invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege. She shouldn't be

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 H3vlgiu2 invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege. She shouldn't be penalized because the people who are concerned and are named in this nonprosecution agreement can't testify because the plaintiff's lawyers are trying to undo their agreement with the government. Ms. Maxwell has no ability to control these folks. You know, we certainly weren't going to stand in the way of plaintiff's trying to take their depositions, but we have no control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring them to cooperate in any sense. I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is Mr. Edwards' former partner, who's doing 55 years in a federal penitentiary right now. But in that case, which is very similar here, the court wouldn't impose an adverse inferenc against an employer for an employee, even though the employer was paying for the representation of the employee. And that case is I think significant because the court again focused on the relationship at the time of the deposition and not some prior relationship. I talked about the co-conspirator issue. You know, that's just attorney argument asserted as fact here, your Honor. No one has ever found that these folks are co-conspirators. It's Mr. Cassell's and Mr. Edwards' theory, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011450