Epstein Secrets

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

ction to prevent “transfer[ring] assets abroad” and distinguishing De Beers). In one final attempt to obscure this Court’s power, Epstein cites Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So.2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993), as rejecting plaintiff’s motion to prohibit a defendant from transferring assets. Mem. in Opp.

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

er, in her First Amended Complaint (DE #38), Jane Doe does not seek an injunction nor does she assert a claim under Fla. Stat. §726.101 et seq. See Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So. 2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a party must ''file suit under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act" to enjoin frau

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

leges the defendant may be dissipating assets; a judgment for money damages is adequate and injunctive relief is improper) (citations omitted). The Lawhon court also noted that the order was similar to a pit-judgment writ of attachment. 611 So. 2d at 1368. "A writ of attachment cannot issue unless the