Epstein Secrets

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)

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

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)

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

g 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 and utilitarian.

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

id 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 and utilitarian.

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

id 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 and utilitarian.