Epstein Secrets

must provide some kind of “independent evidence” of his fraudulent transfers in order to gain the inference of fraudulent transfers. The first is Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11th Cir. 1991), in which Plaintiffs who had filed a frivolous lawsuit appealed from a district court decision grantin

ovided any evidence that the Court should not draw an adverse inference – or, indeed, any evidence at all in opposition to her motion. Accordingly, Avirgan is not on point and certainly does not suggest that Jane Doe needs to provide some sort of independent evidence to obtain an adverse inference.1

solely upon a privileged refusal to admit or deny at the pleading stage.” Epstein Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at 10] (quoting LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 391 (7th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added)). As just Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 15 of

lent] billing ... which in tum ensures that the proposed adverse inferences, should the jury choose to draw them, are not unreliable." Id. See also Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that "the negative inference to be drawn from the assertion of the fifth amendment does not s

ng the relief sought by Jane Doe based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. See LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that "the Supreme Court has prohibited practices that are coercive in that they make the exercise of the p

inferences drawn from Fifth-Amendment-protected silence are treated as a substitute for the need for evidence on an ultimate issue of fact," citing Avirgan, supra). As belabored throughout this memorandum, Jane Doe cites no independent evidence that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. Accordi

nting 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. 1995) (noting that "the Supreme Court has prohibited practices that are coercive in that they make the exercise of the p