Epstein Secrets

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,

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

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

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)

n FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 15 of 16 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/ Adam D. Horowitz - 16

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

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

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

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

. 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

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)

ct Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger Es . Robert D. Critton, Esq. s/ Adam D. Horowit

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

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.

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

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.

)-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

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.

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