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

ut Jeffrey Epstein, he is a billionaire and owner of a private island in the Virgin Island (Little St. James Island), and was a financial trader at Bear Steams. He then founded his own financial management firm, J. ..-- EXHIB\1 ~ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009

s and Emery Air Freight. 6. According to the Vanity Fair article, before working with Wexner and Hoffenberg, defendant Jeffrey Epstein worked with Beam Stearns. He left the firm very suddenly in 1981 after being questioned by S.E.C. investigators in an insider trading scandal involving several Italian and

equiring 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)

to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 7 of24 Italian and Swiss investors. Id. '1[6. This statement is obviously intended to associate Epstein with Bear Sterns, a tarnished financial institution apparently involved in questionable international transactions in the 1980's, to somehow suggest Epstein is frau

wenty-eight years ago, in 1981, and that Epstein was merely questioned because the SEC believed "Epstein had information on insider trading at Bear Sterns." The foregoing assertions in Mr. Cassell's affidavit have absolutely no bearing on Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. Then, Mr. Cassell goes beyond the

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

AM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 11 potential sources of information and to produce those sources.” Id. at 41. In Bear Sterns, the Court explained that the facts of Hubbell were unique and do not support a blanket, all-encompassing assertion by a witness or party that the

declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his assertion does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. Id. at 684. In Bear Sterns, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet his burden in asserting the privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for pro

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)

his untenable connection. Similarly, Mr. Cassell states that Epstein was questioned by the SEC in 1981 regarding an insider trading investigation at Bear Steams involving EFTA00221934 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 7 of 24 Jane Doe v. EDSICia Case No. 08-CV-

tely twenty-eight years ago, in 1981, and that Epstein was merely questioned because the SEC believed "Epstein had information on insider trading at Bear Sterns." The foregoing assertions in Mr. Cassell's affidavit have absolutely no bearing on Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. Then, Mr. Cassell goes beyond the