MR. SCAROLA

Person

Mentions

157

Relationships

Events

Documents

Relationship Network

Network Depth

Loading... nodes

Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

30 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
person CAROLYN	Professional	10 Very Strong	6	View
person Professor Cassell	Client	9 Strong	3	View
person Mr. Simpson	Opposing counsel	9 Strong	5	View
person CAROLYN	Client	9 Strong	5	View
person the witness	Client	7	3	View
person Mr. Edwards	Professional collaborative	6	1	View
person witness	Client	6	2	View
person THE WITNESS (Deponent)	Client	6	2	View
person Mike Danchuck	Professional	5	1	View
person CAROLYN	Unspecified	5	1	View
organization The government	Informational	5	1	View
person CAROLYN	Legal representative	5	1	View
person Client	Client	5	1	View
person the witness	Legal representative	5	1	View
person Mr. Dershowitz	Legal representative	5	1	View
person Mr. Scott	Opposing counsel	5	1	View
person Prince Andrew, the Duke of York	Correspondents	5	1	View
person Richard	Business associate	5	1	View
person Mr. Edwards	Co witnesses	5	1	View
person Mr. Simpson	Legal representative	5	1	View
person THE WITNESS	Examiner and deponent	5	1	View
person BRAD EDWARDS	Client	5	1	View
person Alan Dershowitz	Opposing counsel	5	1	View
person THE WITNESS	Legal representative	5	1	View
person THE WITNESS (Deponent)	Legal representative	5	1	View

Date	Event Type	Description	Location	Actions
N/A	N/A	Legal deposition/testimony	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of an unnamed witness by Mr. Scarola.	Not specified	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of an unidentified witness regarding a lawsuit referred to as 'Epstein versus RRA'. Th...	Not specified	View
N/A	N/A	A deposition where an unnamed witness is questioned by Mr. Scarola, with Mr. Pike present as coun...	Not specified	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition/Testimony of Professor Cassell	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition Interruption	Deposition Room	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of Professor Cassell regarding knowledge of allegations against Alan Dershowitz.	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Disruption during deposition	Deposition Room	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of Mr. Rothstein	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	End of deposition session / Break	Unknown	View
N/A	Disclosure	Mr. Scarola made statements to the government about Carolyn.	N/A	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of Professor Cassell	Deposition Room	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of Mr. Cassell	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition/Hearing interruption where phone participants are identified.	Deposition Room	View
N/A	N/A	Marking of Cassell Exhibit 3	Deposition setting	View
N/A	N/A	Recess in deposition proceedings	Deposition room (unspecifie...	View
N/A	N/A	Legal proceeding involving testimony where Alan Dershowitz is present and accused of disrupting t...	Unspecified legal venue	View
N/A	N/A	Legal Deposition/Hearing	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of an unnamed witness regarding an investigation.	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition/Hearing Testimony	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Legal deposition or hearing where a witness is questioned about evidence concerning Professor Der...	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	A request was made for a copy of an entry from Professor Dershowitz's book.	Unknown	View
N/A	N/A	Video Record Recess	Deposition Room (Time: 4:01...	View
N/A	N/A	Deposition of an unnamed witness	Not specified on this page	View
N/A	Legal proceeding	The witness, Carolyn, was shown answers to interrogatories and was directed by Mr. Scarola.	N/A	View

EFTA00023767.pdf

An email dated February 17, 2021, from the Chief of the Civil Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to a Mr. Scarola. The email attaches a 'Scarola_Touhy_Ltr.pdf' and provides assistance for Mr. Scarola to submit a request to the Department of Justice for materials relating to Jeffrey Epstein.

2025-12-25

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008372.jpg

This document is the final page of a legal filing (Document 544) from December 13, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell assert her constitutional right to call Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman as witnesses. The page includes the contact information for her legal counsel from three different law firms.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008366.jpg

This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, chronicles the government's efforts throughout 2020 to contact and meet with an individual named Carolyn. The communications were primarily facilitated by an intermediary, Mr. Scarola, who was present at meetings on July 17 and August 11, 2020. The document details the timeline of contact attempts, the involvement of another associate named Mike Danchuck, and a specific statement Mr. Scarola made to the government during one of the meetings.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008365.jpg

This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the Court should permit the testimony of three witnesses—Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman—to establish motive and bias of Maxwell's accusers, after the government refused to stipulate. The document details the proposed testimony of attorney Jack Scarola, including his prior representation of an accuser named 'Carolyn' in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and his communications with the government.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018842.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on Carolyn's meetings with the government in 2020, which she attended with Mr. Scarola and other lawyers, and their potential connection to her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn consistently responds that she cannot recall the details of these meetings.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018841.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning, led by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focuses on emails sent on Carolyn's behalf by her agent, Mr. Scarola, to the government in July 2020, prior to her interviews. The transcript captures objections from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and rulings from the judge regarding potentially privileged communications between the witness and her representative.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018840.jpg

This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Pagliuca questions the witness about the timing of her cooperation with the government, specifically attempting to link her first response in July 2020 to the opening of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund in June 2020. The witness denies knowing about the fund opening date but confirms responding through her attorneys, Mr. Danchuk and Mr. Scarola.

Court transcript (cross-examination)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018838.jpg

This document is a court transcript page from a cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's communications with the FBI and the government in 2019, following an initial meeting with agents in 2007. The questioner probes whether her lawyer, Mr. Scarola, forwarded emails from the government to her, with Carolyn initially stating she does not recall but later affirming she does recall getting forwarded emails.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018791.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to refresh the witness's memory regarding prior statements made under oath in 2009 and her answers to interrogatories, but the witness expresses confusion. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains her objections.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016168.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. A lawyer, likely Ms. Sternheim, argues about the timing of a witness's testimony and the non-privileged nature of information provided in 2020, mentioning that a lawyer named Mr. Scarola handled interrogatories. Another lawyer, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss whether these are arguments for the jury, with the Judge noting the contention that the story has changed over time due to the involvement of civil lawyers.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016165.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues regarding the admissibility of communications between witnesses' lawyers (specifically mentioning Mr. Scarola) and the government, citing an email where Scarola suggested ten interview topics for a witness named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications and proffers are privileged or if they can be used as evidence regarding the 'cultivating of stories'.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013257.jpg

This court transcript page, dated August 10, 2022, documents the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning centers on whether Carolyn attended meetings with the government in 2020, specifically in July, alongside Mr. Scarola and other lawyers, and if these meetings coincided with a submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn consistently responds that she cannot recall or does not recall the meetings.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013255.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca regarding her communications with the government in 2020. The questioning attempts to link her cooperation with the government to the timeline of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund opening in June 2020.

Court transcript (cross-examination)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013254.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on voice messages left for the witness by a Mr. Scarola in 2019 and 2020 concerning contact with the government. The opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to this line of questioning on the basis of privilege, and the court sustains her objections, preventing the witness from answering.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013253.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning establishes a timeline of her interactions with the FBI, noting a gap between a meeting in 2007 and renewed contact on March 19, 2019. The testimony confirms that in 2019, Carolyn directed agents to her lawyer, Mr. Scarola, and eventually admitted to receiving emails from the government forwarded by him, despite initial hesitation.

Court transcript (cross-examination)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013206.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her sworn answers to interrogatories from 2009. The witness repeatedly states she is confused, and her attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to the line of questioning.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00013864.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. The judge provides guidance on witness testimony, confirms the preclusion of testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards, and addresses a government objection to admitting a 1996 sale agreement for a London property as evidence. The discussion involves several attorneys, including Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011723.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing legal arguments about privileged communications. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that answers to interrogatories and a complaint are not privileged, while another attorney, Ms. Comey, begins to dispute the accuracy of a deposition. The judge rules that arguments about a witness's story changing over time due to the involvement of civil lawyers are matters to be presented to a jury.

Court transcript

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011720.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses the admissibility of evidence regarding communications between witnesses' lawyers and the government. Specifically, Pagliuca mentions an email from attorney Mr. Scarola to the government suggesting ten topics for an interview with a woman named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications (proffers and emails) are privileged and how they will be introduced without calling the lawyers as witnesses.

Court transcript / legal proceeding

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017522.jpg

This document contains pages 126-128 of a legal transcript regarding the case 'In Re: Epstein vs Edwards'. It includes the conclusion of a video conference deposition of Scott Rothstein taken on June 14, 2012, the notary certification by Pearlyck Martin dated June 19, 2012, and a letter dated June 21, 2012, instructing Rothstein (via his attorney Marc Nurik) to review and sign the transcript. The document bears a House Oversight stamp.

Legal deposition transcript and certification

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017521.jpg

This document is a four-page condensed transcript (pages 122-125) from a deposition of Mr. Rothstein. Attorney Jack Scarola questions Rothstein to confirm that attorney Brad Edwards had no involvement in illegal activities at the RRA firm or the handling of Epstein cases, which Rothstein confirms. Rothstein acknowledges that lying would violate his agreement with the U.S. government and result in him 'dying in prison.' The transcript concludes with procedural discussions regarding the timeline for reviewing transcripts and a pending motion for summary judgment for Brad Edwards.

Deposition transcript

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017518.jpg

This document is a deposition transcript (pages 110-113) from a congressional oversight file. The witness (likely Scott Rothstein based on context) admits to running a Ponzi scheme with co-conspirator Russell Adler. The testimony reveals that the 'Epstein case' was used as part of the pitch for the Ponzi scheme. The witness discusses an employee, Ms. Holmes (former federal law enforcement), who worked on Epstein cases, and Brad Edwards, an attorney whose compensation and work on the Epstein case are scrutinized.

Deposition transcript

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017516.jpg

This document is a deposition transcript (pages 102-105) where a witness, likely Scott Rothstein, admits to using the 'Epstein case' as a 'fake product' to drive his Ponzi scheme. He testifies that he sold 'purportedly confidential settlements' to investors and needed to create fictions around the Epstein case to secure an influx of money. The witness confirms consulting with his co-conspirator, Russell Adler, to gain enough knowledge about the Epstein case to successfully pitch it to investors.

Legal deposition transcript

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017514.jpg

Deposition transcript of Rothstein, who discusses his Ponzi scheme and the hiring of attorney Brad Edwards at his firm (RRA). Rothstein confirms his partner, Russell Adler, was a co-conspirator in the Ponzi scheme and recommended hiring Edwards because Edwards had a 'huge case involving a billionaire pedophile' (Epstein). Rothstein hoped the legitimate fees from the Epstein case would help him exit the Ponzi scheme during 2009.

Deposition transcript

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

Total Received

$0.00

0 transactions

Total Paid

$0.00

0 transactions

Net Flow

$0.00

0 total transactions

No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

As Sender

As Recipient

Total

Difficulty contacting Carolyn

From: the government

To: MR. SCAROLA

The government informed Mr. Scarola it was having difficulty contacting Carolyn.

Conversation

N/A

Communication Source

Response to government's message

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: the government

Mr. Scarola replied that he had forwarded the government's message to Carolyn.

Conversation

N/A

Communication Source

Information about Carolyn

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: ["the government"]

Mr. Scarola made statements to the government about Carolyn, which the document argues constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege.

Statement

N/A

Communication Source

No Subject

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: Unknown

Mr. Scarola wrote answers to interrogatories which were signed by his client. The speaker argues these answers are not privileged.

Interrogatories

N/A

Communication Source

N/A

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: Prince Andrew, the Duk...

Referenced as an attachment in the email.

Letter

N/A

Communication Source

Unknown

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: the government

Mr. Scarola suggests ten topics for the interview with Carolyn

N/A

Communication Source

Interview Topics

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: the government

Mr. Scarola suggests ten topics for the interview with Carolyn.

N/A

Communication Source

Courtroom Conduct

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: Mr. Simpson

Discussion regarding Alan Dershowitz interrupting proceedings by standing up.

Verbal argument

N/A

Communication Source

Document Handover

From: Mr. Scott

To: MR. SCAROLA

Mr. Scott provided a copy of an entry from Professor Dershowitz's book to Mr. Scarola, fulfilling a request made in a previous deposition.

Meeting

N/A

Communication Source

Questioning regarding flight logs and relationships with ...

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: Unnamed Witness

A transcript of a deposition where MR. SCAROLA questions an unnamed witness. The witness invokes constitutional rights for questions about flight logs and socializing with Donald Trump in the presence of minors, but confirms socializing with both Trump and Alan Dershowitz.

Deposition testimony

N/A

Communication Source

Questioning about flight logs, and relationships with Don...

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: Unnamed Witness

A deposition Q&A where the witness is questioned about flight logs for a private jet and social interactions with Donald Trump and Alan Dershowitz. The witness invokes their constitutional rights to avoid answering questions about the flight logs and about socializing with Trump in the presence of underage females.

Deposition

N/A

Communication Source

Questioning regarding flight logs and relationships with ...

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: Unnamed Witness

Deposition testimony

N/A

Communication Source

Questioning about socializing with Alan Dershowitz and To...

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: THE WITNESS

Mr. Scarola questions the witness about socializing with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of minors, to which the witness pleads the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. Scarola then asks about socializing with Tommy Mottola, which the witness calls an irrelevant question brought by Mr. Edwards to harm his relationships.

Deposition

N/A

Communication Source

Questioning about associations with Alan Dershowitz and T...

From: MR. SCAROLA

To: THE WITNESS

Mr. Scarola questions an unnamed witness about socializing with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of minors and with Tommy Mottola. The witness refuses to answer, citing constitutional rights, and complains the questions are irrelevant and intended to harm their personal relationships.

Deposition

N/A

Communication Source