Epstein Secrets

Related Case No. 08-80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

ted Case No. 08-80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

uired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privile

ue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300

ted Case No. 08- 80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

d testimony and information that may, directly or indirectly, furnish Plaintiff a clue or link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute him. Rudy- Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution

Related Case No. 08- 80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

ted Case No. 08- 80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

quired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privil

ims that I've settled cases for $200-million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of serious sum of money, which is outrageous. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. How much have you settled claims for? MR. PIKE: going to instruct you not to answer that question. MR. SCAROLA: And the basis of that instruc

treet Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 facsimile EFTA00582842 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Es . • Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er, Es . • Atterbury, Goldberger, & We

l case. In re EFTA00582836 Carp, 340 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 2003); Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). See also Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000) ("The Baxter holding is not a blanket rule that allows adverse inferences to be drawn from invocations of the p