Epstein Secrets

lved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the fe

itigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing Edwards' clients intended to pursue an appeal of that

does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in respqmLwprobative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A pa

ttlement Conference, or in the Alternative, Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation, Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-CV-80893 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2010) (Marra, J.) (doc. #168) attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Notably, Epstein sought this settlement conference — and ultimately made his payments as a result

there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein simply chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doct

not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil 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

he is transferring them to. Cf. Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., L.L.C., 2007 WL 4482611 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Marra, J.) (refusing to 15 EFTA00234885 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 16 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MA

e to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from exercise of the privilege does not implicate the policy considerations underlying the privilege." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.308, 335 (1976). An adverse inference is entirely justified in this case. Epstein has remained silent when asked such straightforward requ