MR. SCAROLA
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Professor Cassell
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Simpson
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Edwards
|
Professional collaborative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS (Deponent)
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mike Danchuck
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Informational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Client
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Scott
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew, the Duke of York
|
Correspondents |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Richard
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Edwards
|
Co witnesses |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Simpson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS
|
Examiner and deponent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS (Deponent)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bullet points for interview
An email sent by Mr. Scarola in July 2020 containing bullet points for the government to interview the witness about.
Contacting the government
Mr. Scarola left multiple voice messages for the witness (Carolyn) in 2020 regarding the government.
Legal consultation
Witness confirms speaking with Mr. Scarola in 2020.
Government inquiries
Emails from government forwarded by Scarola to Carolyn.
Representation of alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Scarola sent an email to AUSA Rossmiller, copying other attorneys (Robert C. Josefsberg and Mr. Edwards) who also represented alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
Unspecified
The witness confirms she did not respond to messages from Mr. Scarola in 2019.
Deposition Request / Allegations
Stating that multiple witnesses placed Dershowitz in the presence of Epstein and underage girls, and requesting to depose him.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity