Epstein Secrets

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

d by the United States Constitution. Defendant’s canned objection represents a “blanket” refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a “blanket” refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that

n, and has been unable to do so. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 Dated: September 30, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, By: Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) Case

ay-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.” Id. A “blanket refusal” to provide testimony or information is unacceptable. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). A witness bears the burden of justifying the invocation of the privilege. In re J.M.V., Inc. E

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

ranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a "blanket" refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that D