SWORN STATEMENT

Personally appeared before me, a notary public, duly licensed by the State of Florida, STEPHEN M. DINERSTEIN, who being first duly suborn to tell the truth, deposes and says that:

1... Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein, during 1984 was a duly licensed, bonded and insured private investigator,

over the age of eighteen and maintained both A&C licenses issued and regulated by the State of Florida and possessed said licenses for more then ten years.

2... Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein, has investigated more than twenty child abuse type cases.

3… Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein has been, on numerous occasions, appointed by both Federal and State judges as court appointed investigator.

4… Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein, has testified on numerous occasions before State and Federal Grand Juries, as well as during State and Federal court trials.

5…Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein was called to the office of Mr. VonZamft on August 15, 1984 to discuss an investigation for the defense of a violation of probation and a charge of possible child assault.

6…Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein was advised by Mr. VonZamft that Attorney Jeffrey Samek was co‑counsel

on this matter, and that Mr. Fuster was charged and that Mrs. Fuster was probably to be charged.

7... Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein was requested by Mr. VonZamft to investigate approximately ten areas, and to report back to him.

8... Mr. Stephen M. Dinerstein contacted and met with Mrs. Ileana Fuster and was shown the residence and given full information as to who was present at the House when they were there, and what was happening. Sketches and photos of the house were completed. Mrs. Fuster advised Mr. Dinerstein at this time that she was 17 years of age and not 23 as others believed. She also informed him that she was very scared.

9... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein obtained from the Fusters' house various documents, books, records, pictures, films, etc. From Mrs. Fuster he received information and various books and records.

10…Mr.Stephen Dinerstein contacted and obtained a statement (recorded) from Mr. Fuster's probation officer (Hect) during which he reluctantly states that he really knew of no official grounds to have violated Mr Fuster except that there was intense pressure being placed upon him and that he was aware of and basically approved of the child care business at the residence and had personally watched it in operation (most times Mr.Fuster was not even present). His understanding was that the program was being run by Mrs. Fuster and others, but because of her age Mr.Fuster had to have his name on certain documents. Further, as to the child abuse charges he stated that from information he was given on certain dates that it is alleged Mr. Fuster was present at the home and either independently or jointly with others abused some children, he knew from personally visiting the home on the same dates about the same time that Mr. Fuster was not only not at home but a good hours drive from the home involved in a verifiable business project.

11... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein contacted area supervisor for State Department of Social Services who advised that she personally was familiar with Mrs. Fuster and the Country Walk program. That needed documents and forms were in the processing stages and that there was on site inspection of the school and no major problems were noticed or recorded.

12... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein made attempts to meet with and contact both Drs. Laura and Joseph Braga with no success. Request for interview was rejected.

13…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein was contacted by Mr. VonZamft on August 16, l984 and requested to have investigators present at a town hall type meeting called for that night at the Country Walk clubhouse. Attempt to obtain all possible information and photographs were requested. A number of investigators were sent to the meeting, which was covered by every station with camera and reporting teams. Of all the parents that were contacted during the meeting or spoke out, none stated that there was documented or medically proven child molestation or abuse yet. The main point, other than political speeches was that Mr. Fuster had a criminal record, part of which was a conviction for a child abuse type charge, a secondary part of the meeting was a call to other parents of children who attended the center to join in a lawsuit and to accept assistance in having the child checked and interviewed and to establish documentation.

14... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein began inquiry into the backgrounds of the Drs. Laura and Joseph Braga and began to get indications that claims by them and others as to their qualifications etc., were false or substantially overstated or misstated. A recent verified and documented falsehood was their joint claim to being "employed by the University of Miami in the Psychiatric department during the last few years".

15…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein located the sales clerk who sold Mr. Fuster the cartons of books at the religious thrift store, who confirmed the purchase and the fact that no sexual books were in any way purchased at their store.

16… Mr. Stephen Dinerstein spoke with Mr. Fuster in the Dade County jail and obtained taped statements, which provided much detailed information and also indicated that Mr.Samek and Mr. Fuster on or about August 15th, 1984 had a disagreement in court and Mr. Fuster felt that Mr. Samek had mislead him with some information. From that visit on Mr. Fuster stated that he did not want Mr. Samek to represent him but would accept Mr. VonZamft, since he expressed interest in him and his case.

16…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein attempted for almost a week to contact attorney Jeffrey Samek to relay information and a letter from Mr. Fuster. Mr. Samek finally accepted a call and began by saying he wanted to hear nothing from Fuster or his family and that he was attempting; to be removed from the case. Mr.Samek then advised that the investigation should only continue if Mr. VonZamft wants it to. He further stated that as of August 24, 1984, he would be representing Ileana.

17... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein, per instructions of Mr.Samek, went to the Dade County Women's jail facility to speak with Mrs. Fuster and advise her to contact him if there were any problems. She stated main problem now was "no attorney attorney has spoke with her since she entered the jail (not even in the courtroom)." Mrs.Fuster appeared in street type clothes and although scared and somewhat threatened by others in the jail, had no specific complaints, nor did she have any visible signs of mistreatment etc..

18…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein, on October 11, 1984, had first meeting and in a personal discussion with Mr.Samek at the office of Mr. VonZamft, disclosed and discussed all investigative efforts and results. Mr. Samek again advised that he really was not interested in findings or in the case other than to handle come administrative matters. Said meeting took less than one hour.

19... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein was instructed to continue efforts and some additional investigation was requested by Mr. VonZamft.

20…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein, on Saturday, February 2,1985, received written information indicating that the Joseph Braga who attended Boston State College had died in 1972. On Sunday February 3, 1985,

Mr. VonZamft, as previously arranged, met at the Florida Turnpike to obtain said document.

21…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein was advised by Mr. VonZamft's office that at a scheduled hearing, the information regarding the deceased Mr. (Dr. ) Braga would be raised. That his appearance in court was not required nor suggested. The morning of the hearing Mr. VonZamft called and now suggested his presence. As a result of the disclosure of the information, the Judge mentioned the lack of prior prosecutorial effort in verifying credentials, but still only allowed the investigator for the prosecution to travel. to Boston, Mass. to check further.

22…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein continued over the first six month period since incarceration to visit with both Mr. and Mrs. Fuster in the respective locations. Mr. Fuster had now lost some weight and was the victim of both physical and verbal assaults which there reported. Mrs. Fuster was now looking drawn and had lost weight and complained of deliberate mistreatment by jail officials such as not getting regular feedings and not being allowed out of her cell. No medical attention given even though requested. Both complained of no communication with attorneys and problems even communicating between each other because of restricted calls and not forwarding letters.

23…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein, on or about July 15, 1985 learned that Ileana had been contacted by someone from the State Attorney's office and received what she believed was a threat if she would not testify against her husband. Said information was told to Mr. VonZamft, who advised not to be concerned. Further, it was agreed to have a meeting to fully discuss, investigative findings and activities. Mr. Samek declined to meet but on the phone stated that he needed or requested no additional investigation for his client Mr. Fuster, even though he was informed of the very positive information found. Items such as documented proof of verification of alibi information as to many of the dates in question. Documentation as to lack of truthfulness of some prosecution witnesses, information regarding possible misdeeds of prosecution staff. Information regarding false and misleading information regarding expert witnesses. Possibly tampering with or not disclosing evidence.

24... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein, on or about July 16, 1985, was informed by Mr. VonZamft that some investigation should continue, but that since he only represents Mrs. Fuster he is only interested in information directly involving her. Further that his position clearly now was to hang Mr. Fuster if in fact they go to trial. That the State was now talking to him about Ileana, and he was sure he would receive an offer for testimony, but would have the problem of getting her to admit the events even occurred, and that Mr. Fuster was the bad guy.

25... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein visited Mrs. Fuster at the jail and learned again that the "State Attorney" had visited with her and that she was being kept in solitary with no out of cell time. She appeared as if she was 50 years old. Her skin was drawn from a large loss of weight, hair matted and by smell alone not clean. Only person that speaks to her is a church worker. Food when given is a sandwich and is eaten in the cell. She is wearing a light almost see‑through type house dress that is probably five times to large. She has sores and infections on her skin and states that no sanitary conditions exist or are provided. That the shower when received is a hosing down in the cell. That she is in a cell with nothing in it but a light in the ceiling and that she is often kept nude and in view of everybody and anybody. Over the period of incarceration she has changed from a 17 year old somewhat quiet small little scared girl to a constantly crying shaking tormented person who understands little if anything about the whole process and is now being threatened and promised and is totally now in a state of confusion to the point of not having the slightest idea as to month and date. With all this to be considered she still states her and her husband are innocent.

26…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein received additional limited investigative requests from Mr. VonZamft, such as to obtain information about press coverage and to obtain some religious information, etc.. On Monday June 2, 1985 for a period of a week some conversations occurred which indicated some possible tampering with video films in this matter. Information was relayed to Mr. VonZamft. Mr. VonZamft indicated he heard similar information in the Public Defenders Office suggesting that the company requested by the State to copy all video films was asked by that office to alter or somehow change the tapes before actually reproducing same. Attempting to verify this information led to the president (DAVE CLARK) of the company (Quality broadcasting) who would not for the record disclaim or verify, but did state that no one from the State Attorney's office was present during duplication and he was instructed to clean up the tapes, and that he already has made good money makling copies of the tapes for Arvida. Mr. VonZamft was also present at a local TV station when a station engineer playing the tape provided to them by the State Attorney commented to those present that there was something wrong with the

way the video tape was made. Mr. VonZamft was advised of the additional information and stated he would handle it. During the last two weeks of July 1985 on trips to see Mrs. Fuster in the jail, information was again obtained regarding visits by the "State Attorney" to discuss an offer for a plea. Mrs.Fuster's condition had deteriorated so badly she could hardly move and was very slow, to respond to any questions. When asked if Mr. VonZamft was present, she could not even recall but did imply that the woman State Attorney was very big and very scary and made suggestions as to problems that would arise if she didn't cooperate.

27…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein spoke with Mr. VonZamft about the condition and statements of his client and he responded that he was aware of the situation and not to be concerned . Additionally, he advised that his client was going to be receiving intense psychological counseling and no further visits to the jail would be necessary or advisable.

28…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein learned that trial date had been changed to 3rd of September, and had inquired of both Attorneys as to whether his presence was needed at trial. Informed by Mr. Von Zamft that no was the response.

29... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein learned on August 22, 1985 from Mr. VonZamft, that after intense therapy Mrs. Fuster had now agreed to testify against her husband in exchange for no jail or deportation.

30…Mr. Stephen Dinerstein received a call on August 23,1985 from Mr. Fuster at the jail that it was urgent to visit with him at the jail. Upon arrival Mr. Fuster was visibly agitated and quite tense. Mr. Fuster stated that the day before, Mr. Samek had visited at the jail and told him directly that he wasn't really going to receive a defense and that his only choice was to take a plea. He further told Mr. Fuster that his wife had agreed to a plea and was going to testify against him. Mr. Fuster then claimed that he asked Mr. Samek specifics about the case at which time he was advised that Mr.Samek wasn't even familiar with the various items possibly available to the defense nor did he even attempt to speak with possible alibi witnesses that were found and that he (Mr. Dinerstein) had spoken with or was aware of. All of this, plus the fact that Mr. Samek only came to the jail twice in a year and there was no communication or discussion during those visits or when they met in the courtroom. That Mr. Fuster wanted different counsel. Mr. Fuster was advised that as an investigator, the only possible action that could be takes was to pass the information on to the attorney and keep a record of the discussion. This did not make Mr. Fuster happy and he claimed he would make himself heard in the courtroom.

31... Mr. Stephen Dinerstein, after a week and a half of observing T.V. coverage of the trial and reading the reporters' stories in the press, met with Mr. VonZamft and attempted to discuss the defense or lack of defense of Mr. Fuster. Mr. VonZamft stated that in reality it was a plea case from the beginning. That although he had discussed with Mr.Samek at the beginning trial preparation and defense strategy he was unaware why Mr. Same! chose not to proceed along other lines that we were privy to. Further, he could not explain why in almost a year and a half Mr. Samek spoke directly with his investigator no more than five times for a period of no more than three hours in total, or why he spoke with his client no more than four times from date of incarceration to date of trial. It was confirmed that Mr. Samek was aware of the investigation findings and the locations of the information, but never sought them out.

All of the above is true and accurate to the best of affiants memory and knowledge

Further affiant sayeth not.

(signature)

STEPHEN M. DINERSTEIN, AFFIANT

Sworn to and subscribed before me, (signature) Mary Swank

on this 29th day of November, 1993.

NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE.

My commission expires September 7, 1994(Official Stamp)