Epstein Secrets

6500 Fax: 561-515-2610 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804 [email protected] [email protected] Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

ccilaw.com Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

st to a defendant of treating his claim of privilege as an admission would be to excuse a plaintiff of presenting proof of his claim; "[ w ]e think Baxter indicates that this is too great a cost"). As Jane Doe fails to present any independent evidence of fraudulent transfer, the Court must deny her re

ge without 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

e 21 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON SERVICE LIST Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia isid [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill ip

ct Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton,

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 strai

ourt, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton

ed on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 10 of 11 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein

e may be drawn 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 infe

. Case No. Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterb Goldbe r & Weiss, P.A. Counse or

Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leo ' .ld, P.A. ounse 08-08804 or awl in •e ate. Case No. Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterb Goldbe r & Weiss, P.A. Counse or De en ant Je i rey pstein EFTA00221952

ge without 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 (

ROLA: Q. Which lawyers? A. Burman Critton, Jack Goldberger, and a bunch of the others, sir. Id at 116; lin

ys prepare responses to wildly irrelevant discovery in various locations at a minimum, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Which lawyers? A. Burman Critton, Jack Goldberger, and a bunch of the others, sir. Id at 116; lines 8-19. Q. I want as much information as you can give me about this element of damage which you c

(1st Cir. 2003); Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). See also Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000) ("The Baxter holding is not a blanket rule that allows adverse inferences to be drawn from invocations of the privilege against self-incrimination under all cir

or touching 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 an

topher E. Knight, Esq. Joseph L. Ackerman, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger et al. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. Law Offices of Marc 8S. Nur

lagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger et al. 250 Australian

s 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. at 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical an

)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire [email protected]; Tonja Haddad Col

topher E. Knight, Esq. Joseph L. Ackerman, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger et al. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. Law Offices of Marc S. Nuri

s 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 an

ed rejection. In addition, as will be privately explained at mediation, Epstein's day of public reckoning is inevitable. Cc: Bradley Edwards, Esquire Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Fred Haddad, Esquire Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire i SEES SIN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029323

inevitable. Cc: Bradley Edwards, Esquire Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Fred Haddad, Esquire Marc S. Nurik, Esqu