EFTA01126028.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502008CA037319X3OOCMB AB B.B, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION TO COMPEL PROPER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 Plaintiff, B.B., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, to properly respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Dated February 4, 2010, and as grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff served Defendant with twelve Requests for Admissions. (Exhibit "A"). 2. On March 17, 2010, Defendant responded to each Request identically (Exhibit "A") — in essence acknowledging that Defendant intends to respond to all relevant discovery but at the moment is asserting his U.S. Constitutional privileges. 3. Florida Statute § 775.15 prescribes the statute of limitations for the criminal acts Defendant committed upon Plaintiff. Statute attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 4. Plaintiff is a victim of the second degree felonies prescribed under Florida Statutes §§ 800.04 ("Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons EFTA01126028  less than 16 years of age") and 794.011 ("Sexual battery"). Statutes attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The statute of limitation for a second degree felony is three years. However, due to the nature of the crime' the statute of limitation did not begin to run until after the Plaintiff turned eighteen years old. 6. The crime occurred before the Plaintiff turned eighteen years old. 7. The Plaintiff turned eighteen years old before March, 2007. 8. Accordingly, the statute of limitations expired before March, 2010. As of today, the Defendant no longer fears criminal prosecution for the crimes he committed upon Plaintiff. 9. In response to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, after the statute of limitation ran, Defendant asserted his Constitutional privileges. Defendant's assertion is improper. The statue of limitations expired; Defendant no longer fears criminal prosecution for his acts against Plaintiff. 10. Accordingly, Defendant should no longer be allowed to hide behind his U.S. Constitutional privileges. It is time for Defendant to fulfill his intention and respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this honorable Court to require Defendant to properly Respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions dated February 4, 2010. Fla. Stat. § 775.15(13Xa)"(13Xa) If the victim of a violation of 4. 794.011 former s. 794.05 Florida Statutes 1995, s. 800.04, 4 826.04, or s. 847.0135(5) is under the age of 18, the applicable period of limitation, if any, does not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 18 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. If the offense is a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, and the offense is reported within 72 hours after its commission, the prosecution for such offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before December 31, 1984." Page 2 of 3 EFTA01126029  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, thisi day of 1, 2_010 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. LEOPOLD-KUVIN, 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm Beach s dens, FL 33410 Ile) By: T. KUVIN Florida Bar No.: 0089737 ADAM J. LANCING Florida Bar No.: 0031368 Page 3 of 3 EFTA01126030  002/0i4 03/17/2010 03:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA B.B, CASE NO: 502008CA037319XXXXIVIB AB Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. TO DEFENDANT. JEFFERY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE ISSIONS PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLF.MENTAL REQUEST FOR ADM RATED 2/4/10 attorneys, and pursuant to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through the undersigned ssions, dated February 4, 2010, F.R.C.P. 1.350, hereby responds to Plaintiff, B.B.'s Request for Admi as follows: Plaintiff. 1. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had a motive to sexually assault the privileges as specified Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional this lawsuit, however, my- herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding to any discovery relevant to this attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers Amendment right to effective lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth rdingly, I assert my federal representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Acco dments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amen under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference , would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights his Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA against self-incrimination. See peLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hiqgark 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determine er the claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on wheth Deny — Privilege Against federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to of privilege as equivalent to a Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim dants in civil actions. — "... a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defen ded from asserting the privilege civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not preclu itute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not const EFTA01126031  003/G14 03/17/2010 OS: 11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER plaintiff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. assault the Plaintiff. 2. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the opportunity to sexually privileges as specified Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional regarding this lawsuit, however, my herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery any discovery relevant to this attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to Amendment right to effective lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Accordingly, I assert my federal representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege, eenth Amendments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourt under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference rights, would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional his Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4i° DCA against self-incrimination. See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S,Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determine claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the Failure to Deny— Privilege Against federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of claim of privilege as equivalent to a Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's Defendants in civil actions. — ".. . a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla,Jur.2d Evidence §592. ded from asserting the privilege civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not preclu constitute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not plaintiff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. tiff. 3. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the opportunity to meet the Plain nal privileges as specified Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutio regarding this lawsuit, however, my herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery discovery relevant to this attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any Amendment right to effective lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth rdingly, I assert my federal representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Acco dments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amen nce under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse infere , would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution, Defendant asserts his 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA against self-incrimination. See 1)eLisi v, Bankers Ins. Cornpa y Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of ine the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determ claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the re to Deny — Privilege Against federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ, 3d §1280 Effect of Failu Page 2 of 8 EFTA01126032 03/17/2010 08:11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 0004/014 Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Flaiur,2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. - "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 4. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the opportunity to have the Plaintiff in his home in the year 2005. Response: 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 and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. 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. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Sec ,DeLisi v. Bankers Jns. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (I 964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "113t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against to a Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a _ civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 4. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had the intent to sexually assault the Plaintiff. Response: 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 and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. 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. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege Page 3 of 8 EFTA01126033 03/17/2010 09: 11 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER ON005/014 against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. &. Proc, Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 FlaJur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 6. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had a plan in place to sexually assault the Plaintiff. Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified my herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, 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 and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. 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. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.O. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[ijt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (", ..court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege -as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 f la.Sur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 7. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had a plan in place to procure girls under the age of eighteen to come to his home for nude massages in 2005. Response: 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 and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, I assert my federal Page 4 of 8 EFTA01126034  008/C14 BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER 03/17/2010 09:11 FAX dments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amen under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference rights, would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional his Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts any 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA against self-incrimination. See DeIt isi v. Bankers Ins, Comp the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S,Ct, 1489, 1495 (1 964)( the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]x Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determine er the claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on wheth Failure to Deny — Privilege Against federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc, Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of of privilege as equivalent to a Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim dants in civil actions. — "... a specific denial."). See also 24 yla.Jur,2d Evidence §592. Defen precluded from asserting the privilege civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not ses do not constitute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defen plaintiff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. iff was under the age of eighteen 8. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had knowledge that Plaint when she carne to his home fora nude massage in 2005. privileges as specified Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional ing this lawsuit, however, my herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regard any discovery relevant to this attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to Sixth Amendment right to effective lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my ly, I assert my federal representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. According dments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amen under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference , would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights s his Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant assert 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA against self-incrimination, See PeLisi v, Bankers Ins. Company, Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct, 1489, 1495 (1964)(the e of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Claus the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determine er the claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on wheth re to Dc-ny — Privilege Against federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failu of privilege as equivalent to a Self:Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim Defendants in civil actions. — "... a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jurld Evidence §592. ded from asserting the privilege civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not preclu not constitute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. ing Plaintiffs age at the time 9. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein did not make a mistake regard she came to his home for a nude massage. Page 5 of 8 EFTA01126035 03/17/2010 09: 12 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER lb 007/014 Response: 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 and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. Accordingly, 1 assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse inference undcr these circumstances would unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See PeLisi v, Bankers Ins. Conmany, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]l would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in statc or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination), because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 10. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein did not make a mistake about the age of any of the girls which came to his home in the years 2004, 2005 or 2006 regarding their ages being under eighteen. Response: 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 and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. 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. Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4`h DCA 1983); yallov v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny— Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege Page 6 of 8 EFTA01126036  '&08/014 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX BURNAN CRITTON LUTTIER constitute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. girls that came to his home for 11. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had knowledge that all the of eighteen. nude massages in 2004, 2005 or 2006 were under the age privileges as specified Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutional regarding this lawsuit, however, my herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery rs to any discovery relevant to this attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answe my Sixth Amendment right to effective lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing Accordingly, I assert my federal representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. dments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amen nce under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse infere rights, would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant any, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Comp Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determine er the claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on wheth t of Failure to Derry— Privilege Against federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effec claim of privilege as equivalent to a Self Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's Defendants in civil actions. — "... a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. not precluded from asserting the privilege civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is constitute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. the girls that came to his home for 12. Admit that Jeffrey Epstein had knowledge that some en. nude massages in 2004, 2005 or 2006 were under the age of eighte nal privileges as specified Response: In response, Defendant asserts his U.S. constitutio regarding this lawsuit, however, my herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery to any discovery relevant to this attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers Sixth Amendment right to effective lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my ly, I assert my federal representation and my Fifth Amendment Privilege. According dments as guaranteed by the constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amen nce under these circumstances would United States Constitution. Drawing an adverse infere rights, would be unreasonable, and unconstitutionally burden my exercise of my constitutional s his Fifth Amendment privilege would therefore violate the Constitution. Defendant assert 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA against self-incrimination. See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 the Fourteenth Amendment - "Mt Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of Page 7 of 8 EFTA01126037  Z009/014 BURMAN BRITTON LUTTIER 03/17/2010 09:12 FAX the validity of a claim of privilege would be incongruous to have different standards determine whether the claim was asserted in state or based on the same feared prosecution, depending on re to Deny — Privilege Against federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failu claim of privilege as equivalent to a Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's Defendants in civil actions. — "... a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur,2d Evidence §592. ded from asserting the privilege civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not preclu constitute the kind of voluntary [against self-incrimination), because affirmative defenses do not iff bringing a claim seeking application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaint affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. oing was sent by fax and U.S. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foreg Mail to the following addressees on this It d- ay of March, 2010. Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Suite 1400 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: Fax: Counselfor Plaintiff Co-Counse orDefendant Jeffrey Epstein , LLP BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By: Robert D. Critter', Jr. Florida Bar *224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Page 8 of 8 EFTA01126038 03/17/2010 09: 12 FAX BURMAN CRITTON LUtTIER 010/014 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA B.B, CASE NO: Plaintiff, 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFERY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.350, hereby responds to Plaintiff, B.8.'5 Request for Admissions, as follows: 1. Admit that B.B. suffered emotional trauma as a result of what occurred at Jeffrey Epstein's home. Response: In response, Defrndant asserts his U.S. constitutional privileges as specified herein. I intend to respond to all relevant discovery regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counsele