Epstein Secrets

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

of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(iv): With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(v): With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis

ton had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(iv): With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(v): With regard to illusi

mendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties "when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them...." Fraser v. Sec. & Inv. Corp., 615 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (quoting Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 47 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1976)(

confident that once we do, I will be able to answer your questions with more specificity. Id. at 83; lines 11-22. Q. Have you ever socialized with Tommy Mottola? A. This is the type of questions where people who have nothing to do with this case whatsoever have been brought into the case by Mr. Edwards in a

ess by Mr. Edwards, his partners, Scott Rothstein, who sits in jail, in an attempt to imperil my friendships. But, yes, I have socialized with Mr. Mottola. Id. at 91; lines 11-19. Q. Have you had a social relationship with David Copperfield? A. As a reaction to, once again, the abusive discovery proc

ay 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. App. 1993). EFTA00725999 occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach,

and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶14. 73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exh

ay 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. App. 1993). EFTA00081182 Case 9:08.cv_807agg3498mot 2rKali564rgerNeocp0F4lapiyocisstggy aig1

and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶14. 73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law finn of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exh

may not trample upon the rights of others nd then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser.. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). EFTA00188866 Case 9:08-cv-807Ni Vam aKW 2WpeeerNar rai Rmiyocisstg21420n915 Page

and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at /14. 73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exh

r the question: “Have +i ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?”

wards in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Edwards had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information (Exhibit “A” — Edwards’ Statement of Undisputed Fac

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

the question: “Have you ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?”

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. App. 1993). 2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010567 --- PAGE BREAK --- using a vibrator and he also paid he

0 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010595 --- PAGE BREAK --- 73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhi

former President Clinton had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to illusionist David Copperfiel

mation. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Copp

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* Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, «Silence is often evidence of the mos