Epstein Secrets

tion of his Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, the Mermelstein and Horowitz firm was quoted in the Palm Beach P

18 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 10 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th

heir civil case, but to gain information to aid in the future prosecution of Epstein in direct violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, the Mermelstein and Horowitz firm was quoted in the Palm Beach Post stating, among other things, that the book sold to undercover agents could open the door to fut

n den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cl

Response to Motion, to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Jane Doe No. 4. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 04/06/2009 71 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 21 MOTION for Protective Order Agains

Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 24 through 28 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41 DCA 1983); Malloy I Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Claus

arcia Innle ' Katherine Warthen ell Michael James Pike Paul G Cassell Richard Horace Willits Robert C. Josefsberg Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S Mermelstein William J. Realer 11 EFTA00182843 Case 5:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

to File Response /Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action by Jane Doe No. 7. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/13/2009) 04/14/2009 34 ENDORSED ORDER granting (75) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) De

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

to 62 Response to Motion, to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mermelstein, Stuart) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 04/06/2009 71 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 66 MOTION for Protective Order and t

Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi I Bankers ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy I Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cla