Epstein Secrets

A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax:

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

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)

that Plaintiff’s interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amen

criminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Mem

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

f 24 Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. ounse or ►e t 'ri Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

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)

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.

ng the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer, namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed Sarah Kellen against cooperating against him as well. 21. | Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution o

” — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (f) flight logs showed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and Adriana Mucinska, -- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein’s that were closely connected to Epstein’s child exploitation and se

tegories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (f) flight logs showed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and Adriana Mucinska, -- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein’s that were closely connected to Epstein’s child exploitation and sexual ab

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.

the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer, namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed Sarah Kellen against cooperating against him as well. 21. | Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately led to the execution o

FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed Sarah Kellen against cooperating against him as well. 21. | E