Epstein Secrets

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

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.

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

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

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

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

upon the basis of reliance on Fifth Amendment; there must be other evidence. Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Lasalle Banks Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995); National Acceptance Co.of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1963) (assertion of Fifth Amendment in an answ

pstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 106. Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case. 107. Jeffrey Epstein 5th Amendment Speech. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether o

n for summary judgment." Fid. Funding of Cal., Inc. v. Reinhold, 79 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D. N.Y. 1997). As explained in LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F. 3d 387, 391 n.7 (7th Cir. 1995): Treating Segubans' silence as a separate piece of evidence supporting the Bank's motion for summary judgme

perfield and Bill Richardson for deposition en 70-75); purported relevancy of pilot and flight logs to show interstate airplane travel in support of Jane Doe's Federal Rico claims and punitive damages (911 77-79); Epstein's interview with a New York newspaper reporter (9191 80-81); Epstein's alleged threat