Epstein Secrets

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. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the conseque

may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting.” Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). 2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010567 --- PAGE BREAK --- using a vibrator and he also paid he

pe the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege - at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4* Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, «Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv.

may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege - at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4* Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, «Silence is often evidence of the mos

the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecut

may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting.” Fraser v. Security and INV. Corp, 615 So. 2d. 841, 842 (Fla. 4" DCA 1993). The adverse inferences drawn from Epstein’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment unde