Epstein Secrets

BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________ ___;/ DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (dated 03/23/09) 14] 023/031 D

unsel, and hereby files this Motion for Injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, for appointment 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, for the reasons explained in the accompanying supporting

ork Time, July 1, 2008, at A2 ("Over the weekend Jeffrey E. Epstein, who after years of advising billionair

ork Time, July 1, 2008, at A2 ("Over the weekend Jeffrey E. Epstein, who after years of advising billionaire

IS ASSETS. As noted in the material facts above, defendant Epstein is currently making fraudulent transfers of his

t an adverse inference to be drawn from exercise of the privilege does not implicate the policy considerations underlying the privilege." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.308, 335 (1976). An adverse inference is entirely justified in this case. Epstein has remained silent when asked such straightforward req

s. V. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DEFENDANT'S HEALTH CARE INFORMATION IN DISCOVERY A. Interrogatory at Issue "Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein's health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physician,

to Plaintiff's discovery requests. - 1 - EFTA00728201 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 16 II. EPSTEIN'S BLANKET ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS INSUFFICIENT Defendant's response to each and every

cceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in a

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPE

ame in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Response: Defend

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 adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DEFENDANT’S HEALTH CARE INFORMATION IN DISCOVERY A. Interrogatory at Issue “Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein’s health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physician,

e, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a “blanket” refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Epstein’s Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in a civil case,3 the Fifth Amendment’s “protection must be confined to instances where the witness has

ceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Epstein’s Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in a

t Issue “Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein’s health care providers in the past (10)

sertion 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 adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 1 of 24 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON ----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintif

HNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON I Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 2 of 24 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra/Johnson Epstein's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 2 of24 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plainti

majority of Mr. Cassell's assertions in his affidavit are based on a 2005 Vanity Fair article (the "2005 Vanity Fair Article"). See Vicky Ward, "The Talented Mr. Epstein," Vanity Fair <http://vickyward.com/wordpress/archives/30>, (January 24, 2005; accessed June 24, 2009). Mr. Cassell's affidavit is essentially a

Weinstein .... " See Vicky Ward, "You Will Have Jeffrey Epstein to Kick Around!" Vanity Fair <http://www

equiring the complainant to produce evidence in support of its allegations would impose too great a cost and exceed the authorization of Baxter [v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)]." See LaSalle Bank Lake View, 54 F.3d at 391; see also National Acceptance v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924, 931-32 (7th Cir. 1983)

s. V. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DEFENDANT'S HEALTH CARE INFORMATION IN DISCOVERY A. Interrogatory at Issue "Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein's health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physician,

to Plaintiff's discovery requests. - 1 - EFTA00222502 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 16 II. EPSTEIN'S BLANKET ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS INSUFFICIENT Defendant's response to each and every

cceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in a

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPE

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 adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION

mination That Is Insufficient 1. Defendant Cannot Rely on its Blanket Objections to Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a “blanket privilege” to discovery under the Fifth Amendment, even though he has repeated the identical objection t

o Interrogatories on Fifth Amendment Grounds Defendant Epstein insists that he has not asserted a “blanket privi

rawn in a civil case from a defendant’s refusal to testify or respond to discovery by invoking the privilege against self incrimination. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-20 (1976). He instead asserts that there is a “recognized exception” that applies in a case where the adverse inference is the s

t 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'13'2009 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN! Defendant. JANE DOE

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 $15 MILLION BOND TO SECURE POTENTIAL JUDGMENT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, submi

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff,

requiring the complainant to produce evidence in support of its allegations would impose too great a cost and exceed the authorization of Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)]." See LaSalle Bank Lake View, 54 F.3d at 391; see also National Acceptance v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924, 931-32 (7th Cir. 1983)

ugh his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Epstein seeks Summary Judgment on the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution set forth in Brad Edwards’ Fourth Amended Counterclaim. Each of th

id adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); Accord, Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. at 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian.

Epstein. Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a nexual preference for young children. Depos

owing specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein’s required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (“The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party

Epstein, Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Depos

g her vagina, inserting his fingers and civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian.

tz (attached hereto as Exhibit “H”), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein’s witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER” On August 21, 2007, FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards traveled to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a f

Capp, Esquire Mediation, Inc. Regions Financial Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Edwards, Bradley adv. Epstein Our File No.: 291874 Dear Mr. Capp: Despite the total absence of competent evidence to demonstrate that Bradley Edwards participated in any fraud aga

File No.: 291874 Dear Mr. Capp: Despite the total absence of competent evidence to demonstrate that Bradley Edwards participated in any fraud against Jeffrey Epstein, and in the face of uncontrovertible evidence demonstrating the propriety of every aspect of Edwards' involvement in the prosecution of legitimate cl

id adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian.