Deposition hints US Attorney's Office may have known of Alan Dershowitz's alleged minor‑abuse while negotiating a non‑prosecution agreement

03:41:20 03:11:22 03:14:26 03:11:27 03:14:28 03:11:32 03:41:36 On Aah © HH «= 03:11:39 iis} 03:14:42 03:41:44 4 0 03:11:46 4 4 03:14:49 4 2 03:14:53 4 3 03:14:57 1 4 03:42:01 1 5 03; 12:08 1 6 03:12:44 1 7 03:12:17 1 8 03:12:18 1 9 03:12:20 20 03:12:24 21 03:42:24 22 03:12:25 23 03:12:28 24 03:12:31 25 03:12:34 03:42:38 03:12:39 03:12:41 03:12:44 03:12:46 03:12:48 OnN Anh OH = 03:12:51 © 03:12:52 03:12:57 41 0 03:43:00 41 1 03:13:00 1 2 03:13:02 4 3 0313.03 14 03:13:04 1 5 03:13:05 1 6 03:13:07 1 7 03:43:12 1 8 03:43:13 1 9 03:13:14 20 03:13:15 2 1 03:13:19 22 03:43:27 23 03:13:34 24 03:13:37 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 300 And rather than say, hey, we don't have any such documents, the U.S. Attorney's Office gave us the response indicating, to our view, that there were such documents, and as you know, since you're one of Mr. Dershowitz's attorneys, we have drafted a pleading now to try and collect that information, that law enforce -~ federal law enforcement agencies have collected, and -- and to figure out the appropriate way to litigate that so that we can get that information and move forward with the case. That's just one example of -- of how the allegations, if they were premature at that point, are no longer going to be premature as the case moves along. Q. Is it or is it not your understanding that Judge Marra ruled that the allegations in this pleading in front of you were so irrelevant to the pleading in which they were stated, that they should be stricken from the public record? A. Inthat particular pleading at that particular time, that’s right. Q. Does that cause you to reassess, in any way, having filed this document? A. Well, I think certainly as a tactical matter, we should have reserved the -- the allegations for -- for another motion. I -- 1 think that's -- you know, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 301 certainly, with the -- you're -- now, we are now sort of speculating, would we have done something different if we knew that? And the answer to that is, sure, we would have tried to do something that Judge Marra thought was the appropriate way to handle it, so... Q. And Judge Marra also reminded counsel of their Rule 11 obligations; didn't he? A, That's right. Yeah. Q. And did it cause you to question, not tactics, but whether you were acting properly in filing this? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I -- MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking if it caused him to reassess. MR. SCAROLA: I understand what you're asking, and you're asking him about his mental processes in connection with pending litigation. That's work product. I instruct you not to answer that question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. allright. You testified yesterday that one reason that you found the filing of the complaint on behalf of Jane Doe 102, who is [REDACTED], by the -- Bob Josefsberg and -- and why that was significant was that Bob Josefsberg had been selected by ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:13:41 03:13:45 03:13:48 03:13:51 03:13:54 03:14:01 03:14:03 On Oa” hb © bw 03:14:04 © 03:14:05 03:14:11 4 0 osta1a 14 03:14:20 1 2 03:14:25 1 3 ost4a27 14 03:14:30 1 5 03:14:32 4 6 03:14:35, 1 7 03:14:37 1 8 03:14:39 1 9 03:14:43 20 03:14:45 21 03:14:45 22 03:14:47 23 03:14:49 24 03:14:53 25 03:14:55 03:14:56 03:15:00 03:15:04 03:15:07 03:15:12 03:15:17 On Oanhb WKH =a 03:15:19 © 03:15:19 o3ts21 10 031523 11 03:15:26 12 031527 13 o3is23 14 o3ts31 15 osts33 16 ostsas 17 ostsas 18 osts3s 19 o3x1542 20 oxtsa4 21 031850 22 03:15:52 23 031585 24 oss 25 Page 300 to 303 of 335 302 the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to represent victims, correct? A. Yes. Through the -- through the NPA, yeah, there was an apparatus that led to his selection. Q. And does that answer reflect holding the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in that office in high regard? A. Sure. Q. Do you contend that at the time the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida negotiated the NPA, they knew that Professor Dershowitz, himself, had been involved in abuse of minors? A. Idon't know exactly what information they had. I do know that we have been propounding discovery requests on all of these subjects, including Professor Dershowitz's involvement, when the U.S. Attorney knew. They are asserting privilege over that. I would wish they would waive the privilege or at least provide the information to pro bono crime victims’ attorneys that they have, so we can get to the bottom of this. But there have been, you know, a nonstop series of assertions of privilege and other barriers interposed against us in this case, and I think inappropriately so, and -- and we have been arguing that ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 303 now for a number of years. Q. Would you agree with me that if the United States Attorney's Office had been aware that Professor Dershowitz had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, or himself had observed Mr. Epstein do so, that it would have been improper and unethical for them to let Mr. -- Professor Dershowitz negotiate the terms of the NPA with them? A. If they had direct personal knowledge of that, sure. I mean, the -- the -- but the realities are a little bit more complicated in that Professor Dershowitz, over the last couple of days as frequently -- has frequently used the word "continuum," and so if they were certain of that, it absolutely would have -- would have been unethical. The question is: Well, what if they had a suspicion or what if -- you know, a reasonable suspicion or a possible suspicion. Those are the kinds of dimensions that you've got to, you know, take into account in the real world about, you know, what they -- what they would have done. I mean, it seems pretty clear, for example, that at some point, you know, later on, they got a black book in which Professor Dershowitz's name had been circled. Now, what they did with that information, I -- ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 38 of 46 sheets HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010878