EFTA00234871.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAIJOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80232-MARRAIJOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00234871 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 2 of 41 JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 6. Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80994-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80993-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 EFTA00234872 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 3 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. DOE II, CASE NO: 09-CV-80469-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendants. 3 EFTA00234873 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 4 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO: 09-CV-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO: 09-CV-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $15 MILLION BOND, TO SECURE POTENTIAL JUDGMENT COMES NOW Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby files this Motion for Injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, for appointment of a receiver to take charge of Epstein's property, and to post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment in this case, for the reasons explained in the accompanying supporting memorandum. Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this memorandum in support of her motion for appointment of a receiver to take charge of 4 EFTA00234874 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 5 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's property and to post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment in this case. Epstein is a billionaire who recently has been fraudulently transferring his assets overseas and elsewhere with the intent to prevent Jane Doe (and possibly numerous other victims of his sexual abuse) from satisfying any judgment they might obtain against him. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 guarantees Jane Doe all available state law pre-judgment remedies to respond to these fraudulent transfers. Florida has adopted the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (FUFTA), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 et seq., which gives the Court power to appoint a receiver to take charge of assets that are being fraudulently transferred. Given the serious allegations of sexual abuse against Jane Doe when she was a minor, this Court should appoint a receiver to control and account for Epstein's assets and direct the receiver to post a $15 million bond with this Court on behalf of Epstein to satisfy any judgment that Jane Doe might obtain. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 1. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is the defendant in this action, which involves claims by Jane Doe that Epstein repeatedly sexually abused her when she was a minor. Because of the egregious and repeated acts of sexual abuse committed by Epstein, her complaint seeks damages in excess of $50 million, including punitive damages. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 2. 2. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is extremely wealthy. According to reputable press reports in the New York Times and elsewhere, he is a billionaire. He is also the owner 5 EFTA00234875 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 6 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON of a Caribbean island in the Virgin Islands (Little St. James Island), where he serves as a financial advisor to other billionaires. He was previously a financial trader at Bear Steams. It is therefore reasonable to infer that he has a great deal of financial sophistication. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶ 2 Attachment A to this Pleading. 3. According to reputable press reports, before his recent incarceration (discussed below), he frequently traveled around the globe in the company of such famous persons as President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. It is therefore reasonable to infer that he has international contacts, including international financial contacts. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶ 3. 4. Over the past year, approximately 25 civil suits have been filed in Florida state courts and Florida federal courts raising similar allegations of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein against minor girls. These complaints seek damages comparable to those sought by Jane Doe in this case. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶ 4. Accordingly, Epstein has currently pending against him lawsuits seeking more than $1 billion in damages. He thus faces financial win. Id. 5. On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to one count of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and one count of felony solicitation to prostitution before the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail. 6. Since those guilty pleas, he has been incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Detention facility. However, he has also been allowed out on a "work release" program, where he works at managing his financial interests. Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶ 5. 6 EFTA00234876 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 7 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMOHNSON 7. Given the substantial claims against him, his international connections, and other information, Jane Doe's counsel has been gravely concerned that Epstein will fraudulently transfer all of his assets to overseas locations to defeat collection of any judgment that she might obtain against him. Accordingly, as part of discovery in this case, Jane Doe propounded requests for admissions by Epstein regarding whether he was fraudulently transferring assets. Rather than answering these requests for admission about on-going fraudulent transfers of his property, Jeffrey Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶ 6. 8. Jeffrey Epstein's net worth is greater than $1 billion. Jane Doe's First Request for Admissions (RFA's) #5, Attachment B to this Pleading; Epstein's Resp. to RFA's #5, Attachment C to this Pleading. 9. Since he was incarcerated, Jeffrey Epstein has, directly or indirectly (through the services or assistance of other persons) conveyed money and assets in an attempt to insulate and protect his money and assets from being captures in civil lawsuits filed against him. Epstein's Resp. to RFAs #6. 10. Epstein owns and controls real estate property in foreign countries, including the Caribbean. Epstein's Resp. to RFAs #7 and #8. 11. Epstein is currently moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of federal and Florida courts. Epstein's Resp. to RFA #21. 12. Epstein is transferring these assets with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him in this and other similar cases. Epstein's Resp. to RFA #22. 7 EFTA00234877 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 8 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 13. Epstein could currently post a $15 million bond to satisfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. Epstein's Resp. to RFA #23. 14. Epstein has blocked all discovery, in this and other related cases, regarding his assets. Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶¶ 7, 8. ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN IS FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRING HIS ASSETS. As noted in the material facts above, defendant Epstein is currently making fraudulent transfers of his assets. In particular, he is currently moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of Federal and Florida courts, and is doing so with the specific intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him in this and other similar cases. Statement of Material Facts #11 and #12. Because these material facts rest, in part, on Epstein's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it is pertinent to note that Jane Doe is entitled to an adverse inference from his invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights when asked whether he was fraudulently transferring his assets overseas. Jane Doe propounded requests for admission to Epstein that asked specifically about on-going fraudulent transfers of assets. In response, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer incriminating questions. Of course, Epstein's "invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege, like the assertion of any privilege, stands in stark opposition to the otherwise liberal discovery rules, and 'undermine[s] to some degree the trial system's capacity to ascertain the truth." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting Robert Heidt, The 8 EFTA00234878 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 9 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Conjurer's Circle — The Fifth Amendment Privilege in Civil Cases, 91 YALE L.J. 1062, 1082 (1982)). As a result, where a witness refuses to testify in a civil case on Fifth Amendment grounds, the permissible inference is that the witness's testimony, had it been given, "would not have been favorable to the claim." United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 629 n.4 (11th Cir. 1986). Of course, the Fifth Amendment is not violated by such an inference. The concerns animating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination are not in play "Din a civil suit involving only private parties" because "no party brings to the battle the awesome powers of the government, and therefore 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 requests for admissions: • Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you. RFA's #6. • You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. RFA's #21. • You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against you in this or similar cases. RFA's #22. 9 EFTA00234879 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 10 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON The silence in the face of these questions speaks far louder than words. As Justice Brandeis recognized long ago, "[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those situations. In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action for a court to take when a litigant blocks legitimate discovery through exercise of a Fifth Amendment invocation. "[W]hile there is no doubt that a witness is entitled to assert the privilege in a civil case, it is also clear that an adverse inference based on a refusal to answer in a civil case is an appropriate remedy, as it provides some relief for the civil litigant whose case is unfairly prejudiced by a witness' assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege without placing the witness in the 'cruel trilemma' of choosing among incrimination, perjury, or contempt." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit has not hesitated to support district courts that draw an adverse inference from silence. For example, in United States v. Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 1996), the district court drew an adverse inference when claimants to real property refused to answer questions regarding the property. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that decision, explaining that "[t]his Court has held . . . that the trier of fact may take an adverse inference against parties to a civil action refusing to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. Id. at 1129 (citing United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 629 n.4 (11th Cir. 1986)). Similarly, in Arango v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, 115 F.3d 922, 926 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit explained that "the First Amendment 10 EFTA00234880 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 11 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON does not forbid adverse inferences against civil litigants . . . who assert the privilege against self-incrimination." Here an adverse inference is entirely appropriate. In addition to Epstein's refusal to answer questions, there are strong circumstantial reasons for believing he is hiding his assets. As explained above, see Statement of Material Facts #1 through #3, Epstein clearly has the means to hide his assets — he is a sophisticated financial advisor. And given that the sexual abuse lawsuits brought against Epstein threaten him with financial ruin — he has a clear motive for hiding his substantial assets. Finally, Epstein is currently on work release, running his financial affairs from his office — giving him the clear opportunity to make the necessary arrangements to move his assets to overseas or other unreachable locations. Thus, there is a "perfect circumstantial evidence case that [Epstein] ha[s] means, motive, and opportunity" to fraudulently transfer assets. See United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding probable cause for an arrest based solely on a showing of means, motive, and opportunity). The fact that this evidence is circumstantial rather than direct proof of the transfers is irrelevant, because "'circumstantial evidence is not less probative than direct evidence, and, in some cases is even more reliable.'" United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020, 1026 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1421 (7th Cir. 1994)). For all these reasons, the Court should conclude that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. 11 EFTA00234881 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 12 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON II. JANE DOE IS ENTITELD TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT AS ADOPTED BY FLORIDA In light of Epstein's fraudulent asset transfers, Jane Doe is entitled to pre- judgment remedies to protect her against Epstein's efforts to block her from satisfying the judgment she is likely to ultimately obtain in this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 guarantees Jane Doe during the course of this suit "all remedies providing for seizure of person or property for the purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action" that are "available under the circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the court is held." The Rule goes on to provide that "[t]he remedies thus available include arrest, attachment, garnishment, replevin, sequestration, and other corresponding or equivalent remedies, however designated and regardless of whether by state procedure the remedy is ancillary to an action or must be obtained by an independent action." This "long-settled federal law provid[es] that in all cases in federal court , . . state law is incorporated to determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of person or property to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered." Rosen v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, under this Rule, this Court looks to Florida law to determine Jane Doe's rights to pre-judgment relief. To prevent fraudulent transfers of assets before judgment, Florida has adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.101 et seq. Under the Florida's Uniform Transfer Act (FUFTA), courts are broadly empowered to take action to block certain "fraudulent transfers" of assets. Jane Doe is accordingly entitled to invoke the remedies under this Act if Epstein is making "fraudulent transfers" of his assets. 12 EFTA00234882 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 13 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON The Act defines a "fraudulent" transfer of assets as one made "[w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.105(1)(a). The FUFTA also contains a "quite broad" definition of "transfer." Nationsbank, N.A. v. Coastal Utilities, Inc., 814 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2002). It extends to "every mode, direct or indict, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a lien or other encumbrance." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.102(12). This "broad definition includes 'every' mode of disposing of an asset and does not limit the statute to direct transactions made by the debtor him/herself." Nationsbank, N.A. v. Coastal Utilities, Inc., 814 So.2d 1230. As noted above, Epstein is transferring his assets with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him in this and other similar cases, see Statement of Material Facts #12, and therefore is plainly covered by the Act. The FUFTA extends is protections to "creditors" - such as Jane Doe, who is a "creditor" of Epstein's within the meaning of the Act. The FUFTA extends its protections not merely to judgment creditors, but more widely to future creditors who have a "claim," including a "claim" that has not yet been reduced to judgment. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.102(2) (defining a claim as a "right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured."); Fla. Stat. Ann. § (defining creditor protected by the act as "a person who has a claim"). See generally Freeman v. First Union Nat. Bank, 865 So.2d 1272, 1277 (Fla. 2004) (noting that the definition of 13 EFTA00234883 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 14 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON claim is "broadly constructed" under the FUFTA). This means that "as is universally accepted, as well as settled in Florida, a 'claim' under the Act may be maintained even though contingent and not yet reduced to judgment." Freeman, 865 at 1277 (internal quotations omitted). In Florida, then, "'tort claimants are as fully protected against fraudulent transfers as holders of absolute claims."' Id. at 1277 (quoting Money v. Powell, 139 So.2d 702, 703 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 1962). Jane Doe is, of course, a tort claimant against Epstein. For all these reasons, Jane is entitled to the full protections of the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. III. UNDER THE UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT, JANE DOE IS ENTITLED TO THE REMEDIES OF APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF EPSTEIN'S ASSETS, FILE AN ACCOUNTING OF THOSE ASSETS WITH THE COURT, AND TO POST A $15 MILLION BOND Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, this Court is given broad powers to prevent fraudulent transfers of assets. The remedies provided by the Act specifically include: 1. An injunction against further disposition by the debtor . . . of the asset transferred ... .; 2. Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee; or 3. Any other relief the circumstances may require. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.108(c). 14 EFTA00234884 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 • Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 15 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Jane Doe seeks one of these specifically provided remedies — namely, appointment of a receiver to take charge of Epstein's assets. Appointment of a receiver will serve three important goals: first, if a receiver has control of Epstein's assets, Epstein's ability to further transfer those assets will be blocked; second, the receiver can provide an accounting of Epstein's assets, allowing Jane Doe (and the Court) to take whatever other action may be appropriate; and, third, the receiver can post a bond of S15 million with the Court so that Jane Doe will have funds to satisfy any judgment that she might obtain. The Court should appoint a receiver to account for Epstein's assets. The appointment of a receiver is directly authorized by the FUFTA. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.108(c); see Freeman v. First Union Nat. Bank, 865 So.2d 1272, 1277 (Fla. 2004) (noting that appointment of a receiver is remedy provided by the FUFTA). A receiver is the only way to start to block further dissipation of assets — by, first, gaining control over Epstein's assets and then, second, making an accounting of what assets of Epstein's remain in this country or are otherwise subject to control by this Court. Given Epstein's Fifth Amendment invocations and other obstructions regarding any discovery concerning his assets, see Statement of Material Facts #14, it is currently impossible for Jane Doe to protect her interests in blocking Epstein's fraudulent transfers. Indeed, one of the other remedies specifically specified in the Act — "[ajn injunction against further disposition by the debtor . . . of the asset transferred" — is presumably unworkable given that there is no way to know what assets Epstein possesses, much less where 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-MARRA/JOHNSON apply any heightened pleading requirements to UFTA claims "[Oven this lack of access to information on the part of a plaintiff in a fraudulent transfer case"). Jane Doe therefore needs a receiver to account for Epstein's assets to the Court. The receiver should make a report to the Court regarding Epstein's assets so that Jane Doe can determine what additional further action is required. For example, Jane Doe might need to take action to set aside various transfers. But even now, it is clear that the receiver should take one additional step: Once a receiver is appointed and accounts for Epstein's assets, the receiver should post a $15 million bond on behalf of Epstein with the Clerk of the Court in order to satisfy any judgment that Jane Doe might obtain in this case. A $15 million bond is reasonable. First, given Epstein's tremendous net worth, he can post a $15 million bond without any financial or other difficulty. See Statement of Material Facts #13. Second, given the egregious acts of sexual abuse Epstein committed against Jane Doe (who was a minor at the time) — and the punitive damages claim present in this case — $15 million is a reasonable bond amount given the nature of the judgment that Jane Doe is likely to obtain at trial. Jane Doe seeks more than $50 million damages. See First Amended Complaint, ¶ 1. Her complaint alleges that Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual obsession for minor girls. Id. at ¶ 10. To satisfy that obsession, Epstein engaged in an elaborate scheme whereby his assistants recruited minor girls for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Id. at ¶ 11. Her complaint explains that: Beginning in approximately February 2003 and continuing until approximately June 2005, the defendant coerced and enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor [Jane 16 EFTA00234886 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 17 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Doe] in order to commit various acts of sexual misconduct against her. These acts included, but were not limited to, fondling and inappropriate and illegal sexual touching of the then minor [Jane Doe], sexual misconduct and masturbation of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in the presence of the then minor Plaintiff, and encouraging and coercing the then minor Plaintiff to become involved in prostitution. Id. at 1118. Jane Doe finally notes that in June 2009, Epstein entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution, for which Defendant Epstein was sentenced to 18 months incarceration in Palm Beach County jail to be followed by 12 months community control (house arrest). Id. at ¶ 22. Jane Doe has propounded various discovery requests regarding these allegations to Jeffrey Epstein. It is noteworthy that Epstein has asserted a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege to these requests, rather than provide answers. For example, Jane Doe has asked Epstein to admit that he committed sexual assault against Jane Doe when she was minor. Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions to Defendant Epstein 11. In response, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself. For all these reasons, directing the receiver to post a $15 million bond on behalf of Epstein is reasonable under the circumstances. The UFTA "also grants the court equity powers to remedy . . . fraud." Invo Florida, Inc. v. Somerset Venturer, Inc., 751 So.2d 1263, 1267 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2000). The FUFTA's provisions are "supplement(ed]" by "the principles of law and equity." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.111. It is well-settled that "[a]n equitable action requires equitable relief." Prince v. Tyler, 890 So.2d 246, 251 (Fla. 2004), and "equity will do what ought to 17 EFTA00234887 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 18 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON be done." Sterling v. Brevard County, 776 So.2d 281, 284 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 2000). The Court should therefore also exercise its equitable powers to impose the same remedies that Jane Doe requests. Of course, in equity, the Court considers the relative positions of the two claimants. Here, Jane Doe has presented substantial claims of sexual abuse against her while a minor, while Epstein (who pled guilty to felony charges involving such conduct) has taken the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about his sexual abuse of Jane Doe. If Jane Doe does not obtain the remedy that she is requesting, then Epstein may well be able to move all of his assets to unreachable locations, leaving her with a substantial tort claim and no possible way to satisfy it. On the other hand, appointing a receiver will not interfere with any legitimate interest of Epstein, particularly given his phenomenal wealth. When this Court proceeds in equity, it "will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy." Connell v. Mittendorf, 147 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. Ct. Apps. 1962). This case cries out for the Court to intercede and take action to avoid allowing a confessed and wealthy sex offender from concealing his assets and depriving his victims — including Jane Doe — from satisfying any judgment that they may well obtain against him. A receiver with control over Epstein's assets is a modest and entirely appropriate step to take given Epstein's actions. For the consideration of the Court, a proposed order adopting these remedies is attached to this pleading. 18 EFTA00234888 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 19 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, in view of the fraudulent transfers being made by Jeffrey Epstein to prevent Jane Doe from satisfying any judgment she might obtain in this case, the Court should appoint a receiver to take charge of Epstein's property and direct the receiver to provide the Court with an accounting of Epstein's assets and post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment that Jane Doe might obtain in this case. DATED this 19th day of June, 2009. Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre AC14 I OCfl And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Ll 19 EFTA00234889 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 20 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 19, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically filed Notices of Electronic Filing. s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards 20 EFTA00234890 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 21 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON SERVICE LIST Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. k)Idberger aewpa.com Robert D. Critton, Esq. rcritton(&.bciclaw.com Isidro Manual Garcia isidrociarcia bellsouth.net Jack Patrick Hill inhesearcvlaw.com Katherine Warthen Ezell KEzella,podhurst.com Michael James Pike MPikeebelclaw.com Paul G. Cassell casselloabciclaw.com Richard Horace Willits lawyerswillits@aol.com Robert C. Josefsberg riosefsbero@podhurst.com Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz sexabuseattomev.com Stuart S. Mermelstein ssmsexabuseattornev.com William J. Berger wberger@rra-law.com 21 EFTA00234891 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 22 of 41 AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE 1. I, Paul Cassell, have person knowledge of the matters set forth herein. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Utah since 1992. My office is located at the University of Utah College of Law, where I am a law professor. Along with other attorneys, I represent plaintiff Jane Doe in this matter. 2. It appears that defendant Jeffrey Epstein is an extremely wealthy individual. According to reputable press reports, his net worth is in the hundreds of millions of dollars - if not, indeed, a billion dollars. See, e.g., New York Time, July 1, 2008, at A2 ("Over the weekend Jeffrey E. Epstein, who after years of advising billionaires became a billionaire himself, left his estate on Little St. James Island, with its staff of 70 and its flamingo-stocked lagoon, boarded a private helicopter and flew to Florida. There, he turned himself in at the Palm Beach County jail and began serving 18 months for soliciting prostitution."). According to the Wikipedia entry about Jeffrey Epstein, he is a billionaire and owner of a private island in the Virgin Island (Little St. James Island), and was a financial trader at Bear Steams. He then founded his own financial management firm, J. EFTA00234892 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 23 of 41 Epstein and Col, later called Financial Trust Co., located on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Island. He reportedly only took billionaire clients. 3. Other attorneys and I have made repeated efforts to find published information about defendant Jeffrey Epstein in general and his financial dealings in particular. The most detailed published source of information about defendant Jeffrey Epstein that I have been able to locate is an article that was published in Vanity Fair by Vicky Ward. Vicky Ward is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, a contributor to CNBC, and a weekly columnist for the London Evening Standard. The article can be found in the internet at http://vickyward.comiwordpress/archives/30.1 4. According to the Vanity Fair article, defendant Jeffrey Epstein became wealthy by managing the financial assets of other billionaires. He reportedly limited his clients to those whose net worth was more than $1 billion. Unlike other fund managers, however, Epstein kept all his deals and clients secret (with one exception — billionaire Leslie Wexner — who Epstein claims was his mentor). He has great skills in trading in international currency markets, which helped him make money for himself and his clients. As a result, it is reasonable to infer that he EFTA00234893 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 24 of 41 has significant financial sophistication, including sophistication about the international transfer of financial instruments and other assets. 5. According to the Vanity Fair article, defendant Jeffrey Epstein's real mentor was not Leslie Wexner, but Steven Jude Hoffenberg, who was sent to federal prison for twenty years for bilking investors out of more than $450 million in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Epstein assisted Hoffenberg with (failed) takeover bids of Pan American World Airways and Emery Air Freight. 6. According to the Vanity Fair article, before working with Wexner and Hoffenberg, defendant Jeffrey Epstein worked with Beam Stearns. He left the firm very suddenly in 1981 after being questioned by S.E.C. investigators in an insider trading scandal involving several Italian and Swiss investors. 7. According to the Vanity Fair article, Epstein recently owned (and thus may still own) a Boeing 727 with a trading room. 8. Vicky Ward published a follow-up note to her earlier article in May 2008. It can be found at http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dailv/2008/05/vicky- EFTA00234894 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 25 of 41 ward-you.html. According to this note, rumors were circulating (to celebrities such as Dustin Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, and filmmaker Michael Mailer) that Epstein was moving all of his considerable assets to Israel. The note also indicated that, having written the earlier detailed article about Epstein, Ward was now frequently viewed as an "expert" on Epstein. 9. According to reputable press reports, Jeffrey Epstein has travelled internationally with Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew. See, e.g., The Daily Mail, Prince Andrew's Billionaire Friend is Accused of Preying on Girl of 14, Apr. 29, 2007, http://www.dailyznail.co.uldnews/article- 451372/Prince-Andrews-billionaire-friend-accused-preying-girl-14.html ("One of Prince Andrew's closest friends [Jeffrey Epstein] is being investigated by the FBI for allegedly paying under-age girls for tawdry sexual encounters."). It is therefore reasonable to infer that he has international contacts, including international financial contacts. 10. Approximately 25 civil suits have been filed in Florida state courts and Florida federal courts raising similar allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. These complaints seek damages comparable to those sought by Jane Doe in this case. Accordingly, Epstein has currently pending against him lawsuits seeking more than EFTA00234895 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 26 of 41 $1 billion in damages. Even given his great wealth, it appears that the lawsuits against him could well lead to his financial ruin, unless he is able to conceal his assets so that the plaintiffs in these cases are unable to reach them. 11. Since his guilty plea in state court, he has been incarcerated in the Palm Beach County Detention facility. I have been advised, however, that he has currently been allowed out on a "work release" program, where he works at managing his financial interests. 12. Because of his overseas contacts, other plaintiff attorneys and I have been greatly concerned that Epstein might attempt to transfer many of his assets overseas with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him. I have also received reports, that I am attempting to substantiate, that Epstein is transferring his assets out of the country at this time with the intent to make it impossible for Jane Doe and other plaintiffs to satisfy any significant judgment that they might obtain against him. In light of these reports, other attorneys and I have propounded the requests for admission regarding fraudulent asset transfers discussed in the pending motion. EFTA00234896 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 27 of 41 13. In this case, Epstein has blocked all discovery regarding the current location of his assets and recent fraudulent transfers of his assets, by asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. With other attorneys working on this case (and related cases), I have wanted to obtain direct, first hand information regarding Epstein's financial dealings, but have been blocked for doing so by Epstein. Therefore, I have been forced to rely on reputable press reports for information about these dealings. 14. In the similar sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Epstein, other plaintiffs attorneys have advised that Epstein has likewise blocked all discovery regarding his finances with Fifth Amendment invocations or other interposed obstructions. EFTA00234897 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Dobbinent 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 28 of 41 I swear the foregoing to be truthful under the penalty of perjury. FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. aul G. Cassell EFTA00234898 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 29 of 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARIWJOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, and files this her First Request for Admissions to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and requests said Defendant admit or deny the following facts, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: DEFINITIONS The term "you" means and refers to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. ADMISSIONS I. Your net worth is greater than $10 million. 2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million. 3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million. 4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million. EXHIBIT EFTA00234899 base 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 30 of 41 5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion. 6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you. 7. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean. 8. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in foreign countries. 9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or money and/or financial instruments to countries outside the United States. 10. You have provided financial support to the modeling agency MC2. 11. You committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor. 12. You committed battery against Plaintiff. 13. You digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor. 14. You offered Plaintiff more money contingent upon her having sex with you or giving you oral sex. 15. You intended to harm Plaintiff when you committed these sexual acts against her. 16. You knew Plaintiff was under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and fondled her. 17. You intend to hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this litigation. 18. You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country borders for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present. 19. You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution. EFTA00234900 base 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 31 of 41 20. You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe: A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03 B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes C. Sexual Battery 21. You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts. 22. You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against you in this or similar cases. 23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 million to satisfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided via United States mail to the following addressees, this "2 1 day of March, 2009. Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 rcrit@bciclaw.com mpike@bc1claw.com Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jagesa®bellsouth.net EFTA00234901 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 32 of 41 Michael R. Tein, Esquire Lewis Tein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 tein(alewistein.com Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 542075 Paul G. Cassell Attorney for Plaintiff Pro Hac Vice EFTA00234902 D5/18O008 15:5$ FA)C, 5615'1_53148 QURMAN cRITUN OLNEY? oz3/031 ease 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Uocument 165 Entered on I-LSu Docket 06/19/2009 Page 33 ot 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. • DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (dated 03/23/09) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ('EPSTEIN'), by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his response to Plaintiff's First Request for Admission, dated March 23, 2009. 1. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 2. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my EXHIBIT EFTA00234903 05/1812009 15:59 FAX 5615153148 BURMAN CRITTON LUITIER 024/031 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 34 of 41 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 3. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 4. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these Circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 5. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to EFTA00234904 ,95/18/2,999 1559 fAX 5615153148 PLURMAN CRITLQN LULTIE11 a 025/031 ease 9:uo-cv-8u119-KAM Uocument 165 Entereoi on i-LSu uocket 06/19/2009 Page 35 ot 41 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 6. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 7. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 8. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States EFTA00234905 05/1812009 1W UP OO f Pig 5615153148 RMAN al 026/031 Case 9:08-cv-50119-KAM Document 165 Entered on I-LSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 36-ot 41 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et at. Page 4 Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 9. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 10. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 11. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would EFTA00234906 C)5/18/2009 16:01 FAX A615153148 'ORMAN CHIT 027/031 Case 9:08-cv-so119-KAm Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page got 41 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 12. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 13. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I Intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 14. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. EFTA00234907 c°alid 'Anvil °VI eoUtr8nent 165 entgreld'IlhipLLSD LUUIToCEket 06/19/2009 Page 3Pc??44 " Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 6 15. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 16. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 17. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 18. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my EFTA00234908 05/182_099 1CO2 FAX 58151_53148 agstiriN on Docket 09.031 Case 9:08-cv-o0119-KAM Document 165 Entered on I-LSU 06/19/2009 Page 3sot 41 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 7 attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 19. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 20. In response to 20 A, B, and C, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 21. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to EFTA00234909 o5fianoos 16.02 _561553148 LURMsn cRITRIK.LUITIER 03Q/031 Case 9:U8-ov-60119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FWD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 4Tot 41 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et al. Page 8 effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 22. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. 23. In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein, I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any discovery relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the_ regoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this rday of May 2009. EFTA00234910 dEAUg-IvIei 61A015HOMPTIent 165 FnLerecaonlL..., blYset 06/19/2009 Page 4T 8? 3031 Jane Doe v. Epstein, et at. Page 9 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwardsarra-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax casselloelaw.utah.edu Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, PA 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 561-835-8691 Fax jaoesoebellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub , By: ROBERT D CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B. No. 224162 rcrit@bciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00234911