Epstein Secrets

ed long ago, "[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character."' Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those situations. In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action

, Defendant I ------------- CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15

he most persuasive character."' Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most

atement of Undisputed Facts. 12 EFTA00725980 In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising an

zed long ago, "[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those situations. In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action

iff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15

d be asked about Derhowitz's involvement took the Fifth." This "[sJilence is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Bilokumsky 'Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). quoted in Baxter 1 Palmigiano, 425 U.S 308, 319 (1976). And that silence takes on an even more si

S OF AMERICA. Respondent. / PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ COME NOW petitioners Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 2, as well as rnavants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 ("the victims" I), to respond in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz's motion for limited intervent

ards filed a civil sot against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, LM. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”). 3 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit

ity and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 19 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013388 --- PAGE BREAK --- 841, 842 (Fla. 4"" Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have “evidence of the mo

hstein's Ponzi scheme had been widely publicized. In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any

f the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most