IN IRE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE 1

1 2 IN IRE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE 1 FITTMENTI4 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 2 AND FOR PAIN BEACH MINTY FLORIDA GENSAJW JURISDICTION DiVisiON 3 APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICES OP TCMJA KADDAD. P.A. by Sonja Bedded, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 Plaintiff, 5 ATTEMSURY, GOLDBERGER 6 WEISS, P.A., by No. 502009CA04000030CCOMAG Jack Goldberger, [sq. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 6 Attorney for the Plaintiff. and BRADLEY J. SCREEDS, 7 individually, SEAECY DENNEY SCAPOLA ET AL, by Defendants. 9 Jack Scarola, Leg. Attorney for the Defendant, Bred ?Awards. 9 10 MARC NURIE, P.A., by 500 East Sioward Boulevard, Mato Nurik, Esq. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida I1 Attorney for Scott Rothstein. Thursday, June 14. 2012 (Appearing via Video Conference.) 9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m. 12 13 11 S. ATTORNEY'S orricz, by Req. DEPOSITION 14 Attorney for the Department of Justice. of 15 SCOTT ROTIISTED4 16 (Via Video Conference) 17 18 Taken on behalf of the Trustee 19 pursuant to a notice of taking deposition 20 21 22 23 24 25 FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OISON 1 2 INDEX 1 2 4 Thereupon: SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, WITNESS DIRECT 01039 AZDIESE? =CROSS 33 was called as a witness and, hawing boon duly sworn. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN 4 was examined and testified as follows: 4 5 In WITNESS: 1 do. (By Na.gadded) 5 6 M. HADDAD: Good morning, Scott. How are 3 (Hy Mr. Goldberger) 92 (By NX Sterols) 121 I you? 6 g THE WITNESS: Good morning, Sonja. How are 7 9 you? EXHIBITS 10 MS. KADOAD: Sum. thank you. It's nice to PLAINTIFF'S FOR IDENTIFICATION 21 see you. 9 12 THE WITNESS: Good to see you, too. 10 1 64 13 I. SCAROLE' Mr Rothstein, I don't know 2 69 11 3 72 14 that you end I have net. rot Jack Scarola, l'a 12 13 representing Brad Edwards end I know you know Brad 13 16 who's to my inmedisto left. 14 15 17 THE WITNESS: Hey, Brad, how are you? 16 18 Jack, good to see you. 17 19 NR. SCAPULA: Thank you. 10 19 20 MR. GOLDBERGER: Also present is another 20 21 Jack, Jack Goldberger, and I also represent Jeffrey 21 22 Epstein. To my right is Dertyn ladyke 22 23 TEE WITNESS: Good morning, Jack. 23 24 24 MR. GOLDEERGER: Bow are you today? 25 25 And to my right is Darryl Indyke, who is FRIEDMAN, LOA, BARD] & OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI& OLSON EFTA01117299 5 6 1 Nr. Bpstein's in-house counsel. 1 different form than it ended because it started as 2 IS. INDTKE: Good morning. 2 bridge loans and things of that nature, and than 3 TEE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 3 (oersted into the Ponta scheme. But you are looking 4 MR. NuRIA: Good morning. everyone. 4 back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning. 5 IS. GOIDBMWAR: Ni, Marc, how are you? 5 Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge 6 NR. ADRIA: Good. You'll be seeing my 6 loans Started? 7 shoulder most of the day. 7 A. I can't be certain exactly what we were 8 WA. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 8 doing. I need to *fa all the docturents to tell you 9 Dirac? REANIMATION 9 what we were doing at what *pacific paint in time. 10 BY NS. RADDAD: 10 Q. What made you decide to start doing this? 22 Q. Well, Scott, I know you've talked about this 11 A. I started doing it out of greed and the need 12 probably more than you even care to, but I'd like to 12 to support the law fins, which was having significant 13 start a little bit asking you about the scheme at your 13 financial trouble at the time. 14 firm and how and when it started and things of that 14 Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401 yet or IS nature lust very briefly because I knew you've covered /5 were you still in the building where Colonial Bank 16 it many times. 16 wee? 17 NR. scAROLA: It has been covered and 17 A. I don't remoter. 18 protocol precludes asking questions that have already IS Q. Do you recall approximately how many 19 been answered and covering areas that have already 19 attorneys you had working for you when it started? 20 been covered, so we do object. 20 A. I do not. Between five and ten, Tcnja. 21 IS. coLOBERGER: Your objection is noted. 21 Q. Was it before you started acquiring 22 BY NS. HADDAD: 22 attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches? 23 When did this first start? 23 et. SCAPOLA: Cbject to the form of the 24 It started back in '05, '06. The question 24 question, vague. 25 LS a little bit vague for me because it started in a 25 INS WITNESS: Yes. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDAIAN. LOMBARDI & OISON 1 2 BY NS. WOAD: Q. Nell, who were you partners with when it 1 2 8 growth started," do you mean both the schwas -- do you mean the schema and the firm or either one or both? 3 first started? 3 A. Both. 4 Stu Rosenfeldt. 4 Q. Do you recall approximately when you took 5 Q. Okay. Anyone else? 5 the space in the 401 Building? 6 A. Susan Bolin, I believe. It was definitely 6 A. 2 do net. 7 Eta Rosen/44dt, Michael Panoier, and Susan Dolin may 7 Q. At the time everything imploded, how many 8 have been partners of our* at that time, I'm not S partnere did you have at the firm, do you recall? 9 certain. 9 A. Are you saying partners and shareholders? 10 Q. Because if memory serves me correctly, you 10 Because remember, we had both, two designations. 11 went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to 11 Q. I want to Start with just attorneys that 12 the building across the street, it was Rothstein, 12 had -- not in your firm mime but named as •partner' on 13 Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct? 13 the cards, for example. 14 A. Yes. 14 A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees. 15 Q. And it was some time later that you moved 15 NO had a bunch. 16 into the 401 Building, correct? 16 Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you 17 A. You are skipping one step. I went fret One 17 had working there? 18 Financial Plaza to Phillips, tiainger, Ross, Rusnick, 18 A. Approximately 70. 19 Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeldt and I 19 Q. In the year before, do you recall how many 20 broke off and formed Rothatein Rosenfeldt. And them 20 you had? 21 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Bolin. Pancier over at the 21 A. I do not. 22 Colonial Bank Building. And than we took the specs in 22 Q. So how many equity partners dad you have or 23 the 401 Building and eventually moved over there and 23 shareholders? I'm not sure of the word that we ere 24 that's when the real growth started. 24 using. 25 0. And when you say, "that's when the real IS A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholder* FTUEDMAIME & OLSON FRIEDMAN & OLSON EFTA01117300 • were two, me and Stu Aosenfeldt. 2 Q. And everyone else was just a partner for 3 title purposes? 4 There were shareholders for title purposes 5 and partners for title purposes. 6 Q. If someone was called a shareholder for 7 title purposes then, did they get to receive any of B the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or 9 they were not considered shareholders in that sense? 10 M. scAROLA: 0b3 action to the fens of the 11 question. 12 Ttot WIMCCOS What kind of funds are you 19 talking about? 14 Br WS. HADDAD: 15 Q. In general from the firm. leen you may 16 equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu. 17 What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was 18 named as a shareholder, why did you call them a 19 shareholder as opposed to a partner? 20 It was a title of prestige and aehiomemat. 21 Q. so at 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, 25 have anything to do with distributions. FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 9 but it did not • 11 1 A. Well. I'll give you a good example. WY 2 lawyer, le. Kura, his salary was directly related to 3 the fact that he was a great lawyer and had a solid • book of business. 5 Tea. 6 David Poden, on the other hand, was, as I 7 previously testified, I don't know if you've had a S chance to read the testimony, but David Soden was not 9 only the general counsel to the law firm but he was 10 also -- acted as my oonsigliere in a significant 11 number of illegal operatioas and he was compensated 12 significantly for that, if that helps you understand 13 the difference. 14 It does. 15 So, for example, when you were hiring looser 16 judges, let's use Met a an example, Pedro and Julio, 1/ clearly they don't have • book of business cuing in 18 because they haven't had clients, but they may carry 19 ease sort of prestige or give sum legitimacy, if you 20 will, to the firm. Sow would you decide the salary 21 for someone like that? 22 A. Stu and I would discuss it. It was more • 23 market issue than anything else, how mud, are judges 24 caning 022 the bench getting, how much business do we 25 think they can generate. 10 • Q. When you were hiring end bringing in all 2 these new attorneys, did everyone come in as e 3 partner? 4 5 Q. Bow did you decide who came in as a partner 6 and Who ear in as an associate? • A. Depended upon their level of expertise, 8 practice, book of business. It was • decision Stuart 9 and I made together on a case-by-case basis. 10 S. So you and Stu rata the -- were in charge 11 of hiring? 12 A. Stuart and I tried to consult on every 13 hiring decision, yes. 14 Did you guys also decide salaries? 15 I generally decided the salary and tan let 16 Stu know what I 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 I generally had free reign in 19 that regard. 20 Q. Did someone's book of business directly 21 correlate to the salary that you would offer? 22 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'? - FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 12 1 Q. Would you need to look at someone's book of 2 business if they were coming in just solely -to be 3 ralneaker for the firm prior to hiring thee? 4 A. I discussed it with them. There were not s mossy people that I recall that I actually looked at 6 their numbers. Once David Boden was working for me I 7 had him chaotic people's numbers, but I rarely looked. I ▪ took most people'a words for what they were 9 generating. 10 0. Hy recollection is, you were always looking 11 to bring in more people, to hire more people, same of 12 us were somehow able to ' you while others were 13 not. Mow would you decide who you ware looking at to 24 bring into your firm? 15 A. Wa were trying to develop, on the legitimate 16 side of the law firm, we were trying to develop real 17 talent, real practice groups. I moan, Brad is • 18 perfect example, great lawyer, got a groat reputation. 19 You know, it was our hope that, you know, ha was going 20 to be one of the people to actually in sane ways 21 rescue the firm because he had a practice group that 22 could generate substantial income. You know, on the 23 legitimate side that's what we were trying to do, we 24 were trying to find the best and the brightest. 25 O. Okay. With respect to bringing people that FRIEDNIA & OLSON FRIED3IAIIMMI & OLSON EFTA01117301 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 1 you thought could bring a book of business, you 3u5t 2 said Brad, for example, that he had a legitimate 3 practice group with a good book of business. Bow did 4 you know that? A. Everyone in the tort world that I had spoke to spoke extremely highly of Brad, not only people 2 already had working for me but other people that know him. Be was very -- came very highly recommended to Q. Like who, for example? We wanted him in there. We were trying to 12 develop a significant tort group and we thought that 13 he'd be a great part of it. 14 Q. Who besides Russ told you that about Brad? 15 A. It would have been other people in the tort 16 group. I don't want to guess, 'Moja, as to which 17 other people told me, but it was -- well more than 18 Ruse. 19 43. was it people within -- 20 A. Might have boon people in politics that I 21 talked to that knew him because we had significant 22 input at the gubernatorial level with regard to tort 23 reform and the like, and there were people there who 24 knew who Brad was. It was more than one person that 25 told us that. - FRIEDMAN. % I & OLSON 15 1 people that would be a good fit? 2 A. I looked for people that were outgoing, that 3 had the type of personality. CM 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 bock 6 of business if they didn't have it. And as one of the 7 50 percent of the shareholders of the firm I 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, es 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. See of people I saw in action; he wasn't 17 one of them. Steve Caber 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 Om people. But 21 the people that I trusted -- see, I can't remember. I 22 think Gary Farmer wee working for me before Brad, end 23 if I'm not mistaken he would have been one of the 24 people that I went to with regard to Bred because we 25 ware really developing that whole tort group around 14 1 Q. Okay. When you were looking at people to 2 bring in to the firm to legitimise, es you said. Your 3 firm had a vary unique area of practice and had a very 4 unique environment to which to work. Bow did you know 5 or how did you came to decide what people may or may 6 not fit into that? 7 A. Okay. Bang on one second. I think you just B accidentally misstated my testimony. 9 I was not bringing the people in to 10 legitimise the law firm. I was bringing thaw in to II the legitimate tide of the law firm. The bulk of the 12 law firm, despite the lack of financial success, was a 13 large grow of very honest, hard working lawyers 14 trying to do their best in difficult economic 15 conditions. There were awe that were obviously not 16 legitimate. 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 Pouf 19 scheme? 20 Q. Bo, right now I'm just asking about the firm 21 because, as I said, it's a vary 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. 2'n asking, personality wise, 25 other than the book of business, how did you decide on FlMEDMAN MBA OLSON 16 1 that time with Farmer and Fleece and Jaffe end 2 Mr. Edwards. 3 O. Do you know whore Mr. Edwards was working 4 when you earned of him? I don't recall whether he was working for 6 masons or had his own practice, I don't recall. 7 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 19 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? 26 A. No. As you know, I was hiring people loft 17 end right and I was also unfortunately very busy doing 18 things I shouldn't have been doing, so I don't have a 29 specific recollection of when I hired him. I barely 20 have a !pacific recollection of when I hired me. 21 Q. But you did, in fact, meet with hie? 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 & OLSON FRIEDMASinal & OLSON EFTA01117302 3 4 S 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 1 fine that I trusted. Because I always said, I had a 2 very simple, you lie or die by what you are telling 3 If you are telling me this guy is good and he's 4 not good, that's on you, it's going to hurt your 5 income. So I used to tell my partner, people that 6 were recommending people to me, don't sell ma a bill 7 of goods just to get somebody in here because if you 9 do that it's going to come back on you, it's going to 9 affect your incase and your ability to grow in the 10 firm. So with that admonishment. I might have very 11 well hired salmons sight unseen based upon what 12 scadmina else told ne. 13 Q. But you did meet with Brad you say before he 24 oar in to work? 15 A. Wow that I'm saying it out loud, I think I 16 did but rattly I'm guessing. I don't have a specific 17 recollection of meeting him. 10 Q. Do you recall if you know that he had worked 19 as an assistant state attorney for a few year. prior 20 to doing tort litigation? 21 A. I don't recall that one way or the other. 22 Q. So you wouldn't have Maid Coward Seheinberg 23 or anybody about him before he came to work there? 24 A. I can't may that I wouldn't have asked 25 because, like I said, I might have asked. But FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 19 1 I knew that it was a significant case of 2 potentially significant value against an extremely collectthle pedophile, for lack of a butte's word. Q. So was that case your primary motive in bringing Brad into the firm? A. I doubt it. I mean, I can't tell you one way or the other, but I doubt that I would bring him in just for one case because what if the case foils. then I'm stuck with a lawyer who can't do anything, you know. I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do anything, I'm just saying that if I only relied on one owe, then if I bring a lawyer in for one case and one case only, what do I do with him when the case is Oyer. Q. Bow did you know that this case would be a collectible ease then? MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form of the question because it misstated the prior testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a collectible case but that it was s case against • 'extremely collectible pedophile..? BY NS. ItaDDAD: Q. What made you think that this case bad any financial value? 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 S 9 le unfortunately, you aro taking a little tiny spot out of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the life of the firm, so I can't tell you one way or the other. Q. I know you had a lot going on, I'm just trying to see if you remember anything specific about this. Do you recall what salary you had offered Brad to come join the firm? 10 A. I do not. You have to just try to 11 differentiate that what I knew thee is a lot different 12 than what I know now so .. 13 Q. Meaning? 24 A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time 15 that I was hiring him or maybe a year after, I would 16 be able to tell you what I was paying him, but new 17 it's insignificant. I don't reme•ber how much I was 10 paying him. 19 0. Did you learn about his book of business or 20 know what kind of oases ho 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 ems other 24 people, I knew about the Epstein case. 25 What did you know-shout it? FRIEDMAN OLSON 20 1 A. Epstein vas a billionaire. 2 Q. Okay. Did you know anything about the 3 legitimacy or illegitimacy of the classes prior to 4 knowing he was a billionaire? 5 A. I knew what I was told. I didn't check it 6 out myself, but 1 trusted the people that told me. Q. And who told you? A. The only person I remember discussing it 9 with, as I sit here today, is Russ Adler. But if 10 Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me at the 11 time, I likely would have discussed it with them as 12 well. 13 Q. So were you aware of Nis ear before you 24 made an offer to Brad to join the firm? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You said you didn't -- I don't want to 17 misquote you. You said you heard about it from other 19 people, but you didn't do anything to know that 19 personally. Was that before you made the offer of 20 employment? 21 A. I made the offer of employment based upon 22 what other people had told se about Brad. 23 Q. About axed and his book of business or just 24 Brad and his legal skills? 25 A. Okay. When I say Brad, I mean Brad and his FRIEDMANN/Mr OLSON FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117303 21 22 1 book of business and his legal stills. 2 3 Q. Okay. A. And his ability to generate business in the 4 future. 5 Q. You stated that you believed that you first 6 heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps 7 from Sniff. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up with these cases, these Epstein cases? 9 MR. SCAAOLA: itecuse me, I'm going to 20 object to the fore of the question. It is an 21 inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has 22 no predicate. There was no reference about having 13 heard about these cases free lirad. The names 14 mentioned were Adler, possibly Facer, possibly 15 Jaffe. 16 BY MS. HADDAD: 17 Q. Once Bred started working at the firm, 18 you've already testified you already know about these 19 Epstein cases, correct? 20 yes. 21 Q. Bow did you keep abreast of these cases? 22 A. I didn't. 23 Q. You didn't know anything about them? 24 I didn't say I didn't know anything. I said 25 I didn't keep track of it. FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 23 1 Q. Please do. 2 A. The POnii Saida.° was running very low on 3 capital. My co-conspirators and I needed to find a 4 now feeder fund, new Jewel: mint sources. Me had • 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 thought about 11 the Epstein case, realising that it was a substantial 12 actual file in the office, I caws up with the idea 13 that if I created a fake confidential settlement 14 circling around -- lased upon this actual case, they 15 would be able to increase the level of due diligence 16 that I was able to offer to my potential investors. 1? Q. Now did you know this was • substantial file 18 in your office at that time? 19 A. Again, through the people I spoke to in the 20 office. 21 22 23 'Pietas. 24 Q. 25 A. I didn't say that, but I had a lot more Q. Such aA who? A. Again, same people, Adler, Farmer, Jaffe, You newer spoke to Brad about this case? 1 Q. You didn't keep track of it? 2 I did not keep track of it. From time to 3 tine Russ and the other guys in the tort group would 4 tell me what was going on in certain cases, but until S I made a decision to utilise that file for an illegal 6 purpose related to something illegal that I was doing 7 along with my co-conspirators, I just assured my 8 lawyers were going to work the case and eventually it 9 would hopefully work out well for the law firm. 10 Q. At your firm, when e-mails would go out to 11 attorneys at RRA or all attorneys at RRA, were you 12 part of that e-mail group? 13 A. you are talking about all staff? 14 No, all it says is attorneys at ARA. IS It's the e-ermil group 'attorneys"? 16 Q. Yes. 27 A. yes, I'm a part of that e-mail group. 18 Q. And I appreciate that you were very busy and 19 may not have read all of them, but you did receive 20 those e-mails when they would go around? 21 A. Yes, and I tried my best to read thee. 22 Q. Okay. At what point did you decide to use 23 this case to further your Paul scheme? 24 A. I don't remember the date, but I can give 25 you the circumstances, if you'd like. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 2 interaction -- 2 3 Sorry, Sonja, I didn't moan to speak over 24 4 If you talk to the people in the firm, if 5 they ere honest with you, they'll tell you my 6 interaction was far more significant with Ruse Adler, 7 probably more so because he was a co-conspirator of 0 mine. My interaction with Russ was far greater by 9 many, many percents over my interaction with Brad, and 10 then you go down the lino. I had sore interaction 11 with Mr. Farmer than I did with Hz. Fistos, more 12 interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr. Edwards, 23 and so on. 24 Q. Ruse was the head of your tort group, right? 25 A. Yes. 16 Q. So these cases fell under the tort group; is 17 that correct? IS Yes, it fell under the -- fell under Russ' 19 purview ultimately. yes. 20 Q. And Brad was a partner at your firm during 21 the ties these cases were there, correct? 22 A. I believe Out was his title. Be was either 23 partner or shareholder. I don't think we had made him 24 a shareholder yet. 25 Q. But he wasn't coming in as an associate, FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON EFTA01117304 25 26 I correct? 2 3 4 S 6 case? 7 B To the best of my recollection, no. So you stated that you learned this case woks -- I don't want to misquote you and listen to a long speaking objection, but what did you call this HR. scAROLA: Who wants the quote? THE WITNESS: it was a substantial case 9 with a -- what I perceived to be a highly collectible 10 psdopbile as a defendant. 11 BY NS. IIACOAD: 12 Q. Right. How did you know at the tine when 13 you said these investors wanted to investigate and you 14 said you were going to create a fake settlement, how 15 did you know that this case was the case that you 16 could use? 17 From talking to all the people that I just 28 said, Adler. ristos, Jaffe, Farmer, Nr. Edwards, to 19 the extant that I spoke to him about it. 20 Did you speak with Mr. Edwards about the 21 case? 22 A. I don't have a specific recollection one way 23 or the other. I remember speaking to him at least 24 briefly the day or the day of or the day before the 25 actual investor's due diligence was going on as to • — FRIEDMAN LOMBARDI & OLSON 2? 1 use of it. I tried to, but again, I was vary busy 2 doing other things. But I know that tit. 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 ranted to? 7 A. res. And if I couldn't, I could get Russ to 8 give me access. 9 Q. So you didn't necessarily have to be invited 10 into the Q-task group for you to be able to utilize or 11 view the communications within it? 12 A. No, that's not true. I actually had to be 13 invited, that's what I was telling Russ to do, la to 14 have me invited. 15 Q. But I'm saying, the lawyers wouldn't have to 16 personally invite you, you can get acumen° within your 17 firm to give you access maybe without the lawyers 18 knowing? 29 A. No, I think it might have had a, quote. 20 unquote, confidential. super secret viewing 21 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 lot 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 22 23 24 25 I what was going on. And I may have spoke to him, I 2 knowispoke to Ruse, butImay have spoke to him as 3 well within a couple of days just prior to this duo 4 diligence because I was trying to at least get sons S information in my head that I could use when I was 6 creating this story for the investors. 7 Q. Scott, what's ll-task? • A. 03-task is a web based software system that I had invested $7 million in. And what was the purpose of this internet Mate.? A. To be able to rasmanitate in a secure fashion and in a unique group fashion about specific files. Q. So forgive me, we all know I'm not good with the computer. That was something that would be useful within a law firm, why? A. Because it allowed you to create groups and have both general and private chats, organize data in a very unique fashion. /het was, at least to our way of thinking, would have been were, very helpful in the law firm setting with multiple practice groups. Q. Did you belong to any groups on 0-task7 A. I'm certain that I did. I don't remember which groups I belonged to. I-never got into the full FRIEDMAN. LCAIARDI& OLSON 28 1 and with that, with the 0-task and the a-mails, did 2 someone assist you with reviewing everything and 3 letting you know what was going on within the groups? 4 SM. SOMOZA: Mscuee me. I'm going to 5 object to counsel's testimony. Object to the form of 6 the question es leading. 7 THE WITNESS: I really don't even $ understand the question. 9 Can you try to rephrase it for me, Sonja? 10 Br KS. HADDAD: 11 Q. Of course, I would. 12 Did you keep abreast of everything that was 13 going on in every practice group or was someone 14 through Q -task and e-mails, for examPle. Or was 15 msg.te giving you information keeping you posted C. 16 what we going on within the practice? 17 Well, as part of the tort group I had a 16 pretty good ides of what was going on then all the 19 time just because of the significant amount of 20 interaction, both legitimate and otherwise, that I had 21 with Russ Adler, so I was probably moms up-te-date on 22 that group then any group other than the labor and 23 employment group, again, because I had each 24 significant interaction with Stu Aosenfeldt, both 25 legitimately and illegitimately, so I knew what was FRIEDMAN & OLSON FRIEDALA • I & OLSON EFTA01117305 29 1 going on in that group. 2 I tried, as beat as I could, given my tine 3 constraints, to stay on top of what was going on. you 4 know, throughout the firm. But I relied on other 5 people like Debra Villages and Irene Stay and David 6 Soden, Las Strecker to the 1 extent, to monitor 7 what was going on in the different practice groups and B keep me up to speed. 9 Q. Was there audio and video surveillance 10 throughout the entire firm or only within your office? 11 A. No, through the entire office, not in the 12 individual office*. 13 Bang on. Not in the individual offices but 14 throughout the general office space. 15 Q. So in 2009 how many floors did you have? 16 A. Three, I think. 17 Q. And do you recall approximately how many le attorneys you had working there at that tine? 19 A. Approximately 70. 20 Q. And when you say "not the individual offices 21 but the other areas." do you mean -- would that 22 include conference rooms? 23 A. I didn't have surveillance in the conference 24 teems. 25 Q. So can you please tell mosmactly where you FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI& OLSON 31 1 any surveillance in the conference rooms? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Other than the Cant areas you just vent 4 over, in the hallway. and the reception -- did you 5 have it in the hallway*, is that a canon -- do you 6 deem that a coneon 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? 12 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 24 actively had a significant amount of epees on, I tried 15 to have surveillance on all the cannon areas of all 16 that space. 27 18 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. Be must 25 have boon on the other floor that we were building 0. And what floor vas NV. Edwards' office on? A. I don't recall. 30 1 had audio and/or video surveillance? We'll start with 2 audio. 3 A. I don't have a specific recollection of 4 every place I had video and audio, but it wee in -- I 5 had it set up so that in all of the common areas, 6 including our shareholder's lounge, we had -- I had 7 audio and video capabilities. Q. When you say "capabilities," does that mean 9 you didn't always turn it on or you just turned it on 10 when you felt like it? 11 I turned it on when I felt like it, when I 12 felt like seeing what was going on. I sometimes left 13 the sermon up because I had four enter screens on 14 my desk, I sometimes loft the screen on with the video 15 of the reception area and sour other general areas. 16 But unless I wanted to see what was going on or listen 17 to what was going on, I didn't turn it on. It would 18 have been too distracting. 19 Q. Did the attorneys know that this 20 surveillance existed? 21 A. You can see it in the -- it wasn't hidden, 22 you can see it. There were globes up in the ceiling 23 all over the office. 24 Q. Did you have -- you said -- you didn't 25 answer this, you said you didn't recall. Did you have -- FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 32 1 out, because I remember building out space and I 2 remember Jaffe and all those guys moving into that 3 space. 4 0. If you were building up that space, do you 5 recall when you put the surveillance in there? 6 A. It would have been while they were building 7 it out or shortly thereafter. 8 Q. During 2009 it seam* that you hired lots of 9 former law enforcement people CO work at the firm. 20 Why were they people you wanted to hire? 11 A. Severalfold. I had a significant amount of 12 illegal activity going on with various law enforcement 13 agencies throughout south Florida end hiring people 14 from former law enforcement assisted me in engendering 15 support and canaraderie with the law enforcement that 16 I was actually utilising in illegal activities. 27 Q. So you are saying -- le A. Secondarily, I wanted to have a very strong 19 investigative team, ultimately, to do both legitimate 20 and illegitimate things for the law firm, and hiring 21 former law enforcement was the best way to do that. I 22 was hoping to actually ultimately create a group. Kan 23 Jenne and I had talked about Chat extensively. 24 0. Why did you hire Ken Jenne? 25 A. Prior to Ken going to prison, he and I were FRIEDMIAN MB &OLSON FRIEDMA & OLSON EFTA01117306 33 94 • very friendly and he wee extremely friendly with 2 someone Out was very close to me, grant Smith. 3 During the time that he was down in PDC Miami, I went 4 down to visit him. And after speaking to him and S after speaking to Grant, I told him, because he was 6 talking to me about how many people had turned on him 7 and abandoned him. And I told him that when he got B out of jail that he had no worries, that I would give 9 him a job. 10 And what And that was the primary reason -- that was 12 my primary reason for hiring him. 13 Q. What was it you were hiring him to do 14 exactly? IS A. Ultimate the goal was to head up on 16 investigative arm within KRA, within the AAA entities. 27 Q. Well, while be was there, since that didn't 28 happen, what was his obligation to the firm 19 day-to-day? 20 A. Be handled firm security issues end he did 21 handle overseeing certain investigative things. We 22 had an alcohol and beverage group that was forming and 23 he was overseeing Out. Be was helping me find new 24 people to staff it, that kind of thing. 25 Q. Did you have a lot of interaction -- FRIEDMA N. LOMBARDI & OLSON 35 1 beverage roles and anything else Ken or other staff 2 could think of to have them do. 3 Q. Let's talk about the investigative roles for 4 a minute. tout kind of investigations ware these teems 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 10 lawyers in the firm for use like in-house 11 investigators. And what people did with them 12 ultimately was up to the. 13 Q. Were they on salary or were their oasts end 14 fees associated with utilizing them within a specific 15 practice group? 16 A. They were all on salary with ma. The 17 ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that IS could bill the law firm and have the client, at least 19 defray some of the cost. I don't recall whether or 20 not we ever got to that level or not. 21 Q. With all that in-house police action, why 22 did you have police security surrounding you all the 23 time? 24 I guess the best answer was I was paranoid, 25 but I mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You 1 A. Be had had significant -- as you know, he 2 also had significant political connections and 3 everyone who is not living under a rock knows I was 4 doing everything I could to garner significant S 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 UM police department 10 investigatimm? You had stated earlier you had 11 dealings with police departments. I don't want -- 12 again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. You 13 said you had dealings going on with various police 24 agencies? A. I had -- I mean, we had a criminal defense section in the law firm, so we had legitimate dealings IS 16 17 with law enforcement. But I also had significant le illegitimate things with law enforcement that had 19 nothing to do with Ken Jenne. 20 Q. And how about with respect to former FBI 21 agents you were hiring? 22 A. They were all people that were operating in 23 a legitimate fashion within the law firm. 24 0. In what role was that? 25 - A. The investigative roles and the alcohol FRIEDMAN, el R I& OLSON 36 I know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For 2 example, I -- are you talking about my ➢ort Lauderdale 3 police detail? 4 Q. Yes. You had it at the office and at your 5 home, correct? 6 A. Yeah. There's a myriad of facts that 7 motivated me to do that. One was that I really wanted 8 the security for the office. Two was, I was paranoid 9 and this is in no particular order. Three was the 10 Melissa Lewis murder that shook the entire law firm 11 and shook me terribly. I didn't want that CO ever 12 have to happen again. And four was, I wanted -- the 13 more law enforcement you have around, the 14 more legitimacy it adds to you and your 1781708777nO0 to 15 the COnmunity. So there ware a multitude of reasons. 16 I Man, I hired certain law enforcement to 17 work for me that were just friends of mine that 18 were -- that needed additional money, so I wanted to 19 make sure that they had cony, both guys that did the 20 illegal stuff for me and guys that didn't do anything 21 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 Penal scheme. 25 Do you recall approximately when it was that FRIEDALAN & oLsos FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI& OLSON EFTA01117307 37 1 these investors were coming that you decided to use 2 the film? 3 A. Ny best recollection it was in 2009, 4 OOMOCIOOS after April of 2009, but I don't have a specific recollection beyond that. S 7 Q. 2009? What takes you think it was after April of 0 A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the 9 Clockwork Group came in toward, the middle of 2009. 10 When I say clockwork, that's an umbrella term that I 11 use to mean the Von Allman, AJ Discala, and other 12 investors that cams in through that feeder fund. 13 So that was around April 2009? 14 A. No, it was after, to the hest of my 15 recollection. I men, you can toll because all you 16 have to do is look and see when the first, very first 17 Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint 16 it even closer. Look for the very first settlement 19 deal that we did that was related to the Epstein case. 20 within 60 days prior to that would have been when I 21 was meeting with those due diligence people, 30 to 22 60 days before that. 23 Q. So when you decided to use that case, take 24 me through exactly what you did to familiarise 25 yourself with that case. FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 39 1 happened? 2 A. No, it's the same dates that I was giving 3 you before. 4 0. Okay. So you had, to further your Ponsi S scheme. you had to familiarise yourself with this case 6 so that you could speak intelligently with the 7 investors; is that correct? ▪ A. Well, sort of because moat of what I told 9 the investors was all things that I was creating as I 10 went. 11 About this particular case, the Epstein 12 case? 13 A. Yes, from an investor -- you have to 14 understand how the inner working of the Ponsi scheme 15 were crafted but -- 16 Q. Please toll me then. 17 A. I'm telling you -- hang on. Fran an 15 investor's standpoint, the investor is simply looking 19 for is the case believable. And once they get pest 20 that, is it of such case -- excuse me, is it of such a 21 nature that it is possible to be generating a 22 significant amount of settlement dollars. And Ulan 23 after that, their concern is simply on the due 24 diligence side of making sure we actually have the 23 money, that the documents pass -- the documents 36 A. I talked to Russ Adler. I may have talked 2 to son of the other lawyers. I flipped through 3 certain boxes in the file. Bow did you get the boxes? I asked SOM40041 to bring them to et. 6 Q. Do you know where Mule files ware stored? 7 A. I do not. 9 Q. So YOU flipped -- sorry, please continue. 9 Flipped through some files? 10 A. 1 flipped through some files. I had the 11 files in my office. The day that the investor group 12 cane in, I actually had Kan Jenne and sane others 13 actually bring me some more of the boxes actually into 14 my office while the investors were there. I already 15 had soma of the boxes with me. 16 Q. You say 'San Jenne and others," who were the 17 others to when you are referencing? IS A. I don't specifically recall who carried them 19 I was very focused on my investors st that ties. 20 Q. Ware any of the lawyers present with you 21 when you were meeting with these investors? 22 A. During the actual meeting with them, no. I 23 recall that some of the lawyers may have met some of 24 the investors, but I don't recall who. 25 Q. Do you recall approximately when that FRIEDMAN M R & OLSON 40 1 unrelated to this case, docaents related to the 2 settlements. Other than proving the existence of the 3 case, there's very little an investor, at least from 4 my end, investigates into the actual case. It was 5 more after having the case exist and not caring about 6 really what was going on in the case other than a lot 7 of stoney was going to be collected. a Q. Well, with respect to showing them that the 9 case existed and that there was a likelihood of a 10 possibility of a payday at the end, how did you 11 convince them of that? What did you use to convince 12 them of that? 13 A. Z did two main things. One, I put the boxes 14 in my office while they were there. I told that to 15 specifically look at a couple of sheets of a flight 16 manifest that vas in the filo that Russ had shown me. 17 And I told them that it would be a breath of 20 attorney/client privilege for then to look at the 19 file, but that I was going to step out for a while and 20 leave them there with the boxes, wink, wink, and 21 that's what I did. I stepped out, I let them look at 22 whatever they wanted to look at. 1 came hook in, they 23 were satisfied that it was a real case and I was off 24 and running. 25 Q. And these were the real legitimate files for PRIEDMA OLSON FltlEDMAN A. OLSON EFTA01117308 41 42 to 11 12 13 1 this case; is that correct? 2 A. These were the legitimate files, yes. 3 Q. Nothing had been created at this time for 4 them to look through? • A. I didn't add anything to the case files. 6 The case files were, significant enough by themselves. 7 Q. Do you know how long they were in your ▪ office: days, weeks? 9 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. Okay 14 Did you ever go through them? 15 Yes, I flipped through them at same point in 16 I/ Q. And what do you recall about what you saw in 18 the cases? Do you remember anything? 19 A. I remember seeing the flight manifest. 20 don't retell seeing anything else. I'm sure I looked 21 at other things, but Ogebi, for my purposes it was 22 insignificant to me because the actual content of the 23 boxes was not necessary in the sale of the fake 24 settlement*. 25 Why was the flight manifest so interesting- FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 43 1 make sure you understand this, Um actual role of the 2 actual physical case in the roast scheme is, from my 3 perspective, minimal. It was just another vehicle for 4 5 After that initial meeting with the 6 investors where they looked et the file, what happened 7 with respect to their desire or lack of desire to O invest? 9 I. SCAR0LA: Excuse me. I'm going to 10 object to Um form of the question, it assumes facts 11 not in evidence. There's been no testimony that the 12 investors actually looked et the fill's, only that 13 they were given the opportunity to look et the files. 14 BY Ms. HADDAD: 15 Q. Was your video surveillance on when you left 16 the investor* sloes in your office? 17 A. No, no, I didn't have cameras in my office. 10 1 didn't let people lock in my office when I was In 19 there, that would have been bad. 20 Q. So you left thee alone in there? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall for approximately how long? 23 A. No more than 20, 30 minutes. It was a short 24 period of time. 25 Q. When you went hack in what happened? 1 to you? 2 A. Because of who was on it. 3 Q. Who was on it? 4 I don't recall, but I do recall saying to 5 the investors -- I recall having a conversation prior 6 to Um investors caning in with Russ Adler and Russ had told me that Epstein had flown Bill Clinton on his plane, had flown prince Andrew on his plane. And I 9 don't remember whether that was on any of the flight 10 manifest* or not, but I left that to the investors' 11 imagination as CO what they were being told about 12 lb-. Epstein and these other famous people that were 13 cavorting with Nr. Epstein and let thee look at the file. Sa 15 You have to understand free en investor's 16 perspective -- hang on. From an investor's I? perspective the, only thing that matters to the 18 investor is that it's a reel case and that they can 19 verify that real dollars are being paid. The fact 20 that it was a real Case was evident, I had s lot of 21 boxes with real pleadings in it and a lot of other 22 information in it. The fact that there was real money 23 being paid was a fiction that was created by no and my 24 co-conspirators, everyone free bankers, to computer 25 people. So the actual role of the case, and I.want to 9 10 11 FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON 44 1 A. I went back to selling the Ponsi deal. 2 Q. And did you sell it? 3 A. I believe I did. you'd have to look at the 4 actual mettle:sent documents CO as. St I put one 5 together for that, but I'm pretty sure we did. 6 Q. Do you recall if the investors asked you for 7 any additional information or any additional 8 doMmentation? I don't recall one way or Um other. After this initial meeting with the A. D. investors, did you give any direction regarding this 12 particular case? 13 A. To whom? 14 Q. To any of the attorneys working on the 15 Epstein case. 16 A. No. I didn't interfere in how they ware running their oases. They were far more experienced 18 than I was in that type -- in handling that type of 19 case. As a matter of fact, I was practicing very 20 little real law at this point in time. I wouldn't 21 have had time to tell them or to get involved. 22 Q. Did you ever keep up with this case after 23 this initial meeting with the investors? 24 A. I'm certain that I talked to Puss Adler 25 about it from time to titre, but my main focus by this 17 FRIEDNIA & OLSON FRIEDMAN'S & OLSON EFTA01117309 45 46 1 point in time in 2009 was the Ponzi Saha 2 Q. Did you try to sell this particular 3 settlement to any other aaaaa tors? 4 A. I don't recall one way or the other. 5 Okay. Did you ever have any conversations 6 with any of your investors about this Epstein case? A. I don't recall one way or the other. Q. I notice there's been a privilege log 9 produced with respect to e-mails. There mans to be ID quite s bit of communication between you end 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, I 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, I'll accept that, but I don't recall 17 what it was. IS Q. Earlier you had stated that when you were 19 hiring good attorneys such as Ht. 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 in legitimate 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. 1 2 3 S 6 7 a 9 ID 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FRIEDMAN. LOMBARDI & OLSON A. It was somewhere between eight and 410 million, probably right around the nine m