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

ue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300

ted Case No. 08-80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

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 (

for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

-80993, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Pro Hac Vice [email protected] Co-counsel f

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

The Last Word with O'Donnell — MSNBC (Jan. 8, 2015). Following these statements, on January 6, 2015, attorneys Edwards and Cassell, represented by Jack Scarola, Esq., filed a defamation action in Broward County Circuit Court. See Exhibit 11 at 1117 (alleging Dershowitz has "initiated a massive public media

ged information you would seek from me, I would then be able to decide whether to cooperate." See Exhibit 12 (emphasis added). On August 23, 2011, Scarola sent a letter to Dershowitz, explaining that there was no intent to inquire about attorney-client information, but adding: "[wje do, however, have r

(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

ims that I've settled cases for $200-million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of serious sum of money, which is outrageous. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. How much have you settled claims for? MR. PIKE: going to instruct you not to answer that question. MR. SCAROLA: And the basis of that instruc

treet Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 facsimile EFTA00582842 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Es . • Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er, Es . • Atterbury, Goldberger, & We

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

0792813 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Scarola? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: If I need them, I will ask for them. I have several bankers boxes' worth of materials here. I don't nee

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

ber U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010607 --- PAGE BREAK --- SERVICE LIST Christo

Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013360 --- PAGE BREAK -

ber U , 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: 42 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013360 --- PAGE BREAK --- SERVICE LIST Christo

9 NEST BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 Spanish SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY eterna DIALLAHASSEE OFFICE: TH

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