PART 2: Video Transcription of EFTA00182657
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2026 8:33 pm
SJ: “We’re back on the video record at 2:50 p.m.” \\
BE: “Is it true, Mr. Epstein that you gave [REDACTED] money to coerce her into interacting with you sexually?” //
JE: “Mr. Edwards, I would like to answer each and every one of your questions here today, but unfortunately as I’ve done with mostly all your other questions, I’m going to have to assert my rights under the 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment on advice of counsel. And though I would like to answer, if I ignore my attorney’s advice I risk losing my representation.” \\
BE: “In committing these sexual acts against [REDACTED] when she was just a minor, you knew that it would psychologically damage her, isn’t that true?” //
MP: “Form. Predicate. Speculation.” \\
JE: “I intend to respond at some point to each one of your questions - I’d like to respond to each and every one but today on advice of my counsel they’ve required me to assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution. Though I’d like to answer each one of these questions.” //
BE: “In fact, you deliberately and intentionally caused severe emotional distress to underage minor females including [REDACTED], isn’t that true?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculation, it’s compound and it assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “I would like to answer that question as I’d like to answer all your other questions today regarding [REDACTED]. However, my attorneys today have advised me that I must assert my 6th amendment right to effective representation and my 5th amendment right and my 14th amendment right so though I’d like to answer that with specificity I must follow my attorneys advice.” \\
BE: “Will you admit for the jury that you were investigated federally for your illegal activities with underage minors?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as all the other questions you’ve asked me here today. Especially since your firm has been accused by the federal i guess the federal government considered a criminal - your firm has been considered and investigated as being a criminal enterprise using sexually fabricated sexual cases fabricated cases to fleece investors out of millions of dollars. Though I’d like to answer your questions however my attorneys have demanded that I assert my rights under the 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “In fact, as a result of that investigation, you as well as the United States attorney’s office entered into what has now been known and referred to as the non-prosecution agreement, isn’t that correct?” \\
MP: “Same objection. Document speaks for itself.” //
JE: “You’ll have to repeat the question.” \\
BE: “As a result of the criminal investigation into your activities with minor females, you reached a resolution with the United States attorneys office in what has now been described as the non-prosecution agreement, is that correct?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object. It’s vague, confusing, misrepresents the agreement and the document is the best evidence. Wanna mark it?” \\
BE: “Yeah, we’ll mark it. I think I can mark this copy. And we’ll copy it at the end and we’ll mark it as exhibit 2.” //
JE: “Yes.” \\
BE: “And in that agreement, there are listed co-conspirators of Jeffery Epstein, those being Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcenkova. Can you explain to the jury what those four individuals did for you related to the crimes that were investigated by the federal government.” //
JE: “Did you say co-conspirators?” \\
BE: “Yeah, it says criminal charges against co-conspirators of Epstein including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff or Nadia Marcenkova. Can you explain to the jury what each of those four individuals did for you or conspired with you to do?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object to the form and question.” \\
BE: “Ok.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question however today my attorneys have advised me that I must assert my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution.” \\
BE: “And isn’t it fair to say that you as well as the co-conspirators operated as an organized criminal enterprise designed to sexually exploit underage minors?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object to argumentative, speculation, it’s vague and it assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “Are you suggesting it was, sorry, criminal enterprise you said?” //
BE: “Yes.” \\
JE: “Is that what the wording?” //
BE: “Yes.” \\
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question today I think the only criminal enterprise that I’ve been reading about today was your firm that’s been accused of being a criminal enterprise involved in defrauding people, using mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering the operation of the enterprise [unintelligible] of the US attorney. Although I’d like to answer your questions with specificity today, on advice of counsel, though I’d like to answer, they’ve demanded that I assert my 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right or else I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Did you care about any of the underage minor females at the time when you were engaging in sexual conduct with them?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, harassing, already been ruled upon by the court relative to this exact question.” //
BE: “I feel comfortable with the question, it goes to period of damages it’s obviously - the issue related to the court was a repetitive question on that topic or around that general subject matter and I’m just asking for Mr. Epstein to tell the jury how he felt about these girls whether he cared about them when he was engaging in illegal sexual conduct with them.” \\
MP: “Counsel, I’m gonna instruct him not to answer the question you can certify to the court if you like. You know what the answer’s gonna be, however you’re attempting to lace this video - you know that the court is already ordered that these types of questions are not permitted cuz they’re argumentative and they’re harassing. In fact, the other questions bordered, but this question is on exact point with the court’s order so if you want to withdraw the question, that’s fine -” //
BE: “No I don’t want to withdraw the question.” \\
MP: “Ok. Then I’m gonna instruct you not to answer.” //
BE: “That’s fine. Let’s mark that somehow that that page so that we can find it in the record relative to the hearing that will be had on that question and others similar. At the very least, you certainly knew that engaging in sexual conduct with underage females was not - strike that. At the time when you were engaging in sexual conduct with underage females, you knew that exposing them to this was not beneficial or good for these girls, isn’t that true?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, lacks predicate.” //
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question like most of your other questions here today, on advice of counsel I must assert my 14th amendment, 5th amendment and 6th amendment rights. Though I’d like to answer, if I do so I risk losing my effective representation of counsel.” \\
BE: “Isn’t it true, Mr. Epstein, that the only thing that you care about was accessing as many underage females as possible for the purposes of sex?” //
MP: “Argumentative, speculation, harassing -” \\
JE: “What’s the question?” //
MP: “ - and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
BE: “Isn’t it true that the only thing that you care about when you were interacting with these underage females in a sexual manner, was ejaculating or your own personal gratification.” //
MP: “Form. Same exact objections.” \\
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question and to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’d very much like to answer that question, however today my attorneys have advised me I must take my assert my rights under the 14th, 6th and 5th amendments under the US constitution. Unless I - risk losing their representation.” //
MP: “And Mr. Edwards just so we don’t have to come back on the question that I instructed him not to answer, if you go ahead and repeat that question I’d be more than happy to let him respond.” \\
BE: “I remember the question, we’ll take it up with the court and get a ruling -” //
MP: “It was whether or not he cared about these I believe you quoted it as underage minors but I would like the court reporter to read back the question just to conserve judicial resources and not go back, so if she could re-read the question, that would be good.” \\
BE: “If you can find the question. I think it was - I think I know it. Did you care about any of these underage minor females that you were engaging in sex with at the time you were engaging in these sexual activities?” //
MP: “Same objections as before.” \\
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question as well as most of your other questions if not all your other questions here today, on advice of counsel, I’m going to have to assert my 14th amendment right, my 6th amendment right and my 5th amendment right. No matter how much I’d actually like to answer that question, if I do so, I risk losing my counsel’s representation.” //
BE: “At the time you were engaging in sexual activity with these underage minors including [REDACTED], you knew that this conduct was illegal, didn’t you?” \\
MP: “Same objections. Form.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as most of your other questions here today. However, today my counsel has instructed me to assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights and if I do not, in fact if I answer that question - if I can answer that question, I potentially risk losing my effective counsel and representation.” \\
BE: “In fact you told many of these underage minor females not to tell anybody what happened with you in the house or else they would be in trouble. Isn’t that true?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as the other questions however my counsel has advised me that today I must assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights under the US constitution.” //
BE: “And in fact, those underage minor females that have pursued cases against you and have come forward with what happened inside your house you have - strike that. The underage minor females that have come forward with information about your sexual interactions with them have been investigated, harassed, humiliated in an effort for you to intimidate them to go away, is that true?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculative, compound, it’s over broad and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “Can you repeat the question?” \\
BE: “Sure. Any underage minor female that you engaged in sexual activity with, and that has now pursued a lawsuit against you, isn’t it true that you spent a lot of money and a lot of resources investigating them in an effort to intimidate them and hopefully make them go away?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I believe your clients testimony changed dramatically when she joined up with you and your law firm accused of fraud when she decided to change her testimony at least from what the statements said both the police and the FBI and decided to seek money. However anything above that or beyond that I’m gonna have to in fact my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights as directed by my [unintelligible] counsel. Unfortunately they’ve told me that if I don't, I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Alright. I’m gonna give you a chance here since you keep bringing up her statement to the FBI as opposed to her sworn testimony for 13 hours under oath in this case. Are you saying that the sworn testimony to the FBI was in fact the truth?” \\
JE: “What I’m saying is her - it seems her testimony has changed dramatically after she joined your firm. That’s all.” //
BE: “Ok. Irrespective of her testimony, you read her testimony and you - the the FBI and you watched her deposition when it was being taken. Which -” \\
JE: “You’re making assumptions I’m sorry.” //
MP: “Go ahead and let him ask the question and then I’ll object and respond.” \\
BE: “What you’re saying is the truthful testimony, her statement to the FBI with the videotaped deposition that you watched -” //
MP: “I’m gonna object. Form.” \\
JE: “What I’ve said and i think I repeat myself is until she joined your firm and started to seek money, her testimony was different. That’s my understanding.” //
BE: “Are you denying your sexual involvement with [REDACTED] at this time?” \\
MP: “Form.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, I’d like to answer most of your questions here today, however my attorneys have advised me I must take the - assert my rights under the 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment, no matter how much I’d like to answer that question or potentially risk losing my counsel.” \\
BE: “Isn’t your game plan with all of these civil lawsuits that have been filed against you to spend as much money as you can to investigate and harass these young women into hopefully dropping the lawsuits against you?” //
MP: “Objection. Relevance, move to strike. It’s argumentative and it’s harassing.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question. I think you know the answer to that question.” //
BE: “Yes.” \\
JE: “However today my attorneys have advised me I must assert my 6th amendment rights, 14th amendment rights and 5th amendment rights.” //
BE: “Recently, well - strike that. You don’t have any remorse for the sexual abuse that you committed against [REDACTED], do you?” \\
MP: “Objection. It’s argumentative, it’s harassing, it [unintelligible] judge’s order and it assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “That being said, I’d like to answer that question today, but my attorneys have advised me I must assert my 14th amendment rights, my 5th amendment rights and my 6th amendment rights.” \\
BE: “In fact, you recently sued [REDACTED], didn’t you?” //
JE: “Yes. And you and your firm that’s been accused of the largest fraud in Florida’s history described by the US attorney as a criminal enterprise involved in money laundering, conspiracy to commit one crime - excuse me, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Yes I sued and I - you, your firm, and [REDACTED].” \\
BE: “Tell the jury the basis or the evidence that you have to support the allegation in the complaint against [REDACTED]?” //
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna instruct the witness not to answer that question in this medium as it is wholly irrelevant currently as worded to this particular lawsuit.” \\
BE: “Just so you can rethink that position, the lack of remorse goes to punitive damages that is an aspect of the case that [REDACTED] has against Mr. Epstein.” //
MP: “This lawsuit, the current one that Mr. Epstein is noticed for, and the lawsuit in which Mr. Epstein has filed against former Rothstein, Rosenfelt and Adler, [REDACTED] and Mr. Brad Edwards is not proper for this medium.” \\
BE: “I understand your position.” //
MP: “In that regard I’m going to instruct him not to answer any questions relative to that lawsuit because of that objection as well as it is my understanding that Mr. Scarolla has said Mr. Epstein’s deposition I believe either early next week or mid-March on the case of Epstein vs. RRA, Rothstein, Rosenfelt and Adler, Mr. Edwards as well as [REDACTED]. And therefore when that time approaches that will be the appropriate time for those type of questions related to that lawsuit.” \\
BE: “I understand your position completely, Mr. Pike. But as it relates to - obviously [REDACTED] sued you making the allegations that you sexually molested her from when she was 13 years old to 16 years old and now you’ve sued her in something that is seemingly related to that case and I just want to understand what your factual basis is or what evidence you’re using to support your lawsuit against [REDACTED] so the jury can evaluate whether that as evidence of lack of remorse that would go to punitive damages claims that [REDACTED] has against you?” //
MP: “I’m gonna instruct him not to answer that question for the same reasons stated.” \\
BE: “That’s -” //
MP: “Let’s mark that.” \\
BE: “Is it your feeling that because you are wealthy and these children are poor, that you’re entitled to sexually abuse them?” //
MP: “Argumentative.” \\
BE: “In speaking of these children, including [REDACTED].” //
MP: “Argumentative, speculative, it’s compound, it’s vague, and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “Yes and in keeping with your firms’ propensity to file fellacious manufactured sexually charged cases based on nothing but thin air, accused by the US attorney as part of the largest fraud in south Florida’s history by manufacturing sexual cases. I would like to answer each and every one of your questions including why I sued you, but today I’m not going to be able to. So, I’m going to have to simply listen to my counsel and assert my 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right.” //
BE: “And this answer that you keep reciting about the Rothstein, Rosenfelt, Adler firm, you do know who they are, right? You are aware, obviously, that all of the lawsuits that were filed against you including [bleep] were filed at least a year before, or approximately a year, before Rothstein, Rosenfelt, Adler had any of these cases, you’re aware of that, right?” \\
MP: “Form.” //
JE: “I do now know when Rothstein Adler got involved in these cases. I do know that the moment they did surface, in fact I understand that you shared information with all the other attorneys that you so - like, at the jury could gather the information gathered according to the US attorney by illegal means has been shared with all the other attorneys you keep representing have filed cases against me. Yes, I’m aware of that.” \\
BE: “I don’t understand that answer. Excuse me?” //
MP: “Do you have a question?” \\
BE: “Yeah I want to understand what his answer is which is, which is familiar in every single deposition. If you don’t understand the answer, clarify the answer.” //
MP: “No. You have to ask the question.” \\
BE: “I did. And he’s responding to it.” //
MP: “The witness has answered the question. Do you have another question to clarify his answer?” \\
BE: “Yeah, please clarify your answer.” //
MP: “I’m going to instruct him not to answer. I don’t know, it’s vague, confusing, it’s narrative.” \\
BE: “Me saying clarify your answer is narrative?” //
MP: “Yeah, what do you mean clarify the answer?” \\
BE: “I didn’t hear what he said. Say it again so I can hear it.” //
MP: “Would you please read back what Mr. Epstein just testified to, madam court reporter?” \\
Woman: “It was the answer regarding Rothstein, Rosenfelt Adler firm - you do know who they are, right? Question: you are aware, obviously that all of the lawsuits that were filed against you including LM that filed at a year before or approximately a year before Rothstein, Rosenfelt, Adler had any of these cases. You’re aware of that, right? Objection stated on the record. I do not know when Rothstein Adler got involved in these cases. And the witness says say that the information surfaced [unintelligible] that you shared information with all the other attorneys [unintelligible] the jury should understand the information gathered according to the US attorney by [unintelligible] has been shared with all the other attorneys that you keep representing have filed cases against me. Yes, I’m aware of that. I don’t understand.” //
BE: “Ok.” \\
MP: “So there was an answer, a question -” //
BE: “Mike, I understand. I mean I don’t understand the answer but now I know the answer.” \\
MP: “Ok.” //
BE: “At this point in time, please tell the jury what is your defense of the claims being asserted against you in this lawsuit by [bleep]?” \\
MP: “I’m gonna object. Calls for a legal conclusion.” //
JE: “What are the claims, sir since you’re representing [REDACTED] could you tell me what the claims are?” \\
BE: “We’ve gone through it. She went to your house when she was 13, 14, 15, 16 years old -” //
JE: “Is that a claim?” \\
BE: “- she was in your bedroom, you instructed her to get naked [bleep] you coerced her into recruiting other underage minor females, roughly 50 or so more, and these are all claims that have amounted to various counts coercion, prostitution, intention infliction, emotional distress, battery, committing various crimes against her - what are your defenses to that? I mean normal defense are I didn’t do it, I did it but it didn’t hurt her. We’re trying to understand so we understand how to put the - provide this case to the jury, what are your defenses to these allegations?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object to this line of questioning. It’s compound, as worded it could call for the disclosure of attorney client information as well as product and I believe in this particular case there is a document filed, answered and affirmed his defenses and has affirmed defenses are set forth in the document there speaks for itself.” \\
BE: “Ok.” //
JE: “The document speaks for itself.” \\
BE: “So you agree with the affirmative defenses that were filed in your case? If you were to testify we could expect that to be your testimony?” //
MP: “That’s not what the witness testified to the witness testified that the document speaks for itself and again I’m gonna object to attorney client work product and instruct the witness not to answer.” \\
BE: “Ok, I’m not asking what your legal defense is, I’m asking what is your response to those claims? What is your personal response?” //
JE: “I’d like to respond to that question, I’d like to respond today to that question. However, today my attorneys have told me that I cannot respond. They’ve asked me to assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights of the US constitution, though I would really like to respond, but they told me that if I did so, I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “Ok. I know you’ve invoked your 5th amendment rights related to many of these questions, but isn’t it true that you recently contacted [bleep] at the New York Daily News and spoke with him about [bleep] case as well as several of the other girls who have claims against you?” //
JE: “Who?” \\
BE: “[bleep] New York Daily News.” //
JE: “Can you repeat the question?” \\
BE: “Didn’t you recently, within the last year contact [bleep] at the New York Daily News and discuss these cases that have been filed against you and the allegations made by these various females?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but unfortunately today my attorneys have advised me I cannot and they’ve advised me I must assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment right, so therefore, I will do so.” //
BE: “Why is it that you will talk to [bleep] but you will not talk to the jury about this?” \\
MP: “Form. Argumentative, speculation, misstates the witness’ testimony and assumes facts. The question assumes facts not in evidence and now lacks predicate.” //
JE: “Sorry who is [bleep]?” \\
BE: “A reporter with the New York Daily News. Did you not talk to him? If you didn’t talk to him, tell me that’s fine.” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to tell you answers to each one of your questions however today my attorneys have demanded that I respond by asserting my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 6th amendment privilege, though I’d like to respond, they said if I do so I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Didn’t you tell [bleep] that these underage minors were not victims at all and that regardless of their age you did not personally consider them victims?” \\
MP: “Same objection.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but today on advice of my counsel I must, as I have done with most each one of your questions, I have to assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution.” \\
BE: “You were 51 when [bleep] was 14 and you were interacting with her sexually. Is it your testimony that despite the disparity in age, you do not consider [bleep] to be a victim?” //
MP: “Argumentative, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, it’s compound, lacks predicate.” \\
JE: “Not only does it contradict your own clients statements to the FBI under sworn testimony, I would like to answer that questions, hopefully one day I can answer that question, but today my attorneys have said I cannot. They’ve advised me I must assert my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights.” //
BE: “In the last ten years, what has the youngest underage minor female that you have interacted with sexually?” \\
MP: “Argumentative, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “The answer to that question is, I’d like to give you an answer to that question today, but my attorneys have advised me I must assert my 14th amendment right, my 6th amendment rights and 5th amendment rights.” \\
BE: “Do you know [bleep]?” //
JE: “-ring a bell” \\
BE: “Ok. Former housekeeper or employee of yours, worked at your, at the Palm Beach house.” //
JE: “Could. I don’t know.” \\
BE: “Ok. So you’d be unable to answer what [bleep] did for you?” //
JE: “Yes.” \\
BE: “Ok. Are you aware that our investigators spoke with [bleep] former housekeeper for you or house manager for you out in California?” //
JE: “No.” \\
BE: “Ok.” //
JE: “No.” \\
BE: “Any reason why when asked about the activity that occurred in your house, he would tear up and say I was hoping to forget everything I saw?” //
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculative, and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “Again, the question?” //
BE: “Is there any reason that when asked -” \\
JE: “I don’t know who he is.” //
MP: “It’s also hearsay.” \\
BE: “Ok. Fine.” //
SJ: “Going off the video record at 3:23 p.m.” \\
JE: “It’s 3:30 now but a break at 4 [unintelligible]” //
SJ: “We’re back on the video record at 3:30 p.m.” \\
BE: “Sorry. This person that I asked you about [bleep] is that somebody who has contacted you within the last 6 months?” //
JE: “No.” \\
BE: “Ok. And in taking a break and thinking about some of these questions, have you remembered who that person is, or still no real memory of him at all?” //
JE: “No real memory.” \\
BE: “Ok. Best of your knowledge, he never worked for you?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “Not that I can recall. There’s lots of people who worked for me, so -” //
BE: “Ok. Could you tell the jury who the various people are that work for you now?” \\
JE: “I believe I answered that question already.” //
BE: “In that you invoked your 5th amendment, correct?” \\
JE: “That’s correct. 6th amendment, and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “18th and 21st -” \\
MP: “Move to strike.” //
BE: “Ok. Have you, have you - during this litigation and by this litigation, I don’t only mean [bleep] case, I mean the various other lawsuits that have been filed against you by other females alleging sexual misconduct by you against them. Have you retained attorneys for - what witnesses have you retained attorneys for?” \\
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna object to form.” //
BE: “Ok.” \\
MP: “And I’m gonna instruct him not to answer, because I don’t understand the question, and I - note that.” //
BE: “Alright. During this civil discovery and litigation, have you paid for and or retained an attorney for any other witnesses?” \\
JE: “Any other witnesses?” //
BE: “Yeah, like I’ll give you an example that you may - and just to refresh your recollection or tell you what I’m talking about - Luella Rebollo[?], you know who that is, right?” \\
JE: “Yes, sir.” //
BE: “Ok, she’s somebody that works for you now, she’s a housekeeper? We took her deposition already that’s at least what her testimony was.” \\
MP: “Form.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but I’m gonna have to assert my 6th amendment, 14th and 5th.” \\
BE: “Ok. That’s somebody who has informed us that you paid for and retained an attorney by the name of [bleep] to represent her during this process, is that true?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I’m gonna have to assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “Right. Other people that have indicated that you retained and paid for an attorney to represent them are [bleep] [bleep]. Have I missed anybody else that during this litigation you’ve paid for or retained attorneys for?” \\
MP: “Form. Same objection.” //
JE: “I’m unclear, are you suggesting I’ve paid for attorneys for all these people?” \\
BE: “Yes.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer those questions today but under advice of council I’m going to have to invoke my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment right.” \\
BE: “And if you have not, tell me which of those on that list that you have not paid for or retained an attorney for.” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “Same answer.” //
BE: “You’re invoking your 5th amendment -” \\
JE: “6th amendment, 14th amendment.” //
BE: “Ok. And is it a company or is it you personally that is paying for the attorneys fees related to your representation?” \\
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna object to form. I’m gonna instruct him not to answer that question based on relevance.” //
BE: “Just because -” \\
MP: “And it’s vague also.” //
BE: “Who is writing the check to your attorneys for your representation in this lawsuit? Who’s paying the bill?” \\
JE: “I believe I am.” //
BE: “Ok and is it you personally, or is this one of your corporations or companies?” \\
MP: “Form. Speculation.” //
JE: “I’m not sure.” \\
BE: “As you sit here today, you’re not really sure whether it’s coming from one of the other corporations that we’ve discovered during discovery or is coming from you personally, is that correct?” //
JE: “I believe I -” \\
MP: “Asked and answered.” //
JE: “I would like to answer but I’m going to have to invoke my 6th, 14th and 5th amendment rights.” \\
BE: “And as it relates to any of the other witnesses who have had attorneys retained for them, is it also your response to invoke your 5th amendment rights rather than to provide me with an answer as to who is paying the bill for those attorneys?” //
JE: “I’d like to answer those questions but today, my attorneys have asked me not to respond to any questions that may be relevant to this lawsuit. So I must follow their advice and invoke the 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right.” \\
BE: “Have you interacted sexually with any underage minors in the last year while on house arrest or work release from jail?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object. Argumentative and compound and lacks predicate.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, but on advise of counsel, at least today, they’ve advised me I must invoke my 6th amendment, 14th and 5th amendment right.” //
MP: “It’s also over broad.” \\
BE: “If me narrowing down to help you to respond, I will. Is there a need for that?” //
MP: “No.” \\
BE: “Is it your intent to interact sexually with minors in the future?” //
MP: “Same objection.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but today my counsels advised me I must invoke the rights of the 6th amendment, the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment under the constitution.” //
BE: “Are you currently treating with a psychologist related to any sex addiction that you have with minors?” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as most of the other questions you’ve asked me today. However, on advice of counsel, they’ve asked me to invoke my 6th amendment, the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment right. Therefore, though I’d like to answer that question as well as the other ones, I risk losing their representation if I do so.” //
MP: “Moreover, object to relevance [unintelligible] in the past [bleep] medical history is not at issue in this case under the legal terms.” \\
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you targeted these underage girls including [REDACTED] because of their young age?” \\
MP: “Argumentative, speculative, harassing and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “I would like to answer that question as well as most of the other questions you’ve asked me today. My counsel has advised me that I must assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment right, though I’d like to answer those questions today if I do so I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “You would also agree, wouldn’t you, that you targeted these underage females for sex including [bleep] because they were poor?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, I’d really like to answer that question as well as the other questions you’ve asked me here today. However, on advice of my counsel they’ve demanded that I assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights and if I answer that question I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you sexually molested [bleep] for 3 years, is that correct?” \\
MP: “Same objections.” //
JE: “I think you’ve asked me that question before. And I assert the same rights as before.” \\
BE: “That’s your 5th, 6th and 14th amendment, just so the records clear?” //
JE: “Yes.” \\
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you that you coerced [bleep] into prostitution?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I believe her testimony reflects, at least her sworn statement to the FBI, reflects that is not the case. And though I’d like to answer that question in great detail, I cannot do so today on advice of counsel they’ve asked me to assert my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights and if I do so I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you groomed [bleep] into becoming a prostitute?” \\
MP: “I’m gonna object. Argumentative, speculative, it certainly lacks predicate and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “You know I’d like to answer that question but I can’t today under advice of counsel I’m gonna have to assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights. If I answer that question, I risk losing their counsel.” \\
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you brainwashed [bleep] into believing that this lifestyle of prostitution was right?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, as most of your other questions here today Mr. Edwards on advice of counsel today I’m going to have to assert my 5th amendment, my 6th amendment and my 14th amendment rights because if I answer that question I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Would you agree that your interaction with [REDACTED] when she was a minor was degrading to her?” \\
MP: “Same objections.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, I’d like to answer all your questions here today. However, my counsel’s advised me that I must assert my 14th amendment rights, my 6th amendment rights and my 5th amendment rights and though I would like to answer those questions if I do so, I risk losing their representation. Can we take a break? To get some air, is that ok?” \\
BE: “We have 15 minutes and we’re done.” //
JE: “Ok. Fine.” \\
BE: “Continue then?” //
JE: “Yeah.” \\
BE: “Ok. Would you agree that you indoctrinated [REDACTED] into this very deviant sexual lifestyle?” //
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna object. It’s argumentative, it’s confusing, it’s speculative, vague, lacks predicate and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “And on top of that, I’d like to answer that question but my counsel’s advised me that I must assert my 14th amendment, my 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights under the US constitution though I’d like to answer all your questions here today, I cannot do so, risking losing their representation.” //
BE: “Would you agree that you were personally responsible for destroying her life?” \\
MP: “Same exact objections.” //
JE: “Her life? [REDACTED] I’d like to answer that question and I understand how your firm has been accused of fabricating sexually charged lawsuits in order to fleece investors, locally in south Florida, the US attorney has called [REDACTED] a criminal enterprise based on filing fellactious sexually charged cases and though I’d like to answer that question today, Mr. [REDACTED] counsel has told me that I have to assert my rights of the 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment and if I don’t do so, I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “We have a factual basis for asking every question making every allegation and I want to provide you with a last opportunity to tell the jury which of these allegations, if any, being made by [REDACTED] are false or fabricated in any way?” //
MP: “Same objections. Mr. Edwards, you know the tenor of that question cannot be answered without waiver of 6th, 5th and 14th. I appreciate the question and the semantics of it but it’s - can you rephrase it?” \\
BE: “Yeah, many times we - you know the allegations now we’ve gone through [bleep] allegations and assertion of facts as to what happened between you and her when she was 13, 14 and 15 years old and you were 50, 51, and 52 years old and several times you’ve responded saying something about [bleep] something about her FBI statement or what have you and I want to give you a chance to tell the jury which of her allegations, if any, that you believe now are false or fabricated in any way?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to respond to that question the fact that her firm the law firm representing her has been accused by the US attorney of being a criminal enterprise manufacturing fabricating out of thin air cases involving sexual allegations, sexual allegations in order to simply fleece local investors out of millions of dollars. So I would very much like to answer that question regarding the truth in Ms. [REDACTED]’s allegations, however today my counsel has told me that I must assert my 5th amendment rights, 6th amendment rights and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution though I would very much like to answer those questions but if I do I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Would you agree that you owe [REDACTED] at least 15 million dollars to compensate her for the damage you have caused?” \\
MP: “Objection. Move to strike. Argumentative, compound, lacks substantial predicate and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “As might imagine, though your law firm has been accused of perpetrating a fraud involving millions and millions of dollars while unsuspecting investors here in south Florida millions of dollars by fabricating similar allegations convincing people to give money to the firm that helped bring this lawsuit. I’m afraid I’d like to answer those questions but no matter how much I’d like to answer those questions I’m gonna have to decline based on my counsels advice to invoke, at least today, my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution because if I don’t, I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “Is it true that you are currently worth more that one billion dollars personally?” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as I’d like to answer most of your other questions. I know that a lot of money, actually amount of money the US attorneys accused your firm of trying to steal from the people of south Florida was 1.2 billion dollars, the US attorney claimed that your firm perpetrated the largest fraud in south Florida’s history by stealing that sum of money from local investors based on false allegations of sexually charged claims and so though I’d like to answer these questions with specificity under advice of counsel today I’m going to have to refuse based on my 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right and though I’d like to answer the question I’ve been told that if I do so I risk losing their representation, Mr. Edwards.” \\
BE: “Alright. I’m simply asking, what is your personal net worth at this time?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I think I’ve answered the question, but -” //
BE: “What is your personal net worth at this time, the answer should be a number or it should be you invoking your 5th amendment rights. Seemed like the options.” \\
MP: “Asked and answered. He did invoke his 5th, 6th and 14th -” //
BE: “His answer included something about [REDACTED] stealing some certain amount of money which obviously is non response so I move to strike and ask that he actually respond to the question with something that is responsive. His options are answer the question, invoke your 5th amendment right, we get out of here.” \\
JE: “It makes is sound very -” //
BE: “Let’s start over again, can you please tell the jury what your personal net worth is currently?” \\
JE: “I’d like to do that today, however, I’m sure one of the reasons is since your firm has been accused of stealing millions of dollars from local investors based on fabricated, totally fabricated claims, this is not by me but by the US attorney, has called your firm a criminal enterprise charged with stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, frankly from local investors based on false claims of sexually charged nature. I’d like to answer that question in detail, however my attorneys have advised me I cannot answer any questions that may be relevant to this lawsuit and by doing so I must invoke my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment right and by answering your question I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Ok so is it true that you’re worth 1.8 billion dollars?” \\
MP: “Same objection.” //
JE: “Same answer.” \\
BE: “Go ahead and put the answer -” //
MP: “For the record there.” \\
JE: “For the record. I’m sure that’s an interesting question, I’d like to answer that question for you I’m sure you’d like to know as your firm has been charged with stealing over a billion dollars from local investors and your senior partner of both you and [REDACTED] over there shaking his sits in jail accused of fleecing local Florida investors based on false sexual claims from people and though I’d like to answer that question, like I’ve answered most of your other questions, my counsel has advised me today ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I cannot answer that question maybe in the future however if I do so today I risk losing their representation so I must assert those rights under the 6th, 5th and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “You’d agree, would you not, that it would take a jury award of at least $45 million in punitive damages to punish you for doing what you did to [bleep]?” \\
MP: “Same objections.” //
JE: “I would like to answer that question as I’d like to answer all your other [bleep] questions today. However, [unintelligible] since shaking his head I’m going to have to respond to my counsels advised me I cannot answer that question today though I’d like to. Though I’d like to answer with specificity. However, if I do so I risk losing their representation. So I must assert my rights under the 6th, 5th and 14th amendments.” \\
BE: “Isn’t it true [bleep] deemed that as long as you have the money to do it, you will continue to engage in sex with minors?” //
MP: “Again, extremely argumentative, speculative, I’m allowing the question to give leeway so that we don’t have to come back here again, it’s harassing.” \\
JE: “And with that, I’m sure this ladies and gentlemen of the jury will be able to see you and your partner whos your firm has been accused of massive fraud in south Florida trying to get hundreds of millions of dollars from local investors. Creating and fabricating malicious sexually charged claims called by the US attorney a criminal enterprise charged with money laundering, conspiracy to commit other federal violations so though I’d like to answer that question [bleep] I must invoke my 6th, 5th and 14th amendment rights advised by counsel or risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “And am I correct in my understanding that you have invoked your 5th amendment rights because your answers would incriminate you and lead to your prosecution?” \\
MP: “I’m gonna -” //
BE: “Exactly as phrased by Mr. Luthier[?] towards [REDACTED] I did not say anything but allowed her to answer the question.” \\
MP: “You can answer that question. I’m gonna object to form.” //
JE: “In fact, since you are a lawyer I’m sure you’re aware the supreme court has said that the 5th amendment is used more often to protect innocent people that’s - today on the advice of counsel I cannot -” \\
BE: “Right. Ok.” //
MP: “I have no questions.” \\
BE: “No further questions.” //
SJ: “Going off the video record at 3:52 p.m.” //
END TRANSCRIPT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/D ... 182657.m4v
Length: 1:55:22
Part 1: viewtopic.php?p=529#p529
Note: This is a continuation of the video interview taken in EFTA00182656
BE: “Is it true, Mr. Epstein that you gave [REDACTED] money to coerce her into interacting with you sexually?” //
JE: “Mr. Edwards, I would like to answer each and every one of your questions here today, but unfortunately as I’ve done with mostly all your other questions, I’m going to have to assert my rights under the 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment on advice of counsel. And though I would like to answer, if I ignore my attorney’s advice I risk losing my representation.” \\
BE: “In committing these sexual acts against [REDACTED] when she was just a minor, you knew that it would psychologically damage her, isn’t that true?” //
MP: “Form. Predicate. Speculation.” \\
JE: “I intend to respond at some point to each one of your questions - I’d like to respond to each and every one but today on advice of my counsel they’ve required me to assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution. Though I’d like to answer each one of these questions.” //
BE: “In fact, you deliberately and intentionally caused severe emotional distress to underage minor females including [REDACTED], isn’t that true?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculation, it’s compound and it assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “I would like to answer that question as I’d like to answer all your other questions today regarding [REDACTED]. However, my attorneys today have advised me that I must assert my 6th amendment right to effective representation and my 5th amendment right and my 14th amendment right so though I’d like to answer that with specificity I must follow my attorneys advice.” \\
BE: “Will you admit for the jury that you were investigated federally for your illegal activities with underage minors?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as all the other questions you’ve asked me here today. Especially since your firm has been accused by the federal i guess the federal government considered a criminal - your firm has been considered and investigated as being a criminal enterprise using sexually fabricated sexual cases fabricated cases to fleece investors out of millions of dollars. Though I’d like to answer your questions however my attorneys have demanded that I assert my rights under the 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “In fact, as a result of that investigation, you as well as the United States attorney’s office entered into what has now been known and referred to as the non-prosecution agreement, isn’t that correct?” \\
MP: “Same objection. Document speaks for itself.” //
JE: “You’ll have to repeat the question.” \\
BE: “As a result of the criminal investigation into your activities with minor females, you reached a resolution with the United States attorneys office in what has now been described as the non-prosecution agreement, is that correct?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object. It’s vague, confusing, misrepresents the agreement and the document is the best evidence. Wanna mark it?” \\
BE: “Yeah, we’ll mark it. I think I can mark this copy. And we’ll copy it at the end and we’ll mark it as exhibit 2.” //
JE: “Yes.” \\
BE: “And in that agreement, there are listed co-conspirators of Jeffery Epstein, those being Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcenkova. Can you explain to the jury what those four individuals did for you related to the crimes that were investigated by the federal government.” //
JE: “Did you say co-conspirators?” \\
BE: “Yeah, it says criminal charges against co-conspirators of Epstein including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff or Nadia Marcenkova. Can you explain to the jury what each of those four individuals did for you or conspired with you to do?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object to the form and question.” \\
BE: “Ok.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question however today my attorneys have advised me that I must assert my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution.” \\
BE: “And isn’t it fair to say that you as well as the co-conspirators operated as an organized criminal enterprise designed to sexually exploit underage minors?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object to argumentative, speculation, it’s vague and it assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “Are you suggesting it was, sorry, criminal enterprise you said?” //
BE: “Yes.” \\
JE: “Is that what the wording?” //
BE: “Yes.” \\
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question today I think the only criminal enterprise that I’ve been reading about today was your firm that’s been accused of being a criminal enterprise involved in defrauding people, using mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering the operation of the enterprise [unintelligible] of the US attorney. Although I’d like to answer your questions with specificity today, on advice of counsel, though I’d like to answer, they’ve demanded that I assert my 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right or else I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Did you care about any of the underage minor females at the time when you were engaging in sexual conduct with them?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, harassing, already been ruled upon by the court relative to this exact question.” //
BE: “I feel comfortable with the question, it goes to period of damages it’s obviously - the issue related to the court was a repetitive question on that topic or around that general subject matter and I’m just asking for Mr. Epstein to tell the jury how he felt about these girls whether he cared about them when he was engaging in illegal sexual conduct with them.” \\
MP: “Counsel, I’m gonna instruct him not to answer the question you can certify to the court if you like. You know what the answer’s gonna be, however you’re attempting to lace this video - you know that the court is already ordered that these types of questions are not permitted cuz they’re argumentative and they’re harassing. In fact, the other questions bordered, but this question is on exact point with the court’s order so if you want to withdraw the question, that’s fine -” //
BE: “No I don’t want to withdraw the question.” \\
MP: “Ok. Then I’m gonna instruct you not to answer.” //
BE: “That’s fine. Let’s mark that somehow that that page so that we can find it in the record relative to the hearing that will be had on that question and others similar. At the very least, you certainly knew that engaging in sexual conduct with underage females was not - strike that. At the time when you were engaging in sexual conduct with underage females, you knew that exposing them to this was not beneficial or good for these girls, isn’t that true?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, lacks predicate.” //
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question like most of your other questions here today, on advice of counsel I must assert my 14th amendment, 5th amendment and 6th amendment rights. Though I’d like to answer, if I do so I risk losing my effective representation of counsel.” \\
BE: “Isn’t it true, Mr. Epstein, that the only thing that you care about was accessing as many underage females as possible for the purposes of sex?” //
MP: “Argumentative, speculation, harassing -” \\
JE: “What’s the question?” //
MP: “ - and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
BE: “Isn’t it true that the only thing that you care about when you were interacting with these underage females in a sexual manner, was ejaculating or your own personal gratification.” //
MP: “Form. Same exact objections.” \\
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question and to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’d very much like to answer that question, however today my attorneys have advised me I must take my assert my rights under the 14th, 6th and 5th amendments under the US constitution. Unless I - risk losing their representation.” //
MP: “And Mr. Edwards just so we don’t have to come back on the question that I instructed him not to answer, if you go ahead and repeat that question I’d be more than happy to let him respond.” \\
BE: “I remember the question, we’ll take it up with the court and get a ruling -” //
MP: “It was whether or not he cared about these I believe you quoted it as underage minors but I would like the court reporter to read back the question just to conserve judicial resources and not go back, so if she could re-read the question, that would be good.” \\
BE: “If you can find the question. I think it was - I think I know it. Did you care about any of these underage minor females that you were engaging in sex with at the time you were engaging in these sexual activities?” //
MP: “Same objections as before.” \\
JE: “Though I’d like to answer that question as well as most of your other questions if not all your other questions here today, on advice of counsel, I’m going to have to assert my 14th amendment right, my 6th amendment right and my 5th amendment right. No matter how much I’d actually like to answer that question, if I do so, I risk losing my counsel’s representation.” //
BE: “At the time you were engaging in sexual activity with these underage minors including [REDACTED], you knew that this conduct was illegal, didn’t you?” \\
MP: “Same objections. Form.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as most of your other questions here today. However, today my counsel has instructed me to assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights and if I do not, in fact if I answer that question - if I can answer that question, I potentially risk losing my effective counsel and representation.” \\
BE: “In fact you told many of these underage minor females not to tell anybody what happened with you in the house or else they would be in trouble. Isn’t that true?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as the other questions however my counsel has advised me that today I must assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights under the US constitution.” //
BE: “And in fact, those underage minor females that have pursued cases against you and have come forward with what happened inside your house you have - strike that. The underage minor females that have come forward with information about your sexual interactions with them have been investigated, harassed, humiliated in an effort for you to intimidate them to go away, is that true?” \\
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculative, compound, it’s over broad and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “Can you repeat the question?” \\
BE: “Sure. Any underage minor female that you engaged in sexual activity with, and that has now pursued a lawsuit against you, isn’t it true that you spent a lot of money and a lot of resources investigating them in an effort to intimidate them and hopefully make them go away?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I believe your clients testimony changed dramatically when she joined up with you and your law firm accused of fraud when she decided to change her testimony at least from what the statements said both the police and the FBI and decided to seek money. However anything above that or beyond that I’m gonna have to in fact my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights as directed by my [unintelligible] counsel. Unfortunately they’ve told me that if I don't, I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Alright. I’m gonna give you a chance here since you keep bringing up her statement to the FBI as opposed to her sworn testimony for 13 hours under oath in this case. Are you saying that the sworn testimony to the FBI was in fact the truth?” \\
JE: “What I’m saying is her - it seems her testimony has changed dramatically after she joined your firm. That’s all.” //
BE: “Ok. Irrespective of her testimony, you read her testimony and you - the the FBI and you watched her deposition when it was being taken. Which -” \\
JE: “You’re making assumptions I’m sorry.” //
MP: “Go ahead and let him ask the question and then I’ll object and respond.” \\
BE: “What you’re saying is the truthful testimony, her statement to the FBI with the videotaped deposition that you watched -” //
MP: “I’m gonna object. Form.” \\
JE: “What I’ve said and i think I repeat myself is until she joined your firm and started to seek money, her testimony was different. That’s my understanding.” //
BE: “Are you denying your sexual involvement with [REDACTED] at this time?” \\
MP: “Form.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, I’d like to answer most of your questions here today, however my attorneys have advised me I must take the - assert my rights under the 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment, no matter how much I’d like to answer that question or potentially risk losing my counsel.” \\
BE: “Isn’t your game plan with all of these civil lawsuits that have been filed against you to spend as much money as you can to investigate and harass these young women into hopefully dropping the lawsuits against you?” //
MP: “Objection. Relevance, move to strike. It’s argumentative and it’s harassing.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question. I think you know the answer to that question.” //
BE: “Yes.” \\
JE: “However today my attorneys have advised me I must assert my 6th amendment rights, 14th amendment rights and 5th amendment rights.” //
BE: “Recently, well - strike that. You don’t have any remorse for the sexual abuse that you committed against [REDACTED], do you?” \\
MP: “Objection. It’s argumentative, it’s harassing, it [unintelligible] judge’s order and it assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “That being said, I’d like to answer that question today, but my attorneys have advised me I must assert my 14th amendment rights, my 5th amendment rights and my 6th amendment rights.” \\
BE: “In fact, you recently sued [REDACTED], didn’t you?” //
JE: “Yes. And you and your firm that’s been accused of the largest fraud in Florida’s history described by the US attorney as a criminal enterprise involved in money laundering, conspiracy to commit one crime - excuse me, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Yes I sued and I - you, your firm, and [REDACTED].” \\
BE: “Tell the jury the basis or the evidence that you have to support the allegation in the complaint against [REDACTED]?” //
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna instruct the witness not to answer that question in this medium as it is wholly irrelevant currently as worded to this particular lawsuit.” \\
BE: “Just so you can rethink that position, the lack of remorse goes to punitive damages that is an aspect of the case that [REDACTED] has against Mr. Epstein.” //
MP: “This lawsuit, the current one that Mr. Epstein is noticed for, and the lawsuit in which Mr. Epstein has filed against former Rothstein, Rosenfelt and Adler, [REDACTED] and Mr. Brad Edwards is not proper for this medium.” \\
BE: “I understand your position.” //
MP: “In that regard I’m going to instruct him not to answer any questions relative to that lawsuit because of that objection as well as it is my understanding that Mr. Scarolla has said Mr. Epstein’s deposition I believe either early next week or mid-March on the case of Epstein vs. RRA, Rothstein, Rosenfelt and Adler, Mr. Edwards as well as [REDACTED]. And therefore when that time approaches that will be the appropriate time for those type of questions related to that lawsuit.” \\
BE: “I understand your position completely, Mr. Pike. But as it relates to - obviously [REDACTED] sued you making the allegations that you sexually molested her from when she was 13 years old to 16 years old and now you’ve sued her in something that is seemingly related to that case and I just want to understand what your factual basis is or what evidence you’re using to support your lawsuit against [REDACTED] so the jury can evaluate whether that as evidence of lack of remorse that would go to punitive damages claims that [REDACTED] has against you?” //
MP: “I’m gonna instruct him not to answer that question for the same reasons stated.” \\
BE: “That’s -” //
MP: “Let’s mark that.” \\
BE: “Is it your feeling that because you are wealthy and these children are poor, that you’re entitled to sexually abuse them?” //
MP: “Argumentative.” \\
BE: “In speaking of these children, including [REDACTED].” //
MP: “Argumentative, speculative, it’s compound, it’s vague, and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “Yes and in keeping with your firms’ propensity to file fellacious manufactured sexually charged cases based on nothing but thin air, accused by the US attorney as part of the largest fraud in south Florida’s history by manufacturing sexual cases. I would like to answer each and every one of your questions including why I sued you, but today I’m not going to be able to. So, I’m going to have to simply listen to my counsel and assert my 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right.” //
BE: “And this answer that you keep reciting about the Rothstein, Rosenfelt, Adler firm, you do know who they are, right? You are aware, obviously, that all of the lawsuits that were filed against you including [bleep] were filed at least a year before, or approximately a year, before Rothstein, Rosenfelt, Adler had any of these cases, you’re aware of that, right?” \\
MP: “Form.” //
JE: “I do now know when Rothstein Adler got involved in these cases. I do know that the moment they did surface, in fact I understand that you shared information with all the other attorneys that you so - like, at the jury could gather the information gathered according to the US attorney by illegal means has been shared with all the other attorneys you keep representing have filed cases against me. Yes, I’m aware of that.” \\
BE: “I don’t understand that answer. Excuse me?” //
MP: “Do you have a question?” \\
BE: “Yeah I want to understand what his answer is which is, which is familiar in every single deposition. If you don’t understand the answer, clarify the answer.” //
MP: “No. You have to ask the question.” \\
BE: “I did. And he’s responding to it.” //
MP: “The witness has answered the question. Do you have another question to clarify his answer?” \\
BE: “Yeah, please clarify your answer.” //
MP: “I’m going to instruct him not to answer. I don’t know, it’s vague, confusing, it’s narrative.” \\
BE: “Me saying clarify your answer is narrative?” //
MP: “Yeah, what do you mean clarify the answer?” \\
BE: “I didn’t hear what he said. Say it again so I can hear it.” //
MP: “Would you please read back what Mr. Epstein just testified to, madam court reporter?” \\
Woman: “It was the answer regarding Rothstein, Rosenfelt Adler firm - you do know who they are, right? Question: you are aware, obviously that all of the lawsuits that were filed against you including LM that filed at a year before or approximately a year before Rothstein, Rosenfelt, Adler had any of these cases. You’re aware of that, right? Objection stated on the record. I do not know when Rothstein Adler got involved in these cases. And the witness says say that the information surfaced [unintelligible] that you shared information with all the other attorneys [unintelligible] the jury should understand the information gathered according to the US attorney by [unintelligible] has been shared with all the other attorneys that you keep representing have filed cases against me. Yes, I’m aware of that. I don’t understand.” //
BE: “Ok.” \\
MP: “So there was an answer, a question -” //
BE: “Mike, I understand. I mean I don’t understand the answer but now I know the answer.” \\
MP: “Ok.” //
BE: “At this point in time, please tell the jury what is your defense of the claims being asserted against you in this lawsuit by [bleep]?” \\
MP: “I’m gonna object. Calls for a legal conclusion.” //
JE: “What are the claims, sir since you’re representing [REDACTED] could you tell me what the claims are?” \\
BE: “We’ve gone through it. She went to your house when she was 13, 14, 15, 16 years old -” //
JE: “Is that a claim?” \\
BE: “- she was in your bedroom, you instructed her to get naked [bleep] you coerced her into recruiting other underage minor females, roughly 50 or so more, and these are all claims that have amounted to various counts coercion, prostitution, intention infliction, emotional distress, battery, committing various crimes against her - what are your defenses to that? I mean normal defense are I didn’t do it, I did it but it didn’t hurt her. We’re trying to understand so we understand how to put the - provide this case to the jury, what are your defenses to these allegations?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object to this line of questioning. It’s compound, as worded it could call for the disclosure of attorney client information as well as product and I believe in this particular case there is a document filed, answered and affirmed his defenses and has affirmed defenses are set forth in the document there speaks for itself.” \\
BE: “Ok.” //
JE: “The document speaks for itself.” \\
BE: “So you agree with the affirmative defenses that were filed in your case? If you were to testify we could expect that to be your testimony?” //
MP: “That’s not what the witness testified to the witness testified that the document speaks for itself and again I’m gonna object to attorney client work product and instruct the witness not to answer.” \\
BE: “Ok, I’m not asking what your legal defense is, I’m asking what is your response to those claims? What is your personal response?” //
JE: “I’d like to respond to that question, I’d like to respond today to that question. However, today my attorneys have told me that I cannot respond. They’ve asked me to assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights of the US constitution, though I would really like to respond, but they told me that if I did so, I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “Ok. I know you’ve invoked your 5th amendment rights related to many of these questions, but isn’t it true that you recently contacted [bleep] at the New York Daily News and spoke with him about [bleep] case as well as several of the other girls who have claims against you?” //
JE: “Who?” \\
BE: “[bleep] New York Daily News.” //
JE: “Can you repeat the question?” \\
BE: “Didn’t you recently, within the last year contact [bleep] at the New York Daily News and discuss these cases that have been filed against you and the allegations made by these various females?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but unfortunately today my attorneys have advised me I cannot and they’ve advised me I must assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment right, so therefore, I will do so.” //
BE: “Why is it that you will talk to [bleep] but you will not talk to the jury about this?” \\
MP: “Form. Argumentative, speculation, misstates the witness’ testimony and assumes facts. The question assumes facts not in evidence and now lacks predicate.” //
JE: “Sorry who is [bleep]?” \\
BE: “A reporter with the New York Daily News. Did you not talk to him? If you didn’t talk to him, tell me that’s fine.” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to tell you answers to each one of your questions however today my attorneys have demanded that I respond by asserting my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 6th amendment privilege, though I’d like to respond, they said if I do so I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Didn’t you tell [bleep] that these underage minors were not victims at all and that regardless of their age you did not personally consider them victims?” \\
MP: “Same objection.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but today on advice of my counsel I must, as I have done with most each one of your questions, I have to assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution.” \\
BE: “You were 51 when [bleep] was 14 and you were interacting with her sexually. Is it your testimony that despite the disparity in age, you do not consider [bleep] to be a victim?” //
MP: “Argumentative, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, it’s compound, lacks predicate.” \\
JE: “Not only does it contradict your own clients statements to the FBI under sworn testimony, I would like to answer that questions, hopefully one day I can answer that question, but today my attorneys have said I cannot. They’ve advised me I must assert my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights.” //
BE: “In the last ten years, what has the youngest underage minor female that you have interacted with sexually?” \\
MP: “Argumentative, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “The answer to that question is, I’d like to give you an answer to that question today, but my attorneys have advised me I must assert my 14th amendment right, my 6th amendment rights and 5th amendment rights.” \\
BE: “Do you know [bleep]?” //
JE: “-ring a bell” \\
BE: “Ok. Former housekeeper or employee of yours, worked at your, at the Palm Beach house.” //
JE: “Could. I don’t know.” \\
BE: “Ok. So you’d be unable to answer what [bleep] did for you?” //
JE: “Yes.” \\
BE: “Ok. Are you aware that our investigators spoke with [bleep] former housekeeper for you or house manager for you out in California?” //
JE: “No.” \\
BE: “Ok.” //
JE: “No.” \\
BE: “Any reason why when asked about the activity that occurred in your house, he would tear up and say I was hoping to forget everything I saw?” //
MP: “Objection. Argumentative, speculative, and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “Again, the question?” //
BE: “Is there any reason that when asked -” \\
JE: “I don’t know who he is.” //
MP: “It’s also hearsay.” \\
BE: “Ok. Fine.” //
SJ: “Going off the video record at 3:23 p.m.” \\
JE: “It’s 3:30 now but a break at 4 [unintelligible]” //
SJ: “We’re back on the video record at 3:30 p.m.” \\
BE: “Sorry. This person that I asked you about [bleep] is that somebody who has contacted you within the last 6 months?” //
JE: “No.” \\
BE: “Ok. And in taking a break and thinking about some of these questions, have you remembered who that person is, or still no real memory of him at all?” //
JE: “No real memory.” \\
BE: “Ok. Best of your knowledge, he never worked for you?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “Not that I can recall. There’s lots of people who worked for me, so -” //
BE: “Ok. Could you tell the jury who the various people are that work for you now?” \\
JE: “I believe I answered that question already.” //
BE: “In that you invoked your 5th amendment, correct?” \\
JE: “That’s correct. 6th amendment, and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “18th and 21st -” \\
MP: “Move to strike.” //
BE: “Ok. Have you, have you - during this litigation and by this litigation, I don’t only mean [bleep] case, I mean the various other lawsuits that have been filed against you by other females alleging sexual misconduct by you against them. Have you retained attorneys for - what witnesses have you retained attorneys for?” \\
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna object to form.” //
BE: “Ok.” \\
MP: “And I’m gonna instruct him not to answer, because I don’t understand the question, and I - note that.” //
BE: “Alright. During this civil discovery and litigation, have you paid for and or retained an attorney for any other witnesses?” \\
JE: “Any other witnesses?” //
BE: “Yeah, like I’ll give you an example that you may - and just to refresh your recollection or tell you what I’m talking about - Luella Rebollo[?], you know who that is, right?” \\
JE: “Yes, sir.” //
BE: “Ok, she’s somebody that works for you now, she’s a housekeeper? We took her deposition already that’s at least what her testimony was.” \\
MP: “Form.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but I’m gonna have to assert my 6th amendment, 14th and 5th.” \\
BE: “Ok. That’s somebody who has informed us that you paid for and retained an attorney by the name of [bleep] to represent her during this process, is that true?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I’m gonna have to assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “Right. Other people that have indicated that you retained and paid for an attorney to represent them are [bleep] [bleep]. Have I missed anybody else that during this litigation you’ve paid for or retained attorneys for?” \\
MP: “Form. Same objection.” //
JE: “I’m unclear, are you suggesting I’ve paid for attorneys for all these people?” \\
BE: “Yes.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer those questions today but under advice of council I’m going to have to invoke my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment right.” \\
BE: “And if you have not, tell me which of those on that list that you have not paid for or retained an attorney for.” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “Same answer.” //
BE: “You’re invoking your 5th amendment -” \\
JE: “6th amendment, 14th amendment.” //
BE: “Ok. And is it a company or is it you personally that is paying for the attorneys fees related to your representation?” \\
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna object to form. I’m gonna instruct him not to answer that question based on relevance.” //
BE: “Just because -” \\
MP: “And it’s vague also.” //
BE: “Who is writing the check to your attorneys for your representation in this lawsuit? Who’s paying the bill?” \\
JE: “I believe I am.” //
BE: “Ok and is it you personally, or is this one of your corporations or companies?” \\
MP: “Form. Speculation.” //
JE: “I’m not sure.” \\
BE: “As you sit here today, you’re not really sure whether it’s coming from one of the other corporations that we’ve discovered during discovery or is coming from you personally, is that correct?” //
JE: “I believe I -” \\
MP: “Asked and answered.” //
JE: “I would like to answer but I’m going to have to invoke my 6th, 14th and 5th amendment rights.” \\
BE: “And as it relates to any of the other witnesses who have had attorneys retained for them, is it also your response to invoke your 5th amendment rights rather than to provide me with an answer as to who is paying the bill for those attorneys?” //
JE: “I’d like to answer those questions but today, my attorneys have asked me not to respond to any questions that may be relevant to this lawsuit. So I must follow their advice and invoke the 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right.” \\
BE: “Have you interacted sexually with any underage minors in the last year while on house arrest or work release from jail?” //
MP: “I’m gonna object. Argumentative and compound and lacks predicate.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, but on advise of counsel, at least today, they’ve advised me I must invoke my 6th amendment, 14th and 5th amendment right.” //
MP: “It’s also over broad.” \\
BE: “If me narrowing down to help you to respond, I will. Is there a need for that?” //
MP: “No.” \\
BE: “Is it your intent to interact sexually with minors in the future?” //
MP: “Same objection.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question but today my counsels advised me I must invoke the rights of the 6th amendment, the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment under the constitution.” //
BE: “Are you currently treating with a psychologist related to any sex addiction that you have with minors?” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as well as most of the other questions you’ve asked me today. However, on advice of counsel, they’ve asked me to invoke my 6th amendment, the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment right. Therefore, though I’d like to answer that question as well as the other ones, I risk losing their representation if I do so.” //
MP: “Moreover, object to relevance [unintelligible] in the past [bleep] medical history is not at issue in this case under the legal terms.” \\
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you targeted these underage girls including [REDACTED] because of their young age?” \\
MP: “Argumentative, speculative, harassing and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “I would like to answer that question as well as most of the other questions you’ve asked me today. My counsel has advised me that I must assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment right, though I’d like to answer those questions today if I do so I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “You would also agree, wouldn’t you, that you targeted these underage females for sex including [bleep] because they were poor?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, I’d really like to answer that question as well as the other questions you’ve asked me here today. However, on advice of my counsel they’ve demanded that I assert my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights and if I answer that question I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you sexually molested [bleep] for 3 years, is that correct?” \\
MP: “Same objections.” //
JE: “I think you’ve asked me that question before. And I assert the same rights as before.” \\
BE: “That’s your 5th, 6th and 14th amendment, just so the records clear?” //
JE: “Yes.” \\
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you that you coerced [bleep] into prostitution?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I believe her testimony reflects, at least her sworn statement to the FBI, reflects that is not the case. And though I’d like to answer that question in great detail, I cannot do so today on advice of counsel they’ve asked me to assert my 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights and if I do so I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you groomed [bleep] into becoming a prostitute?” \\
MP: “I’m gonna object. Argumentative, speculative, it certainly lacks predicate and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “You know I’d like to answer that question but I can’t today under advice of counsel I’m gonna have to assert my 14th amendment, 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights. If I answer that question, I risk losing their counsel.” \\
BE: “You would agree, wouldn’t you, that you brainwashed [bleep] into believing that this lifestyle of prostitution was right?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, as most of your other questions here today Mr. Edwards on advice of counsel today I’m going to have to assert my 5th amendment, my 6th amendment and my 14th amendment rights because if I answer that question I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Would you agree that your interaction with [REDACTED] when she was a minor was degrading to her?” \\
MP: “Same objections.” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question, I’d like to answer all your questions here today. However, my counsel’s advised me that I must assert my 14th amendment rights, my 6th amendment rights and my 5th amendment rights and though I would like to answer those questions if I do so, I risk losing their representation. Can we take a break? To get some air, is that ok?” \\
BE: “We have 15 minutes and we’re done.” //
JE: “Ok. Fine.” \\
BE: “Continue then?” //
JE: “Yeah.” \\
BE: “Ok. Would you agree that you indoctrinated [REDACTED] into this very deviant sexual lifestyle?” //
MP: “Ok. I’m gonna object. It’s argumentative, it’s confusing, it’s speculative, vague, lacks predicate and assumes facts not in evidence.” \\
JE: “And on top of that, I’d like to answer that question but my counsel’s advised me that I must assert my 14th amendment, my 6th amendment and 5th amendment rights under the US constitution though I’d like to answer all your questions here today, I cannot do so, risking losing their representation.” //
BE: “Would you agree that you were personally responsible for destroying her life?” \\
MP: “Same exact objections.” //
JE: “Her life? [REDACTED] I’d like to answer that question and I understand how your firm has been accused of fabricating sexually charged lawsuits in order to fleece investors, locally in south Florida, the US attorney has called [REDACTED] a criminal enterprise based on filing fellactious sexually charged cases and though I’d like to answer that question today, Mr. [REDACTED] counsel has told me that I have to assert my rights of the 6th amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment and if I don’t do so, I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “We have a factual basis for asking every question making every allegation and I want to provide you with a last opportunity to tell the jury which of these allegations, if any, being made by [REDACTED] are false or fabricated in any way?” //
MP: “Same objections. Mr. Edwards, you know the tenor of that question cannot be answered without waiver of 6th, 5th and 14th. I appreciate the question and the semantics of it but it’s - can you rephrase it?” \\
BE: “Yeah, many times we - you know the allegations now we’ve gone through [bleep] allegations and assertion of facts as to what happened between you and her when she was 13, 14 and 15 years old and you were 50, 51, and 52 years old and several times you’ve responded saying something about [bleep] something about her FBI statement or what have you and I want to give you a chance to tell the jury which of her allegations, if any, that you believe now are false or fabricated in any way?” //
MP: “Same objections.” \\
JE: “I’d like to respond to that question the fact that her firm the law firm representing her has been accused by the US attorney of being a criminal enterprise manufacturing fabricating out of thin air cases involving sexual allegations, sexual allegations in order to simply fleece local investors out of millions of dollars. So I would very much like to answer that question regarding the truth in Ms. [REDACTED]’s allegations, however today my counsel has told me that I must assert my 5th amendment rights, 6th amendment rights and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution though I would very much like to answer those questions but if I do I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Would you agree that you owe [REDACTED] at least 15 million dollars to compensate her for the damage you have caused?” \\
MP: “Objection. Move to strike. Argumentative, compound, lacks substantial predicate and assumes facts not in evidence.” //
JE: “As might imagine, though your law firm has been accused of perpetrating a fraud involving millions and millions of dollars while unsuspecting investors here in south Florida millions of dollars by fabricating similar allegations convincing people to give money to the firm that helped bring this lawsuit. I’m afraid I’d like to answer those questions but no matter how much I’d like to answer those questions I’m gonna have to decline based on my counsels advice to invoke, at least today, my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment rights under the US constitution because if I don’t, I risk losing their representation.” \\
BE: “Is it true that you are currently worth more that one billion dollars personally?” //
JE: “I’d like to answer that question as I’d like to answer most of your other questions. I know that a lot of money, actually amount of money the US attorneys accused your firm of trying to steal from the people of south Florida was 1.2 billion dollars, the US attorney claimed that your firm perpetrated the largest fraud in south Florida’s history by stealing that sum of money from local investors based on false allegations of sexually charged claims and so though I’d like to answer these questions with specificity under advice of counsel today I’m going to have to refuse based on my 6th amendment, 14th amendment and 5th amendment right and though I’d like to answer the question I’ve been told that if I do so I risk losing their representation, Mr. Edwards.” \\
BE: “Alright. I’m simply asking, what is your personal net worth at this time?” //
MP: “Form.” \\
JE: “I think I’ve answered the question, but -” //
BE: “What is your personal net worth at this time, the answer should be a number or it should be you invoking your 5th amendment rights. Seemed like the options.” \\
MP: “Asked and answered. He did invoke his 5th, 6th and 14th -” //
BE: “His answer included something about [REDACTED] stealing some certain amount of money which obviously is non response so I move to strike and ask that he actually respond to the question with something that is responsive. His options are answer the question, invoke your 5th amendment right, we get out of here.” \\
JE: “It makes is sound very -” //
BE: “Let’s start over again, can you please tell the jury what your personal net worth is currently?” \\
JE: “I’d like to do that today, however, I’m sure one of the reasons is since your firm has been accused of stealing millions of dollars from local investors based on fabricated, totally fabricated claims, this is not by me but by the US attorney, has called your firm a criminal enterprise charged with stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, frankly from local investors based on false claims of sexually charged nature. I’d like to answer that question in detail, however my attorneys have advised me I cannot answer any questions that may be relevant to this lawsuit and by doing so I must invoke my 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 14th amendment right and by answering your question I risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “Ok so is it true that you’re worth 1.8 billion dollars?” \\
MP: “Same objection.” //
JE: “Same answer.” \\
BE: “Go ahead and put the answer -” //
MP: “For the record there.” \\
JE: “For the record. I’m sure that’s an interesting question, I’d like to answer that question for you I’m sure you’d like to know as your firm has been charged with stealing over a billion dollars from local investors and your senior partner of both you and [REDACTED] over there shaking his sits in jail accused of fleecing local Florida investors based on false sexual claims from people and though I’d like to answer that question, like I’ve answered most of your other questions, my counsel has advised me today ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I cannot answer that question maybe in the future however if I do so today I risk losing their representation so I must assert those rights under the 6th, 5th and 14th amendment.” //
BE: “You’d agree, would you not, that it would take a jury award of at least $45 million in punitive damages to punish you for doing what you did to [bleep]?” \\
MP: “Same objections.” //
JE: “I would like to answer that question as I’d like to answer all your other [bleep] questions today. However, [unintelligible] since shaking his head I’m going to have to respond to my counsels advised me I cannot answer that question today though I’d like to. Though I’d like to answer with specificity. However, if I do so I risk losing their representation. So I must assert my rights under the 6th, 5th and 14th amendments.” \\
BE: “Isn’t it true [bleep] deemed that as long as you have the money to do it, you will continue to engage in sex with minors?” //
MP: “Again, extremely argumentative, speculative, I’m allowing the question to give leeway so that we don’t have to come back here again, it’s harassing.” \\
JE: “And with that, I’m sure this ladies and gentlemen of the jury will be able to see you and your partner whos your firm has been accused of massive fraud in south Florida trying to get hundreds of millions of dollars from local investors. Creating and fabricating malicious sexually charged claims called by the US attorney a criminal enterprise charged with money laundering, conspiracy to commit other federal violations so though I’d like to answer that question [bleep] I must invoke my 6th, 5th and 14th amendment rights advised by counsel or risk losing their representation.” //
BE: “And am I correct in my understanding that you have invoked your 5th amendment rights because your answers would incriminate you and lead to your prosecution?” \\
MP: “I’m gonna -” //
BE: “Exactly as phrased by Mr. Luthier[?] towards [REDACTED] I did not say anything but allowed her to answer the question.” \\
MP: “You can answer that question. I’m gonna object to form.” //
JE: “In fact, since you are a lawyer I’m sure you’re aware the supreme court has said that the 5th amendment is used more often to protect innocent people that’s - today on the advice of counsel I cannot -” \\
BE: “Right. Ok.” //
MP: “I have no questions.” \\
BE: “No further questions.” //
SJ: “Going off the video record at 3:52 p.m.” //
END TRANSCRIPT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/D ... 182657.m4v
Length: 1:55:22
Part 1: viewtopic.php?p=529#p529
Note: This is a continuation of the video interview taken in EFTA00182656