EFTA01138026

728 
1 
We'll see where we are. 
2 
THE WITNESS: I hope we get to this 
3 
letter. I spent all night reading it last 
4 
night at your request. 
5 
MR. EDWARDS: I think we'll at least make 
6 
a dent. 
7 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's go back on 
8 
and plow forward. 
9 
VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We're going back on 
10 
the record. The time is 10:50 a.m. 
11 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
12 
Q. 
So, in addition to the statements that 
13 
or the information that you had in your possession 
14 
at the time that you made the public statement on 
15 
January 5, 2015, regarding Brad Edwards, you also 
16 
indicated initially that you had certain information 
17 
in your possession with respect to Paul Cassell as 
18 
well, correct? 
19 
A. 
That's right, yes. 
20 
Q. 
One of the things I wrote down is that you 
21 
were told that Paul Cassell is a zealot. 
22 
A. 
Right. 
23 
Q. 
When were you told Paul Cassell is a 
24 
zealot? 
25 
A. 
Immediately. 
EFTA01138106

729 
1 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 
2 
instruction. 
3 
A. 
Shortly there -- shortly after the 
4 
allegations were made. 
5 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
6 
Q. 
And who told you that Paul Cassell is a 
7 
zealot? 
8 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 
9 
instruction. 
10 
MR. SIMPSON: Outside the privilege 
11 
A. 
Numerous people. That was a common term 
12 
used to describe him. I can tell you the people I 
13 
spoke to, but, again, I can't identify who precisely 
14 
would have used that term. 
15 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
16 
Q. 
You previously said that numerous 
17 
people --
18 
A. 
They did. 
19 
Q. 
-- told you that Paul Cassell is a zealot, 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
and that assisted in providing the basis for your 
statement that you made publicly about Paul Cassell. 
I'm only asking for you to identify by 
name the individuals that specifically told you Paul 
Cassell is a zealot. I just want a list of names. 
MR. SIMPSON: Objection, asked and 
EFTA01138107

730 
1 
answered. 
2 
MR. INDYKE: Same objection, same 
3 
instruction. 
4 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: In a 
5 
nonprivileged context. 
6 
MR. SCAROLA: So that the record is clear, 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
other conversation, this has not been touched 
16 
on or waived. 
17 
MR. INDYKE: My position is that 
18 
Mr. Epstein waived no such privilege. 
19 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. So with 
20 
that said, please provide an answer outside of 
21 
the context of the privilege, which will be 
22 
reserved for a later argument. 
23 
A. 
Right now all I can think of is the number 
24 
of people who gave me information about Paul 
25 
Cassell, but I cannot with specificity indicate who 
the question does not limit itself to a 
nonprivileged context because our position is 
the privilege has been waived. We understand 
that we may only get a limited response, but 
the question does not include the limitation. 
MR. SCOTT: And this is -- our position is 
that this is the entire area, and that even if 
you accept, which we don't, that he waived the 
EFTA01138108

731 
1 
led me to the conclusion that he was a zealot. 
2 
I also read a great deal of his material. 
3 
MR. EDWARDS: I move to strike as 
4 
nonresponsive to this question. 
5 
A. 
Okay. I'll give you some descriptions. 
6 
Q. 
I want the names of individuals. 
7 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Listen. 
8 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
9 
Q. 
The names of individuals who told you that 
10 
Paul Cassell is a zealot. 
11 
A. 
I can't remember names, but I can give you 
12 
some descriptions, if you want. 
13 
Q. 
No, I want names of people. 
14 
A. 
Okay. 
15 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
16 
second. He's now answered the question. So --
17 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
18 
Q. 
At this stage, you cannot provide me the 
19 
names of any individuals that told you Paul Cassell 
20 
is a zealot; is that correct? 
21 
A. 
I can give you descriptions, which would 
22 
lead you to be able to probably find out the names. 
23 
Q. 
Descriptions of people? 
24 
A. 
Description of people, yeah. 
25 
Q. 
Okay. Not descriptions of the statements; 
EFTA01138109

732 
1 
descriptions of the people? 
2 
A. 
No, description of people. 
3 
Q. 
Okay. I'll take right now descriptions of 
4 
the people who told you that Paul Cassell is a 
5 
zealot. 
6 
A. 
I got a number of calls from people who 
7 
were in litigation with Paul Cassell. He purports 
8 
to be an expert on false confessions. Apparently 
9 
he's not. 
10 
MR. EDWARDS: Object and move to strike as 
11 
nonresponsive. 
12 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I would agree 
13 
and grant that Motion to Strike. Provide the 
14 
descriptions of the names pursuant to the 
15 
question. 
16 
A. 
Okay. So a number of people who were 
17 
involved in litigation concerning his alleged 
18 
expertise as a witness on false confessions 
19 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
20 
Q. 
Okay. 
21 
A. 
-- called me. 
22 
Q. 
Category number one, then, is people 
23 
involved in litigation currently with Paul Cassell 
24 
on false confession cases? 
25 
A. 
That's right, yes. 
EFTA01138110

733 
1 
Q. 
And are these people that you are 
2 
describing lawyers or litigants? 
3 
A. 
Lawyers, lawyers. But not in a privilege. 
4 
5 
that 
6 
7 
the 
8 
9 
10 
Paul Cassell? 
11 
A. 
To my best recollection, two. 
12 
Q. 
Do these two lawyers work at the same law 
13 
firm? 
14 
A. 
No. 
15 
Q. 
Do these two -- are these two lawyers, to 
16 
the best of your understanding, working on separate 
17 
false confession cases against Paul Cassell? 
18 
A. 
I think so, but I'm not absolutely 
19 
certain. 
20 
Q. 
Do you know where it is that these two 
21 
lawyers that you're describing practice? 
22 
A. 
My best recollection, this is just a 
23 
recollection, one of them is in the midwest, maybe 
24 
Chicago. And another I think in the mid south, I'm 
25 
not positive, maybe Atlanta. But those are --
Q. 
Do you remember which party these lawyers 
you're describing represent? 
A. 
Yes. The party opposed to Paul Cassell, 
party that were challenging his expertise. 
Q. 
How many different lawyers are you 
describing that are currently in litigation with 
EFTA01138111

734 
1 
again, I can probably find these names, but I don't 
2 
have them off the top of my head. 
3 
Q. 
Have you provided these names or these 
4 
descriptions in response to any requests for 
5 
production in this case? 
6 
A. 
I don't provide that. My lawyers do. But 
7 
I don't think anybody has ever -- these are not 
8 
MR. SIMPSON: Answer the question. 
9 
A. 
I don't know the answer to that. 
10 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
11 
Q. 
Is there anything more that you can 
12 
provide me in the way of description of the 
13 
individuals that told you that Paul Cassell is a 
14 
zealot? 
15 
A. 
No, but what I can do is give you names of 
16 
people who called me and discussed with me Paul 
17 
Cassell. 
18 
Q. 
We'll get there. Different category. Did 
19 
these other people that called you, did they also 
20 
tell you Paul Cassell is a zealot? 
21 
A. 
Well, I can only tell you again, as I said 
22 
previously, on the basis of all the conversations I 
23 
had with about Paul Cassell, I came to the 
24 
conclusion, as some people had told me, that the 
25 
people who told me that he was a zealot were 
EFTA01138112

735 
1 
correct. And I also did my own investigation. 
2 
MR. SCAROLA: Did those include privileged 
3 
and nonprivileged communications? 
4 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
5 
Q. 
Did those communications that led you to 
6 
the conclusion that Paul Cassell is a zealot include 
7 
both privileged and nonprivileged communications? 
8 
A. 
Yes. 
9 
Q. 
And with respect to the privileged 
10 
communications, are you claiming that the 
11 
communication that Paul Cassell is a zealot came 
12 
from people with whom you share an attorney-client 
13 
privilege because they're your attorneys or with 
14 
whom you share a joint defense attorney-client 
15 
privilege because they are attorneys or 
16 
representatives of Jeffrey Epstein? 
17 
MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. I'm objecting 
18 
to that on work product and we're going to 
19 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead, 
20 
Darren, get your 
21 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. Same objection, 
22 
same instruction on a number of grounds, 
23 
including attorney-client privilege as well as 
24 
common interest. 
25 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Read the 
EFTA01138113

736 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
question back. 
COURT REPORTER: "And with respect to the 
privileged communications, are you claiming 
that the communication that Paul Cassell is a 
zealot came from people with whom you share an 
attorney-client privilege because they're your 
attorneys or with whom you share a joint 
defense attorney-client privilege because they 
are attorneys or 
Epstein?" 
MR. INDYKE: In doing so, you're not 
identifying the people but you're also 
identifying the contents of the disclosure. 
MR. SCAROLA: No, we're identifying the 
nature of the privilege being asserted. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: The nature of 
the privilege -- hang on a second. 
representatives 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: 
to identify the nature of the 
of Jeffrey 
only 
I'm sorry. 
They're trying 
privilege being 
asserted. And I do think that if the witness 
does know the answer as opposed to a legal 
discussion, whoever's going to assert it, I 
think they're entitled to an answer on that. 
MR. SCOTT: Without any type of waiver 
EFTA01138114

737 
1 
position. 
2 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Without a 
3 
waiver, but they're entitled -- because I don't 
4 
think that waives -- I think it's the nature of 
5 
what's being asserted. 
6 
A. 
So without waiving --
7 
MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. So let's 
8 
ask the question again so we have it again. 
9 
A. 
I know the question. 
10 
MR. SCOTT: I don't. I'm not as smart as 
11 
you are. 
12 
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 
13 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's go ahead 
14 
and reread the question back so we get it 
15 
precisely because that's how I ruled. 
16 
COURT REPORTER: "And with respect to the 
17 
privileged communications, are you claiming 
18 
that the communication that Paul Cassell is a 
19 
zealot came from people with whom you share an 
20 
attorney-client privilege because they're your 
21 
attorneys or with whom you share a joint 
22 
defense attorney-client privilege because they 
23 
are attorneys or representatives of Jeffrey 
24 
Epstein?" 
25 
MR. SCOTT: Answer that very concisely. 
EFTA01138115

738 
1 
A. 
Both. 
2 
MR. INDYKE: I'm sorry, if there is 
3 
discussion going on, I can't hear any of the 
4 
discussion. 
5 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No, there's 
6 
we've been quiet. 
7 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
8 
Q. 
With respect to the communications with 
9 
these individuals where you are the client, can you 
10 
provide me with the names of those individuals? 
11 
MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product. 
12 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yeah, so I'm 
13 
going to grant the objection and allow them to 
14 
assert the privilege at this point pending 
15 
further review. 
16 
MR. SCAROLA: I want to -- excuse me. 
17 
Before we proceed, I want to get a 
18 
clarification. This privilege that's being 
19 
asserted is a work product privilege, correct? 
20 
MR. SCOTT: And attorney-client privilege. 
21 
MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, you said only 
22 
work product. 
23 
MR. SCOTT: Okay. I apologize. If I use 
24 
one, I'm referring to both consistent with --
25 
MR. SCAROLA: I wanted to be sure that the 
EFTA01138116

739 
1 
record is clear as to which privilege is being 
2 
asserted. 
3 
MR. SCOTT: Jack, I totally agree with 
4 
you. Thank you. 
5 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
6 
second. So based upon the correction, the 
7 
privilege being asserted is both work product 
8 
and attorney-client. 
9 
MR. SCOTT: Both. 
10 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: And so the same 
11 
ruling for now on the reservation. 
12 
MR. SCOTT: And, Mr. Special Master, I'm 
13 
objecting on both grounds consistent with what 
14 
we discussed yesterday. I apologize. And 
15 
thank you, Mr. Scarola. 
16 
MR. SCAROLA: No apologies necessary. I 
17 
just wanted the record to be clear. 
18 
MR. SCOTT: I appreciate it. 
19 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, I would 
20 
accept your apology. 
21 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
22 
Q. 
Mr. Dershowitz, are you willing to waive 
23 
the attorney-client privilege to provide us the 
24 
names of the individuals with whom you share a 
25 
privilege that told you that Paul Cassell --
EFTA01138117

740 
1 
MR. SCOTT: Don't answer the question. 
2 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
3 
Q. 
-- is a zealot, a fact that you relied 
4 
upon before making your public statement? 
5 
MR. SCOTT: Objection. Work product. Do 
6 
not answer that. He has a right to consult 
7 
with counsel, and we haven't spoken. 
8 
MR. INDYKE: Objection. 
9 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
10 
Q. 
My only question is, are you willing to 
11 
waive. 
12 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one 
13 
second. 
14 
MR. INDYKE: Are we talking about only as 
15 
to where Mr. Dershowitz is the client? 
16 
MR. EDWARDS: Yes. 
17 
MR. INDYKE: Okay. 
18 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So, now repeat 
19 
your question so it's clear. 
20 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
21 
Q. 
Sure. Are you, Alan Dershowitz, willing 
22 
to waive the attorney-client privilege to provide us 
23 
the names of the individuals that told you Paul 
24 
Cassell is a zealot? 
25 
MR. SCOTT: Objection. Work product, 
EFTA01138118

741 
1 
attorney-client privilege, and I'm instructing 
2 
him not to answer that question. 
3 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Okay. And where 
4 
he is the client? 
5 
MR. EDWARDS: Where he is the client. 
6 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: You're 
7 
instructing him not to answer? 
8 
MR. SCOTT: Not to answer. I will discuss 
9 
it with him, and after a break, we can come 
10 
back to that question. 
11 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I believe the 
12 
witness has the right to consult with counsel 
13 
before answering that question. So we'll 
14 
proceed on that grounds. 
15 
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 
16 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
17 
Q. 
Other than the two lawyers that you have 
18 
described that told you that Paul Cassell is a 
19 
zealot, and any attorneys with whom you share a 
20 
privilege, can you identify or describe any others 
21 
that you have not yet told us about that told you 
22 
Paul Cassell is a zealot? 
23 
A. 
It's a common term that has been given to 
24 
me by numerous lawyers, but I can't right now give 
25 
you any more specificity. Sometimes it's "zealot," 
EFTA01138119

742 
1 
sometimes the term is "true believer," sometimes the 
2 
term is an "extremist." But I've heard many terms 
3 
along those lines that would lead to a consistent 
4 
conclusion. 
5 
Q. 
When did you receive these communications 
6 
from these various individuals that Paul Cassell is 
7 
a zealot? 
8 
A. 
From the beginning up through recently. 
9 
Q. 
Is it your testimony that you received 
10 
that information prior to January 5, 2015? 
11 
A. 
Yes, yes. 
12 
Q. 
Okay. And what was the form of that 
13 
communication, written or verbal? 
14 
A. 
I don't remember. Well, I have to check. 
15 
I don't remember anything in writing. I think it's 
16 
all been -- I think it's all been verbal on the 
17 
phone and in person. 
18 
Q. 
Have you met in person with the two 
19 
individuals that you described? 
20 
A. 
No, no. 
21 
Q. 
So when you are speaking about in-person 
22 
communication of the statement that Paul Cassell is 
23 
a zealot, you're talking about communications that 
24 
are privileged communications? 
25 
A. 
I didn't understand the question. I'm 
EFTA01138120

743 
1 
sorry. 
2 
Q. 
Okay. The communications that Paul 
3 
Cassell is a zealot --
4 
A. 
Right. 
5 
Q. 
-- outside of the two individuals with 
6 
whom you do not share privilege that you've 
7 
described 
8 
A. 
That's right. 
9 
Q. 
-- are the remaining individuals that told 
10 
you that information and people that you have met 
11 
with in person, are those people all people with 
12 
whom you share a privilege? 
13 
A. 
No. 
14 
Q. 
Okay. What people have you met with in 
15 
person with whom you do not share a privilege that 
16 
have told you Paul Cassell is a zealot? 
17 
A. 
I told you I spoke with numerous people. 
18 
I can't now specify a particular name with the word 
19 
"zealot." I can give you names of people I spoke to 
20 
who gave me information about Cassell. 
21 
MR. SCOTT: If they're not privileged. 
22 
A. 
They're not privileged. 
23 
SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That was his 
24 
question. 
25 
EFTA01138121

744 
1 
BY MR. EDWARDS: 
2 
Q. 
Please provide me the names of the 
3 
individuals you spoke to that provided you 
4 
information about Paul Cassell. 
5 
A. 
I received a phone call from Senator Orrin 
6 
Hatch from whom -- for whom he worked. I received 
7 
phone call from a lawyer now -- a lawyer who he had 
8 
a litigation against somewhere in Arizona or 
9 
somewhere in the southwest whose name I don't right 
10 
now have on hand. 
11 
Another name that's popping into my mind, 
12 
but it's privileged. I had a conversation with the 
13 
former President of Ecuador, who had been a student 
14 
in one of my classes and was a colleague of 
15 
Mr. Cassell. We spoke -- I think I may have called 
16 
him or he may have called me, I don't remember 
17 
exactly. 
18 
Q. 
This is the President of Ecuador? 
19 
A. 
The former President of Ecuador. 
20 
Mr. Cassell knows who he is. And -- I can try to 
21 
think of other names of people who called me. I 
22 
will check and see if I have any information 
23 
further. 
24 
Q. 
If you think of them while we're talking, 
25 
then let me know. 
EFTA01138122

745 
1 
A. 
Sure. 
2 
Q. 
What did the lawyer in Arizona tell you 
3 
about Paul Cassell? 
4 
A. 
That he was a zealot and that he was a 
5 
pain in the ass. That was 
I remember that was 
6 
his exact words. 
7 
Q. 
Is this somebody in addition to the other 
8 
two lawyers that you described? 
9 
A. 
Yes. 
10 
Q. 
So now we are up to three lawyers that 
11 
were in litigation with Paul Cassell that told you 
12 
that Paul Cassell is a zealot? 
13 
A. 
At least three, yes. 
14 
Q. 
Three that you've been able to describe? 
15 
A. 
Yeah. 
16 
Q. 
But as you sit here right now, unable to 
17 
name today? 
18 
A. 
I can't, no. 
19 
Q. 
Including this lawyer in Arizona? 
20 
A. 
Yeah. I don't remember if it was Arizona 
21 
or New Mexico or Utah. It was a southwest case that 
22 
was a long, long -- apparently a lengthy litigation. 
23 
Q. 
Did this lawyer in Arizona telling that 
24 
you Paul Cassell is a, quote, pain in the ass, 
25 
unquote, contribute --
EFTA01138123

746 
1 
A. 
No, no, not that statement. I mean, many 
2 
lawyers could be described that way. That would not 
3 
contribute to that. I myself have been described 
4 
that way. 
5 
Q. 
Okay. So is there anything about the 
6 
communications that you had with this lawyer in 
7 
Arizona that in any way contributed --
8 
A. 
Yes. 
9 
Q. 
Let me just finish the statement so that 
10 
we have a clean record. 
11 
-- contributed to your confidence in 
12 
making the public statement in January 5, 2015, that 
13 
Paul Cassell contrived or assisted in making up the 
14 
allegations? 
15 
A. 
First let me be very clear that that was 
16 
an expression of an opinion. 
17 
Q. 
What was? Be clearer. 
18 
A. 
"So they sat down together, the three of 
19 
them, these clearly disbarrable, unprofessional 
20 
lawyers," when you read it in context, it's clear I 
21 
wasn't saying I was there, I wasn't saying I was saw 
22 
it. I was giving a scenario. They profiled me, 
23 
they did this, so they sat down together and they 
24 
made up this story. 
25 
So it was an expression --
EFTA01138124

747 
1 
constitutionally protected expression of opinion, 
2 
and it was based on the totality of circumstances 
3 
that I had available to me at the time. That 
4 
included reputations of the two people who had made 
5 
up the story. It included the statements themselves 
6 
and how they were written and framed. Included the 
7 
fact that there was no affidavit, that it was 
8 
written, in fact, by the two lawyers. 
9 
So of course the lawyers played a role. 
10 
It was their own words that were being circulated to 
11 
millions -- hundreds of millions of people around 
12 
the world. 
13 
Q. 
But you were -- you were saying and you 
14 
said and you conveyed something more than Paul 
15 
Cassell and Brad Edwards simply listened to their 
16 
client and put it on paper, you were saying 
17 
A. 
That's right. 
18 
Q. 
-- you were saying and are still saying 
19 
Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards and 
20 
concocted this story about me together? 
21 
A. 
That's right. 
22 
Q. 
Meaning it wasn't just her words; the 
23 
lawyers came up with these allegations. That's what 
24 
you were saying, right? 
25 
A. 
I'm saying a combination. I said -- my 
EFTA01138125