MR. SIMPSON: You said not to answer.
MS. McCAWLEY: Well, describing David Boies
in general doesn't constitute waiver.
MR. SIMPSON: I agree with the description;
he's a distinguished lawyer.
MR. SCAROLA: And I don't think we are
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
87
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
getting beyond anything that is a matter of
public record.
MR. SIMPSON: I just --
MS. McCAWLEY: But I appreciate you letting
me know that.
THE WITNESS: All right. I will not waive
anything, and if I start to do that, I would
certainly request the opportunity to retract what
I'm doing, but I was aware, since the issue is,
well, what's in the public record, I was aware
that, you know, probably the most significant
United States Supreme Court case argued in the
last 20 years was Bush versus Gore, which was a
case that essentially determined who was going to
be President of the most powerful country in the
world.
There were two attorneys who argued that case
in front of the United States Supreme Court and
arguing for the Democratic Presidential
Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put
his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush
versus Gore case, and without going into any
confidential communications or trying to waive in
any way, I knew that David Boies had agreed to
represent Virginia Roberts which gave me
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
88
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
additional confidence in the fact that I was also
representing this young woman in her effort to
bring sex traffickers to justice, and those who
had sexually abused her to justice.
And so those are things that come to mind
immediately as -- let me just take a second and
see if there were other things regarding
Dershowitz that come immediately -- immediately
to mind.
Oh, one of the things was in the Jane Doe 102
complaint which alleged academicians that had --
that had abused -- sexually abused Jane Doe 3,
there -- there were -- so that raises a question,
obviously, of who were the academicians that Bob
Josefsburg had identified.
I can't recall, actually, the record should
be clear, I can't recall immediately whether it
was singular or plural. It may have been plural,
but if it's singular, I don't want to suggest
that there were other academicians, but at least
one academician had sexually abused Jane Doe 3
according to the complaint that had been filed by
Bob Joseph ^ [sic].
There were two things of interest to that:
One was that Mr. Epstein, the man that I wasn't
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
89
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
able to get information from because he was
invoking the Fifth, had refused or declined to
file an answer to that complaint.
Rather than deny the allegations, he had
ultimately, it's my understanding -- I don't have
inside information and I'm not trying to waive
any information, but my understanding is that
rather than answer the complaint, he settled the
case through the payment of some kind of
compensation that Jane Doe 102 found desirable
for dropping her claim.
The other thing that I found interesting is
that Josefsburg's partner, I believe it is,
Miss Isell (indicating), had been to some of the
depositions of, for example, I believe Juan
Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez. I believe at least
one of those, and perhaps both of those. And she
had asked questions about Alan Dershowitz in
those depositions, but had not asked questions
about other academics in those depositions.
So that led me to conclude that Bob
Josefsburg and his outstanding law firm had
identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who had
information relevant -- and let's be clear, this
is not a lawsuit about some contract dispute or
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
90
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
something -- that he was someone who had
information relevant to the sexual abuse of
underage girls and, indeed, they were asking
questions about what information -- what
information he might have.
Another -- I remember now, there's a whole
other line of things that I had in mind at the
time, and I think since you want to test my
memory -- let me be clear, I'm not claiming I
have a superb memory, I have an average memory,
but this is a subject that's very important to me
and so I've worked, you know, very hard to get
all the information.
THE WITNESS: I would like to take a break.
MR. SCAROLA: Sure. Take a break.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off video
record, 3:27 p.m.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record,
3:41 p.m.
THE WITNESS: I want to continue my answer.
I'm sorry I got emotional there for a moment. I
want to do a good job for Virginia Roberts on
representing all the -- the evidence that is
available to support her.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
91
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
The next thing that I was thinking of was,
all right, then the question is, well, what does
Mr. Dershowitz have to say about all this? So I
started to look at the information on that as
well.
In 2009, there had been a deposition request
sent to Mr. Dershowitz, and I saw a document
showing that that had actually been served on
him, and you know, to the extent that what I saw
was a, I think a receipt, from the process server
or something along those lines, so I saw attempt
to contact him in 2009.
And then I saw an additional attempt to
contact him in 2011. Mr. Scarola had sent him a
note and there was, you know, some back and
forth. The one note that jumped out to me was
one in which Mr. Scarola had written to
Mr. Dershowitz, I think the phrase was, multiple
witnesses have placed you in the presence of
Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls. I would like
to depose you about those subjects.
And the answer that came back was not, well,
let me clear all of that misunderstanding up.
You know, that's frankly -- if I had gotten
something like that, that's what I would I have
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
92
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
said.
The answer that came back was, from
Mr. Dershowitz, was something along the lines, if
I remember correctly, well, tell me what you --
tell me what you want to know and I'll decide
whether to cooperate, was I think the phrase that
was used. And so there was an attempt, you know,
in 2009, an attempt, a 2011 attempt to get
information from Mr. Dershowitz.
Then there was another subpoena without
deposition for documents. You know, we have
heard a lot about records in this case that could
prove innocence. There was a records request to
Mr. Dershowitz in 2013. Again, my understanding
was that there was no -- you know, no documents
were provided on that.
And so those I -- had that information.
Another bit of information that I had was that in
2011, I believe in early April, the -- this is
not attorney/client privileged information from
Virginia Roberts. This is a telephone call that
she placed from Australia where she had been
essentially forced into hiding by Jeffrey
Epstein.
She managed to escape and was hiding out in
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
93
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
Australia, and she somehow, you know, Mr. Scarola
and Mr. Edwards were able to reach her and there
was a telephone call that was made. And in that
telephone call she identified Alan Dershowitz as
someone who would have relevant information about
Jeffrey Epstein and the sexual abuse of underage
girls.
And so I had that information as well. So
that is -- the question was: What could I recall
off the top of my head with regard to the factual
basis for information connecting Mr. Dershowitz
with the sexual abuse of minor girls, plural, and
that, sitting here at this moment, is the best
that I can recall for the information along those
liens.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Was that answer --
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Before -- before
you go on to another subject, Professor Cassell
is entitled to refresh his recollection to give
you a complete response. So why don't you go
ahead and do that now. Make sure you've covered
everything.
MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I think I get to ask the
questions, but I was going to ask the same
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
94
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
question.
MR. SCAROLA: Wonderful. We are on the same
page.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Mr. Cassell, you mentioned that you had
something that you had prepared --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that would summarize --
A. Right.
Q. -- your knowledge.
A. Right.
Q. And now that you have exhausted your
recollection, could you produce that and let's just mark
it as an exhibit?
A. Sure.
MR. SIMPSON: We are up to Exhibit 3, I
believe. Cassell 3?
THE WITNESS: Right. Now, there are two
parts to this --
MR. SIMPSON: Can we mark it first?
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I just want the record
to be clear, there's a pre-December 30th section
and a post-December 30th section, so the top part
is the what I was working off of.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Okay.
A. Now, underneath this is the, you know, if you
have questions about what happened after December 30th.
Q. So you're -- you're prepared to produce the
entire document, but you're clarifying? I don't want to
ask you. If you're going to use it in your testimony
then we will mark the whole thing?
MR. SCAROLA: Mark the whole thing. You can
use it.
MR. SIMPSON: Mark the whole thing and I'll
ask you about it.
THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to ask the court
reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 3, a one-page
document that the witness has just handed to me.
It's mostly typed, it has some handwriting on it.
(^ Plaintiff's ^ Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
No. 3 - one-page note of witness was marked for
identification.)
THE WITNESS: All right. So let me -- if I
could look at this to see if the top portion of
to see if it refreshes my recollection about --
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Could I just see it for one second?
A. Absolutely.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. All right. Let me just clarify one point
before you do that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your answer, were you referring to the
evidence you could recall or the information you could
recall that supported your allegations as to both
Virginia Roberts and other minors or were you treating
those separately?
A. No, I was not treating those separately. I
was -- for me, there's a common -- what the law refers
to as a common scheme or plan in a criminal conspiracy
for international trafficking that involved not just a
single girl, but multiple girls, so the answer was --
was with respect to multiple girls.
Q. Okay. So I may have some questions to
distinguish further between those two --
A. Yes.
Q. -- but is it fair to say that -- and I
realize you're going refresh your recollection, but that
you had exhausted your recollection of the basis for the
allegation in this Exhibit 2, the motion to join as to
both Miss Roberts and other minors?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So then now take a look at that and
tell me if there's anything there that refreshes your
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
97
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
recollection as to something that you have not yet told
me about.
A. So -- and this refreshes my recollection.
Sarah Kellen, I think I refer to her as Miss Kellen.
Sarah Kellen was the first name.
Nadia Marcinkova, Nadia was the first name
there. Adrianna Mucinska was the full name of those --
that's the second echelon of the -- of the criminal
conspiracy.
Oh, this refreshes my recollection that
Jeffrey Epstein had answered some questions in the civil
litigation. He provided, for example, names of some
people who were involved, but he took the Fifth when
asked -- he took -- he provided names of some people who
would have relevant information in the civil cases. But
when asked in deposition about Mr. Dershowitz, he took
the Fifth.
So I found it significant that for some
people, he was willing to answer questions, but with
regard to Mr. Dershowitz, he took -- invoked his Fifth
Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination
presumably because revealing what he knew about
Mr. Dershowitz would, you know, cause criminal --
criminal charges potentially to be filed against him.
There was a common scheme or plan and I'll
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
98
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
elaborate on that in a moment, but yeah, one of -- so
this was another point. I mentioned that there had been
three efforts to get information from Mr. Dershowitz by
way of a 2009 deposition request, a 2011 deposition
request, and further follow-up correspondence from
counsel on that, and a 2013 document request all
propounded to Mr. Dershowitz that had not gone answered.
And this was -- yeah, I'm sorry this slipped
my mind at the time -- but when we saw Mr. Dershowitz
not responding to these answers, you know, maybe the
mail didn't get delivered to him or something like that.
I suppose that's, you know, a theoretical possibility.
But the reason I ruled out that possibility,
first, it didn't seem likely; but secondly, there was a
pattern of Mr. Epstein's associates evading efforts to
get information from them. And so let me just go back
to the earliest instance of that.
According to the Chief of Police in the Palm
Beach -- of the Palm Beach Police Department,
Mr. Dershowitz had said that he would make available
Mr. Epstein for questions about the sex, you know, abuse
that was going on. And, you know, Mr. Dershowitz had
said to the Palm Beach Police Department, yeah, we will
make him available, no, we got to reschedule it, you
know, another time reschedule, another time. And so
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
99
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
there were multiple -- according to the Chief of Police,
there had been multiple, you know, requests to interview
Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz had repeatedly said, oh,
yeah, we will schedule that. And then it hadn't
happened.
Now, obviously, there could have been a
situation there where an emergency had come up for
Mr. Epstein and he wasn't able to make a schedule or
something like that. But what I saw was a pattern of
offers to meet and then withdrawals and that seems to me
to be a deliberately calculated strategy to sort of
stall the investigation to say, oh, we will get you
Epstein, oh, we can't meet now. Oh, we will get it
now -- and so forth.
And one of the things that I noted from all
that was that Mr. Dershowitz, as Mr. Epstein's attorney,
never ultimately produced Epstein for a meeting with the
Palm Beach Police Department, having made another
offers -- now, obviously, something could have happened
there. I mean, I don't -- I don't know what was the
communications and so forth, but as an attorney trying
to get information and unable to do that, I had to make
some reasonable inferences.
And so one of the inferences I began to draw
was that this was a stall tactic by Mr. Dershowitz, and
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
100
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
in my view potentially an unethical one, but I don't
think we need to get into that in this litigation.
What I saw was a stall tactic going on, and
the reason I think it was a stall tactic as we are
sitting here now in, what is it, October of 2015, and
Mr. Epstein has never been willing to answer questions
about his sexual abuse of these girls.
And this was back in around, what was it, I
guess it would be 2005, 2006, you know, roughly a decade
ago, Mr. Dershowitz was offering to make Epstein
available. And then that never happened and given the
ten-year pattern that -- I guess I should go back. I'm
sorry. Let me correct my answer.
We should go back to December 30th, 2014, so
there -- there appeared to be about an eight-year period
of time during which Mr. Epstein had refused to answer
any questions about his sexual abuse of girls and yet,
Mr. Dershowitz said, oh, it's just a scheduling issue
and we will get the Palm Beach Police Department to --
to -- to, you know, to meet and learn all this.
The other thing that that I'm seeing here, so
now there's -- there's -- Mr. Dershowitz had been
involved in concealing Mr. Epstein from the Palm Beach
Police Department, but there were others that had done
similar sorts of things.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
101
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
So one of them was a Ghislane Maxwell. I
will just call her Glen Maxwell. I think that's kind of
the nickname I understand she goes by.
Glen Maxwell -- remember, she is the one, you
know, I think the record is clear, in litigation that,
you know, allegation has been made that she was the one
that -- that brought Virginia Roberts into the -- into
the sex trafficking, and was heavily involved with, you
know, in all the -- not all the flights, but on many of
the flights with Jeffrey Epstein where this seemed to be
going on and was very close to Epstein, staying at the
mansion frequently.
And so she would, obviously, be I guess if
you have Epstein at the top of the -- you know, the
kingpin of the operation, Maxwell would be, you know, a
close second or certainly at the higher echelon.
So, obviously, someone who would have very
significant information about, you know, the sex
trafficking, who were the other people that -- the girls
were being trafficked to, what kind of abuse was going
on, you know, what kind of sex toys were being used to
abuse them, because I think it was in her room or
adjacent to her room that many of these devices were
located, and so she would have had very significant
information to provide.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
102
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
And so in connection with the civil cases
that some of the girls had filed against Mr. Epstein,
her deposition was set by my co-counsel, Mr. Edwards,
and there was some haggling over a confidentiality
agreement, you know, and that had all been worked out
and then she was set for a deposition and finally
agreed, you know, to deposition. And just shortly, I
think a couple of days before that deposition, she
canceled. Well, she didn't cancel, her -- her attorney
called to cancel the deposition, and represented that
Miss Maxwell was outside the United States of America
and had no plans to return back to the United States.
And so, at that point, the deposition was --
was not able to go forward. But it turned out that she
had not left the United States for an extended period of
time. She was spotted later at a wedding of a prominent
person in New York. And so that was Maxwell fitting
into this pattern, you know, Epstein was being, you
know, Palm Beach Police Department being told by
Dershowitz that Epstein will answer your questions, and
then not getting information.
Maxwell evading the deposition. Jean Luc
Brunel ^ (ph) was another person who seemed to be very
much involved in trafficking the girls and it was the
same situation. A deposition was set to try to get
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
103
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
answers, you know, who is involved, which girls are
involved, what are their names, what's -- what's going
on? And so Brunel's deposition is set and then he -- he
finagles out of it, too. I don't recall exactly what
his excuse was, but, you know, evaded the deposition and
in fact, later information came to light he was hiding
out in the mansion of Epstein while he's claiming he's
unavailable for deposition.
So -- so this pattern of Mr. Dershowitz, you
know, there were three attempts to obtain information
from him, if that's all I had, I guess that would have
been one thing. But what I had was a pattern of people
who were implicated in the sex trafficking ring evading
questions, you know, quite in violation of court orders
and depositions and things -- I shouldn't say court
orders -- in violation of the deposition notices that
were being sent and agreements being made through
counsel.
And then in addition to that, I had this, so
why -- why would you think that there's this sex
trafficking, you know, ring going on? It sounds kind of
farfetched. Well, one of the things that I had
available to me on December 30th was a photograph that
was widely available on the Internet, and that
photograph depicted three people.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
104
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
It depicted Glen Maxwell, Prince Andrew and
Virginia Roberts, and at the time that it looked like
Virginia Roberts was an underage girl, she was not
dressed in formal attire. And Prince Andrew had his arm
around her, I think if memory serves, and right next --
smiling in the background is Miss Maxwell, and it
appeared that that was a private residence presumably in
London close to Buckingham Palace where Prince Andrew
lived.
So here was Prince Andrew with this underage
girl with Glen Maxwell, the right-hand girl, if that's
the right expression. I probably should say -- strike
that -- right-hand woman of Mr. Epstein, that were there
and somebody had taken the photograph.
Given the surrounding circumstances, I
thought perhaps Mr. Epstein had taken the photograph.
So that would have shown Virginia Roberts's sexual abuse
was not confined just to Florida, not confined to the
New York mansion, it would have -- it would have
presumably continued into London where one of, you know,
the highest, most powerful persons in the governmental
structure that exists in England was now involved in
sexual abuse.
And so that created grave concern about, how
far did this sex trafficking ring reach, what were their
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
105
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
connections, what were their abilities to influence, you
know, law enforcement agencies in those countries, in
England or law enforcement agencies in this country
through power that somebody at that level, fifth, I
think in line to the British Throne, would have, you
know, presumably access to levers of power that other
people might not -- might not have.
And so that is the -- I believe is the
information that I had available to me on December 30th
involving not just Virginia Roberts, but the entire sex
trafficking organization.
Q. Okay. And that, just to clarify again, it
exhausts and refreshed your recollection as to both the
information you were relying on as to the allegations
about Virginia Roberts and as to the allegations about
other minors; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. So I don't have to ask you separately about
Roberts?
A. That's right. No, and I gave you a heads-up
that was going to be long answer.
Q. You made Mr. Dershowitz look like an amateur.
If I could --
MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Like a what?
MR. SIMPSON: Amateur, at long answers.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
106
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
THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't trying to -- let
me be clear. I was not trying to filibuster.
You asked me a very direct question which was, I
want to know everything that was in your memory
on December 30th, and as you can tell, this was a
very important subject to me and it's very
important to Miss Roberts and I wanted to be
comprehensive. And I gave you the opportunity
to say, let's have a narrower question, but you
wanted a broad questions. That's why I did this.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Mr. Cassell, I apologize for attempting humor
in this intense situation.
A. This is very important to me. This is not --
this is not something that I find funny.
Q. Well, I say it's very important to
Mr. Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz also, he was trying
to answer questions. I'm not questioning that you were
trying to answer my question and I appreciate it.
Mr. Dershowitz was trying to do the same
thing and it is a difficult situation.
A. All right.
Q. So I was not trying to make light of the
questions I'm asking you.
A. This involves sexual abuse --
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. I understand that.
A. -- of multiple girls.
Q. I understand that. I understand the
allegations that have been made.
A. And your side keeps attacking these girls.
That's why it's emotional for me.
Q. That part is not true, but I will ask
questions --
A. I believe that part is true. I would like to
take a break. I'm sorry.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
record, 4:01 p.m.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video
record 4:04 p.m.
MR. SCAROLA: The record should reflect that
Mr. and Mrs. Dershowitz have -- are no longer
present.
MR. SIMPSON: Correct.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Mr. Cassell, would you agree with me that
accusing someone --
MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I just realized
that she stepped out to get water. I didn't ask.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
108
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
I'm sure it's probably --
THE WITNESS: It's all right.
MR. SIMPSON: That's okay with you?
THE WITNESS: Sure.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Would you agree with me that accusing a
person of -- an adult of engaging in sex with a minor is
a serious accusation?
A. Sure.
Q. And would you agree with me that the cause of
victims' rights is harmed and not furthered by false
allegations of sexual abuse?
A. Sure.
Q. I want to go back. I'm going to follow up on
some aspects of your answer.
A. Sure.
Q. Kind of work my way through some of those.
A. Sure.
Q. But first let me -- let me ask this: You
drew in your answer a lot of inferences based on the
facts or information you -- you recited, inferences that
Professor Dershowitz had engaged in the conduct alleged;
is that fair to say?
A. I think part of it was -- was inference, part
of were the facts. I mean, you say a lot of inferences.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
109
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
I think that would be, you know, subject to the debate
which perhaps we are going to do now.
Q. No. Let's say you drew some inferences based
on information you had; is that fair to say?
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. It's true, is it not, that you and
your co-counsel, Mr. Edwards, had decided to seek the
joinder of Miss Roberts and Jane Doe 4 as parties no
later than the Summer of 2014?
A. Jane Doe 4, I think, give or take, yeah. I
think Jane Doe -- well, that's -- there's a nomenclature
issue. Let's refer to -- how do you want to refer to
Virginia Roberts? Shall we just call her --
Q. I think we can call her Miss Roberts since
the name is now known.
A. Right. Sure.
Q. And just clarifying, we can call Jane Doe 4.
We won't use that name, Jane Doe 4.
A. Right. I think sometime in the Summer or the
Fall the decision was made to -- to approach the U.S.
Attorneys's Office to get their agreement to add her
into the case. And they declined, which ultimately led
to the filing on December 30th.
Q. Okay. And the basis for my question was, I
believe I saw in a pleading that you had represented to
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
110
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
the court that you had been asking the government for
consent since, I believe it was the Summer of 2014; is
that consistent with your recollection?
A. The exact timing, you know, if I looked at
the documents, we could refresh my recollection. We put
those documents into the court record in January 21st,
2015, the correspondence that we had had. The U.S.
Attorney's Office had delayed, you know, giving us an
answer on that for as I recall, several months and
ultimately they said, no, and that's why we filed the
pleading.
Q. Okay. My question is: Why, during that
several-month period before you filed the motion itself,
did you not contact Professor Dershowitz to ask him if
this was true, and if he had any evidence to refute it?
Why not contact the person you're accusing?
A. I mean, there's a cost -- you know, again,
this is going take a little bit of an answer, not as
long as the other one.
Q. I won't cut you off.
A. No, you have been very polite. I appreciate
that. This is about a five-minute answer, just so you
got a heads-up.
Okay. So the issue of why didn't I contact
Mr. Dershowitz, it's a cost benefit situation. So what
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
111
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
would be the benefit of asking him. Well, I thought the
benefit would be zero. What I thought we would get was
zero, because in 2009, an effort to depose him had been
made unsuccessful. 2011, an effort had been made to
depose him unsuccessfully. In 2013 --
MR. SIMPSON: Was there an objection on the
phone?
MR. INDYKE: No.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I didn't think so.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Please continue.
A. In 2013, an effort had been made to depose
him unsuccessfully, and I mentioned a moment ago this
manner of people involved in Epstein's organization that
had been evading efforts to get information. So it
wasn't just that something hadn't been received in the
mail. It appeared to me that Dershowitz fit into a
pattern of not providing information and, indeed, he had
been party to making, supposedly, Mr. Epstein available
to the Palm Beach Police Department and then pulling --
pulling him back. And that seemed to be a stall tactic.
So I didn't think we were going get any
information. On the other hand, now we had to waive a
cost of calling Mr. Dershowitz and saying, we are
preparing to file a pleading that identifies you. And I
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
112
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
don't want -- I'm not going to get into communications
that Mr. Edwards and I had, which you have asked what
was my state of mind on December 30th as to why I hadn't
called Mr. Dershowitz?
My own personal state of mind, not revealing
any attorney/client communications, but it does revolve
around Virginia Roberts. I had in front of me evidence
of an international sex trafficking organization that
was going to the Fifth in line to the Throne in England,
to very powerful people in the United States, to a
billionaire in Palm Beach, Florida, Epstein. Very
powerful people.
And what I also had was a history of
Mr. Epstein intimidating, threatening witnesses, and in
some cases, you know, potentially what seemed to be
possibly life-threatening kinds of situations. There
was a report of investigators quote, unquote, following
I think it was girls or witnesses against Mr. Epstein
and, indeed, had done so in a circumstance that
suggested the possibility that somebody had been forced
off the road.
I had been personally and directly involved
in an Epstein effort to intimidate a witness in the
Summer of 2010, which was a very disturbing incident.
The incident took place right around, I don't know, July
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
113
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
2nd, July 3rd, I believe it was 2010, where a woman that
I was representing along with my colleague, Brad
Edwards, I'll refer to her by initials, if that's all
right with you.
(Phone Interruption.)
MR. SIMPSON: On the phone, could you --
THE WITNESS: Can we mute them?
MR. SIMPSON: Would you mute it, please?
MR. SCAROLA: Before the phone is muted,
could we identify who is on the phone now,
please? Who is on the phone?
MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. Who is on the phone?
MR. SWEDER: Ken Sweder.
MR. SIMPSON: Anyone else?
MR. SWEDER: Alan Dershowitz.
MR. INDYKE: Darrin Indyke.
MR. SIMPSON: Anyone else? Did you get
those? Okay.
THE WITNESS: I just need to make a note
because I kind of got distracted there. Let's
see. We had -- oh, right. Okay.
That was the other point I wanted to make.
And I've only got about another minute or
two, but the point was, I had had personal
experience on about July 2nd, I believe it was,
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
114
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
2010. What had happened was, S.R. was a young
woman who had been sexually abused by Jeffrey
Epstein. She was identified in the
nonprosecution agreement as sex abuse victim, and
we had a civil suit going against Mr. Epstein and
her case was set for trial. It was going to be
the first trial against Mr. Epstein.
You know, this -- he had abused, according to
the NPA, I think 35 girls, and at that point I
think, gosh, I think 31 of them had settled, all
the girls except for the three represented by
Mr. Edwards and I had settled.
So this was going to be the first person that
was going to bring, if you will, the light of day
to this. This was going to be the first time
where this was going to be tried in open court.
So this was potentially an opportunity to, you
know, expose exactly what Epstein has done
because people are going to be called as
witnesses including Epstein and others like him.
So this was, I think, a potentially explosive
situation for Mr. Epstein because all of the --
all of the crimes that his organization had been
committing were going to be exposed during the
course of this trial. So -- but this all
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
115
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
depended on S.R. being able to get to trial and
not be intimidated.
She's a very petite woman and what happened
that evening was a very large, physically large,
private investigator who turned out had been
hired by Mr. Epstein, went and parked his car in
front of her home. And then, indeed, as I
understand it -- I wasn't there, but I was
getting frantic reports from -- from people in
Florida about what was going on -- the car was
pivoted so that I think the phrase is
high-beaming or something. The private
investigator was shining his lights into S.R.'s
home and she was terrified.
We were trying to get assistance to her and
then we went -- we were filing motions to try to
protect her. She had to flee her home, so that's
what happened to S.R. just a few days before she
went to trial.
And so I'm thinking, you know, if we call
Mr. Dershowitz, who is his first call going to
be? I mean I think -- I didn't have this
information on December 30th. I want the record
to be clear that, sure enough, we learned today
that within just a day or two of these
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
116
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
allegations coming out, Dershowitz called
international sex trafficker Epstein to make sure
their memories coincided or something like that.
And I was afraid if we contacted Alan
Dershowitz, what had happened to S.R. was going
to happen to Virginia Roberts, which was going to
be even worse because she had been hiding out in
Australia for a number of years to escape
Epstein.
And now this would potentially tip him off
that she was now back in contact and he would
redouble efforts to find her. So I was, frankly
again, just speaking for myself, I'm not speaking
for my co-counsel, but I was extremely afraid of
tipping off Mr. Dershowitz that we were going to
be filing this pleading because he would have
contacted Epstein in the same intimidation
tactics and, indeed, life-threatening tactics
that had apparently been used against other
witnesses might be used against her.
I mean, I also was thinking frankly, about
whether to file this pleading, because of the
risk that she would be in, but I thought that the
safest way to protect her was to file this so
that the information was out there.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
117
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
And, at that point, you know, you know, if
she disappeared or something, the world would
know, you know, who the first person would be to
look at would be, you know, Jeffrey Epstein and
other people to look at would be those who were
associated with him.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. I want to go back to your testimony a bit ago
about the Fifth Amendment. You testified that
Mr. Epstein took the Fifth when he was asked about
Professor Dershowitz?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't he take the Fifth with respect to a
whole host of people?
A. With some other people, yes, but not with
every person. That's why I want my memory to aid here.
If you look at the Jeffrey Epstein answers to
interrogatories in one of the civil cases, he provided,
for example, the name of Alessi as someone who would
have relevant information, but not Dershowitz.
And that was consistent with I think invoking
the Fifth, not on the sort of household people, but the
people who were higher up in the echelon which would
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
118
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
have been, in my view, Mr. Dershowitz.
Q. At his deposition, he took the Fifth as to
everyone he was asked about; isn't that true?
A. I haven't looked at the depositions lately.
There were also variations in tactics that he used. I
recall for example, that sometimes when he was asked
about a person, even if he knew that person, he would
pretend not to know that person and try to communicate
that, you know, maybe he didn't know that person.
But he did he did have broad invocations of
the Fifth Amendment in his deposition. I certainly
wouldn't quarrel with you on that.
Q. And you understand or I believe this was in
your testimony that if a person takes the Fifth in
response to a question in a civil litigation, that
answer can be used against the person generally; is that
right?
A. Sure. Right.
Q. Are you aware of any authority whatsoever
that Person A taking the Fifth can be used as evidence
against Person B?
A. Yeah, we are sitting here in the -- let's
see, we are in Florida, in the 11th Circuit, and that
is -- there's 11th circuit case law that allows that to
happen. I could give you the citation, you know, in
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
119
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
about five minutes if you know me take a break, I can
give you the case.
Q. We -- we -- we can come back to it.
A. Okay.
Q. In your mind, if you have a witness who is
asked about a long litany of persons and he takes the
Fifth Amendment in response to all of them, is it fair
to draw an adverse inference as to the other person?
A. Okay. So now this will be about a
three-minute answer, if that's okay, and I would say the
answer to that question is, yes, and I want to explain
why.
The 11th Circuit I'll give you the name, if I
have a chance to look at WesLaw or something like that
has a four-factor test that says, look, you can't just
draw an adverse inference against someone in every
circumstance, you have to balance various factors.
And so you have to look at the relationship
between the parties and things like that, the degree of
control that one person has over another party.
Different factors that you would look at.
And so I -- I think there are two things here
that would lead to the conclusion that under the
four-factor balancing test, the adverse inference could
be used in the 11th Circuit and recall that the crime
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
120
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
victims' rights act case that we are talking about is in
the Southern District of Florida. I think the record
should be clear that that is in the 11th Circuit. And
so that case law says that you look at these different
factors, one of the factors, that to my mind would weigh
heavily in favor of drawing the adverse inference would
be the degree of control that the one party has over the
other.
Dershowitz was the attorney for Epstein and,
indeed, we heard today that he continues to be the
attorney on the Tri-Tech case and I'm assuming an
attorney/client privilege on other matters as well. So
he would seem to have a significant control over that.
The other thing that was going on in my mind
when I'm drawing the adverse inference is that there
might be some people that are invoking the Fifth
Amendment but not getting sound legal advice.
An attorney can only allow his client to
assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in civil case if
there's a significant risk that the answer will be
incriminating. You can't just invoke it willy-nilly.
And I knew that Mr. Epstein had been
receiving -- you know, as a billionaire would -- you
know, the best legal advice that money could buy, and
the advice he was getting with regard to questions about
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
121
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
Mr. Dershowitz was apparently, based on the transcripts
I was seeing, to take the Fifth even with regard to any
knowledge of Mr. Dershowitz.
So in those circumstances I did think it was
highly fair to draw an inference from Mr. Epstein,
particularly where, you know, like some of the sexual
abuse involved Virginia, Epstein, and Dershowitz was the
allegations, you know, the trafficking and so forth.
So you know, if Virginia is making an
allegation, Mr. Epstein is invoking the Fifth and
Mr. Dershowitz is, you know, declining to answer
questions, it seemed to me in those circumstances an
adverse inference would be fair.
Q. Isn't it routine practice for a witness who
is the target or faces -- I'm going to start over.
Isn't it routine practice for a witness who
faces potential criminal liability to take the Fifth as
to all substantive questions?
A. That's not -- no. I would say absolutely
not. And again, I'm drawing -- I was a federal
prosecutor for four years. I was a federal district
court judge for about five-and-a-half years. I would
say, that is not the practice and, indeed, that would be
inconsistent with Fifth Amendment case law as I
understand it.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. As a prosecutor, did you ever in a
prosecution against one person successfully introduce
into evidence that somebody else had taken the Fifth?
MR. SCAROLA: In a criminal case?
MR. SIMPSON: In a criminal case, yeah.
THE WITNESS: So I had about 20 trials, most
of them I was in the general crimes units in the
eastern district of Virginia. Most of them
involved drug dealers and gun runners that did
not -- where those issues didn't come up.
So as sitting here today, I can't recall a
circumstance where in that criminal case I was
able to do that. The standards for using it in a
civil case would be much, much broader.
MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike nonresponsive
portion of the answer.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Have you been involved in a civil case in
which you have successfully introduced into evidence the
fact that Person A took the Fifth Amendment as evidence
against Person B?
A. I haven't been involved in many civil cases
involving invocations of the Fifth Amendment so I can't
recall a circumstance like that right now.
Q. And is the 11th Circuit case you're referring
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
123
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
a criminal case or a civil case?
A. My understanding, it's a civil case.
Q. Did you ask -- you referred to the complaint
that is styled Jane Doe 102 versus Epstein, you referred
to that complaint?
A. Yes.
Q. And Jane Doe 102 is Virginia Roberts,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you talked about the Josefsburg firm, Bob
Josefsburg, who we all -- there was testimony about him
being a respected lawyer; you heard that. Right?
A. Right.
Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Josefsburg if he -- if
the term "academicians" in that complaint included Alan
Dershowitz?
A. Did I --
MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. To the extent that
it reveals anything that is a privilege of
Virginia's because she was represented by
Mr. Josefsburg, I don't want you to reveal.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. I'm just asking whether you ever asked him
the question. Don't give me the answer right now. But
did you ever ask him the question?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
124
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
A. Did I personally do that?
Q. Yes.
A. No. To my knowledge, I've never met
Mr. Josefsburg, so no.
Q. To your knowledge, did anyone else in the
group of attorneys you were working with ask
Mr. Josefsburg that question?
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. To the extent that
that question would call for a communication
within the common interest privilege, you should
not answer it.
THE WITNESS: I'm going take my counsel's
advice. I can't answer that.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. You're not going to answer whether to your
knowledge anyone asked Mr. Josefsburg?
A. Right.
Q. But you are testifying that the fact that
Mr. Josefsburg had signed a complaint with a generic
term "academicians" in it was some evidence, in your
mind, against Professor Dershowitz?
A. Yes, because he's an academician and shortly
after the complaint was filed, a partner in his firm
began asking Alan Dershowitz questions about the sex
abuse matter that we are discussing here.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Did you misspeak about whether they were
asking for Mr. Dershowitz or they were asking some other
witness?
A. No, they -- I'm sorry. They asked about --
thank you for that clarification. They asked other
witnesses about Dershowitz's knowledge of the matters we
have been discussing.
Q. All right. And at those depositions, which
deposition do you have in mind?
A. Rodriguez and Alessi.
Q. Okay. And didn't Rodriguez testify that he
didn't know, didn't have any knowledge as to
Mr. Dershowitz doing anything improper?
A. He said that he was present at the scene of
the crime, if you will. Now, whether he had direct
knowledge of what happened in the bedroom, you're right,
he didn't -- he did not indicate that.
Q. The "scene of the crime" being what?
A. Sex abuse of minor girls.
Q. But I take it you're referring to a location?
A. That's right.
Q. What location are you referring to?
A. Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion.
Q. How many academicians visited Mr. Epstein's
Palm Beach mansion?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
126
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
A. I'm not certain.
Q. Do you -- can you give any estimate at all?
A. You know, in this case, I've probably seen
reference to another in Florida, you know, maybe another
four or five academics that had some kind of interaction
with Epstein.
Q. And you are aware that Epstein was so closely
associated with Harvard, that he had his own office
there?
A. No, I didn't know that Mr. Epstein had an
office at Harvard.
Q. Did you know that Mr. Epstein regularly had
dinners and other social events in which there were
scores of distinguished academicians?
A. Are we talking about Florida or New York?
Q. Generally.
A. Yeah, I knew there was some events like that
in New York. I don't recall having specific information
about an event like that in -- in Palm Beach.
MR. SCAROLA: Richard, let me just make note
of the fact that it's almost 4:30, and by
agreement, we are going stop at 4:30, so if
there's something really pressing you want to get
in this afternoon, this would be a good time to
do that.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
127
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
MR. SIMPSON: Well, we have a lot to cover,
but I'll ask a few more questions until we get to
that -- that time.
MR. SCAROLA: Okay. It's 4:25.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. In the Rodriguez deposition at one point, he
was asked a question and he responds with the name,
Larry Dershowitz. Do you recall that?
A. Oh, you mean Larry -- you didn't mean to say
Larry Dershowitz.
Q. His answer was Larry Dershowitz in the
deposition?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Did you consider whether he was thinking
about Larry Summers ^ (ph)?
A. My recollection of the Rodriguez depo and,
you know, there are two depos here, Alessi and
Rodriguez, was that -- that the identifiers with regard
to Dershowitz were famous criminal defense lawyer-type
which would fit Mr. Dershowitz, but not fit Mr. Summers.
Q. Okay. We will come back and look at the
transcript itself.
A. Okay. Sure.
Q. One of the other things that you mentioned in
your -- your answer, was that the flight logs showed
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
128
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
Mr. Dershowitz on a flight with Tatiana; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you find out before December 30th of 2014
how old Tatiana was at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. How -- how old was she?
A. I understood she was around -- which time are
we referring to, 1998?
Q. We are referring to when she -- the log shows
her on a flight with Professor Dershowitz.
A. Yeah, I was understood she was over the age,
she was 18 or older, you know, and I think within a
couple of years maybe 18.
Q. And you heard today that Mr. Dershowitz's,
Professor Dershowitz's wife was able to determine in a
few second on Google that she was 24 at the time. Any
reason to question that?
A. Well, because -- I think I want to look at
the information we were talking about. Is the question
of time frame and so, you know, the Dershowitzes on
these flights with Epstein in 1998, and I think 2004,
2005, which is, you know, there's like a -- obviously a
six or seven-year period, so I would want to know
exactly what time frame we are talking about.
Q. Well --
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
129
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
A. But I understood, let me be clear, I
understood Tatiana was, you know, 18 or older at the
time.
Q. And -- and -- and you could have found out
exactly how old she was; isn't that true?
A. Potentially, yeah.
Q. Yes. And in fact, we heard today that
someone found it in just a few seconds?
A. We heard a representation to that effect. I
don't know if that's true or not.
Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to doubt that
Tatiana was 24 at the time?
A. I mean, give or take. I mean, give or take.
I mean, I'm not trying to say -- let me be clear. I
know she's over the age of 18. Now whether she's 24 or
something, that was not something that I had
specifically --
Q. I understand you don't know, but I'm just
asking whether if we represent to you that our research
indicates she was 24 at the time, do you have any reason
to question that?
MR. SCAROLA: At what time?
MR. SIMPSON: At the time of the flight, the
flight logs showed --
THE WITNESS: 1998 flight?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. Whatever the flight -- the date of the
flight?
A. Yeah. I think that sounds too old for
Tatiana.
Q. Okay.
A. But I mean, I don't, you know, we could
obviously check into it so...
Q. And you do know though that she was over 18?
A. Eighteen or over, yes.
Q. Eighteen or over. And have you ever heard of
an older man having a relationship with a younger woman;
has that ever happened in your experience?
A. Sure, but what --
Q. That's my --
A. I guess, how much of a difference? I mean
the question is, you know -- sure, there are examples of
that. It's unusual, but there are examples of that.
Q. Is a 24-year-old woman an adult?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything criminal or anything
criminal about a man of Jeffrey Epstein's age having a
relationship with a 24-year-old woman?
MR. SCAROLA: I assume you agree that depends
upon the nature of the relationship.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
131
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
MR. SIMPSON: Is there anything -- let me --
I think my question was clear.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. You can answer the question. Having a
romantic relationship with a 24-year-old?
A. Just if those are the only facts, sure,
that's not a crime.
Q. And so if --
MR. SCAROLA: And it is -- it is 4:30.
MR. SIMPSON: Let me just ask one more
question then.
MR. SCAROLA: Sure. So long as it isn't one
of the 30-minute ones.
MR. SIMPSON: That's in the witness's
control.
MR. SCOTT: That applies to you.
MR. SCAROLA: So stop smiling.
MR. SCOTT: I'm not smiling at all. I'm
anything but smiling, Mr. Scarola.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. My -- my question --
MR. SCOTT: Oh, you are.
BY MR. SIMPSON:
Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is that if all you
have is the fact that a middled-aged man is on an
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
132
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
airplane with a 24-year-old woman, is there a basis to
draw an adverse inference from that about anything?
A. If that's all that you have, obviously not.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SIMPSON: We will break then and we will
talk off the record about logistics for tomorrow.
MR. SCAROLA: Okay.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
record, 4:31 p.m.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY