Epstein Secrets

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. A party may not trample upon the rights

ction may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3"I Dist. Court App. 1983). Here, Epstein is trying to do precisely what the "w

bid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them"); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200. 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). 21 DWI 15&45345v3 3070112-000042 EFTA00596475 In sum, Edwards has simply "failed to

o. Nov. 12, 1992) 24, 26 People v. Royster, 43 .U1758, 842 ad 12 (1st Dep't 2007) 26 Pugh v. Avis Rent A 1997 WL 669876 ( Oct. 28, 1997) 27 Rollins Burdick Hunter of N. Y., Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., 502 So.2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) 21 Russman v. Bd. of Ed., 260 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2001) 13 S&I Inve

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. A party may not trample upon the rights of

action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant’s defenses.” Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York, Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).. For the same reasons, Epstein should be precluded from advancing