Epstein’s Refusal to Answer Key Questions Cited as Evidence of Misconduct in Court Filing

841, 842 (Fla. 4"" Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have “evidence of the most persuasive character” from Epstein’s repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to him. To provide but a few examples, here are questions that Epstein refused to answer and the reasonable inference that a reasonable finder of fact would draw: Question not answered: “Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?” Reasonable inference: No allegations against Epstein were ginned up. Question not answered: “Well, which of Mr. Edwards’ cases do you contend were fabricated?” Reasonable inference: No cases filed by Edwards against Epstein were fabricated. Question not answered: “Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?” Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults were taking place. Question not answered: “How many minors have you procured for prostitution?” Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution. Question not answered: “Is there anything in L.M.’s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?” Reasonable inference: Nothing in L.M.’s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false — ie., as alleged in L.M.’s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages as a result. Question not answered: “I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?” Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as alleged in her federal complaint. Question not answered: “Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?” Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in her complaint. Question not answered: “What is the actual value that you contend the claim of 20 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389