Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00093.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 27 Cassell Decl., § 21(h). Mr. Cassell’s assumption would be laughable, were not so insidious and improper. 28. In the first place, even a second-year law student knows that adverse inferences can only be drawn against a party who either invokes the Fifth Amendment in a civil case him or herself, or controls the witness who does so (as in an employer-employee relationship). See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1997). Obviously, I have never refused to answer questions about Ms. Giuffre’s absurd and false allegations against me—TI have repeatedly denied them outright, under oath—and I exercise no control over any of Mr. Epstein’s associates who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege. There is absolutely no legal basis for an “adverse inference” to be drawn against me by virtue of the privilege invocation by people I barely know and do not control. 29. More importantly, Mr. Cassell’s “reliance” on this invocation is, itself, based on a distortion. The fact is, the three women—Sarah Kellen, Adriana Mucinska, and Nadia Marcinkova—all asserted their Fifth Amendment privileges when answering every single question posed to them in their depositions, not solely in response to questions about me. For example, here is this exchange from the deposition of Ms. Kellen: Q: Did you ever meet Bill Clinton? A [Kellen]: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. Q: Did you ever fly with these three gentlemen and Jeffrey Epstein to Africa on Jeffrey Epstein’s 727 airplane? A: At the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 13