Epstein Secrets

chard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009

dant’s] seemingly blanket invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination.” Custer Battles, 41 F.Supp.2d at 634-35 (emphasis added). Thus, Custer Battles cautioned against drawing inferences about other people’s state of mind via an adverse inference from defendant Morris’ invocation of his Fifth Amen

such an inference is somehow not proper under the test laid out by United States v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). Custer Battles lays out a two-prong test for deciding whether a factfinder can appropriately draw an adverse inference. The first prong is whether there is “a vali

ief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: March 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. At

e relief to the civil litigant whose case is unfairly prejudicial by a witness’ assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege . . .” United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Baxler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) (“the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adver

has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January 2009: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberge

some relief to the civil litigant whose case is unfairly prejudicial by a witness' assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ..." United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Basler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) ("the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adver

sition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 23 of 24 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No

ly be drawn when independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to answer." Id. at 635 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In Custer Battles. LLC unlike the instant case, the court found the record contained "ample evidence of Morris' involvement in the [fraudulent) billing ... which in

com Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz sexabuseattomev.com Stuart S. Mermelstein ssmsexabuseattornev.com William J. Berger [email protected] 21 EFTA00234891 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/

lege without placing the witness in the 'cruel trilemma' of choosing among incrimination, perjury, or contempt." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit has not hesitated to support district courts that draw an adverse inference from