she'd run it by Stu.
8 Q. So as the equity partners you had the
9 authority to make the determination what funds could
1 0 and could not be expended?
1 1 A. As the shareholders, as the two 50 percent
12 shareholders, we controlled the finances.
1 3 Q. And if Irene was coming to you to tell you
14 what the funding was for, to get approval rather,
1 5 would she tell you specifically what the funding was
16 for or just tell you "we need $100,000"?
17 A. No, if it was a substantial expense --
1 8 Q. Tell me what you deem as substantial.
1 9 A. That would have been -- substantial to me
20 would have been based upon how much money we had in
21 our coffers at the time. So, if it was one of those
22 periods of time where we had 20 or $30 million
23 floating around the law firm, Irene probably would
2 4 have just written a check without even letting me know
25 we were writing it. If it was one of those times
Page 87
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
3
4
5
5
10
11
12
3
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where we owed 20, $30 million in Ponzi payments out
and she needed to write a check for even $5,000, she
probably would have checked with me on that. So
substantial and whether or not she would have checked
with me depended upon the circumstance at the time.
Q. You stated earlier, and I think get
this quote right, that 2009 was a dismal year; is that
correct?
A. For the legitimate law finn business, it was
a dismal year.
Q. So in the months immediately preceding the
dissolution of RRA, July to October of 2009, what
would you consider a substantial expense that had to
be approved?
A. It would vary literally from day-to-day.
Q. Do you have any independent recollection of
how you were doing in, say, July 2009?
A. The legitimate business was always doing
poorly in 2009, as far as I was concerned.
Q. So would you have --
A. The Ponzi scheme had its moments of
significant wealth and significant poverty, so it
varied from time to time. It was a daily thing.
Sometimes it was hourly. It just depended upon what
was coming in and what needed to go out.
Page 88
Q. So would you have to utilize the
illegitimate funds to fund the legitimate cases at
times?
A. Yes.
Q. And that varied daily you said?
A. Well, all the money was commingled together,
so we used whatever funds were in there to fund both
the legitimate and the illegitimate financial
requirements of the firm, the Ponzi scheme and other
legitimate and illegitimate things that were going on.
Q. If an outside agency or investigator was
being utilized for a case and they needed a signed
retainer agreement with your firm, would you have to
approve that?
A. It would depend upon the significance of the
expense. I didn't necessarily get involved in every
retention of every expert in every case.
Q. Okay. So it would depend on the cost or the
nature of the case?
A. Who the lawyer was, their level of
expertise, all things of that nature.
Q. If it was this gentleman who you have no
recollection of meeting, Mr. Black, and the attorney
was Mr. Edwards, was that something you needed to look
over?
Page 89
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 A. Did Wayne Black work for Ron Cacciatore?
2 Q. Are you asking me --
3 A. I'm asking anyone in the room who wants to
4 talk to me.
5 Q. I love to talk to you, but I don't know the
6 answer to that question. He might have. Brad might
7 be able to tell you.
8 MR. EDWARDS: No.
9 THE WITNESS: When you said Wayne Black's
10 name again and that I hired him to do something,]
11 seem to think that he may have been associated in
12 some way with Mr. Cacciatore, but I'm not sure one
13 way or the other. I don't remember whether or not]
14 met Mr. Black, it's possible I did, it's also
15 possible I did not. And] don't have an independent
16 recollection of retaining him to do anything or
17 whether] was part and parcel of the decision if we
18 did, in fact, retain him, whether] was part and
19 parcel of the decision to retain him.
20 BY MS. HADDAD:
21 Q. Traveling out of state for depositions for
22 the particular cases, did you have to approve that?
23 A. It would depend upon who the lawyers were,
29 tilt significance of the expense. It would have been
25 case by case. l certainly would not have been
Page 90
1 approving or disapproving Mr. Nurik's travel,
2 Mr. Rosenfeldt's travel, Mr. Boden's travel,
3 Mr. Lippman's travel. That was their own thing.
4 If a younger lawyer like a Shawn Birken came
5 to-me and said he need to travel out of state for
6 something, if it was just for a deposition, I wouldn't
7 have gotten involved in that unless he was telling my
8 CFO, Ms. Stay, that he wanted to fly first class and
9 stay in the Ritz Carlton, then I would have gotten
10 involved. But other than that, no. The firm was too
11 big for me to vet involved on a daily basis with all
12 that stuff.
13 Q. If Brad had to go out of state to take a
14 deposition, you wouldn't be the person to approve or
15 disapprove that?
16 A. Russ Adler would have handled that. And if
17 there was an issue, Russ would have come to me. And
18 don't know what the relationship was specifically
19 between Brad and Russ, but its certainly possible
20 that Brad just was going to go do what he needed to do
21 to properly handle the case and I would have trusted
22 him to do that.
23 MS. HADDAD: Can we just take a second. We
24 are going to take a minute, okay?
25 THE WITNESS: Sure.
Page 91
1 [Short recess taken.]
2 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
Q. All right. Mr. Rothstein, Jack Goldberger,
I'm going to ask you some questions now. You
testified that you knew Jeffrey Epstein was a
7 billionaire. You did testify to that today, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Tell me how you knew that. How did
10 you know that Mr. Epstein was a billionaire?
11 A. Russ Adler told me. I looked him up on the
12 internet.
13 Q. What did you look on the internet about
14 Mr. Epstein?
15 A. I don't recall, but I remember looking up an
16 seeing that he was very wealthy, that he was a
17 billionaire.
18 Q. Okay. So as far as learning that
19 Mr. Epstein was a billionaire, you learned via two
2 0 ways, one was from Russ Adler, correct? Is that
21 correct?
22 A. Yes, sir.
2 3 Q. And the other was through looking up
2 4 Mr. Epstein on the internet, correct?
25 A. Yes.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7
8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 92
Q. Okay. And you don't know what you reviewed
on the internet in an effort to determine that
Mr. Epstein was a billionaire; is that correct?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Do you know when you did that?
A. I do not.
Q. Was it prior to your needing to use the
Epstein case to further your Ponzi scheme?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So prior to -- I think you indicated
that you needed an influx of money at some point and
that's when you decided to use the Epstein case in
furtherance of the Ponzi scheme; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So prior to that time though, prior to
determining that you needed to use the Epstein case
for the Ponzi scheme, you looked up Mr. Epstein and
you spoke to Mr. Adler about his work; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Rothstein, if you
weren't using the Epstein case at that point in your
Ponzi scheme?
A. Because it was a legitimate case in the
legitimate portion of RRA that] had reason to believe
Page 93
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 from speaking to Mr. Adler could bring in a
2 significant amount of money to the firm.
3 Q. At that time Mr. Adler was one of your
4 co-conspirators in the Ponzi scheme; is that con-ect?
5 A. By this time, yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. When did Mr. Adler become a
7 co-conspirator in your Ponzi scheme?
8 A. I don't recall the specific date.
9 Q. Was it before or after Mr. Adler recommended
1 0 that Brad Edwards be hired at your firm?
1 1 A. Before.
1 2 Q. So before Brad Edwards was hired at RRA,
1 3 Russell Adler was a co-conspirator of yours in the
1 4 illegal part of the RRA firm; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
1 6 Q. Then after that time you hired --
1 7 Mr. Edwards was hired after Adler was your
1 8 co-conspirator? You are laughing, you are smiling,
1 9 why is that, sir?
2 0 A. Because when you say "RRA" that way, the
2 1 speaker sounds, it sounds like you are roaring.
2 2 Q. Okay. I'll just say Rothstein, how about
2 3 that? You know what I'm talking about if I just say
24 Rtthstein.
25 A. RBA is fine.
Page
• 1 Q. What did Adler tell you about the Epstein
2 case that Edwards had at the time you were
3 contemplating hiring him to become a member of the
4 Rothstein firm?
A. He told me that it was a huge case involving
7 6 a billionaire pedophile and that it was a winner.
i 7 Q. Did you, when you heard that, did you think
8 that that was a case that could become part of your
9 Ponzi scheme?
P 10
1 A. No, I actually thought of it as a way to
11 earn legitimate money to help me out of the Ponzi
12 scheme.
1 3 Q. So at the time you hired Mr. Edwards and you
1 4 were talking to Adler about Edwards, you were trying
15 to get out from under the Ponzi scheme?
1 6 A. In the bulk of 2009 I was praying for some
17 sort of legitimate influx of money to get out of the
1 8 Ponzi scheme.
1 9 Q. Okay. So now Adler tells you about this
20 Brad Edwards guy, did you know Brad Edwards before
2 1 Adler talked to you about him? Had you run into him?
B 22 A. I may have. I don't have a specific
23 recollection one way or the other.
2 4 Q. Okay. So now he-tells you that you should
25 consider hiring Brad Edwards, this is your
1 Q. Okay. So Adler is your co-conspirator in
2 the Ponzi scheme at the time that Brad Edwards is
3 hired, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 - Q. Okay. Was it Adler who recommended to you 5
6 that Brad Edwards be hired?
A. Yes. He was one of the people.
8 Q. Who else recommended that Edwards be hired?
9 A. I don't have a specific recollection of who
10 it was, but others did. 1C
1 1 Q. All right. But you have a recollection of 1 1
12 Adler being one of the people, so let's talk about 1 2
13 that, all right? 13
1 4 What did Adler tell you about Brad Edwards 1 4
15 when you hired him? Did he tell you that he had these 15
16 Epstein cases or an Epstein case in the fold? 1 6
17 A. Among other things, yes. 17
18 Q. What else did he tell you? 18
19 A. Told me he was a great lawyer and a great 19
20 guy. 20
21 Q. Did he tell you what his history was, what 2 1
22 Edwards' history was prior to coming to the Rothstein 22
23 firm? 23
24 A. I'm certain that I asked him, but I don't 24
25 have a specific recollection of that conversation. 25
Page 95
4
Page 96
co-conspirator talking to you, right? Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he says, by the way, he's got this great
Epstein case involving this billionaire, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Presumably then-you had a meeting with Brad
Edwards when you met him; is that correct?
MR. SCAROLA: Presumably he had a meeting
when he met him?
MR. GOLDBERGER: I'm sorry, Mr. Scarola was
cutting you off when you answered, so go ahead, answer
again.
MR. SCAROLA: I didn't understand the
question.
BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
Q. Do you understand the question,
Mr. Rothstein?
A. I'm not sure I do because you asked me if]
had a meeting when I met him and] think that meeting
him is a meeting.
Q. Well, there was a meeting, correct?
A. I most likely met him before I hired him. I
most likely talked to him before I hired him because
that was my general way of doing business. It's all
Page 97
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 together possible that I gave Russ the okay to hire
2 him before, I just don't have a specific recollection
3 one way or the other.
4 Q. At some point,Itake it, you learned,
5 whether you sat in on a meeting when Mr. Edwards was
6 hired or whether your co-conspirator hired him, at
7 some point you learned that Mr. Edwards, in fact, had
8 been hired by the firm; is that correct?
9 A. I'm certain that I gave the final okay to
10 hire him.
11 Q. Okay. When you were giving the final okay
12 to hire him, I assume there had to be discussion of
13 the money that he was going to be paid, correct?
14 A. With somebody, yes.
15 Q. Certainly with Mr. Edwards, right? I assume
16 he wanted to know how much he was getting paid.
A. Yes, but don't have a specific
18 recollection of whether l discussed that with him or
19 whetherl authorized Adler or maybe even Rosenfeldt to
20 discuss it with him. 1 don't recall.
21 Q. Do you have the slightest idea how much
22 money Mr. Edwards was paid when he first joined the
23 firm, what his salary was?
24 A. 1 don't have an independent recollection.
25 -- Q. Generally someone like Mr. Edwards at his
Page 98
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
29
25
level of accomplishment and his age, you know what the
general salary would have been at your firm?
A. It didn't work that way.
Q. I see. Tell me how it worked.
A. It's a case-by-case basis.
Q. Tell me how it worked.
A. Case-by-case basis.
Q. And how did you make that determination on a
case-by-case basis?
A. Actual book of business, potential book of
business, potentiality for growth, character, what he
brought to the table, and obviously a function of how
much money we had available at the time.
Q. Okay. And you don't have any recollection
of the machinations that occurred in determining what
Mr. Edwards salary would be, correct?
A. I do not.
Q. But certainly one of the things you would
consider would be the book of business, i.e. the
Epstein case, right?
A. I'm certain thatl did consider the Epstein
case.
Q. Do you know whether he brought any other
book of business --
A. But I'm also certain it wasn't the only
Page 99
1 factorl considered.
Q. All right. Do you know whether he brought,
in his book of business, do you know whether be
brought any other cases to the firm other than the
Epstein case?
A. 1 don't recall one way or the other.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether your -- well, bad
question, I won't ask that.
Now, you've talked a lot about Ken Jenne
110 here this morning. Was Ken Jenne part of your Ponzi
11 scheme?
12 A. No. sir.
13 Q. Had nothing to do with it, right?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Other than his having -- working for you as
16 an investigator, he was not one of your
17 co-conspirators, right?
18 A. He didn't work for me as an investigator, he
19 worked for me heading up our investigative division,
20 heading up our internal security, heading up my
21 personal security, and acting as a political advisor
22 tome.
23 Q. Okay. Did he serve any kind of
24 investigative function at all, after all, he was a law
25 enforcement officer at one point in his career?
Page 100
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I note that he assisted the other people at
the firm that were doing the investigative work. 1
don't know if he personally did investigative work.
He may have.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Jenne, in his role
as your advisor or your political consultant, do you
know if he was involved in any kind of illegality,
illegal wire tapping or anything like that while he
was at Rothstein?
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to
object to the form of the question, vague and
ambiguous.
THE WITNESS: To my knowledge he was not.
BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
Q. To your knowledge, no?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. You talked about having a bunch of
fundraisers, I know you had a bunch of fundraisers
that was kind of a deal at Rothstein. This was kind
of a rock star law firm, right? I mean, you had lots
of fundraisers, lots of parties, right? Was that the
image you were trying to present?
A. In reality that's the way we were.
Q. Okay.
A. A lot of young lawyers having a good time,
Page 101
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 trying to make money.
2 Q. And these young lawyers. would you consider
3 Mr. Edwards to be a young lawyer or a middle-aged
9 lawyer?
5 A. Young lawyer.
6 Q. Okay. Was he one of young lawyers that came
7 to these fundraisers at your home?
8 A. I don't recall whether he was there or not.
9 I recall him being at some, but I didn't know if he
1 0 was at all of them.
1 1 Q. Okay. You do recall him coming to some of
1 2 the fundraisers, though, correct?
1 3 A. I recall him being at my home. It may have
14 been for firm parties or other parties, it may have
1 5 been for fundraisers there.
1 6 Q. And that was during the time period that the
17 Ponzi scheme was still going on. correct?
18 A. Yes.
1 9 Q. Did Adler ever the tell you about any
2 0 discussions he had with Brad Edwards about the illegal
2 1 part of the operations at Rothstein?
22 A. Can you reask the question, please?
23 Q. Sure. Sure.
24 Did Russell Adler ever tell you -- Russell
25 Adler is your co-conspirator, we've established that.
Page 102
1 Did Russell Adler in the furtherance of your
2 conspiracy ever tell you he had discussed with Brad
3 Edwards about the illegal activities at RRA?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Now,..you testified when asked about whether
6 the press -- if.you were involved in asking the press
7 to run with the E stein sto ou said something to
8 the effect, "the wa I was selling the Ponzi scheme it
9 would be overkill."
10 I didn't understand your answer like you
11 didn't understand some of my questions, so I'd like
12 you to kind of tell me what you  meant by that.
13 A. I was selling purportedly confidential
14 settlements. Confidentiality was the hallmark of the
15 Ponzi scheme, so too much publicity would have created
1 6 a roblem for me in the sale of what was supposed to
17 las smIeteIconfidentialseft1ement.
18 Q. I think what you are telling me, and I don't
19 want to misstate what I think you are telling me, but
20 is it true that you felt some publicity would be okay
21 but too much would be counter to the purposes of the
22 conspiracy. Is that a fair statement?
23 A. The way I was thinking about it at the time
24 this was going on was that some_publicity would assist
25 kis_sl.aLzilisl th_aLth5Le
Page 103
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
k 10
•11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
120
21
22
23
24
25
was a real case goirjg on, but that within that 1 woad
have to create some sort of fictions in ordeno_aelL
the fakeyroduct.
Q. Okay. At the time that you decided to use
the Epstein case as part of your illicit Ponzi scheme
theme,Ithink you testified earlier today, when you
were in some dire straights, you needed an influx of
money, right?
A. Yes.
Q. That's when you decided to use the Epstein
matters, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you knew, I assume, being the
Ponzi scheme mastermind here, that you needed to make
sure that you had at least a working knowledge of the
Epstein case so that you could answer questions to the
investors. I recognize that you left the room and
told them to look at it, but you had to some knowledge
of the case, right?
MR. SCAROLA: Counsel, that's a
misrepresentation of what the earlier testimony was.
object, no proper predicate.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay, let's go through the
whole thing again.
MR. SCAROLA: No, you are not going to go
Page 109
through the whole thing again. Just because we have
tolerated two lawyers asking questions, does not mean
3 we are going to tolerate two lawyers asking the same
questions.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted.
BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
Q. Okay. So let's talk about your need to use
the Epstein case to further your conspiracy. You
needed an influx of money, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You decided to use the Epstein case
for that purpose, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in order to use the Epstein case, you
were going to meet with the investors and pitch the
Epstein case with the investors, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in an effort to pitch the case to the
investors, you had to have some knowledge of the case,
did you not?
A. Some level of knowledge, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And in order to gain that knowledge,
you spoke to your co-conspirator, Russell Adler; is
that correct?
A. That's one of the things I did.
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
Page 105
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
Q. Okay. And do you remember what Adler told
2 you specifically about the Epstein case that helped
3 you have a basis of information to sell it to the
4 investors?
5 A. Other than him telling me that it was a
6 billionaire pedophile, other than him telling me about
7 the flight manifest, don't have a specific
8 recollection of what else he told me.
9 Q. Did you actually look at the flight manifest
1 0 at sometime, Mr. Rothstein?
1 1 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And what was it about those flight manifests
1 3 that you felt would help you pitch the Epstein case to
1 4 the investor?
1 5 A. I don't remember who specifically was on it,
16 but Iremember it looking juicy.
17 Q. You don't know who was on it?
1 8 A. 1 don't recall.
1 9 Q. Did you add any names to that manifest at
2 0 any time?
2 1 A. I had -- you mean physically write names on
22 there?
23 Q. Any way you want to interpret -- did you --
29 not physically write any names on the manifest, but
25 did you tell the investors that there were names on
Page 106
the manifest that were actually not on the manifest?
2 A. I told the investors that there were other
3 people that appeared on manifests,] don't recall
4 whether it was that manifest or other manifests, and 1
5 got the names of those people from Russ Adler.
6 Whether or not they actually appeared on the manifest
7 or another manifest, 1 do not know.
8 Q. What names did you get from Russ Adler?
9 A. 11.....21.1ALligyjastme_tita1.B i I ew on
1 0 eildndeen 10
11 Mr.  Enstein's_plaa. 11
12 Q. And is it your testimony today that you 12
13 never looked at the manifest to see whether Bill 13
14 Clinton or Prince Andrew's name were really on the 14
15 manifest that you were going to use to pitch the 15
16 investors? 16
17 A. It was my understanding they didn't have all 17
18 the manifests. 18
19 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask for the manifests 19
20 that purportedly had the name of Bill Clinton or 20
21 Prince Andrew on it? 21
22 A. 1 probably did, but I don't have a specific 22
23 recollection one way or the other. 1 23
24 Q. When you say you didn't have all the 24
25 manifests, were all the manifests in your office -- 25
Page
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
were all the manifests within the law firm of RRA and
you simply didn't have them in your office?
A. I have no idea one way or the other.
Q. Okay.
A. I did not have them.
Q. You were told by Russell Adler that you
didn't have -- that you physically didn't have all the
manifests, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. But you don't know whether they were in the
building somewhere, these other supposed manifests?
A. I have no idea one way or the other.
Q. You never asked for proof that Bill Clinton
or Prince Andrew's name were on a manifest somewhere?
A. I didn't say that. I may very well have
asked Adler or Ken Jenne to find the other manifests.
Q. Were you ever shown a manifest with the name
Bill Clinton or the name Prince Andrew on them?
A. I do not recall one way or the other whether
I saw that or not. I remember Adler telling me about
it and then me repeating that information to the
investors based upon Mr. Adler's representations to
me.
Q. Now, you testified that you were told that
the Epstein cases were "legitimate cases. Do you
Page 108
remember that testimony you gave this morning?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember your testimony that you
were told they were legitimate cases by both Russ
Adler and Brad Edwards, do you remember that?
A. I never said that Mr. Edwards or Mr. Adler
said, "Scott, these are legitimate cases." I didn't
question them as to their legitimacy.
Q. You did testify that you talked to Brad
Edwards about the Epstein cases; is that correct?
MR. SCAROLA: No, counsel, that is a
misrepresentation of the earlier testimony.
MR. GOLDBERGER: No, it's not.
BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
Q.  Did you talk to Brad Edwards about the
Epstein cases?
A. I do not recall one way or the other.  That
-
was my prior testimony, that's still in testimon
-don't -- I do not recall.
Q. We'll let the record speak --
A. l know I spoke to Adler about it.
Q. We'll let the record speak for itself. Your
testimony, as I am questioning you now, is that you do
not recall whether you spoke to Brad Edwards about the
Epstein cases; is that correct?
Page 109
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 A. If you are including within that me walking
2 past Brad in the hall and saying, "Hey. Brad how are
3 you? How is the Epstein stuff going?" Then its very
4 likely that I talked to him about it in that manner.
5 But lhave no specific recollection one way or the
6 other as to having any lengthy conversations with
Mr. Edwards about the case.
8 I had a co-conspirator who was deeply
9 involved in the Ponzi scheme that I could go to to get
10 any information I wanted, NIL Adler. I didn't need to
11 go to Mr. Edwards.
12 Q. So if you had a question of your
13 co-conspirator, Russell Adler, about the Epstein case,
14 you would go ask Adler and would Adler always have the
15 answer for you or would he say he would get you the
16 answer?
17 A. Both.
18 Q. When he didn't have the answer, do you know
19 who he was getting the answer from?
20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, predicate.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't know who he was
22 getting it from and I may have contacted other people
23 in the office who were working on the file to ask. I
24 may have asked Mr. Jenne,Imay have asked Ms.
25 Holmes, I many have asked a whole myriad of people.
Page 110
1
1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
2 Q. So Ms. Holmes was working on the Epstein
3 cases?
4 A. It's my refreshed recollection from seeing 4
5 one of those e-mails that she must have been. 5
6 Q. Okay. And Ms. Holmes you said was a former
7 federal law enforcement officer, was that your
8 testimony?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You don't know whether she was FBI or IRS, 10
11 correct? 11
12 A. I don't remember. 12
13 Q. Okay. And upon reflection, do you know 13
14 whether she was hired without your say-so based on 14
15 what Mr. Jenne told you or did you meet with her? 15
16 A. No, I actually -- I remember meeting with 16
17 Ms. Holmes. 17
18 Q. Okay. What do you remember about that 18
19 meeting? 19
20 A. I remember talking about her relative who 20
21 was a judge. I remember her telling me about her time 21
22 in law enforcement. I just don't remember which 22
23 agency. 23
24 Q. Did she tell you why she left law 24
25 enforcement? 25
Page 111
A. She may have, I don't recall one way or the
other.
Q. Did you ever ask Ms. Holmes to use any of
her prior contacts in law enforcement to assist you in
the Ponzi scheme to get information for you?
A. The question is kind of convoluted because
the way you are asking it, it seems like you are
intimating that Ms. Holmes knew. I may have asked
Ms. Holmes to get me information that I was going to
utilize with my co-conspirators in the Ponzi scheme,
but Ms. Holmes did not know that there was a Ponzi
scheme going on.
Q. All right. So you may have asked Ms. Holmes
to try and get some information for you from her
contacts in law enforcement, but it's your testimony,
and I don't dispute it, it's your testimony that she
knew nothing about the Ponzi scheme, correct?
A. I may have, I may not have. I do not
remember and she absolutely knew nothing about the
Ponzi scheme.
Q. Okay. Now, we talked about Brad Edwards
getting paid and the multilevel ways in which you
determined what a person's salary was. Do you know
whether Brad Edwards got any bonuses along the way
once the Epstein case was used as part of the Ponzi
Page 112
scheme?
A. He did not.
Q. So he was --
A. If he got a bonus, it was something he
earned.
Q. Did you make a determination as to what that
bonus would be?
A. If he got a bonus, I would have been
instrumental in determining it. You can determine if
he got a bonus by looking at our financial records,1
don't have an independent recollection one way or the
other.
Q. So you don't know whether he got a bonus at
all, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So1 assume that if he got a bonus you
wouldn't know whether it occurred before or after the
Epstein case was used as part of the Ponzi scheme?
A. I don't know if he got a bonus, which means
I wouldn't know the time frame.
Q. But we would learn -- you are instructing
us, we would learn that by looking at when the Epstein
case was brought into the Ponzi scheme and we learn
that by looking at these -- what was the group that it
was used to pitch to?
Page 113
29 (Pages 110 to 1 1 3 )
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941 df
1 A. Clockwork. 1.
2 Q. So we would look at when the Clockwork group 2
3 was brought into this and the Epstein case was used 3
then and then we would look at the payroll records to
5 see whether Mr. Edwards got a bonus after the 5
6 Clockwork group was brought into the Ponzi scheme. 6
correct? 7
8 A. From a timing perspective, yes. But
9 Mr. Edwards had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme,
10 nor was he rewlr_d_e_daltinik_without his 10
11 _knowledge for helnip me with the Ponzi scheme. If he 11
12 .1yas rewarded it was because he deserved,] felt he 12
1 3 deserved a reward, havin nothing to do with the Ponzi 13
19 scheme. The bulk of this law firm had nothing to do 14
15 with the Ponzi scheme. 15
16 Q. I think you testified already, though, that 16
17 money was fundable in the firm, right? I mean, you 17
18 know, illegal money was used for legitimate purposes, 18
19 correct? r19
20 A. Yes. 20
21 Q. Okay. So, for example, investigations that 21
22 were done with the Epstein case, it's very possible 22
23 that legitimate Ponzi money was used to finance those 23
24 investigations? 24
25 A. I'd be guessing. It's certainly possible 25
Page 114
1 because all the money went into a whole series of
2 pots, and if you look at, most of the pots were trust
3 accounts. If you look back, you look to see what my
4 CFO, who was also a co-conspirator was doing, she was
5 pulling the money from wherever she needed to to fund
6 whatever she needed to fund.
MR. LAVECCHIO: Off the record a second.
8 [Discussion off the record.]
9 BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
10 Q. Let me circle back to what you needed to
11 learn about the Epstein cases to help make your pitch
12 to the investors.
13 You talked about the manifest already,
1 4 correct, the flight manifest?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. What else did you want to learn about
17 the case or what else did you learn about the case so
18 that you were conversant when you spoke to the
19 investors about the Epstein case?
20 A. 1 recall asking someone what the causes of
21 action were.
22 Q. Okay. Did you understand what they were?
23 A. I likely did at the time, I don't remember
24 what they were now.
25 Q. Okay. Do you know which case we are talking
Page 115
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
;416
117
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
about? By the way, you had a number of Epstein cases
in-house, do you know which case you were talking
about?
A. As I sit here today, no, sir, I don't
remember.
Q. Was it a state case or a federal case?
A. I don't remember one way or the other.
Q. All right.
A. I utilized all those boxes all together. 1
don't remember which  one I sold them.
Q. And the exhibits --
A. It's something completely fictitious that
Q. The exhibit that you were shown earlier,
Exhibit Number 1, that's the long multi-page federal
lawsuit. Do you know whether that was part of the
information that you reviewed or shown to the
investors when you were pitching to them?
A. I do not remember one way or the other.
Q. Okay. Now, did you make any effort to learn
from your co-conspirator who the plaintiffs were in
this case, what kind of women they were?
A. Only that they were underage.
Q. Did an one tell you that these women had --
some of these women had a history of prostitution?
Page 116
A. They may have told me that, I wouldn't have
cared one way or the other,
Q. Why would you not have cared about that,
Mr. Rothstein?
A. It had nothin to do with the sale of the
Ponzi scheme settlements,.
Q. Okay. Were you told by anyone whether any
of the women involved as plaintiffs in the case may
have worked at adult clubs in the past? I mean strip
clubs, let's call it what it is.
A. I may have been told that one way or the
other. But againziLhadpothing to do with the Ponzi
scheme sale of fake settlements.
_
Q. As part of the information that you were
told by you co-conspirator, Russell Adler, were you
told that some of the plaintiffs that you had in-house
had travelled on Mr. Epstein's airplane?
A. I believe Russ did tell me that.
Q. You know, in fact, that that was not true,
correct?
A. lhave no idea one way or the other, nor did
I care.
Q. But your co-conspirator told you that,
right?
A. Mr. Adler did, in fact, tell me that certain_
Page 113
30 (Pages 119 to 117)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bedd-ca2d8fe941df
1 of the underage women had travelled on Mr. Epstein's
2 .2.1_2a;
3 Q. Did you ever meet any of the plaintiffs?
4 MR. SCAROLA: That's question that's been
5 asked and answered.
6 THE WITNESS: I do not have a specific
7 recollection of ever meeting them.
8 MR. SCAROLA: You are exhausting my
9 indulgence.
10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Fair enough.
1 1 MR. SCAROLA: You've exhausted my
12 indulgence.
13 BY MR. GOLDBERGER:
19 Q. Do you know whether any of your
15 investigators at the firm had any kind of high tech
16 surveillance equipment or, you know, wire tapping
17 equipment?
18 A. I believe they did.
19 Q. Do you know whether this was legal stuff or
20 illegal staff?
2 1 A. I did not know, nor did I care.
22 Q. Do you know if any of that stuff was used to
23 either wire tap or surveil Mr. Epstein?
24 A. I do not know one way or the other.
25 Q. What sort of equipment did you know that
Page 118
they had, meaning your investigators?
2 A. I had told Mr. Jenne and others involved in
3 the investigation arm of RRA to get whatever equipment
4 they thought they needed and to get the best stuff
5 that they could get. What they actually did, I can't
6 tell you.
7 Q. You know as part of the Epstein litigation,
8 and I'm talking about now after your using it in the
9 Ponzi scheme, do you know whether anyone at your firm
10 attempted to depose ex-President Bill Clinton?
11 A. I don't recall that, sir.
12 Q. Okay. How about Donald Trump, same
13 question?
14 A. I don't recall that. As a matter of fact,
15 we had represented Trump in some things, we had some
16 pretty close ties with him, so I can't imagine that
17 they would have done that with my authority.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I don't recall that.
20 Q. Do you know whether Adler would have --
21 would Adler have the authorize to do that without
22 getting your permission?
23 A. The authority, no. Might he have tried,
24 yes.
25 Q. Okay. How about Alan Dershowitz, do you
Page 119
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have any knowledge of your firm's attempt during the
Ponzi scheme to depose Alan Dershowitz?
A. No. sir. I don't have a recollection of one
way or the other.
Q. Okay. The name Kendal] Coffey was brought
up before. Do you know who Kendall Coffey is?
A. Yes.
Q. Who do you know him to be?
A. Former U.S. attorney, current criminal
defense lawyer.
Q. Was he a friendship of the firm's?
A. Represented RRA when I fled the country.
Q. So he was a friend of the firm, or a friend
of yours at least, right?
A. He wasn't a friend of mine.
Q. A friend of the firm?
A. No idea.
Q. He represented them when I fled the country.
I remember him coming in and doing like a show and
tell in my office on TV.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Patience gets rewarded.
I'm done.
Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. That's all the
questions that] have.
THE WITNESS: You are welcome.
Page 120
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Mr. Rothstein, again, Jack Scarola on behalf
of Brad Edwards.. I want you to assume that Brad has
testified under oath that you never had a substantive
discussion with him re arding the Epstein case. Do
Lop have any basis whatsoever to question the accuracy
,of that tQliimax?
A. I do not.
Q. I .wz2Ly.a_i to asst21115_±.M Brad has or will
fy un der oath that while ou were c22piagp
e-mails, you never attended a singtelelLtimate
ii.Lear_ditmtbs legitimate
Epstein cases. Do   have any basis whatsoever to
question the accuracy of that testimony?
A. No, sir„
Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will
testify under oath that you never directed t _e
of any documents in the Epstein case, includin the
July federal complaint that's been marked as an
exhibit to your deposition._122...a.s2p
whatsoever to uestion the accurac of that testimon ?
A. No, sir.
Q. I wantyou to assume that Brad has or will
testify under oath thatyou never directed the taking.
Page 121
31 (Pages 118 to 121)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1 of a sin le de osition. or the TO oundin_a2fEty
2 disc_oystle_lpstein cases. Do_you have any
3 reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimonV
4 A. No, sir.
5 Q. 12naliaLlaaLs_a-asti2Lt has or will
6 testify that you did not provide any input whatsoever
7 into tbs..12oltlifjs..gjlipstein cases. Do
8 you have an reason whatsoever to doubt the accurac,y
9 of thatiLilaopy.?
10 A. No sir.
11 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has or will
1 2 Iss_tifylatay_g_u_mysualln_y of the legitimate
1 3 plaintiffs in the Epstein cases. Do you have any
1 4 reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony?
15 A. No, sir.
1 6 MS. HADDAD: I'm going to object to these
1 7 same questions you keep asking, because Mr. Rothstein
1 8 has testified at nauseam that he doesn't recall any
1 9 of this and now you are asking him to bolster
2 0 Mr. Edwards' either already given or purported
2 1 testimony when he's testified he doesn't recall it.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 Q. I want you to  assume that Brad has or will
2 9 testify under oath that you never asked him once to
2 5 .12y2It o yalpaai2Lf_a_Etual matters rearding.
Page 122
the Epstein case. Do you have an reason to doubt the
2 acculaa_of that. testimony?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. I want you to assume that Brad has testified
5 repeatedly that he had absolute! no involveinent in or
6 knowled
7 a2L9.1ter RItA la er.  Do you have any i_s_a.s_oato doubt
B Ill.ILE.1.9111l at testimon ?
9
10 Q. iwanttota1ktjieflaoopr
o ou
11 personal perce tions of the si ificance of the
12 testimony that you are giving today.  If Brad Edwards
13 had in fact, been a participant in any of the illegal
14 an
15 _sALoILL- s ve 1 mtlyllsgoligusaracjim
16 knowingly=alscl Esima_prds' arlztiat
17 do you understand the ersonal conse uences to be as a
18
1 9 Edwardsjarticipation?
20 A. HI be violatinnent
21 United States overnment and I would run the risk of
22 dying in prison.
23 Q. If Brad Edwards, contrary to what you have
29 testified under oath and what Brad himself has
25 to do with
Page 123
e of any ille al activity en a ed in by you or
conse uence of your havine knowinely concealed Brad
repeated] said knew about anythg havin
illegal activities at thEIL_R fjp2Lanlyou concealed
your knowled e of Brad Edwards' knov,..1g.e_of that
illegal activiL, what do you understand the
4 consequences of that false testirporly_to be?
5 A. jJviolatiiiinaeentwjtht
6 United Statesgovemment and]
7 styginrison.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. I don't have any
further questions.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
11 MR. NURIK: Mark, I don't know what your
12 time frame is on your litigation, but the ability to
13 receive the transcript, review it and prepare an
14 errata sheet within what is normally the time
15 allotted under the court rules cannot be accomplished
16 in this case.
17 MR. GOLDBERGER: How much time are you
18 generally-.-
19 MR. NURIK: I don't know.
20 Actually, the first set of errata sheets
21 have just been prepared and finalized for the first
22 deposition in December. I'm not suggesting it will
23 take that long this time, but if you can give me an
24 idea of what your time responsibilities are with the
25 court, what the time limits are --
Page 124
MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you think it will be
less than a month, two months?
MR. NURIK: i don't think it will be less
than a month. First of all, a lot depends on the
ability to get the transcript to him to review.
MR. GOLDBERGER: Right.
MR. NURIK: And that's a whole procedure,
it's not normal circumstances that we are dealing
with.
10 MR. GOLDBERGER: If time becomes an issue,
11 we'll approach you and ask you to expedite.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Mark, will tell that from
13 our perspective time is an issue.
14 MR. NUM: Have at it then, Jack. Do what
15 you need to do to get it done.
16 MR. SCAROLA: There is a long pending
17 motion for summary judgment on Brad's behalf that has
18 been delayed for purposes of taking this deposition.
19 We are very anxious to be able to call that motion
20 for summary judgment up for hearing, so whatever can
21 be done reasonably to expedite the preparation of
22 this portion of this transcript would be appreciated.
23 We understand there are limitations beyond your
24 control, but to the extent you can do it, that would
25 be helpful. Thank you.
Page 125
32 (Pages 122 to 125)
activities that you have been uestioned about at
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MS. HADDAD: Its scheduled in a month,
Mark.
MR. NUR1K: We'll cooperate.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much.
[Thereupon, the taking of the deposition was
concluded at 12:37 p.m.]
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
1 1 Sworn to and subscribed
before me this day
12 of , 2012.
Notary Public, State
of Florida at Large.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
3
1, Pearlyck Martin, a Notary Public in and
4 for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify
that, pursuant to a Notice of Taking Deposition in
5 the above-entitled cause, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN seas by me
first duly cautioned and sworn to testify the whole
6 truth, and upon being carefully examined testified as
is hereinabove shown, and the testimony of said
7 witness was reduced to typewriting under my personal
supervision and that the said Video Conference
deposition constitutes a true record of the testimony
given by the witness.
9
10'
11
12
1 further certify that the said Video
Conference deposition was taken at the time and place
specified hereinabove and that 1 am neither of
counsel nor solicitor to either of the parties in
said suit nor interested in the event of the cause.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the
13 City of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida. this
day of June 19, 2012.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pearlyck Martin
Page 126
Page 127 t
2
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON
Sore 924, Biscayne Building
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
Telephone (305) 371-6677
June 21, 2012
IN RE EPSTEIN VS EDWARDS
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN C/O MARC NUR1K
One East Broward Boulevard. Seventh Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Dear SCOTT ROTHSTEIN:
With reference to ihe deposition of
10 yourself taken on June 14, 2012, in connection with
the above-captioned case, please be advised that the
11 transcript of the deposition has been completed and
is awaiting signature_
12
Please arrange to stop by our office for
13 the purpose of reading and signing the deposition.
Our office hours are 9:00 am to 400 p.m, Monday
1 4 through Friday. Please telephone in advance.
15 You may, however, read a copy of the
transcript, provided by any of the attorneys
16 connected with the case, denoting any corrections by
page and Fine number on a separate sheet of paper.
17 This correction page must be signed by you and
notarized and returned to us for filing with the
38 original.
39 If this has not been taken care of
however, within lire next 30 days, or by the time of
20 trial, whichever COITICS first, I shall then conclude
that the reading, subscribing and notice of filing
have been waived and shall then proceed to deliver
the original of the transcript to ordering attorney
without further notice.
22
23
24
25
Pearlyck Martin
Page 128
33 (Pages 126 to 128)
FRIEDMAN, LOMBARD] & OLSON
305-371-6677
5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df
Topics

bankruptcy proceedings ponzi scheme
People Mentioned

Jeffrey Epstein Financier
Scott Rothstein Attorney
Bradley J. Edwards Plaintiff's Attorney
Jack Goldberger Defense Attorney
Jack Scarola Attorney