Epstein Secrets

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

aw.com Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsberg@po

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

and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this "2 1 day of March, 2009. Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 [email protected] mpike@bc1cl

.bciclaw.com Isidro Manual Garcia isidrociarcia bellsouth.net Jack Patrick Hill inhesearcvlaw.com Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzella,podhurst.com Michael James Pike MPikeebelclaw.com Paul G. Cassell casselloabciclaw.com Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg riosefsbero@podhurst

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

D Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 11 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 Respectfully su2 tted, By: ROBERT RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Ba No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/5

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

oing reasons, Epstein respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 DAVID A. YAREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing