Epstein Secrets

t 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 straightforward req

Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsbe rg@pod h u rst.com Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] 21 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009

sertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege . . .” United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Baxler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) (“the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in

ief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: March 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. At

rawn 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 inference is the s

Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents. Dated: April 20, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MER

assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ..." United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Basler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) ("the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in

has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January 2009: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberge

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 (7th Cir. 1983)

sition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 23 of 24 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No