Epstein Secrets

, Exhibit "B"; Exhibit "F"; "Exhibit"J"; "N" and See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶13. 72. Edwards provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Dershowitz is believed to have been friends with Epstein for many years; (b) in one news a

hibit "N" at ¶13. 72. Edwards provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Dershowitz is believed to have been friends with Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The only pe

dwards provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. Edwards possessed a legitimate basi

does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in respqmLwprobative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A pa

l basis for believing Mr. Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Und

of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(iii): With regard to former President Bill Clinton,

uted Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had

not forbid 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

ivities on EPSTEIN's aircraft (¶ 32(1)); sending letters asking for deposition dat4 for the deposition of TV personality Donald Trump, law professor Alan Dcrshowitz, magician David Copperfield, and other individuals who were without any knowledge of relevant eviarnce about EPSTEIN's sex offenses (¶ 32(2)); subp

ment that EPSTEIN abused underage children everywhere, including his airplanes, and that EP' TEIN's pilots and certain other individuals, including Dershowitz, had information relevant to EPSTEIN's repeated abuse of underage girls. mo As yet another example, EPSTEINalleges that EDWARDS had no basis for fi

ion of TV personality Donald Trump, law professor Alan Dcrshowitz, magician David Copperfield, and othe

plaintiff's answers can be used against him through adverse inferences. See, e.g , In re J.E.B., 971 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2007) (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) ("[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civ I actions when they refuse to testify in res

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. k)Idberger aewpa.com Robert D.

e to permit 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 requ