Epstein's answer to a civil suit by an accuser, April 2009

EFTA00175625¶

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter on FLSD Docket 02/2009¶

Page 1 of 7¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON¶

JANE DOE NO. 2¶

Plaintiff,¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant.¶

DEFENDANT EPSTEIN’S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT¶

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter “EPSTEIN”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states:¶

1. Without knowledge and deny.

2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy 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

EFTA00175626¶

Case 9:08-cv

119-KAM

Document 69

Entere

n FLSD Docket

02/2009

Page 2 of 7¶

Jane Doe No. 2 Epstein Page 2¶

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.¶

3. As to the allegations in paragraph 3, deny.

4. As to the allegations in paragraph 4, deny.

5. As to the allegations in paragraph 5, without knowledge and deny.

6. As to the allegations in paragraphs 6, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy 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 [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. As to the allegations in paragraphs 7 through 14 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-

EFTA00175627¶

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Entern FLSD Docket 02/2009¶

Page 3 of 7¶

Jane Doe No. 2 Epstein Page 3¶

incrimination. See DeLisi Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy 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 [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.¶

8. In response to the allegations of paragraph 15, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein.

9. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 16 through 21 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi . Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. $ 4^{th} $ DCA 1983); Malloy . 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

EFTA00175628¶

Casé 9:08-cv

119-KAM

Document 69

Entere

n FLSD Docket

02/2009

Page 4 of 7¶

Jane Doe No. 2 Epstein Page 4¶

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 [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. In response to the allegations of paragraph 22, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein.

11. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy. 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

EFTA00175629¶

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter on FLSD Docket 02/2009¶

Page 5 of 7¶

Jane Doe No. 2 Epstein Page 5¶

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 selfincrimination], 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.¶

12. In response to the allegations of paragraph 28, Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above herein.

13. Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy. 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 [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary

EFTA00175630¶

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter on FLSD Docket 02/2009¶

Page 6 of 7¶

Jane Doe No. 2 Epstein Page 6¶

application for affirmative relief” which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege.¶

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff.¶

Affirmative Defenses¶

1. As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing participant in the acts alleged.

2. As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and participated in conduct similar and/or identical to the acts alleged with other persons which were the sole or contributing cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages

3. As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had attained the age of 18 years old at the time of the alleged acts.

4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff.¶

Robert D. Critton, Jr.¶

Attorney for Defendant Epstein¶

Certificate of Service¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of April, 2009:¶

EFTA00175631¶

Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter n FLSD Docket 02/2009¶

Page 7 of 7¶

Jane Doe No. 2 . Epstein Page 7¶

Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.¶

Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.¶

Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.¶

18205 Biscayne Boulevard¶

Suite 2218¶

Miami, FL 33160¶

ssm@sexabuseattorney.com¶

ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.com¶

Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2¶

Jack Alan Goldberger¶

Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.¶

250 Australian Avenue South¶

Suite 1400¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012¶

Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

Respectfully submitted,¶

ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.¶

Florida Bar No. 224162¶

rcrit@bclclaw.com¶

MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.¶

Florida Bar #617296¶

mpike@bclclaw.com¶

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN¶

515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

Phone¶

Fax¶

(Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶