Epstein Secrets

actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 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

#16); See 20 EFTA00081201 Case 9:08-cv-8078gn3asiw 2a-c1.?60Verv iiecilif 4qp iRocistal..21c/M5 Page 23 of deposition of Epstein's housekeeper Louella Rabuyo, October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #I7); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene Morrison, October 6, 2009, page

3 of deposition of Epstein's housekeeper Louella Rabuyo, October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Depositi

ment #16) See deposition of Epstein's housekeeper Louella Rabuyo, October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17.25 (Depositio

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

girls for him to abuse), Larry Visoski (Epstein’s personal pilot), Dave Rogers (Epstein’s personal pilot), Larry Harrison (Epstein’s personal pilot), Louella Rabuyo (Epstein’s housekeeper), Nadia Marcinkova (Epstein’s live-in sex slave), Ghislaine Maxwell (manager of Epstein’s affairs and businesses), Mark

ent #16); See deposition of Epstein's housekeeper Louella Rabuyo, October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Depositio

l 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 o