Epstein Secrets

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

Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Go-counsel for Plaintiff BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-830

cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 40 of 41 05/78/2008 76:02 FAX 5615153148 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Pages BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 141030/03 7 effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as

true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this '7.3day of March, 2009. Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 rcri

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

E 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 - 11 - Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 81 Ent

(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

. I don't understand it. Explain it to me. MR. PIKE: To the extent you can answer that question without disclosing my conversations with you or Mr. Critton's conversations with you, as well as my work product, you can answer the question. THE WITNESS: I believe that as part of the scheme to defraud inv

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 (

n Motion Page 22 of 24 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Epstein respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 DAVID A. YAREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 Certificate of Service