Epstein Secrets

SCHULHOF,MARK DESLAURIERS,PAUL J FRASER,RONALD BYNUM,T EDWARD KLEIN,GEORGE

UEST,WINSTON SHULMAN,ALAN BALLINGER,WYNNE S CANTOR,IRIS QUICK,THOMAS C B

y not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, "'Silence is often evidence of the

Hall v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same). Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party

may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting.” Fraser v. Security and INV. Corp, 615 So. 2d. 841, 842 (Fla. 4" DCA 1993). The adverse inferences drawn from Epstein’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment unde

nt. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966), It is not enough for the —— party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979) (same). | Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party