Epstein Secrets

O: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 6 Cassell, Esq., that Jane Doe initially filed. To the extent that any of the information provided in the Cassell affidavit was hearsay, that problem has now disappeared in view of the Declaration signed by Epstein that Jane Doe is providing to the Court. The

[email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz ahorow

must provide some kind of “independent evidence” of his fraudulent transfers in order to gain the inference of fraudulent transfers. The first is Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11th Cir. 1991), in which Plaintiffs who had filed a frivolous lawsuit appealed from a district court decision grantin

ovided any evidence that the Court should not draw an adverse inference – or, indeed, any evidence at all in opposition to her motion. Accordingly, Avirgan is not on point and certainly does not suggest that Jane Doe needs to provide some sort of independent evidence to obtain an adverse inference.1

eavily on the affidavit Jane Doe's own counsel. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell, Esq., attached as Exhibit A to the Injunction Motion (DE #165). Mr. Cassell's affidavit is riddled with hearsay, speculation, conjecture and unsupported assumptions and does not contain one material "fact" based on his pers

est Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. ProHac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plain

lent] billing ... which in tum ensures that the proposed adverse inferences, should the jury choose to draw them, are not unreliable." Id. See also Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that "the negative inference to be drawn from the assertion of the fifth amendment does not s

sel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 ounse or amttj s In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jac

eavily on the affidavit Jane Doe's own counsel. ate Affidavit of Paul Cassell, Esq., attached as Exhibit A to the Injunction Motion (DE #165). Mr. Cassell's affidavit is riddled with hearsay, speculation, conjecture and unsupported assumptions and does not contain one material "fact" based on his pers

inferences drawn from Fifth-Amendment-protected silence are treated as a substitute for the need for evidence on an ultimate issue of fact," citing Avirgan, supra). As belabored throughout this memorandum, Jane Doe cites no independent evidence that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. Accordi