|
|
|
|
|
|
by jweese
4787 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I am from the US. The Judge's order includes the following footnote: "Even if their refusal was based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the
Court still may draw adverse inferences against them in this civil proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano,
425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)" The way I read it (again, not a lawyer) is that you can't convict someone based on their refusal to testify, but this isn't a criminal proceeding. In civil matters the rules are different. |
|
|
So the fact that the lawyers are taking the Fifth can reasonably be used as evidence that some of the specific claims and assertions already made are materially fraudulent.
Taking the Fifth in your own lawsuit must be quite startling for a judge to behold. One can imagine possible sound reasons why a defendant might take the Fifth or the Sixth (right to consult an attorney, i.e. you caught me off guard but I might answer your questions later), but that is not pretty either, in a civil case.