Epstein Secrets

(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

confident that once we do, I will be able to answer your questions with more specificity. Id. at 83; lines 11-22. Q. Have you ever socialized with Tommy Mottola? A. This is the type of questions where people who have nothing to do with this case whatsoever have been brought into the case by Mr. Edwards in a

ess by Mr. Edwards, his partners, Scott Rothstein, who sits in jail, in an attempt to imperil my friendships. But, yes, I have socialized with Mr. Mottola. Id. at 91; lines 11-19. Q. Have you had a social relationship with David Copperfield? A. As a reaction to, once again, the abusive discovery proc

r the question: “Have +i ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?”

wards in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Edwards had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information (Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Fac

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

the question: “Have you ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?”

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

0 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010595 --- PAGE BREAK --- 73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhi

former President Clinton had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to illusionist David Copperfiel

mation. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Copp

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