EFTA00601154.pdf
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„
Plaintiffs,
vs.
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
EFTA00601154
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
3
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA
4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
6 jsx@searcylaw.com
7
8 On behalf of Defendant:
9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
thomas.scott@csklegal.com
12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
steven.safra@csklegal.com
13 --and--
14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
15 Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
16 ksweder@sweder-ross.com
17 --and--
18 WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
19 Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
20 RSimpson@wileyrein.com
BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
21 nrichardson@wileyrein.com
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601155
3
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2
3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
4 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
5 Boston, MA 02116
BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG. ESQ. (Via phone)
6 marty@martinweinberglaw.com
7 --and--
8 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
9 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
10
11 On behalf of
12 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
14 smccawley@bsfllp.com
15
16 ALSO PRESENT:
17 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office
18 Travis Gallagher, Videographer
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601156
4
1 INDEX
2
3
4 Examination Page
5
6 VOLUME 1 (Pages 1 - 179)
7 Direct By Mr. Scarola 6
8 Certificate of Oath 176
Certificate of Reporter 177
9 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 178
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 179
10
11 No exhibits marked to Volume 1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601157
5
1 Thereupon,
2 the following proceedings began at 9:31 a.m.:
3 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 15th day of 09:31:40
4 October, 2015. The time is approximately 9:31
5 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Alan
6 M. Dershowitz in the matter of Bradley J.
7 Edwards and Paul Cassell versus Alan M.
8 Dershowitz. This deposition is being held at
9 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 1850, Fort
10 Lauderdale, Florida, 33301.
11 My name is Travis Gallagher. I'm the 09:31:40
12 videographer representing Above & Beyond
13 Reprographics.
14 Will the attorneys please announce their 09:31:46
15 appearances for the record.
16 MR. SCAROLA: My name is Jack Scarola. 09:31:48
17 I'm counsel on behalf of Bradley Edwards and
18 Professor Paul Cassell. Mr. Edwards and
19 Mr. Cassell are also present.
20 Also with us from the Utah Attorney 09:31:58
21 General's office is Joni Jones.
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley. I'm with 09:32:06
23 the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner on
24 behalf of
25 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Tom Scott on 09:32:12
EFTA00601158
6
1 behalf of the Defendant Professor Dershowitz.
2 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of 09:32:18
3 Professor Dershowitz.
4 MR. SWEDER: Ken Sweder on behalf of 09:32:22
5 Defendant and Counterclaimant Alan M.
6 Dershowitz.
7 MR. WEINBERG: This is Martin Weinberg 09:32:29
8 appearing by telephone. Thank you for allowing
9 that on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
10 MR. SAFRA: This is Steven Safra also on 09:32:37
11 behalf of Professor Dershowitz.
12 MR. INDYKE: This is Darren Indyke on 09:32:43
13 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
14 MS. RICHARDSON: Nicole Richardson on 09:32:46
15 behalf of Professor Dershowitz.
16 Thereupon: 09:32:47
17 ALAN DERSHOWITZ 09:32:47
18 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 09:32:47
19 testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 09:32:47
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:32:54
22 Q. Would you please state your full name, 09:32:55
23 sir?
24 A. Alan Morton Dershowitz. 09:32:57
25 Q. And where did you live? 09:32:59
EFTA00601159
7
1 A. Well, I live in three places. We have a 09:33:00
2 home in Miami Beach, a small condo apartment where
3 we spend the winters. We live in the fall and part
4 of the spring in an apartment in New York, and then
5 we have a summer place on Martha's Vineyard.
6 Q. Within the last ten years, have you had 09:33:21
7 other residence besides those that you've described?
8 A. Yes. 09:33:27
9 Q. And where are they? 09:33:27
10 A. We owned a home in Cambridge, 09:33:30
11 Massachusetts about a mile away from the Harvard Law
12 School.
13 Q. And at what point in time did you no 09:33:39
14 longer have the Cambridge home?
15 A. Well, we moved out of it a couple of years 09:33:45
16 ago and then it was on the market for a while. And
17 then it was sold. I don't have exact dates in my
18 mind.
19 Q. Sometime within the last three years 09:33:57
20 approximately?
21 A. Certainly was sold within the last three 09:34:02
22 years, yes.
23 Q. And you moved out when? 09:34:04
24 A. Moved out earlier than that. Moved out 09:34:06
25 when we put it on the market. And when I came back
EFTA00601160
8
1 to teach at Harvard for my last semester, we stayed
2 in the Charles Hotel.
3 Q. How long have you had the apartment in 09:34:20
4 New York?
5 A. This apartment, it's been a couple of 09:34:23
6 years.
7 Q. And prior to that, was there a period of 09:34:26
8 time when you maintained another residence in
9 New York?
10 A. Yes. 09:34:31
11 Q. And what period of time was that? 09:34:32
12 A. Probably 30 years, around 30 years. 09:34:37
13 Q. Beginning approximately 30 years ago? 09:34:42
14 A. Yes, beginning approximately 30 years ago, 09:34:46
15 yes.
16 Q. So, have you maintained a residence in 09:34:49
17 New York continuously for approximately the last
18 30 years?
19 A. We have not maintained a residence as that 09:34:56
20 term's legally applied. We have had a pied-a-terre
21 in New York that we occasionally visited over the
22 past 30 years, yes.
23 Q. You had property where you could stay 09:35:07
24 overnight, you had access to that property in
25 New York continuously for the past 30 years?
EFTA00601161
9
1 A. That's correct. 09:35:20
2 Q. Is that accurate? 09:35:21
3 A. That's correct, yes. 09:35:22
4 Q. All right. Can you tell me, please, 09:35:23
5 whether you agree or disagree with the following
6 statement: "According to our philosophical and
7 ethical traditions, reputation is sacrosanct"?
8 MR. SCOTT: Can I ask what you're 09:35:39
9 publishing from?
10 MR. SCAROLA: I'm just asking a question. 09:35:41
11 A. I believe reputation is sacrosanct and I 09:35:43
12 believe that an effort has been made to destroy mine
13 by false and malicious charges, yes.
14 MR. SCAROLA: I would move to strike the 09:35:53
15 unresponsive portion of the answer.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:35:56
17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:35:56
18 following: "A good name is more desirable than
19 great riches"?
20 A. I certainly agree with that. And there's 09:36:02
21 been an effort to destroy my good name by false and
22 mendacious charges.
23 MR. SCAROLA: I move to strike the 09:36:09
24 unresponsive portion of the answer.
25
EFTA00601162
10
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:36:12
2 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:36:13
3 following statement: "While throughout history
4 reputation has been recognized as a priceless
5 treasure, it is fragile"?
6 A. I think that the longer one maintains a 09:36:28
7 good reputation, as I have for over 50 years, the
8 less fragile it is; but, yes, it is fragile and one
9 false allegation maliciously made by a serial liar
10 with the help of her unethical lawyers could destroy
11 a fragile or hurt a fragile reputation.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:36:59
13 unresponsive portion of the answer.
14 MR. SCOTT: Obviously we take a different 09:37:01
15 position. But go ahead, Jack.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:04
17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:37:05
18 following statement: "Sensational accusations, even
19 when baseless, often cause damage that is
20 irreversible"?
21 A. That is a perfect description of exactly 09:37:15
22 what happened to me, yes, at the hands of your
23 clients.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:37:24
25 unresponsive portion of the answer.
EFTA00601163
11
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:26
2 Q. Do you degree or disagree with the 09:37:27
3 following statement: "There is no presumption of
4 innocence in the court of public opinion"?
5 A. I think there's some truth to that. But 09:37:35
6 when you have a good reputation, there are some who
7 do presume innocence, particularly when the charges
8 made against you are so clearly filled with the lies
9 and financial motivation as were in the instance
10 when your clients directed false accusations against
11 me.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:38:06
13 unresponsive portion of the answer.
14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:08
15 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:38:09
16 following statement: "The usual reaction to ugly
17 accusations assumes that fire lies beneath the
18 smoke, rather than that the smoke lies"?
19 MR. SCOTT: You want that read back? You 09:38:25
20 got it all?
21 A. Can you -- can you show me where that 09:38:31
22 comes from?
23 09:38:34
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:34
25 Q. I'm only asking ultimately whether you 09:38:35
EFTA00601164
12
1 agree or disagree with the statement.
2 MR. SCOTT: It's our position that you're 09:38:38
3 reading from something that -- especially if
4 you're reading something that he's published,
5 he has the option to see it in order to -- if
6 you're quoting from it, we would like to ask
7 you to produce it so he can read it.
8 A. It's -- it's a metaphorical statement 09:38:53
9 whose general thrust I agree with, yes.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:58
11 Q. Thank you. 09:38:59
12 A. Thank you very much for reading from my -- 09:39:01
13 from my book. Appreciate it.
14 Q. In light of your agreement with the 09:39:10
15 principles that I have just read, can we also agree
16 that a serious injury to a reputation requires
17 serious monetary compensation if the injury is
18 unjustified?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, conclusion, 09:39:28
20 speculation.
21 A. I don't think that there is any possible 09:39:32
22 monetary compensation for the attempt to damage my
23 reputation which your clients have maliciously and
24 deliberately set out to do for their own financial
25 reasons.
EFTA00601165
13
1 09:39:47
2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:39:47
3 Q. That, however, is not a response to the 09:39:47
4 question that I asked. So let me try again.
5 MR. SCAROLA: And I move to strike that. 09:39:50
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:39:52
7 Q. Can we agree that in light of the 09:39:53
8 statements that you have recognized to be accurate
9 regarding the priceless value of reputation, that an
10 unjustified injury to reputation is a serious injury
11 that requires serious compensation?
12 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 09:40:17
13 A. I don't think that question can be 09:40:18
14 answered in a yes or no way. I will just reiterate
15 that I think the damage to my reputation exceeds any
16 possible amount of money. If I had been offered
17 $10 million in exchange for somebody making the
18 kinds of baseless accusations that your clients made
19 against me, I would have turned down that
20 $10 million. I think that there is no compensation
21 possible other than a complete apology and
22 withdrawal of the false accusations, especially
23 since your clients know that the accusations made
24 against me are baseless and false.
25
EFTA00601166
14
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:02
2 Q. Do you agree that if an injury to 09:41:03
3 reputation is done purposefully and with malice, it
4 is deserving of punishment?
5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion, 09:41:13
6 form, speculation.
7 A. I believe that the accusations leveled 09:41:18
8 against me were made with malice and with deliberate
9 intention, which is why I am going to be seeking
10 disciplinary action, including disbarment, against
11 your unethical and mendacious clients.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as 09:41:36
13 unresponsive to my question.
14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:38
15 Q. The question I'm posing to you, sir, is: 09:41:39
16 Do you agree that if an injury to reputation is done
17 without factual basis and intentionally, it is
18 deserving of punishment?
19 A. What you have done is to describe with 09:41:58
20 great precision what your clients did to me. And so
21 the answer to my question is -- the answer to your
22 question is yes, I think your -- I think your
23 clients are deserving of punishment, yes.
24 Q. Do you believe that you are a special 09:42:09
25 case; that is, that intentional injury to your
EFTA00601167
15
1 reputation is deserving of punishment but
2 intentional injury to the reputation of others is
3 not deserving of punishment?
4 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 09:42:24
5 argumentative, compound.
6 A. I certainly don't think I'm a special 09:42:26
7 case. I think that I have been defamed and
8 deliberately by your clients and I don't think
9 lawyers who engage in such deliberate conduct should
10 be allowed to practice law, which is why I am going
11 to seek their their their disbarment and
12 other -- other sanctions.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:42:49
14 Q. In fact, you have been making public 09:42:50
15 statements of your intention to seek the disbarment
16 of Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell for
17 approximately ten months, correct?
18 A. That's right. That's correct. 09:43:03
19 Q. You are aware of the ethical obligation 09:43:05
20 that a lawyer has when that lawyer has direct
21 knowledge of unethical conduct on the part of
22 another member of the Bar --
23 A. That's right. 09:43:16
24 Q. -- to report that unethical conduct, 09:43:16
25 correct?
EFTA00601168
16
1 A. Yes. 09:43:19
2 Q. Have you done that? 09:43:20
3 A. I have conferred with three leading ethics 09:43:21
4 experts and I have been advised that to file a
5 report while there is ongoing litigation is not the
6 proper approach. But rather to gather the evidence
7 and the information and to make sure that all of the
8 allegations I make are well founded, unlike what
9 your clients did, and then at the appropriate time,
10 when the litigation is concluded, seek the
11 disbarment of Bar associations. I am advised by my
12 ethics experts do not look kindly on attempts to
13 disbar lawyers that can be perceived as part of an
14 ongoing litigation strategy.
15 I fully intend to seek disbarment, as I 09:44:10
16 said, of your clients because I believe they engaged
17 in unprofessional, unethical and disbarrable
18 conduct. And I've continued to do so until as
19 recently as last week.
20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:44:28
21 unresponsive portion of that answer.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:44:32
23 Q. Who are the three leading experts with 09:44:33
24 whom you've conferred?
25 A. The expert I conferred with initially was 09:44:37
EFTA00601169
17
1 Dean Monroe Freedman of the Hofstra law school who
2 had been my kind of ethical guru for my entire
3 career. I spent an extensive amount of time with
4 him conferring about all aspects of this case.
5 I then conferred with Professor Stephen 09:44:59
6 Gillers, who is wildly regarded as the leading
7 current ethics expert in the United States who is a
8 professor at NYU law school.
9 I also conferred with Professor Ronald 09:45:12
10 Rotunda, and in the process of also received advice,
11 some unsolicited some solicited from a variety of
12 lawyers and other experts. I'll give you an
13 example.
14 For example, when I was speaking at an 09:45:33
15 event in Florida, a man came over to me who I -- I
16 don't recall his name, but he worked for a big firm
17 and was on the -- on some ethics committee of a
18 Florida Bar Association. And he advised me to bring
19 ethics charges saying that from what he had seen,
20 the conduct of the lawyers were unethical and
21 unprofessional and deserved disbarment. But also
22 advised me not to do it until litigation was
23 concluded.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:46:07
25 unresponsive portions of that answer.
EFTA00601170
18
1 And I would ask, Mr. Scott, that you 09:46:10
2 counsel your client to be responsive to the
3 questions in order that we have some reasonable
4 expectation of being able to finish this
5 deposition within my lifetime.
6 MR. SCOTT: I'm not here to exchange 09:46:26
7 sarcastic comments, Jack, with you. I believe
8 my client is trying to answer your questions.
9 MR. SCAROLA: The question asked for names 09:46:32
10 of three individuals. What I got was a speech.
11 What I have gotten repeatedly in response to
12 direct questions are speeches. I would ask
13 that you counsel your client to please respond
14 to the questions.
15 MR. SCOTT: When we take a break, I'll 09:46:45
16 speak to my client in general based upon what I
17 think is appropriate. Let's proceed.
18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 09:46:54
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:46:54
20 Q. In an interview with Hala Gorani on 09:46:55
21 January 5 of this year, broadcast on CNN Live, you
22 said, "I have a superb memory."
23 Do you acknowledge having made that 09:47:08
24 statement?
25 A. I have a superb memory, so I must have 09:47:10
EFTA00601171
19
1 made that statement. My mother had an extraordinary
2 memory and when I was in college and I was on the
3 debate team, my mother allowed me to debate on the
4 Sabbath, which was Jewish rest day, only on the
5 condition that I not take notes or write. And at
6 that point I discovered that I have a very good
7 memory and don't have to -- generally didn't have to
8 take notes.
9 My memory, obviously, at the age of 77 has 09:47:41
10 slipped a bit; but do I have a very good memory,
11 yes.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:47:48
13 unresponsive portions of the answer.
14 Would you like to take a break now, 09:47:51
15 Mr. Scott, so that --
16 MR. SCOTT: No, I'd like to proceed. 09:47:55
17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 09:47:56
18 A. Me too. 09:47:57
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:47:58
20 Q. So it is your contention that you still 09:47:58
21 have a superb memory?
22 A. No. My contention is that I have a very 09:48:00
23 good memory and that at the age of 77, occasionally
24 my memory slips. I particularly have difficult time
25 now remembering names of people I've just met, but I
EFTA00601172
20
1 remember events very well. And when I argue cases
2 in front of courts, I generally don't need to have
3 notes in front of me because I remember the cases
4 very well. And I remember the transcript very well,
5 and so I have always relied on my good memory in my
6 professional life.
7 Q. So, on January 5, when you were 09:48:29
8 interviewed on CNN Live, your memory at that time
9 was superb but in the ensuing ten months, it has
10 become less than superb?
11 A. No -- 09:48:41
12 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:48:41
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:48:42
14 Q. Is that correct? 09:48:42
15 A. No, that's not correct. 09:48:42
16 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection, form, 09:48:44
17 conclusion, not what he said.
18 A. Memory is a matter of degree and memories 09:48:48
19 don't -- unless there's an illness or trauma,
20 don't -- don't suddenly change. I've had no --
21 nothing in my life to dramatically change. But as I
22 said, as a 77-year-old, my memory is not what it was
23 when I was a 25-year-old.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:49:11
25 Q. Are you under the influence today of any 09:49:11
EFTA00601173
21
1 drugs or alcohol that might have an affect on your
2 memory?
3 A. No. 09:49:18
4 Q. Are you having any physical problems that 09:49:19
5 might make it difficult for you to understand or
6 properly respond to my questions?
7 A. No. 09:49:24
8 Q. Did you get a good night's sleep last 09:49:25
9 night?
10 A. Yes. 09:49:28
11 Q. What is the general condition of your 09:49:28
12 health?
13 A. As a result of some of the tensions caused 09:49:31
14 by these false accusations, I've had a recurrence of
15 my atrial fibrillation and a recurrence of some
16 experiences of high blood pressure. But beyond
17 that, my general health is satisfactory.
18 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed the 09:49:58
19 recurrence of your atrial fibrillation to
20 involvement in the circumstances that gave rise to
21 this litigation?
22 A. My cardiologist asked me whether or not 09:50:15
23 there were any tense or tension-causing episodes
24 recently that might explain my recurrence of the
25 atrial fibrillation. And in response I did describe
EFTA00601174
22
1 the current false accusations against me in an
2 attempt to destroy my reputation by false and
3 malicious charges, yes.
4 Q. What is the name of your cardiologist? 09:50:39
5 A. Jeremy Ruskin, R-U-S-K-I-N. He's the 09:50:41
6 chief of electro cardio physiology at Massachusetts
7 General Hospital.
8 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed 09:50:53
9 your high blood pressure to events that are the
10 subject of this litigation?
11 A. Again, when I complained about high blood 09:51:01
12 pressure, one of the first questions that I'm asked
13 is whether or not there's any tension or any tense
14 experiences occurring in my life and the doctor
15 who's treated me for high blood pressure is
16 Dr. Harold Solomon, S-O-'-O-M-O-N, in Brookline,
17 Massachusetts.
18 Q. Has Dr. Solomon -- 09:51:24
19 A. Right. 09:51:27
20 Q. -- attributed your high blood pressure to 09:51:27
21 events related to this litigation?
22 A. I think all of my doctors have 09:51:34
23 concluded -- you'll have to ask them -- that this
24 lawsuit has been a contributing factor to some of
25 the health issues -- let me withdraw that. That the
EFTA00601175
23
1 false accusations against me from your client have
2 contributed to some of my health problems, yes.
3 Q. When did your atrial fibrillation recur? 09:52:00
4 A. About a month ago. About a month ago. 09:52:07
5 I -- I could get you the exact date because I keep a
6 record with a small cardiogram of my afib pretty
7 much every day.
8 Q. When did your blood pressure increase as a 09:52:23
9 result of events related to this litigation?
10 A. Well, it's been up and down. I've had 09:52:31
11 recurring episodes of high blood pressure. And I
12 think particularly since the beginning of the false
13 charges, not the litigation, but it's the false
14 charges, the outrageous allegations, baseless
15 outrageous allegations against me have certainly
16 contributed in my view to my variation in blood
17 pressure, yes.
18 Q. When were you initially diagnosed with 09:53:07
19 atrial fibrillation?
20 A. About two and a half years ago I had -- 09:53:17
21 let's see, December -- two and a half years ago
22 December I was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital with
23 an episode. It then basically went away. And then
24 it returned as atrial flutter.
25 And then I had an ablation, which cured or 09:53:48
EFTA00601176
24
1 relieved any symptoms of atrial fibrillation or
2 atrial flutter, until they recurred -- until it
3 recurred about a month or maybe it's a month and a
4 half now. I can give you the exact dates. Because,
5 as I say, I have it on my -- on my machine.
6 Q. When did the atrial flutter occur? 09:54:16
7 A. I told you that I don't have the exact 09:54:20
8 date, but it occurred about a month, month and a
9 half ago, I think sometime in August of this year.
10 But I can give you the exact date. As I said, I
11 have it on my machine.
12 Q. So, what you have described as a 09:54:33
13 recurrence of atrial fibrillation you are now
14 describing as an atrial flutter?
15 A. You're confused, sir. Please listen to my 09:54:42
16 answers. What I've said was that I had atrial
17 flutter. Atrial flutter occurred after my initial
18 atrial fib. I then had an ablation. The flutter
19 and the fib both disappeared after the ablation.
20 And my atrial fib has returned.
21 Q. Given your superb memory, would you please 09:55:13
22 name for us each of the lawyers who has represented
23 you in this case?
24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:55:22
25 Argumentative.
EFTA00601177
25
1 If you need a document or anything to 09:55:29
2 refresh your memory, please let us know.
3 A. Well, I'll start with the names of my 09:55:34
4 lawyers. I've been represented by Judge Scott and
5 his law firm, including several associates and
6 paralegals. I don't know their status, whether
7 they're partners, associates or paralegals, but I've
8 had contact with them.
9 I have been represented by Mr. Simpson's 09:55:54
10 law firm, including several partners, associates,
11 and paralegals. I've been represented by Kenneth
12 Sweder and presumably some of his partners and
13 associates.
14 I've been represented by Kendall Coffey 09:56:15
15 and several of his associates and partners. I would
16 say those are my main lawyers. But I've also had
17 others.
18 I have sought the legal advice of Mark 09:56:34
19 Fabiani, who was my former research assistant at
20 Harvard. I've sought the advice of Mitchell Webber,
21 who was my former research assistant at Harvard.
22 I was offered legal advice by Carlos 09:56:52
23 Sires, who was -- who is a partner in the Boise firm
24 who -- who volunteered to represent me along with
25 one of his partners, but then withdraw from the
EFTA00601178
26
1 representation when he discovered that I had a
2 conflict of interest.
3 I've had consultations with a variety of 09:57:18
4 other lawyers over particular issues in the case,
5 Floyd Abrams, who is probably the leading lawyer in
6 the world on First Amendment, has advised me on my
7 First Amendment rights to have said what I said
8 truthfully and expressed my opinion about your
9 clients.
10 I mean, that's the very beginning. But 09:57:51
11 when the events first occurred, I got calls from
12 dozens of lawyers outraged by the unethical conduct
13 of your clients and offering to represent me
14 pro bono, offering to do anything they could to see
15 that these lawyers were appropriately punished and
16 disciplined.
17 David Markus, for example, of the Miami 09:58:17
18 Bar called and keeps calling asking if there's
19 anything he can do to help me.
20 There's a lawyer in Broward named Diner, 09:58:28
21 who has offered to represent me. It goes on and on
22 and on. The offers are still coming in. People are
23 just absolutely outraged by the unprofessional and
24 unethical conduct of your clients and are offering
25 to help me right a wrong and undo an injustice.
EFTA00601179
27
1 MR. SCOTT: Just hold it. Somebody's 09:59:00
2 making noise on the phone and it's causing a
3 little disruption here. So, you know, I'm not
4 sure who it is, one of you-all on the phone.
5 Thanks.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:16
7 Q. Mr. Scott is obviously still representing 09:59:21
8 you now; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct. 09:59:24
10 Q. Richard Simpson is still representing you 09:59:25
11 now; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct. 09:59:27
13 Q. Ken Sweder is representing you now; is 09:59:28
14 that correct?
15 A. That's correct, yes. 09:59:30
16 Q. Is Kendall Coffey representing you now? 09:59:30
17 A. Yes. 09:59:33
18 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now? 09:59:35
19 A. Yes. 09:59:37
20 Q. And when I ask "are they representing you 09:59:38
21 now," they're representing you now in this
22 litigation; is that correct?
23 MR. SCOTT: I don't think that -- 09:59:45
24 objection, form. I don't think that was
25 specified.
EFTA00601180
28
1 MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's why I'm asking. 09:59:48
2 MR. SCOTT: As opposed to general advice. 09:59:50
3 A. Yes. Yes. 09:59:52
4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:53
5 Q. And Mark Fabiani is representing you with 09:59:53
6 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, yes. 09:59:57
8 Q. Floyd Abrams is representing you now with 09:59:58
9 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
10 A. Yes. 10:00:01
11 Q. Mitch Webber is representing you now with 10:00:02
12 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct, yes. 10:00:06
14 Q. Is Steven Safra representing you with 10:00:11
15 regard to this litigation?
16 A. Yes. 10:00:15
17 Q. Is Mary Borja representing you now with 10:00:15
18 regard to this litigation?
19 A. Yes. 10:00:19
20 Q. Is Ashley Eiler representing you now with 10:00:20
21 regard to this litigation?
22 A. That's not a name that immediately comes 10:00:24
23 to my head, but I believe it's an associate in one
24 of the law firms. I don't know the names of all the
25 lawyers who are doing the background work on the
EFTA00601181
29
1 case for the law firms.
2 Q. Is Nicole Richardson representing you now 10:00:37
3 with regard to this litigation?
4 A. Again, yes, yes. 10:00:41
5 Q. Is Gabe Groisman representing you now with 10:00:46
6 regard to this litigation?
7 A. Yes. 10:00:49
8 Q. Is Ben Brodsky representing you now with 10:00:51
9 regard to this litigation?
10 A. Ben Brodsky? I would have to check on 10:00:59
11 that.
12 Q. Is Neely representing you now with 10:01:06
13 regard to this litigation?
14 A. Neely has been my assistant and 10:01:09
15 paralegal for the last some years and I have used
16 her to perform paralegal work for me in this
17 litigation.
18 Q. Is Nicholas Maisel representing you now 10:01:27
19 with regard to this litigation?
20 A. Nicholas Maisel is my research assistant 10:01:31
21 and paralegal on this litigation, yes.
22 Q. Is your wife representing you with regard 10:01:39
23 to this litigation?
24 A. My wife has been instrumental in helping 10:01:42
25 me gather all the records and information. She
EFTA00601182
30
1 knows more about records and where my records are
2 kept and I've asked her to perform paralegal service
3 in addition to her loving service as my wife.
4 Q. Is Harvey Silverglate representing you now 10:02:04
5 with regard to this litigation?
6 A. Yes. 10:02:08
7 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now with 10:02:09
8 regard to this litigation?
9 A. You've asked me that question and the 10:02:12
10 answer is --
11 Q. No, I asked you, sir, if he was your 10:02:14
12 lawyer; but I haven't asked you whether he's
13 representing you now with regard to this litigation.
14 A. The answer is yes. 10:02:20
15 Q. Is Floyd Abrams representing you now with 10:02:22
16 regard to this litigation?
17 A. Yes. 10:02:25
18 Q. Is Jamin Dershowitz representing you now 10:02:26
19 with regard to this litigation?
20 A. Yes. 10:02:30
21 Q. Is Nancy Gertner representing you now with 10:02:32
22 regard to this litigation?
23 A. That requires a lengthier answer, if you 10:02:36
24 will permit me.
25 Q. I haven't stopped you yet. 10:02:41
EFTA00601183
31
1 A. You've tried. 10:02:43
2 Q. Much as I may have liked to. 10:02:44
3 A. You've tried. 10:02:45
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, that's probably 10:02:47
5 one of the few times you and I agree on
6 something.
7 MR. SCAROLA: No, we've agreed on a lot, 10:02:52
8 Tom.
9 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we -- I'm kidding you. 10:02:55
10 I'm kidding you.
11 MR. SCAROLA: I know you are. 10:02:57
12 A. Nancy Gertner is one of the attorneys who 10:02:58
13 called me immediately and expressed outrage at what
14 was happening to me and offered to help me.
15 Initially she wanted to help me by calling your
16 client, Professor Cassell, and explaining to him
17 that what I've been accused of could not possibly
18 have happened and there must have been a mistake or
19 something. And clearly she had confused me with
20 someone else.
21 And as I understand it, Nancy Gertner made 10:03:29
22 that phone call to your client, Professor Cassell,
23 and Professor Cassell reiterated his false
24 accusation against me.
25 Thereafter, Nancy Gertner volunteered to 10:03:42
EFTA00601184
32
1 become part of my legal team and to examine some of
2 the witnesses in this case.
3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:03:55
4 Q. Did you ever accept that offer from Nancy 10:03:56
5 Gertner --
6 A. Yes. 10:03:59
7 Q. -- so as to establish an attorney-client 10:03:59
8 relationship with --
9 A. Yes. 10:04:04
10 Q. So she is one of your lawyers -- 10:04:04
11 A. She is currently -- I regard her currently 10:04:05
12 as one of my lawyers, yes.
13 Q. And is Mitch Webber one of your lawyers in 10:04:08
14 this case?
15 A. Yes. 10:04:11
16 Q. But if I just give you a name without 10:04:12
17 repeating the second part, "is that one of the
18 lawyers in your case," will you understand
19 A. I understand. 10:04:21
20 Q. -- that I'm asking you with regard to 10:04:22
21 these -- each of these individuals whether they are
22 a lawyer representing you in this case?
23 A. Yes. 10:04:30
24 Q. Okay. Anthony Julius? 10:04:30
25 A. Anthony Julius is a British barrister and 10:04:35
EFTA00601185
33
1 solicitor who I conferred with regarding the
2 possibility of filing lawsuits against your clients
3 in Great Britain. I continue to confer with him on
4 matters relating to defamation.
5 Q. So you consider him to be one of your 10:04:54
6 lawyers representing you with regard to matters
7 relating to this lawsuit?
8 A. I'll stand by -- 10:05:00
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:05:01
10 A. -- my answer. I'll stand by my answer. 10:05:02
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:05:04
12 Q. Charles Ogletree? 10:05:05
13 A. Charles Ogletree is a close personal 10:05:06
14 friend and colleague at the Harvard Law School with
15 whom I have conferred about this case. I always
16 have regarded him as a personal attorney and
17 continue to confer with him about this case and the
18 general picture. So, I do regard him as one of my
19 lawyers in this litigation, yes. I certainly regard
20 him as having been given privileged information as
21 part of a lawyer-client privilege, yes.
22 Q. There -- there may be a time when I need 10:05:47
23 more than just an answer to the question that I'm
24 asking as to whether these individuals are or are
25 not your lawyers in this case. That's not now.
EFTA00601186
34
1 So if you would, please, I would 10:06:01
2 appreciate it if you would tell me only whether
3 these individuals are or are not your lawyers in
4 this case.
5 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot comply with that. 10:06:09
6 I'm --
7 Q. Well, you can but you refuse to. 10:06:12
8 MR. SCOTT: Let's not interrupt him. 10:06:14
9 A. Let me complete my answer, please. 10:06:16
10 MR. SCOTT: It doesn't help the court 10:06:17
11 reporter or the record.
12 A. I've been teaching legal ethics for close 10:06:19
13 to 40 years. I understand the complexity of the
14 lawyer-client relationship. And it's impossible as
15 to some of the names you've mentioned to simply give
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„
Plaintiffs,
vs.
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
EFTA00601154
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
3
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA
4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
6 jsx@searcylaw.com
7
8 On behalf of Defendant:
9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
thomas.scott@csklegal.com
12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
steven.safra@csklegal.com
13 --and--
14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
15 Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
16 ksweder@sweder-ross.com
17 --and--
18 WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
19 Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
20 RSimpson@wileyrein.com
BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
21 nrichardson@wileyrein.com
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601155
3
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2
3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
4 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
5 Boston, MA 02116
BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG. ESQ. (Via phone)
6 marty@martinweinberglaw.com
7 --and--
8 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
9 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
10
11 On behalf of
12 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
14 smccawley@bsfllp.com
15
16 ALSO PRESENT:
17 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office
18 Travis Gallagher, Videographer
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601156
4
1 INDEX
2
3
4 Examination Page
5
6 VOLUME 1 (Pages 1 - 179)
7 Direct By Mr. Scarola 6
8 Certificate of Oath 176
Certificate of Reporter 177
9 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 178
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 179
10
11 No exhibits marked to Volume 1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601157
5
1 Thereupon,
2 the following proceedings began at 9:31 a.m.:
3 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 15th day of 09:31:40
4 October, 2015. The time is approximately 9:31
5 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Alan
6 M. Dershowitz in the matter of Bradley J.
7 Edwards and Paul Cassell versus Alan M.
8 Dershowitz. This deposition is being held at
9 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 1850, Fort
10 Lauderdale, Florida, 33301.
11 My name is Travis Gallagher. I'm the 09:31:40
12 videographer representing Above & Beyond
13 Reprographics.
14 Will the attorneys please announce their 09:31:46
15 appearances for the record.
16 MR. SCAROLA: My name is Jack Scarola. 09:31:48
17 I'm counsel on behalf of Bradley Edwards and
18 Professor Paul Cassell. Mr. Edwards and
19 Mr. Cassell are also present.
20 Also with us from the Utah Attorney 09:31:58
21 General's office is Joni Jones.
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley. I'm with 09:32:06
23 the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner on
24 behalf of
25 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Tom Scott on 09:32:12
EFTA00601158
6
1 behalf of the Defendant Professor Dershowitz.
2 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of 09:32:18
3 Professor Dershowitz.
4 MR. SWEDER: Ken Sweder on behalf of 09:32:22
5 Defendant and Counterclaimant Alan M.
6 Dershowitz.
7 MR. WEINBERG: This is Martin Weinberg 09:32:29
8 appearing by telephone. Thank you for allowing
9 that on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
10 MR. SAFRA: This is Steven Safra also on 09:32:37
11 behalf of Professor Dershowitz.
12 MR. INDYKE: This is Darren Indyke on 09:32:43
13 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
14 MS. RICHARDSON: Nicole Richardson on 09:32:46
15 behalf of Professor Dershowitz.
16 Thereupon: 09:32:47
17 ALAN DERSHOWITZ 09:32:47
18 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 09:32:47
19 testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 09:32:47
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:32:54
22 Q. Would you please state your full name, 09:32:55
23 sir?
24 A. Alan Morton Dershowitz. 09:32:57
25 Q. And where did you live? 09:32:59
EFTA00601159
7
1 A. Well, I live in three places. We have a 09:33:00
2 home in Miami Beach, a small condo apartment where
3 we spend the winters. We live in the fall and part
4 of the spring in an apartment in New York, and then
5 we have a summer place on Martha's Vineyard.
6 Q. Within the last ten years, have you had 09:33:21
7 other residence besides those that you've described?
8 A. Yes. 09:33:27
9 Q. And where are they? 09:33:27
10 A. We owned a home in Cambridge, 09:33:30
11 Massachusetts about a mile away from the Harvard Law
12 School.
13 Q. And at what point in time did you no 09:33:39
14 longer have the Cambridge home?
15 A. Well, we moved out of it a couple of years 09:33:45
16 ago and then it was on the market for a while. And
17 then it was sold. I don't have exact dates in my
18 mind.
19 Q. Sometime within the last three years 09:33:57
20 approximately?
21 A. Certainly was sold within the last three 09:34:02
22 years, yes.
23 Q. And you moved out when? 09:34:04
24 A. Moved out earlier than that. Moved out 09:34:06
25 when we put it on the market. And when I came back
EFTA00601160
8
1 to teach at Harvard for my last semester, we stayed
2 in the Charles Hotel.
3 Q. How long have you had the apartment in 09:34:20
4 New York?
5 A. This apartment, it's been a couple of 09:34:23
6 years.
7 Q. And prior to that, was there a period of 09:34:26
8 time when you maintained another residence in
9 New York?
10 A. Yes. 09:34:31
11 Q. And what period of time was that? 09:34:32
12 A. Probably 30 years, around 30 years. 09:34:37
13 Q. Beginning approximately 30 years ago? 09:34:42
14 A. Yes, beginning approximately 30 years ago, 09:34:46
15 yes.
16 Q. So, have you maintained a residence in 09:34:49
17 New York continuously for approximately the last
18 30 years?
19 A. We have not maintained a residence as that 09:34:56
20 term's legally applied. We have had a pied-a-terre
21 in New York that we occasionally visited over the
22 past 30 years, yes.
23 Q. You had property where you could stay 09:35:07
24 overnight, you had access to that property in
25 New York continuously for the past 30 years?
EFTA00601161
9
1 A. That's correct. 09:35:20
2 Q. Is that accurate? 09:35:21
3 A. That's correct, yes. 09:35:22
4 Q. All right. Can you tell me, please, 09:35:23
5 whether you agree or disagree with the following
6 statement: "According to our philosophical and
7 ethical traditions, reputation is sacrosanct"?
8 MR. SCOTT: Can I ask what you're 09:35:39
9 publishing from?
10 MR. SCAROLA: I'm just asking a question. 09:35:41
11 A. I believe reputation is sacrosanct and I 09:35:43
12 believe that an effort has been made to destroy mine
13 by false and malicious charges, yes.
14 MR. SCAROLA: I would move to strike the 09:35:53
15 unresponsive portion of the answer.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:35:56
17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:35:56
18 following: "A good name is more desirable than
19 great riches"?
20 A. I certainly agree with that. And there's 09:36:02
21 been an effort to destroy my good name by false and
22 mendacious charges.
23 MR. SCAROLA: I move to strike the 09:36:09
24 unresponsive portion of the answer.
25
EFTA00601162
10
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:36:12
2 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:36:13
3 following statement: "While throughout history
4 reputation has been recognized as a priceless
5 treasure, it is fragile"?
6 A. I think that the longer one maintains a 09:36:28
7 good reputation, as I have for over 50 years, the
8 less fragile it is; but, yes, it is fragile and one
9 false allegation maliciously made by a serial liar
10 with the help of her unethical lawyers could destroy
11 a fragile or hurt a fragile reputation.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:36:59
13 unresponsive portion of the answer.
14 MR. SCOTT: Obviously we take a different 09:37:01
15 position. But go ahead, Jack.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:04
17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:37:05
18 following statement: "Sensational accusations, even
19 when baseless, often cause damage that is
20 irreversible"?
21 A. That is a perfect description of exactly 09:37:15
22 what happened to me, yes, at the hands of your
23 clients.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:37:24
25 unresponsive portion of the answer.
EFTA00601163
11
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:26
2 Q. Do you degree or disagree with the 09:37:27
3 following statement: "There is no presumption of
4 innocence in the court of public opinion"?
5 A. I think there's some truth to that. But 09:37:35
6 when you have a good reputation, there are some who
7 do presume innocence, particularly when the charges
8 made against you are so clearly filled with the lies
9 and financial motivation as were in the instance
10 when your clients directed false accusations against
11 me.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:38:06
13 unresponsive portion of the answer.
14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:08
15 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:38:09
16 following statement: "The usual reaction to ugly
17 accusations assumes that fire lies beneath the
18 smoke, rather than that the smoke lies"?
19 MR. SCOTT: You want that read back? You 09:38:25
20 got it all?
21 A. Can you -- can you show me where that 09:38:31
22 comes from?
23 09:38:34
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:34
25 Q. I'm only asking ultimately whether you 09:38:35
EFTA00601164
12
1 agree or disagree with the statement.
2 MR. SCOTT: It's our position that you're 09:38:38
3 reading from something that -- especially if
4 you're reading something that he's published,
5 he has the option to see it in order to -- if
6 you're quoting from it, we would like to ask
7 you to produce it so he can read it.
8 A. It's -- it's a metaphorical statement 09:38:53
9 whose general thrust I agree with, yes.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:58
11 Q. Thank you. 09:38:59
12 A. Thank you very much for reading from my -- 09:39:01
13 from my book. Appreciate it.
14 Q. In light of your agreement with the 09:39:10
15 principles that I have just read, can we also agree
16 that a serious injury to a reputation requires
17 serious monetary compensation if the injury is
18 unjustified?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, conclusion, 09:39:28
20 speculation.
21 A. I don't think that there is any possible 09:39:32
22 monetary compensation for the attempt to damage my
23 reputation which your clients have maliciously and
24 deliberately set out to do for their own financial
25 reasons.
EFTA00601165
13
1 09:39:47
2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:39:47
3 Q. That, however, is not a response to the 09:39:47
4 question that I asked. So let me try again.
5 MR. SCAROLA: And I move to strike that. 09:39:50
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:39:52
7 Q. Can we agree that in light of the 09:39:53
8 statements that you have recognized to be accurate
9 regarding the priceless value of reputation, that an
10 unjustified injury to reputation is a serious injury
11 that requires serious compensation?
12 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 09:40:17
13 A. I don't think that question can be 09:40:18
14 answered in a yes or no way. I will just reiterate
15 that I think the damage to my reputation exceeds any
16 possible amount of money. If I had been offered
17 $10 million in exchange for somebody making the
18 kinds of baseless accusations that your clients made
19 against me, I would have turned down that
20 $10 million. I think that there is no compensation
21 possible other than a complete apology and
22 withdrawal of the false accusations, especially
23 since your clients know that the accusations made
24 against me are baseless and false.
25
EFTA00601166
14
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:02
2 Q. Do you agree that if an injury to 09:41:03
3 reputation is done purposefully and with malice, it
4 is deserving of punishment?
5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion, 09:41:13
6 form, speculation.
7 A. I believe that the accusations leveled 09:41:18
8 against me were made with malice and with deliberate
9 intention, which is why I am going to be seeking
10 disciplinary action, including disbarment, against
11 your unethical and mendacious clients.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as 09:41:36
13 unresponsive to my question.
14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:38
15 Q. The question I'm posing to you, sir, is: 09:41:39
16 Do you agree that if an injury to reputation is done
17 without factual basis and intentionally, it is
18 deserving of punishment?
19 A. What you have done is to describe with 09:41:58
20 great precision what your clients did to me. And so
21 the answer to my question is -- the answer to your
22 question is yes, I think your -- I think your
23 clients are deserving of punishment, yes.
24 Q. Do you believe that you are a special 09:42:09
25 case; that is, that intentional injury to your
EFTA00601167
15
1 reputation is deserving of punishment but
2 intentional injury to the reputation of others is
3 not deserving of punishment?
4 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 09:42:24
5 argumentative, compound.
6 A. I certainly don't think I'm a special 09:42:26
7 case. I think that I have been defamed and
8 deliberately by your clients and I don't think
9 lawyers who engage in such deliberate conduct should
10 be allowed to practice law, which is why I am going
11 to seek their their their disbarment and
12 other -- other sanctions.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:42:49
14 Q. In fact, you have been making public 09:42:50
15 statements of your intention to seek the disbarment
16 of Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell for
17 approximately ten months, correct?
18 A. That's right. That's correct. 09:43:03
19 Q. You are aware of the ethical obligation 09:43:05
20 that a lawyer has when that lawyer has direct
21 knowledge of unethical conduct on the part of
22 another member of the Bar --
23 A. That's right. 09:43:16
24 Q. -- to report that unethical conduct, 09:43:16
25 correct?
EFTA00601168
16
1 A. Yes. 09:43:19
2 Q. Have you done that? 09:43:20
3 A. I have conferred with three leading ethics 09:43:21
4 experts and I have been advised that to file a
5 report while there is ongoing litigation is not the
6 proper approach. But rather to gather the evidence
7 and the information and to make sure that all of the
8 allegations I make are well founded, unlike what
9 your clients did, and then at the appropriate time,
10 when the litigation is concluded, seek the
11 disbarment of Bar associations. I am advised by my
12 ethics experts do not look kindly on attempts to
13 disbar lawyers that can be perceived as part of an
14 ongoing litigation strategy.
15 I fully intend to seek disbarment, as I 09:44:10
16 said, of your clients because I believe they engaged
17 in unprofessional, unethical and disbarrable
18 conduct. And I've continued to do so until as
19 recently as last week.
20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:44:28
21 unresponsive portion of that answer.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:44:32
23 Q. Who are the three leading experts with 09:44:33
24 whom you've conferred?
25 A. The expert I conferred with initially was 09:44:37
EFTA00601169
17
1 Dean Monroe Freedman of the Hofstra law school who
2 had been my kind of ethical guru for my entire
3 career. I spent an extensive amount of time with
4 him conferring about all aspects of this case.
5 I then conferred with Professor Stephen 09:44:59
6 Gillers, who is wildly regarded as the leading
7 current ethics expert in the United States who is a
8 professor at NYU law school.
9 I also conferred with Professor Ronald 09:45:12
10 Rotunda, and in the process of also received advice,
11 some unsolicited some solicited from a variety of
12 lawyers and other experts. I'll give you an
13 example.
14 For example, when I was speaking at an 09:45:33
15 event in Florida, a man came over to me who I -- I
16 don't recall his name, but he worked for a big firm
17 and was on the -- on some ethics committee of a
18 Florida Bar Association. And he advised me to bring
19 ethics charges saying that from what he had seen,
20 the conduct of the lawyers were unethical and
21 unprofessional and deserved disbarment. But also
22 advised me not to do it until litigation was
23 concluded.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:46:07
25 unresponsive portions of that answer.
EFTA00601170
18
1 And I would ask, Mr. Scott, that you 09:46:10
2 counsel your client to be responsive to the
3 questions in order that we have some reasonable
4 expectation of being able to finish this
5 deposition within my lifetime.
6 MR. SCOTT: I'm not here to exchange 09:46:26
7 sarcastic comments, Jack, with you. I believe
8 my client is trying to answer your questions.
9 MR. SCAROLA: The question asked for names 09:46:32
10 of three individuals. What I got was a speech.
11 What I have gotten repeatedly in response to
12 direct questions are speeches. I would ask
13 that you counsel your client to please respond
14 to the questions.
15 MR. SCOTT: When we take a break, I'll 09:46:45
16 speak to my client in general based upon what I
17 think is appropriate. Let's proceed.
18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 09:46:54
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:46:54
20 Q. In an interview with Hala Gorani on 09:46:55
21 January 5 of this year, broadcast on CNN Live, you
22 said, "I have a superb memory."
23 Do you acknowledge having made that 09:47:08
24 statement?
25 A. I have a superb memory, so I must have 09:47:10
EFTA00601171
19
1 made that statement. My mother had an extraordinary
2 memory and when I was in college and I was on the
3 debate team, my mother allowed me to debate on the
4 Sabbath, which was Jewish rest day, only on the
5 condition that I not take notes or write. And at
6 that point I discovered that I have a very good
7 memory and don't have to -- generally didn't have to
8 take notes.
9 My memory, obviously, at the age of 77 has 09:47:41
10 slipped a bit; but do I have a very good memory,
11 yes.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:47:48
13 unresponsive portions of the answer.
14 Would you like to take a break now, 09:47:51
15 Mr. Scott, so that --
16 MR. SCOTT: No, I'd like to proceed. 09:47:55
17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 09:47:56
18 A. Me too. 09:47:57
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:47:58
20 Q. So it is your contention that you still 09:47:58
21 have a superb memory?
22 A. No. My contention is that I have a very 09:48:00
23 good memory and that at the age of 77, occasionally
24 my memory slips. I particularly have difficult time
25 now remembering names of people I've just met, but I
EFTA00601172
20
1 remember events very well. And when I argue cases
2 in front of courts, I generally don't need to have
3 notes in front of me because I remember the cases
4 very well. And I remember the transcript very well,
5 and so I have always relied on my good memory in my
6 professional life.
7 Q. So, on January 5, when you were 09:48:29
8 interviewed on CNN Live, your memory at that time
9 was superb but in the ensuing ten months, it has
10 become less than superb?
11 A. No -- 09:48:41
12 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:48:41
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:48:42
14 Q. Is that correct? 09:48:42
15 A. No, that's not correct. 09:48:42
16 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection, form, 09:48:44
17 conclusion, not what he said.
18 A. Memory is a matter of degree and memories 09:48:48
19 don't -- unless there's an illness or trauma,
20 don't -- don't suddenly change. I've had no --
21 nothing in my life to dramatically change. But as I
22 said, as a 77-year-old, my memory is not what it was
23 when I was a 25-year-old.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:49:11
25 Q. Are you under the influence today of any 09:49:11
EFTA00601173
21
1 drugs or alcohol that might have an affect on your
2 memory?
3 A. No. 09:49:18
4 Q. Are you having any physical problems that 09:49:19
5 might make it difficult for you to understand or
6 properly respond to my questions?
7 A. No. 09:49:24
8 Q. Did you get a good night's sleep last 09:49:25
9 night?
10 A. Yes. 09:49:28
11 Q. What is the general condition of your 09:49:28
12 health?
13 A. As a result of some of the tensions caused 09:49:31
14 by these false accusations, I've had a recurrence of
15 my atrial fibrillation and a recurrence of some
16 experiences of high blood pressure. But beyond
17 that, my general health is satisfactory.
18 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed the 09:49:58
19 recurrence of your atrial fibrillation to
20 involvement in the circumstances that gave rise to
21 this litigation?
22 A. My cardiologist asked me whether or not 09:50:15
23 there were any tense or tension-causing episodes
24 recently that might explain my recurrence of the
25 atrial fibrillation. And in response I did describe
EFTA00601174
22
1 the current false accusations against me in an
2 attempt to destroy my reputation by false and
3 malicious charges, yes.
4 Q. What is the name of your cardiologist? 09:50:39
5 A. Jeremy Ruskin, R-U-S-K-I-N. He's the 09:50:41
6 chief of electro cardio physiology at Massachusetts
7 General Hospital.
8 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed 09:50:53
9 your high blood pressure to events that are the
10 subject of this litigation?
11 A. Again, when I complained about high blood 09:51:01
12 pressure, one of the first questions that I'm asked
13 is whether or not there's any tension or any tense
14 experiences occurring in my life and the doctor
15 who's treated me for high blood pressure is
16 Dr. Harold Solomon, S-O-'-O-M-O-N, in Brookline,
17 Massachusetts.
18 Q. Has Dr. Solomon -- 09:51:24
19 A. Right. 09:51:27
20 Q. -- attributed your high blood pressure to 09:51:27
21 events related to this litigation?
22 A. I think all of my doctors have 09:51:34
23 concluded -- you'll have to ask them -- that this
24 lawsuit has been a contributing factor to some of
25 the health issues -- let me withdraw that. That the
EFTA00601175
23
1 false accusations against me from your client have
2 contributed to some of my health problems, yes.
3 Q. When did your atrial fibrillation recur? 09:52:00
4 A. About a month ago. About a month ago. 09:52:07
5 I -- I could get you the exact date because I keep a
6 record with a small cardiogram of my afib pretty
7 much every day.
8 Q. When did your blood pressure increase as a 09:52:23
9 result of events related to this litigation?
10 A. Well, it's been up and down. I've had 09:52:31
11 recurring episodes of high blood pressure. And I
12 think particularly since the beginning of the false
13 charges, not the litigation, but it's the false
14 charges, the outrageous allegations, baseless
15 outrageous allegations against me have certainly
16 contributed in my view to my variation in blood
17 pressure, yes.
18 Q. When were you initially diagnosed with 09:53:07
19 atrial fibrillation?
20 A. About two and a half years ago I had -- 09:53:17
21 let's see, December -- two and a half years ago
22 December I was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital with
23 an episode. It then basically went away. And then
24 it returned as atrial flutter.
25 And then I had an ablation, which cured or 09:53:48
EFTA00601176
24
1 relieved any symptoms of atrial fibrillation or
2 atrial flutter, until they recurred -- until it
3 recurred about a month or maybe it's a month and a
4 half now. I can give you the exact dates. Because,
5 as I say, I have it on my -- on my machine.
6 Q. When did the atrial flutter occur? 09:54:16
7 A. I told you that I don't have the exact 09:54:20
8 date, but it occurred about a month, month and a
9 half ago, I think sometime in August of this year.
10 But I can give you the exact date. As I said, I
11 have it on my machine.
12 Q. So, what you have described as a 09:54:33
13 recurrence of atrial fibrillation you are now
14 describing as an atrial flutter?
15 A. You're confused, sir. Please listen to my 09:54:42
16 answers. What I've said was that I had atrial
17 flutter. Atrial flutter occurred after my initial
18 atrial fib. I then had an ablation. The flutter
19 and the fib both disappeared after the ablation.
20 And my atrial fib has returned.
21 Q. Given your superb memory, would you please 09:55:13
22 name for us each of the lawyers who has represented
23 you in this case?
24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:55:22
25 Argumentative.
EFTA00601177
25
1 If you need a document or anything to 09:55:29
2 refresh your memory, please let us know.
3 A. Well, I'll start with the names of my 09:55:34
4 lawyers. I've been represented by Judge Scott and
5 his law firm, including several associates and
6 paralegals. I don't know their status, whether
7 they're partners, associates or paralegals, but I've
8 had contact with them.
9 I have been represented by Mr. Simpson's 09:55:54
10 law firm, including several partners, associates,
11 and paralegals. I've been represented by Kenneth
12 Sweder and presumably some of his partners and
13 associates.
14 I've been represented by Kendall Coffey 09:56:15
15 and several of his associates and partners. I would
16 say those are my main lawyers. But I've also had
17 others.
18 I have sought the legal advice of Mark 09:56:34
19 Fabiani, who was my former research assistant at
20 Harvard. I've sought the advice of Mitchell Webber,
21 who was my former research assistant at Harvard.
22 I was offered legal advice by Carlos 09:56:52
23 Sires, who was -- who is a partner in the Boise firm
24 who -- who volunteered to represent me along with
25 one of his partners, but then withdraw from the
EFTA00601178
26
1 representation when he discovered that I had a
2 conflict of interest.
3 I've had consultations with a variety of 09:57:18
4 other lawyers over particular issues in the case,
5 Floyd Abrams, who is probably the leading lawyer in
6 the world on First Amendment, has advised me on my
7 First Amendment rights to have said what I said
8 truthfully and expressed my opinion about your
9 clients.
10 I mean, that's the very beginning. But 09:57:51
11 when the events first occurred, I got calls from
12 dozens of lawyers outraged by the unethical conduct
13 of your clients and offering to represent me
14 pro bono, offering to do anything they could to see
15 that these lawyers were appropriately punished and
16 disciplined.
17 David Markus, for example, of the Miami 09:58:17
18 Bar called and keeps calling asking if there's
19 anything he can do to help me.
20 There's a lawyer in Broward named Diner, 09:58:28
21 who has offered to represent me. It goes on and on
22 and on. The offers are still coming in. People are
23 just absolutely outraged by the unprofessional and
24 unethical conduct of your clients and are offering
25 to help me right a wrong and undo an injustice.
EFTA00601179
27
1 MR. SCOTT: Just hold it. Somebody's 09:59:00
2 making noise on the phone and it's causing a
3 little disruption here. So, you know, I'm not
4 sure who it is, one of you-all on the phone.
5 Thanks.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:16
7 Q. Mr. Scott is obviously still representing 09:59:21
8 you now; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct. 09:59:24
10 Q. Richard Simpson is still representing you 09:59:25
11 now; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct. 09:59:27
13 Q. Ken Sweder is representing you now; is 09:59:28
14 that correct?
15 A. That's correct, yes. 09:59:30
16 Q. Is Kendall Coffey representing you now? 09:59:30
17 A. Yes. 09:59:33
18 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now? 09:59:35
19 A. Yes. 09:59:37
20 Q. And when I ask "are they representing you 09:59:38
21 now," they're representing you now in this
22 litigation; is that correct?
23 MR. SCOTT: I don't think that -- 09:59:45
24 objection, form. I don't think that was
25 specified.
EFTA00601180
28
1 MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's why I'm asking. 09:59:48
2 MR. SCOTT: As opposed to general advice. 09:59:50
3 A. Yes. Yes. 09:59:52
4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:53
5 Q. And Mark Fabiani is representing you with 09:59:53
6 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, yes. 09:59:57
8 Q. Floyd Abrams is representing you now with 09:59:58
9 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
10 A. Yes. 10:00:01
11 Q. Mitch Webber is representing you now with 10:00:02
12 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct, yes. 10:00:06
14 Q. Is Steven Safra representing you with 10:00:11
15 regard to this litigation?
16 A. Yes. 10:00:15
17 Q. Is Mary Borja representing you now with 10:00:15
18 regard to this litigation?
19 A. Yes. 10:00:19
20 Q. Is Ashley Eiler representing you now with 10:00:20
21 regard to this litigation?
22 A. That's not a name that immediately comes 10:00:24
23 to my head, but I believe it's an associate in one
24 of the law firms. I don't know the names of all the
25 lawyers who are doing the background work on the
EFTA00601181
29
1 case for the law firms.
2 Q. Is Nicole Richardson representing you now 10:00:37
3 with regard to this litigation?
4 A. Again, yes, yes. 10:00:41
5 Q. Is Gabe Groisman representing you now with 10:00:46
6 regard to this litigation?
7 A. Yes. 10:00:49
8 Q. Is Ben Brodsky representing you now with 10:00:51
9 regard to this litigation?
10 A. Ben Brodsky? I would have to check on 10:00:59
11 that.
12 Q. Is Neely representing you now with 10:01:06
13 regard to this litigation?
14 A. Neely has been my assistant and 10:01:09
15 paralegal for the last some years and I have used
16 her to perform paralegal work for me in this
17 litigation.
18 Q. Is Nicholas Maisel representing you now 10:01:27
19 with regard to this litigation?
20 A. Nicholas Maisel is my research assistant 10:01:31
21 and paralegal on this litigation, yes.
22 Q. Is your wife representing you with regard 10:01:39
23 to this litigation?
24 A. My wife has been instrumental in helping 10:01:42
25 me gather all the records and information. She
EFTA00601182
30
1 knows more about records and where my records are
2 kept and I've asked her to perform paralegal service
3 in addition to her loving service as my wife.
4 Q. Is Harvey Silverglate representing you now 10:02:04
5 with regard to this litigation?
6 A. Yes. 10:02:08
7 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now with 10:02:09
8 regard to this litigation?
9 A. You've asked me that question and the 10:02:12
10 answer is --
11 Q. No, I asked you, sir, if he was your 10:02:14
12 lawyer; but I haven't asked you whether he's
13 representing you now with regard to this litigation.
14 A. The answer is yes. 10:02:20
15 Q. Is Floyd Abrams representing you now with 10:02:22
16 regard to this litigation?
17 A. Yes. 10:02:25
18 Q. Is Jamin Dershowitz representing you now 10:02:26
19 with regard to this litigation?
20 A. Yes. 10:02:30
21 Q. Is Nancy Gertner representing you now with 10:02:32
22 regard to this litigation?
23 A. That requires a lengthier answer, if you 10:02:36
24 will permit me.
25 Q. I haven't stopped you yet. 10:02:41
EFTA00601183
31
1 A. You've tried. 10:02:43
2 Q. Much as I may have liked to. 10:02:44
3 A. You've tried. 10:02:45
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, that's probably 10:02:47
5 one of the few times you and I agree on
6 something.
7 MR. SCAROLA: No, we've agreed on a lot, 10:02:52
8 Tom.
9 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we -- I'm kidding you. 10:02:55
10 I'm kidding you.
11 MR. SCAROLA: I know you are. 10:02:57
12 A. Nancy Gertner is one of the attorneys who 10:02:58
13 called me immediately and expressed outrage at what
14 was happening to me and offered to help me.
15 Initially she wanted to help me by calling your
16 client, Professor Cassell, and explaining to him
17 that what I've been accused of could not possibly
18 have happened and there must have been a mistake or
19 something. And clearly she had confused me with
20 someone else.
21 And as I understand it, Nancy Gertner made 10:03:29
22 that phone call to your client, Professor Cassell,
23 and Professor Cassell reiterated his false
24 accusation against me.
25 Thereafter, Nancy Gertner volunteered to 10:03:42
EFTA00601184
32
1 become part of my legal team and to examine some of
2 the witnesses in this case.
3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:03:55
4 Q. Did you ever accept that offer from Nancy 10:03:56
5 Gertner --
6 A. Yes. 10:03:59
7 Q. -- so as to establish an attorney-client 10:03:59
8 relationship with --
9 A. Yes. 10:04:04
10 Q. So she is one of your lawyers -- 10:04:04
11 A. She is currently -- I regard her currently 10:04:05
12 as one of my lawyers, yes.
13 Q. And is Mitch Webber one of your lawyers in 10:04:08
14 this case?
15 A. Yes. 10:04:11
16 Q. But if I just give you a name without 10:04:12
17 repeating the second part, "is that one of the
18 lawyers in your case," will you understand
19 A. I understand. 10:04:21
20 Q. -- that I'm asking you with regard to 10:04:22
21 these -- each of these individuals whether they are
22 a lawyer representing you in this case?
23 A. Yes. 10:04:30
24 Q. Okay. Anthony Julius? 10:04:30
25 A. Anthony Julius is a British barrister and 10:04:35
EFTA00601185
33
1 solicitor who I conferred with regarding the
2 possibility of filing lawsuits against your clients
3 in Great Britain. I continue to confer with him on
4 matters relating to defamation.
5 Q. So you consider him to be one of your 10:04:54
6 lawyers representing you with regard to matters
7 relating to this lawsuit?
8 A. I'll stand by -- 10:05:00
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:05:01
10 A. -- my answer. I'll stand by my answer. 10:05:02
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:05:04
12 Q. Charles Ogletree? 10:05:05
13 A. Charles Ogletree is a close personal 10:05:06
14 friend and colleague at the Harvard Law School with
15 whom I have conferred about this case. I always
16 have regarded him as a personal attorney and
17 continue to confer with him about this case and the
18 general picture. So, I do regard him as one of my
19 lawyers in this litigation, yes. I certainly regard
20 him as having been given privileged information as
21 part of a lawyer-client privilege, yes.
22 Q. There -- there may be a time when I need 10:05:47
23 more than just an answer to the question that I'm
24 asking as to whether these individuals are or are
25 not your lawyers in this case. That's not now.
EFTA00601186
34
1 So if you would, please, I would 10:06:01
2 appreciate it if you would tell me only whether
3 these individuals are or are not your lawyers in
4 this case.
5 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot comply with that. 10:06:09
6 I'm --
7 Q. Well, you can but you refuse to. 10:06:12
8 MR. SCOTT: Let's not interrupt him. 10:06:14
9 A. Let me complete my answer, please. 10:06:16
10 MR. SCOTT: It doesn't help the court 10:06:17
11 reporter or the record.
12 A. I've been teaching legal ethics for close 10:06:19
13 to 40 years. I understand the complexity of the
14 lawyer-client relationship. And it's impossible as
15 to some of the names you've mentioned to simply give