Epstein Secrets

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's Injunction Motion Page 5 of24 relief requested by Jane Doe. For the following reasons, the Court must deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. II. JANE DOE'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IS BASED ON SPECULATION AND HEARSAY AND CONTAINS NO MATERIAL "FACTS" Jane Doe's "Statement of Material Facts" relies h

JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $1

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 (

in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction 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. Flo

ane Doe's Request for Admissions attached as Exhibit C to Injunction Motion (DE #165). Based on this unsupported presumption of fraudulent transfer, Jane Doe asks the Court to impose significant and unjustified restraints on Epstein's assets. Simply put, Jane Doe is improperly seeking assurance she will b

rse inference would be wholly unreliable and is clearly impermissible under the instant circumstances. Additionally, granting the relief sought by Jane Doc based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir.

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

, Defendant I ------------- CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15

WILLIAM AND MARCIA RICKMAN REVOCABLE TRUST BAXTER,LAURA RUKEYSER,SUSAN C MIKUS,WILLIA

QUINN,OLIVER H LOCKER,NANCY OWEN,JANE D CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD KELLER,MICHAEL

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

F FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

is . . . evidence of the most persuasive character." United States ex rd. Biloktanskyl. Tod. 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923) (Brandeis, J.), quoted in Baxter". Pahnigiano, 425 U.S 308, 319 (1976). And that silence takes on an even more sinister cast when combined with the fact that Epstein's sexual intere

court in Doe'. Epstein, No. 9:08- cv-80I19-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Brunel's attorney asked counsel for Jane Doe to postpone the scheduled deposition date. Jane Doe's counsel agreed, and then Brunel's attorney cancelled the rescheduled deposition date. Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside the count

tion case, read questions to the jury that my client took the Fifth Amendment to and draw a negative inference therefrom. The US Supreme Court in Baxter -- that's the case -- that's the Fifth Amendment case -- it says, "It's key that there's independent evidence existing of the fact to which the pa

st line. "RRA and the attorneys in the civil actions" -- Please remember, the civil action is a defined term in the complaint. It's L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe's claims -- "needed to create a fiction that included extraordinary damages. However, the actual facts behind her action would never support such e

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

rds filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, L.M. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”’). 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit

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

ards filed a civil sot against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, LM. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”). 3 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit

hstein's Ponzi scheme had been widely publicized. In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any

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