EFTA01138160.pdf
PDF not loading? Open directly | View extracted text
📄 Extracted Text (24,740 words)
782
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 CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 6
Pages 782 through 909
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
1:05 p.m. - 3:06 p.m.
Tripp Scott
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
EFTA01138160
783
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
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.
12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
13 --and--
14 WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
15 Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01138161
784
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2
3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
4 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
5 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
6
7 On behalf of
8 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
9 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
10
11
12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 Edward J. Pozzuoli, Special Master
14 Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General Office
15 Marcy Martinez, Videographer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01138162
785
1 INDEX
2
Examination Page
3
4 VOLUME 6 (Pages 782 - 909)
5
6 Certificate of Oath 906
Certificate of Reporter 907
7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 908
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 909
8
9 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
10
11 No. Page
12 26 Business card of Jeffrey B. Levy, 792
Esquire
13
27 2002 Article on Child Pornography 810
14
28 Miami Beach Police Case Report Detail 822
15
29 Document reflecting entry for 877
16 Dershowitz, Alan
17 30 Santa Monica Police Report 885
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01138163
786
1 Thereupon, the proceedings continued at 1:04 p.m.
2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record.
3 The time is 1:04 p.m.
4 BY MR. EDWARDS:
5 Q. Sir, before we move on to the next topic,
6 I want to make sure that we have finished the
7 previous topic.
8 Is there anyone else who gave you
9 information about Paul Cassell who you can identify
10 at this time and did not otherwise this morning
11 identify?
12 A. Yes. So, immediately upon hearing of the
13 false accusation against me, I recall now that I
14 Googled Paul Cassell and discovered that he was
15 called a zealot at least three times on easily
16 accessible published materials.
17 So, the term "zealot" in addition to
18 coming from individuals -- and you can get them on
19 Google as easily as I can --
20 MR. SCAROLA: The question was, was there
21 anyone else.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. I'm asking is there a person's name?
24 A. These people wrote articles. They have
25 names.
EFTA01138164
787
1 Q. What are their names?
2 A. I don't recall them. You can get them.
3 You can just Google "Paul Cassell" and you will find
4 names of people who call him a zealot.
5 Q. I think maybe my question wasn't clear, so
6 I'm going to make it crystal clear.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you remembered the name of any
9 individual who you did not identify by name or
10 description this morning that provided you
11 personally with information about Paul Cassell?
12 A. A man named Hobbs, H-O-B-B-S.
13 Q. Is that a first or last name?
14 A. That's a last name. And he -- my
15 recollection is -- I don't know if he testified
16 against Paul Cassell or he just wrote an article,
17 but he wrote an article calling him a dangerous
18 zealot.
19 Q. Did you speak with Hobbs?
20 A. I don't recall if I spoke to him, but I do
21 recall reading his article or reading excerpts at
22 least from the article.
23 And then I remember reading another
24 article, may have been on Slate or -- there are a
25 number of articles calling Paul Cassell a zealot.
EFTA01138165
788
1 So the name just didn't pop into my head. It was
2 something, as I said earlier, that was part of his
3 reputation.
4 Q. Okay. I will break this into two
5 questions. One, what information did you have other
6 than human interaction that may have included
7 articles or other things that you read?
8 But before I get to that question, my
9 question is, have you recalled the identity of any
10 person that you did not tell us about or describe
11 earlier this morning that provided you information
12 about Paul Cassell?
13 A. I want to wait for the --
14 MR. INDYKE: Outside the privilege.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Excuse me?
16 A. Not that I can recall at this time.
17 BY MR. EDWARDS:
18 Q. Okay. Are there other materials that you
19 have not yet disclosed during this deposition that
20 you read, that provided you additional bases for
21 your opinions about Mr. Cassell?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. INDYKE: Objection.
24 BY MR. EDWARDS:
25 Q. And are these materials that
EFTA01138166
789
1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one
2 second.
3 MR. EDWARDS: Outside of the privilege.
4 MR. INDYKE: Okay. Sorry.
5 BY MR. EDWARDS:
6 Q. Are these materials that have been
7 provided already in discovery in this case?
8 A. I don't know the answer to that. I don't
9 know what has been provided and what hasn't. I can
10 just tell you that in the course of my career, I had
11 read -- I had never met Mr. Cassell, but I had read
12 his articles, and they are aptly described as
13 zealous. He once -- he was once described as
14 somebody who misused -- I think misused or uses
15 family values to hide his zealotry. But I was
16 familiar with his what are regarded as very extreme
17 writings. And that formed part of my opinion about
18 his zealotry, yes.
19 Q. What was the timing of your reading these
20 articles that helped to form a part of your opinion
21 about Mr. Cassell?
22 A. Very soon after the allegation was made.
23 Not only did I independently read, but people called
24 me and alerted me to read this, read that. People
25 sent me briefs and asked me to read them.
EFTA01138167
790
1 Q. So one of the things that you took into
2 consideration in assessing the reputation or
3 credibility of Paul Cassell were various things that
4 he had written or that had been written about him?
5 A. Yes, and what people had said about him.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. I mean, just to give you an example, if
8 you don't mind me just elaborating one second, as I
9 was getting lunch today downstairs, three people
10 came over to me. One of them said, I can't believe
11 those, and then he used the F word, scrupulous
12 unscrupulous, unethical lawyers who have done this
13 to you, this is horrible, get them, they have to pay
14 a price, they ought to be disciplined.
15 And I said, do you know me?
16 No, but I've been following this story.
17 This is just unbelievable.
18 And then two other people, one of whom
19 overheard it, said, I just want to join in on that.
20 I don't know you, but I just want you to know that
21 the lawyers who did this are beyond -- they're just
22 horrible. No decent lawyer would ever do this.
23 This happens to me all the time. People
24 come over to me all the time and tell me what they
25 think of you and Paul Cassell.
EFTA01138168
791
1 Q. Okay. Where were you eating lunch today?
2 A. In a Wrap [sic] around restaurant.
3 Q. Where is it located geographically?
4 A. Right in the building. In the building.
5 Q. And are these individuals that spoke to
6 you individuals who told you that they know either
7 myself or Paul Cassell?
8 A. I didn't ask that question. It was just
9 -- it was quick conversation and one of them said,
10 I'll do anything to help.
11 Q. Okay. What is the identity of the person
12 who will do anything to help you?
13 A. His name is Jeffrey Levy. He is an
14 attorney here.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: "Here" meaning
16 where?
17 A. In Fort Lauderdale. He's a family lawyer.
18 Just out of the blue, I don't know him from Adam.
19 But this happens to me all the time. When I go to
20 Miami tomorrow, I'll be walking down Lincoln Road,
21 people will come over to me and tell me about you.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. Okay. Can you give me the cards of the
24 other people that have given you these cards all the
25 time so that we can --
EFTA01138169
792
1 A. No. The only reason I asked for this card
2 today, I asked him for the card because I said, I
3 want to be able to mention this if I'm asked about
4 it in the deposition. Would you mind giving me the
5 card?
6 He said, "I'm thrilled." He went to his
7 car, he got the card, and he said --
8 MR. EDWARDS: I would like to attach the
9 card of Jeffrey Levy to the deposition as the
10 next consecutive exhibit, which I believe is
11 26.
12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
13 Exhibit 26.)
14 MR. EDWARDS: Can I see the exhibit?
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Sure.
16 MR. SCOTT: Can I see the exhibit, too,
17 when you're done?
18 MR. EDWARDS: Yes.
19 BY MR. EDWARDS:
20 Q. On the back of this card, there is some
21 writing. Whose writing is that?
22 A. Mine.
23 Q. The writing, I think, says "Scarola
24 unethical e-mail"?
25 A. That's right.
EFTA01138170
793
1 Q. And does that scribbling of "Scarola
2 unethical e-mail" relate at all to this card?
3 A. Not directly, no. Not directly.
4 Q. Did this lawyer, Jeffrey Levy, discuss
5 with you Jack Scarola at all?
6 A. No. He just discussed just the lawyers
7 generically and their unethical conduct.
8 Q. And the lawyers generically, he's talking
9 about the lawyers who believe iliMiliSwolimme
10 A. No. The lawyers who pretend to believe
11 . None of us think you believe her.
12 Nobody I know thinks you believe her.
13 Q. Nobody you know thinks
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Any of the people you described yesterday,
16 which is now inclusive of Brad Edwards, Paul
17 Cassell, Jack Scarola, Sigrid McCawley and David
18 Boise, believe that's your
19 testimony?
20 A. That's right, and Sigrid McCawley told me
21 that.
22 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry, I'm going to
23 object. This again -- so I have no idea what
24 context, or if you're referring to a context
25 where we were having settlement discussions,
EFTA01138171
794
1 that violates the seal order that's already in
2 place. There's a motion for sanctions pending.
3 We will be supplementing with this.
4 You know, how many times do we have to go
5 over this, Alan? It's not appropriate. First
6 of all, you're misrepresenting things. And
7 I'll state for the record, I did not say that.
8 But secondly --
9 THE WITNESS: She's waiving privilege.
10 MS. McCAWLEY: No, I'm not waiving the
11 privilege.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, you are.
13 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm denying the allegation
14 that you just made on the record. I'm making
15 my record that you are not entitled to discuss
16 anything that deals with confidential
17 settlement discussions. Misrepresenting those
18 is a violation of that, and I'll go back to the
19 judge and get another order if I need to.
20 THE WITNESS: I was asked a question --
21 MR. SIMPSON: Don't --
22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on.
23 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have --
24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is there
25 anything else, Ms. McCawley?
EFTA01138172
795
1 MS. McCAWLEY: No, not right now.
2 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have the question
3 and the answer read back, please.
4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's go ahead
5 and do that, just for purposes of
6 COURT REPORTER: "Any of the people you
7 described yesterday, which is now inclusive of
8 Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Jack Scarola,
9 Sigrid McCawley and David Boise, believe
10 that's your testimony?
11 "That's right, and Sigrid McCawley told me
12 that."
13 A. That's absolutely responsive.
14 MR. SCAROLA: We move to strike the "and
15 Sigrid McCawley told me that" comment as
16 unresponsive to the question that was asked.
17 And we agree that it is clearly violative of
18 the Court order that has been entered with
19 respect to this matter.
20 MR. SIMPSON: The question on its face
21 asked about Ms. McCawley. It was Mr. Edwards
22 that injected her views into the question. It
23 was not the witness.
24 SPECIAL MASTERPOZZUOLI: Go back up to the
25 question.
EFTA01138173
796
1 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to have it sealed
2 if you want.
3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hold on a
4 second. Go back up to the question.
5 COURT REPORTER: "QUESTION: Any of the
6 people you described yesterday, which is now
7 inclusive of Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Jack
8 Scarola, Sigrid McCawley and David Boise,
9 believe that's your
10 testimony?
11 "ANSWER: That's right, and Sigrid
12 McCawley told me that."
13 MR. SCAROLA: The responsive answer ends
14 with "and that's right." Excuse me. "That's
15 right," period.
16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Give me a
17 second. I'll grant the Motion to Strike from
18 "and" all the way to the end.
19 A. I'm also happy to have it sealed, if they
20 choose to.
21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, I don't
22 know what is going to come up, but it will be
23 dealt with one way or another.
24 MR. SIMPSON: The witness said we would be
25 happy to have it sealed, given that ruling.
EFTA01138174
797
1 BY MR. EDWARDS:
2 Q. This attorney, Jeffrey Levy, did he
3 elaborate upon the basis for his offer to help you
4 against the generically described unscrupulous
5 lawyers, question mark?
6 A. Yes, he basically said these are lawyers
7 who are willing to make these outrageous charges,
8 and lawyers shouldn't be making these kinds of
9 outrageous charges against other lawyers, especially
10 when they're irrelevant. And basically he seemed to
11 know a little bit about -- not much, but a little
12 bit about the case.
13 But I use it as an illustration of people
14 coming to me all the time making these statements to
15 help amplify my answer. It's why I can't remember
16 names. Normally I wouldn't have asked him his name.
17 I only asked him his name because of your questions
18 of me today. But every -- virtually every week --
19 in the beginning, it was every day, people would
20 come over to me with these kinds of statements.
21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. But is this lawyer's opinion, am I
24 understanding that that -- that's something you
25 weigh in to support your public statements that you
EFTA01138175
798
1 have made?
2 A. I look at the totality of circumstances.
3 I look at my professional opinion, I look at what
4 I've read, I look at what I've told, I try to
5 calibrate, weigh everything for what it's worth and
6 then I come to an opinion.
7 And my opinion that I arrived at was based
8 at the totality of the circumstances that I was
9 aware of at the time I made this statement. And the
10 statement turns out to be true.
11 Q. And Jeffrey Levy, whatever his opinion is,
12 is one of the things that you're factoring in at
13 this point?
14 A. No, of course not. Of course not.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Not now, I don't have to factor anything
17 in. I now know the truth. I now know from other
18 people that this was all part of an extortion plot
19 and that the object of the extortion was Leslie
20 Wexner. But I'm aware of that now, so I don't have
21 to base the opinion on anything else.
22 MR. EDWARDS: Objection. Move to strike.
23 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to go
24 ahead and move -- grant the Motion to Strike.
25 Go back up. Let me just see where -- because I
EFTA01138176
799
1 wanted to find -- so from "I now know from
2 other people this is all part of an extortion
3 plot," from there down, we'll strike.
4 So what will remain is "not now, I don't
5 have to factor anything in. I now know the
6 truth." That will remain.
7 BY MR. EDWARDS:
8 Q. Okay. What are the identities of the
9 other two individuals that you encountered during
10 your lunch break?
11 A. One of them is a woman, a lawyer and --
12 MR. SCAROLA: He asked for a name.
13 A. I don't know the names. I didn't ask the
14 names from anybody.
15 BY MR. EDWARDS:
16 Q. Is there a description that would help me
17 learn the identity of this person?
18 A. She was in her 40s, probably. She had
19 short, cropped hair.
20 Q. Is this somebody who knew the lawyers who
21 had accused you by reputation?
22 A. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just
23 giving you an illustration of what people tell me
24 all the time.
25 Q. Okay. During the lunch break, did you
EFTA01138177
800
1 have a chance to consider whether you were willing
2 to waive the attorney-client privilege with respect
3 to the identities of the individuals with whom you
4 share a privilege in the circumstance where you are
5 the client, that provided you information that
6 helped form the basis of your opinions about Paul
7 Cassell and Brad Edwards?
8 MR. SCOTT: We've instructed my client not
9 to waive the privilege.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Both privileges?
11 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
12 MR. SCAROLA: And by "both," I mean both
13 attorney-client and work product.
14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
15 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
16 BY MR. EDWARDS:
17 Q. Isn't another reason that you have given
18 publicly that you could not have -- that anybody who
19 knows you would know that you could not have and
20 would not have committed such an offense, you're not
21 that kind of person?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. And similar to what you did with respect
24 to Paul Cassell and reading about what is public out
25 there about him to form the basis of your belief in
EFTA01138178
801
1 his credibility and reputation, you would agree that
2 it's also fair to have done the same thing with
3 respect to you, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Is it -- do you or have you in the
6 past enjoyed getting naked at clothing-optional
7 beaches in Martha's Vineyard?
8 A. When I was --
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, relevancy to that.
10 Invasion of privacy. Has no relevancy
11 whatsoever. I would like a ruling.
12 MR. EDWARDS: It is reasonably calculated
13 to lead to the discovery of admissible
14 evidence.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to
16 deny the objection, but give you -- latitude is
17 not unlimited.
18 MR. EDWARDS: I understand.
19 A. Would you give me a time frame?
20 BY MR. EDWARDS:
21 Q. Sure. At around October 15, 2001, which
22 is a time period we have agreed falls within the
23 relevant time period of this case.
24 A. So I have to give a lengthy answer to
25 this. There is a beach on Martha's Vineyard which
EFTA01138179
802
1 has traditionally been a clothing-optional beach.
2 Rumors are that Eleanor Roosevelt use to skinny dip
3 there. Many prominent people have skinny dipped on
4 that beach, and my wife and I have occasionally
5 skinny dipped on that beach. Yes. Not in recent
6 years.
7 Q. Were you asked at some point to represent
8 a woman by the name of Nikki Craft?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And with respect to that representation or
11 attempted representation, have you read the
12 statement that she has put out publicly regarding
13 you?
14 A. I don't recall, but I can tell you what
15 the facts of the case were and why I turned down
16 representation, if you would like to hear it.
17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let him ask his
18 question.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Sure?
21 MR. EDWARDS: No, no.
22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Oh, okay. Go
23 ahead.
24 BY MR. EDWARDS:
25 Q. Have you -- do you know that she has said
EFTA01138180
803
1 that she has written "Does there exist for
2 Dershowitz an overpowering thrill of seeing the
3 female nude such as to prevent him from seeing the
4 issues from a woman's viewpoint?"
5 A. I think she also called me Mengele in the
6 article. She compared me to Mengele, the nazi
7 killer. She was furious that I wouldn't take her
8 case because she wanted to walk topless down the
9 middle of the city in the middle of the street, and
10 I don't believe in that.
11 I had represented the nude beach in Truro,
12 Massachusetts, where people want to go skinny
13 dipping in private areas, but I do not believe that
14 anybody has the right to be nude or topless in
15 public. I turned down her case. I never met her.
16 She wrote to me, and I wrote back turning down her
17 case.
18 And she just went on a rampage against me.
19 As far as I know, she's never met me. She's never
20 seen me. And she has just written, I remember, and
21 attacked me. She went on the radio and attacked me
22 all because I refused to represent her walking
23 topless through the city.
24 Q. Okay. And part of that rampage was her
25 understanding of your "eager response to naked women
EFTA01138181
804
1 could be compared with that of a little boy let
2 loose in a candy store"?
3 A. She doesn't know me. That was something
4 she just made up.
5 MR. SCOTT: I need a ruling on relevancy.
6 But, I mean, reading statements from people
7 from articles and asking him about them is
8 totally irrelevant. Goes to nothing in this
9 case.
10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ask your I'm
11 hoping that you're going to tie this up to
12 something.
13 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
14 BY MR. EDWARDS:
15 Q. Can you well, let's go back first.
16 Can you provide me the articles -- all of
17 the articles on Paul Cassell that you have testified
18 about today?
19 A. I'm sure I can.
20 Q. Can you provide them to me now?
21 A. No. I told you I looked at them a year
22 ago.
23 Q. But it's fair for you to review those
24 articles and tell me what is in them, correct?
25 A. At some point, but I'm not going to do it
EFTA01138182
805
1 right -- I can't do it now. I don't have it in
2 front of me.
3 Q. On your Harvard website, is there a
4 compilation of articles which you've written in the
5 past?
6 A. I haven't looked at my website, but I've
7 written, I think, over a thousand articles.
8 Q. At some point in time, did you write for
9 Hustler magazine?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you publish in Hustler magazine?
12 A. No.
13 Q. None of your articles were published in
14 Hustler magazine?
15 A. No. I was once called the "asshole of the
16 month" by Hustler magazine because I refused to
17 represent Mr. Flint, and he had a picture of my face
18 coming out of the rectum of a donkey, calling me
19 "asshole of the month." But I didn't publish that,
20 I assure you.
21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Tell me that
22 we're going to get somewhere with this, because
23 this is -- you know, see if we can tie this up
24 in some form.
25 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Let me just put on
EFTA01138183
806
1 the record why this is reasonably calculated is
2 the statement was made by Mr. Dershowitz that
3 he's not the kind of person to have done this.
4 THE WITNESS: To have raped a 16-year-old.
5 MR. EDWARDS: Our client -- our client has
6 described certain things about Mr. Dershowitz,
7 and if those certain things that she has
8 described are consistent with things that he
9 does believe in or has done in the past, then
10 that would add credibility to our client.
11 THE WITNESS: Would you tell me what your
12 client --
13 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on a
14 second.
15 MR. EDWARDS: I don't have to do that. I
16 can just discover on this subject matter.
17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to let
18 you. But the idea that he might have skinny
19 dipped with his wife is slightly different. So
20 I would -- I mean, I don't see that as
21 relevant, but I'm going to let you continue. I
22 mean, because it's not my role here to decide
23 that.
24 But I'm just saying to you that I get
25 where you're going. So, proceed through this,
EFTA01138184
807
1 but let's get to -- this is going to be
2 forever. I mean, because he's got a thousand
3 articles published, you can go through each of
4 them and pick out whatever or whatever it is.
5 So let's --
6 MR. EDWARDS: There are two other things
7 at issue here. One is at the time that these
8 pleadings were placed, what was our -- what was
9 Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards' mind state. The
10 other thing is Mr. Dershowitz has a claim for
11 damages to his sterling reputation. So to the
12 degree that there is some damage to reputation
13 caused by some other source, then that is
14 something else that should be -- we should have
15 discovery into.
16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's why I'm
17 allowing the latitude.
18 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you.
19 MR. SCOTT: There is certain relevance to
20 some of that. I mean, going into a lot of
21 these different things is -- you know, it's
22 years ago into the past and things like that.
23 It's just ridiculous. It's irrelevant.
24 And I think you get -- we're going to ask
25 you to make a decision on these things as they
EFTA01138185
808
1 come up if this is going on to go on for hour
2 after hour asking things over a man's life of
3 70-some years.
4 THE WITNESS: Seventy-seven.
5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ask your next
6 question.
7 BY MR. EDWARDS:
8 Q. Sure. Did you write articles on behalf of
9 Penthouse magazine?
10 A. I was Robert Guccione's lawyer on First
11 Amendment issues, and he asked me to do a column
12 every month on First Amendment and justice issues,
13 and I did that for 25 years, virtually every month
14 writing an article on justice and the First
15 Amendment.
16 Q. Have you ever written an article about the
17 idea that viewing child pornography should not be a
18 crime?
19 A. I can tell you my position. My position
20 is that creating child pornography should be a
21 crime, but that viewing -- I think I wrote about
22 viewing virtual child pornography; that is,
23 contrived images that are not real. And the Supreme
24 Court supported me on that position.
25 Supreme Court has ruled consistent with my
EFTA01138186
809
1 position that when you have computer-generated
2 pictures of children that the focus should be on
3 making of the pornography, which is a crime, but not
4 on the viewing of the pornography.
5 And I have a view, a scientific view that
6 I've published about, written many articles about,
7 that there is no relationship between the viewing of
8 pornography and commission of violent crimes. And I
9 have the data to support that. And I think I'm one
10 of the leading authorities on that issue. It's an
11 academic issue of some considerable interest me.
12 Q. You're one of the leading authorities on
13 the issue that --
14 A. Of the causation -- the relationship
15 between viewing pornography and crimes of violence.
16 Q. Viewing child pornography?
17 A. I would say in general. I don't know that
18 I distinguish between that in the scientific
19 research that I've done.
20 Q. I'm going to go ahead and show you what's
21 been marked as Exhibit 27. I'll show it to your
22 lawyer first. Ask if you recognize it.
23 MR. SIMPSON: Do you have a copy for us?
24 MR. EDWARDS: That's my only copy. We'll
25 use it --
EFTA01138187
810
1 MR. SCOTT: You know, I asked -- I'm going
2 to put this on. I asked yesterday to have
3 copies of exhibits.
4 MR. SCAROLA: I think we do have a copy,
5 before you get all exorcized over this.
6 MR. SCOTT: By the way --
7 MR. SCAROLA: I think we do have a copy.
8 MR. SCOTT: Okay. And by the way, the
9 thing you published from the Bench & Bar,
10 it's -- you said it was in the exhibits. It's
11 not.
12 MR. SCAROLA: I told you if it's not
13 there, we'll get it for you.
14 MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I'd like it today, if
15 you could get it, because that's what you said
16 yesterday.
17 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
18 Exhibit 27.)
19 MR. SCAROLA: I said tell us what else you
20 need, and we'll get it for you.
21 THE WITNESS: So not only is my --
22 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Hang on.
23 That's the witness's.
24 MR. SCOTT: Is this the witness's copy?
25 MR. SIMPSON: You can have this one, Tom.
EFTA01138188
811
1 MR. SCOTT: There's some notes on there.
2 I don't know if you want them, but --
3 MR. EDWARDS: I'll take it.
4 MR. SCOTT: I think they're your
5 questions. I could be wrong. I could have
6 handed it to him, it would have probably
7 expedited it.
8 MR. EDWARDS: I doubt it.
9 A. Okay. I remember writing this article.
10 It grew out of a pro bono case that I did
11 representing a student.
12 BY MR. EDWARDS:
13 Q. Does that article limit the opinion of
14 that viewing child pornography or children
15 fornicating should not be criminal to virtual child
16 pornography?
17 A. I think I say in the article -- I asked
18 the question: But should it be a crime for someone
19 who has never and would never molest a child to view
20 child pornography?
21 I think I raised that question. And I
22 talk about the dangers to the values of the
23 democracy. I say there is a potential here for a
24 real witch hunt. Child molestation is a serious
25 problem. The creation of child pornography is also
EFTA01138189
812
1 a serious problem. We don't know whether the
2 viewing of child pornography is or is not a serious
3 problem, but many people think it is.
4 So, I don't think I take a definitive
5 view. I am an academic. You're trying not only to
6 put my ideas on trial here today, what I've written
7 about on trial; you're trying to put my advocacy on
8 behalf of defendants on trial, you're putting the
9 Sixth Amendment on trial, you're putting the First
10 Amendment on trial. You're inviting the American
11 Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of
12 Criminal Defense Lawyers to intervene in this case,
13 because they will not stand by and tolerate an
14 academic having his ideas put on trial or an
15 advocate -- I was going to say a zealous advocate,
16 and I claim that, I am a zealous advocate, putting
17 his representation on trial. That is unAmerican.
18 That is McCarthyite and is beneath contempt.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Object and move to strike.
20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Denied. Denied.
21 Move forward.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. Is Paul Cassell also an academic?
24 A. Paul Cassell teaches and uses the
25 stationery of law school as part of his --
EFTA01138190
813
1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Answer the
2 question.
3 A. He is an academic.
4 BY MR. EDWARDS:
5 Q. When was that article that has now been
6 marked as 27 written?
7 A. Copyrighted 2002.
8 Q. Is 2002 within the relevant time period
9 that we've defined in this case?
10 A. Yes, but I've written articles like this
11 as far back as probably as 1967, and I've written
12 them probably as recently as the last couple of
13 years. I have a book which deals with the subject.
14 I have a long Law Review article called "Why
15 Pornography?"
16 So to focus on that year seems to me as to
17 wrench out of context the fact that this has been my
18 view. I had a debate with William Buckley about it
19 at Harvard University. I had a debate with --
20 interestingly enough, I had a debate with Ginsberg,
21 the poet, in which I took the opposite view in which
22 I was very, very tough on child pornography, talking
23 about how much I despise it and hate it and think
24 it's immoral and improper.
25 But just because I think something is
EFTA01138191
814
1 immoral and horrible doesn't mean I necessarily
2 think it should be criminal. Unlike some people, I
3 don't necessarily associate my personal views of
4 conduct with what I think should be illegal or who I
5 would represent.
6 Q. Have you ever had any of your articles
7 that you have written removed from your Harvard
8 website?
9 A. Not that I know of. That would be a
10 violation of academic freedom.
11 Q. Is there any reason why the article that
12 is now number 27 is, as of February of 2015, no
13 longer on your website?
14 A. I doubt that that's true. I doubt that it
15 was removed. I don't think every article let me
16 tell you, unequivocally, I did not remove it, order
17 it to be removed or know it was removed. I doubt it
18 was removed. I can't imagine why anybody would ever
19 remove any article. I'm very proud of this article.
20 Q. Is there any explanation for that
21 particular article being within the articles on your
22 website at some point and later no longer appearing
23 on your website?
24 A. I don't think that's true. And if it is,
25 I have no idea how it happened or why it happened.
EFTA01138192
815
1 It's not something I would ever tolerate being done.
2 There isn't a single article I would remove from my
3 website. I'm proud of every article I've written.
4 And I'm sure you will find many other articles.
5 I don't know what my website includes.
6 But there is a book that's been written that honors
7 me by University of Albany Law School and contains
8 in the back all of my articles. I don't know that
9 my website does more than have a selection of my
10 articles. So I would have to look. But I'm not
11 aware of it. I don't handle my website.
12 Q. Who decides which articles are placed on
13 the website and which are taken off of the website?
14 A. My assistant, Sarah Neely.
15 Q. Is Sarah Neely somebody who has been
16 involved in any aspect of the defense of this
17 particular case?
18 A. She's just my assistant, she's my
19 secretary. She does all of my typing and does
20 everything that I do. So she's been involved in
21 every aspect of my life since she worked for me
22 about eight years ago.
23 Q. Is there anyone other than Sarah Neely who
24 would put an article up on the website or remove the
25 article from the website?
EFTA01138193
816
1 A. Not that I know of.
2 Q. And is she permitted to remove any
3 articles from the website without your permission?
4 A. I have no idea. I've never ever read my
5 website. I am not a web person. I don't know
6 what's on my website. And she also does tweeter or
7 Twitter. I have no idea. She circulates some
8 articles, she doesn't do anything, I have no control
9 over that. And I had nothing to do, nothing, zero,
10 with either placing the article or if it was
11 removed, removing the article. Zero percent.
12 Q. Okay. Have you ever called for a complete
13 overhaul of rape laws in Massachusetts?
14 A. One of my academic subjects that I've been
15 interested in for many, many years has been the
16 definition of rape and the idea of consent.
17 And I recently wrote an article calling
18 for affirmative consent to be required in all rape
19 cases, making the point that it's far better than
20 ten consented-to rapes don't -- that ten
21 consented-to acts of sexuality do not occur rather
22 than even one unconsented-to act of sexuality occur.
23 So in other words, I've flipped the
24 Blackstonian notion and say it's far, far better
25 that voluntary sex not occur in questionable
EFTA01138194
817
1 situations than even one act of unconsented-to sex.
2 I'm very much a hawk on the issue of consent and
3 want to make sure that no sexual encounter ever
4 occurs. And I teach that to my students. And I
5 lecture my students about that. I think the laws of
6 Massachusetts and the laws of many, many other
7 states are in a complete state of messiness, and I
8 would be thrilled to have an -- overall rape laws
9 all over the county.
10 Q. Have you included within your request for
11 a complete overhaul lowering the age of consent
12 considerably?
13 A. I know I argued in Florida -- we produced
14 some data in Florida that the age of consent is 18.
15 And, by the way, this all happened way, way after
16 the events at issue. But that the average age of
17 commencing sex in the state of Florida is well below
18 that. And, therefore, there is a substantial
19 disparity in California, which has 18, and Florida,
20 which has 18, between the actual activities that
21 occur -- many, many acts of sexual conduct occur
22 between the ages of 17 and 18, but the acts are
23 illegal.
24 I have for years, basically since the
25 Vietnam War when I argued this, said that when you
EFTA01138195
818
1 have tremendous disparity between the law in action
2 and the law on the books, that creates disrespect
3 for the law. And so what I want to see is a change
4 that reflects the actual pattern of sexuality
5 community by community, state by state. That's been
6 my academic position.
7 Q. Have you, as far back as 1997, advocated
8 for lowering the age of consent to 15, as something
9 that would seem like an appropriate compromise,
10 given that reasonable people might disagree on
11 whether it should be as low as 14?
12 A. I don't recall that. If you could show me
13 what you claim I said, I would be happy to look at
14 it. I don't recall that. I do not believe the age
15 of consent should be 15.
16 Q. Okay. Have you ever believed that age of
17 consent should be 15?
18 A. I have no recollection of that. But if
19 you could show me what you claim I said, I will be
20 happy to look at it and read it in context.
21 Q. That's not a belief that you have today?
22 A. That's not a believe that I have today,
23 no.
24 Q. Do you currently have a place at 1500
25 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach?
EFTA01138196
819
1 A. I do.
2 Q. And is that near a clothing-optional
3 beach?
4 A. No. Not that I know of. I'm not aware of
5 any.
6 Q. Is there instances where you have seen
7 women lying out nude on the beach near your condo?
8 MR. SCOTT: You know, really the relevancy
9 of this is so strained.
10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You really are
11 straining the relevancy. But go ahead. It's
12 your time. Go ahead. I'm not going to --
13 A. Any human being who is not blind who has
14 walked on any part of South Beach has seen a vast,
15 vast, vast, vast majority of men and women are
16 dressed in totally appropriate bathing suits, and
17 occasionally there are some who are not.
18 BY MR. EDWARDS:
19 Q. Have you, at your condominium complex,
20 earned the reputation as somebody who goes out onto
21 the beach anytime there is a nude girl?
22 A. No. What you're talking about is last
23 year my wife ran for the condo board, and she ran
24 against another group of people, and they were
25 exchanging insults. And one of the women whose
EFTA01138197
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 CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 6
Pages 782 through 909
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
1:05 p.m. - 3:06 p.m.
Tripp Scott
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
EFTA01138160
783
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
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.
12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
13 --and--
14 WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
15 Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01138161
784
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2
3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
4 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
5 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
6
7 On behalf of
8 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
9 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
10
11
12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 Edward J. Pozzuoli, Special Master
14 Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General Office
15 Marcy Martinez, Videographer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01138162
785
1 INDEX
2
Examination Page
3
4 VOLUME 6 (Pages 782 - 909)
5
6 Certificate of Oath 906
Certificate of Reporter 907
7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 908
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 909
8
9 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
10
11 No. Page
12 26 Business card of Jeffrey B. Levy, 792
Esquire
13
27 2002 Article on Child Pornography 810
14
28 Miami Beach Police Case Report Detail 822
15
29 Document reflecting entry for 877
16 Dershowitz, Alan
17 30 Santa Monica Police Report 885
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01138163
786
1 Thereupon, the proceedings continued at 1:04 p.m.
2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record.
3 The time is 1:04 p.m.
4 BY MR. EDWARDS:
5 Q. Sir, before we move on to the next topic,
6 I want to make sure that we have finished the
7 previous topic.
8 Is there anyone else who gave you
9 information about Paul Cassell who you can identify
10 at this time and did not otherwise this morning
11 identify?
12 A. Yes. So, immediately upon hearing of the
13 false accusation against me, I recall now that I
14 Googled Paul Cassell and discovered that he was
15 called a zealot at least three times on easily
16 accessible published materials.
17 So, the term "zealot" in addition to
18 coming from individuals -- and you can get them on
19 Google as easily as I can --
20 MR. SCAROLA: The question was, was there
21 anyone else.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. I'm asking is there a person's name?
24 A. These people wrote articles. They have
25 names.
EFTA01138164
787
1 Q. What are their names?
2 A. I don't recall them. You can get them.
3 You can just Google "Paul Cassell" and you will find
4 names of people who call him a zealot.
5 Q. I think maybe my question wasn't clear, so
6 I'm going to make it crystal clear.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you remembered the name of any
9 individual who you did not identify by name or
10 description this morning that provided you
11 personally with information about Paul Cassell?
12 A. A man named Hobbs, H-O-B-B-S.
13 Q. Is that a first or last name?
14 A. That's a last name. And he -- my
15 recollection is -- I don't know if he testified
16 against Paul Cassell or he just wrote an article,
17 but he wrote an article calling him a dangerous
18 zealot.
19 Q. Did you speak with Hobbs?
20 A. I don't recall if I spoke to him, but I do
21 recall reading his article or reading excerpts at
22 least from the article.
23 And then I remember reading another
24 article, may have been on Slate or -- there are a
25 number of articles calling Paul Cassell a zealot.
EFTA01138165
788
1 So the name just didn't pop into my head. It was
2 something, as I said earlier, that was part of his
3 reputation.
4 Q. Okay. I will break this into two
5 questions. One, what information did you have other
6 than human interaction that may have included
7 articles or other things that you read?
8 But before I get to that question, my
9 question is, have you recalled the identity of any
10 person that you did not tell us about or describe
11 earlier this morning that provided you information
12 about Paul Cassell?
13 A. I want to wait for the --
14 MR. INDYKE: Outside the privilege.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Excuse me?
16 A. Not that I can recall at this time.
17 BY MR. EDWARDS:
18 Q. Okay. Are there other materials that you
19 have not yet disclosed during this deposition that
20 you read, that provided you additional bases for
21 your opinions about Mr. Cassell?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. INDYKE: Objection.
24 BY MR. EDWARDS:
25 Q. And are these materials that
EFTA01138166
789
1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one
2 second.
3 MR. EDWARDS: Outside of the privilege.
4 MR. INDYKE: Okay. Sorry.
5 BY MR. EDWARDS:
6 Q. Are these materials that have been
7 provided already in discovery in this case?
8 A. I don't know the answer to that. I don't
9 know what has been provided and what hasn't. I can
10 just tell you that in the course of my career, I had
11 read -- I had never met Mr. Cassell, but I had read
12 his articles, and they are aptly described as
13 zealous. He once -- he was once described as
14 somebody who misused -- I think misused or uses
15 family values to hide his zealotry. But I was
16 familiar with his what are regarded as very extreme
17 writings. And that formed part of my opinion about
18 his zealotry, yes.
19 Q. What was the timing of your reading these
20 articles that helped to form a part of your opinion
21 about Mr. Cassell?
22 A. Very soon after the allegation was made.
23 Not only did I independently read, but people called
24 me and alerted me to read this, read that. People
25 sent me briefs and asked me to read them.
EFTA01138167
790
1 Q. So one of the things that you took into
2 consideration in assessing the reputation or
3 credibility of Paul Cassell were various things that
4 he had written or that had been written about him?
5 A. Yes, and what people had said about him.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. I mean, just to give you an example, if
8 you don't mind me just elaborating one second, as I
9 was getting lunch today downstairs, three people
10 came over to me. One of them said, I can't believe
11 those, and then he used the F word, scrupulous
12 unscrupulous, unethical lawyers who have done this
13 to you, this is horrible, get them, they have to pay
14 a price, they ought to be disciplined.
15 And I said, do you know me?
16 No, but I've been following this story.
17 This is just unbelievable.
18 And then two other people, one of whom
19 overheard it, said, I just want to join in on that.
20 I don't know you, but I just want you to know that
21 the lawyers who did this are beyond -- they're just
22 horrible. No decent lawyer would ever do this.
23 This happens to me all the time. People
24 come over to me all the time and tell me what they
25 think of you and Paul Cassell.
EFTA01138168
791
1 Q. Okay. Where were you eating lunch today?
2 A. In a Wrap [sic] around restaurant.
3 Q. Where is it located geographically?
4 A. Right in the building. In the building.
5 Q. And are these individuals that spoke to
6 you individuals who told you that they know either
7 myself or Paul Cassell?
8 A. I didn't ask that question. It was just
9 -- it was quick conversation and one of them said,
10 I'll do anything to help.
11 Q. Okay. What is the identity of the person
12 who will do anything to help you?
13 A. His name is Jeffrey Levy. He is an
14 attorney here.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: "Here" meaning
16 where?
17 A. In Fort Lauderdale. He's a family lawyer.
18 Just out of the blue, I don't know him from Adam.
19 But this happens to me all the time. When I go to
20 Miami tomorrow, I'll be walking down Lincoln Road,
21 people will come over to me and tell me about you.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. Okay. Can you give me the cards of the
24 other people that have given you these cards all the
25 time so that we can --
EFTA01138169
792
1 A. No. The only reason I asked for this card
2 today, I asked him for the card because I said, I
3 want to be able to mention this if I'm asked about
4 it in the deposition. Would you mind giving me the
5 card?
6 He said, "I'm thrilled." He went to his
7 car, he got the card, and he said --
8 MR. EDWARDS: I would like to attach the
9 card of Jeffrey Levy to the deposition as the
10 next consecutive exhibit, which I believe is
11 26.
12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
13 Exhibit 26.)
14 MR. EDWARDS: Can I see the exhibit?
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Sure.
16 MR. SCOTT: Can I see the exhibit, too,
17 when you're done?
18 MR. EDWARDS: Yes.
19 BY MR. EDWARDS:
20 Q. On the back of this card, there is some
21 writing. Whose writing is that?
22 A. Mine.
23 Q. The writing, I think, says "Scarola
24 unethical e-mail"?
25 A. That's right.
EFTA01138170
793
1 Q. And does that scribbling of "Scarola
2 unethical e-mail" relate at all to this card?
3 A. Not directly, no. Not directly.
4 Q. Did this lawyer, Jeffrey Levy, discuss
5 with you Jack Scarola at all?
6 A. No. He just discussed just the lawyers
7 generically and their unethical conduct.
8 Q. And the lawyers generically, he's talking
9 about the lawyers who believe iliMiliSwolimme
10 A. No. The lawyers who pretend to believe
11 . None of us think you believe her.
12 Nobody I know thinks you believe her.
13 Q. Nobody you know thinks
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Any of the people you described yesterday,
16 which is now inclusive of Brad Edwards, Paul
17 Cassell, Jack Scarola, Sigrid McCawley and David
18 Boise, believe that's your
19 testimony?
20 A. That's right, and Sigrid McCawley told me
21 that.
22 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry, I'm going to
23 object. This again -- so I have no idea what
24 context, or if you're referring to a context
25 where we were having settlement discussions,
EFTA01138171
794
1 that violates the seal order that's already in
2 place. There's a motion for sanctions pending.
3 We will be supplementing with this.
4 You know, how many times do we have to go
5 over this, Alan? It's not appropriate. First
6 of all, you're misrepresenting things. And
7 I'll state for the record, I did not say that.
8 But secondly --
9 THE WITNESS: She's waiving privilege.
10 MS. McCAWLEY: No, I'm not waiving the
11 privilege.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, you are.
13 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm denying the allegation
14 that you just made on the record. I'm making
15 my record that you are not entitled to discuss
16 anything that deals with confidential
17 settlement discussions. Misrepresenting those
18 is a violation of that, and I'll go back to the
19 judge and get another order if I need to.
20 THE WITNESS: I was asked a question --
21 MR. SIMPSON: Don't --
22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on.
23 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have --
24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is there
25 anything else, Ms. McCawley?
EFTA01138172
795
1 MS. McCAWLEY: No, not right now.
2 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have the question
3 and the answer read back, please.
4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's go ahead
5 and do that, just for purposes of
6 COURT REPORTER: "Any of the people you
7 described yesterday, which is now inclusive of
8 Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Jack Scarola,
9 Sigrid McCawley and David Boise, believe
10 that's your testimony?
11 "That's right, and Sigrid McCawley told me
12 that."
13 A. That's absolutely responsive.
14 MR. SCAROLA: We move to strike the "and
15 Sigrid McCawley told me that" comment as
16 unresponsive to the question that was asked.
17 And we agree that it is clearly violative of
18 the Court order that has been entered with
19 respect to this matter.
20 MR. SIMPSON: The question on its face
21 asked about Ms. McCawley. It was Mr. Edwards
22 that injected her views into the question. It
23 was not the witness.
24 SPECIAL MASTERPOZZUOLI: Go back up to the
25 question.
EFTA01138173
796
1 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to have it sealed
2 if you want.
3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hold on a
4 second. Go back up to the question.
5 COURT REPORTER: "QUESTION: Any of the
6 people you described yesterday, which is now
7 inclusive of Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Jack
8 Scarola, Sigrid McCawley and David Boise,
9 believe that's your
10 testimony?
11 "ANSWER: That's right, and Sigrid
12 McCawley told me that."
13 MR. SCAROLA: The responsive answer ends
14 with "and that's right." Excuse me. "That's
15 right," period.
16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Give me a
17 second. I'll grant the Motion to Strike from
18 "and" all the way to the end.
19 A. I'm also happy to have it sealed, if they
20 choose to.
21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, I don't
22 know what is going to come up, but it will be
23 dealt with one way or another.
24 MR. SIMPSON: The witness said we would be
25 happy to have it sealed, given that ruling.
EFTA01138174
797
1 BY MR. EDWARDS:
2 Q. This attorney, Jeffrey Levy, did he
3 elaborate upon the basis for his offer to help you
4 against the generically described unscrupulous
5 lawyers, question mark?
6 A. Yes, he basically said these are lawyers
7 who are willing to make these outrageous charges,
8 and lawyers shouldn't be making these kinds of
9 outrageous charges against other lawyers, especially
10 when they're irrelevant. And basically he seemed to
11 know a little bit about -- not much, but a little
12 bit about the case.
13 But I use it as an illustration of people
14 coming to me all the time making these statements to
15 help amplify my answer. It's why I can't remember
16 names. Normally I wouldn't have asked him his name.
17 I only asked him his name because of your questions
18 of me today. But every -- virtually every week --
19 in the beginning, it was every day, people would
20 come over to me with these kinds of statements.
21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. But is this lawyer's opinion, am I
24 understanding that that -- that's something you
25 weigh in to support your public statements that you
EFTA01138175
798
1 have made?
2 A. I look at the totality of circumstances.
3 I look at my professional opinion, I look at what
4 I've read, I look at what I've told, I try to
5 calibrate, weigh everything for what it's worth and
6 then I come to an opinion.
7 And my opinion that I arrived at was based
8 at the totality of the circumstances that I was
9 aware of at the time I made this statement. And the
10 statement turns out to be true.
11 Q. And Jeffrey Levy, whatever his opinion is,
12 is one of the things that you're factoring in at
13 this point?
14 A. No, of course not. Of course not.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Not now, I don't have to factor anything
17 in. I now know the truth. I now know from other
18 people that this was all part of an extortion plot
19 and that the object of the extortion was Leslie
20 Wexner. But I'm aware of that now, so I don't have
21 to base the opinion on anything else.
22 MR. EDWARDS: Objection. Move to strike.
23 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to go
24 ahead and move -- grant the Motion to Strike.
25 Go back up. Let me just see where -- because I
EFTA01138176
799
1 wanted to find -- so from "I now know from
2 other people this is all part of an extortion
3 plot," from there down, we'll strike.
4 So what will remain is "not now, I don't
5 have to factor anything in. I now know the
6 truth." That will remain.
7 BY MR. EDWARDS:
8 Q. Okay. What are the identities of the
9 other two individuals that you encountered during
10 your lunch break?
11 A. One of them is a woman, a lawyer and --
12 MR. SCAROLA: He asked for a name.
13 A. I don't know the names. I didn't ask the
14 names from anybody.
15 BY MR. EDWARDS:
16 Q. Is there a description that would help me
17 learn the identity of this person?
18 A. She was in her 40s, probably. She had
19 short, cropped hair.
20 Q. Is this somebody who knew the lawyers who
21 had accused you by reputation?
22 A. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just
23 giving you an illustration of what people tell me
24 all the time.
25 Q. Okay. During the lunch break, did you
EFTA01138177
800
1 have a chance to consider whether you were willing
2 to waive the attorney-client privilege with respect
3 to the identities of the individuals with whom you
4 share a privilege in the circumstance where you are
5 the client, that provided you information that
6 helped form the basis of your opinions about Paul
7 Cassell and Brad Edwards?
8 MR. SCOTT: We've instructed my client not
9 to waive the privilege.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Both privileges?
11 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
12 MR. SCAROLA: And by "both," I mean both
13 attorney-client and work product.
14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
15 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
16 BY MR. EDWARDS:
17 Q. Isn't another reason that you have given
18 publicly that you could not have -- that anybody who
19 knows you would know that you could not have and
20 would not have committed such an offense, you're not
21 that kind of person?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. And similar to what you did with respect
24 to Paul Cassell and reading about what is public out
25 there about him to form the basis of your belief in
EFTA01138178
801
1 his credibility and reputation, you would agree that
2 it's also fair to have done the same thing with
3 respect to you, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Is it -- do you or have you in the
6 past enjoyed getting naked at clothing-optional
7 beaches in Martha's Vineyard?
8 A. When I was --
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, relevancy to that.
10 Invasion of privacy. Has no relevancy
11 whatsoever. I would like a ruling.
12 MR. EDWARDS: It is reasonably calculated
13 to lead to the discovery of admissible
14 evidence.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to
16 deny the objection, but give you -- latitude is
17 not unlimited.
18 MR. EDWARDS: I understand.
19 A. Would you give me a time frame?
20 BY MR. EDWARDS:
21 Q. Sure. At around October 15, 2001, which
22 is a time period we have agreed falls within the
23 relevant time period of this case.
24 A. So I have to give a lengthy answer to
25 this. There is a beach on Martha's Vineyard which
EFTA01138179
802
1 has traditionally been a clothing-optional beach.
2 Rumors are that Eleanor Roosevelt use to skinny dip
3 there. Many prominent people have skinny dipped on
4 that beach, and my wife and I have occasionally
5 skinny dipped on that beach. Yes. Not in recent
6 years.
7 Q. Were you asked at some point to represent
8 a woman by the name of Nikki Craft?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And with respect to that representation or
11 attempted representation, have you read the
12 statement that she has put out publicly regarding
13 you?
14 A. I don't recall, but I can tell you what
15 the facts of the case were and why I turned down
16 representation, if you would like to hear it.
17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let him ask his
18 question.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Sure?
21 MR. EDWARDS: No, no.
22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Oh, okay. Go
23 ahead.
24 BY MR. EDWARDS:
25 Q. Have you -- do you know that she has said
EFTA01138180
803
1 that she has written "Does there exist for
2 Dershowitz an overpowering thrill of seeing the
3 female nude such as to prevent him from seeing the
4 issues from a woman's viewpoint?"
5 A. I think she also called me Mengele in the
6 article. She compared me to Mengele, the nazi
7 killer. She was furious that I wouldn't take her
8 case because she wanted to walk topless down the
9 middle of the city in the middle of the street, and
10 I don't believe in that.
11 I had represented the nude beach in Truro,
12 Massachusetts, where people want to go skinny
13 dipping in private areas, but I do not believe that
14 anybody has the right to be nude or topless in
15 public. I turned down her case. I never met her.
16 She wrote to me, and I wrote back turning down her
17 case.
18 And she just went on a rampage against me.
19 As far as I know, she's never met me. She's never
20 seen me. And she has just written, I remember, and
21 attacked me. She went on the radio and attacked me
22 all because I refused to represent her walking
23 topless through the city.
24 Q. Okay. And part of that rampage was her
25 understanding of your "eager response to naked women
EFTA01138181
804
1 could be compared with that of a little boy let
2 loose in a candy store"?
3 A. She doesn't know me. That was something
4 she just made up.
5 MR. SCOTT: I need a ruling on relevancy.
6 But, I mean, reading statements from people
7 from articles and asking him about them is
8 totally irrelevant. Goes to nothing in this
9 case.
10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ask your I'm
11 hoping that you're going to tie this up to
12 something.
13 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
14 BY MR. EDWARDS:
15 Q. Can you well, let's go back first.
16 Can you provide me the articles -- all of
17 the articles on Paul Cassell that you have testified
18 about today?
19 A. I'm sure I can.
20 Q. Can you provide them to me now?
21 A. No. I told you I looked at them a year
22 ago.
23 Q. But it's fair for you to review those
24 articles and tell me what is in them, correct?
25 A. At some point, but I'm not going to do it
EFTA01138182
805
1 right -- I can't do it now. I don't have it in
2 front of me.
3 Q. On your Harvard website, is there a
4 compilation of articles which you've written in the
5 past?
6 A. I haven't looked at my website, but I've
7 written, I think, over a thousand articles.
8 Q. At some point in time, did you write for
9 Hustler magazine?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you publish in Hustler magazine?
12 A. No.
13 Q. None of your articles were published in
14 Hustler magazine?
15 A. No. I was once called the "asshole of the
16 month" by Hustler magazine because I refused to
17 represent Mr. Flint, and he had a picture of my face
18 coming out of the rectum of a donkey, calling me
19 "asshole of the month." But I didn't publish that,
20 I assure you.
21 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Tell me that
22 we're going to get somewhere with this, because
23 this is -- you know, see if we can tie this up
24 in some form.
25 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Let me just put on
EFTA01138183
806
1 the record why this is reasonably calculated is
2 the statement was made by Mr. Dershowitz that
3 he's not the kind of person to have done this.
4 THE WITNESS: To have raped a 16-year-old.
5 MR. EDWARDS: Our client -- our client has
6 described certain things about Mr. Dershowitz,
7 and if those certain things that she has
8 described are consistent with things that he
9 does believe in or has done in the past, then
10 that would add credibility to our client.
11 THE WITNESS: Would you tell me what your
12 client --
13 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on a
14 second.
15 MR. EDWARDS: I don't have to do that. I
16 can just discover on this subject matter.
17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to let
18 you. But the idea that he might have skinny
19 dipped with his wife is slightly different. So
20 I would -- I mean, I don't see that as
21 relevant, but I'm going to let you continue. I
22 mean, because it's not my role here to decide
23 that.
24 But I'm just saying to you that I get
25 where you're going. So, proceed through this,
EFTA01138184
807
1 but let's get to -- this is going to be
2 forever. I mean, because he's got a thousand
3 articles published, you can go through each of
4 them and pick out whatever or whatever it is.
5 So let's --
6 MR. EDWARDS: There are two other things
7 at issue here. One is at the time that these
8 pleadings were placed, what was our -- what was
9 Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards' mind state. The
10 other thing is Mr. Dershowitz has a claim for
11 damages to his sterling reputation. So to the
12 degree that there is some damage to reputation
13 caused by some other source, then that is
14 something else that should be -- we should have
15 discovery into.
16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's why I'm
17 allowing the latitude.
18 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you.
19 MR. SCOTT: There is certain relevance to
20 some of that. I mean, going into a lot of
21 these different things is -- you know, it's
22 years ago into the past and things like that.
23 It's just ridiculous. It's irrelevant.
24 And I think you get -- we're going to ask
25 you to make a decision on these things as they
EFTA01138185
808
1 come up if this is going on to go on for hour
2 after hour asking things over a man's life of
3 70-some years.
4 THE WITNESS: Seventy-seven.
5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ask your next
6 question.
7 BY MR. EDWARDS:
8 Q. Sure. Did you write articles on behalf of
9 Penthouse magazine?
10 A. I was Robert Guccione's lawyer on First
11 Amendment issues, and he asked me to do a column
12 every month on First Amendment and justice issues,
13 and I did that for 25 years, virtually every month
14 writing an article on justice and the First
15 Amendment.
16 Q. Have you ever written an article about the
17 idea that viewing child pornography should not be a
18 crime?
19 A. I can tell you my position. My position
20 is that creating child pornography should be a
21 crime, but that viewing -- I think I wrote about
22 viewing virtual child pornography; that is,
23 contrived images that are not real. And the Supreme
24 Court supported me on that position.
25 Supreme Court has ruled consistent with my
EFTA01138186
809
1 position that when you have computer-generated
2 pictures of children that the focus should be on
3 making of the pornography, which is a crime, but not
4 on the viewing of the pornography.
5 And I have a view, a scientific view that
6 I've published about, written many articles about,
7 that there is no relationship between the viewing of
8 pornography and commission of violent crimes. And I
9 have the data to support that. And I think I'm one
10 of the leading authorities on that issue. It's an
11 academic issue of some considerable interest me.
12 Q. You're one of the leading authorities on
13 the issue that --
14 A. Of the causation -- the relationship
15 between viewing pornography and crimes of violence.
16 Q. Viewing child pornography?
17 A. I would say in general. I don't know that
18 I distinguish between that in the scientific
19 research that I've done.
20 Q. I'm going to go ahead and show you what's
21 been marked as Exhibit 27. I'll show it to your
22 lawyer first. Ask if you recognize it.
23 MR. SIMPSON: Do you have a copy for us?
24 MR. EDWARDS: That's my only copy. We'll
25 use it --
EFTA01138187
810
1 MR. SCOTT: You know, I asked -- I'm going
2 to put this on. I asked yesterday to have
3 copies of exhibits.
4 MR. SCAROLA: I think we do have a copy,
5 before you get all exorcized over this.
6 MR. SCOTT: By the way --
7 MR. SCAROLA: I think we do have a copy.
8 MR. SCOTT: Okay. And by the way, the
9 thing you published from the Bench & Bar,
10 it's -- you said it was in the exhibits. It's
11 not.
12 MR. SCAROLA: I told you if it's not
13 there, we'll get it for you.
14 MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I'd like it today, if
15 you could get it, because that's what you said
16 yesterday.
17 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
18 Exhibit 27.)
19 MR. SCAROLA: I said tell us what else you
20 need, and we'll get it for you.
21 THE WITNESS: So not only is my --
22 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Hang on.
23 That's the witness's.
24 MR. SCOTT: Is this the witness's copy?
25 MR. SIMPSON: You can have this one, Tom.
EFTA01138188
811
1 MR. SCOTT: There's some notes on there.
2 I don't know if you want them, but --
3 MR. EDWARDS: I'll take it.
4 MR. SCOTT: I think they're your
5 questions. I could be wrong. I could have
6 handed it to him, it would have probably
7 expedited it.
8 MR. EDWARDS: I doubt it.
9 A. Okay. I remember writing this article.
10 It grew out of a pro bono case that I did
11 representing a student.
12 BY MR. EDWARDS:
13 Q. Does that article limit the opinion of
14 that viewing child pornography or children
15 fornicating should not be criminal to virtual child
16 pornography?
17 A. I think I say in the article -- I asked
18 the question: But should it be a crime for someone
19 who has never and would never molest a child to view
20 child pornography?
21 I think I raised that question. And I
22 talk about the dangers to the values of the
23 democracy. I say there is a potential here for a
24 real witch hunt. Child molestation is a serious
25 problem. The creation of child pornography is also
EFTA01138189
812
1 a serious problem. We don't know whether the
2 viewing of child pornography is or is not a serious
3 problem, but many people think it is.
4 So, I don't think I take a definitive
5 view. I am an academic. You're trying not only to
6 put my ideas on trial here today, what I've written
7 about on trial; you're trying to put my advocacy on
8 behalf of defendants on trial, you're putting the
9 Sixth Amendment on trial, you're putting the First
10 Amendment on trial. You're inviting the American
11 Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of
12 Criminal Defense Lawyers to intervene in this case,
13 because they will not stand by and tolerate an
14 academic having his ideas put on trial or an
15 advocate -- I was going to say a zealous advocate,
16 and I claim that, I am a zealous advocate, putting
17 his representation on trial. That is unAmerican.
18 That is McCarthyite and is beneath contempt.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Object and move to strike.
20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Denied. Denied.
21 Move forward.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. Is Paul Cassell also an academic?
24 A. Paul Cassell teaches and uses the
25 stationery of law school as part of his --
EFTA01138190
813
1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Answer the
2 question.
3 A. He is an academic.
4 BY MR. EDWARDS:
5 Q. When was that article that has now been
6 marked as 27 written?
7 A. Copyrighted 2002.
8 Q. Is 2002 within the relevant time period
9 that we've defined in this case?
10 A. Yes, but I've written articles like this
11 as far back as probably as 1967, and I've written
12 them probably as recently as the last couple of
13 years. I have a book which deals with the subject.
14 I have a long Law Review article called "Why
15 Pornography?"
16 So to focus on that year seems to me as to
17 wrench out of context the fact that this has been my
18 view. I had a debate with William Buckley about it
19 at Harvard University. I had a debate with --
20 interestingly enough, I had a debate with Ginsberg,
21 the poet, in which I took the opposite view in which
22 I was very, very tough on child pornography, talking
23 about how much I despise it and hate it and think
24 it's immoral and improper.
25 But just because I think something is
EFTA01138191
814
1 immoral and horrible doesn't mean I necessarily
2 think it should be criminal. Unlike some people, I
3 don't necessarily associate my personal views of
4 conduct with what I think should be illegal or who I
5 would represent.
6 Q. Have you ever had any of your articles
7 that you have written removed from your Harvard
8 website?
9 A. Not that I know of. That would be a
10 violation of academic freedom.
11 Q. Is there any reason why the article that
12 is now number 27 is, as of February of 2015, no
13 longer on your website?
14 A. I doubt that that's true. I doubt that it
15 was removed. I don't think every article let me
16 tell you, unequivocally, I did not remove it, order
17 it to be removed or know it was removed. I doubt it
18 was removed. I can't imagine why anybody would ever
19 remove any article. I'm very proud of this article.
20 Q. Is there any explanation for that
21 particular article being within the articles on your
22 website at some point and later no longer appearing
23 on your website?
24 A. I don't think that's true. And if it is,
25 I have no idea how it happened or why it happened.
EFTA01138192
815
1 It's not something I would ever tolerate being done.
2 There isn't a single article I would remove from my
3 website. I'm proud of every article I've written.
4 And I'm sure you will find many other articles.
5 I don't know what my website includes.
6 But there is a book that's been written that honors
7 me by University of Albany Law School and contains
8 in the back all of my articles. I don't know that
9 my website does more than have a selection of my
10 articles. So I would have to look. But I'm not
11 aware of it. I don't handle my website.
12 Q. Who decides which articles are placed on
13 the website and which are taken off of the website?
14 A. My assistant, Sarah Neely.
15 Q. Is Sarah Neely somebody who has been
16 involved in any aspect of the defense of this
17 particular case?
18 A. She's just my assistant, she's my
19 secretary. She does all of my typing and does
20 everything that I do. So she's been involved in
21 every aspect of my life since she worked for me
22 about eight years ago.
23 Q. Is there anyone other than Sarah Neely who
24 would put an article up on the website or remove the
25 article from the website?
EFTA01138193
816
1 A. Not that I know of.
2 Q. And is she permitted to remove any
3 articles from the website without your permission?
4 A. I have no idea. I've never ever read my
5 website. I am not a web person. I don't know
6 what's on my website. And she also does tweeter or
7 Twitter. I have no idea. She circulates some
8 articles, she doesn't do anything, I have no control
9 over that. And I had nothing to do, nothing, zero,
10 with either placing the article or if it was
11 removed, removing the article. Zero percent.
12 Q. Okay. Have you ever called for a complete
13 overhaul of rape laws in Massachusetts?
14 A. One of my academic subjects that I've been
15 interested in for many, many years has been the
16 definition of rape and the idea of consent.
17 And I recently wrote an article calling
18 for affirmative consent to be required in all rape
19 cases, making the point that it's far better than
20 ten consented-to rapes don't -- that ten
21 consented-to acts of sexuality do not occur rather
22 than even one unconsented-to act of sexuality occur.
23 So in other words, I've flipped the
24 Blackstonian notion and say it's far, far better
25 that voluntary sex not occur in questionable
EFTA01138194
817
1 situations than even one act of unconsented-to sex.
2 I'm very much a hawk on the issue of consent and
3 want to make sure that no sexual encounter ever
4 occurs. And I teach that to my students. And I
5 lecture my students about that. I think the laws of
6 Massachusetts and the laws of many, many other
7 states are in a complete state of messiness, and I
8 would be thrilled to have an -- overall rape laws
9 all over the county.
10 Q. Have you included within your request for
11 a complete overhaul lowering the age of consent
12 considerably?
13 A. I know I argued in Florida -- we produced
14 some data in Florida that the age of consent is 18.
15 And, by the way, this all happened way, way after
16 the events at issue. But that the average age of
17 commencing sex in the state of Florida is well below
18 that. And, therefore, there is a substantial
19 disparity in California, which has 18, and Florida,
20 which has 18, between the actual activities that
21 occur -- many, many acts of sexual conduct occur
22 between the ages of 17 and 18, but the acts are
23 illegal.
24 I have for years, basically since the
25 Vietnam War when I argued this, said that when you
EFTA01138195
818
1 have tremendous disparity between the law in action
2 and the law on the books, that creates disrespect
3 for the law. And so what I want to see is a change
4 that reflects the actual pattern of sexuality
5 community by community, state by state. That's been
6 my academic position.
7 Q. Have you, as far back as 1997, advocated
8 for lowering the age of consent to 15, as something
9 that would seem like an appropriate compromise,
10 given that reasonable people might disagree on
11 whether it should be as low as 14?
12 A. I don't recall that. If you could show me
13 what you claim I said, I would be happy to look at
14 it. I don't recall that. I do not believe the age
15 of consent should be 15.
16 Q. Okay. Have you ever believed that age of
17 consent should be 15?
18 A. I have no recollection of that. But if
19 you could show me what you claim I said, I will be
20 happy to look at it and read it in context.
21 Q. That's not a belief that you have today?
22 A. That's not a believe that I have today,
23 no.
24 Q. Do you currently have a place at 1500
25 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach?
EFTA01138196
819
1 A. I do.
2 Q. And is that near a clothing-optional
3 beach?
4 A. No. Not that I know of. I'm not aware of
5 any.
6 Q. Is there instances where you have seen
7 women lying out nude on the beach near your condo?
8 MR. SCOTT: You know, really the relevancy
9 of this is so strained.
10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You really are
11 straining the relevancy. But go ahead. It's
12 your time. Go ahead. I'm not going to --
13 A. Any human being who is not blind who has
14 walked on any part of South Beach has seen a vast,
15 vast, vast, vast majority of men and women are
16 dressed in totally appropriate bathing suits, and
17 occasionally there are some who are not.
18 BY MR. EDWARDS:
19 Q. Have you, at your condominium complex,
20 earned the reputation as somebody who goes out onto
21 the beach anytime there is a nude girl?
22 A. No. What you're talking about is last
23 year my wife ran for the condo board, and she ran
24 against another group of people, and they were
25 exchanging insults. And one of the women whose
EFTA01138197