Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant I DEFENDANT EPSTEINS FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN hereinafter EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys files his First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint DE and states Without knowledge and deny As to the allegations in paragraphs Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See Delisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page2 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 As to the allegations in paragraph deny As to the allegations in paragraph deny As to the allegations in paragraph without knowledge and deny As to the allegations in paragraphs Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See Delisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence 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 Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page As to the allegations in paragraphs through of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment Privilege against self incrimination See Delisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence 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 In response to the allegations of paragraph Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs through of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs through above herein Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs through of the Second Amended Complaint See Delisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence 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 In response to the allegations of paragraph Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs through of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs through above herein Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs through of the Second Amended Complaint See Delisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence 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 In response to the allegations of paragraph Defendant realleges and adopts his responses to paragraphs through of the Second Amended Complaint set forth in paragraphs through above herein Defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs through of the Second Amended Complaint See Delisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it 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 Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page6 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 WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief sought by Plaintiff Affirmative Defenses As to all counts Plaintiff actually consented to and was a willing participant in the acts alleged and therefore her claims are barred or her damages are required to be reduced accordingly As to all counts alleged Plaintiff actually 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 Plaintiffs alleged damages As to all counts Plaintiff impliedly consented to the acts alleged by not objecting and therefore her claims are barred or her damages are required to be reduced accordingly As to all counts Defendant reasonably believed or was told that the Plaintiff had attained the age of years old at the time of the alleged acts As to all counts Plaintiffs claims are barred as she said she was years or older at the time As to all counts Plaintiffs alleged damages were caused in whole or part by events and/or circumstances completely unrelated to the incident alleged in the complaint Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page As to Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages in Count I Sexual Assault Battery and Count II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress such claims are subject to the limitations as set forth in et seq Florida Statutes As to Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages in Count I Sexual Assault Battery and Count II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress such claims are subject to the constitutional limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America Gore S.Ct Philip Morris USA Williams S.Ct State Farm Campbell S.Ct Engle Ligget Group Inc So.2d Fla The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Floridas Constitution Art I and prohibit the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments 0.As to Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages in Count I Sexual Assault Battery and Count II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress the determination of whether or not Defendant is liable for punitive damages is required to be bifurcated from a determination of the amount to be imposed Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for sexual assault and/or battery under Count I to Count Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action as she does not and can not show a violation of a predicate act under U.S.C to Count Ill the version of U.S.C in effect at the time of the alleged conduct applies and thus the presumptive minimum damages amount should Plaintiff prove the elements of such claim is and not subject to any multiplier Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page to Count Ill application of the amended version of U.S.C effective July would be in violation of the legal axiom against retroactive application of an amended statute and also in violation of such constitutional principles including but not limited to the Ex Post Facto Clause U.S Const Article I cl cl and procedural and substantive due process U.S Const th Amend th Amend The statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct applies to Count application of the amended version of U.S.C effective July is prohibited pursuant to the vagueness doctrine and the Rule of Lenity A criminal statute is required to give fair warning in language that the common world will understand of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed To make the warning fair so far as possible the line should be clear United States Lanier U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d quoting McBoyle United States U.S S.Ct L.Ed omission in original The three related manifestations of the fair warning requirement are the vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application the canon of strict construction of criminal statutes or rule of lenity ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page The applicable version of U.S.C creates a cause of action on behalf of a minor Plaintiff had attained the age of majority at the time of filing this action and accordingly her cause of action is barred Because Plaintiff has no claim under U.S.C this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction as to all claims asserted 18.Application of the U.S.C as amended effective July is in violation of the constitutional principles of due process the Ex Post Facto clause and the Rule of Lenity in that in amending the term minor to person as to those who may bring a cause of action impermissibly and unconstitutionally broadened the scope of persons able to bring a claim U.S.C violates the Equal Protection Clause of the th Amendment under the U.S Constitution and thus Plaintiffs claim thereunder is barred U.S.C violates the constitutional guarantees of procedural and substantive due process Procedural due process guarantees that a person will not be deprived of life liberty or property without notice and opportunity to be heard Substantive due process protects fundamental rights Accordingly Plaintiffs cause of action thereunder is barred WHEREFORE Defendant requests that this Court deny the relief ught by Plaintiff Robert Grit Jr Attorney for efendant Epstein Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jane Doe No Epstein Page 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 reC r9 identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day ofF Stuart Mermelstein Esq Adam Horowitz Esq Mermelstein Horowitz P.A Biscayne Boulevard Suite Miami FL Fax ssm sexabuseattorney.com ahorowitz sexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax jagesq bellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By ROBERT CRITTON JR ESQ Florida Bar rcrit bclclaw.com MICHAEL PIKE ESQ Florida Bar mpike bclclaw.com BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN Flagler Drive Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
14,886 characters
