Epstein Secrets

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 (

erted his Fifth Amendment privilege is response to Jane Doe's Request for Admissions 6, 21 and 22. See Epstein's Response to Jane 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 impo

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

ted that it possessed information contradicting Reinhart's sworn affidavit. See DE 225.1 at 9-10, ¶¶ 43-45 ("in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that it possess information that Reinhart leamed confidential non-public information about the Epstein case and he disc

(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

egations in that Federal M. Complaint regarding oral sex with Epstein, though he blamed it on inadvertence. See Edwards's Responses to Requests for Admissions, attached hereto as "Exhibit C." This is also evidence upon which Epstein relied not only in the filing of his case against EFTA00582835 Edwards,