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

e and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this '7.3day of March, 2009. Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 [email protected] mpike@bclcl

[email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia isid [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsbe rg@pod h u

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)

sts the Court deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. By: ----'--'--'::;_:_;::..,.._---1-r:...µ..- ROBERT D. CRITT , JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 DAVID A. YAREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing

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

D Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 11 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 Respectfully su2 tted, By: ROBERT RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Ba No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/5

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)

oing reasons, Epstein respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 DAVID A. YAREMA, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 12492 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing