Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL,
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT EDWARDS AND
CASSELL'S RESPONSE TO DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION TO DETERMINE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and
through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this response to Dershowitz's Motion to
Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The records at issue are not confidential, and so the
Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
The court records at issue are three court filings by attorneys Edwards and Cassell
in which they recite their client's (Mr. Virginia Giuffre's) allegations that she was sexually
abused by Dershowitz. These records are hardly "confidential" in this defamation case,
where the parties have claims and counterclaims about these sexual abuse
Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only
support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish
Edwards and Cassell's strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover,
contrary to assertions made in Dershowitz's motion, these documents have never been
found to be "confidential" by any other court. And Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 2 of 20
these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his
pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his
media interviews that he wants "everything to be made public" and implied that Edwards
and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy
burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents.
I. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED
DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS
DEFAMATION CASE.
In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the
records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing
of "confidential" materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that
"[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as
provided below." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida
Supreme Court's admonition that a "a strong presumption of openness exists for all court
proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public
records available for public examination." Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531
So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, "[t]he
burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure." Id. To
obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a "heavy burden." Id.
Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More
important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this
general principle of access — and which specific exception he believes applies to this
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 3 of 20
case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his
motion.
The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained
as confidential in order to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly
administration of justice;
Protect trade secrets;
Protect a compelling governmental interest;
Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a
common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of
proceeding sought to be closed;
Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United
States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law ....
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably
apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate
only where disclosure is "not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be
closed" (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving
a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by
Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at
the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is "inherent" in the case itself.
The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized
in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and
counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 4 of 20
the materials in the records would be harmful to his professional
reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi's restriction on release of materials involving a
privacy right, but noted that "statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were
allegations in Carnegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages.
These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it." Id. at 1312. Of
course, exactly the same principle applies here: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys
Edwards and Cassell for their client Ms. Virginia Giuffre are not peripheral to this lawsuit — they
are inherent to it.
To see how "inherent" the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need
look no further than Dershowitz's counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz's
Counterclaim (styled as "False Allegations in the Joinder Motion) contends that Edwards and
Cassell should pay him damages because they "filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled 'Jane
Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action' . . . ." Dershowitz
Counterclaim at 11 14. Dershowitz's Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the
Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the
allegations:
The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as
follows:
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to
have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense
attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with
Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida
but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 5 of 20
Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other
minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other
minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's coconspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on
Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida
not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential coconspirators of Epstein." Thus,
Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided
protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually
abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's
defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret
from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy
violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Dershowitz Counterclaim at 1115 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4).
Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this
case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed
"confidential" and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at ¶15 (block quotation above) with Motion to
Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed "confidential"
document that includes paragraph beginning "[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced
then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's . . . ."). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and
file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory
statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as
"confidential." See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 ("although
generally protected by one's privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 6 of 20
when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when
the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure" (emphasis added)).
H. JUDGE MARRA'S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE.
Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra's order striking some of the
materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept
confidential in this case. Dershowitz's argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge
Marra's order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading --
description of the events surrounding Judge Marra's ruling striking certain documents. A more
complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are
somehow "confidential" even in the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act case — much less in this
separate state defamation action.
Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who
were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz's close personal friend — Jeffrey
Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1"
and "Jane Doe No. 2" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging
that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was
pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736
(S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests
with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz,
Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 7 of 20
followed (see generally Docket Entry or "DE" 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further
Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The
Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE
225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the
Court. The Government claimed that these pages were "privileged" for various reasons,
attaching an abbreviated privilege log.
While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell,
contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the
case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as "Jane Doe No.
3"). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have
avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the
Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not
respond to counsel's request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having
had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was
seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims' counsel might need
to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a
motion immediately, victims' counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a
stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial
request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection,
without indicating any reason: "Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this
stage of the litigation." See DE 291 at 5.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 8 of 20
Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and
Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the
motion. One week after receiving the Government's objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms.
Giuffre (i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion)
seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents
Dershowitz seeks to have declared "confidential" in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the
Government's objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify
the two women as "victims" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e)
(defining "crime victim" protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. Giuffre, the motion
indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince
Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to
prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 ("If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove
the following .... "). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's
participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding
Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new
victims was relevant to existing issues).
After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about
it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane
Doe No. 3 "a serial liar" who "has lied through her teeth about many world
leaders." http ://vvww cnn . co m/2015/01/06/us/dershowi tz-sex -all e gati on/. Dershowitz also
repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell "two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers." Id. On
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 9 of 20
January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene to argue to have the allegations
stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. Giuffre had not provided a sworn affidavit
attesting to the truth of her allegations. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a
response for Ms. Giuffre and Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. (Note: This is the second of the three
documents Dershowitz seeks to have kept under seal here.) The response enumerated nine
specific reasons why Ms. Giuffre's specific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the
case, including the fact that Ms. Giuffre needed to establish that she was a "victim" in the case,
that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and
that Dershowitz's role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the
Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 &
n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from Ms. Giuffre about the sexual abuse she had
suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. On February 6,
2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms. Giuffre, see DE 291-
1) in support of her motion to intervene. (Note: this affidavit is the third of the three documents
Dershowitz seeks to have declared confidential.)
On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffi-e's motion to join the case. Judge
Marra concluded that "at this juncture in the proceedings" details about the sexual abuse she had
suffered was unnecessary to making a determination "of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4
should be permitted to join [the other victims'] claim that the Government violated their rights
under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in
sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 10 of 20
Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details
involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government." DE 324 at 5 (emphasis
in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that "Jane Doe 3 is free
to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims]
demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented
for the Court's consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case,
but allowed her to participate as trial witness: "The necessary 'participation' of [Ms. Giuffre] ...
in this case can be satisfied by offering ... properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and
non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial ... or affidavits
supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests." DE 324 at 8 (emphasis
deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims "may re-refile these
documents omitting the stricken portions." DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the
documents.
In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that "Judge Marra's
Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the
public docket." Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits
factual details about Dershowitz's sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to
pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra's Order could
render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl
around Edwards and Cassell's good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not
binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. Giuffre (the moving
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 11 of 20
party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v.
Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4th DCA 2002) ("In order for res judicata to apply four
identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action;
(3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or
against whom the claim is made.").
III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE
BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE
DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM
WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT.
Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and
Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal
would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those
records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations.
Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to
do so — treating the records as not confidential in any away. One clear example comes from
Dershowitz's recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a
portion of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on
Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try
to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions — but did so by mispresenting what
another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may
have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 12 of 20
Scarola) and Dershowitz's extended answer are quoted in full — including Dershowitz's
reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court should treat as "confidential":
Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the
CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in
connection with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? . . .
A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014,
end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any
way inappropriately with regard to Virginia [Giuffre], that I ever
touched her, that I ever met her, that Ihad ever been with her. I was
completely aware of that. There had never been any
allegation. She claims under oath that she told you that secretly in
2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation.
You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed
as a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false
allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual
contact with me. I think she's lying through her teeth when she
says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such
information.
But if she did tell you that, she would be absolutely, categorically
lying. So I am completely aware that never, until the lies were put
in a legal pleading at the end of December 2014, it was
never alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts.
I know that it was alleged that I was a witness to Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of
Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, something
that you have falsely denied. And I stand on the record. The record
is clear that I have categorically denied I was ever a witness to
any abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody.
And -- and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Jeffrey
Epstein while he was receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts,
which she swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous,
that even David Boies said he couldn't believe it was true.
MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm not going to allow you to reveal
any conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion.
THE WITNESS: Does she have standing?
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 13 of 20
MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm
not going to
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition?
MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has standing.
MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech?
MR. SCOTT: No. If he --
MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my
question
and then we can take a break.
A. So the question -- the answer to your question is --
MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't
disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to.
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 15, 2015) at 93-95 (attached as Exhibit 1); see
also Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2016) (attached as Exhibit 2) (also containing
discussion of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit).
The Court should be aware that within approximately two hours of this exchange, Ms.
McCawley (David Boies' law partner) released a statement on his behalf, which stated that
Dershowitz was misrepresenting what happened: "Because the discussions that Mr. Boies had
with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at
least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 14 of 20
Dershowitz description of what was said is not true." Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of
David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015).
More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to
inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit whenever it serves his purpose — and,
indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as "preposterous." But then he asks this Court to
place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having
filed a "preposterous" affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz's
attack.
Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare
confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on
Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting
Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations:
Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don't even ask for a hearing
to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves
from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made
up, completely out of whole cloth.
I don't know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of
made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in
recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I
am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not
telling the truth. I am now challenging them to have their client put these charges
under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat
them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . .
And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was
knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false
story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to
the disciplinary committee.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 15 of 20
Similarly, Dershowitz appeared on NBC's Today Show the morning after Edwards and
Cassell made a filing for Ms. Giuffre, to say that the Edwards and Cassell — and Ms. Giuffre —
were all "lying" in the court documents:
Question from Savannah Guthrie: In legal papers from the lawyers, they say you've
had, in fact, the opportunity to be deposed.
Answer from Alan Dershowitz: They're lying. They're lying.
Question: They show letters in which they offered to depose you.
Answer: And they didn't show my letters in response saying, (a), if you ask me about
my legal relationship with Epstein and I'll be happy to answer. . . . And I responded
that I would be happy to be deposed if you could give me any indication that I would
be a relevant witness . . . . They will be proved — all of them [i.e., Cassell, Edwards,
and Ms. Giuffre] — to be categorically lying and making up this story. And it will be a
terrible thing for rape victims. . . . We [Epstein and Dershowitz] had an academic
relationship. I was never in the presence of a single, young, underaged
woman. When I was with him, it was with prominent scientists, prominent
academics. And they're just — again — lying about this. I never saw him doing
anything improper. I was not a participant. I was not a witness.
Today Show, Jan. 22, 2015 (emphases added).
As another example, in Miami Herald, Dershowitz called the Joinder Motion that he
seeks to have sealed the sleaziest legal document I have ever seen. They [Edwards and
Cassell] manipulated a young, suggestible woman who was interested in money. This is a
disbarrable offense, and they will be disbarred. They will rue the day they ever made this false
charge against me" — i.e., Edwards and Cassell will "rue the day" they ever filed the Joinder
Motion. Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2015).
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 16 of 20
Most remarkably, Dershowitz took the public airwaves to represent that he wanted all of
the information surrounding the allegations to "be made public," while implying that Edwards
and Cassell had something to hide. For example, on the BBC he claimed that he
wanted"everything to be made public":
Q: Would you encourage that it now be made public?
A: Of course, of course. I want everything to be made public. I want
every bit of evidence in this case to be made public. I want every
allegation to be made public. I want to know who else she's accused of
these horrible crimes. We know that she accused Bill Clinton of being on
Jeffrey Epstein's island and participating in sex orgy with underage
girls. The records of the Secret Service will prove that President Clinton
never set foot on that island. So that she lied. Now it's possible to have a
case of mistaken identification with somebody like me. It's impossible to
have a case of mistaken identification with Bill Clinton.
My only feeling is that if she has lied about me, which I know to an
absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone
else. She's lied clearly about me, she's lied clearly about Bill
Clinton. We know that. We know that she's lied about other public
figures, including a former prime minister and others who she claims to
have participated in sexual activities with. So I think it must be presumed
that all of her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well.
I think he [Prince Andrew] should clear the air as well.
If you're squeaky clean and if you have never done anything like this, you
must fight back with all the resources available to you. And that's what I
will do. I will not rest or stop until the world understands no only that I
had nothing to do with any of this, but that she deliberately, with the
connivance of her lawyer, lawyers, made up this story willfully and
knowingly.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
In another widely-broadcast interview on CNN, Dershowitz implied that there is no
evidence supporting the allegations against him:
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 17 of 20
Ask them [Edwards and Cassell] if they have any evidence . . . . They're doing it for
money. She's getting money for having sold her story. She wants to sell the book.
They're trying to get into this lawsuit. They see a pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow. They're [Edwards and Cassell] prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are
unethical lawyers. This is Professor Cassell who shouldn't be allowed near a
student. This is Professor Cassell, who is a former federal judge, thank God he no
longer wears a robe. He is essentially a crook. He is essentially somebody who's
distorted the legal profession. . . . Why would he charge a person with a
sterling reputation for 50 years on the basis of the word alone of a woman who is
serial liar, who has lied about former Prime Ministers, former Presidents, has lied
demonstrably.
CNN Live (with Hala Gorani) (January 5, 2015). Of course, by placing "the evidence" in this
case under seal, Dershowitz will be free to continue to try and insinuate that Edward and Cassell
— and their client, Ms. Giuffre — had no evidence supporting the allegations against him, even
though a mountain evidence strongly support Ms. Giuffre 's allegations. See Deposition of Paul
Cassell (Oct. 16, 2015) at 61-117 (Exhibit 3); see also Depo of Pual Cassell (Oct. 17, 2015)
(Exhibit 4).
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz's motion to
place documents regarding Ms. Giuffre's allegations against him under seal.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve
to all Counsel on the attached list, this 25f-‘' day of November, 2015.
/s/ Jack Scarola
Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Attorney E-Mail(s): jsxasearcylaw.com and
mep@searcylaw.com
Primary E-Mail: scarolateamasearcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone:(561) 686-6300
Fax:(561) 383-9451
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 18 of 20
SEAN D. REYES
Utah Attorney General
By: JONI J. JONES
JOEL A. FERRE
Assistant Utah Attorneys General
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail: bradapathtojustice.com
And
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
383 S. University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone:801-585-5202
Facsimile:801-585-6833
E-Mail:cassellp@law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell
COUNSEL LIST
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas. scott@csklegal.com; Steven.safraacsklegal.com
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 19 of 20
Phone: (305)-350-5329
Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Defendant
Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice)
rsimpsongwileyrein.com
Mary E. Borja (pro hac vice)
mborjawileyrein.com
Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice)
aeiler@wileyrein.com
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 719-7000
Fax: (202) 719-7049
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 20 of 20
COUNSEL LIST
Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire
smccawley@bsfllp.com;
sperkins@bsfllp.com; ftleserve@bsfllp.com
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
401 E Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-356-0011
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas. scott@csklegal.com;
Steven.safra@csklegal.com;
Renee.nail@csklegal.com;
shelly.zambo@csklegal.com
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305)-350-5329/Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire
staffefile@pathtojustice.com;
brad@pathtojustice.com;
maria@pathtojustice.com
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos &
Lehrman, P.L.
425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820/Fax: (954)-524-2822
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Ashley Eiler, Esquire
AEiler@wileyrein.com
Mary E. Borja, Esquire
MBorja@wileyrein.com
Richard A. Simpson, Esquire
RSimpson@wileyrein.com
Wiley Rein, LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202)-719-4252/Fax: (202)-719-7049
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Joni J. Jones, Esquire
jonijones@utah.gov
Assistant Utah Attorney General
160 E 300 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone: (801)-366-0100/Fax: (801)-366-0101
Attorneys for Paul Cassell
Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire
ksweder@sweder-ross.com
Sweder & Ross, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617)-646-4466/Fax: (617)-646-4470
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Exhibit 1
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
vs.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 1
Pages 1 through 179
Thursday, October 15, 2015
9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
93
1 people that abused Virginia?
2 A. I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21
3 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48
4 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your
5 name had come up repeatedly in connection with
6 Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct?
7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16
8 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware 11:37:17
9 that never before 2014, end of December, was it
10 ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way
11 inappropriately with regard to Virginia Roberts,
12 that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I
13 had ever been with her. I was completely aware of
14 that. There had never been any allegation.
15 She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48
16 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no
17 notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are
18 a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as
19 a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an
20 entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011
21 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I
22 think she's lying through her teeth when she says
23 that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any
24 such information.
25 But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24
94
1 absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely
2 aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal
3 pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never
4 alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia
5 Roberts.
6 I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46
7 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that
8 was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey
9 Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you,
10 something that you have falsely denied. And I stand
11 on the record. The record is clear that I have
12 categorically denied I was ever a witness to any
13 abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing
14 anybody.
15 And -- and the very idea that I would 11:39:18
16 stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was
17 receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts, which she
18 swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so
19 preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't
20 believe it was true.
21 MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm 11:39:40
22 not going to allow you to reveal any
23 conversations that happened in the context of a
24 settlement discussion.
25 THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46
95
1
2
3
4
MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection
and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have
standing in this deposition?
11:39:47
11:39:49
5 MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a 11:39:51
6 minute, okay?
7 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has 11:39:54
8 standing.
9 MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the 11:39:57
10 speech?
11 MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- 11:39:58
12 MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the 11:39:59
13 speech so that we can get to my question and
14 then we can take a break.
15 A. So the question -- the answer to your 11:40:02
16 question is --
17 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 11:40:04
18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose
19 something that she has a right to raise that
20 objection if she wants to.
21 MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14
23 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. 11:40:17
24 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back 11:40:20
25 the last couple of sentences.

Exhibit 2
180
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
vs.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
CONTINUED VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 2
Pages 180 through 333
Friday, October 16, 2015
9:18 a.m. - 12:26 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
181 183
1
2
APPEARANCES: 1
2
INDEX
3
4
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
3
4
Examination Page
VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333)
5
6
7
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
jsx@searcylaw.com
5 Direct By Mr. Scarola 184
6 Certificate of Oath 330
Certificate of Reporter 331
7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332
8
9
10
i 1
On behalf of Defendant:
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
8
9
10
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333
PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
No. Page
thomas.scott@csklegal.com
1 Television Interview Transcript 193
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
steven.safra@csklegal.com
—and--
SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
ksweder@sweder-ross.com
--and--
WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
2 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193
Dershowitz
3 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194
4 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197
5 Flight Log Information Sheet 198
6 Composite - Flight logs 240
7 Composite - Flight manuals 240
8 Photograph - 8x 10 - Color 305
19
20
21
22
Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
RSimpson@wileyrein.com
BY: NICOLE A. RICIIARDSON, ESQ.
nrichardson@wileyrein.com
19
2 0
21
22
23
9 Composite - Calendar entries
10 Composite ,- Calendar entries
11 Composite - Calendar entries
12 Composite - Calendar entries
306
307
307
307
23 24
24
25
25
182 184
1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This
2 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 2 is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition.
3 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 3 The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
4 approximately 9:18 a.m.
4 New York, New York
5 MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
5 6 witness.
6 On behalf of Virginia Roberts: 7 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your
7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 8 right hand, please?
8
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
9
1.0
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you are about to give will be the truth, the
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
smccawley@bsfllp.com
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
9
10
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 ALSO PRESENT: 13 Thereupon:
12 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 14 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
13
14
Travis Gallagher, Videographer 15
16
having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
15
16
17
17
18
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 19 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what is rhetorical
19 20 hyperbole?
2 0
21
21 A. Rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole
22
23
22
23
means exaggeration.
Q. Something other than the truth, correct?
24 24 A. Truth --
2 5 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, relevancy.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
2 (Pages 181 to 184)
185 187
1 A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a 1 transcript of the interview? wed like to see
2 continuum. The Supreme Court has held that 2 it.
3 rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis, for 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave
4 example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a 4 you, the photocopy.
5 defamation prosecution. 5 MR. SCOTT: Were doing it right now.
6 So it depends on the context. You might 6 Maybe we can move on and come back then.
7 just look at the dictionary and probably get a 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed.
8 variety of definitions for it. 8 MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a
9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 copy of it. Because he -- I want --
10 Q. Well, what I'm concerned about, 10 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that's
11 Mr. Dershowitz, is not a dictionary definition. I 11 necessary because your client has told us that
12 want to know what your understanding of rhetorical 12 he has a superb memory and one of the things I
13 hyperbole is. 13 would like to know is what he's able to recall.
14 And do you agree that pursuant to your 14 If he needs to refresh his memory, the
1.5 understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, it is an 15 transcripts will be here in just a moment, but
16 exaggeration beyond the facts? 16 1 don't want to delay going forward.
17 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and 17 MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to
18 compound, three questions. 18 refresh your memory?
19 A. No -- 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of
20 MR. SCOTT: You can answer. 2 0 what specifically I said on a particular day in
21 A. -- I would not agree with that definition. 21 a particular interview.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 MR. SCOTT: Since you have a copy in front
23 Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you 23 of him, why don't you just show him your copy
24 would, please. 24 then? Read the -- ask your question and let
25 A. I think 1 have already. 25 him read it.
186 188
1 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is? 2 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's 3 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon?
4 done it. 4 A. Yes, I do.
5 A. Why don't we just read back my answer. 5 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon in early January of 2015,
7 Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would 7 where you spoke about matters that have become the
8 like you to try to give us a direct response to that 8 subject of this litigation?
9 question if you're able to. 9 A. Yes, I do.
10 A. I will repeat exactly what I said. A 10 Q. Did you make the following statement
11 rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some 11 during the course of that interview: "As to the
12 exaggeration of the facts for political or other 12 airplanes, there are manifests that will prove
13 reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal 13 beyond any doubt that I was never on a private
14 sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context. 14 airplane with this woman or any other underage
15 And if you tell me the context in which I 15 OW?
16 used it, I will be happy to describe what I meant in 16 MR. SCOTT: You need to see the
17 that context. But I don't think you can really 17 transcript?
18 answer a question about what two words put together 18 THE WITNESS: No. No.
19 mean without understanding the context. 19 A. That is a truthful statement. I would
20 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about 20 repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests.
21 some context. 21 First, I know I was never on the airplane
22 Do you recall having been interviewed on 22 with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. I
23 CNN Tonight on January 5, 2015? 23 have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And
24 A. I have no current recollection of -- 24 the records that I have reviewed confirm that.
25 MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the 25 They have Virginia Roberts on a number of
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
3 (Pages 185 to 188)
1 airplane flights with Jeffrey Epstein. They have me
2 on a number of flights, none -- let me emphasize,
3 none within the relevant time period, none within
4 the relevant time period. That is, there are no
5 manifests that have me on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane
6 during the time that Virginia Roberts claims to
7 have -- falsely claims to have had sex with me.
8 So, yes, not only recall making that
9 statement, but I repeat it here today. And it is
10 absolutely true. And it just confirms what I know,
11 and that is that Virginia Roberts made up the entire
12 story.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. Your statement --
15 MR. SCOTT: What page are you reading
16 from?
17 MR. SCAROLA: Page 5.
189
18 Q. Your statement was that you were never on
19 a private airplane with this woman, which I assume
20 was a reference to Virginia Roberts, correct?
21 A. It is, yes.
22 Q. Or any other underage girl?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. All right. How many times --
25 A. Well, let me be very clear. I have no
191
1 to the transcription, the official transcription of
2 that testimony, was that, quote:
3 "Let me emphasize that the manifests that
4 do exculpate me do not show me flying with Virginia
5 Roberts, they do not show me flying with any young
6 women."
7 That was the testimony you gave under
8 oath. Do you stand by that testimony today?
9 A. The manifests that I saw corroborate my
10 own memory -- my own memory is as clear as could
11 be -- that I never saw any inappropriately aged,
12 underaged women on any airplane to my knowledge that
13 were visible to me at any time that l flew. That is
14 my testimony, yes.
15 Q. Well, that's not a response to the
16 question that I asked. Is it your testimony today
17 that you never flew on a private airplane with,
18 quote, "any young women"?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
20 A. By young women, I obviously meant in that
21 context underage women. And underage women in the
22 context of sexuality. And, yes, I -- I stand by
23 that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. All right. So your -- your clarification
190
192
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
idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with
the pilots. Obviously what I intended to say and
what I say here now is l never saw an underaged
person on an airplane.
Now, when l -- when l flew with Jeffrey
Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there
may have been a couple on the plane with their child
who was going to see the launch. But that was
certainly not the context in which I made the
statement.
I never saw any underage, young person who
would be the subject or object of any improper
sexual activities. Had l seen Jeffrey Epstein ever
in the presence of an underage woman in a context
that suggested sexuality, l would have, A, left the
scene; B, reported it; and, C, never had any further
contact with Jeffrey Epstein.
Q. You have also made the statement that you
were never on a private airplane with any underage
women or any young women, correct?
A. The context was underage women in a sexual
context. If it was a -- you know, a four-year-old
child being carried by her mother, that would not be
included in what I intended to say.
Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according
1 of your earlier testimony is that you never saw any
2 young women in a sexual context?
3 A. That's not clarification. I think that's
4 what I initially said. That's what 1 initially
5 intended. And that's the way any reasonable — any
6 reasonable person would interpret what my original
7 testimony was. So I don't believe my original
8 testimony required any clarification.
9 Q. So what you meant to convey by the
10 statement that you made when you said you never flew
11 with any underage girl or any young women was you
12 never flew with any underage girl or young women in
13 a sexual context?
14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. Is that correct?
17 A. Let me simply repeat the fact and that is,
18 to my knowledge, I never flew on an airplane or was
19 ever in the presence on an airplane with any
20 underage woman who would be somebody who might be in
21 a sexual context. l say that only to eliminate the
22 possibility that some four-year-old was on the lap
23 of a mother or somebody was on the airplane with
24 family members.
25 But, no, l do not recall -- and I'm very
4 (Pages 189 to 192)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
193 195
1 firm about this -- being on an airplane with anybody 1 A. I don't remember that I flew with her or
2 who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey 2 not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily.
3 Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities. 3 But I did meet -- I remember meeting a woman named
4 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Let's mark the 4 Tatiana. This does not look like Tatiana, like the
5 transcript that we've been referring to as 5 woman I met.
6 Exhibit Number 1, please. That's the 6 Q. Okay. So that's a — that's a different
7 transcript of the television interviews that 7 Tatiana?
8 well be discussing. 8 A. No, I don't know.
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form,
10 1.) 10 argumentative.
11 MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2, right? We 11 A. I have no idea. I do not recognize this
12 had one yesterday, an article from the British 12 woman. She's not familiar to me at all.
13 newspaper? 13 I can tell you this: Without any doubt, 1
14 MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an 14 never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane
15 exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been 15 or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any
16 marked. 16 context --
17 MR. SCOTT: No, I know that, but I thought 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 we were going to mark that one. Maybe 1 was -- 18 Q. Did she have —
19 I asked for that. Okay. 19 A. -- related to this case.
20 It was an answer and counterclaim about 20 Q. -- more clothes on or less clothes on when
21 the allegation shown to the witness. 21 you met her?
22 MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be 22 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he
23 the transcript from yesterday's proceedings 23 never met her. Misrepresent --
24 that I have just referenced. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Q. When you met the woman that you're
194 196
1 Exhibit 2.) 1 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less
2 MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that, 2 clothes on than that woman?
3 do you, of the transcript? 3 A. Every woman that I met in the presence of
4 MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I 4 Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed, usually in
5 assume you have it. 5 suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey
7 Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark 7 Epstein who were dressed anything like this.
8 as Exhibit Number 3. 8 Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 9 in that photograph?
10 Exhibit 3.) 10 A. I have no idea what her age is.
11 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 11 Q. So you don't know whether she was underage
12 MR. SWEDER: Yes. 12 or overage or a young woman or not a young woman?
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 A. I don't --
14 Q. Do you recognize that young woman, 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 Mr. Dershowitz? 15 A. -- know this woman, so I have no idea how
16 A. No. 16 old a woman in a picture is. She could be -- she
17 Q. Never saw her? 17 could be 30. She could be 25. I have no idea.
18 A. Not that I know of. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. Never flew on an private airplane with 19 Q. Or she could be 15 or 16?
20 her? 20 A. I don't think so.
21 A. Not that I know of. 21 Q. But you don't know?
22 Q. Do you recognize the name Tatiana? 22 A. This doesn't -- well, I don't know how old
23 A. I do recall that Jeffrey Epstein had a 23 you are. This does not strike the --
24 friend named Tatiana. 24 Q. Old enough to know that —
25 Q. That you flew with? 25 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
5 (Pages 193 to 196)
197 199
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 photographs. The photographs identify the woman as
2 Q. -- that's a young woman. 2 Tatiana Kovylina, correct?
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the 3 A. Yes, but --
4 witness off. You're not letting him finish. 4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowitz, take your
5 A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy 5 time --
6 or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
7 a person who is under the age of 16 or 17 or 18. 7 MR. SCOTT: -- review the exhibits. Don't
8 But I don't think you can tell anything from the 8 be rushed by Mr. Scarola.
9 picture. I think you can tell much more from 9 A. Yes, it's a different -- different
10 meeting somebody and being with them and having a 10 spelling of the name. The Tatiana on the manifest
11 conversation with them. 3.1 is spelled T-A-1-T-A-N-N-A.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph, 12 The Tatiana in the photograph is
13 if we could, as Exhibit Number 4. 13 T-A-T-I-N -- I-A-N-A. I have no idea whether --
14 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Exhibit 4.) 15 Q. The last name —
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 A. -- they are the same person.
17 Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to 17 Q. — is the same, Kovylina, right?
18 recognize this young woman? 18 A. There's no last name.
19 A. I've never -- I have no -- no recollection 19 Q. Well, read down a little bit further, if
20 of this young woman at all. 20 you would, Mr. Dershowitz.
21 Q. All right. Would you describe for us, 21 A. You mean as to a different flight?
22 please, the Tatiana that you flew with Jeffrey 22 Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight
23 Epstein on November 17, 2005? 23 for the same Tatiana.
24 A. First, I want to emphasize that that's 24 A. I have no idea that it's a retum flight.
25 three years later than any of the issues involved in 25 I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's
198 200
1 this case. I have no recollection of flying with 1 a return flight. And it has different people on it.
2 this woman. I saw the name Tatiana on a manifest. 2 So I have no reason to believe its a return flight.
3 And my recollection of Tatiana -- 1 have 3 Q. Is the last -- the question that I asked
4 no recollection of flying with her, but my 4 you, Mr. Dershowitz, is: Is the last name spelled
5 recollection of Tatiana is that she was a serious, 5 exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the
6 mid 20s woman friend ofJeffrey Epstein, who 1 may 6 two photographs I have shown you?
7 have met on one or two or three occasions when he 7 A. Let me look. So, on the 20th of
8 was with her in -- perhaps at Harvard University 8 November --
9 where he was meeting with academics and scholars, or 9 Q. Is the last name --
10 perhaps -- I think that's probably the context 10 MR. SCOTT: Whoa, whoa --
11 where -- where she might have been. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 Q. But you never flew with her? 12 Q. -- spelled the same way on both the flight
13 A. I have no recollection of flying with her. 13 log and the two photographs I have shown you?
14 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if this helps to 14 A. On -- you mean on a flight log that I was
15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Dershowitz. 15 not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking
16 MR. SCAROLA: Lees mark this as Exhibit 16 about a flight log that I was not on the flight,
17 Number 5, please. 17 right?
18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes. 18 Q. That flight log shows you on multiple
19 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 19 flights, does it not?
20 Exhibit 5.) 20 A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 me on a number of flights, but not on that flight.
22 Q. Do you see that the name of the woman in 22 MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the
23 the photographs I have handed you is Tatiana 23 flights?
24 Kovylina, K-O-V-Y-L-I-N-A, a Victoria Secrets model? 24 THE WITNESS: The date of that flight
25 The photographs, sir, look at the 25 is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
6 (Pages 197 to 200)
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
201
than three years after Virginia Roberts left
for --
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Mr. Dershowitz --
MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness
off.
MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my
question, Tom.
MR. SCOTT: Well --
MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the
last name is spelled the same or it isn't
spelled the same on the flight log marked as an
exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very
direct question. It calls for a very direct
yes or no response.
And this witness has demonstrated a clear
refusal to respond directly to direct
questions, which will result, when we resume
this deposition, in our requesting that the
Court appoint a special master so that this
deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete.
MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's
a nice speech and I appreciate it.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
203
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Is the last name on the photograph spelled
3 exactly the same way as the last name on the flight
4 log?
5 A. If you're talking about a flight log that
6 I was not on that flight, the answer is yes.
7 Q. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
8 Now, that flight log also shows you flying
9 repeatedly in the company of a woman named Tatiana,
correct?
A. I've only seen one reference to Tatiana on
November 17. If you want to show me any other
references, I'd be happy to look at them.
Q. All right, si•. Thank you.
Let's go back to the —
MR. SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit?
MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the
exhibit.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the
exhibits so that we don't have a big -- then
we'll turn them over to the court reporter to
keep safekeeping.
There you go, young lady, don't lose
those, don't get them wet. And we'll proceed.
202
204
1 characterization. And if you recall, months
2 ago I suggested a special master for this
3 deposition, for your clients' depositions and
4 for Virginia Roberts' and your response to me
5 was: I'll consider it, I won't pay for it. If
6 your client wants to pay for it -- so basically
7 you blew me off.
8 So, I appreciate you finally come around.
9 And your clients.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Your client's misconduct has
11 clearly convinced me, having now considered it,
12 that it is absolutely necessary.
13 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now --
14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Q. So now could 1 get an answer to my
16 question --
17 MR. SCOTT: Now that we have --
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. -- whether the last name on the flight log
20 is spelled exactly the same way as the last name in
21 the photographs?
22 MR. SCOTT: Now that all the lawyers'
23 speeches arc done, read the question back and
24 the witness will answcr it.
25 MR. SCAROLA: I will repeat the question.
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Did you state during the same interview,
3 the CNN Don Lemon interview: "She has said that
4 Bill Clinton was with tier at an orgy on Jeffrey's
5 island"?
6 A. I did state that, yes.
7 Q. Was that statement intended as fact,
8 opinion, or was it intended as rhetorical hyperbole?
9 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the
10 question?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
12 A. It was a statement based on what I
13 believed were the facts at the time I said them.
14 Various newspapers and blogs had placed
15 Bill Clinton on, quote, "orgy island" on -- in the
16 presence of Jeffrey Epstein when there were orgies.
17 And at the time I made that statement, I had a
18 belief that she had accused Bill Clinton of
19 participating or being -- as being a part of or an
20 observer or -- or a witness or a participant in
21 orgies on what was called Jeffrey Epstein's orgy
22 island. That was my state of belief, honest belief
23 at the time I made that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. Yes, sir. And what I want to know is what
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
7 (Pages 201 to 204)
205 207
1 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any 1 Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I
2 source that attributed to Virginia Roberts the 2 would be happy to provide them for you. I don't
3 statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy 3 have them on the top of my head.
4 on Jeffrey's island. 4 Q. There's a big difference between saying
5 A. We can provide you about, I think, 20 5 that Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey's island and saying
6 newspaper articles and blogs which certainly raise 6 that Bill Clinton was at an orgy on Jeffrey's
7 the implication that Bill Clinton had improperly 7 island, isn't there?
8 participated in sexual activities on the island 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection --
9 either as an observer or as a participant. The 9 BY MR. SCAROLA:
10 issue was raised on Sean Hannity's program. The 10 Q. Do you recognize a distinction between
11 headlines in various British media had suggested 11 those statements?
12 that. 12 MR. SCOTT: Form.
13 Its my belief that Virginia Roberts 13 A. I don't think that distinction was clearly
14 intended to convey that impression when she was 14 drawn by the media.
15 trying to sell her story to various media, which she 15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 successfully sold her story to in Britain, that she 16 Q. I'm asking whether you recognize the
17 wanted to keep that open as a possibility. 17 distinction?
18 And then when I firmly declared, based on 18 A. Oh, I -- I certainly recognize a
19 my research, that Bill Clinton had almost certainly 19 distinction.
20 never been on that island, she then made a firm 20 Q. Oh, so --
21 statement that she -- which was a -- which was a 21 A. Let me finish. I certainly recognize a
22 perjurious statement, a firm perjurious statement 22 distinction between Bill Clinton being on the
23 saying that although Bill Clinton had been with her 23 island, which I believe she perjuriously put in her
24 on the island and had had dinner with her, the 24 affidavit, and Bill Clinton participating actively
25 perjurious statement was that Bill Clinton had been 25 in an orgy. I also think its a continuum.
206 208
1 on the island with her. 1 And there is the possibility, which I
2 The lie was that she described in great 2 don't personally believe to be true, that he was on
3 detail a dinner with Bill Clinton and two underaged 3 the island. There was the possibility, which I
4 Russian women who were offered to Bill Clinton for 4 don't believe to be true, that he was on the island
5 sex but that Bill Clinton turned down. 5 when orgies were taking place. There was the
6 So she then put in her affidavit that 6 possibility that he was on the island and observed
7 although -- perjuriously, although she had seen Bill 7 an orgy, and there was the possibility that he was
8 Clinton on that island, she then stated that she had 8 on the island and participated in an orgy.
9 not had sex with Bill Clinton. To my knowledge, 9 Newspapers picked up those stories. I'll
10 that was -- to my knowledge at least, that was the 10 give you an example of a newspaper that actually
11 first time she stated that -- that she not had sex 11 said that that she had placed or that I was on the
12 with Bill Clinton. She had certainly implied, or at 12 island and -- that I participated in an orgy along
13 least some of the media had inferred from her 13 with Stephen Hawkings [sic], the famous physicist
14 statements that she may very well have observed Bill 14 from Cambridge University, that was a newspaper
15 Clinton in a sexually compromising position. 15 published in the Virgin Islands, which falsely
16 So, when 1 made that statement to Don 16 claimed that I was at an orgy with Stephen Hawkings.
17 Lemon, I had a firm belief, based on reading 17 So, many newspapers were suggesting,
18 newspaper accounts and blogs, that it was true. 18 implying, and I inferred from reading those
19 Q. Can you identify a single newspaper that 19 newspapers that that's what she had said to the
20 attributed to Virginia Roberts the statement that 20 media.
21 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's 21 If I was wrong about that based on
22 island? 22 subsequent information, I apologize. But I
23 A. I think there -- I don't have them in my 23 certainly, at the time I said it, believed it and
24 head right now. But I do recall reading headlines 24 made the statement in good faith in the belief that
25 that talked about things like, sex slave places 25 it was an honest statement.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888) 811-3408
8 (Pages 205 to 208)
209 211
1 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the 1 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid
2 statement that you made that Virginia Roberts said 2 giving direct answers to these questions.
3 that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on 3 I would appreciate it if you would take a
4 Jeffrey's island; that was wrong? 4 break, counsel your client that the speeches
5 A. I don't know whether she ever said that. 5 are not helpful to anyone, and especially not
6 I would not repeat that statement and have not 6 helpful to him.
7 repeated that statement based on her denial. As 7 MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break,
8 soon as she denied it, I never again made that 8 I'll take a break and I will advise my client
9 statement and would not again make that statement. 9 whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you
10 Q. You —
10 instruct me to do.
11 A. But I did reiterate the fact that she 11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it
12 committed perjury when she said she was on the 12 might help at all in the progress of this
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
island with Bill Clinton.
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
nonresponsive --
A. That was the perjurious statement.
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
nonresponsive portions of the answer.
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. You have made a reference during that same
CNN interview to this woman, referring to Virginia
Roberts, having a criminal record?
A. That's right .
Q. Okay. What -- what is a criminal record?
A. Well, the way I used the term is that she
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deposition, then I do want to take a break. If
you don't think taking a break would be
helpful, Idon't want to take a break.
MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or
not?
THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to
your judgment. I'm happy to proceed --
MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a
break.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: I can't say --
MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes.
MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or
210 212
1 committed a crime and legal -- some kind of 1 anything but --
2 proceedings resulted from her committing a crime. 2 MR. SCAROLA: 1 can understand that you
3 The crime she committed was stealing money from a 3 don't -- you don't have that control, but if
4 restaurant that she worked at while she was also 4 there's any reasonable --
5 working for Jeffrey Epstein. And it was my 5 MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel --
6 information that there was a criminal record of her 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might
7 theft. 7 help, let's give it a try.
8 Q. How old was she at the time this alleged 8 MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't
9 offense occurred? 9 appreciate the comments about my abilities as
10 A. I don't know. But old enough to be held 10 an attorney, like I don't have that control and
11 criminally responsible in the State of Florida, to 11 things of nature. It really is --
12 my knowledge. To my knowledge, 1-- I recall a case 12 MR. SCAROLA: 1 don't have the control
13 where a 14-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult 13 either.
14 for -- 14 MR. SCOTT: It's not --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage
16 A. -- a serious -- 16 you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting
17 MR. SCAROLA: -- did my question ask 17 that --
18 anything about a 14-year-old boy? 18 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
19 A. You asked if -- 19 MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt
20 MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen 20 that it will do any good. But I want to give
21 to this? 21 it a try.
22 MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
23 client is providing his response. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 MR. SCAROLA: No, your client is not 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
25 responding. Your client is filibustering. 25 time is approximately 9:49 a.m.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
9 (Pages 209 to 212)
213 215
1 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 a.m.) 1 Q. That would certainly have been prior to
2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 2 February 23rd of 2015, correct?
3 The time is approximately 10:01 a.m. 3 A. Yes.
4 MR. SCOTT: If you've finished your bagel, 4 MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the
5 were ready to proceed, I think. 5 exhibit now with the newspapers and --
6 MR. SCAROLA: I think we are. I was 6 MR. SCAROLA: Not yet.
7 actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier, 7 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
8 but we'll proceed now. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Having reviewed the available airplane
10 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, do you agree with the 10 flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on
11 basic concept that one is presumed to be innocent 11 at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his
12 until proven guilty? 12 private plane, correct?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Has Virginia Roberts ever been proven to 14 Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log
15 be guilty of any crime at any time, anywhere, at any 15 information with regard to Former President
16 age? 16 Clinton's other private airplane travel?
17 A. I don't know the answer to that question, 17 A. No.
18 but I do know that she was brought into the legal 18 Q. Never made a public records request —
19 system for stealing money from her employer and I 19 A. Yes.
20 think it's fair to characterize that as her having a 20 Q. — under the Freedom of Information Act
21 criminal record, yeah. 21 with regard to those records?
22 Q. To the extent that anyone might interpret 22 A. Well, we have made a Freedom of
23 your comment that Virginia Roberts was ever 23 Information request. My -- my attomey in New York,
24 convicted of a crime, they would be drawing a false 24 Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a
25 conclusion as far as you know, correct? 25 FOIA request for all information that would
214 216
1 A. As far as I know, I don't know of her 1 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on
2 having convicted of any crime. But I do know that 2 Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes.
3 she was proceeded against for having stolen money. 3 Q. And you were denied those records,
4 And I don't think she contested that. I don't think 4 correct?
5 there's any dispute about the fact that she stole 5 A. No, no, no.
6 money and engaged in other crimes as well. 6 Q. Oh, you got them?
7 Q. When did you find out about this alleged 7 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let's
8 crime? 8 take it slow. Ask a question.
9 A. As soon as the false allegation against me 9 A. As any lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a
10 was made public, I got call after call after call 10 long, long period of time. So they were neither
11 from people telling me about Virginia Roberts, about 11 denied nor were they given to us. They are very
12 your 22 clients. The calls just kept coming in 12 much in process.
13 because there was such outrage at this false 3.3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 allegation being directed against me. 14 Q. When was --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 15 A. While we're talking about -- may I
16 unresponsive portion of the answer. 16 complete -- I want to amend one answer I gave
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 previously.
18 Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA 18 While were talking about the plane logs,
19 complaint was -- the CVRA allegations referencing 19 I must say that during the recess, my wife Googled
20 you were filed; is that correct? 20 Tatiana and found out that she was, in fact, 24
21 A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they 21 years old in 1995, at the time she flew on that
22 were made public and as soon as the newspapers 22 airplane. So that my characterization of her as
23 carried these false stories, I received phone calls 23 about 25 years old is absolutely correct.
24 and I teamed about -- I learned about her encounter 24 And the implication that you sought to
25 with the criminal justice system. 25 draw by showing me those pictures was not only
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
10 (Pages 213 to 216)
217 219
1 demonstrably false, but you could have easily 1 she has a history of lying, knowing that she is
2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was 2 easily suggestible, and they basically pressured
3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and 3 her, according to my sources, into including me when
4 Googling her name as my wife did. 4 she didn't want to include me, because by including
5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could
6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young 6 make a false claim that a person who negotiated the
7 woman? 7 NPA was also criminally involved with her.
8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was 8 They also lied -- lied unethically and
9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, 9 unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that
10 I think I said in my public statements a model. I 10 provision of the NPA, which gave me, myself, any
11 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for 11 kind of immunity from prosecution had I had improper
12 Victoria's Secrets, but Google demonstrates that. 12 sex with Virginia Roberts, which, of course, I did
13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right 13 not. And that was one of the bases on which I was
14 terms, a serious person. 14 certain that they had engaged in unprofessional,
15 I always saw her dressed when I saw her -- 15 disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that
16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed 16 provision, as well as including a provision that
17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I 17 Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince
18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest 18 Andrew, pressured a United States attorney to try to
19 that anything other than that she was a serious 19 get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein.
20 adult when she flew on that airplane. 20 That is so laughable. How any lawyer
21 Q. You were asked on the occasion of that 21 could put that in a pleading, it doesn't pass even
22 same Don Lemon CNN interview what possible motive 22 the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for
23 the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 23 Professor Cassell that he would have signed his name
24 have had to have identified you in the pleading that 24 to a pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would
25 was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case. 25 pressure the United States attorney for the Southern
218 220
1 Do you remember that? 1 District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a
2 A. That's right, yes. 2 good deal.
3 Q. And your response was, quote -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
4 MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you 4 unresponsive portions of the answer. And
5 need to refer to it. 5 obviously the break didn't do any good.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed.
7 Q. — "They want to be able to challenge the 7 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to.
8 plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 organized the plea agreement. I got the very good 9 Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring
10 deal for Jeffrey Epstein." 10 to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a
11 Did you make that response? 11 lawyer who helped draft the agreement" --
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Right.
13 Q. So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015, 13 Q. -- "who also was a criminal having sex,
14 that the reason why the statements were filed in the 14 wow, that could help them blow up the agreement."
15 Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because the Crime 15 Did you make that statement on --
16 Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective, 16 A. Yes. I just repeated it now, yes, under
17 setting aside the plea agreement that you had 17 oath, yes.
18 negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 18 Q. Did you state the following in that same
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if 19 interview: "So they," referring to Bradley Edwards,
20 you can answer it. 20 Paul Cassell and Virginia Roberts, "sat (town
21 A. There were multiple motives. One of the 21 together, the three of them, these two sleazy,
22 motives was crassly financial. They were trying to 22 unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" --
23 line their pockets with money. But as I also said, 23 A. Uh-huh, uh-huh.
24 and I said this over and over again, they profiled 24 Q. -- "they said" --
25 me. They sat down with their client, knowing that 25 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
11 (Pages 217 to 220)
221 223
1 1 who made transcripts of them.
2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Did you turn them over to opposing
3 Q. -- "who would fit into this description? 3 counsel --
4 They and the woman got together and contrived and 4 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts --
5 made this up." 5 BY MR. SCAROLA:
6 Did you make that statement on national 6 Q. -- in the course of discovery?
7 television? 7 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts we consider to
8 A. Yes, and I just repeated it under oath. I 8 be work product. If you make a request to
9 believe that to be the case. 1 think that's exactly 9 produce, we'll provide them.
10 what happened. And I think that my source has 10 MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they
3.1 corroborated that. 11 were also after your discovery request.
12 By the way, can I add at this point -- I 12 MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll
13 don't mean to distract you, but I think the record 13 consider providing them.
14 would be more complete if I indicated that I did get 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 a phone call last night from Michael, who told me 15 Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log
16 that he had received numerous phone calls and texts 16 that identifies these allegedly privileged work
17 from Virginia Roberts trying to persuade her not to 17 product documents?
18 talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the
18 MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will
19 help of a lawyer.
19 address the document production issues. But
20 And I also -- although you didn't ask the 20 two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate
21 question, Mr. Scarola, I think for completeness and 21 your request and you have said several times
22 fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether
22 there's no duty to supplement. And second,
23
24
25
or not I knew about what could be taped and what
couldn't be taped. I did tape record some of what
Virginia Roberts [ sic.] told me, with her
23
24
25
they're work product.
MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated
a full and complete production, which we are
222 224
1 permission, and I have those tape recordings. 1 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be
2 Q. Well, you're getting a little bit 2 obliged to supplement the production that had
3 overexcited, Mr. Dershowitz, because you never tape 3 already been completed. But it is not the date
4 recorded anything that Virginia Roberts told you. 4 of the request that matters, it is the date of
5 A. Did I say Virginia Roberts? 5 the production that matters.
6 Q. You misspoke. 6 And what we're now being told is there are
7 A. I misspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, 7 allegedly highly relevant transcripts of a
8 in fact, let me be clear. 8 telephone conversation that occurred months ago
9 I tape recorded, with her permission, 9 when the last production that we received,
10 Rebecca's statements to me about what Virginia 10 which we are told still is not complete,
11 Roberts had told her. And I just want to make sure 11 occurred approximately two weeks ago.
12 that for completeness, even though you didn't ask 12 So, there's no privilege log entry.
13 the question yesterday, that's part of the record. 13 There's no production of these documents. And
14 Q. Well, I actually did ask the question and 14 there is clearly a very significant discovery
15 my recollection is that you said you didn't even 15 violation if, in fact, such documents exist.
16 think about tape recording anything -- 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it
17 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not accurate. You 17 here, Mr. Scarola, but your assertions are not
18 never asked that. 18 accurate.
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. There also was a
20 Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn 20 subpoena duces tecum that was responded to
21 over those tape recordings in the discovery that you 21 tomorrow -- I'm sorry, yesterday. Can you tell
22 were required to make in this case? 22 us whether the documents that are now being
23 A. The discovery -- these events occurred 23 described are included in response to the
24 after April of 2015. And I certainly tamed over 24 subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that
25 the recordings and the -- recordings to my lawyers, 25 you provided to us?
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
12 (Pages 221 to 224)
225 227
1 MR. SIMPSON: The flash drive is the same 1 A. I know what you know because I'm a logical
2 as the document production. 2 person and I know that Virginia -- I know that
3 MR. SCAROLA: So the answer is no, they're 3 Virginia Roberts repeatedly called this -- this
4 not there; is that correct? 4 woman and her husband, repeatedly text her, and
5 MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 5 knows her name. And you and Virginia Roberts'
6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the 6 lawyers are operating in privity here. You're
7 explanation for that? 7 whispering to each other, you're passing notes. You
8 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate this 8 are part of a joint legal team.
9 on the record with you, Mr. Scarola. 9 And if you want to know her name, all you
10 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Thank you. 10 have to do is ask Sigrid McCawley and she'll tell
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 you her name. Pm sure you know her name. And if
12 Q. Which conversation with Rebecca did you 12 you don't know her name, it's because you haven't
13 tape record? 13 asked.
1.4 A. I tape recorded a conversation with her 14 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you —
15 permission where she told me that she was pressured, 15 A. Pm not going to tell you --
16 she didn't -- where Rebecca told me that Virginia 16 Q. -- and I'm telling you I don't know her
17 was pressured and that she didn't want to name me 17 name.
18 but she was pressured to name me, that she had never 18 A. Okay.
19 previously named me. 19 Q. Okay? As an officer of the court, I am
20 By the way, I told this to Virginia 20 telling you I don't know her name. And you are
21. Roberts' lawyer. 21 under oath and obliged to answer material and
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. To the extent 22 relevant questions, and I want to know what her name
23 you're going to reveal anything that was said 23 is.
24 during settlement discussions, I'm moving for 24 MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name
25 sanctions, period. We're not doing this today. 25 off the record, but Pm not -- if he feels its
226 228
1 Please instruct the witness. 1 inappropriate because of what -- he's not going
2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that 2 to answer the question. I will provide you the
3 yesterday. 3 name.
4 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her
6 Q. What was the date of the phone 6 name not be revealed; is that correct?
7 conversation that you tape recorded? 7 A. Her husband asked me to do whatever I
8 A. 1 don't recall. But it's on the 8 could not to put her name in front of the press, in
9 transcript. 9 front of the media.
10 Q. And does it also reflect that the 10 Q. There's no — there's no one from the
11 recording is being made with her permission? 11 press here today.
12 A. Uh-huh. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to
13 Q. That's a yes? 13 order the transcript and they're going to see,
14 A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes. 14 so that's the same thing. And I've already
15 Q. What is Rebecca's last name? 15 told --
16 A. You know Rebecca's last name and she has 16 A. You will have her name in five --
17 asked me not to reveal it to the press. And so I 17 MR. SCOTT: I will give you her name --
18 would like to comply with that -- with that request. 18 A. -- minutes. All you have to do is --
19 For purposes of discovery, you know her name, you 19 MR. SCOTT: And, Jack, if you want to take
20 know her husband's name, you know her phone number, 20 a break now --
21 and she has been called. But there's no reason for 21 THE REPORTER: I-Iold on. Hold on,
22 me to reveal it so that it appears in the press that 22 gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time.
23 she would be called by newspapers and by the media. 23 MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this
24 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, how do you know what I 24 point.
25 know if you haven't told me? 25 THE WITNESS: Please.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
13 (Pages 225 to 228)
229 231
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 more accomplished.
2 Q. What's her phone number? 2 MR. SCAROLA: Let's take it easy and slow.
3 A. Her phone number is known to Virginia 3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
4 Roberts and presumably -- and to Virginia Roberts' 4 Q. How did Michael tell you he knew these
5 lawyers because she received phone calls from 5 people he didn't speak to were lawyers?
6 Virginia Roberts' lawyers. So all you have to do is 6 A. He told me that he received a phone call
7 ask your colleagues and you will get that. But I 7 from Virginia Roberts. That then his wife received
8 think there's no reason to put her phone number in 8 numerous phone calls and texts from her all through
9 the public record so that she will receive massive 9 the night. And that they received phone calls as
10 amounts of phone calls from the media. Seems to me 10 well from her lawyers. One of them had a Miami
11 that any -- that a judge would try to prevent that 11 phone number.
12 from happening. I would hope so. And I'm -- you 12 And I don't know how he knew they were
13 can get the name and the phone number from my lawyer 13 lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. All I
14 as long as it's -- 14 can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you
15 MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. 15 that.
16 A. -- done off the record, not so that the 16 Q. Did you ask him for the phone number?
17 media can see it. 17 A. I did not.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Why not?
19 Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers 19 A. l didn't think it was appropriate or
20 contacted Rebecca; is that correct? 20 necessary.
21 A. I swore under oath that I was told by 21 Q. What was inappropriate about asking for
22 Michael that lawyers contacted Rebecca, yes. 22 the phone number to find out who was attempting to
23 Q. Which lawyers? 23 contact this witness?
24 A. I don't know the answer to that. 24 A. I was not particularly interested in that.
25 Q. Did you ask him? 25 All I was interested in was getting the truth from
230 232
1 A. I did. 1 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a
2 Q. And he said, I — 2 media barrage that would interfere with their lives.
3 A. He wouldn't answer that. 3 Q. You told Don Lemon on CNN that the flight
4 Q. -- refuse to tell you? 4 manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were
5 A. No, he didn't know the answer to that 5 not in the same place at the same time as Virginia
6 either because he didn't return the phone calls. He 6 Roberts, correct?
7 said -- 7 A. That's right. And that's true.
8 Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he 8 Q. You also told Don Lemon, quote, "I am
9 didn't return the phone calls? 9 waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity."
10 A. Because they left messages, presumably. 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. With names that identified them as 11 Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive
12 lawyers; is that right? 12 the statute of limitations and refused to, correct?
13 MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the 13 A. Absolutely false.
14 witness -- 14 I waived the statute of limitations by
15 A. I don't know the answer to that. 15 submitting a statement under oath. Had I not
16 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm trying to find out 16 submitted that statement under oath, the statute of
17 whether there's any logical basis for the 17 limitations would have been long gone. But by
18 stories that the witness is telling. 18 stating under oath categorically that I did not have
19 MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to 19 any sexual contact with her, I waived the statute of
20 explain it. And I think he's trying to do it 20 limitations and could be prosecuted for the next
21 in an easy, slow format. So, you know -- 21 five or so years for perjury in what I said was
22 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it 22 false.
23 easy -- 23 But what I said was true, so I have no
24 MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take -- if we all 24 fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal
25 take the tension down here, maybe we can get 25 prosecution. So, yes, I did waive the statute of
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
14 (Pages 229 to 232)
233 235
1 limitations, yes. 1 Q. And by dropping the dime on the media when
2 Q. You refused to waive the statute of 2 they filed it, you intended to convey the message
3 limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? 3 that Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards intentionally
4 A. I didn't refuse anything. I didn't feel I 4 generated the focus of press attention on that
5 had any obligation to respond to you. And I did 5 filing; is that correct?
6 not. 6 A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt.
7 Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of 7 Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into
8 limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and 8 this filing? Prince Andrew had no connection to the
9 you refused to respond? 9 NPA, no relevance at all. But they knew that by
10 A. I was asked by you, utterly 10 including Prince Andrew, this would drag my name
11 inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you 11 into every single newspaper and media outlet in the
12 check what I said, I said if any reasonable 12 world.
13 prosecutor were to investigate the case and find 13 It was outrageous for them to do this.
14 that there was any basis, I would then waive the 14 Particularly because they did so little, if any,
15 statute of limitations. I didn't waive the statute 15 investigation, which will, of course, be determined
16 of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two 16 when they're deposed. And -- and --
17 unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, 17 Q. Well, you've already made that
18 what obligation do I have to respond to you? 18 determination, right?
19 Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to 19 MR. SCOTT: Wait.
20 me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while you arc 20 A. I'm convinced that -- that they did little
21 under oath and I am asking you questions and I would 21 or no investigation. They never even bothered to
22 greatly appreciate you responding to the questions 22 call me. That would have been --
23 that I ask. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA:
24 MR. SCOTT: I think he's trying. 24 Q. We'll get to that in just a moment.
25 25 A. -- a simple basic thing.
234 236
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Q. But right now — right now could you
2 Q. You made the further statement in that 2 please tell us was there anything other than your
3 same interview, "They dropped the diine on the media 3 inferring that they must have contacted the media to
4 when they filed it," referring to the CVRA 4 support your conclusion that either Paul Cassell or
5 pleading -- 5 Brad Edwards did, in fact, alert the media at the
6 A. Right. 6 time of the filing of this pleading?
7 Q. — in which were you named? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. Right. 8 Q. What else besides your inference?
9 Q. What is the basis for that statement? 9 A. When the BBC came to see me, the BBC
10 A. The basis for that statement was that the 10 reporter showed me an e-mail from Paul Cassell,
11 filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's 11 which urged him, the BBC reporter, to ask me a
12 on a day that the press was completely dead. And 12 series of questions. So I knew that Paul Cassell
13 nonetheless, immediately upon the filing, I got a 13 was in touch with the British media and was trying
14 barrage of phone calls that led me to conclude, and 14 to stimulate and initiate embarrassing questions to
15 led many, many, many other lawyers who called me to 15 be asked of me.
16 conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off 16 And when I spoke to a number of reporters,
17 that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in 17 they certainly -- obviously reporters have
18 the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even 18 privilege, but they said things that certainly led
19 have a heading that indicated that I was involved or 19 me to infer that they had been in close touch with
20 anybody else was involved. 20 your clients or representatives on their behalf.
21 So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to 21 Q. What was the date of the e-mail —
22 somebody saying, by the way, you want an interesting 22 A. I don't know.
23 story, there's -- Prince Andrew of Great Britain and 23 Q. -- that you referenced in that response?
24 Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual 24 A. I don't know.
25 misconduct. I still believe that. 25 Q. Well --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
15 (Pages 233 to 236)
237 239
1 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw 1 MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that
2 the date. He just quickly showed me the e-mail and 2 twice.
3 1 quickly looked at it. 3 A. It came after. It came after.
4 Q. The e-mail that you are referencing, in 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media 5 Q. Thank you, sir. On January 5, you made
6 appearances with respect to this filing -- 6 another CNN Live appearance in an interview with
7 A. Let me be very clear about -- 7 Hala Gorani. Do you recall that?
8 Q. — didn't it, sir? 8 A. I do not recall the name of the person --
9 A. Let me be very clear about my media 9 Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you
10 appearances so that I -- 10 would, please, page 15.
11 Q. How about just answering the questions? 11 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the
12 A. Pm trying to answer the question. All of 12 transcript, please, Mr. Dershowitz.
13 my media appearances -- 13 THE WITNESS: Page 15.
14 Q. The question is: Did it occur before or 14 MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that.
15 after your media -- your media appearances? That 15 A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but,
16 doesn't call for a speech — 16 of course, I remember doing an interview, yes.
17 A. It came -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. — it calls for before or after. 18 Q. All right, sir. And during the course of
19 A. It came before some and after some. It 19 that interview, you said: "There are flight
20 came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC 20 manifests. They will prove I was never on any
21 because they showed me the e-mail before they 21 private airplane with any young woman." Correct?