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

ired to prove harm. See, e.g., Bortell v. White Mountains Ins. Group, Ltd., 2 So.3d 1041, 1047 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2009); S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4'h Dist. Ct. App. 2010). Epstein was not harmed by Rothstein's misrepresentations to other people that he knew nothing abo

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

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 Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909 (Fla. Dig. Ct. App. 2010) 18 Saxton v. Arkansas Gazette Co., 264 Ark. 133 (1978) 29 Smith v. Moore, 31 III3d 628, 818 2d 603 (2

plaintiff suffered damage.” S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla, 4" Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

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