EFTA00798337

I 
remember that. 
81 
I 
83 
overwhelming evidence. It doe➢n't even mean that you 
2 
BY NR. LINK: 
2 
have -- that it's more likely than not that your cane 
3 
Q 
You talked earlier about Bill Scharer. 
) 
la a winner. It means that you have something. It 
4
Re'➢ a friend of yours? 
4
mean➢ that you have acme evidence. 
5 
A 
No, he's not a friend of nine. 
5 
Q 
In your plaintiffs 
practice, you have 
f 
0 
As a lawyer did you have respect for him? 
4 
brought -- filed complaints against different 
3 
A 
Yeah. 
I heard of Bill Scharer. Bill Scherer 
1
defendants? 
4 
is a prominent Fort Lauderdale attorney who wa➢ a 
0 
A 
Sure. 
3 
client. 
His firm Conrad Scherer -- yeah, I've 
1 
Q 
And before you would file that complaint, 
10 
practiced here since 1975. 
And I had a number of cases 
10 
you would make sure that you had some information 
II 
in Port Laude 
, even though the offices I worked 
II 
before you would file it, right? 
12 
out of wore in Miami. 
And I have heard of the Conrad 
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Scherer firm throughout my practice. 
II 
Q 
Would you note every single fact that 
14 
4) 
You said one of the things in your direct 
14 
existed at the time you filed it? 
Is 
examination that made you feel comfortable about 
is 
A 
No. 
It 
joining the Rothstein fire was that Bill Soberer was 
14 
Q 
Would you know maybe even half of all the 
13 
a client. 
17 
information you might learn through the course of the 
14 
A 
Right. 
Is 
case? 
It 
Q 
Because of his stellar reputation. 
It 
A 
No. 
20 
A 
Right. 
20 
So 
have is --
0 
what you really would noel to 
21 
Q 
Does he continue to have a stellar 
21 
like on a scale of ono to ton, what level of 
22 
reputation? 
22 
information would you need to have? 
23 
A 
Nell, he's -- there's some bad press about 
23 
A 
Ono. 
24 
him now -- occurring now. This year. 
24 
0 
For probable cause? Ono? 
25 
Q 
How about in 2009? 
what wan hla reputation 
25 
A 
Yeah, you need to have sone sense that the 
82 
84 
1 
like? 
I 
client -- what the client is telling you is provable. 
2 
A 
In 2009? 
3 
0 
oh-huh? 
3 
MR. SCAROLA: 
Co ahead. 
I didn't mean 
4 
A 
I don't know what his reputation was like in 
4 
to interrupt. 
3 
2009, specifically. 
3 
THE WITNESS: 
Some degree of proof. 
4 
Q 
2009 is when Kr. Scherer filed a lawsuit 
6 
MR. SCAROLA: 
. 
going to voice an 
7 
against Scott Rothstein and others related to the 
7 
objection to the line of questioning to the 
S 
Foss,. scheme he wa➢ running. 
S 
extent that it call➢ for legal conclusion➢ 
9 
A 
Exactly. 
Scherer became probably the moat 
9 
that invade the province of the court. 
10 
noted attorney to sue the Rothstein firm. 
10 
MR. LINK: 
Okay, this is a discovery 
11 
0 
 
 on your knowledge of Mr. Scherer, do 
11 
deposition. 
I only objected to the form for 
12 
you believe he would have filed that lawsuit without 
12 
you, because we will be doing the objections 
13 
having probable cause to do so? 
13 
for trial, 
and I would ask that you do the 
14 
15 
MR. SCAROLA: 
Objection. 
Hearsay, 
secondhand knowledge, predicate. 
14 
15 
same thing. 
You don't need to make your 
trial 
objection➢ now. 
You know they're 
14 
THE WITNESS: 
I don't think that Bill 
If 
preserved. 
I? 
Scherer Mod that lawsuit without probable 
11 
MR. SCAROLA: 
Thank you. 
Ii 
cause. 
I think ho had probable cause. 
IS 
By I
. LINK: 
19 
BY NR. LINK: 
19 
0 
So, Hr. Berger, I may have steppe! on you 
24 
Q 
Can you tell the jury what the term 
20
when you were speaking. 
But I think you said on a 
21 
probable cause means, please? 
31 
scale of one to ten it takes a ono; is that right? 
22 
A 
It means -- the probable cause means that 
22 
A 
Yes. 
23 
there's a -- there's -- this is not going to be very 
23 
Q 
When you were evaluating probable cause as 
34 
informative -- but a colorable claim. 
You have 
24 
a lawyer, were there Cases that you thought were 
35 
something there. Doesn't mean that you have 
25 
going to turn out better than they, in fact, did? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798357

85 
87 
A 
Yes. 
1 
Q 
And probably ➢one casea turned out better 
3 
than you thought they might otherwise, right? 
4 
A 
If I was fortunate, yeah. 
5 
0 
Somatimea. 
not aura I have ever had 
any of those. Not often, right? Usually ca➢es get 
7 
worse as they go along? 
4 
A 
Or at least no better than you thought they 
I. 
Were. 
10 
Q 
I got it. Did you look at the complaint, 
II 
that you have as Exhibit 1 In front of you that 
12 
Mr. Scherer filed In November 2009? It's called the 
13 
Razorback Complaint? 
II 
A 
13 
4Plaintiff'a Exhibit Norther 1 was marked 
14 
for identification.' 
17 
0 
You have never seen that before? 
II 
A 
No. 
It 
0 
Would you do ma a favor and turn to page 12 
20 
of 147? 
21 
A 
Okay. 
21 
0 
Why don't you just read paragraph 40 for a 
23 
minute, and I an going to ask you a fat questions. 
24 
A 
Okay. 
25 
Q 
If you look -- you know that this is the 
1 
4 
S 
defendant's side, right? 
A 
Right. 
Q 
when you were a plaintiffs lawyer [or a 
client, were you aggressive and zealous for than? 
A 
Yea. 
Q 
when you represented a defendant, were you 
aggressive and zealous for then? 
A 
Yes. 
1 
0 
Would it be your expectation that 
Is 
Mr. Epatein'a lawyers, on his behalf, would have been 
II 
2.0.110.32 and aggressive in defending him? 
12 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Calls for 
13 
speculation. 
14 
THE WITNESS: Y02. 
Is 
BY KR. LINK: 
14 
Q 
You don't find anything inappropriate, 
17 
illegal 
about Hr. Epateln *2 lawyer being zealous and 
a 
aggressive, do you? 
it 
A 
No. 
20 
Q 
In fact, we've heard that your law firm --
21 
Mr. Edwards was aggressive and zealous, right? 
21 
A 
Yea. 
23 
0 
And that's what you would expect him to do, 
24 
right? 
25 
A 
Right. 
lawsuit that Kr. Scherer filed, right, on behalf of 
2 
Razorback? 
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
And you ➢ee what Mr. Scherer alleges here 
3 
is D3, a potential investor, was shown 13 Bankers 
4 
Boxes of actual case files in Jana Doe. Do you see 
7 
that? 
A 
That's what it says. 
0 
Do you have any reason to suspect that 
10 
86 
Mr. Scherer didn't write that down properly? 
A 
I don't know what Mr. Scherer investigated or 
11 
what the basis for him making this allegation is. 
13 
Q 
What I would like to know is, was there 
14 
ever a tine that Mr. Rothstein offered 5200 million 
dollars to settle the three cases being prosecuted by 
the law firm you gore a shareholder in? 
I/ 
A 
Not to my knowledge. 
IS 
Q 
Did Hr. Epstein, during the tine you were a 
1/ 
shareholder at the Rothstein firm, ever offer 
20 
530 million for a pre-suit settlement? 
31 
A 
Not to my knowledge. 
32 
Q 
You mentioned earlier m 
direct that a 
33 
lawyer is duty-bound to be zealous, right? 
IS 
If 
24 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
That's on both on plaintiff's side and the 
0 
Just like you would expect if you were 
2 
defending Mr. Epstein. Would you have boon zealous 
3 
and aggressive in his defense? 
4 
A 
Yea. 
10 
88 
Q 
Would you have -- strike that. 
I will coma back to it. 
What you observed during the tine that you 
were at Kr. Rothatein's firm, can you point to Oft0 
thing that Mr. Epstein's lawyers did that you 
thought vas unethical? 
A 
No. 
11 
Q 
Can you point to one thing Hr. Epatein'a 
13 
14 
15 
If 
la 
lawyers did that you thought was illegal? 
A 
You aro talking about LA defending against --
O 
Yea. 
A 
-- the throe cases? 
O 
Yes, air. 
IS 
A 
No. 
19 
42 
and are you familiar with the law firm that 
20 
was representing Mr. Epstein while you were involved? 
21 
A 
well, lack Goldberger and the Luttier firm, I 
22 
believe. 
33 
0 
Bob Critton. 
24 
A 
Critton. 
23 
0 
Dld you know Bob Critton? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798358

89 
91 
A 
Causally. 
2 
0 
What was Kr. Crltton's reputation in --
3 
A 
It's a good firm. I know the firm. 
4 
0 
It'➢ an excellent law firm, correct? 
5 
A 
Yes. 
6 
0 
Ara you aware of Mr. Critton's skills as a 
7 
lawyer that you -- from when you were either on the 
bench or Ln the practice of law? 
9 
A 
No, not really. I think I nay have -- I 
10 
think I mot him during the Ep➢tein deposition. But 
II 
that might have bean the first time I mot him. 
11 
0 
Now about Kr. Goldberger, Jack Goldberger? 
13 
A 
Probably the first time I mat him, too. 
14 
0 
Did you do any research on Mr. Crltton or 
39 
Mr. Goldberger? 
26 
A 
No. I didn't do research. 
27 
0 
Was there anything Kr. Critton did during 
30 
his representation of Mr. Epstein that you thought 
19 
was illegal? 
20 
A 
No. 
21 
0 
Unethical? 
22 
A 
No. 
22 
0 
Improper? 
14 
A 
No. 
Si 
0 
Now about Kr. Goldberger? 
A 
I don't know. 
2 
Q 
How old was Jane Doe? 
A 
I don't know. 
4 
Q 
When did you first moot..? 
S 
A 
I don't know -- I don't know which ones I 
4 
mot. I can't recall. I would have known at the time. 
• 
And I don't know how many, either. I know there'➢ only 
4 
three. But I can't really recall if I met ono, two or 
s 
three. 
le 
Q 
So you didn't moot all of them? 
II  
A 
I may have. I may have. I just don't 
12 
recall. 
13 
Q 
Let's talk about III. for a minute. What 
14 
do you remember about her? 
13 
A 
Again, I don't know which ono was III. which 
14 
one was .314 laic'. 
17 
Q 
You were ■.'➢ lawyer, weren't you? 
1➢ 
A 
Yes. 
It 
Q 
And you told u➢ that you evaluated the 
20 
financial, right, Narita of her case' what that case 
2L 
was worth in compen➢atory damages. Isn't that what 
22 
you told the jury? 
23 
A 
Yea. 
24 
Q 
So I want to know what was it about III.'a 
25 
case -- I want to go through what the pros and the 
2 
3 
4 
4 
10 
Il 
11 
II 
14 
15 
16 
90 
A 
No. 
O 
Do you know Mike Borman? 
A 
I've heard of him. 
O 
What have you heard of Mike Borman? 
A 
He has got a good reputation. 
O 
Mr. Berson was ono of Mr. Epstein'➢ lawyers 
at the time, right? 
A 
I don't know what his personal involvement 
was. His firm certainly represented Epstein. 
Q 
Can you tall ma of anything that Mr. Berman 
did that you aro aware of in representing Mr. Epstein 
that wan unethical? 
A 
No. 
O 
Illegal? 
A 
No. 
O 
Inappropriate? 
I/ 
A 
No. 
IS 
la 
30 
Q 
Do you know Joe Ackerman? No's at the 
Fowler White Elm. 
A 
No. 
21 
Q 
During the time that you were at the 
22 
Rothstein firm and representing 
E.M. and Sane 
23 
Doe, tell me how old was M.? 
24 
A 
I don't know. 
25 
Q 
How old was L.M.? 
92 
I 
con➢ were that caused you to be able to render your 
2 
opinion to this jury about the financial value of 
3 
that case. And the only way I know to that is to 
4 
talk about III. 
So let's talk generally, okay? Rave you 
4 
handled alleged sexual abuse cases? 
7 
MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to 
• 
the predicate as, argunentive. Move that It 
9 
be stricken. 
10 
I have no objection to have you handled 
IL 
sexual abuse cases. 
11 
THE WITNESS: Could you --
13 
BY MR. LINK: 
14 
Q 
other than the throe cases that you were 
15 
involved with at the Rothstein firm, have you 
14 
represented clients, either plaintiffs or defendants, 
I7 
involved in alleged sexual abuse? 
IS 
A 
Never a minor. And not the degree that was 
I9 
involved hero. I represented several wem➢n -- adult 
20 
women LA an employment context who were touched, 
21 
seduced, not -- not in the sense of violently raped, 
22 
but talked into having sox with the boas. But -- so 
23 
that's -- verbally abused. But again, not minor --
34 
Q 
Was that before you started at the 
25 
Rothstein firm or aft➢r? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798359

93 
95 
1 
A 
Yes, before. 
1 
0 
And what happens -- and things that they do 
2 
Q 
So before you took on the representation of 
2 
afterwards -- that they are touched -- is information 
3 
., E.N. and Jane Dee, your only experience with 
) 
you would evaluate in evaluating their case, wouldn't 
4 
alleged sexual abuse were three -- 
4
you? 
5 
A 
No, not three. It might have been alx to 12 
5 
A 
Yes. 
4 
woman la that circumstance. 
4 
Q 
So their history before the event and after 
7 
0 
Slx to 12 women in that circumstance. 
7
the event la relevant to an evaluation of their 
a 
A 
Under an employment setting. 
a 
emotional damage. Would you agree with that? 
* 
Q 
And you represented the wcmen in that 
s 
A 
Yes. 
IC 
setting? 
Is 
Q 
And lf you were defending that cospany 
II 
A 
Right. 
II 
instead of the 6 to 12 women, would you have done all 
12 
Q 
And sued whoever the boss was, right? 
12 
you could to discovery what emotional stress they had 
13 
A 
The company. 
13 
been through before the incident? 
II 
0 
The corpany. 
II 
A 
Yea. 
is 
By the way, did you explain to those women 
12 
0 
And would you have done all you could to 
14 
before you undertook their representation that their 
14 
discover what emotional di➢tre➢➢ they had been 
17 
life would be examined under a microscope? 
17 
through after the accident? 
IS 
A 
Yes. 
IS 
A 
Yea. 
IS 
20 
Q 
You know that before the case is filed, 
right, that that's going to happen? 
IS 
20 
Q 
How would that lapact the evaluation of the 
case? Tell the Jury how that information impacts 
al 
22 
A 
Right. 
Q 
}barn nothing surprising to you as a 
21 
22 
when you're evaluating the financial worth of a case, 
please? 
23 
lawyer about that, is it? 
23 
A 
Nell, it has some significance. You try to 
24 
A 
No. 
24 
analogize it to a person that has a pre-existing 
25 
Q 
If you were defending whoever that company 
2S 
physical injury. And the question la whether this 
94 
96 
I 
was, would you have put the 6 to 12 wcman'a live! 
1 
particular incident perpetrated by this particular 
2 
under a microscope? 
2 
parson aggravated a pre-existing condition or didn't. 
3 
A 
Yea. 
3 
On the other hand, you take your victim as 
4 
0 
That's your Job, right? 
4 
you find her. And if somebody has a pre-existing 
a 
A 
Right. 
5 
back condition and you drive your car into their car 
4 
7 
Q 
To learn everything you can about their 
sexual history? 
4 
7 
and you aggravate thole pre-existing back condition, 
you are still responsible for having done that. 
S 
A 
I don't know about that. Depends on the 
S 
So there is some relevance. It's a 
t 
case, what relevance it has. 
t 
question as to how much relevance it has for or 
10 
0 
But it might have relevance, right? 
le 
against the person bringing the case. Sometimes 
11 
A 
Theoretically it might. 
ll 
if a -- well, it could have a positive effect, it 
12 
0 
What if the only claim that was Deming -- 
12 
could have a negative effect, it could have no 
13 
was the claim you were making mental anguish or some 
13 
effect. 
14 
type of physical injury? 
14 
Same with the person's post-event 
IS 
A 
Mental anguish. It wasn't physical injury. 
IS 
experience: could have a positive effect, could have 
14 
Q 
In evaluating those cases, things that 
14 
a negative effect. It's a complicated ease-by-ease 
11 
happened before the unwanted touching by whoever 
I7 
analy➢i!, and it's ➢orething that you would look 
le 
their boss vas, something you would look at in 
le 
into. 
1* 
evaluating the lamaet of that event on their mental 
IS 
Q 
It absolutely is case-by-case, isn't it? 
24
health? 
20 
A 
Yes. 
21 
A 
Yes. 
21 
Q 
Two people going through the exact sale 
22 
4) 
So what happened to them before the 
22 
unwanted sexual abuse could have a totally different 
23 
accident la relevant to determining what emotional 
23 
emotional reaction to it, right? 
24 
damages they nay have suffered. You agree with that? 
24 
A 
Right. 
23 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
If you lined up 10 manor, who -- or 12, like 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798360

97 
99 
1 
you nay have represented, who had an unwanted sexual 
1 
experience, they may all have had different emotional 
3 
reaction➢ to it, correct? 
4 
A 
Correct. 
5 
Q 
And one of the things you try to evaluate 
on both the plaintiff's ➢ide and defense's side is 
/ 
what impact that particular event had on that per➢on 
• 
front an emotional damage standpoint. Do you agree 
• 
with that? 
IC 
II 
A 
Right. 
Q 
And I know you don't remember whether you 
12 
met all three of the Epstein-related clients in 
13 
parson, but did you remember talking to them on the 
I4 
phone? 
A 
I don't remember that, no. 
Q 
Tell Oa what you knew about the background 
17 
of 
before she mot Mr. Epstein? 
A 
I don't remember. I don't remember anything 
It 
specific about our particular clients in tome of their 
20 
backgrounds. 
21 
0 
so when you wore at the Rothstein firm in 
21 
2009 and you wore working on these three camas, did 
23 
you sit down and do a list of the strengths and 
24 
weaknesses of each of these individual cases? 
25 
A 
No, I didn't do that. 
1 
4 
S 
7 
agreement unsealed. That's something I spent a lot of 
time on. 
I attended, I believe, at leant two 
hearings In front of Judge Colbath -- 
• 
To get that unsealed? 
A 
-- to get that unsealed. 
• 
What wan the purpose in getting that 
• 
unsealed? 
• 
A 
So that it could be used as evidence because 
IC 
It was sealed. I believe we already had a copy of it, 
11 
but it wasn't something that we could disclose because 
12 
it had boon sealed. 
13 
Q 
Disclosed to whom? Who did you want to 
14 
disclose it to? 
15 
A 
To a jury or to third parties for use In 
14 
investigation. 
I,
Q 
What was it about the non-prosecution 
14 
agreement that a third party would need to do an 
1* 
Investigation related to these three folks? 
20 
A 
I don't know the specific point. I know that 
21 
we wanted to get the document unsealed. It had 
22 
Information in it that was important to us. 
23 
Q 
Did you want it for press purposes? 
24 
A 
No, not for press purposes. 
25 
Q 
Aro you aware that Mr. Edwards communicated 
98 
Did you do an evaluation of each of the 
2 
throe canon at that time of what you thought the 
3 
settlement value was? 
• 
A 
No. 
s 
Q 
Did you do an evaluation for each of the 
• 
throe individual canon to determine from a jury 
7 
standpoint how much each of them individually might 
• 
be awarded? 
9 
A 
No. 
10 
Q 
And when you wore doing -- it sound➢ like 
11 
your role in those cases may have been limited. Was 
12 
it? 
13 
A 
Yes. 
14 
Q 
How much time during 2009 while those three 
15 
folks were clients of the Rothstein firm did you 
II 
spend on M.'s case? 
17 
A 
I can't quantify by the number of hours that 
IS 
I spent on the cases. I didn't work on them Cull-time 
19 
and I didn't work on them every day. There were 
20 
certain specific things that I did. 
Q 
You attended a couple of hearings? 
32 
A 
Yeah, I attended a couple of discovery 
31 
23 
hearings, and I also -- I was also involved -- and it 
24 
was my relpon➢ibility to appear in front of the 
25 
criminal court to try to get the non-prosecution 
100 
with the press while ho wan at the Rothstein firm 
2 
about the Epstein cases? 
3 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Assuan facts 
• 
not in evidence. 
s 
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so. 
• 
BY I
. LINK: 
7 
0 
Were you aware that one of those clients of 
• 
the Rothstein firm actually did a TY interview? 
A 
I don't recall that. 
10 
0 
An you sit hero, you don't remember 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
14 
IS 
11 
Mr. Edwards having ono of his clients on an NBC 
interview? 
A 
No, I don't remember that. 
Q 
Dld he consult -- did Mr. Edwards consult 
with you before he would talk to the press about the 
Epstein cases. 
A 
No. 
Q 
Dld you over talk to the press about the 
Epstein cases? 
30 
A 
Well, yes, when I -- I think two of the 
21 
hearing➢ that I attended, when I loft the courtroom the 
22 
pre➢➢ was there out in the corridor, so reporters asked 
33 
to questions on Camera. 
24 
Q 
You are not required to answer them, aro 
35 
you? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798361

101 
103 
A 
No. 
2 
Q 
So what made you decide that you wanted to 
3 
answer the reporters' questions akout the Epstein 
4 
cases? 
5 
A 
I was an➢wering que➢tion➢. 
4 
Q 
Knowing that it was going to be in the 
7 
press? 
4 
A 
Yes. 
• 
Can you toll ma, how old was III. when she 
la 
met Mr. Epstein? 
11 
A 
I don't recall what her ago was, other than 
12 
she was a minor. 
13 
0 
Were you aware of 
mother Doing a 
14 
prostitute and III. working with her before ➢he met 
13 
Mr. Epstein? 
14 
A 
I seen to recall that ono of the young woman 
17 
we represented, her mother was a prostitute. I don't 
Is 
know which one it was. And I had never heard before 
I* 
you mentioned it just now that there was a statement 
20 
that she worked with her mother as a prostitute, no. 
2l 
Q 
Were you aware that all three of the 
22 
Rothstein clients were paid for every tine they 
23 
provided Mr. Epstein with a massage? 
24 
A 
Not as specific as you say it. I knew 
25 
generally that was part of the allegations that they 
A 
No, no. They had already been brought into 
2 
the case -- into the firm. I was not doing intake. Wo 
already had the ca➢es. 
4 
Q 
So whether the➢e cases financially were 
weak or ➢trong, you didn't do any work to reach an 
4 
opinion; is that true? 
7 
A 
When you aay I didn't do any work, I did 
O 
reach an opinion. If you were a young -- if I 
• 
represented an underage young girl who was trolled by a 
10 
billionaire's assistant and selected because she didn't 
11 
have any tattoos and she was white and she was young 
12 
and attractive and ➢he was lured by money to go to the 
13 
guy's house and help him masturbate, I don't need to 
14 
know a whole lot more to tell me that that's a 
13 
significant case. 
14 
Q 
So were you aware that III. actually 
17 
brought E.N. to Mr. Epsteln's house to be paid fast 
la 
money to give him a manage? 
A 
Well --
20 
0 
Did you know that, air? 
21 
A 
I don't know whether what you said is true, 
22 
and I hadn't hoard it before or that I can recall. 
23 
Q 
Dld you know that ■. brought Jane Dos to 
24 
Mr. Epstein's house and that III. was paid for doing 
25 
that? 
102 
I 
were paid money, or given money by either -- personally 
2 
by Epstein or by one of hla aaaaa tans. I couldn't say 
3 
that I heard that it we­ every time, but that it was 
4 
all three. 
• 
Q 
Doe➢ it surprise you that all three of have 
• 
testified that every single tine they wont to see 
7 
Mr. Epstein to give him a massage they were paid? 
S 
A 
Would it surpriae me? I have no opinion 
t 
about that when it -- If it would surprise ma. 
10 
Q 
Were aware in 2009 that all throe of the 
Il 
Rothstein clients solicited other people co cone 
12 
provide massages to Mr. Epstein and were paid a 
13 
solicitation fee? 
14 
A 
So these minor girls that you are saying 
15 
solicited other minor girls? 
Q 
Yea, and brought then to Mr. Ecutein'a 
house, told then what they were going to do, and were 
paid for bringing them? Did you know that? 
14 
IS 
19 
A 
No, I never heard of that. 
20 
Q 
Never heard of that, okay. 
31 
Did you read 
statement to the FBI 
22 
as part of your evaluation -- let no go back for a 
23 
second. 
34 
Did you evaluate these cases from a 
23 
financial standpoint at all? 
104 
A 
I don't know that that happened. I nay have 
2 
heard that as part of the case. I don't recall that 
3 
• 
4) 
Are those all facts that you would take 
5 
Into consideration in evaluation of the strengths and 
• 
weaknesses of the cases from a financial standpoint? 
A 
If I was working the case --
S 
0 
Yea. 
A 
-- and I -- I would want to know If that 
10 
haft:ono!. 
Q 
Right. 
12 
A 
What significance it would have, 
not 
13 
sure. 
14 
0 
But you would take it Into consideration, 
15 
wouldn't you? 
14 
A 
I would take it into consideration. To no 
If 
IS 
IS 
30 
31 
what it does is It enhances the reprehensible nature of 
what Epstein did, that he would have young woman do 
this typo of thing, because legally they couldn't be 
consenting to what they were doing. 
23 
A 
So it doesn't -- to me it does not negatively 
23 
affect the economic value of the case or lessen the 
24 
damage to the young women if they did what you say. 
35 
Q 
So if they had already been involved in 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798362

i 
105 
prostitution, would that impact your view of this 
I 
107 
not sitting here a➢ a judge, are you? 
2 
reprehensible conduct of masturbating in front of 
2 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection, argumentative. 
3 
them? 
3 
THE WITNESS: Of course, no. 
4 
A 
You are talking about children, so no. 
4
BY I
. LINK: 
5 
In fact, it'➢ Worse. You're dealing with 
5 
Q 
You haven't been a judg➢ for over 10 year➢, 
4 
troubled, damaged, young -- if what you aay i➢ 
4 
right? 
/ 
true and the girl -- let'➢ assume that the girl was 
7 
A 
Of course. That'➢ correct. You are asking 
• 
a paid prostitute a➢ a minor and Epstein Caro➢ along 
a 
my opinion. 
• 
and he does what he doe➢ to than, it's even worse. 
, 
Q 
And 
asking about while you Were 
10 
Q 
Masturbating In front of them? 
la 
amployof at the Rothstein firm. ?hat'➢ what 
11 
A 
It'➢ oven Worse, because he'➢ taking a 
II 
interested in. 
interested in these three folk➢. 
12 
damaged child and Making her even more damaged. 
12 
And so is it your opinion that if you are a 
13 
Q 
You didn't meet with any of these three to 
13 
17-year-old girl involved in prostitution that you 
14 
evaluate whether they wore more damaged, did you? 
I4 
cannot to hold accountable for the deci➢ions you 
II
A 
Are you asking ne hypothetically whether 
la 
make? I➢ that your to➢timony? 
14 
these things would be thing➢ that you would take into 
14 
MR. SCAROLA: objection, argumentative. 
I/ 
consideration? 
17 
THE WITNESS: Kell, you can, but not in 
IS 
0 
Yea. 
la 
this context. These young woman wore 
19 
A 
And ■ 
pointing out, yeah, they would be, 
Is 
manipulated by this guy and he trot 
20 
and they could ➢Mane the case a➢ opposed to detract 
20 
advantage of th➢n, and they can't be hold 
21 
from it. 
21 
responsible for that. 
22 
0 
Could b➢ a &optima, could b➢ a positive. 
22 
And the fact that they have a past, as 
23 
A 
Could b➢ a negativ➢, could b➢ a positive. 
2) 
you described it, nay -- nay make what he 
24 
Q 
D➢pends on what spin you put on it. 
24 
did even ➢ore reprehensible. 
25 
MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the 
25 
106 
108 
1 
qu➢ltlon. 
I 
BY I
. LINK: 
2 
THE WITNESS: I don't 14110W about a 
2 
Q 
Or make it  
3 
spin. R➢ality doesn't have a ➢pin. 
3 
A 
May make it less. 
4 
BY NR. LINK: 
4 
Q 
But it's a subjective evaluation, isn't it? 
a 
0 
I agree with that. So ■ 
asking you -- 
s 
A 
By a lawyer, or course. It's subjective and 
4 
it's your testimony -- 
4 
you try to build objectiv➢ facts. You hire expert➢, 
1 
A 
And the truth doesn't have a spin. 
/ 
you hire a psychologist to review the people and you 
5 
0 
IMI a➢king if it's your opinion that if you 
S 
build this a➢ a factual case. 
9 
are sexually active, a prostitute, your mother i➢ a 
• 
0 
And you are exactly right. And the reason 
10 
prostitute, you have boon homeless, your parents are 
10 
I ➢aid subjective i➢ because you could take 10 really 
Ii 
drug addicts, that the trawna of watching an older 
II 
competent lawyers t0 evaluate each of these throe 
12 
man masturbate in front of you when you are getting 
12 
case➢ and all 10 may coma up with a different opinion 
13 
paid and voluntarily come back dozens or time➢ is 
13 
of whether the ca➢e➢ are strong, median of weak. Can 
Id 
more aggravating than all of the pr➢condition➢? 
14 
you agree with that? 
15 
MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the 
15 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection to form. 
14 
qua:Miro. 
14 
THE WITNESS: No, I don't agree with 
11 
THE WITNESS: Fir➢t of all they 
17 
it, becau➢e if you have a case where a young 
IS 
can't -- under the law they are not 
IS 
woman, regardle➢s Of the Circumstances, is 
19 
voluntarily doing anything. The law doesn't 
19 
brought into a billionaire's hone by 
20 
recognize that. 
20 
herself, by herself, not with her parent➢' 
21 
You know, I sat as a judge on capital 
21 
knowledge, but by herself, one-on-one, 
22 
rape case➢ where people tried to defend and 
22 
there's nothing about her pa➢t that would 
23 
said consent. There is no con➢➢nt. 
23 
make that a bad case. 
24 
BY
 LINK: 
24 
BY KR. LINK: 
25 
0 
Thi➢ isn't a capital rape case and you are 
25 
0 
I didn't ➢ay it was a bad case. I said in 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798363

109 
111 
evaluating the economic damages, would 10 lawyer➢ in 
2 
evaluating the fact➢, could they reach reasonably 
3 
different opinion about the dollar value of the 
4 
ca➢e? 
A 
It would just be how many more zero➢ you 
4 
would add to the case -- to the value of case. That's 
7 
all. 
Q 
That'➢ your opinion of it, right? 
A 
That'➢ my opinion, exactly. 
10 
Q 
By the way, are you always right In your 
II 
opinion? 
MR. SCAAOLA: Objection, argmmentive. 
II 
THE WITNESS: No, 
not always right 
in my opinion. 
Is 
BY MR. LINK: 
14 
Q 
You mentioned when you Nero a trial court 
17 
judge you were rever➢ed a few time➢. 
II 
A 
More than a few times. 
IS 
Q 
How many tire➢ wore you reversed? 
20 
A 
I don't know. I made a lot of deci➢ion➢ and 
21 
22 
a lot of then were affirmed and a lot of them wore 
appealed. I wa➢ reversed a number of times. 
23 
0 
Rough gue➢➢? 
24 
A 
I Couldn't tell you. I couldn't tell you how 
2S 
many [limos. 
Nurik or Rothstein -- did they feel bullied or 
2 
threatened by Epstein lawyer➢? 
MR. SCAAOLA: Objection, predicate. 
4 
THE WITNESS: You are assuming that 
Nurik and Rothstein worked a➢ attorney➢ on 
4 
these cases. I don't know that they did. 
Adler was tangentially involved. I 
▪ 
don't think that anybody was bullied by 
• 
Epstein. 
14 
BY MR. LINK: 
11 
Q 
And do you think any quality of the 
12 
representation of the three clients while at 
13 
Roth➢tein wa➢ impacted by the aggre➢sive, zealous 
14 
behavior of Mr. Epstein'➢ lawyers? 
15 
A 
No. 
14 
Q 
Is Ws. Edward➢ a tough, hard-nosed  
17 
lawyer? 
A 
Yeah. 
If 
0 
Tried criminal c 
aaaa ? 
20 
A 
Noll, I a➢➢me so. You know, I -- until --
21 
until you mentioned it, I forgot that Brad had been a 
22 
prosecutor. I didn't really remember that until you 
23 
mentioned it. 
24 
Q 
Ho wa➢ a prosecutor in the Broward State 
2S 
Attorney'➢ Office and told us ho prosecuted murderers 
110 
O 
Ton? 
2 
A 
More than 10. 
3 
O 
One hundred? 
4 
A 
No, not 100. 
Q 
S0013Where between 10 and 100 tine➢? 
4 
A 
I would aay between -- maybe 10 and 20, 30 
7 
tides. ➢seething like that. Twenty, 30. Something 
• 
like that. 
9 
10 
11 
12 
Q 
Somewhere in that range. Okay. 
Where three people that evaluated your 
deci➢ion decided that -- for whatever reason to 
reverse your deci➢ion, right? 
13 
A 
Yeah. 
14 
IS 
14 
17 
IS 
Q 
Old you over feel threatened and bullied by 
Mr. Boatman's lawyer➢? 
A 
No. 
O 
Old 14r. Edwards come to you and aay I feel 
threatened and bullied by Mr. Epateln's lawyer➢? 
19 
A 
No. 
20 
Q 
Do you think Mr. Edwards, who had been a 
21 
former criminal prosecutor, wa➢ bullied and 
22 
threatened by Hr. Ep➢tein'a lawyers? 
23 
A 
No. 
24 
0 
Were any of the lawyers at the Roth➢tein 
25 
flea that were working on thi➢ ca➢e -- Mr. Adler or 
112 
and hard criminal➢? 
2 
A 
Okay. 
3 
Q 
That's not a job for the weak of heart, is 
4 
it? 
A 
No. 
4 
Q 
Was there any part of your evaluation of 
7 
Mr. Edwards that made you think that he was afraid of 
S 
Mr. Epstein and hi➢ lawyer➢? 
9 
A 
No. 
10 
MR. SCAAOLA: Objection, compound. 
IL 
BY MR. LINK: 
12 
0 
When you were working on the throe Epstein 
13 
cases while you were at the Rothstein firm, wore you 
14 
aware that III. gave a ➢worn ➢tatement with immunity 
IS 
to the FBI? 
14 
A 
No. 
Il 
IS 
0 
What'➢ the reason for the FBI to give 
iMMUnity when they take a ➢worn statement from 
It 
somebody? 
30 
MR. SCAAOLA: Objection. No predicate. 
31 
THE WITNESS: I could only talk in 
22 
general a➢ to --
23 
BY MR. LINK: 
24 
0 
Toll the jury in general,  
33 
A 
I would a➢➢we that a police agency or a 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798364

113 
115 
prosecutor would give ismiunity. 
Immunity means 
1 
basically a promise not to prosecute the person in 
3 
exchange for information. 
4 
0 
In telling the truth? 
A 
In telling the truth. 
4 
Q 
so there's a premium on telling the truth 
/ 
to keep your innualty. 
You agree with that? 
• 
A 
Noll, a condition for the isownity to stick, 
• 
I would anima, would be that you've told the truth. 
10 
Q 
Which would mean that if you were providing 
11 
a sworn ➢tatemnt to the FBI to gat isownity you 
12 
should tell the truth? 
13 
A 
Yeah. 
II 
Q 
Did you ever review the transcript of 
II 
taped ➢tatemnt that wan given to the FBI in 
14 
April of 2001? 
If 
A 
No. I don't believe I ever read it. 
is 
Q 
Did you ever -- did anybody ever tell you 
la 
that there wore significant differences between the 
20 
statement given by 
before she was repre➢ented by 
the Rothstein firm and what her testimony was after 
22 
being represented by the Roth➢tein firm? 
23 
MR. SCATtOLA: 
objection. 
Calla for 
24 
hearsay, secondhand knowledge, argumentive. 
25 
THE WITNESS: 
I think I heard that. 
the clients you wore representing gave FBI sworn 
1 
testimony and then changed her story at her 
deposition, did you go nay, Let me look and ➢ee 
4 
what's going on, let ma compare then? 
S 
A 
I think that it was presented in writing, so 
4 
when you say did I go and compare it, I think that, not 
only was It stated to the judge, but beforehand in soma 
a 
written paper, Hr. battier or Mr. Goldberger had out 
* 
the two ➢tatemnts ➢ide by side, so I compared it in 
la 
that sense. 
ll 
I don't have a particular recollection of 
12 
doing it. I generally remember that there was 
13 
statement by counsel that one of the clients had 
14 
15 
14 
I,
a 
I,
20 
21 
21 
23 
24 
25 
said something to the FBI that was different than 
what she said at the time. 
O 
I understand. 
A 
So generally what you are saying El familiar 
with. 
Q 
And I understand that there's sane snippets 
of it in the papers they filed. What 
asking is 
different. 
Did you, once you had that information, 
go back, pull the two transcripts and look at them 
personally to evaluate the Inconsistencies in her 
under -oath te➢timony. 
A 
No, I didn't pull the Whet* -- no, I didn't 
114 
BY NB. LINK: 
2 
0 
Who told you that? 
3 
A 
I think I hoard it, at least, by either 
4 
Mr. Critton or Hr. Goldberger at one of the discovery 
• 
hearings. 
4 
S 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
IS 
If 
11 
O 
And they were informing the court? 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
And you were there as a participant for ono 
of the Rothstein clients, 
and they were describing 
that 
gave a sworn statement with Immunity and 
now at the Rothstein firm her testimony has changed. 
Did you take that information, go back and compare 
them to see if what they said is accurate? 
MR. SCAROI.A: 
Objection. Calla for 
hearsay, secondhand knowledge, improper 
predicate. 
THE WITNESS: 
They didn't couch it in 
IS 
terms of now that ➢he's with the Rothstein 
19 
firm, okay. 
I think it was couched in terms 
20 
of she said one thing one time and now ➢he's 
21 
saying something else. 
22 
And now you're asking ma if I actually 
23 
went and compared it side by side. 
24 
BY HR. LINK: 
25 
Q 
Once you heard to open court that ono of 
pull the whole transcripts to do that, no. 
2 
0 
You mentioned Ns. tutelar, Mark tattler. 
3 
Ha was one of the lawyers at Ns. Crleton's firm? 
4 
A 
Yes. 
5 
Q 
You aro familiar with Mark 'Antler? 
4 
A 
Yes, I know Nark LUttier. 
7 
Q 
What kind of reputation does he have? 
S 
A 
He'➢ a very good attorney. 
9 
Q 
Was there anything that Hr. battier 
did 
10 
IL 
11 
13 
14 
IS 
116 
during his representation of Epstein that you thought 
was unethical? 
A 
No. 
O 
Illegal? 
A 
No. 
O 
Inappropriate in any way? 
If 
A 
No. 
If 
Q 
Are you aware of their firm, the Berman, 
IS 
Critton 4 tattler 
law firm were the lawyers that were 
19 
representing Ns. Epstein at the time that the lawsuit 
20 
against Hr. Rothstein, III. and Hr. Edwards wan 
21 
filed? 
22 
A 
No. I didn't know who wan representing 
23 
Mr. Epstein at that time. 
24 
Q 
Mr. Berger, wore you involved In the motion 
25 
to set a bond for $15 million based on the illegal 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798365

2 
3 
4 
f 
7 
4 
a 
10 
11 
12 
13 
13 
17 
IS 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
117 
transfer of a➢aota by Mr. Epstein that waa filed with 
Judge Marra? 
A 
No. I never hoard of that. 
Q 
Did you review the order entered by Judge 
Marra where he found that there wa➢ no evidence to 
support the filing of that motion by Mr. Edwards? 
A 
No. 
MR. SCAAOLA: I am going to object to 
the form of the question. 
It assumes facts 
not in evidence. 
BY I
. LINK: 
Are you familiar with Judge Marra? 
A 
Oh, I know Judge Marra. 
What is his reputation? 
A 
Very good judge. 
Excellent juri➢, right? 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
Would it surprise you that Mr. Edwards and 
the Rothstein firm would file 
such a motion that 
Judge Marra would find had no merit? 
A 
I don't even know the context. 
I don't know 
anything about what you're talking about. 
I didn't 
know that such a motion was filed. 
I will 
show that to you in a minute. 
Take 
a look at that. 
But you weren't involved in drafting 
2 
4 
4 
IC 
II 
ix 
13 
14 
13 
14 
17 
Is 
Is 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
119 
about earlier at the Critton 
the Borman, Critton 
Luttler firm, right? 
A 
Correct, and Michael Pike. 
0 
Do you know Michael Pike? 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
What is Michael Pike's reputation in the 
community? 
A 
No is a good attorney. 
Q 
Did Michael Pike do anything in his 
representation of Kr. Epstein you thought was 
illegal? 
A 
No. 
Q 
Unethical? 
A 
No. 
0 
Inappropriate? 
A 
No. 
Nave you ever seen anything in looking back 
at the representation of Mr. Epstein by Berman, 
Critton a tutelar and their lawyers that causes you 
to think that something they did in that 
representation was illegal? 
A 
No. 
Q 
Unethical? 
A 
No. 
Q 
You mentioned during your direct 
I 
118 
that motion or arguing it 
in any way? 
A 
No. 
2 
120 
examination that you thought it would to malpractice 
not to investigate every other instance of alleged 
3 
MR. LINK: 
Can we mark that as number 
3 
wrongful conduct by Mr. Epstein. 
Do you remember 
three, please? 
4 
saying that? 
(Plaintiff's 
Exhibit Number 3 was marked 
a 
A 
Yea. 
4 
for identification.' 
Q 
Is it your testimony that while you wore 
7 
BY MR. LINK: 
1
representing the three plaintiffs and Rothstein that 
S 
0 
Wo are looking at Plaintiff's Exhibit 
S 
every single incident of potential wrongful conduct 
Member 3, the original complaint filed by Mr. Epstein 
/ 
by Kr. Epstein wan investigated by your firm? 
10 
against Scott Roth➢tein, Bradley Edwards and ■. 
10 
A 
I don't know that. 
11 
Nave you ever seen this complaint? 
IL 
Q 
so if they didn't do that, would you agree 
12 
A 
Yes, I saw it. 
12 
that that was committing malpractice? 
13 
0 
When did you see it? 
13 
A 
I think that'➢ too speculative a question to 
14 
A 
I saw it the other day. Mr. Scarola sent mo 
14 
ask. 
15 
a copy of it. 
15 
0 
You remember testifying 
that it 
was 
If 
Q 
Had you seen it before the other day? 
If 
Malpractice not to investigate every other instance 
17 
A 
No. 
I? 
Of wrongful activity 
by Kr. Epstein? 
IS 
Q 
Did Mr. Edward➢ ever call you to talk to 
IS 
MR. SCAAOLA: 
Excuse me. 
MI going to 
19 
you about this complaint? 
IS 
object. No proper predicate. Misstate➢ 
20 
A 
No. 
30 
prior testimony. 
21 
Q 
rake a look -- I asked you if you know who 
21 
BY NR. LINK: 
22 
filed it. 
Will you just take a look and sea the 
22 
Q 
Do you remomber that testimony, air? 
23 
lawyer that signed this complaint when it 
was filed? 
23 
A 
Con aaaaa y, yeah. 
I said -- yeah. 
24 
A 
Robert Critton. 
24 
0 
You said that, right? 
23 
Q 
And that'➢ NC. Critton We were talking 
23 
A 
Yes. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798366

121 
123 
I 
Q 
And ao that would moan -- for example, 
1 
when you aay -- it wasn't during the time of the 
2 
Mr. Scarola's firm represented a client against 
2 
Rothstein -- Brad Edward➢ wasn't working for the 
) 
Mr. Epstein, right? 
) 
Rothstein firm, I don't believe, when this happened. 
4 
A 
Correct. 
4 
Q 
When he settled? 
5 
Q 
So if Mr. Scarola's firm, before settling 
5 
A 
When he settled. 
S 
that ease, did not investigate every other incident 
4 
Q 
Correct, he was not. 
1
of alleged wrongdoing by Hr. Epstein, you would deem 
7 
And you didn't get any part of the 
• 
that as malpractice, wouldn't you? 
• 
financial arrangement, did you, sir? 
s 
A 
Not if enough money wan put on the table, 
s 
A 
No. 
IC 
they wouldn't need to do it. 
Ici 
Q 
We were talking about this duty to 
II 
Q 
Oh. Whoa, whoa, whoa. So I can avoid 
II 
investigate. And ono of the things that you said 
12 
malpractice and the fulfillment of my ethical 
12 
that caught my attention was that I don't have to 
13 
obligations by getting enough money for the client? 
13 
fulfill thin duty to investigate and it wouldn't be 
14 
A 
If the client -- once they accept the 
14 
malpractice if I settled for an amount that the 
15 
settlement, then there'➢ -- the case is over. 
15 
client approved. Is that your sworn testimony? 
14 
0 
I got lt. But during that window between 
14 
A 
Yeah. 
17 
when the case is filed and when it's nettled is when 
I7 
Q 
So, you made the statement that your law 
Is 
you aro supposed to be doing thin investigation, 
Is 
firm had a joint prosecution agreement with other law 
Is 
right? 
It 
firms. Old you ever see that agreement? 
20 
A 
Correct. 
20 
A 
I don't recall -- I can't recall seeing it. 
21 
0 
You are not telling this jury that I can 
21 
I recall hearing of it. 
22 
discharge my ethical obligations by simply getting 
22 
Q 
Was there a written joint representation 
2) 
money for a client, are you? 
2) 
agreement? 
24 
A 
Well, 
not sure I know what you mean. I 
24 
A 
I don't know if it was written. 
25 
moan, if a client is suing, if a client has a 
25 
0 
Did you ask to sea it? 
122 
124 
1 
particular dollar amount that she thinks will make her 
i 
A 
No. 
2 
whole for what he has done to her, and Kr. Epstein 
2 
0 
You said you attended a meeting, right, of 
3 
offered that amount, then the client has achieved their 
3 
tamers from other ['arm? 
4 
purpose. 
4 
A 
I remoter -- and it's very vague. I 
a 
0 
Let me a➢k you this. Since you -- 
5 
remember -- I think it was the first time I met Adam 
4 
MR. SCAROLA: . 
sorry. I don't 
4 
Horowitz. And I think I met Spencer Kuvin. I just 
7 
believe the witness has finished his 
7 
can't place exactly where it wan. It wasn't at the 
8 
response. 
S 
Rothstein office. And I just don't -- it was somewhere 
1 
THE WITNESS: And wo keep talking about 
t 
in Went Palm Beach -- at a law firm in West Palm. 
10 
money. But a➢ attorneys always tell jurors, 
10 
Q 
So the joint prosecution agreement concept 
II 
this is the only way the system can 
IL 
la that you can share information with each other and 
12 
compensate or make somebody whole. It's 
12 
not waive your attorney-client or work product 
I) 
financial. So It does toll down to that. 
1) 
privilege, right? 
14 
BY KR. LINK: 
14 
A 
That's one of them -- ono of the features of 
15 
0 
I got it. 
15 
it, yeah. The other would to that you are going to 
If 
So what you said is if the three 
If 
cooperate. 
1/ 
plaintiffs represented by the Rothstein firm made a 
17 
0 
sure. You are going to share information. 
IS 
decision that the money they were offered would 
IS 
A 
Right. 
It 
compensate them fairly, then they have the right to 
19 
Q 
plaintiffs lawyers do that all the time in 
24
take it and to done, right? 
24
multiple cases, don't they? 
21 
A 
Correct. 
21 
A 
Yea. 
22 
Q 
And that'➢ what happened here, correct? 
22 
0 
That's not uncommon? 
23 
A 
I have heard that there wan a settlement. I 
23 
A 
No. 
24 
wasn't involved personally, so I don't have personal 
24 
Q 
And defense lawyers do that, right? 
25 
knowledge of it. I heard that's what happened. And 
21 
A 
Correct. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798367

125 
127 
1 
3 
4 
5 
4 
14 
II
12 
12 
II
is 
14 
I,
IS 
It 
20 
21 
21 
23 
24 
25 
Q 
So I heard you say on direct examination 
that Brad Edwards wa➢ the lead lawyer for thin group 
of distinguish lawyers that had cases against 
Mr. Epstein. Ia that true? 
MR. SCAROLA: objection. No proper 
predicate. 
THE WITNESS: 
not sure I said that. 
If I did I made a mistake. 
Brad -- you are dealing with none very 
heavy-weight people. Brad wan an excellent 
lawyer, but ho didn't have the reputation of 
Bob iceoCaberg. I didn't --
BY NR. LINK: 
O 
I didn't moan to interrupt you. 
A 
I didn't mean to nay that Brad lad the 
collective group of attorney➢. within our firm he wan 
the lead attorney. 
Q 
He wan a lead lawyer at the Rothstein firm, 
right? 
A 
Correct. 
Q 
He wan not the lead lawyer for Bob 
Josefaborg, wa➢ he? 
A 
No, he wasn't. When you nay lead, he didn't 
have a leadership role. First of all, I didn't 
attend -- I can only recall -- and that's only vague --
1 
developing their case? Do you believe that, sir? 
1 
MR. SCAROLA: objection. Compound, 
speculative and argunentivo. 
4 
THE WITNESS: You aro proposing an 
extreme example. I could see how an 
4 
attorney -- Bob Sonefaborg, Ted Leopold, Sid 
7 
Garcia, Adam Horowitz, Spencer Kuvin, any of 
▪ 
them could nay, You know, Brad, you go ahead 
1 
and pursue this particular line of Inquiry. 
10 
We will rely on you to do that. That's not 
II 
out of the question. 
12 
BY RR. LINK: 
13 
Q 
It happens all the time. 
II 
A 
If you are saying that they turned everything 
15 
over to Brad, ■ 
not saying that that happened, but I 
14 
could see the particular lino of investigation could 
17 
have boon delegated co Brad. 
is 
0 
Was it? 
is 
A 
I don't know. I don't know it it wan. I 
20 
know that there van coononleatlen among Brad and these 
21 
other lawyers, because I heard of it secondhand. I 
21 
didn't directly participate in much of it. I have 
23 
very, very vague recollections. 
24 
I know -- I think I talked to Josernberg 
25 
once or twice, and the nano would be with regard to 
126 
I 
one 'meting with other counsel. Bob Sonefaberg wan not 
2 
at that meeting. 
3 
0 
So you've known Bob Josefaborg for a long 
4 
time, right? 
5 
A 
Yeah. 
4 
Q 
He's ono of the top trial lawyers in our 
7 
state, isn't he? 
S 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
Ho'n a dean of the trial bar, right? 
10 
A 
Yes. 
Il 
0 
You agree with that? 
11 
A 
Yeah. 
13 
0 
And at the time, Mr. Edwards wan about a 
14 
six-year lawyer, right? 
15 
A 
I don't know. I don't know when Brad started 
14 
practicing. He wasn't as senior as Bob Josefsborg. 
17 
O 
Probably none of us are. 
IS 
A 
Not ne. 
It 
Q 
Right. Re either. I think not even 
20 
probably Hr. Scarola. 
21 
So do you really think Bob Sosefsberg in 
22 
his head in representing his clients said, I an 
22 
going to let Hr. Edwards, thin young lawyer, handle 
24 
the representation of my clients and gather 
23 
information for them and be respm➢ible for 
128 
Kuvin, Leopold, Garcia, Horowitz, and I do remomber 
2 
this meeting. 
4 
O 
To share information? 
A 
To share information and to strateglze, 
sure. 
Did any or these lawyer➢ ask you, 
4 
Mr. Berger, to do anything on their behalf? 
5 
Mr. 30203[2130r07 Sid Garcia? 
S 
A 
No, I don't member that. I know that we 
10 
IL 
11 
13 
14 
15 
14 
17 
IS 
IS 
30 
31 
32 
took the lead, meaning Brad and I, and ma, 
apoclflcally, 
In trying to got the non-prosecution 
agreement unsealed. 
Whether or not that wan ➢omething that was 
asked of ua collectively 
by the group or we just 
went ahead and did it, 
I don't remember that. 
I 
don't remember anybody also making that effort but 
myself. 
Actually, 
I wan Cho ono that filed the 
papers and argued it. 
Q 
And you don't remember Bob Sosefaberg 
calling you and asking you to do that? 
A 
No. 
• 
You don't [member Adam Horowitz calling 
you and asking you to do that? 
23 
A 
No. 
24 
0 
Or Mr. Scarola? 
25 
A 
No. 
I don't remember that. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798368

129 
131 
0 
2 
case? 
Did you over talk to Mr. Scarola about his 
3 
A 
No. 
4 
0 
Obviously Kr. Scarola didn't ask you to do 
• 
anything to help hla client. 
6 
A 
I don't remember that. 
Did you swat any of the other lawyers who 
• 
had pending cases with clients in order to evaluate 
9 
their situation? 
10 
A 
The clients, no. 
11 
12 
13 
O 
Did you review any of the discovery that 
was being filed by the other law firms? 
A 
You mean the discovery requests? 
14 
Q 
Discovery requests and information coming 
35 
ln. 
36 
A 
I don't natant:or that. 
1? 
0 
Did you participate in negotiating 
28 
Mr. Scarola'a settlement for his client? 
19 
A 
No. 
20 
0 
Did you participate in negotiating any of 
II 
the non-Rothstein clients' settlement discussions? 
22 
A 
No. 
22 
0 
Are you aware of the cases that wore 
24 
settled that were unrelated to the Rothstein three 
26 
clients? 
1 
notes and son if wo can wrap up. 
2 
THE VIDEOGRARMER: Going off the record 
at 12:18 III. 
4 
4A recess was had.) 
S 
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the 
4 
record. The tine is 12:21 III. 
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
O 
BY KR. SCAROLO: 
1 
Q 
Hr. Berger, I want to start where opposing 
50 
counsel left off talking about the scope of the 
11 
investigation necessary with regard to other 
12 
circumstances where Jeffrey Epstein was involved in 
13 
the sexual abuse of children. 
4 
When you spoke about the need to 
13 
investigate other Epstein -- other incidents of 
14 
Epetein'➢ abuse of children, is it necessary to 
17 
evaluate how much damage was done to child victims 
14 
who wore not your clients? 
Is 
A 
No. Not -- certainly not In the sane detail. 
20 
Q 
What la it that you aro focusing on when 
21 
you aro investigating other incidents of the sexual 
22 
abuse of children by Jeffrey Epstein? 
23 
A 
Well, you are not specifically looking to how 
24 
damaged that other victim was. what you aro looking at 
25 
are the circumstances -- Cho objective circumstances of 
130 
A 
Well, I wan -- just in general. I think 
2 
dosefaberg settled a number of thank. There wore a 
3 
number that wore settled, but I only -- ■ 
not really 
4 
aura how I learned of this information. I didn't 
3 
participate in them. 
4 
Q 
Was the Rothstein firm asked to participate 
7 
in negotiating settlements for clients they didn't 
• 
represent? 
9 
A 
No. 
10 
IL 
12 
13 
14 
IS 
If 
O 
Were you aware that Mr. Joaefsberg settled 
multiple cases without filing them? 
A 
I heard that ho did, yea. 
Q 
Did he consult with you and 14r. Edwards 
about whether he should settle the case or file suit? 
A 
No, he didn't consult with us about that, no. 
O 
Did he consult with you about whether the 
17 
money being offered by 14r. Edwards to his client was 
18 
a fair nuaber? 
19 
A 
No. 
30 
Q 
Did you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg or any 
21 
other lawyers the differences in each of the clients' 
22 
mental statamanta at the time of the alleged abuse? 
33 
A 
No. 
24 
MR. LINK: Why don't we take a couple 
21 
minute -- quick break, let ma go through my 
132 
the abuse. So was it -- how was it done? What was the 
2 
method? Did it even occur? 
3 
Even if it wasn't a similar setting or a 
4 
similar technique, if it happened it's relevant to 
5 
proving that it had happened to your client. 
4 
The whole point is to prove that it 
/ 
happened to your client, Donau.* it happened to 
• 
other people. And the circumstances, if they can be 
• 
similar, that helps as wall. 
10 
II 
• 
You spoke about modus operandi. What does 
that Latin phrase mean? 
12 
A 
That means how did the parson do it. What 
13 
was the method of operation. 
14 
And in particular hare, you aro dealing, 
IS 
in soma respect, with a one-on-one situation. It'➢ 
14 
conceivable that Epstein could say that although he 
Il 
was present -- In the presence of a young woman, our 
IS 
clients, nothing bad over happened, and it would be 
19 
a he-said-oho-said. So it would to important to 
20 
have evidence of other abuse to discredit that 
21 
nothing happened. 
22 
So modus operandi would be how was it 
33 
24 
31 
done; what was the method of operation that the 
person used. 
Q 
Of what significance, if any, would it be
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798369

133 
135 
if it were determined that Epstola's 
method of abuse 
2 
was to intentionally target disadvantaged children as 
3 
young as 12 and 13 years of age to entice them with 
4 
substantial sums of money, not only to engage in 
• 
sexual conduct with Jeffrey Epstein and to submit to 
mo 
aaaaa tiona by Jeffrey Epstein, but also to go out 
7 
and bring other similarly situated, similar 
▪ 
circumstanced individuals to Epstein who would be 
* 
willing to endure the sane abuse at the same age? 
14 
Would that have any significance? 
II 
MR. LINK: Form, compound, speculative, 
12 
no facts in evidence. Maybe the NhOla 
13 
evidence code. 
1 
THE NIT HESS: 
Nell, lb would 111303/ a 
13 
pattern that that's what he did. 
14 
If it can be proven that he did it to 
17 
other children and your client is testifying 
that he did the sane thing to her, it 
Is 
corroborates your client's testimony. 
20 
By NB. SCAROU: 
21 
Q 
Are you familiar with the concept of an 
22 
advice of counsel defense? 
23 
A 
Yea. 
24 
Q 
Describe, for the benefit of the jury, if 
25 
you would, please, what an advise of counsel defense 
1 
MR. LINK: Joseph Ackerman? Joe 
2 
Ackerman? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 
4 
THE WITNESS: Yes. 
S 
BY NE. SCARCNA: 
4 
Q 
And you acknowledged that as far as you 
▪ 
were concerned, those were lawyers who had good 
▪ 
reputations and they didn't do anything unethical, 
* 
improper or unreasonable in their representation of 
14 
Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 
11 
THE WITNESS: Correct. 
12 
BY NR. LINK: 
13 
Q 
It was then pointed out that one or sore of 
14 
those lawyers was involved in bringing the suit 
la 
against Bradley Edwards, correct? 
16 
A 
Correct. 
17 
Q 
In order for Jeffrey Epstein to even 
14 
suggest that he has the protection of having been 
11 
represented by good, ethical lawyers in filing that 
20 
lawsuit, Jeffrey Epstein would need to waive 
al 
attorney-client privilege so that we could take the 
22 
depositions of those lawyers and find out what it was 
23 
that Jeffrey Epstein told them that convinced them it 
24 
was proper to sue Brad Edwards, right? 
25 
MR. LINK: Ctject to the form. 
I 
is. 
2 
134 
A 
It mane that you can't 
hold no liable 
for 
3 
what I did because I was acting on the advice of my 
4 
attorney. 
s 
Q 
In order to raise an advice of counsel 
4 
defense, is it necessary for the individual who is 
7 
seeking the protection of advice of counsel to waive 
• 
the attorney-client privilege so that the jury la 
• 
able to evaluate whether the counsel was giving 
10 
advice on the basis of truthful information or on the 
II 
peals of lies? 
12 
13 
14 
15 
If 
11 
A 
I believe that the Florida Evidence Code says 
that if you -- that you can't assert the 
attorney-client 
privilege 
when -- to prove your 
position -- it's 
relevant as to what was stated between 
you and your attorney. 
• 
So you were asked queationa about the 
IS 
reputation and your observations of the conduct of 
15 
Mr. Critton, Ns. Goldberger, Mr. battier, 
Mr. Berman 
20 
and Mr. Pike, all of when were involved at some point 
21 
In time in the representation of Jeffrey Epstein, 
32 
Correct? 
33 
A 
Yea. 
24 
Q 
I think I missed Mr. Ackerman on that list. 
23 
Mr. Ackerman as well. 
136 
I 
BY NE. SCAROLA: 
2 
Q 
Lot me restate the question. 
3 
what extent, if any, would it be necessary 
4 
for ua to find out what those lawyers were told in 
3 
order to rake a judgment about whether they acted 
4 
properly or improperly in filing the suit against 
7 
Bradley Edwards? 
S 
A 
I think you have to know -- you have to know 
.3 
that. 
10 
Q 
Is a lawyer entitled, unless he knows 
II 
otherwise, to assume that his client 
la being 
12 
truthful with him? 
13 
A 
Yea. 
14 
Q 
So, for example, if Jeffrey Epstein wore to 
IS 
have lied to his ethical lawyers, and his ethical 
14 
lawyers antlered he was telling the truth, would his 
17 
ethical lawyers be permitted to rely upon the assumed 
IS 
truthfulness of Jeffrey Epstein if they didn't know 
IS 
better? 
20 
A 
Yes. 
31 
Q 
You were shown Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 
32 
1, referred to as the Razorback complaint. 
33 
A 
Right. 
0 
And when that complaint was handed to you, 
23 
It was stated by opposing counsel that Bill Scherer, 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798370

137 
139 
a respected lawyer, sued the Rothstein firm. 
Do you 
2 
remember that being said? 
3 
A 
Yea. 
4 
Q 
Take a look at the complaint, if you would. 
S 
That complaint identifies 
all of those people who 
were defendants who were sued by Bill Scherer, 
7 
doesn't it? 
O 
A 
Correct. 
MR. LINK: Object to the form. 
10 
BY RR. SCAROLA: 
11 
Q 
All of those defendants who presumably Bill 
12 
Scherer had probable cause to sue when the complaint 
13 
was filed, correct? 
14 
A 
Correct. 
II 
Q 
And among all of the defendants that Bill 
14 
Scherer had probable cause to sue, la the Rothstein, 
17 
Roaenfeldt a Adler included? 
Is 
A 
No. 
Is 
Q 
Are you among the lawyers who were ➢ued by 
20 
Bill Scherer as having been actively involved in this 
21 
Penn achame? 
22 
A 
No. 
23 
Q 
Is Bradley Edwards identified as someone 
24 
that Bill Scherer had some basis to believe had been 
2S 
involved In the Rothstein Pont scheme? 
0 
Are you aware that the V.S. Attorney's 
2 
Office announced that there were a number of unnamed 
co-conspirators that they wore still evaluating in 
4 
November and December of 2009? 
A 
No, I don't remember that. 
4 
Q 
so you gave the opinion that you didn't 
• 
think there was probable cause to ➢ue Mr. Edwards. 
a 
But have you reviewed any of the evidence that 
* 
Mr. Epstein monod on in bringing the suit? 
10 
MR. SCAROLA: I don't think you meant 
11 
to ➢ay that. 
12 
Which suit? 
23 
MR. LINK: Thin suit. 
14 
MR. SCAROLA: 
sorry. I thought you 
Ii 
wore talking about Razorback. 
It 
By RR. LINK: 
27 
Q 
Let me ask it again. Mr. Scarola asked you 
la 
if, in your opinion, a reasonably prudent person 
It 
would have probable cause to have made the allegation 
20 
that Bradley Edwards could have been connected to the 
21 
Rothstein POnil scheme. Do you remember that 
22 
question? 
23 
A 
I was thinking of your other question. Not 
24 
exactly, but --
2S 
138 
A 
No. 
2 
Q 
Was there own the ➢lightest ➢uspicion that 
3 
would have justified any reasonably cautious person 
4 
in ➢uing Bradley Edwards and alleging that he was a 
5 
participant in the Rothstein Pons' ethane? 
4 
A 
No. 
7 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. I don't have 
• 
any further questions. 
9 
RECROSS-EXAMMATION 
10 
By NB. LINK: 
11 
Q 
Mr. Berger, the Exhibit 1 by Mr. Scherer, 
12 
who does it sue -- who does he sue? 
13 
A 
Scott Rothstein, David Roden, Debra 'Allegan, 
14 
Andrew Barnett, TO Bank, Frank Spinoaa, Jennifer 
IS 
Kerstetter, 
Rosanne Caretsky and Frank Prove. 
14 
Q 
And Mr. Rothstein was the chairman of the 
17 
Rothstein firm? 
IS 
A 
On November 20, 2009, I don't believe he was, 
19 
but he had been. 
20 
Q 
And at all times during the operation of 
21 
the Ponsi scheme? 
22 
A 
Yes. 
23 
Q 
And are you aware that Mr. Scherer anended 
24 
that complaint to add additional defendants? 
25 
A 
No. 
140 
Q 
Okay, so let me ask you this. 
What 
2 
information have you evaluated as a lawyer to 
3 
determine whether you would have found probable cause 
4 
in Deceaber of 2009 to allege that Hr. Edwards may 
5 
have been connected co the Rothstein Maui school.? 
4 
A 
There is no way in the world that Jeffrey 
7 
Epstein had probable cause to sue Brad Edwards. 
0 
My question --
9 
MR. SCARCER: Pardon me. The witness 
10 
had not finished his response. 
II 
MR. LINK: He's not answering it. 
12 
MR. SCARCER: The witness had not 
13 
finished hla response. 
14 
Go ahead, Hr. Berger. 
IS 
THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Epstein knew what 
If 
he did, and he knew that what Brad was ➢uing 
17 
him for was true. 
IS 
By RR. LINK: 
19 
not asking you that. Masking you 
20 
what evidence did you look at -- I am not asking you 
21 
about Mr. Epateln'n sexual contact with anybody. 
22 
asking you what evidence did you look at to ➢ee 
23 
whether there was a rea➢onable basis to allege -- in 
24 
thin one-out-of-ten standard that you articulated --
25 
to allege that Hr. Edwards may have been connected to 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798371

2 
3 
4 
5 
7
4 
10 
II 
II 
13 
24 
is 
14 
27 
Is 
It 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
141 
the Rothstein Ponsi scheme. what evidence did you 
review? 
A 
I know ho wasn't. 
0 
IM not asking you what you know, air. IN 
asking you what evidence did you review. 
A 
well, hold on a second. You're saying -- I 
moan, when would I have reviewed it? I mean, 
Mr. Stomata asked ne the question --
Q 
Before you gave your opinion. 
A 
So you mean what did I review during this 
deposition when Mr. Scarola asked no the question? 
Q 
No. I an asking you did you review the 
evidence that existed in December 2009. 
A 
Let ne just atop you. Did I review in 
December of 2009? 
0 
No, no, before giving your opinion to 
Mr. Stomata and this jury that no reasonable person 
could have brought a claim against Brad Edwards. 
asking you before you gave that atatorant to this 
jury, what of the physical evidence that Hr. Epstein 
relied on did you review? 
A 
I just know what happened. There's no --
when you may did I review, you moan did I review during 
the course of this deposition? 
0 
No, air, before giving your opinion. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
4 
s 
s 
IC 
II 
12 
13 
15 
17 
a 
It 
20 
2L 
22 
23 
24 
25 
143 
A 
The fact of the matter is, it's Epstein that 
filed it, and I know that it was false, ao --
0 
Co ahead. 
A 
-- I don't know how to answer your question. 
Q 
Because you know that you don't judge 
whether somebody had probable cause based on whether 
it turns out to be true or false, correct? Is that 
the standard you're hold to a➢ a lawyer, Hr. Berger? 
A 
I think I understand your question. I would 
answer yea to your question. 
Q 
so it's 
not whether you aro right or wrong 
that you allege at end of the day that determines 
whether you had probable cause, la it, air? 
A 
You are talking 
abaft the attorney or are you 
talking about the party that the attorney represents? 
0 
Ono in the sane. 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. 
TIM WITNESS: It's not ono in the nano. 
It's not ono in the same. 
If I murdered you and your spouse sues 
mo [or wrong --
BY MR. LINK: 
Q 
You don't want to murder no, do you? 
A 
-- sues ne for wrongful death -- 
coming 
up with a bad example. I apologize. 
2 
142 
Did you just toll this jury that, in your 
opinion, no reasonable lawyer In the world could 
2 
144 
But there's no way in the world that 
Jeffrey Epstein had probable cause to sue Brad 
2 
have filed the lawsuit against Mr. Edwards? 
3 
Edwards. 
4 
MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me. That's 
4 
Q 
And what Masking 
-- 
I appreciate 
that. 
not what -- that'➢ not what the testimony 
5 
You consider Brad Edwards a friend, don't you? 
6 
was. That's a complete mischaractorization. 
4 
A 
Yeah. 
7 
That question had nothing to do with 
7 
0 
You like Brad Edwards? 
lawyers. It had to do with Jeffrey Epstein. 
S 
A 
I da. 
9 
BY HR. LINK: 
What's his reputation In the legal 
20 
Q 
sir, is it your opinion -- you know 
10 
community? 
31 
Mr. Epstein didn't file the case, right? No's not a 
IL 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Beyond the 
32 
lawyer. 
12 
scope of redirect. 
22 
A 
I know. 
13 
THE WITNESS: I think be has a good 
24 
0 
So my question is really simple. Is it 
14 
reputation. 
36 
your opinion that no reasonable person could have 
15 
BY MR. LINK: 
16 
filed a complaint in December of 2009 making an 
If 
Q 
And has he always had a good reputation? 
)7 
allegation that Mr. Edwards may have boon connected 
17 
A 
I baileys, ao. 
10 
somehow to the Rothstein Ponsi scheme? 
IS 
Q 
SO, What 
really 
trying to understand 
19 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. 
19 
from you la will you agree with me that you evaluate 
20 
Mischaracterimation of the allegations Ln 
30 
probable cause at the time that the lawsuit is filed? 
21 
the complaint. 
21 
A 
Yes. 
22 
THE WITNESS: when you say no person, 
22 
Q 
And sometimes the allegation,. 
prove to be 
23 
do you mean no lawyer or no party? 
23 
true, 
right? 
24 
BY KR. LINK: 
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Either one. 
25 
0 
And sometimes the allegation you make prove 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798372

2 
4
5 
145 
to be untrue, right? 
A 
Correct. 
Q 
Have you over pied any allegations, 
Mr. Berger, that turned out to be untrue. down the 
lino? 
1 
4 
S 
147 
Epstein? 
A 
It's patently [also that Jeffrey Epstein wan 
not Intel injured by anything that Brad Edwards did or 
if -- I don't deny that there wan a 0042l scheme that 
used the three cases we had as bait. 
4 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection, argumontivo, 
4 
Q 
Thoy did, right? 
7 
repetitious. 
THE WITNESS: I have never plod 
allegations that I knew were false. 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuso me. Please lot 
the witness finish his response. 
THE WITNESS: I wasn't there. I don't 
10 
BY I
. SCAROLA: 
10 
have personal knowledge. I am telling you 
11 
Q 
so it's your view that the allegations In 
11 
my conclusion based on what I have road In 
12 
the complaint were known to be false? 
12 
the papers and all that -- so -- the 
13 
A 
To Jeffrey Epstein. 
13 
Pont! -- Rothstein did use the Penal scheme. 
SO which allegations - - 
II
Brad Edwards had no involvement in it. 
IS 
A 
Are we talking about the Scharer lawsuit --
13 
Jeffrey Epstein was not damaged in any 
14 
14 
way, shape or Corm by the Pont! scheme. 
A 
-- or aro we talking about Epstein's 
I,
It's impossible. 
14 
allegations? 
10 
Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused dozens, 
It 
Q 
Epstein. 
I,
if not hundreds, of children. The. fact that 
20 
Show me which allegations in there 
20 
that -- that those [acts were used by a 
21 
Mr. Epstein knew wore filse 
at the CUM he made it. 
2L 
crook to promote a Son21 schwas didn't hurt 
22 
That's what you just said, so show me. Please point 
22 
Jeffrey Epstein ono bit. 
23 
out the allegations in that complaint, air, that 
23 
BY NB. LINK: 
24 
Mr. Epstein knew wore false when ho made them. 
24 
Q 
so can you separate in your mind for your 
25 
You can underline with my pen. 
25 
testLmony today what Mr. Epstein did and suits 
146 
148 
1 
A 
If he's alleging that he didn't do what he 
against him by plaintiffs that allege wrongful sexual 
2 
did --
2 
Conduct and his lawsuit against 
Rothstein, M. 
and 
Q 
You just testified that Mr. Epstein made 
3 
Edwards related to the Pone' scheme? Can you draw 
4 
allegations ho know wore  
. This is the 
complaint. I would like you to highlight them for 
4 
separation, Mr. Berger? 
A 
I think so. 
A 
okay. Take a break. 
7 
Q 
Because you hoop telling me about the 
sexual conduct that Mr. Epstein --
8 
Q 
Sure. 
S 
A 
My point is, he was not -- he wan not 
9 
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record 
9 
Injured -- no reasonable person could think that 
30 
at 12:40 III. 
10 
Jeffrey Epstein who abused dozens of children and wan 
31 
IA recess was taken. 
IL 
sued for it could be injured mentally. Noire talking 
12 
THE VIDEOCRAPHER: Going back on the 
12 
about mental injury hero 
mentally Injured by Scott 
13 
record. The tine is 1:14 III. 
13 
Rothstein using those legitimate 
cases to defraud 
14 
BY HR. LINK: 
14 
investors. 
15 
Q 
Hr. Berger, before we took our break, I 
15 
Jeffrey Epstein'a reputation was not 
36 
asked you to underline every allegation In that 
14 
damaged at all. Ho had no reputation. Ho wasn't 
37 
complaint that you know that, at the time it was 
1/ 
mentally -- no one can convince ma he was 
30 
written, that Mr. Epstein know the statement was 
18 
emotionally disturbed by the [act that he learned 
19 
false, right? 
19 
that his sexual predatory tactics wore used in a 
20 
A 
Right. 
24
Manzi scheme. It's inconceivable. And that's 
21 
Q 
So may I moo what you have underlined that 
21 
basically the -- by the way, I didn't road the parts 
22 
you know that Mr. Epstein know it was false? 
22 
that deal with the legal counts. I read the factual 
23 
Okay, so on the first page you underlined 
23 
parts. 
24 
that -- what happened at the Rothstein flat 
that 
24 
Q 
so, can I just see the rose of it for a 
25 
resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey 
33 
minute that 
you marked? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798373

3 
4
5 
4 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
14 
15 
14 
Is 
149 
A 
I didn't 
go through them --
Q 
I understand. 
A 
when I got to count ono, I stopped. 
That was 
legal discussion. 
I Just looked at the factual 
allegations. 
Q 
So, can you point out to no here where 
Mr. Epstein talks about the damage to his reputation? 
A 
It's 
damages. 
Tho first 
lino you read said 
profoundly damaged, swathing 
like that. 
Q 
well, profoundly damaged, you could have 
monetary damages, right? 
Is there a distinction 
in monetary damages 
and emotional damage➢? 
A 
Theoretically there are. 
Q 
Show me where Mr. Epstein asked for his 
damage to reputation. 
That'➢ what you just said, hi➢ 
reputation couldn't have boon thinned. 
Mere does he ➢oak damage➢ for his 
reputation? 
2 
) 
4 
f 
* 
IC 
m 
12 
13 
14 
15 
14 
17
10 
II
151 
A 
-- between what she said to her depo➢ition. 
But she was not a part of any schwa. 
Epstein knew 
that. 
0 
So Epstein knew the reason why she changed 
her sworn testimony to the FBI and then when she got 
to the Rothstein firm was -- how did ho know why she 
did that? 
How would ho know? 
A 
Sir, Epstein knew that her second testimony 
whore she accu➢ed his of those was true. 
So she didn't 
change it because of a Ponsi scheme. 
she's changed it 
because ➢he told the truth. 
So she lied to the FBI? 
A 
Right. 
0 
So she's an admitted liar 
to the federal 
government. 
Is there a consequence for lying CO the 
federal goverment? 
MR. SCAROLA: 
Objection, argumantive. 
THE WITNESS: 
I don't know. 
20 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Counsel. 
What 
20 
was she prosecuted? 
2l 
was read was, •resulted In profoundly 
21 
BY Ma. LINK: 
22 
serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein.• That's 
21 
0 
. 
just asking lf there's usually a 
23 
what was just discussed. 
23 
consequence. 
24 
THE WITNESS: Brad Edwards did not have 
24 
A 
I don't know. 
25 
anything to do with the Ronal schwa. 
25 
0 
You don't know? 
150 
152 
I 
BY M. SCAROLA: 
A 
No. 
2 
Q 
I know you believe that, sir. 
I believe in 
2 
I don't think that ➢he wa➢ prosecuted. 
3 
my heart that you believe that, okay? 
3 
Q 
So you underlined that Rothstein and his 
4 
A 
I believe Jeffrey Epstein knew that. 
4 
co-conspirators unlawfully obtained approximately 
But what I asked you to do is to point out 
5 
1.2 billion. 
Mat is untrue about that? 
4 
in here the allegations that you S0110M1041 know that, 
4 
A 
well, if it's 
reflected on Brad, he wasn't a 
/ 
when they were nado, that Mr. Epstein in his mind 
know they were false. 
7 
co-conspirator. 
Q 
It doesn't my Brad's nano, doe➢ it? 
9 
MR. SCAROLA: 
And that's exactly what 
9 
A 
Just ono second. 
I assume that it's 
part of 
10 
the witness la doing. 
would you please let 
10 
a complaint against Brad, so if 
it didn't mean to 
11 
him finish his response? 
II 
include Brad, then I shouldn't have underlined it. 
12 
THE WITNESS: So the first one was 
11 
Q 
So do you want to squiggle through that 
I) 
that -- Epstein saying he was profoundly 
13 
ono? rite 
it out? 
14 
damaged. There's no way in the world that 
14 
A 
Do you want to put in hare that it's not 
15 
that's true. 
15 
Brad? I will do that if you write, •except Edwards.• 
If 
BY M. LINK: 
If 
Co ahead. 
I/ 
0 
So he was not profoundly damaged, okay. 
17 
Q 
I. not going to change it, 
if that's Whit 
IS 
The next thing underlined was that the allegation 
IS 
you want to put in there. 
19 
about III. being a participant in the schema by, 
19 
Okay, let's see what else. Is it a true 
24
among other things, changing her prior sworn 
24
statement that Rothstoin and his co-conspirators 
31 
testimony. 
21 
stole over a billion 
dollars from unexpected 
33 
A 
she was not a participant 
in a schema. 
She 
32 
victims? 
23 
may have changed her prior testimony. 
You pointed out 
33 
A 
Yes. 
24 
an inconsistency --
34 
Q 
So you underlined in paragraph 18 the 
XS 
0 
Right? 
25 
Matament, •What la clear is that a fraudulent and 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798374

153 
155 
3 
4 
Improper investment or Poral scheme was In fact 
conducted and operated by RRA and certain of the 
named defendants.' 
One of the named defendants is 
S 
Mr. Rothstein, right? 
A 
Yea. 
Q 
And did Kr. Rothstein, in fact, participate 
4 
in the Moral scheme? 
10 
A 
Yea. 
Q 
So what la it about that allegation that 
II 
wan untrue when it was written? 
12 
13 
II 
A 
If it meant to include Brad and III. --
O 
Does IX say Brad and III. in there? 
A 
No. But it could be road to mean that. So 
13 
saying it would false lf it was meant to include 
14 
them. 
I7 
IS 
Id 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
O 
But it doesn't nay Brad and ■.? 
MR. SCAROLA: No, but it does say 
defendants, plural. 
Please stop arguing. Ask gentians, 
let the witness answer them, but p 
don't argue. 
TEE WITNESS: If it said Rothstein, It 
would bo true. 
1 
Q 
A203 you aware of meetings that Hr. Edwards, 
2 
had with Hr. Rothstein? 
A 
not aware of any meetings he had. 
4 
Q 
Mere you aware of the walla between 
5 
Mr. Rothstein and Kr. Edwards about these lawsuits? 
4 
A 
No. 
7 
Q 
Mere you aware of the amain between Marc 
s 
Nurik and Mr. Rothstein about these lawsuits? 
A 
No. 
10 
Q 
Were you aware of any structuring of these 
II 
lawsuits with Hr. Edwards and Hr. Rothstein related 
le 
to what would be pled? 
13 
A 
Am I aware --
II 
0 
Are you aware of that? 
13 
A 
If it happened? 
14 
0 
Yeah. 
17 
A 
No. 
IS 
Q 
So an you sit 11024 today, isn't it true 
Is 
that you really, as I understand it, have no personal 
20 
knowledge of the way the scheme was, in fact, 
21 
conducted or who waa involved; isn't that true? 
22 
A 
I don't have any eyewitness knowledge. 
23 
Q 
Personal knowledge, do you, air? 
24 
A 
Personal knowledge la the lawyers term for 
25 
eyewitne➢s knowledge, and I don't have any eyewitness 
1 
BY KR. LINK: 
154 
2 
0 
So in your world it's partially true 
3 
because It included Kr. Rothstein? Yes? 
4 
A 
No, it's not in my world. It's reality. 
5 
0 
So I thought you told us that you had no 
6 
idea what was going on at the firm at the time, 
7 
right? 
S 
In 2000 and '09, you had no idea about the 
9 
Portal scheme or what Mr. Rothstein was doing, is 
20 
that right? 
II 
A 
Right. 
12 
0 
Do you know every action that Mr. Edwards 
19 
14 
1S 
I6 
17 
10 
19 
20 
21 
took in dealing with Mr. Rothstein? 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Could we ask 
one question at a time? And the cm, 
that la pending is to identify those 
portions of the complaint which this witness 
can identify as knowingly false statements 
by Epstein. Can we lot him finish that 
question? 
BY RR. LINK: 
22 
0 
You can answer my question. 
23 
Are you aware of all of Mr. Edwards' 
24 
interactions with Mr. Rothstein? 
25 
A 
No. 
2 
4 
S 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
If 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
23 
156 
knowledge. 
Q 
You don't have any, do you? 
So what you're telling this jury is you 
happen to like Brad Edwards, and you don't want to 
even conceive for one second that he may have had 
some connection with Mr. Rothstein in the way these 
three cases wore used' is that true? 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection, argumentive. 
THE WITNESS: There aro ➢tatements in 
here that are categorically false because 
Jeffrey Epstein knew what he did. 
I do like Brad Edwards, and I don't 
believe that he participated in the scheme 
with Rothstein. 
BY KR. LINK: 
• 
I got it. But you aro not aware of any of 
the evidence connecting Kr. Edwards and Hr. Rothstein 
that relate to the three cases that were pending at 
the Rothstein firm, are you? 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. IM going to 
object. That question assumes that any such 
evidence exists, when Mr. Epstein had every 
opportunity to present that evidence to the 
court and has never present/pi any, because 
it doesn't exist. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798375

157 
MR. LINK: 
pretty sure that lawsuit 
159 
sentence had nothing to do with the Ponzi 
2 
has gone, Mr. scarola. Please, save the 
2 
schema. 
3 
commontary. I appreciate it. It's groat 
) 
BY HR. LINK: 
4 
advice, and I will continuo to try to learn 
4 
Q 
Did Hr. Adler go to jail? 
5 
from you. 
5 
A 
Mr. Adler did go to jail. 
6 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. How about you 
let the witness finish the answer to your 
question before you got involved --
4 
Q 
Nora you surprised that Mr. Adler would end 
up going to jail for election Improprieties? 
A 
Yee. 
9 
MR. LINK: I change the question as I 
1 
Q 
How about your really good friend 
10 
go. I can do that. 
10 
Mr. Rosenfeld? 
11 
BY HR. LINK: 
II
A 
Sams thing. 
12 
0 
So, Mr. Borger --
12 
0 
Same thing. 
13 
MR. SCAROLA: So as long as the record 
13 
So these are people that you know really 
14 
is clear that you have declined to allow him 
14 
well, right? 
25 
to continue to answer the question, that's 
Is 
A 
Right. 
36 
fine. 
14 
Q 
Worked wish then, trusted them, and they 
21
BY HR. LINK: 
13 
did things that you couldn't imagine, isn't that 
36 
0 
Is there something more you wanted to say 
is 
true? 
29 
about my pending question? 
It 
A 
That's true. 
10 
MR. SCAROLA: The pending question was 
20 
Q 
So the fact that you can't imagine Brad 
21 
to identify ovary portion of this 
21 
doing it doesn't moan that Brad wasn't somehow 
22 
complaint --
22 
connected, does it? 
29 
MR. LINK: Not --
23 
A 
Maybe to you it doesn't. 
14 
MR. SCAROLA: -- that Mr. Barger knows 
24 
Q 
You thought that way about Mr. Rothstein, 
25 
to be false. 
25 
didn't you? 
158 
160 
I 
2 
BY HR. LINK: 
Q 
I will give you a vary simple question. 
2 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentiva, 
repetitious. 
3 
Rave you reviewed any of the  
ommunlcations 
BY MR. LINK: 
4 
involving Rothstein and the three plaintiff cases 
0 
Yos, sir? 
that were being handled at the tins you were at the 
5 
A 
Yos. 
4 
Rothstein firm? 
0 
And Mr. Adler? 
7 
A 
I don't know of any and I haven't reviewed 
any. 
0 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentiva, 
repetitious. 
9 
0 
So isn't it true that your opinion about 
9 
BY MR. LINK: 
10 
Brad Edwards is based on your personal view of him? 
20 
0 
And Mr. Rosonfoldt? 
II 
12 
A 
And my Interaction with him. 
Q 
And I suspect you wouldn't have joined the 
33 
MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Argumentiva, 
repetitious. 
13 
Rothstein firm if you didn't think ho was a good guy, 
23 
THE WITNESS: Correct. 
14 
would you? 
24 
MR. LINK: I don't have any further 
15 
A 
Yes. 
25 
questions. 
16 
Q 
Right. And I bet it was a shock to you 
16 
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
13 
that ho was running a Ponzl scram, because nowhere 
17
BY KR. SCAROLA: 
IS 
in your mind would you have thought that was 
10 
0 
Ara there any other sections of this 
19 
possible, true? 
19 
complaint that you know Mr. Epstein could not have 
30 
A 
True. 
20 
allagod in good faith? 
31 
Q 
And probably the same thing with your 
21 
MR. LINK: That was not my question if 
22 
friend Mr. Adler. Didn't Mr. Adler have to go to 
22 
you want to --
23 
jail? 
23 
MR. SCAROLA: It's my question. ICs 
34 
MR. SCAROLA: Excusable. • 
going to 
24 
my question. 
33 
object. Compound. And Adler's jail 
25 
MR. LINK: okay. So you aro changing 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 
EFTA00798376