Epstein Secrets

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

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.

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

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

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

e's Injunction Motion Page 5 of24 relief requested by Jane Doe. For the following reasons, the Court must deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. II. JANE DOE'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IS BASED ON SPECULATION AND HEARSAY AND CONTAINS NO MATERIAL "FACTS" Jane Doe's "Statement of Material Facts" relies h

JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO 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 $1

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). EFTA00729295 v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXMIUD, Epsteln's Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Add a Claim for Punitive Dam

nd that she had to see a therapist in Miami at her attorney's request and fake cry, pretend like she was damaged and pretend she had been molested; Jane Doe No. 7 was laughing about it. Id. at 264; h. Jane Doe No. 7 never complained that Epstein acted inappropriately or that she suffered any emotional