Epstein Secrets

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

in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 22 of 24 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing 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. Flo

ane Doe's Request for Admissions attached as Exhibit C to Injunction Motion (DE #165). Based on this unsupported presumption of fraudulent transfer, Jane Doe asks the Court to impose significant and unjustified restraints on Epstein's assets. Simply put, Jane Doe is improperly seeking assurance she will b

rse inference would be wholly unreliable and is clearly impermissible under the instant circumstances. Additionally, granting the relief sought by Jane Doc based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir.

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

of a receiver to take charge of Epstein’s property and to post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment in this case. As explained in Jane Doe’s motion, Epstein is a billionaire who recently has been fraudulently transferring his assets overseas and elsewhere with the intent to prevent Jane D

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

Attorney or State Attorney Telephone records 5-6 Videos, photographs of residence 7 Documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 Air travel records 10 Documents relating to modeling agencies 11 Correspondence with other witnesses 14,

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

Defendant and the U.S. Attorney or State Attorney 1-4 Telephone records 5-6 Videos, photographs of residence 7 Documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 Air travel records 10 Documents relating to modeling agencies I 1 Correspondence with other witnesses 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Social networking do

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

Defendant and the U.S. Attorney or State Attorney 1-4 Telephone records 5-6 Videos, photographs of residence 7 Documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 Air travel records 10 Documents relating to modeling agencies I 1 Correspondence with other witnesses 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Social networking do

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

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