Scarcelli deposition

8/3/2019 Scarcelli deposition

1/14

Rosa Scarcelli - 10/24/11

891011121314151617

1920

222324

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT QF MAINE

DENNIS BAILEY,Plaintiff

) Civil No.) 1'i11-cv-00179-JAW)

V. ))

STATE OF MAINE COMMISSION ON )GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS AND )ELECTION PRACTICES, et al., )Defendants )

APPEARANCES.MELISSA A. HEWEY, ESQ.DAVID M. KALLIN, ESQ.PHYi LIS GARDINER, ESQ,GREGORY IM, ESQ.JONATHAN WAYNE, ESQ.JOHN M.R, PATERSON, ESQ,MICHAEL A. NELSON, ESCI

Colleen A. DiPierroDIPierro Reporting, LLC220 Pine StreetSouth Portland, ME 04106207-767-5330

CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEPOSITION OF ROSA W. SCARCELLI, taken beforeColleen A. DiPierro, RMR, CRR, pursuant to notice datedOctober 20, 2011, at the law offices of Drummond,Woodsum & MacMahon, 84 Marginal Way, Portland, Maine,on October 24, 2011, commencing at 3:03P.M.

20

24

STIPULATIQNSIt is hereby agreed by and between the parties

that signature is not waived,

ROSA SCARCELLI, having been duly sworn by the NotaryPublic, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATIQN-BY ATTY. HEWEY:g. Your name is Rosa Scarcelli?A. Yes.g. And you'e marned to Thorn Rhoads&A. Yes.Q. And you were a candidate for governor during the 2000

when were you a candidate for governor~A. The 2010 cycle Pnmary it was in 2009 and 2010.g. Okay. Your deposition has come sor t of late in the

day, so I'm going to try to be as brief as I can. If Italk too fast I'l know it.

Very bnefiy, the ground rul es o f a depositionare simple. The lawyers and some of the lawyers inthe room will be asking you some questions For thatreason it's important that you answer in words and notby nodding or shaking your head or making gestures, Itis also important that you try to let us finishquestions before you begin an answer, and we, in turn,will try to do the same for you. Finely, most

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERINDEXDeponent: ROSA W. SCARCELLIExamination by; PageATTY. HEWEY

ATTY, GARD'NER 279importantly, it's important that you only answerquestions that you know the answer to and that you

1012

Number78798081

83

858687888990

EXHIBITSPageescnptionGroup of ChecksEmail String. 7/10/11Email String, 10/28/10Email String, Scarcelli andBailey, 9/14/10Email to Bailey and Rhoads fromScarceili, 'I 2/29/10Bangor Daily News Article Posted1/27/11Email String, Scarceffi, Rhoadsand Bailey, 1/6/11-1/?/11Email Stnng, Scarcelli andRhoads, 1/19/11Email String, 1/19/11, Scarcelliand RhoadsEmail Stnng, 1/18/11Email String, 1/25/11Email String, 1/7/11Email String, 7/1/10

64249525366

727375758392

10

14

understand. If I ask you something you don'understand, let me know and I'l be glad to rephraseit, okay?

A. Yes.MR, NELSON: Mekssa, do we have a

confidentiality order signed?MS. HEWEY: Well, there is a contidentiality

order. You can sign it, Can we do itaffer atebreak rather than right now~

MR. NELSON: Okay. And are you going to showsome documents today that are at least subject to someconfidentiality claim?

15

20

23

25

(Exhibits 77-90 included in onginal copy and Mr.Paterson's transcript.)

192021

24

MS. HEWEY: Yes,MR. NELSON: Then the deposition ought to be atleast within the scope of the order unless someone says

it's notMS. HEWEY: The order provides that the

deposition will be confidential unless some amount ofdays someone designates it something else, so we'lkeep it confidential at least initially,

MR. NELSON: Great, And we'l sign the orderwhen we'e done,

MS. HEWEY: We'l sign the order afterwards,CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERDiPierro Reporting Page 1 to 4 of 114

Case 1:11-cv-00179-NT Document 70-11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1913


2/14

Bailey v. State of Maine, et al.that hat were provided, you'l see that Stanfordmade a payment of $3500 in February of '09 and then$12,000 in April of '09. I'm wondering if you know thereason for the significant increase in payments fromFebruary to April7

A. I don't know,Q. Do you know what Dennis Bailey and/or SavvyIncorporated were doing for your company in February2009'?

A. I don't know.Q. Do you know what Dennis Baiiey and/or Savvy

Incorporated were doing for your company in April of'09?

A. I don't know. 14

A.A.

A.

A.Q.

Yes'?


That company being Stanford Management7Yes,Yes.Now, at some point Mr, Bailey's attention turned fromdoing promotional work for Stanford Management to workfor Rosa Scarcelli individually, correct7He worked for the campaign.Okay. And when was it that the focus turned from thecompany to the campaign?It would have been in the summer of 2009,Okay. And was that -- was there a specific date andtime when that occurred or did it sort of happen over

time?

1516171819202122232425

2345678910

Q. And would it be fair to say that you you didn't haveany knowledge during the entire time that SavvyIncorporated worked for Stanford precisely what thecompany was doing for you7 Did you have a general sortof overview?

A. The company being what Savvy was doing for me'?Q. Yes.A. I have a general idea, based on our contract, what he

was doing, but I wouldn't have gotten those invoices.That's not what I do.

Q. Okay, You don't get the invoices?CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER

10A. No.Q. But you would be interacting with Mr. Bailey and/or

Savvy employees as they put together whateverpromotional materials they were doing, right'A. I vvould have some awareness ofwhat he was doing,

Q. Because ultimately when you'e talking about apublicity campaign, you as the head of company wouldwant to be the person who would be aware of and approveof the message that was getting sent out, right7

A. That's correct. However, there are lots of other

15161718192021222324

910

A.Q.

A.

lt would have been in the early summer of 2009.Okay. And but my question is more did you say,okay, Dennis, stop doing what you'e doing for Stanfordand start working for Rosa For Maine or was it sort ofa more organic thing?lt was a very, very clear stop and start point where heworked tor the campaign, because he had had deadlinesand did not do any work for the campaign until afterthat time, so and I think that's actually July of2009.Okay. So was there a time when you specifically said,

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dennis, I want you to have a role in my campaign?I have no recollection of a specific time having thatconversation.Did you talk to him about whether or not you shouldi'un?Yes.And did you talk to him about that once or on manyoccasions or how did that work?

MR. NELSON: Are you talking about the summerof 2009

13141516171819202122

things that Dennis was doing and that I might not havebeen involved in.

Q. Okay. So the overall message you would have beeninvoived in. What types of things was he doing thatyou might not have been involved in'

A. You know, if he was trying to get placements innewspapers or other things of that nature, I wouldn'have understood what he was doing behind the scenes.

Q. Okay, Would it be was it your sense that you werethe person he was primarily communicating with atStanford while Savvy, Inc, was doing business--

A. Yes,23 Q. Okay. You have to wait until I finish the question.24 A. Sorry.25 Q. while Savvy, lnc. was doing work for that company7

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT'G PROTECTIVE ORDERDiPierro Reporting Page 9 to

1213

MS, HEWEY: Yes,MR. NELSON: or any time7

Summer of 2009?15161718192021222324

A.g.A.

A.

BYMS. HEWEY:Or any time,I have had spoke to Dennis about. whether or not Ishould run for governor, yes.Okay. And he encouraged you to do so?Yes.And did you talk to him before talking to him aboutrunning for governor about maybe running for mayor orother positions that you might take?No, I talked to Dennis about helping with the CharterCommission.

25 Q. Okay. Did you ever talk to him about your potentiallyCONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERi2 Of XX4



3/14

Bailey v. State of Maine, et al. Rosa Scarcelli - 30/24/ i115

10ll1213141516171819202122232425

A.g.

A.

A.

Q.A.

A.

running for mayor?Not to the best of my knowledge.Okay. In terms of the work for Rosa For Maine, we havealso here an agreement for services that's been markedas Deposition Exhibit 3. That is an agreement that isnot signed,

Do you know if the f an agreement betweenRosa For Maine and Savvy Incorporated was ever signed7i do not know.Did you have you or anybody on your behalf attemptedto locate a signed document7My compliance manager for my campaign, Charlie Heeley,is in graduate school, and all of the documents are inhis mother's basement in New Jersey.Okay. So you would assume, if that document exists, itwould probably be in New Jersey in a basement?Correct.You'l notice, I think, that that document, Exhibit 3,is dated as of September 2009?Yes.Do you see that?Uhm-uhrn,And uhm-uhm means yes7Yes. Sorry.Okay. And so did Dennis Bailey and Savvy Incorporated

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER14

6789101112131415161718192021222324

A.

A.

A.

A.Q.

A.

VVould you also agree with that characterization7That's fine, I don't think there was a formal title.That's fine. I'm just did n terms of publicityissues, was he the person who was primarily involvedwith that as well?I would call it communications but publicity is a fineway to describe it, I suppose.And did he have a fair amount of independent authorityto o do things or did he need to check in with youany time he he took any did any anything forthe campaign?He didn't check in with me on everything he did withthe campaign by any stretch so there was he intentwas to have coordination with my campaign manager.Okay, So he would work with the campaign manager aswell as yourself and others?Correct.But generally when it came to communication, he had theauthority to make decisions himself'I think that's fair to say.Okay. Okay. When was it to your memory that thenotion of creating a blog about Eliot Cutler first carneup?I wasn't aware of a blog about Eliot Cutler until thefall of 2010.

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER16

45678911121314151617

10

18192021222324

A.Q.A.

Q.A.Q.A.

Q.A.

not start working for the Rosa For Maine campaign untilSeptember of 20097Not formally.Okay. Did Dennis Bailey and/or Savvy, Inc. startworking for the Rosa For Maine campaign informallybefore September of '09?Dennis provided have to look at the timeline, butI believe I launched my campaign officially the 15th ofJuly, and Dennis would have provided some servicesrelated to the launch and then nothing really happeneduntil the fall of 2009. There's no really campaign tospeak of.Okay. While the campaign was ongoing, what was DennisBailey's role?He was communications and strategy.Did he have a title?Not that I can recall.Did who did he report to?He worked with my campaign manager and then withwith me to the extent that the team is workingtogether.And when you say you said communications andstrategy7Yes,

25 g. I think your husband called him a senior advisor.CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER

l3iPierro Reporting Page 13 to

910121314

171820

Q.

A.

A.

A.Q.A.

Okay, VVas there to your memory ever any discussionabout the possibility of biogging about Eliot Cutlerwithin your campaign?Nothing that we would ever blog. There's existingblogs but we would never blog ourseives, VVe didn'blog.Okay, So Exhibit 4, would you take a look at that.Yes,Okay. Before I ask you about Exhibit 4 I'd just liketo ask you what, if any, documents did you review toprepare for this deposition?Just documents provided by my attorney.Documents that you produced in this litigation?I'm not sure which ones his isn't mine.Is this a document?

THE DEPONENT: is it7 I don't even know.So I reviewed emails that Mike provided to me.BY MS, HEWEY:Okay. And were those only documents that you producedor were they also the Bailey documents7

MR. NELSON: They were documents that weproduced but also documents that we didn't producebecause they had already been produced by Mr. Bailey.

MS. HEWEY: Okay.BYMS. HEWEY:

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER16 of f14



4/14

Bailey V. State of Maine, et al.21

Rosa Scarcelli - 10/24/1 'i

910

Q.A.

Yes.And then your response was that was to say: I thinkit's highly important to start a blog campaign againsthim like the anti-Richardson movement.

Do you see that?Yes.What's the anti-Richardson movement?I think it was a lot of comments on the Portland PressHerald, just anonymous comments,Okay. And so when you said: I think it's highlyimportant to start a blog campaign against him, that

10

Okay. So when you recommended starting a blog campaignlike the anti-Richardson movement, were yourecommending starting an anonymous blog campaign?I don't think I was recommending anything, to beperfectly honest with you.Do you recall whether there was any follow-updiscussion to this email, Exhibit 4?Okay. Now let's talk a little bit about 'm goingto run you through a few documents, but it won't be toomany, Hopefully they'e the same ones you'e already

meant Cutler, right?Yes.

seen.Exhibit 6, is that a document you'e seen

141516171819202122232425

101112

, 1920

22

24

Q.A.Q.A.Q.

A.Q.

A.

A.

What were you suggesting?Posting anonymous comments or existing blogs,Okay. So you you wanted to use existing blogs?I didn't want to use anything. I was suggesting thatthat's hat's something they may want to do.When you say it's highly important to do that, thatseems to indicate that that was something that was apriority for you; is that right'?Absolutely not in the grand context. Maybe as you lookat this email, but absolutely not.Okay. So when you wrote the words: It's highlyimportant to start. a blog campaign against Cutler, what


did you nlean?Highly important they organize their time in such a waythat they were looking at how else to, you know, postanonymously on the Portland Press Herald or something.I don't really remember. In the grand scheme ofthings, I have no recollection of this email, not untilit was shown to me.Okay. So it's fair to say that you don't rememberrecommending to your campaign that to start a blogcampaign against Cutler?No.But it is true that, as you sit here today, you believethat if you were hat at hat in recommending ablog campaign, you certainly intended to recommend ananonymous blog campaign?No.Okay. Didn't you say to me that ust say to me afew minutes ago that you were talking about postinganonymously?No, I'm saying what you said was what was theRichardson campaign, and I told you what I thought theRichardson's campaign was, which they were posting,people were posting anonymously on the Portland PressHerald. That's what I thought the Richardson campaign

171820

20

Q.A.

recently?Yes.And in this n this email you'e talking again aboutsome press coverage of Eliot Cutler, correct?Yes,You say that the press coverage needs to be flagged forZach this morning. Do you see that?Yes.Who are you talking about?I believe this is Zach Stewart of the DGA,And why did this need to be flagged for Zach in yourview?


Because our strategy on our campaign to be successfulin the Democratic Primary was to show that we were thebest candidate to win the general.Okay. So my question, though, is why did the PressHerald MaineToday story about Eliot Cutler need to beflagged for Zach in your view?I don't remember and I don't remember the article.Okay. Is it because well, if you don't remember,you don't remember,

Okay. I'e got to find some other stuff,Dunng this time period in the fall, late fall of 2009,your husband was doing a significant amount of researchabout Eliot Cutler. Were you aware of that'?No.Were you aware that he was doing any research on EliotCutler'He provided something that's in the email string thatwas, I assume, part of that.Okay. And that's my question is a little bitbroader. He's t es tif ied tha t he was on his own timedoing research, hours and hours of research, on EliotCutler beginning in the summer of 2009 and continuingforward.

So my question is, were you aware that that25 was.

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDERl3iPierro Reporting Page 2X to

research was going on?CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PRGTECTIVE ORDER114



5/14

Rosa Scarcelli - 3 0/24/1 'i

891011121314151617181920

232425

Q.

A.A.Q.

Q.

A.

is me talking and then you talking, so I'm not tryingto be rude, okay?Yes.Good. Okay. But in any case, your campaign managerdidn't tell you that she was consulting with LinkStrategies about Eliot Cutler?No.is that right?No, I did not know that.Okay. Now, you you said that you realized that yourhusband, Thorn Rhoads, was googling Eliot Cutler atnight. Did you or I don't know if he said it was atnight.

MR. NELSON: She didn't say that.MS. HEWEY: That's why I withdraw that.

BYMS. HEWEY:You say you knew he was googling Eliot Cutler. Didthere come a time that you knew that he had collected abook of information about Eliot Cutler?And did you when you came to know that he hadcollected a book of information about Eliot Cutler, didyou knaw that that included some raw materials as wellas some content that he himself had written?I didn't know it was in the book. Na, I did not know


8910111213]415161718

2122232425

A.

A.A.A.A.A.Q.A.A.Q.A.A.

stuff available on the Internet.Well, did you ask Mr. Rhoads what it was and where heobtained it?No.Did you ask him whether he had obtained it all byhimself or whether other people had been involved7No.Did you ask him who owned it7No.But you did try to sell it'?We tried to give it to the Democratic Party.For money7There was some discussion.Okay. Let's start with Exhibit 17.Yes.Okay. So this is emails between you, Dennis Bailey andyour husband, Thorn Rhoads, correct?Yes,June 16, 2010?Yes,After the Pnmary?Correct.So my first question is who's Rick?Rick Redmond.And who is he?


910

15161718

Q.A.Q.A.

A.

Q.A.Q,

A.21 g.2223 A.

Q.25 A.

that.What did you know about the book?Nothing. I thought it was stuff he printed off Google,Okay. How-Articles or don't even know. I never gave it verymuch thought.Okay. How did you come to know about it'?I dan't remember.When did you know about it?Sometime in June of 2010.Okay. So your view is that you didn't know about ituntil after the Primary; is that right7Absolutely.Did you come to know about it because he told you orsameane else told you ar you saw it lying there orwhat7I never saw it lying anywhere, and I honestly don'remember how I came to know about it.Okay, But in any case, you didn't know what was in it?No.And you just thought it was a bunch of articles printedoff of Google?I didn't really know what was in the book.Okay.I didn't make mean, my assumption was that it was


10

14

18192021

25

A.

A.

A.

He works for the Democratic Party.Okay. So the first email on this string says: I toldLibby about the need to pay down debt and the book,What and that's Libby Mitchell, I assume'?Correct.What did you tell Libby about the need to pay down debtand the book?I told Libby that Thorn had pulled together somedocuments and that n a binder, a book, and that weneeded to pay down debt.And then did you offer to provide her with the binderthat Thorn had pulled together in return for someassistance with paying down the debt7Yes.Did you give her an asking price7I don't recall, This says $30,000, 30K, but I don'recall the conversation.But 30K, that would be $30,000?Correct,And what was the debt of the campaign at that time'?$400,000, $485,000, I'm not sure of the total amount.Okay. So the asking price of $30,000, was thatsomething you came up with or someone else?That number came from what Link Strategies charged me,and I told you I don't remember if it's 20,000 or

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER3.9.4



6/14

Bailey V. State of Maine, et al.30,000, but Link Strategies charged for myself-research book, So that's where I believe thatnumber came from,

33Rosa Scarcelli - 10i24/11

Take a look at Exhibit 18,Okay,Okay. So this is an email string of discussion

12131415

19202122232425

1415

A.

A.

Okay. So before you said Link Strategies charged you20. Are you saying to me now that they may havecharged you 30 or that you were charging 10morefoi'Again, I don't remember what Link did, Link Strategiescharges one amount, it's the only amount that thecampaign paid for, whether it was 20 or 30, but that'how much it cost for a research book.Okay. So even though you thought that Thorn had justgathered up some stuff from the internet, you thoughtyou might be able to sell it for 30,000?Tham looked at the Link Strategies report, I never did,and Thorn thought his stuff was just as good, and sothat's where the number came from, That's myrecollection.Okay. And the money, if it came in, was going to beused to pay down some of the campaign debt?The money would have gone to me and Thorn. There's nocampaign debt specific specifically. Thorn and Iwrote a check to my campaign.Okay. So explain that to me.That the campaign was funded in part at the end by my

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERpersonal funds.Okay. But it wasn't funded only by your personalfunds, right?The campaign?Yes,No, but a significant portion at the end was mypersonal money.Okay. And when you were talking about paying down debtat a campaignThat would have been my personal funds.hat would have been a debt that the campaign had toyou and your husband?There was no debt technically, it would have been twould have been replenishing funds, my personal funds.Okay. So assuming that you were going to sell the bookto pay down debt of the campaign, is it fair for me toassume that you understood that the campaign owned thebook?No. My campaign had no debt technically, so that wouldhave been money that would have come back to me andThorn, because Thorn and I wrote the checks for thecampaign.Okay. Do you 'm just looking far one thing I'dlike to do. These things are a mess. Give me oneminute and I'l find this.

10

1718

2122

A.

between, again, between you and Thorn Rhoads and DennisBailey on June 16, right?Correct.And it's all about your efforts to sell the book againto Libby and to others?Yes.Okay. And you understood that you see the June 16thdate at 4:37Thorn Rhoads saying that in addition tocash for the book, they also need firm assurances ofsupport from Libby and the Party for our next move?Yes.Period, firm, period. Do you see that?Yes.Do you know what next move he was referring to?I do not.Did you ask him?No.Did you have a next move in mind?No.Did you agree with him that you should ask for firmassurances of support from Libby and the Party forwhatever next move was being contemplated?


No. I wrote: It's better not to demand anything. Itlooks self-serving

MR. NELSON: You have to read more slowly.I wrote: It's better not to demand anything. It looksself-serving and that's not how you win respect. Youhave to earn it. I'l take the money and help her onan issue that is true to my values.And so you were willing to take money for the book butyou didn't want additional promises; is that right7Absolutely not.When you say absolutely not, does that mean it isn'right?No, correct. Sorry, yes, I was not looking foranything,Sorry. I'e just got to make sure that the record is

So you were looking for money and that's it7At that point. in time money became a nonissue.When was that?Immediately after.When you couldn't sell it?Correct.During this time you'e continuing to communicate withDennis Bailey, correct7Yes.

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERl3iPierl'o Repoif1'ing PBge 33 to 36 Qf li4



7/14

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425

Q.A.Q,A.QA.Q.A.Q.A.Q,A.Q.A.Q.

A.Q.

37And was he being paid?No.Not by anybody?No.He was just doing work for you for fun?I would not consider anything Dennis did for me work,Okay. And why why would you not consider anythingthat Dennis did for you work?Dennis wasn't because he wasn't working for me.Well, he was providing you with advice on publicrelations matters, correct?At what point in time are you referring to?After the after you lost the Primary.You have to show ask me something specific, Theseemails were not Dennis vvorking for me.Okay. They are Dennis trying to heip you sel! thebook7I'm not sure you could glean that from those emails. Idon't think Dennis was trying to help sell the book,Okay. It's true, isn't it, that after the PrimaryDennis helped you with various state pressstatements that you made?Significantly later Dennis helped with pressstatements, correct.And that crafting of press statements is part of the


12

20

A.Q.

A.Q.A.

Q.

A.Q.

Rosa Scarcelli - 10/24/ j 't39

sometime in late June, right?Yes.So shortly after your efforts to sell the book died,you'e recommending starting blogging atl the goods,right?This is not related to the book.Okay. When you say blogging all the goods, whattell me what goods you'e talking about,This is in an email chain where Dennis Bailey on hisown blog does something around Eliot Cutler calling hima whore, and that chain is related to that. That'Dennis'log.Okay. But I guess my question was a little bitdifferent. And, you know, just so that you haveeverything, we marked as an exhibit this afternoon thesecond page to that chain, so I'm going to give that toyou so that you have it all in front of you, I thinkit was in the early 70s.

Well, let me just ask you this while I'rnlooking for this, When you say: Let's just startblogging all the goods, what goods are you talkingabout?I don't recall. I mean, I read this as light and ajokester, joking, a joking comment.Well, you'e talking about blogging about Eliot Cutler,


10

16171819

A.Q.A.

Q.A.

job Dennis'ob, right'?Not with not with me at that point in time, no,Okay. So you'e saying but you'e sayingDennis did not work for me after my campaign, and thepress statements that Dennis was involved in, thereprobably were ten people involved in crafting thosestatements and they were all friends.Okay. And so nobody was paid anything for it?No.All right. So let's talk about Exhibit 22,Yes.This is in July of 20'I0 after the Primary, right?Yes.Before the Cutler Files website went up, right'?Yes.And when you say to Dennis Bai ley and Thorn Rhoads:This is why we need to start blogging all the goods-you said that to them, right7Yes.We need to liven this party up, right?Yes.Now, just so we get this straight in time, in mid tolate June you were trying to sell the book, right?Yes,And you said that your efforts to sell the book died


Q.

10

1314151617

A.Q.A.Q,

2122

A.8 Q.

correct?I wasn't talking about blogging Eliot Cutler, no, Iwasn't talking about blogging Eliot Cutler.Okay. There's a reference at the bottom of the emailto a blog that Dennis Bailey wrote about Eliot Cutler,right7Correct.And then your response to that is: This is why we needto start blogging all the goods.

So my question is when you'e talking about allthe goods, are you my first question is are youtalking about the goods in the book that your husbandcreated about Eliot Cutler?I don't know.You may or may not have been?Yeah.And when you say we need to start livening the partyup, what do you mean by that7Again, I think this was light in response to

Den i 'o k e

blog that he created. This is-Okay.That's not much don't attribute any meaning tothat.Okay. Let's take this piece by piece, And before vvedo that, just I'e put in front of you Exhibit 57A

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER j3.14



8/14

Baitey v. Skate of Maine, et. ai.123456789101J1213141516171819202122232425

Q.

A.

A.Q.

A.Q.A.Q.

A.Q.

45And so by putting in an email that he was planning ongoing out independently on a website is pretty clear toyou that he wasn't hiding that intention, right7My husband never shared his intention with me in anyway. I his is means nothing to me.Well, when you say he never shared his intention in anyway, I'm just asking about this language which says: Ithink it makes most sense to go out with it on our ownindependently on a website,

That's an email that he sent to you, right?It's an email that he sent to Dennis and copied me on,Okay. And then your response with regard to adverseinformation about Eliot Cutler was to give it to Paul,

And who is Paul?I'm assuming don'- I don't know. I mean,there's a lot of Pauls,You'e assuming it's Paul LePage, right?It could be my attorney, Paul Driscoll,And it was like well, why would you want to givethat information about Eliot Cutler to your attorney,Paul Driscoll7I have no don't recall saying this, so I don'know what the intent was,Okay. In any case, your husband sends you an email orcopies you on an email in which he's talking about

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TQ PROTECTIVE ORDER46

131415

17

202122

25

A.Q.A.Q.A.Q.A.Q.A.Q.

A.Q.A.

Mortgage, inc. Did you know that Sarah Serling didsome research with regard to the Thornburg MortgageIssue?I did not know at the time.She's an employee of yours?Yes.And she did that research during work time to yourunderstanding?I have no idea no idea when she did it,Okay. She's also a close friend of yours7No, she was an employee of mine,Okay. You two are not social friends, she's just anemployee?I actually saw her yesterday with her baby, but I seeher once every six months since she left.Okay, ln this email well, let me ask you about themiddle part from Rosa Scarcelli to Thorn Rhoads.

You'e making some suggestions about the editsto the website. Do you see that?This is not me. I did not write this.Okay. Who wrote it?I have to assume that Thorn wrote it, but I don't knowthe first thing about Thornburg and! did not writethis email.When you say you have to assume that Thorn wrote it, do


A.A.A.

10

121314151617181920

g.A.Q.A.

A.21 Q.22 A.232425 Q.

independently going out on a website, and you respondto it.And I probably never read past the first line.Were you supporting Paul LePage at this time7No, I was supporting Libby Mitchell.Okay,ls that relevant?That's the beautiful thing about depositions. I get toask the questions.

Exhibit 31?Yes.That's a document that you reviewed in preparation forthis litigation his his deposition, right'?l've seen this document,Okay. And my question was, did you review it inpreparation for this deposition7I don't think we reviewed it in preparation for thedeposit~on,Okay. But have you seen it recently?Yes.Who showed it to you recently?I wouldn't say recently. I saw this don't evenknow when I saw this, but I have seen it before. Idon't know who showed it to me,Okay. Now, there's some reference in this to Thornburg

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

10

12

16

20

A.Q.A.

g.A.

Q.

A.

Q.A.

A.

you have any information that he wrote it'?I know Thorn wrote this email.How do you know Thorn wrote this email?Because it's Thorn's voice. I didn't write this email,I don't know anything about Thornburg. We have oneiPad in our house, so it's quite plausible he wrote itbecause he used the iPad,And so you believe that he wrote an email on [email protected] account?My iPad cycies through my server, It's the only wayany outgoing messages go through it, and that's myStanford email address.Okay, And my question was, so you believe that yourhusband wrote an email to himself on your StanfordManagement account?No, my husband wrote an email to himself on my iPad,which then serviced itself through my StanfordManagement account, because that's the oniy way anyoutgoing emails go; and he sent it to himself on hisiPhone and cut and pasted it and sent it to Dennis.Okay, Have you talked to anybody about that theory7I talked to my husband about it because he told methat's what happened.Okay. VVhen did he tell you that?After he looked at the email.

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDERof li4



9/14

Rosa Scarcelli - 1OI24/1 'i

678910121314151617

19202122232425

10

13141516171819

Q. When was that7A. I don't know, when he pulled his documents, I have noidea, in the last month.Q. Okay, So this was in the documents he pulled?A. Yes. I assume.

Q. Okay,A. I don't know. I honestly don't know don't know.g. Well, I'm trying to find out you said that you and

your husband had a discussion about this particuiaremail when he pulled his documents.

A. Let me correct that. I'e talked to my husband brieflyabout this, and I'm assuming that that's where it camefrom, I guess I shouldn't make an assumption. I haveno idea.

Q. What did you and your husband talk about with respectto this particular email" ?

A. I was asked about this email and I looked at it andsaid: This isn' me. So where did it come from? Thornsaid; Obviously, I wrote it, I didn't write it. It'very simple. It's not my voice, I don't know anythingabout Thomburg. It's not my email.g. How many times to your knowledge has your husband sentemails under the name [email protected]?

A. Any time he uses my iPad,Q. So it's and my question is how many times to your


knowledge has your husband sent ernaiis under theaddress [email protected]?

A. I have no idea. Any time he'd like to use my iPad hewould be using the [email protected]. OuriPad is one iPad for the house so anybody mychildren could be emailing their friends [email protected], and it would look thesame.Right, And so I guess my question is, are you aware ofany other instance where your husband has sent an emailfrom your iPad or anywhere under the email [email protected]?

A. I would have no idea, because how often do you end upin a deposition where documents have gotten pulled7Quite honestly, I don't go around tracking his emails.

Q. Okay. Let's look at No, 80.(Deposition Exhibit No. 80, Email String,

10/28/'I0, marked for identification,)BYMS. HEWEY:

9101213141618192022232425

10

A.

Explain it to me.The joke?Yes.I don't remember the joke. I'm sorry, I'm not veryfunny to begin with, so I'm not sure I can be funny torestate it for you. In other words, it'light-hearted, no content, a prayer circle. It's ajoke.Okay, So when you looked through your emails to oproduce documents for your deposition, did you see thisparticular emaii?No,It wasn't in there?I don't recall it. I don't recall.

MS. HEWEY: Can you tell me whether this wasamongst the documents that wereI have no recollection. I don't think it was in mydocuments.

MR. NELSON: I don't remember.MS. HEWEY: Okay.MR, NELSON: I do know that if there was

anything that had been produced by Dennis Bailey, wepulled it out of the production,

MS. HEWEY: Right.MR, NELSON: I can't tell you as I sit here


today whether it was in the production.Again, it's on my iPad. It's uniikely I would have itstored in any documents mean, in my files, myyou know, my email.Okay. And I'm not accusing you of doing any badthings.

MR. NELSON: No.

MS, HEWEY; I just want to know whether thisparticular document is part of the emails or thedocuments that she has, and you may have pulled it outbut I just want to know that, okay?

MR. NELSON: Okay. I can't tell you.MS, HEWEY: No, I know you can't tell me right

now. I'm just saying at some point in your llfe-well, I meanI don't think it's in my documents because it doesn'go through my Outlook account, so.BYMS. HEWEY:

2021

Q. DB10667A. Yes.

2021

22 g. I/ho were you starting a prayer circle for?23 A. Paul LePage.24 Q. Why?25 A. It was a joke.

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDERl3iP ierro Reporting Page 49 tO

2324

Okay, Did you look through your iPad in response tothe document request?No, and I don't even know how you do that.Okay. Did you give it to your counsel and a llow him tolook through it'?My iPad?

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDE~R114



10/14

10

141516

20

23

10

Q. Yes.A. It doesn't save things. It doesn't archive I don'

know why. He's welcomed to have it, but it doesn'work that way, It's Outlook and it's like a don'know the technology, so don't ask me how it works.

Q. Well, you seem to, Let's talk then about a littleabout when you were crafting your statement for-first, I want to make sure if there's anything else.

Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 81.(Deposition Exhibit No. 81, Email String,

Scarcelli and Bailey, 9/14/10, marked foridentification.)BYMS. HEWEY:

Q. This is just a follow-up on the prayer circle, Can youactually pass one of those copies over to next-door.

MR. NELSON; To whom?MS. HEWEY; Anybody who seems interested, which

might be no one.MR. NELSON: is there one particular part you

want her to look at or do you want her to read thewhole thing?BYMS. HEWEY; +@5M


A. gg. Okay.

(Deposition Exhibit No. 82, Email to Bailey andRhoads from Scarceili, 12/29/10, marked foridentification.)BYMS. HEWEY:

Q. Exhibit 82?A. Yes.Q. Okay. So before I ask you about this, do you mean

just want to sort of get some background about this.The website testimony has been here went live on August30, 2010,

345678910

13141516

202122232425

10

A.A.

A.

A.

Q.A.Q.A.

A.

Correct.And you knew that hat he felt at least that it wasimportant to get it out there, correct?At what point in time?As of August.Approximately, yes.You knew that even even during your campaign he feltit was important to get information about Eliot Cutlerout to the public, right?I wasn't paying much attention to what his desires wereduring the campaign. I mean, there was he wasclearly interested in putting me in a strategicposition that was strong within the Democratic Primary.Right. And one way he wanted to put you in a positionthat was strong in the Democratic Primary was to getthis information, the truth about Eliot Cutler out,right?No. I mean, he wanted to make sure that I was strongwith the DGA early in the campaign, and that wasthat was the strategy around that. Beyond that, I haveno hat was not part of anything that was going onafter that strategy memo for the DGA,Okay, So to your understanding his interest in EliotCutter was around making sure that you were strong withthe DGA?


Correct.And then his efforts to get information about EliotCutler out to the public through various pressorganizations is not something that you were aware of'?No.And you weren't aware of the website, even though therehad been discussions of biogging, you didn't-The website being the Cutler Files?Yes,I was not aware of it before it was live.Okay. It goes live. And when did you first becomeaware of it after it went live?Somewhere shortiy after there. I don't know the exact

Okay. And when you became aware of it, did youbecome did you know that it was your husband and

181920212223

Is that consistent with your approximatelyyour memory'?

A. Approximately.g. Okay. And is it your testimony that prior to the timeit went live, you did not know that your husband andDennis Bailey were going to do this'?

A. Correct.g. You knew that your husband had collected theinformation?

21

23

25CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DiPierro Reporting Page 53 to 56

Dennis Bailey who were responsible for it'?Yes.And what happened how did you did you talk tothem about that?Yes.Tell me did you talk to them in person or how.I don't recall specific conversations, I actually leftalmost immediately after that and went on a 10-dayretreat and was blissfully away.




11/14

45678910

141516171819202122232425

89101112131415161718

Q.A.

A.

Q.A.

Q.A.Q.

A.Q.

Q.A.

A,

is Dennis'osition, this is Dennis'tatement.But my question simply is right now you knew thisstatement was inaccurate, right?My husband developed some information on Mr. Cutler bysearching on Google that he thought was important toshare with voters. He gave the information

MR. NELSON: More slowly, please.He gave the information to Dennis Bailey who posted iton a website, End of story, I think that's accurate.BY MS. HEWEY:Okay. I thought you just told me that he also didediting?This is his is not conclusive, It's doesn'say, you know t doesn't t's irrelevant,honestly. This is Dennis'osition, not mine.Okay. And I understand that Dennis wrote it, not you.Right,And my only question right now is you knew as of thetime you received this that that was not accurate,right?It is missing information; it's not inaccurate.Okay. And even though you recognize that it's missinginformation and that it's information that your husbandwas going to publish to the public, you wrote that youliked it, right?


So were you-Again, a general broad statement that I like it, butit's irrelevant because I never used the statement.Okay.This is his is Dennis'osition and how he viewsthe world.Okay.So if you have my public statement somewhere, somethingthat I actually put out that's in my words, then Icould probably more accurately answer what you'etrying to get at.I'm just trying to get at this particular documentright now.This is Dennis'ake on the world.And you'e said that what is stated here was accuratebut not complete, correct?Correct.

12

1618192021222324

1112

A. Yes. I didn't say I like this and it's accurate andplease go print it.Q. Okay.

A. I simply said I like it,Q. Okay. Let's talk about your statement.

MR. PATERSON: How about a pitstop?MS, MEWEY: Okay. Sounds good.(Deposition Exhibit No. 83, Bangor Daily News

Article Posted 1/27/11, marked for identification,)(A short break was taken,)

BYMS. HEWEY:Q. Okay. Exhibit 83, is that probably the statement that

you were referencing a few minutes ago?MR. NELSON: Just give her a chance io look at

it, okay'?MS. MEWEY; Yeah.

A. Yes.BYMS. HEWEY:

g. Okay. That's a statement that you gave to the press onJanuary 27, 2011, correct?A. Yes,Q. And why would why did you make a statement about the

Cutler Files?A. The Ethics Commission had concluded their

investigation.CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECTTG PROTECTIVE ORDER

68And why did you feel that you needed to make astatement about the Cutler Files?There was a tremendous amount of speculation about whothe John Does were, whether or not my husband wasinvolved and whether or not I was involved, There wascertainly direct accusations of that nature in front ofthe Ethics Commission, and I felt that it needed to beaddressed.And yet you still hadn't even looked at the website?No.Okay. Now, I just want to ask you about a few thingson this statement, and then I want -- I'rn going to askyou a little bit about the process you went through tocraft this.

You say; Let me be clear, As I said from thebeginning, there was no involvement by me or mycampaign in the Cutler Files website in any way, shapeor form.

However, it does say, end of story, which indicatesthat that's the full story, right? 20 Yes,

Do you see that'?21

74

A. And it's in my opinion 'm not sure what you'easking,I'm just trying to find out whether, when you said youliked this, you recognize that the statement that you

25 said you like was inaccurate?CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

2122

Do you think that that's an accurate statement?Absolutely,And let's put you aside for a minute and talk aboutyour campaign, No doubt that your husband wasassociated with your campaign, right?

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECTTG PROTECTIVE ORDER3.14



12/14

Bailey v. State of Maine, et al.

10

1 about it. Is that true?A. Yes. Again, timeline is the question: when exactly I

confronted Thorn, when exactly I confronted Dennis.This is in January reflecting back four months earlier.

Q. Okay. Now, even though this is in January reflectingback four months earlier, you did spend a significantamount of time crafting this website and trying to makesure that it's

MR. NELSON: It's a statement.MS. HEWEY: Not website, this statement. Thank

67891011

A.

A.

Okay. Did he had you spoken with him about theCutler Files before you began crafting this statementas in Exhibit 85?I may have. I don't recall. I mean yes, I'm sure ICIICI.Okay. Exhibit 84 is what?It's the same statement, I think, correct?Well, Exhibit 84 is comments made by John Lapp,L-A-P-P, correct'?Here is a slightly revised statement for Rosa. Jasonand Fred, feel free to weigh in?

1213141516171819202122232425

MR. NELSON: Why don't you start again.BY MS. HEWEY:

Q. Even though you were looking back four months, you didspend a significant amount of time crafting thisstatement and attempting to make sure that it was asaccurate and as powerful as possible, correct?

A. I and others worked on this statement, correct.Q. Okay. So Exhibit 84.(Deposition Exhibit No. 84, Email String,

Scarcelli, Rhoads and Bailey, 1/6/11-1/7/11, marked foridentification.)

(Deposition Exhibit No. 85, Email String,Scarcelli and Rhoads, 1/19/11, marked foridentification.)


(Deposition Exhibit No. 86, Email String,1/19/11, Scarcelli and Rhoads, marked foridentification.)BY MS. HEWEY:Q. I'm going to show you Exhibits 84, 85 and 86.

A. Is there something specific you want me to look for?Q. Yes. I'l ask you with respect to Exhibit 85,

that's well, tell me what it is because I can't see.A. 85'?

1213141516171819202122232425

A.

A.

A.Q.A.

Q.A.Q.A.Q.A.

Yes.Yes.Okay. Dennis Bailey wrote the first draft of thestatement, right'?Correct.And you'e saying that he wrote that for you for freebecause he's a friend of yours?Yes.And John Jason, who is he'?Jason Ralston and John Lapp did all of my media, mytelevision, and Fred Yang did all of my polling.Okay. And so those are people that provided advice toyou on your campaign, and you asked them to help youwith this as well'


Correct.And your testimony is that they also did that for free?Correct.Have we dealt with everybody, Jason, Fred, John?John, yeah.John'Uhm-uhm.Thorn, your husband, Dennis?Yeah.

10111213141516171819202122

2425

Q. Yes.A. It is a chain of emails. At the top of the page it'

from Rosa Scarcelli to Rick Arriola.Q. Who is Ricky Arriola'?A. He's a friend of mine.Q. And is he involved what's his business?A. Inktel.g. What is that'?A. He belongs to a group an organization called Young

Presidents Organization which I belong to, and he and Iare fellows of the Aspen Institute together. We'e ina class of 20 fellows at the Aspen institute in theHenry Craft Fellowship.

Q. And he was helping you craft your public statement.Why?

A. Because he's one of my best friends.CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDER

10

13

1819202122232425

Q.A.A.Q.

And Ricky?Yes.Anybody else help you with your statement'?I think my attorneys did as well.Who were they&Paul Driscoll and Jamie Wagner.Okay. Which is what I was going to ask you in Exhibit88.

(Deposition Exhibit No. 87, Email String,1/1 8/11, marked for identification.)

(Deposition Exhibit No. 88, Email String,1/25/1 1, marked for identification.)

MS. HEWEY: Is 88 my next number? No, 87.BYMS. HEWEY:

Q. This is the correspondence to [email protected] you see that'?

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TG PROTECTIVE ORDERof 13.4



13/14

Bailey V. State of Maine, et al.105


8910ll12

151617181920212223

1011121314151617181920

What was your understanding with Savvy, inc.about what was your understanding of the amount oftime Savvy, Inc., Dennis Bailey would be spending onyour campaign for this monthly retainer?

A. I didn't have a specificaliy defined amount of time inmy mind that he was spending, and I wasn't tracking histime.

Q. Did he did he make any representation to youabout what here must have been some basis uponwhich you agreed your campaign agreed that 2,000 amonth was a reasonable sum to pay for his services,correct7

A. Yes, but it never had anything to do with an hourlyrate that I am hat I recall.

Q. But did it have to do with some notion of'the scope ofwork and how much time, roughly speaking, that mighttake in a given month to pay $2,000?

A, No.Q. What was the basis of the fee in your mind?A. This was his proposal and and I don't recall

negotiating ii., and I certainly don't recall anhourly rate associated with it, So it was a fixedsort of a fixed fee and then as I see in here winbonus.

Q. Did he ever, to your knowledge, did he ever ask to getCONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

106paid above and beyond that retainer amount?

A. I don't recall. The oniy other thing that I think wasabove and beyond it is he played a concert his bandplayed for me, but I don'tQ, At an event?

A. Yeah,Q. Okay. Other than that event, was he ever sort of

working off the clock, so to speak, as far as you wereaware?

A. I have no idea, I'm not sure he defined it in thatfashion,q. Did did you assume that when he was working onactivities related to the campaign for governor priorto the Primary, that he was acting on your behalf asyour consultant?

A. I guess I'm unclear about what are you talking aboutthis contract or are you talking about when Dennisworked for me at Stanford Management?

Q. No, this contract,. the campaign, because I believe yousaid when he started working for the campaign he ceased

10

1920

10

14

Q.A,Q.A.

A.Q.A.Q.A.

campaign earlier than or closer in time to yourannouncement in July?My announcement was in July, so.Between the time he stopped working for StanfordManagement and started working for the campaign in June2010, if Dennis Baiiey was working on the gubernatorialcampaign, Democratic Primary, would you have assumedthat was he was working for you7Yes, I assumed Dennis was working for me during thePrimary.And i hope I'm not repeating anyth ing you coveredearlier, but Sarah Serling, when did she first come towork at Stanford Management?Sarah carne to work tor me after the campaign afterthe Primary campaign. I don't know what her officialhire date was.So she worked on the campaign after the Primary, shecame you first had her working for you in on thecampaign'?Yes.And then at Stanford Management'Correct.When did she get her law degree, do you know?She passed the Bar before she joined the campaign soshe


Okay.I think she got her degree the year prior.Okay.She passed the Bar and then joined my campaign in thespring.Okay. And does she and you said she does not anylonger work for Stanford Management?No, she doesn'.When did she leave the company?She left the company, gosh, I can't remember the exactdate, but she had a baby and she decided she wanted tonot practice law, she wanted to be a mortgage broker orsomething iike that.Was itbut she was working for Stanford Managementat the time sheShe was working for Stanford Management at the time shetold you about the Cutler Files website; is thatcorrect?Correct.

22 A. Right. 2223 Q. after he started working for the campaign, which 2324 this document Exhibit 3 is dated September 1. I think 2425 you stated that he actually started working for the 25

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERDiPierro Reporting Page 3.05 to iO

And do you think she did she start working forStanford Management relatively soon after the Primarycampaign ended7Yes,

Q. And did you were you aware that she had beenCONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER8 Of 114



14/14

ksVp ~-eC

f~~ ln

'Lpw~Ha.

gaR

y~s

~4 t ~W @~a.wSC~CELLX


Scarcelli deposition

Documents

Transcript of Scarcelli deposition