diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821966/EFTA02821966.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821966/EFTA02821966.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0924f97c0d279b00ce30e4369431e06438ba2d48 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821966/EFTA02821966.md @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TIME VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: sitx.-61-156 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN. DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC. a New York Limited Liability Company. + +Defendants. + +Ann a01114c1I1S + +## COMPLAINT + +Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL ("Maxwell), through her undersigned attorneys. by %%a) of her Complaint against Defendants LSTA I L OF JLI FREY l.. L.PS ItIN (the -Estate"). DARREN K. INDYKE. in his capacity as Executor of the [STATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN (-Indy ke-). RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacit) as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPS (-Kahn"), and NES. LLC, a No% York Limited Liabilii% Company (- NES, LLCM alleges as tbllows: + +### NATURE OF THIS ACTION + +I. This is an action for indemnification for and advancement of the attorneys' fees. security costs, costs to find safe accommodation. and all other expenses Maxwell has reasonably incurred and will incur by reason of her prior employment relationship with Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") and his affiliated businesses in connection with any threatened, pending, or completed suit, proceeding, or investigation relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims. + +#### PARTIES AND JURISDICTION + +- 2. Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell is an adult citizen of the United States. +- 3. Jeffrey E. Epstein was a resident of the Virgin Islands. The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein was created following Epstein's death and is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. + - 4. Defendant Darren K. Indyke is an Executor of the Estate. + - 5. Defendant Richard D. Kahn is an Executor of the Estate. +- 6. Defendant NES. LLC. is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New York on or about August 13. 1998. + - 7. This Court has jurisdiction oy er this matter pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 76. +- 8. Pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 78, venue properly lies in the United States Virgin Islands. and in the Division of St. and St. John. + +### FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS + +- 9. From approximately 1999 through at least 2006. Maxwell was employed by Epstein individually. and by several of his affiliated businesses. including. but not limited to. the C.O.U.Q. I oundation. NES LLC. Neyy York Strategy Group. JEGE LLC. JEGE Inc.. and LSJ.I.LC. +- 10. While under Epstein's employ. Maxwell Yyas responsible for managing Epstein's properties. including properties located in New York. Paris. Florida. New Mexico. and the U.S. Virgin Islands. +- II. During the course of their relationship. including while Maxwell was in Epstein's employ, Epstein promised Maxwell that he would support her financially. + +12. Epstein made these promises to Maxwell repeatedly, both in writing and in conversation. + +13. Epstein restated these promises when Maxwell was in the process of leaving Epstein's employ to start a new business of her own. + +14. Epstein assured Maxwell that even if her business ventures failed he would support her financially. + +IS. In approximately 2001. Maxwell began transitioning to a more limited employment role for Epstein and his affiliated businesses. In approximately 2004, Maxwell received a typewritten letter from Epstein with a handwritten note asking Maxwell to remain in Epstein's employ and promising that no matter what Maxwell chose to do, Epstein would always support Maxwell financially. + +16. Sometime thereafter. Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida stale proceeding to felony Charge of solicit:lion apromitta ion involvirw a minor. + +17. Since the time of Epstein's Florida state proceeding to the present. Maxwell has incurred legal fees and expenses in connection with various suits, proceedings. and investigation-, relating to Epstein. his affiliated businesses. and his alleged victims. + +18. Consistent with his repeated promises, Epstein indemnified Maxwell and advanced legal and settlement costs when they were incurred in connection with a lawsuit filed by against Epstein in 2017 (Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein. et rd.. 17-cv-00616-JGK). + +19. Consistent with his repeated promises, Epstein also paid Maxwell's legal bills incurred in connection with a civil suit filed by against Epstein in 2009. + +20. Epstein's promise is further evidenced by the fact that Epstein indemnified and advanced legal fees and expenses for a number of other employees in other various lawsuits relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims. + +21. Indyke, in his capacity as an Executor of the Estate, also made assurances to Maxwell that Maxwell's legal fees and obligations would be reimbursed by Epstein and the Estate, and that Maxwell's legal fees and expenses would be paid going forward. + +22. Indyke told Maxwell that her legal fees would be paid because she would not have incurred any legal expenses but for Epstein's alleged misconduct, and that Epstein's promises would be honored. + +23. Epstein was rotund dead on August 10. 2019 in New York. + +24. On August 15. 2019. Indyke and Kahn filed apetition for probate of Epstein's last will and testament with the Probate Div ision of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Division of St. and St. John. + +25. Maxwell has incurred and will continue to incur significant legal ices. personal security costs. and other costs in connection with legal suits. proceedings. and investigations relating to Epstein. his affiliated businesses. and his alleged s ictims. + +26. Maxwell receives regular threats to her life and safety. which have required her to hire personal security services and find safe accommodation. + +27. Maxwell is entitled to indemnification and advancement of expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with Epstein and his affiliated businesses. including attorneys' fees, as well as security costs and costs of finding safe accommodation, all of which are ongoing, extensive, and directly related to the pending suits, proceedings. and investigations concerning Epstein's alleged misconduct. These expenses will be ongoing due to the extensive global coverage and interest in these events and proceedings. + +28. By letter dated November 22, 2019. Maxwell submitted a claim to the Estate, addressed to Indyke and Kahn, requesting that the Estate honor its obligation to provide indemnification as requested in this action. + +29. The Estate has not honored or even formally responded to Maxwell's claim. + +30. Maxwell was compelled to file this Complaint because the Estate has not honored her claim for indemnification as requested in this action. + +31. Given that Maxwell was forced to seek judicial intervention to vindicate her right to indemnification by the Lstate, she is entitled to recover the reasonable Ices incurred in this action to vindicate that right. + +# CAUSES OF ACTION + +## COUNT ON1. Indemnification (Promissory Estonuel / Contractual) + +32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing allegations of this Complaint as though full• set forth herein. + +33. On more than one occasion. Epstein made a clear and unambiguous promise to Maxwell that he would indemnify Maxwell and advance an) expenses incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with him and his affiliated businesses. + +34. Maxwell reasonably and justifiably relied on Epstein's promises and put her trust in Epstein that he would fulfill his promises. + +35. As such, Maxwell elected to leave Epstein's employ to pursue her own business ventures because she trusted that Epstein would continue to support her financially. + +36. The Estate has failed to uphold Epstein's promise to indemnify and advance expenses incurred by reason of Maxwell's employment relationship with Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +37. Maxwell's reliance on the Estate's promises was a substantial factor in causing Maxwell harm as alleged herein. + +38. For the foregoing reasons, Maxwell is entitled to indemnification and advancement from the Estate of expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +### COUNT TWO Indemnification (Common Lawl + +39. Plaintiff repeats and reallegcs the foregoing allegations of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. + +40 The employment relationship between Maxwell and Epstein formed a legal and special relationship that gives rise to a duty on the part of the Estate to indemnify Maxwell for any expenses incurred by reason of Maxwell's employment relationship kith Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +41. Maxwell had no imolvement in or knowledge of Epstein's alleged misconduct, but nonetheless has been required to pay significant legal fees. personal security costs. and other expenses because the alleged events occurred while she was employed by Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +42. The suits, proceedings, and/or investigations for which Maxwell seeks indemnification were instituted against Maxwell solely because she was an employee of Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +43. Maxwell incurred these legal fees and expenses as a direct result of Epstein's acts and/or omissions. + +44. For the foregoing reasons, Maxwell is entitled to indemnification and advancement from the Estate of expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +### COIN f 71IREE Indemnification (NLS, LLC and Other F-ntities1 + +45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing allegations of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. + +46. Maxwell was employed as a manager by NES. I .LC. + +47. Upon information and belief. the corporate organizational documents for NES. LLC entitle Maxwell to mandator) indemnification and advancement of legal fees. personal security costs, and other expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with NILS. Ike, including expenses incurred in connection with the pending suits. proceedings. and investigations concerning Epstein's alleged misconduct. + +48. Maxwell has incurred significant legal personal security costs, and other expenses by reason of her employment relationship with NES. LI.C. + +49. Upon infommtion and belief. as of September 2006, Defendant Kahn was the Comptroller of NES, LLC. + +50. By letter dated November 22, 2019, Maxwell requested indemnification from NES, LLC for the legal fees, personal security costs, and other expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with NES, LLC, among other entities, and never received a response. + +{sup}`51`. By the same letter dated November 22, 2019, Maxwell requested copies of documents setting forth applicable indemnification and/or advancement rights and policies, including any operating agreements for NES. LLC, and never received a response. + +52. Maxwell was also employed by several of Epstein's other entities, including. but not limited to. the C.O.U.Q. Foundation, New York Strategy Group, JEGE LLC, JEGE Inc., and LSJ. LLC. + +53. Upon information and belief, the corporate organizational documents of these other entities likely provide a right of indemnity to Maxwell for expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship ith those entities. + +54. Maxt'ell has incurred significant legal fees, personal security costs. and other expenses by reason of her employ mein relationship with these other entities. + +55. Maxwell requested indemnification from the Estate for such tees, costs. and expenses by reason of her prior employment relationship with these other entities. and was refused. + +56. For the foregoing reasons. Maxwell is entitled to indemnification and advancement from Nrs. LLC and/or the Estate of expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with NES. LLC. Epstein, and/or any of his other entities with whom Maxwell was affiliated or employed. + +## PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +WHEREFORE, Maxwell respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Estate and grant her the following relief: + +A. an Order declaring that Maxwell is entitled to indemnification and advancement from the Estate and/or NES, ',LC the reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses she has incurred by reason of her employment relationship with Epstein, NES. LLC, and his other affiliated businesses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection with any threatened. pending. or completed suit, proceeding. or investigation relating thereto, security costs and costs of finding safe accommodation incurred as a result thereof. and all other expenses Maxwell has reasonably incurred and will incur in the future by reason of her prior employment relationship with Epstein. NES, D.C. and his other affiliated businesses: + +13. an Order declaring that Maxwell is entitled to prejudgment interest on the reasonable attorney's' lees and other expenses for which the Estate and/or NI:S. 1.1 C has failed to nth ance or indemnify Maxwell: + +C. an Order declaring that Maxwell is entitled ti recover from the Estate and/or NES. 1.1.0 the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action: + +D. post-judgment interest: and + +E. all such other and further relief to which Plaintiff is entitled at law and in equity or as this Court may deem just and proper. + +CIVIL CASE NO.: + + + +Dated: March 12. , 2020 + +Qt INTAIROS, PRIF.1O, & BOYER, P.A. + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 41h Floor + +Miami. FL 33156 + +T: (340) 693-0230 + +F: (340) 693.0300 + +Kyle R. Waldner. Esq. + +kwaldner(gonwhlm'.C9111 + +V.I. Bar No.: 1038 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821966/EFTA02821966.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821966/EFTA02821966.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1c28e6665475ff1ea830c63ee87602f98de668a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821966/EFTA02821966.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -17, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02821966", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "35cd0c6d6cee9a522029cc4cbd4af8cb38831f86e8199a8db12e35fd0ef207bf", + "output_sha256": "8ac9846199051cae8f91057330e660fca63e508b5c260b70aa043133a60c958a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821976/EFTA02821976.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821976/EFTA02821976.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8adc2e519b07a1bc904417d92d417421935fb668 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821976/EFTA02821976.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +March 24, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +**SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF [[Location]]** + +**OFFICE OF THE CLERK** + +Date: March 24, 2020 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, +Plaintiff + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN et al, +Defendant. + +Name: **GHISLAINE +MAXWELL** +Address: + +**DOCKETING LETTER AND NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT** + +Dear **KYLE R. WALDNER, ESQ.:** + +The Court is in receipt of your **Debt** petition, which was docketed on **March 24, 2020** +and assigned Case Number **ST-2020-CV-00155.** + +The Honorable **Hon. Michael C. Dunston** has been assigned to your case. + +If there is a fee associated with your filing, such fee must be filed along with your +petition/complaint, or within five (5) days thereafter. Failure to pay the required fee +may result in your petition / complaint being dismissed for failure to prosecute. + +If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact the Office of the Clerk of the +Court at (340) 778-9750 (St. Croix) or 774-6680 (St. [REDACTED] - St. John). + +Sincerely, + +**TAMARA CHARLES** +Clerk of the Court + +BY: **Donna Donovan** + +cc: Defendant +Case File \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821976/EFTA02821976.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821976/EFTA02821976.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2278e81dfe393345a486061ef16c67763edb68d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821976/EFTA02821976.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02821976", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "020118ebc54573bb1140face36b6dea0cbed69655fcaac8936e81ae7fba90fe7", + "output_sha256": "a1925ce2f45543e8e524bb984e46c9ecacb1294130320a9ccbce5812588a05ce", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821977/EFTA02821977.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821977/EFTA02821977.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3edeb491906bba2f426ce0382725d8f08890f908 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821977/EFTA02821977.md @@ -0,0 +1,408 @@ +## FILED + +May 01, 2020 + +#### TAMARA CHARLES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CLERK OF THE COURT DISTRICT OF ST. & ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GH1SLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + + +v. ) + +) ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN ) + +K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF ) + +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) + +RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as ) + +EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY ) + +E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York ) + +Limited Liability Company, ) + + +Defendants. ) ) CIVIL NO. ST-20-CV-155 + +#### MOTION TO DISMISS + +#### & INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW + +COME NOW, DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, by and though their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"), an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate, and hereby move for an order pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. I2(bX6) dismissing the Complaint in this action filed by Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell"). + +#### I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +In her Complaint, Maxwell asserts an absolute right to indemnification and advancement of expenses — unqualified in scope, unlimited in duration, and incalculable as to amount — based on a purported promise "to support her financially" that she alleges was made by her former employer at least fourteen (14) years ago. (Complili 1, 9-11, 14, 15.) Setting aside the dubious bona fides of Maxwell's claims, her action against the Co-Executors is barred + +by the mandatory claims processing rules set forth in 15 V.I.C. 606, which prohibit commencement of any action prior to one (I) year after issuance of letters testamentary. And Maxwell's claims against NES, which she bases entirely on her "belief' that its corporate organizational documents entitle her to "mandatory indemnification and advancement" of expenses (Comp1.1 47), are defeated by the undisputed fact that those documents provide her no such right. + +For these reasons, the Court must dismiss Maxwell's Complaint. + +### II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +#### A. The Probate Proceedings + +On August 10, 2019, Jeffrey E. Epstein, a domiciliary of the U.S. Virgin Islands, died testate in New York. On August 15, 2019, a Petition for Probate and for Letters Testamentary was filed with the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Probate No. ST-19-PB-0000080. On September 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge Carolyn P. Hermon-Percell issued Letters Testamentary to Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. See Exhibit A. Since that time, Messrs. Indyke and Kahn have served as Co-Executors of the Estate. + +### B. Nature of the Action + +In her three (3) count Complaint against the Co-Executors and NES, Maxwell seeks common law and contractual "indemnification for and advancement of the attorneys' fees, security costs, costs to find safe accommodation, and all other expenses Maxwell has reasonably incurred and will incur by reason of her prior employment relationship with [Mr. Epstein] and his affiliated businesses in connection with any threatened, pending, or + +{sup}`1.` Maxwell names the Estate itself as a defendant. However, that is improper: under Virgin Islands law, an estate does not have a separate identity and may not be sued as a party. See. e.g.. 31 Am. Jur. 2d Executors and Administrators § 1141 (2016) ("Since estates are not natural or artificial persons, and they lack legal capacity to sue or be sued, an action against an estate must be brought against an administrator or executor as the representative of the estate."). + +completed suit, proceeding, or investigation relating to Epstein, his affiliated business, and his alleged victims." (Compl. ¶ 1.) + +Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to indemnification and advancement of her expenses because Mr. Epstein allegedly promised to "support her financially" and paid certain litigation expenses for her when he was alive. (See Compl. ¶¶ 11-15, 18-19.) Maxwell further alleges that, following Mr. Epstein's death, Mr. Indyke acting in his capacity as a Co-Executor of the Estate "made assurances" to her that her past legal fees and obligations would be reimbursed by the Estate and paid going forward. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) + +Specifically, Maxwell alleges that she was employed by Mr. Epstein and his affiliated businesses, including NES, from "approximately 1999 through at least 2006." (Compl. ¶ 9.) During their relationship, Mr. Epstein purportedly "promised Maxwell that he would support her financially." (Compl. ¶ 11.) Maxwell claims that Mr. Epstein made this promise to her on several occasions, both orally and in writing. (Compl. ¶ 12-14.) She further contends that, when she was leaving Mr. Epstein's employ in "approximately 2001" to start her own business, he stated in writing that he would "always support [her] financially." (Compl. ¶¶ 13-15.)2 + +Maxwell does not allege that any lawsuits for which she seeks indemnification are related to her performance of legitimate, employment-related duties for Mr. Epstein or his affiliated businesses. To the contrary, the claims asserted against Maxwell to date relate to her own misconduct including that she sexually abused young women and, in one case, threatened a potential witness' life.' + +{sup}`2.` Maxwell's written demand to the Estate for indemnification, dated November 22, 2019 and expressly referenced in her Complaint (at paragraph 28), does not mention any written promises by Mr. Epstein to indemnify her. Rather, it refers only to his alleged "oral promises" to do so. (See Exhibit B at 2.) + +November 1, inter alia that Maxwell "committed sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff 3. See, e.g., v. lndyke and Kahn. et al, Case No. 1 :19-cv-10475-LGS (S.D.N.Y.; Complaint filed when she was 16 years old," "ex sed Plaintiff's] breasts and groped her," and "threatened [Plaintiff's sister) in order to keep her quiet"); v. Estate ofJeffrey Edward Epstein. et at, Index No. 950010/19 (New York State; First Amended 'omp aint filed October 10, 2019, alleging inter alia that Maxwell + +#### HI. ARGUMENT + +#### A. Plaintiff's Claim is Premature, in Violation of 15 V.I.0 § 606(a). + +Whatever the purported merits of Plaintiff's claims, her lawsuit is premature. Maxwell may not file a Complaint against the Co-Executors until twelve (12) months have elapsed after the Probate Court issued Letters Testamentary. See 15 V.I.0 § 606(a). Here, that twelve (12) month period will not expire until September 6, 2020. + +Chapter 23 of Title 15 of the Virgin Islands Code outlines the exclusive procedure for pursuing a claim against executors of an estate. Section 606, entitled "Commencement of Action against Executor or Administrator," sets forth mandatory claims-processing rules; Section 606(a) specifically provides: + +"(a) An action may be commenced against an executor or administrator at any time after the expiration of twelve months from the granting of letters testamentary or of administration and until the final settlement of the estate and discharge of such executor or administrator from the trust, and not otherwise." (emphasis supplied) + +Section 606(a), which authorizes a plaintiff to commence an action against an estate's executor "mandates that at the time of commencement ... the estate have been open for a minimum of twelve months... ." Otdey v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480, 491492 (V.I. 2014) (emphasis added) (citing 15 V.I.C. § 606(a)). "[S]ection 606 is an inflexible claims-processing rule that cannot be waived." Id. at 492.4 + +The Virgin Islands Legislature's twelve (12) month statutory waiting period is no fluke. Rather, the requirement ensures that a claimant cannot bypass the probate process and relieves + +{sup}`&`quot;conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to commit repeated acts of sexual assault and harmful or offensive touching against Plaintiff"); Jane Doe v. Indyke and Kahn. et at, Case No. I :20-cv-00484-JGK (S.D.N.Y.; Complaint filed January 22, 2020, alleging inter alia that Maxwell abused Plaintiff "for years as a young girl" and "regularly facilitated Epstein's abuse of [Plaintiff] and was frequently present when it occurred."). + +{sup}`4. 15` V.I.C. § 606(b) further prohibits commencement of any action against the Co-Executors until after Maxwell has presented them with her claim, and they have determined to disallow it: + +{sup}`&`quot;(b) An action against an executor or administrator shall not be commenced until the claim of the plaintiff has been duly presented to such executor or administrator and by him disallowed..." (emphasis supplied) + +the Co-Executors from simultaneously defending the Estate in civil actions and probate proceedings. Weil. 61 V.I. at 495. This rule further ensures that a claimant cannot seek to gain priority over the Estate's assets by filing suit to the detriment of those claimants who adhere to the probate rules. Id. at 495-96. + +"The Legislature has outlined in detail the duties of an executor or administrator in administering an estate and the process by which a creditor should seek to satisfy his claim, all under the guidance and review of the Superior Court. See 15 V.I.C. § 394; 15 V.I.C. § 240(c). Therefore, when looking at section 606 in the context of the entire probate scheme, it appears the Legislature intended section 606 'to regulate the process of obtaining review' by providing strict guidance for probate proceedings ... ." + +Ottley, 61 V.I. at 493. + +The Legislature designed these mandatory rules to ensure the orderly and efficient distribution of decedents' property. See id. at 490. Section 606 reflects the Legislature's intent to provide executors with a sufficient period of time in which to marshal an estate's assets, pay taxes, analyze any claims filed against the estate and, depending on whether the executors determine them to be meritorious, allow or reject them. Section 606 then provides a claimant with prompt summary review of her claim if the executors have rejected it. Id. at 494. + +Here, Maxwell violated the express strictures of Section 606(a): she did not wait twelve months to commence her action, thereby precluding the Co-Executors from proper consideration of her claims. As noted above, the Probate Court issued Letters Testamentary on September 6, 2019. See Exhibit A. Pursuant to Section 606(a), Maxwell is not permitted to file suit against the Co-Executors until September 6, 2020 at the earliest, and only then if they have disallowed her claim. Here, her failure to abide by the statutory rules "requires the court to dismiss [the Complaint] for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Ottley, 61 V.I., at 495 (citation omitted). The Court cannot allow Maxwell to jump the line, in violation of the mandatory claims-processing rules enacted by the Legislature.5 + +#### B. Plaintiff's Claim Against NES is Meritless as a Matter of Law. + +Maxwell's claim against NES is defeated by the very documents on which she relies. As noted above, Maxwell asserts her "belief" that her employment relationship with NES entitles her to mandatory indemnification for and advancement of her fees and expenses pursuant to NES' corporate organizational documents: + +"Upon information and belief, the corporate organizational documents for NES, LLC entitle Maxwell to mandatory indemnification and advancement of legal fees, personal security costs, and other expenses incurred by reason of the employment relationship with NES, LLC, including expenses incurred in connection with the pending suits, proceedings, and investigations concerning Epstein's alleged misconduct." + +(Compl. 1 47; emphasis supplied.) + +Unfortunately for Maxwell, the truth is otherwise. As set forth in the Operating Agreement of NES, LLC dated January 1, 2014 (the "NES Operating Agreement", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C), NES has no obligation to indemnify Maxwell for or advance her fees and expenses.' Rather, the NES Operating Agreement allows NES to decline + +{sup}`5.` To the extent that Maxwell relies on common-law indemnification, her claims are premature for another, independent reason: under Virgin Islands law, a party may not assert a common-law claim for indemnification in a separate action before a judgment has been rendered against her. See Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.1.23, 108, 2017 V.I. LEXIS 37,'132 (V.1. Super. Feb. 28, 2017). + +{sup}`6.` Because Maxwell expressly incorporates by reference NES's corporate organizational documents in her Complaint, the Court may properly consider those documents in deciding this motion to dismiss. See Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. v. Fluor Daniel, Case No. SX-05-165, 2020 WL 1819622 (V.1. Super. Ct. Apr. 8, 2020Xapplying the "incorporation-by-reference" doctrine in declining to convert a pre-answer motion under V.I. R. Civ. P. I 2(bX6) to a motion for summary judgment, despite the defendants' submission of documents referenced in the complaint but not attached to it). As the Court in Hess observed: + +{sup}`&`quot;Ordinarily, when ruling on a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true ... `and draw all fair inferences from such allegations.' "Stanley, 2020 VI Super 47 at 1 12 (citation omitted)). But the incorporation-by-reference doctrine permits a court to review the actual document referenced in the complaint "to ensure that the plaintiff has not misrepresented its contents and that any inference the plaintiff seeks to have drawn is a reasonable one." Amalgamated Bank v. Yahoo! Inc., 132 A.3d 752, 797 (Del. Ch. 2016), overruled in part on other grounds by Tiger v. Boast Apparel, Inc., 214 A.3d 933, 939 (Del. 2019). The doctrine further "limits the ability of the plaintiff to take language out of context, because the defendants can point the court to the entire document... [and) enables courts to + +Maxwell's claims for indemnification and advancement of fees and expenses, in its sole discretion: + +"...[T]he Company ... may indemnify, defend and hold harmless any employee or agent, who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to a threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, from and against any expense, loss, damage or liability incurred or connected with, or any claim, suit, demand, loss, judgment, liability, cost or expense ... arising from or related to, the Company ... or such employee or agent on behalf of the Company ... provided that such amounts were not the result of fraud, gross negligence, or reckless or intentional misconduct on the part of ... such employee or agent against whom a claim is asserted. The Company may advance to ... any such employee or agent ... the costs of defending any claim, suit or action against such person if such person undertakes to repay the funds advanced, with interest, if the person is not entitled to indemnification under this Section." + +(Exhibit Cat Section VI.B. I, at pp. 5-6; emphasis supplied.) + +The NES Operating Agreement thus provides NES with discretion to indemnify its employees arising from performance of their job duties, provided that the employees did not engage in "fraud, gross negligence, or reckless or intentional misconduct."' The Court should reject Maxwell's claim that, notwithstanding the explicit language in the Operating Agreement, NES is required to indemnify her for her own alleged misconduct. "Ordinarily, when the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the Superior Court treats the issue of the meaning of those terms as a question of law... ." United Corp. v. Tutu Park, Ltd., 55 V.I. 702, 707, (V.I. 2011); see also Bluewater Construction, Inc. v. CBI Acquisitions, LLC, 70 V.I. 586, 608 (V.I. Super. May 20, 2010) (interpretation of forum selection clause was a matter of law under Florida law). Here, the Operating Agreement cannot be construed to entitle Maxwell to + +dispose of meritless complaints at the pleading stage." td. "'Without the ability to consider the document at issue in its entirety, complaints that quoted only selected and misleading portions of such documents could not be dismissed under Rule 12(bX6) even though they would be doomed to failure." Id. (quoting In re: Gen. Motors (Hughes) S'holder Litig., 897 A.2d I62, 169 (Del. 2006))." + +{sup}`2020` WL 1819622 '8-9. See also Fenster v. Dechabert, 65 V.1.20, 22, 2016 V.I. LEXIS 214, \*I, 2016 WL 8943821 (V.1. Super. Aug. 8, 2016) ("The court may consider items of unquestioned authenticity that arc referred to in the challenged pleading and are integral to the pleader's claim for relief"). + +{sup}`7.` See Exhibit Cat Section VI.B. I, at pp. 5.6. + +mandatory indemnification, as pleaded. Accordingly, it renders Maxwell's claim for contractual indemnification meritless as a matter of law. + +Nor does Maxwell fit the criterion under the NES Operating Agreement for mandatory indemnification of its employees or agents under the limited circumstance where that employee or agent has been successful in her defense of an action or proceeding. SeeExhibit C at Section VI.B.2, at p. 6. Here, Maxwell has not succeeded in defense of any action or proceeding against her. Because NES is not required to indemnify Maxwell for or advance any of her expenses, the Court should dismiss her claim against it.' + +WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff in this action. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: May I, 2020 uNin KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ. WILLIAM L. BLUM, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. 966, 266, 136, 1221 & R2019 KELLERHALS KROBIAN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. =, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com aheymann@solblum.com wblum@solblum.com sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen@kellfer.com + +{sup}`8.` Maxwell styles Count Three of the Complaint as one for contractual indemnification again NES "and Other Entities" (Compl. p. 7), but she names as defendants in this action no entities other than NES and the Co-Executors. And as to the other Epstein-affiliated entities Maxwell describes — the C.O.U.Q. Foundation, New York Strategy Group, JEGE LLC, JEGE Inc. and LSJ, LLC (Compl. r 52)— she alleges only her "belief' that their corporate organizational documents "likely provide a right to indemnity." (1d. r 53; emphasis supplied.) That is too thin a to satisfy the requirement that Plaintiff allege facts supporting all of the elements of her claim. + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this In day of May 2020, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss & Incorporated Memorandum of Law to be served via electronic mail upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldner®qpwblaw.com Kroblin + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +Deceased ) +\_\_\_\_\_ + +LETTERS TESTAMENTARY + +TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING: + +KNOW YE, that the Last Will and Testament of JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN dated the 8{sup}`th` day of August 2019, which is hereto annexed, has been duly proven in this Court, and that DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, who have been nominated as Co-Executors therein have been duly appointed Co-Executors of the estate of JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN. + +This, therefore, authorizes DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN to administer the Estate of JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, deceased, according to law. + +DATED: September 6{sup}`th`, 2019 + +ATTEST: +ESTRELLA H. [REDACTED] +Clerk of the Court +By: Edotcia Thomas Hodge +EDOTCIA [REDACTED] - HODGE +Court Clerk Supervisor 9/6/2019 + +**Exhibit A** + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) + JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + Deceased ) + +PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 + +ORDER FOR PROBATE + +Upon consideration of the Petition filed herein, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that **JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN** died, testate, in Manhattan, New York, on August 10, 2019, and the adult heirs-at-law and next of kin of the deceased have been served with process or have consented to said Petition, and the Last Will and Testament of **JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN** dated the 8{sup}`th` day of August 2019 having been duly proved in this Court, and there being no valid objection to the probate of the said Will, it is + +**ORDERED** that the Will is admitted to probate and recorded as the Last will and Testament of **JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN** valid to pass real and personal property, and that Letters Testamentary be issued to **DARREN K. INDYKE** and **RICHARD D. KAHN**, the Co-Executors named therein, who may qualify hereunder without bond, conditioned on the faithful performance of trust. + +IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the Seal of the Court to be affixed this 6{sup}`th` day of September 2019. + +ATTEST: +**ESTRELLA H.** [REDACTED] + Clerk of the Court + +By: Edotcia Thomas Hodge +**EDOTCIA** [REDACTED] - HODGE + Court Clerk Supervisor 9/16/2019 + +A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY + DATE September 16, 2019 + ESTRELLA H. GEORGE + CLERK OF THE COURT + BY Joseph Marsh + COURT CLERK II + +![](_page_11_Picture_0.jpeg) + +HADDON + +Novermber 22, 2019 + +#### VIA EMAIL + +Darren K. Indyke Richard D. Kahn do William L. Blum, Esq. Kellerhals MKroblin PLLC 9053 Estate Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 wblum@solblum.com + +RE: Demand for Indemnification + +Haddon. and r c Jeffrey S. Pagliuca + +150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colcrado 80203 Pi 303.831.7364 N 303.832.2628 www.hrnfiaw.com jpaglluca@hmtlow.com + +Dear Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn: + +Our firm and & Gresser LLP represent Ghislaine Maxwell in connection with legal proceedings related to events that occurred while she was employed by Jeffrey Epstein and his affiliated businesses. On behalf of Ms. Maxwell, we write to respectfully request that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein indemnify and advance expenses to Ms. Maxwell for attorneys' fees, security costs, and all other expenses reasonably incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with Mr. Epstein and his affiliated businesses in connection with any threatened, pending, or completed suit, proceeding, or investigation relating to Mr. Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims. + +From approximately 1999 through 2009, Ms. Maxwell was employed by Mr. Epstein individually, and by several of his affiliated businesses, including, but not limited to, NES LLC, New York Strategy Group, JEGE LLC, JEGE Inc., and LSJ LLC. Pursuant to the relevant corporate organizational documents, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to mandatory indemnification and advancement of expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with Mr. Epstein and his affiliated businesses, including attorneys' fees (both from our firm and Gresser), as well as relocation and security costs, all of which are ongoing, extensive, and directly related to the pending suits, proceedings, and investigations concerning Mr. Epstein's alleged misconduct. + +Accordingly, we request that you provide copies of any documents in your possession setting forth applicable indemnification and/or advancement rights and policies, including, among other things, Ms. Maxwell's employment records, and any corporate documents, such as articles of incorporation, operating agreements, and bylaws for all entities that employed + +![](_page_11_Picture_12.jpeg) + +Darren K. Indyke +Richard D. Kahn +November 22, 2019 +Page 2 + +Maxwell. In addition, we request that you provide copies of any other documents, including any applicable insurance policies, that provide for indemnification and/or advancement for former employees of Mr. Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +In addition, please note that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to indemnification and advancement given that Mr. Epstein, on more than one occasion, promised that he would indemnify Ms. Maxwell and advance any expenses incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with him and his affiliated businesses. Mr. Epstein's oral promise is evidenced by the fact that, among other things: (1) Mr. Epstein indemnified Ms. Maxwell and advanced legal fees and settlement costs when they were incurred in connection with the lawsuit filed by [REDACTED] (*Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et al*, 17-cv-00616-JGK); and (2) Mr. Epstein indemnified and advanced legal fees and expenses for a number of other employees in other various lawsuits, including [REDACTED], Leslie Groff, and [REDACTED]. Mr. Epstein's oral promises to Ms. Maxwell are enforceable as a matter of law. *See, e.g., Barclays Bank of New York v. [REDACTED]*, 517 F. Supp. 403, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); *Hyatt Legal Servs. v. Ruppitz*, 620 So. 2d 1134, 1136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). + +Ms. Maxwell is further entitled to indemnification under common law. Common law indemnity is an equitable concept that works to shift liability when failure to do so would result in "the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another." *Mas v. Two [REDACTED] Assocs.*, 75 N.Y.2d 680, 689-91 (1990). All of the jurisdictions in which Ms. Maxwell carried out her relevant employment duties—New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—recognize a common law right to indemnification, which allows for the shifting of liability to avoid the unfairness of holding one party liable solely on account of the wrongdoing of another. *See [REDACTED] v. Shared Equities, Co.*, 281 A.D.2d 174, 175, 721 N.Y.S.2d 634, 635 (1st Dep't 2001) (recognizing common law indemnification under New York law); *K-Mart Corp. v. Chairs, Inc.*, 506 So.2d 7 (Fla. 5th DCA), *review denied*, 513 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1987) ("The right to indemnity may arise out of a contract or it may be based on liability imposed by law."); *Safeway, Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing & Drain SSS*, 368 P.3d 389, 398-99 (N.M. 2016) (recognizing common law indemnification under New Mexico law); *Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp.*, No. SX-06-CV-202, 2017 WL 772808, at \*30 (V.I. Super. Feb. 28, 2017) ("This Court believes that the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands is to continue recognizing claims for common law indemnification."). + +Here, Ms. Maxwell had no involvement in or knowledge of Mr. Epstein's alleged misconduct, but nonetheless has been forced to pay significant legal fees, personal security costs, and other expenses merely because the alleged events occurred while she was employed by Mr. Epstein and his affiliated businesses. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein's estate must indemnify Ms. Maxwell for those expenses. + +Ms. Maxwell's Affidavit, attached as Exhibit 1, affirms the facts forming the basis for this Demand. Ms. Maxwell has attached the relevant invoices as Exhibits A, B, and C to her affidavit. These invoices represent some of Ms. Maxwell's considerable expenses. The bills reflect legal fees and costs paid by Ms. Maxwell to Haddon, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED], P.C., in the + +Darren K. Indyke Richard D. Kahn November 22, 2019 Page 3 + +amount of \$101,527.67 (Affidavit Exhibit A); legal fees and costs paid to & Gresser, LLP, in the amount of \$318,093.04 (Affidavit Exhibit B) and security/relocation costs paid to The Next Step (Veterans Transition) Ltd in the amount of £154,345.46 (Affidavit Exhibit C). + +In light of the serious and time-sensitive nature these issues, we appreciate your prompt response to this demand. + +Bess egards, + +Je y S. Pagliuca + +Cc: Kroblin (ckroblin@kellfer.com) Shari N. D'Andrade (sdandrade@kellfer.com) Marjorie Whalen (mwhalen@kellfer.com) + +Mark S. (mcohen®cohengresser.com) Christian R. Everdell (ceverdell@cohengresser.com) + +### AFFIDAVIT OF GHISLANE MAXWELL + +I, Ghislane Maxwell, of legal age and sound mind and body deposes and states: + +1. I have personal knowledge of the statements I make in this Affidavit and am authorized to make them. + +2. I have reviewed the letter by my lawyer, Jeffrey Pagliuca, requesting that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein defend and indemnify mc. This affidavit is attached as Exhibit 1 to that letter and I affirm and verify that the factual statements contained in the letter are true. + +3. From approximately 1999 through 2009, I was employed by Mr. Epstein individually, and by several of his affiliated businesses, including, but not limited to, NES LLC, New York Strategy Group, JEGE LLC, JEGE Inc., and LSJ LLC. + +4. Mr. Epstein, on more than one occasion, promised that he would indemnify, defend, and advance any expenses incurred by reason of my prior employment relationship with him and his affiliated businesses. + +5. I have incurred substantial expenses defending myself against false accusations and investigations arising out of my employment relationship with Mr. Epstein and his companies. The invoices attached to this affidavit as Fxhibits A, B, and C are true and accurate (redacted) copies of bills that I have paid and am responsible for paying. These expenses are ongoing. + +6. My legal expenses were and are reasonable and necessary and directly related to my prior employment with Mr. Epstein and his companies. + +7. As a result of the enormous publicity surrounding the criminal and civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein and the false portrayal of me as an accomplice to Mr. Epstein I continue to receive death threats on a regular basis. Because of the death threats and the media frenzy I have needed to hire security guards and relocate to an undisclosed location for an unknown amount of time. + +I certify that, under the penalty of perjury that the above written statements herein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. + +Signature: Ghi Maxwell + +15 Half Moon Street, London W1J 7DZ, United Kingdom + +Sworn to and subscribed this 22{sup}`nd` day of November, 2019. Witness my hand. + +Solicitor: + +Solicitor of the Supreme Court, WA +England & Wales + + + +#### OPERATING AGREEMENT OF NES, LLC A New York Limited Liability Company + +THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") of NES, LLC, a New York limited liability company (the "Company"), organized under the Limited Liability Company Law of the State of New York (this "LLC Law") is adopted as of January 1, 2014 by the Company's sole member, Jeffrey E. EpsteirSreinafter referred to as "Sole Member"), with an address at 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802, who has determined that the Company's activities and the rights and responsibilities of its members shall be governed by the following terms and conditions: + +#### SECTION I ORGANIZATION & FORMATION + +A. Formation. The Company has been organized as a New York limited liability company under and pursuant to the LLC Law by the filing of Articles of Organization ("Articles") with the Secretary of State of the State of New York on August 13, 1998, as required by the LLC Law. + +B. Name. The name of the Company shall be "NES, LLC". The Company upon proper notice and filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York may conduct its operations under one or more assumed names. + +C. Purposes. The purpose of the Company is to engage in any lawful activity, operate any lawful enterprise or to have any other lawful purpose permitted by the LLC Law and the other applicable laws of the State of New York. The Company shall have all the powers necessary or convenient to affect any purpose for which it is formed, including all powers granted by the LLC Law. + +D. Duration. The Company shall continue in existence perpetually, beginning on the date of filing of the Articles, unless terminated by law or dissolved and terminated. + +E. Service Address and Place of Business. The Secretary of State of the State of New York is designated as the agent of the Company upon whom process against the Company may be served. The post office address within or without the State of New York to which process so served may be sent is 9 East 71' Street, New York, New York 10021. The Company's principal place of business shall be located in the City, State and County of New York, or such other place or places as the Sole Member may hereafter determine. + +# Exhibit C + +#### SECTION II CAPITAL STRUCTURE: MEMBERSHIP UNITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS/TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP UNITS + +A. Capital Contribution by the Sole Member: Initial Issuance. The Sole Member's ownership rights in the Company shall be reflected as a 100% membership interest as recorded in the Company's records. The Sole Member may make additional capital contributions from time to time and at any time and in any amounts that he may desire. + +B. Transfer of Membership Interest. Subject to the provisions of this Section, a Member may transfer and assign all or a portion of his interest as a member in the Company ("Membership Interest") to any one or more persons or entities, at any time and from time to time. The transfer and assignment of all or a portion of a Membership Interest does not, in and of itself, entitle the assignee to participate in the management and affairs of the Company or to become a member. Such assignee is only entitled to receive, to the extent assigned, the distributions the assigning Member would otherwise be entitled to, and such assignee shall only become an assignee of all or a portion of a Membership Interest and not a substitute Member. An assignee of all or a portion of a Membership Interest shall be admitted as a substitute Member and shall be entitled to all the rights and powers of the assignor only if all the Members consent. If admitted, the substitute Member, has to the extent assigned, all of the rights and powers, and is subject to all of the restrictions and liabilities, of a Member of the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, without the consent of any other Member, the Sole Member may, by a duly executed agreement with the assignee, assign any or all of the Membership Interest then held by the Sole Member, together with the Sole Member's management and voting rights in the Company with respect to the portion of the Membership Interest so assigned, and, upon the consummation of such assignment, the assignee thereof shall be automatically admitted as a substitute member, with all of the rights and powers held by, and subject to all of the restrictions and liabilities imposed upon, the Sole Member immediately prior to such assignment, to the full extent of the portion of the Membership Interest so assigned. + +C. No Interest; No Return of Capital. Capital contributions to the Company shall not earn interest, except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Member shall not be entitled to withdraw, or to receive a return of, a capital contribution or any portion thereof; provided, however, that, subject to the provisions of Section IV hereof, the Sole Member shall from time to time and at any time, in the Sole Member's discretion, be entitled to withdraw, and receive a return of, all or any part of the Sole Member's capital contribution. + +#### SECTION III CAPITAL ACCOUNT + +A. Capital Account. A capital account ("Capital Account") shall be maintained for the Sole Member, and each additional Member, if any, in accordance with the provision of this Article. + +1. Increases in Capital Account. The Capital Account of each Member shall be increased by: + +- (a) The fair market value of the Member's initial capital contribution and any additional capital contributions by the Member to the Company. If any property, other than cash, is contributed to or distributed by the Company, the adjustments to Capital Accounts required by Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-1(bX2Xiv)(d), (e), (0 and (g) and Section 1.704-1(bX4)(1) shall be made. +- (b) The Member's share of the increase in the tax basis of Company property, if any, arising out of the recapture of any tax credit. +- (c) Allocations to the Member of Profit. +- (d) Company income or gain (including income and gain exempt from income taxation) as provided under this Agreement, or otherwise by Regulation Section 1.704-1(bX2 Xiv). +- (e) The amount of Company liabilities that are assumed by the Member. + +2. Decreases in Capital Account. The Capital Account of each Member shall be decreased by: + +- (a) The amount of money distributed to the Member by the Company pursuant to any provision of this Agreement. +- (b) The fair market value of property distributed to the Member by the Company (net of liabilities secured by such distributed property that Member is considered to assume or take subject to under Code Section 752). +- (c) Allocations to the Member of Losses. +- (d) Allocations to the Member of deductions, expenses, Nonrecourse Deductions and net losses allocated to him pursuant to this Agreement, and the Member's share of Company expenditures which are neither deductible nor properly chargeable to Capital Accounts under Code Section 705(aX2)(8) or are treated as such expenditures under Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-1(bX2)(ivXj). "Nonrecourse Deductions" shall have the meaning set forth in Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-2. +- (e) The amount of any liabilities of the Member that are assumed by the Company. + +#### SECTION IV ALLOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTIONS + +A. Allocations. For purposes of maintaining each Member's Capital Account, all of the Company's net profits, net losses, expenses and other items of income, gain, loss, and credit shall be allocated to the Member in proportion to the percentage Membership Interest of such Member. All items of Company taxable income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit recognized or allowable for Federal income tax purposes shall be similarly allocated and credited or charged to each Member in proportion to the percentage Membership Interest held by such Member. + +B. Distributions. Net cash flow shall be distributed at such times and in such amounts as may be determined from time to time and at any time by the Sole Member of the Company in the following priority: + +- 1. First, to the Members in repayment of any advance of funds to the Company as a lender, to the extent of and in proportion to such advances, including interest thereon, if any; +- 2. Additional distributions, if any will be made to the Members in proportion to the percentage Membership Interests held by them, respectively, in such amounts and at such times as may be determined by the Sole Member of the Company. + +#### C. Distribution upon Liquidation of the Company. + +- 1. At the termination of the Company and after the Company has satisfied or provided for the satisfaction of all the Company's debts and other obligations, the Company's assets will be distributed in cash to the Members first, in discharge of their respective capital interests; and then, in proportion to the percentage Membership Interests held by them, respectively. +- 2. If the Company lacks sufficient assets to make the distributions described in the foregoing paragraph, the Company will make distributions in proportion to the respective Membership Interests of the Members. + +#### SECTION V MANAGEMENT OF BUSINESS + +A. In General. The Company shall be member-managed. The Members of the Company shall manage the business and affairs of the Company and shall have full and complete authority, power and discretion to do all things necessary or convenient to manage, control and cany out the business, affairs and properties of the Company, to make all decisions regarding those matters and to perform any and all other acts or activities customary or incident to the management of the Company's business. All decisions and actions of the Company in connection therewith shall be determined by the affirmative vote or the written consent of Members holding a majority percentage of the Membership Interests of the Company. + +B. Limitation of Manager's Authority. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in the foregoing, the written consent of the Sole Member shall be required to: + +- 1. Sell, transfer, assign, convey, or otherwise dispose of any part of the Company's assets; +- 2. Cause the Company to incur any debt in excess of \$5,000, whether or not in the ordinary course of business; +- 3. Cause the Company to incur any debt less than \$5,000 other than in the ordinary course of business; +- 4. Cause the Company to encumber any assets in connection with any debt referred to in clause 2 or 3 above; +- 5. Issue or sell, or approve the transfer, assignment, conveyance or other disposition of all or any portion of any Membership Interest in the Company; +- 6. Adopt, amend or repeal the Operating Agreement of the Company; +- 7. Approve a plan of merger of the Company with any other entity; +- 8. Incur any single expense or combination of related expenses in excess of \$5,000; +- 9. Cause the Company to make any distributions to its Members. + +C. Voting of Membership Interests. A Membership Interest is entitled to be voted only if it is owned by a Member, and the relative weight of the vote of each such Membership Interest shall be proportionate to such Member's percentage Membership Interest. Neither an assignee nor a transferee may vote a Membership Interest unless such assignee or transferee is admitted as a Member. + +#### SECTION VI EXCULPATION OF LIABILITY: INDEMNIFICATION + +A. Exculpation of Liability. Unless otherwise provided by law or expressly assumed pursuant to a written instrument signed by such person, neither the Sole Member nor any other subsequent Member of the Company shall be personally liable for the acts, debts or liabilities of the Company. + +#### B. Indemnification. + +1. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the Company, its receiver or its trustee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Sole Member, each other subsequent Member and their respective heirs, personal representatives, and successors, and may indemnify, defend and hold harmless any employee or agent, who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to a threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, from and against any expense, loss, damage or liability incurred or connected with, or any claim, suit, demand, loss, judgment, liability, cost or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, arising from or related to, the Company or any act or omission of the Sole Member, such subsequent Member or such employee or agent on behalf of the Company, and amounts paid in settlement of any of the above, provided that such amounts were not the result of fraud, gross negligence, or reckless or intentional misconduct on the part of the Sole Member, such subsequent Member or such employee or agent against whom a claim is asserted. The Company may advance to the Sole + +Member, such subsequent Member or any such employee or agent and their respective heirs, personal representatives, and successors the costs of defending any claim, suit or action against such person if such person undertakes to repay the fluids advanced, with interest, if the person is not entitled to indemnification under this Section. + +2. To the extent that the Sole Member, such subsequent Member, or any such employee or agent of the Company has been successful on the merits or otherwise in defense of an action, suit or proceeding or in defense of any claim, issue or other matter in the action, suit or proceeding, such person shall be indemnified against actual and reasonable expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, incurred by such person in connection with the action, suit or proceeding and any action, suit or proceeding brought to enforce the mandatory indemnification provided herein. + +3. Any indemnification permitted under this Section, unless ordered by a court, shall be made by the Company only as authorized in the specific case upon a determination that the indemnification is proper under the circumstances because the person to be indemnified has met the applicable standard of conduct and upon an evaluation of the reasonableness of expenses and amounts paid in settlement. This determination and evaluation shall be made by the vote of the majority of the percentage Membership Interests. Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, no indemnification shall be provided to any Member, employee or agent of the Company for or in connection with the receipt of a financial benefit to which such person is not entitled, voting for or assenting to a distribution to the Members in violation of this Agreement or the LLC Law, or a knowing violation of other law. + +#### SECTION VII LIOUIDATION + +The Company shall be dissolved, and shall terminate and wind up its affairs, upon the determination of the Sole Member to do so. + +#### SECTION VIII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS + +A. Section Headings. The Section headings and numbers contained in this Agreement have been inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in no way shall be construed to define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. + +B. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were omitted. + +C. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or revoked at any time, in writing, with the consent of the Sole Member. No change or modification to this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the Sole Member. + +D. finding Effect. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement relating to transferability, this Agreement will be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties, and their respective distributees, heirs, successors and assigns. + +E. Governing Law. The rights and obligations of the Sole Member, and any claims and disputes relating thereto, shall be subject to and governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, including without limitation, the LLC Law, as well as all New York Laws applicable to contracts executed and to be fully performed within the State of New York, without application of New York's laws relating to conflicts of law. + +IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sole Member makes and executes this Operating Agreement on the day and year first written above. \_ + +SOLE MEMIJEFa--------- + +Jeffity E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821977/EFTA02821977.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821977/EFTA02821977.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bfe17b61ed170346090bc333e6d39291684168c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02821977/EFTA02821977.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -170, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02821977", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 10, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"epstein_legal.redaction-normalization.block-characters\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "c27c77a5c12b8cdd41daba4610af60a4b218b4ae1daa06fccfd3a425c116807d", + "output_sha256": "940e54af073cd1c2bd300072a889aa0c7bd6c768c62dce4d6ab686497c557edf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822000/EFTA02822000.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822000/EFTA02822000.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf9b13b43b5910ac94bd968af85db8c61f5284fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822000/EFTA02822000.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +May 09, 202G + +TAMARA CHARLES + +## CLERK OF TOE COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +DIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN + +GIIISLAINE MAXWELL, ) + +) CASE NO. ST-20-CV-155 ) ) ) ) + +Plaintiff, ) + +VS. ) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al., ) + +Defendants. ) + +## ORDER + +Defendants Indykes and Kahn having filed a Motion to Dismiss on or about May 1, 2020; it is + +ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the Motion by June I, 2020, and Defendants may reply by June 15, 2020; and it is + +ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record. + +Dated: May 9, 2020. + +ATTEST: Tamara Charles + +HON. N JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT + +CI the Cou OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS by: Lori B nes-Tyson Court erk Supervisor \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822000/EFTA02822000.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822000/EFTA02822000.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..081755c7f0c60a495aec00ac3ca5b9301349c0f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822000/EFTA02822000.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822000", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1bd2950564eb3cba233bf819a3d8d34b43e9f38e2ac833979a9fbd4f5735e14e", + "output_sha256": "1bd2950564eb3cba233bf819a3d8d34b43e9f38e2ac833979a9fbd4f5735e14e", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822001/EFTA02822001.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822001/EFTA02822001.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6200f13fc20cbe135fd27af6e153af4262ada2e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822001/EFTA02822001.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +May 11, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS** +District of St. Thomas/St. John + +--- + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, +Plaintiff + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 +Action: Debt + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN et al, +Defendant. + +**NOTICE of ENTRY** +**of** +**ORDER** + +To: Kyle R. Waldner,Esq. [REDACTED] A. Kroblin,Esq. + +Please take notice that on +ORDER +dated MAY 9, 2020 was/were entered +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: May 11, 2020 + +Tamara Charles +Clerk of the Court + +By: + +Donna Donovan +Court Clerk Supervisor \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822001/EFTA02822001.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822001/EFTA02822001.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ae2ef68a78bdf2f53edaa2b32532c5a13bda0c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822001/EFTA02822001.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -120, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822001", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6aec84a0bc927bd4709d673129f30123690752b6049d93bdac190d676f683998", + "output_sha256": "22bcc722de13962a6e019bcbdbeb58c94dee7f58f9c0a5391b43dcab3fd1ad11", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822002/EFTA02822002.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822002/EFTA02822002.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aed9c1436d61b676a851f458204a4522596021ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822002/EFTA02822002.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +# FILED + +Cune 01, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-I55 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +### JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS + +Plaintiff GH1SLAINE MAXWELL ("Plaintiff'), and Defendants DARREN K. INDYKE ("lndyke") and RICHARD D. KAHN ("Kahn"), by and though their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC, an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate (collectively, the "Defendants"), through their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby file this Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings until September 7, 2020, and state as follows: + +I. "The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." v. Treasure Bay V.I. Corp., 2016 WL 9503682, at \*3 (V.1. Super. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). Generally, the party seeking a stay "must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go + +forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else." Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. To that end, in determining whether to grant a motion to stay, courts have considered the following factors: (1) whether a stay will simplify issues and promote judicial economy; (2) the balance of hann to the parties; and (3) the length of the requested stay. See 2016 WL 9503682. at \*3; Cheyney State Coll. Faculty v. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 737-38 (3d Cir. 1983) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). + +2. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on May I, 2020, citing, in part, 15 V.I.C. § 606(a), which provides that "(a)n action may be commenced against an executor or administrator at any time after the expiration of twelve months from the granting of letters testamentary or of administration and until the final settlement of the estate and discharge of such executor or administrator from the trust, and not otherwise." Here, Magistrate Judge Carolyn P. Ilennon-Percell issued Letters Testamentary to Indyke and Kahn on September 6, 2019. + +3. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy and preserving assets of the Estate, it is requested that the Court stay the instant proceeding until September 7, 2020, a definite period of 98 days from the date of this Motion. The parties further stipulate that Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss shall be due on or by September 7, 2020. + +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an Order staying this proceeding until September 7, 2020, and for any such other and fiirther relief that this Court deems just and proper. + +Dated: June 1, 2020 + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, [REDACTED] & BOYER, P.A. +*Attorneys for Plaintiff* +9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4{sup}`th` Floor +Miami, FL 33156 +T: (340) 693-0230 +F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: /s/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. +kwaldner@qpwblaw.com +V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +KELLERHALS [REDACTED] KROBLIN PLLC +*Attorneys for Defendants* + +[REDACTED] Palms Professional Building +9053 Estate [REDACTED], Suite 101 +St. [REDACTED], V.I. 00802 +T: (340) 779-2564 +F: (888) 316-9269 + +By: /s/ [REDACTED] Kroblin + +[REDACTED] Kroblin, Esq. +ckroblin@kellfer.com +V.I. Bar No.: 966 + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email and U.S. Mail this 14 day of June, 2020 to: + +Kroblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. V.I. 00802 ckrotaliMet kellfer.com + +/s/ Kvle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. + +kwaldner6/ aowblaw.com + +V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +# IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +# ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings between the parties hereto. The premises having been duly considered, it is hereby: + +ORDERED that the Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings is GRANTED; and it is further + +ORDERED that Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be due on or by September 7, 2020; and it is further + +ORDERED that a certified copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record. + +Dated: 2020 + +ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court + +By: Deputy Clerk JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822002/EFTA02822002.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822002/EFTA02822002.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df74538b19e11fb05639b98f93c708f1d2f1c3d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822002/EFTA02822002.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -4, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822002", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d8e7ff40673f7000de5d37a09e40c8b5797ca7a8851403fbfac256fe33ac7a29", + "output_sha256": "cee7655b11048c3473378860c1917b9078db142b95f2943860d56260a16fe511", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822007/EFTA02822007.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822007/EFTA02822007.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9397f186471650652753d4a3877fd8bed639ddc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822007/EFTA02822007.md @@ -0,0 +1,1747 @@ +July 13, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +# EXHIBIT A + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN + +COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS, + +Case No.: + +PLAINTIFF, + +ACTION FOR DAMAGES + +V. + +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as the +EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. +EPSTEIN and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 +TRUST; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as +the EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY +E. EPSTEIN, and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE +1953 TRUST; ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +THE 1953 TRUST, PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. +JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, +LLC; POPLAR, INC., SOUTHERN TRUST +COMPANY, INC.; JOHN AND JANE DOES + +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + +DEFENDANTS, + +FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT + +COMES NOW, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and +files this First Amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants and in support thereof, +would show unto the Court as follows: + +**JURISDICTION AND PARTIES** + +1. The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (herein after "Virgin +Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Government of the Virgin Islands, pursuant +to 3 V.I.C. § 114 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands, and advocate +for the public interest, safety, health and well-being of persons in the Virgin Islands. + +2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 76 and 14 V.I.C. § 607. + +3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903. + +4. The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It consists of St. =, St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island. and more than 40 surrounding islands and Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St. James and Great St. James. + +5. Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was a resident of the Virgin Islands and he maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquired in 1998 and in 2016 he also purchased Great St. James. + +6. Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 2010. He was a Tier I offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for prostitution. As a Ticr 1 offender, Epstein was required to register annually with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice ("VIDOJ") and give advance notice of his travel to and from the Virgin Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ. + +7. Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex crimes. + +8. Defendant Darren K. Indyke ("Defendant Indyke") is co-executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and Administrator of The 1953 Trust. + +9. Defendant Richard D. Kahn ("Defendant Kahn") is co-executor of The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and Administrator of The 1953 Trust. + +10. Defendant, the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Estate"), created upon Epstein's death. is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, Defendants Indyke and Kahn filed a + +Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which included Epstein's last will and testament with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. + +- 11. The Petition reports the value of the real and personal property in The Estate located in the Virgin Islands at \$577,672,654.00 dollars. + +- 12. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far includes: + - a. \$56.5 million in cash; + - b. \$127 million in fixed income and equity investments; + - c. \$195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and + - d. \$18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles. + +The Estate has not yet valued his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables. + +- 13. The Estate also includes shares of various corporate entities which hold residences and real property used by Epstein, namely: + +- a. Brownstone in New York City valued at \$56 million; +- b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at \$72 million; +- c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at \$12 million; +- d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at \$8 million; and +- e. Great St. James and Little St. James, collectively valued at \$86 million. + +- 14. The Estate is responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. + +- 15. Defendant The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein, who "amended and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last Will and Testament, transferring all of his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" to The Trust. + +16. The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. Defendants 1ndyke and Kahn, filed a Certificate of Trust in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The Trust on August 26, 2019. + +17. Epstein maintained a deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities, not all of which are yet known to the Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal conduct. + +18. Epstein regularly created new entities in the territory and transferred properties and funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and conceal the unlawful acts described in this Complaint. + +19. These entities held properties, including Little St. James and Great St. James, at which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls. + +20. Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president, member, manager, or director of each of the entities and, upon infonnation and belief, directing their activities. + +21. Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. It was incorporated on November 22, 2011. + +22. According to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Nautilus, Inc. owns Little St. James, a/k/a Parcel Number 109803010100, a parcel of 3.1 million square feet valued at \$3.2 million, with buildings and improvements valued at S4 million. + +23. Epstein was president and director of Nautilus, Inc., which corporate filings describe as "holding property for personal use." Defendants Indyke and Kahn are the secretary and treasurer of Nautilus, Inc., respectively. The Estate values Epstein's holdings of Nautilus, Inc., which holds title to Little St. James at \$63.9 million. + +24. A deed recorded with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds on December 30, 2011 reflects that the property was transferred from a Delaware entity, L.S.I., LLC, to Nautilus, Inc. for "TEN DOLLARS (\$10.00) and other good and valuable consideration." The quitclaim deed lists Jeffrey Epstein as the sole member of L.S.J., LLC, which it acquired Little Saint James via a warranty deed dated April 27, 1998. + +25. As described below, Epstein engaged in a pattern and practice of trafficking and sexually abusing young women and female children on this private, secluded island of Little St. James where Epstein and his associates could avoid detection of their illegal activity from Virgin Islands and federal law enforcement and prevent these young women and underage girls from leaving freely and escaping the abuse. + +26. Thus, Nautilus, Inc. participated in carrying out, facilitating and concealing Epstein's crimes, hence Little St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +27. Defendant, Great St. Jim, LLC, is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Great St. Jim, LLC was organized on October 26, 2015. Great St. Jim, LLC, according to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, owns at least three properties that make up Great St. James acquired on January 28, 2016: Parcel Number 109801010100, consisting of 3.5 million square feet and valued at \$17.5 million; Parcel Number 109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land, valued at \$2.8 million; and Parcel Number 109801010300, 1.2 million square feet of land, valued at \$2.7 million. According to a + +## GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 6 of 55 + +warranty deed filed with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Epstein, through Great St. Jim, LLC, acquired the last two parcels for \$5 million each. + +28. Epstein is listed as manager and a member of Great St. Jim, LLC and the nature of its business is described as "holding assets." + +29. Upon information and belief, Epstein purchased these Great St. James properties the island with closest proximity to Little St. James—to further shield his conduct on Little St. James from view, prevent his detection by law enforcement or the public, and allow him to continue and conceal his criminal enterprise. Epstein's significant investment in the purchase of Great St. James demonstrates his intent to expand his illegal operation in the Virgin Islands for years to come. Thus, Great St. Jim, LLC participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes, and Great St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +30. Defendant, Poplar, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Poplar, Inc. was incorporated on November 22, 2011. Epstein was president and director of Poplar, Inc., and its purpose was described in corporate filings as "holding property for personal use." Defendants Indyke and Kahn are secretary and treasurer of Poplar, Inc., respectively. + +31. A certificate of incumbency provided to the Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") also lists Epstein as president of Poplar, Inc. and expressly authorizes the incorporators to conduct "transactions related to permitting matters submitted on behalf of Great St. Jim, LLC." + +32. Poplar, Inc. is listed as the signatory for the 2017 Annual Report for Great St. Jim, LLC, and the signature appears to be Epstein's. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary filed by The Estate lists Poplar, Inc. as holding title to Great St. James. Thus, Poplar, Inc. participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes. + +33. Defendant, Plan D, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. In its original Articles of Organization, filed October 19, 2012, and Annual Report filings, Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski. was listed as Plan D, LLC's sole manager/member. However, the July 31, 2019 Annual Report revealed Epstein as the principal behind Plan D, LLC. + +34. Upon information and belief, Plan D, LLC owns one or more of the airplanes and helicopters that Epstein used to transport young women and children to and from the Virgin Islands to carry out the criminal pattern of activity described below. Among the airplanes owned by Plan D, LLC is a Gulfstream with N-number N212JE. Flight logs and travel notices indicate that Epstein used this plane to traffic and transport and young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands. + +35. Defendant, Hyperion Air, LW is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands on October 19, 2012. Jeffrey Epstein is a manager/member of Hyperion Air, LLC, along with his pilot, Larry Visoski. The purpose of Hyperion Air, LLC is listed in its Annual Report as "holding assets." + +36. Hyperion Air, LLC is the registered owner of a Bell helicopter with N-number N331.1E and a Keystone helicopter with N-number N722JE. Upon information and belief, Epstein used these helicopters to transport young women and underage girls between St. and Little St. James. + +37. Defendant Southern Trust Company, Inc. was originally incorporated in the Virgin Islands on November 18, 2011 as Financial Informatics, Inc., but changed its name to Southern + +Trust Company in September 2012. Southern Trust Company is a tenant at American Yacht Harbor in Red Hook, St. and Epstein is a "passive investor" in IGY-AYH, d/b/a American Yacht Harbor. By the end of 2013, according to its corporate filings, Southern Trust Company has assets of \$198.5 million; four years later, its assets reached \$391.3 million. From 2011 until at least 2018, Jeffrey Epstein was the President/Director of Southern Trust Company, and Defendants Kahn and lndyke were Treasurer/Director and Secretary/Director, respectively. Epstein was the sole owner of Southern Trust Company. + +38. John and Jane Does represent individuals and entities whose identities or involvement with Epstein are currently unknown. The Government of the Virgin Islands will amend the Complaint to add these individuals and entities when discovered. + +39. The Attorney General brings this action to seek all remedies available to the Government of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and public safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant, the claims of victims who were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. + +# FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS + +# A. The Conduct of the "Epstein Enterprise" in the Virgin Islands + +40. Epstein and his associates, including Defendants, identified and recruited female victims, including children, and transported them to the Virgin Islands where they were abused and injured. Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands. + +41. Epstein created a network of companies and individuals who participated in and conspired with him in a pattern of criminal activity related to the sex trafficking, forced labor, sexual assault, child abuse, and sexual servitude of these young women and children. Epstein and his associates trafficked underage girls to the Virgin Islands, held them captive, and sexually abused them, causing them grave physical, mental, and emotional injury. + +42. To accomplish his illegal ends, Epstein formed an association in fact with multiple Defendants and others (both companies and individuals) who were willing to participate in, facilitate, and conceal Epstein's criminal activity in exchange for Epstein's bestowal of financial and other benefits, including sexual services and forced labor from victims. + +43. This illicit association of Epstein, Defendants, and his associates constitute what is referred to herein as the "Epstein Enterprise." Epstein's associates in the Epstein Enterprise, including, but not limited to, those named as Defendants knowingly facilitated, participated in, and concealed Epstein's illegal conduct. + +44. Epstein used his wealth and power to create the Epstein Enterprise which engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands by repeatedly procuring and subjecting underage girls and young women to unlawful sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and forced labor. + +45. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands (and elsewhere) with the criminal purpose and goal of placing a steady supply of vulnerable female children and young women into sexual servitude in service of Epstein's desires, and those of his associates. The Epstein Enterprise Maintained and made available young women and underage girls for the purpose of engaging them in forced labor and sexual activities and used coercion and deception to procure, abuse, and harbor its victims. + +46. Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken via helicopter or private vessel to Little St. James where they were then deceptively subjected to sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity and forced labor. + +47. In furtherance of its criminal activities, the Epstein Enterprise used its aircrafts to transport the young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands for purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. + +48. The Epstein Enterprise facilitated and participated in the sexual molestation and exploitation of numerous girls between the age of 12 and 17 years old. + +49. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, associates of the Epstein Enterprise, funded by the Epstein Enterprise, lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to locations including the Virgin Islands where, upon information and belief, based on the pattern and practice of the Epstein Enterprise, they were sexually abused and exploited. + +50. Associates in the Epstein Enterprise recruited both victims and abusers into the Epstein Enterprise, participated in sexual acts of rape and abuse of minors and witnessed Epstein and others engage in sexual acts with children. + +51. As recent as 2018, air traffic controllers and other airport personnel reported seeing Epstein leave his plane with young girls some of whom appeared to be between the age of 11 and 18 years. + +52. Upon information and belief, based on Epstein's pattern of trafficking and sexually abusing young girls, the Epstein Enterprise trafficked and abused these girls, and others, in the Virgin Islands through 2018. + +53. When sued in civil court for committing sex trafficking and sex crimes, Epstein never denied engaging in sexual acts with underage females and procuring underage females for prostitution, but instead consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. + +54. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise kept a computerized list of underage girls who were in or proximate to the Virgin Islands, and able to be transported to Epstein's residence at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. + +55. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct by trafficking children and young women and placing them in sexual servitude and forced labor in the Virgin Islands. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly violated 14 VIC. §§ 133 to 138, which prohibit trafficking and sexual abuse. The Epstein Enterprise also repeatedly violated laws against child abuse and neglect, including 14 V.I.C. § 505, which defines the crime of child abuse as knowingly or recklessly causing "a child to suffer physical, mental, or emotional injury," or causing a child to be placed in a situation where such injury is foreseeable, and 14 V.I.C. § 506, which applies, as here, where the child suffers serious physical, mental, or emotional injury as a result of that abuse. The harm to Epstein's victims was both fully foreseeable and deeply damaging. + +56. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, received, procured, obtained, isolated, maintained, and enticed young women and girls to engage in forced labor (such as providing massages) and, ultimately, sexual servitude at his little St. James residence. + +57. A 15 year old victim was forced into sexual acts with Epstein and others and then attempted to escape by swimming off the Little St. James island. Epstein and others organized a search party that located her and kept her captive by, among other things, confiscating her passport. + +58. Another victim, who was first engaged in provide massages to Epstein, was then forced to perform sexual acts at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. When she attempted to + +escape from the "private island," Epstein and a search party found her, returned her to his house, and suggested physical restraint or harm if she failed to cooperate. + +59. The Epstein Enterprise deceptively lured underage girls and women into its sex trafficking ring with money and promises of employment, career opportunities and school assistance. The Epstein Enterprise preyed on their financial and other vulnerabilities, and promised victims money, shelter, gifts, employment, tuition and other items of value. For example, participants in the Epstein Enterprise targeted young and underage females under the pretext that they would be paid substantially merely to provide massages to him and others. However, once drawn in, victims were then pressured and coerced to engage in sexual acts. + +60. The Epstein Enterprise forced underage victims to recruit others to perform services and engage in sexual acts—a trafficking pyramid scheme. + +61. The Epstein Enterprise paid girls for each "meeting," with additional money if they brought additional girls. Epstein reportedly required three meetings per day. + +62. The Epstein Enterprise used the term "work" as a code for sexual abuse, and, upon information and belief, reportedly kept computer records of the contact information for the victims. + +63. Consistent with his creation and use of a complex web of entities to carry out and conceal the criminal trafficking enterprise in the Virgin islands, the Epstein Enterprise sometimes paid young women and underage girls he exploited and trafficked through his charitable foundations. + +64. Once the girls and women were recruited, participants in the Epstein Enterprise enforced their sexual servitude of victims by coercion, including but not limited to, confiscating passports, controlling and extinguishing external communications, and threatening violence. They + +also made fraudulent statements to family members of victims, claiming victims were being well cared for and supported financially in college and other educational opportunities. + +65. The Epstein Enterprise transported, held, sexually abused, trafficked, and concealed women and children at his property in the Virgin Islands dozens of times over nearly two decades. + +# B. The "Epstein Enterprise" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its Criminal Scheme + +66. The Epstein Enterprise in 1998 acquired Little St. James in the Virgin Islands as the perfect hideaway and haven for trafficking young women and underage girls for sexual servitude, child abuse and sexual assault. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly two miles from St. with no other residents. It can be visited only by private boat or helicopter; no public or commercial transportation is available to carry persons on or off the island, and no bridge connects the island to St. . Epstein had easy access to Little St. James from the private airfield on St. , only 10 minutes away by his private helicopter, but the women and children he trafficked, abused, and held there were not able to leave without his permission and assistance, as it was too far and dangerous to swim to St. + +67. In 2016, upon information and belief, using a straw purchaser to hide Epstein's identity, the Epstein Enterprise acquired Great St. James the nearest island to Little St. James. By then, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise purchased the island for more than \$20 million because its participants wanted to ensure that the island did not become a base from which others could view their activities or visitors. By acquiring ownership and control of Great St. James to the exclusion of others, the Epstein Enterprise created + +additional barriers to prevent those held involuntarily on Little St. James from escaping or obtaining help from others. + +68. Great St. James and Little St. James are environmentally sensitive locations, with native coral and wildlife protected by federal and territorial law and enforcement authorities. The Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") regulates and monitors construction in the Coastal Zone to protect, maintain and manage the precious natural resources of the Virgin Islands. Under its authority, DPNR repeatedly issued citations and assessed thousands of dollars of fines for violations of the Virgin Islands construction code and environmental protection laws on both Little St. James and Great St. James--significant penalties to the agency and to the average resident of the Virgin Islands. But because of Epstcin's enormous wealth, these fines had little effect in curbing or stopping the Epstein Enterprise's unlawful conduct or conforming its activities to the law. + +69. As a result of illegal construction activity of the Epstein Enterprise, the Virgin Islands has incurred, and will incur, significant expenses to remove the illegal construction or remediate its effects on natural resources in and around Little St. James and Great St. James. The extent of the potential environmental damage is unknown at this time as the illegal construction has not been removed or rcmediated. + +70. The Epstein Enterprise continues to attempt to prevent or limit DPNR authorities from conducting random inspections on the Little St. James and Great St. James necessary to comply with Virgin Islands law. + +71. The Epstein Enterprise's violation of the construction and environmental laws was part of a pattern of behavior in flouting the laws of the Virgin Islands and holding itself above the law. Upon information and belief, as described above, the Epstein Enterprise undertook + +construction at Great St. James after 2016 to continue the scheme to carry out and conceal his trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and children in the Virgin Islands. These actions are also indicative of the Epstein Enterprise's disregard for Virgin Islands' law. The Epstein Enterprise used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for its illicit purposes. Rather than participating lawfully in this community, the Epstein Enterprise took advantage of the secluded nature of the islands in furtherance of its crimes. + +72. As a result of its deplorable and unlawful conduct, the Epstein Enterprise has subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as a hiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes. + +# C. The "Epstein Enterprise" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct + +73. The Epstein Enterprise fraudulently concealed its actions to prevent detection by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +74. The secluded properties at Little St. James and Great St. James were repeatedly used by the Epstein Enterprise as the locations for unlawfully soliciting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, isolating, patronizing, maintaining, deceiving, coercing, and sexually abusing young women and children and concealing these crimes. + +75. The Epstein Enterprise was able to hide the trafficking ring from law enforcement, despite the fact that Epstein was a registered sex offender. Given the isolation of the Little St. James and Great St. James and the nature of the crimes and of the victims targeted by the Epstein Enterprise, the activities of the Epstein Enterprise were not readily detectable. Moreover, Epstein's great wealth and power likely made witnesses reluctant to report their observations to the local law enforcement. + +76. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise prevented its employees from cooperating with law enforcement. Employees and others were required to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from speaking to or sharing information with law enforcement. If they were contacted by law enforcement they were to notify the Epstein Enterprise and be represented by Epstein's counsel. + +77. The employees were directed not to communicate or interact with guests visiting Little St. James and were also directed not to disclose to anyone events that occurred on the island. + +78. Monitoring a sex offender with his own private islands and the resources to fly victims in and out on private planes and helicopters presented unique challenges and allowed the Epstein Enterprise to limit scrutiny by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +79. Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act (`SORCPA") 14 V.I.C. § 1721, et. seq. requires sex offenders to register in their resident jurisdictions and to make periodic in-person appearances to verify and update their registration information. + +80. Epstein renewed his registration each year in the Virgin Islands. In addition, beyond this statutory requirement, the Virgin Islands periodically visited—or attempted to visit— Little St. James to conduct additional address verifications. + +81. At his last verification in July 2018, Epstein refused to permit Virgin Islands Department of Justice Investigators, assisted by United States Marshals, to enter Little St. James beyond its dock, claiming that the dock was his "front door." Instead. Epstein arranged to be met at his office on St. M. + +82. Epstein also misled the Government regarding his travel plans. On March 19, 2019, the Virgin Islands was notified that Epstein would be traveling to France for 10 days on the private plane owned by Plan D, LLC. His notification form did not disclose travel to any other countries. It was later found by law enforcement authorities that Epstein also travelled to Vienna and Monaco during that trip. + +83. Similarly, the Epstein Enterprise sought to prevent DPNR from conducting routine site visits to inspect unpermitted and potentially damaging construction activity on Great St. James. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly objected to DPNR's inspections referring to them as "invasions" of Epstein's constitutional right to privacy in his home, which he described defined as the entire island. These DPNR inspections are required for all construction and Virgin Islands residents are required to cooperate with the inspections to assure compliance with the law throughout the construction phases. + +84. These efforts represent Epstein Enterprise's intent to conceal its unlawful activity on Little St. James and Great St. James. + +85. The Epstein Enterprise also created numerous corporations and limited liability companies in the Virgin Islands to help conceal its unlawful activity. Most of these companies were created in 2011 and 2012, soon after Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands. + +86. Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski is identified as member or co-member in companies that serviced and maintained the planes that the Epstein Enterprise used to traffick young women and children — Freedom Air Petroleum, LLC (registered November 28, 2011 to hold assets); and JEGE, LLC (registered October 19, 2012 to hold assets). + +87. Other Epstein entities include LSJ Employees, LLC (registered October 27, 2011 to provide services); Southern Financial, LLC (registered February 25, 2013 to provide services) and LSJ Emergency, LLC (registered December 2, 2015 to provide services). + +88. Some of these companies held considerable assets: Financial Informatics, Inc. (incorporated November 18, 2011, also known as Southern Trust Company, Inc.) had assets of approximately \$391 million in 2015; arid Financial Trust Company, Inc. (incorporated November 6, 1998) had assets of \$212 million when it publicly filed its last balance sheet in 2012. + +89. Though often absent in the original incorporation or registration documents or annual filings, Epstein ultimately appeared as president, director, manager, or sole member of each of these companies. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this complex array of corporate entities—some of which may still be discovered—was to allow Epstein to shelter his assets in order to fund, carry out, and conceal his identity and pattern of criminal conduct. + +90. The Estate continues to engage in a course of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. On November 24, 2019, Epstein's Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. ("Motion"). According to the Motion, the proposed program was to be designed to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." (Motion, at 1). + +91. The program proposed by the Estate, whose executors are trustees of The 1953 Trust and officers in at least two Epstein entities, imposes confidentiality requirements and requires any claimant accepting an award under the program to sacrifice any other claims against "any person or entity arising from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct." (Motion, at 5). It acts to conceal the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shield its participants from liability and accountability for the injury they caused to the victims. + +92. Two days before his death, Epstein amended The Trust and his Last Will and Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so, as part of a pattern and ongoing effort to conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants. + +# D. The "Epstein Enterprise" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws + +93. The pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Epstein and other participants in the Epstein Enterprise violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 605 and 607 of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"). + +94. The Epstein Enterprise also violated Title 14, Chapter 3A, The Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act relating to Trafficking of Persons; Title 14, Chapter 24, relating to Child Protection and Child Abuse and Neglect; Title 14, Chapter 81, relating to Prostitution and Related Offenses; Title 18, Chapter 85, relating to Rape and Sexual Assault and other related offenses, as well as other Virgin Islands laws. + +95. The Epstein Enterprise violated Virgin Islands laws by engaging in the human trafficking of underage girls and young women and commercial sex with young women and underage girls by force, fraud, enticement, or coercion, which serve as predicates to the Epstein Enterprise's violations of CICO. + +96. Certain participants who recruited women and underage girls to be trafficked and forced into sexual servitude themselves were sexually trafficked and abused by the Epstein Enterprise and may be afforded the protections of 14 V.I.C. § 145. + +97. Specifically, Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into sexual servitude. Plan D LLC repeatedly made flights from the mainland to St. with Epstein and underage girls and young women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity on Little St. James. On some occasions, they would transport Epstein and female children by helicopter to Little St. James. On other occasions, Epstein and the young women and girls would be transported by boat. + +98. Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage girls by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were able to transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse underage girls and young women. + +99. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a continuing course of unlawful conduct. + +100. After Epstein's suicide. the Epstein Enterprise continued to exist as each of the participants continued to conspire to prevent detection of the breadth and scope of the Epstein Enterprise's criminal wrongdoing and to prevent accountability. These conspiratorial acts arc ongoing. + +101. The conduct of the Epstein Enterprise offends the core purpose of the Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 14 V.I.C. §131 et seg, and violates CICO, enacted to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies." 14 V.I.C. § 601. + +102. The Epstein Enterprise is an illicit enterprise within the meaning of 14 V.1.C. §§ 604 and 605. + +103. The Government is entitled to recover civil penalties, damages and other remedies and to extinguish and recoup from the Epstein Enterprise any and all financial and other benefits, and any personal and real property that was used during the course of, or intended for use in the course of the conduct or criminal activity in violation of the laws of the Virgin Islands. The Government is entitled to obtain through divestiture, forfeiture, or other equitable relief all properties and instrumentalities used by the Epstein Enterprise in the criminal pattern of trafficking and sexual abuse in the Virgin Islands, including but not limited to Great St. James and Little St. James, and all other remedies and penalties permitted by law in the interest of justice. + +# E. The Epstein Enterprise Used Corporate Entitles to Defraud the Government and Fund its Criminal Activities + +104. In October 2012, the Southern Trust Company applied for economic benefits from the Economic Development Commission ("EDC"). The EDC is a subsidiary of the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority ("EDA"), a semi-autonomous governmental instrumentality created and governed pursuant to 29 VIC § 1101. + +105. In sworn testimony at a public hearing on the tax incentive application conducted by the EDC on November 15, 2012, Epstein and his attorney, Ericka Kellerhals, described Southern Trust Company as providing - cutting edge consulting services" in the area of "biomedical and financial informatics." + +106. The EDC granted Southern Trust Company a 10-year package of economic incentives running from February 1, 2013 until January 31, 2023 that included a 90% exemption from income taxes and 100% exemptions from gross receipts, excise, and withholding taxes in the Virgin Islands. + +107. Between 2013 and 2019, Southern Trust Company employed 13 different individuals (not including Epstein). Of those 13 individuals, 1 I served in administrative or support roles: six as personal, administrative, or executive assistants, receptionists, or as a driver/helper, one as an office manager, one as a clerk, and three in accounting or payroll functions (though only one was licensed as a certified public accountant). There was one network administrator/IT manager, and a second who was added in 2019. + +108. In fact, several of those individuals seemed to perform other personal services for Jeffrey Epstein. Though he was reported by Southern Trust Company to be resident of the Virgin Islands, the network administrator/IT manager was issued a Florida driver's license. which listed an address in Miami. Further, he appears, in fact, to have served as Epstein's driver and picked up luggage and cargo from Epstein's private planes on his behalf. + +109. Another executive assistant lived at 301 E. 66th Street, Apartment I I B, New York, New York. Epstein's address book lists units various units in this building as providing "Apt. for models" and she is publicly identified as a model. As noted above, the Epstein Enterprise used modeling opportunities and contracts as a pretext for recruiting underage girls and young women into its sex trafficking scheme. + +110. During several time periods, Southern Trust Company affirmed to EDC that it had no employees who were non-residents, even though it employed non-residents. + +I 1 1. Despite having only one full-time employee working on information technology during the bulk of the period, Southern Trust Company reportedly generated net income of \$50.3 million in 2013, S67.5 million in 2014, S52.8 million in 2015, and \$4.8 million in 2016 and \$17.1 million in 2017, with aggregate income of \$117.8 million in 2014, \$170.6 million in 2015, \$175.3 million in 2016 and \$192.4 million in 2017, or aggregate income for the period of \$656 million. + +112. For the period between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017, Southern Trust Company received tax exemptions totaling S73.6 million. + +113. As of December 31, 2017, Southern Trust Company, Inc. elected to file its income tax as an S-corporation, which elects to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credits + +through to its sole shareholder—Jeffrey Epstein—for tax purposes. For this time period, Epstein's income tax exemption was \$71.3 million. + +114. Based upon these facts, it is clear that Southern Trust Company did not perform the "informatics" business represented to the EDC and could not have generated the business income attributable to that business. Instead, upon information and belief, Southern Trust Company existed to secure tax benefits for Epstein, to employ individuals associated with the Epstein Enterprise, and to provide a source of income to support his criminal activities and properties in the Virgin Islands. + +### COUNT ONE Human Trafficking — Trafficking an Individual Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +115. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 115 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +116. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +117. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining, or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. §§ 133-138. + +118. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +119. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +120. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. + +14 V.1.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT TWO Human Trafficking — Trafficking an Individual Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +121. The Government restates and reallegcs paragraphs 1-120 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +122. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +123. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. § 133 -138. + +124. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +125. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +126. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT THREE Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +127. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-126 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +128. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +129. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +130. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly provided or obtained the labor services of individuals by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, and/or threats of physical restraint; by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm; by means of abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal processes; and by means of the Epstein Enterprise with the intent to cause individuals to believe that, if individuals did not perform such labor or services, individuals would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. + +131. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +132. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +133. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +134. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +# COUNT FOUR + +### Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +135. The Government restates and rcalleges paragraphs 1-134 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +136. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +137. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +138. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +139. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +140. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.1.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT FIVE Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.LC §135 + +141. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-140 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +142. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +143. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities + +or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +144. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +145. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +146. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +147. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +148. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT SIX Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §135 + +149. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-148 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +150. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +151. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join the criminal conspiracy by knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +152. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +153. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +154. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +155. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT SEVEN Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +156. The Government restates and reallegcs paragraphs 1-155 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +157. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +158. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +159. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +160. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +161. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +162. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +163. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT EIGHT Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +164. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-163 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +165. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +166. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +167. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +168. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +169. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. + +170. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 er seq. + +### COUNT NINE Child Abuse and Neglect Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 505, 506 and 507 + +171. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-170 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +172. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +173. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly or recklessly causing a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly causing a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et. seq. + +174. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +175. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +176. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +177. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT TEN Child Abuse and Neglect Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 505, 506 and 507 + +178. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-177 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +179. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect. + +180. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy as they knowingly or recklessly caused a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly caused a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et seq. + +181. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +182. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +183. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +184. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 a seq. + +## COUNT ELEVEN Aggravated Rape Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.LC § 1700a + +185. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-184 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +186. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +187. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +188. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +189. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +190. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +191. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +192. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT TWELVE Aggravated Rape Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700a + +193. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-192 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +194. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting aggravated rape. + +195. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +196. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +197. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +198. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +199. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.1.C. §604(j). + +200. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT THIRTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +201. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 200 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +202. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +203. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +204. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +205. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +206. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +207. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +208. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CJCO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seg. + +### COUNT FOURTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +209. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-208 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +210. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting rape in the second degree. + +211. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +212. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +213. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +214. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +215. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §6040). + +216. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT FIFTEEN Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +217. The Government restates and =lieges paragraphs 1- 216 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +216. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +219. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, using or facilitating the + +use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +220. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +221. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +222. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +223. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +224. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT SIXTEEN Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.1.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +225. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 224 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +226. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting unlawful sexual contact + +227. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +228. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +229. As a result of Defendants' actions. numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +230. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +231. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +232. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT SEVENTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624 + +233. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 232 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +234. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +235. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including the engaging in or facilitating the knowing and/or reckless abuse of minors through the acts alleged herein. + +236. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, and/or coerced women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same. + +237. The Epstein Enterprise kept, maintained, and/or permitted his property at Little St. James to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same. + +238. The Epstein Enterprise received or offered or agreed to receive women and children at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted women and children to remain there for such purposes. + +239. The Epstein Enterprise directed, took, transported, and or offered or agreed to take or transport women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation. + +240. The Epstein Enterprise knew or should reasonably have known that individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +241. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +242. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +243. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +244. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT EIGHTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624. + +245. The Government restated and realleges paragraph 1 - 244 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +246. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined a conspiracy to laws against prostitution. + +247. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in or facilitating the persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same; keeping, maintaining, and/or permitting Epstein's property at Little St. James, to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same; receiving, offering, or agreeing to receive individuals at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted women and children to remain there for such purposes; and directing, taking, transporting, and/or offering or agreeing to take or transport women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622 and 1624. + +248. Defendants knew or should reasonably have known that individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +249. As a result of Defendants' actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +250. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +251. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +252. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 ei seq. + +# COUNT NINETEEN Sex Offender Registry Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. + +253. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 240 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +254. Epstein was required to, and did, register under the Virgin Islands Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") codified at 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. + +255. SORCPA requires that offenders required to register provide information relating to intended travel in foreign commerce. + +256. On at least two occasions, Epstein traveled to Vienna and Monaco without disclosing that travel to the Virgin Islands sex offender registry. + +257. Epstein's failure to disclose this travel before, during, or even after his travel was knowing. + +258. Epstein's violation SORPCA was part of a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise. 14 V.1.C. §604(j). + +# COUNT TWENTY Fraudulent Conveyance Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 + +259. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 258 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +260. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +261. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +262. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +263. At the time of these transfers, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +264. Through these transfers, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +265. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +266. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors and claimants, including the Government of the Virgin Islands, in collecting on their judgements, debts and demands. + +267. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +268. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +269. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +# COUNT TWENTY-ONE Fraudulent Conveyance Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.LC. §§ 832-833 + +270. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 269 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +271. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyances. + +272. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +273. Upon information and helief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +274. At the time of this transfer, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +275. Through this transfer, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +276. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +277. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay the Government of the Virgin Islands and other creditors and claimants to collect on their judgements, debts and demands. + +278. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +279. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +280. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +# COUNT TWENTY-TWO Civil Conspiracy + +281. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 280 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +282. Defendants acted in concert and joined with others to perform the wrongful acts identified in Counts I to 13, among others, concealing the sexual abuse of minor females by unlawful means. + +283. Each co-conspirator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known. about the conduct of the others and about the common unlawful scheme. + +284. These unlawful acts could not have been carried to the length and extent accomplished without the common understanding shared by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise Defendants. + +285. Each of the Defendants had a duty to report, stop or terminate the wrongful conduct, but instead each Defendant concealed, assisted and furthered the wrongful acts by use of civil conspiracy. + +286. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Virgin Island has been injured. + +287. Each co-conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts alleged herein. + +# COUNT TWENTY-THREE + +Fraudulent Claims Upon the Government + +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CIC0), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C. § 843 + +288. The Government restates and =lieges paragraphs\_1-287 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +289. At all times relevant and material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +290. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, making fraudulent claims upon the Government. + +291. The Epstein Enterprise misrepresented the purpose, activities, employment, and income of the Southern Trust Company, Inc., in order to obtain and maintain valuable tax incentives in order to fund the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. In addition, the Epstein Enterprise used Southern Trust Company to employ, pay, and conceal the activities of participants in the criminal activities of the Enterprise. + +292. The Epstein Enterprise made and presented an application for tax incentives, testimony, and quarterly reports to the EDC, a commission of the Government, regarding the Southern Trust Company, knowing such claims to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or covered up material facts regarding the Southern Trust Company; made false or fraudulent statements or representations about the purpose, activities, income, and employment of Southern Trust Company; and made and submitted false affidavits knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry. + +293. These false statements and documents included affidavits, testimony, an application, and other documents that misrepresented that Southern Trust Company was engaged in, and failed to disclose it did not and could not carry out, in its stated purpose of providing consulting services in financial and biomedical informatics. + +294. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and young women in knowing and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +295. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +296. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +297. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +# COUNT TWENTY-FOUR + +Fraudulent Claims Upon the Government Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 .I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.C. § 843 + +298. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I to 297 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +299. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyances. + +300. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +301. The Epstein Enterprise misrepresented the purpose, activities, employment, and income of the Southern Trust Company, Inc., in order to obtain and maintain valuable tax incentives in order to fund the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. In addition, the Epstein r + +Enterprise used Southern Trust Company to employ, pay, and conceal the activities of participants in the criminal activities of the Enterprise. + +302. The Epstein Enterprise made and presented an application for tax incentives, testimony, and quarterly reports to the EDC, a commission of the Government, regarding the Southern Trust Company, knowing such claims to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or covered up material facts regarding the Southern Trust Company; made false or fraudulent statements or representations about the purpose, activities, income, and employment of Southern Trust Company; and made and submitted false affidavits knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry. + +303. These false statements and documents included affidavits, testimony, an application, and other documents that misrepresented that Southern Trust Company was engaged in, and failed to disclose it did not and could not carry out, in its stated purpose of providing consulting services in financial and biomedical informatics. + +304. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and young women in knowing and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +305. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +306. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### Notice of Allegation of PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +307. The purpose of punitive damages in the common law is to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future. + +308. This Complaint describes intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and injurious that it shocks the conscience and offends a civilized society. + +309. Punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that have so money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not sufficient. + +310. At all times material herein, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise engaged repeatedly in wrongful acts which were intentional and outrageous. The Government gives notice that it intends to pursue the possibility of punitive damages in any jury verdict. + +# PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Court: + +A. Enter a judgment in favor of the Government and against Defendants on all counts; + +B. Declare that Defendants, through the Epstein Enterprise, have engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands including but not limited to human trafficking, forced labor and sexual servitude of female children and young women, unlawful sexual contact, child sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, rape, prostitution civil conspiracy and other offenses elated offenses, and civil conspiracy; + +C. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, enforce and maintain the criminal activity liens the Government is filing contemporaneously with this lawsuit, or shall file in connection with this action; + +D. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX I ) and 14 V.I.C. § 141, issue an order forfeiting and divesting in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands all of Defendants' interests in any real and personal property within the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands used to facilitate the criminal enterprise carried out by the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to Little St. James Island and Greater St. James Island; + +E. Issue an order forfeiting to the Government of the Virgin Islands any proceeds or funds obtained by Defendants, whether directly or indirectly, during the course of the criminal activity of the Epstein Enterprise; + +F. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1), require Defendants to divest themselves of any real property or other interests in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands used to further the goals of the Epstein Enterprise; + +G. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX3) and (5), order the dissolution of the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to, order the dissolution of the corporate Defendants; + +H. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(2) enter an injunction to prevent the further criminal conduct, and concealment of the criminal conduct, by the Epstein Enterprise; + +I. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX4), order the revocation of any and all licenses, permits and approvals that had been granted by any agency of the Territory, and require the repayment of any tax benefits that had been bestowed on any Defendant; + +J. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX6)(e), award the Government the maximum civil penalty for each and every violation of law committed by the Epstein Enterprise; + +K. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607, award treble damages and all other available remedies, including attorneys' fees and costs; + +L. Award compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants' civil conspiracy; + +M. Void the transfer of assets as fraudulently conveyed to the The 1953 Trust; + +N. Award such equitable relief, including disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as may be just and proper and appropriate, pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 608(c)(4), to protect the rights of victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the purposes of CICO; + +O. Assess and award a judgment in favor of the Government and against the Defendants for attorneys' fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; and + +P. Award any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate. + +**The Government demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.** + +RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, + +Dated: February 5, 2020 + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS + +DENISE N. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE + +ATTORNEY GENERAL + +V.I. Department of Justice + +Office of the Attorney General + +34-38 Kronprindsens Gade + +GERS Building, 2nd Floor + +St. [REDACTED], U.S.V.I. 00802 + +Telephone: (340) 774-5666 + +Email: [REDACTED] + +Email: Ariel.Smith@doj.vi.gov + +23 FEB 11 PM 3 + +SUPERIOR COURT +OF VIRGINIA + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 771E VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS. + +PLA INT IFF, + +V. + +IMEEEENLSCLILL.IIALSIIRDIXSISS EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E EPSTEIN and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST: RICHARD D. KAHN. in his swaths ac ItsEXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY g EPSTEIN. and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST: ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN. THE 1953 TRUST, PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; POPLAR. INC. SOUTHERN TRUST COMPANY. INC.: JOHN AND JANE DOES + +DEFENDANTS, + +Case No.: + +ACTION FOR DAMAGES + +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + +### FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT + +COMES NOW, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and files this First Amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants and in support thaeof, would show unto the Court as follows: + +#### JURISDICTION AND PARTIES + +I. The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (hadn after "Virgin Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff. Government of the Virgin Islands. pursuant to 3 V.I.C. 4 114 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands, and advocate for the public interest, safety, health and wetl•bcing of persons in the Virgin Islands. + +Cr • • + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 2 of 55 + +2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction ova this civil matter purniant to 4 V.I.C. § 76 and 14 V.I.C. § 607. + +3. This Cowl has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903. + +4. The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It consists of St. St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island. and more than 40 surrounding islands and Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St. James and Great St. James. + +5. Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was a resident of the Virgin Islands and he maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquired in 1998 and in 2016 he also purchased Grad St. James + +6. Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 20)0. He was a Tier I offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for prostitution. An Tier I offender, Epstein was required to register annually with the Virgin Islands Departs eni of Justice ("VIDO1") and give advance notice of his navel to and from the Virgin Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ. + +7. Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex crimes + +p. Defendant,Darren K. Indyke ("Defendant Indyke"1 is co-exrcutor of the, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein fl ed Administrator of The 1953 Trust, + +9. Defendant Richard D Kahn ("Defendant Kahn-) itStexeculor of The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and Administrator of The 1953 Trust. + +EnL0. 12efentlanIsitte. auttutfieffLealpsiejaCEstate"), created upon Epstein's death, is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, the-190344tHMS-OF-The-EsteterEtittrai GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 3 of 55 + +1 + +4CDefendants lndyke and Riettard-D,Kahn4 filed a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which included Epstcin's last will and testament with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. + +9411. The Petition reports the value of the real and personal property in The Estate located in the Virgin Islands at \$577,672,654.00 dollars. + +4O12. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far includes: + +- a. \$56.5 million in cash; +- b. \$127 million in fixed income arid equity investments; +- c. \$195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and +- d. \$18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles. + +The Estate has not yet valued his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables. + +1+1 3. The Estate also includes shares of various corporate entities which hold residences and real property used by Epstein, namely: + +- a. Brownstone in New York City valued at S56 million: +- b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at 572 million; +- c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at \$12 million; +- d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at S8 million; and +- e. Great St. James and Little St. lames, collectively valued at \$86 million. + +4.2- Id. The Estate is responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. + +4-3411....Defaidank The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein. who "amended and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last + +OVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 4 of 55 + +Will and Testament. transferring all of his "property, real and personal. wherever situated" to The Trust. + +44j,The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. The Truse-odniinistraters.-Garren-Kcaefentlgnis Indyke and-RiehartH0. Kahn, filed a Certificate of Trust in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The Trust on August 26, 2019. + +1317. Epstein maintained a deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities, not all of which are yet known to the Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal conduct. + +16,16. Epstein regularly created MY/ cnii tics in the territory and transferred properties and funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and conceal the unlawful acts described in this Complaint. + +14,19. These citifies held properties, including Little St. lames and Great St. lames, at which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls + +13620. Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president. member, manager, or director of each of the entities and, upon information and belief, directing their activities. + +49,2,LDefendant, Nautilus, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. It was incorporated on November 22. 2011 . + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 5 of 55 + +2422,-,According to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds. Nautilus. Inc. owns Little St. James, a/k/a Parcel Number 109803010100. a parcel of 3.1 million square fen valued at 53.2 million, with buildings and improvements valued at 54 million. + +24.23. Epstein was president and director of Nautilus, Inc., which corporate filings describe as "holding property for personal use?' -DewenDefendants Indyke and Richard-Kahn; Friteeotoes444hwhfrialk are the secretary and treasurer of Nautilus, Inc., respectively. The Estate values Epstein's holdings of Nautilus, Inc., which holds title to Little St. James at \$63.9 + +2,2, A deed recorded with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds on December 30, 2011 reflects that the property was transferred from a Delaware entity, L.S.J., LLC, to Nautilus, Inc. for "TEN DOLLARS (510.00) and other good and valuable consideration." The quitclaim deed lists Jeffrey Epstein as the sole member of L.S.J., LLC, which it acquired Little Saint James via a wamnty deed dated April 27, 1998. + +2-3v21,\_As described below, Epstein engaged in a pattern and practice of trafficking and sexually abusing young women and female children on this private, secluded island of Little St. James where Epstein and his associates could avoid detection of their illegal activity from Virgin Islands and federal law enforcement and prevent these young women and underage girls from leaving freely and escaping the abuse. + +242,LThus, Nautilus, Inc. participated in carrying out, facilitating and concealing Epstein's crimes, hence Little St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +24,27, Defendant, Great St. Jim, LLC, is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Great Sc. Jim. LLC was organized on October 26, 2015. Great St. Jim, LLC, according to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, owns at least three properties that make up Great St. James acquired on January 28, 2016: Parcel Number GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 6 of 55 + +109801010100. consisting of 3.5 million square feet and valued at \$17.5 million; Parcel Number 109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land, valued at \$2.8 million; and Parcel Number 109801010300. 1.2 million square feet of land, valued at 52.7 million. According to a warranty deed filed with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Epstein. through Great St. Jim, LLC, acquired the last two parcels for S5 million each. + +26,2kEpstein is listed as manager and a member of Great St. Jim. LLC and the nature of its business is described as "holding assets." + +2arL Upon information and belief, Epstein purchased these Great St. James properties the island with closest proximity to Little St. James—to further shield his conduct on Little St. James from view, prevent his detection by law enforcement or the public, and allow him to continue and conceal his criminal enterprise. Epstein's significant investment in the purchase of Great St. James demonstrates his intent to expand his illegal operation in the Virgin Islands for years to come. Thus, Great St. Jim, LLC participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes, and Great St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +2.8,342\_Defendant, Poplar, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Poplar, Inc. was incorporated on November 22.2011. Epstein was president and director of Poplar, Inc.. and its purpose was described in corporate filings as "holding property for personal use." DananDefendants Indyke and Riebard-Kahn, are secretary and treasurer of Poplar, Inc., respectively. + +aditT A certificate of incumbency provided to the Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") also lists Epstein as president of Poplar. Inc. and expressly authorizes the inomporators to conduct "transactions related to permitting matters submitted on behalf of Great St. Jim, LLC." + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 7 of SS + +30.1L.Poplar, Inc. is listed as the signatory for the 2017 Annual Report for Great St. Jim. LLC, and the signature appears to be Epstein's. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary filed by The Estate lists Poplar, Inc. as holding title to Great St. James. Thus, Poplar, Inc. participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's alma. + +14,33. Defendant, Plan D, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. In its original Articles of Organization, filed October 19. 2012. and Annual Report filings. Epstein's pilot. Larry Visoski, was listed as Plan D, LLC's sole manager/member. However, the July 31, 2019 Annual Report revealed Epstein as the principal behind Plan D. LLC. + +32, liLUpon information and belief, Plan D. LLC owns one or more of the airplanes and helicopters that Epstein used to transport young women and children to and from the Virgin Islands to carry out the criminal pattern of activity described below. Among the airplanes owned by Plan D, LLC is a Gulfstream with N-number N2121E. Flight logs and travel notices indicate that Epstein used this plane to traffic and transpon and young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands + +3335. Defendant, Hyperion Air, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands on October 19, 2012. Jeffrey Epstein is a manager/member of Hyperion Air, LLC, along with his pilot, Larry Visoski. The purpose of Hyperion Air, LLC is listed in its Annual Report as "holding assets." + +34,36. Hyperion Air, LLC is the registered owner of a Bell helicopter with N-number N331 1E and a Keystone helicopter with N-number N722JE. Upon information and belief, Epstein used these helicopters to transport young women and underage girls between St. and Little St. James. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 8 of 55 + +37. Defendant Southern Trust Company. Inc. was originally incorporated in the Virgin Islands on Novemba 18.2011 as Financial Infirmities. Inc.. but changed its name to Southern Trust Company in September 2012. Southern Trust Company is a tenant at American Yacht Harbor in Red Hook, St.= and Epstein is a"oassive investor" in IGY-AYH, dAs/a American Yacht Harbor. By the cod of 2013. according to its corporate filings. Southern Trust Company hassszlistfMlinailligazicaLyars jaw, jrauguathisailtaillian err least 2018. Jeffrey Epstein was the President/D\*4am of Southern Trust Company, and Defendants Kahn and Indvke were Treasurer/Director and Stercrary/Director. respectively. Epstein was the sole owner of Southern Trust Comoanv. + +3.5731\_John and Jane Does represent individuals and entities whose identities or involvement with Epstein are currently unknown. The Government of the Virgin Islands will amend the Complaint to add these individuals and entities when discovered. + +34O9. The Attorney General brings this action to seek all remedies available to the Ciovemmeni of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and public safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant, the claims of victims who were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. + +#### FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS + +#### A. The Conduct of the "Epstein Enterprise" in the Virgin Islands + +3-7,4i\_Epstein and his associates, including Defendants, identified and recruited female victims. including children, and transported them to the Virgin Islands where they were abused and injured. Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands. GV I v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 9 of 55 + +384 I . Epstein created a network of companies and individuals who participated in and conspired with him in a pattern of criminal activity related to the sex trafficking, forced labor, sexual assault, child abuse, and sexual servitude of these young women and children. Epstein and his associates trafficked underage girls to the Virgin Islands, held them captive, and sexually abused than, causing them grave physical, mental, and emotional injury. + +30412. To accomplish his illegal ends, Epstein formed an association in fact with multiple Defendants and others (both companies and individuals) who were willing to participate in, facilitate. and conceal Epstein's criminal activity in exchange for Epstein's bestowal of financial and other benefits, including sexual services and forced labor from victims. + +40,43. This illicit association of Epstein. Defendants, and his associates eonstiititesc ityj what is referred to herein as the"Epstein Enterprise." Epstein's associates in the Epstein Enterprise, including, but not limited to, those named as Defendants knowingly facilitated. participated in, and concealed Epstein's illegal conduct. + +44-.44. Epstein used his wealth and power to create the Epstein Enterprise which engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands by repeatedly procuring and subjecting underage girls and young women to unlawful sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and forced tabor. + +42,45. The Epstein Enterpnse engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands (and elsewhere) with the criminal purpose and goal of placing a steady supply of vulnerable female children and young women into sexual servitude in service of Epstein's desires, and those of his associates. The Epstein Enterprise maintained and made available young women and underage girls for the purpose of engaging them in forced labor and sexual activities and used coercion and deception to procure, abuse, and harbor its victims. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 10 of SS + +43,4A Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken via helicopter or private vessel to Little St. James where they were then deceptively subjected to sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity and faced labor. + +4447. In furtherance of its criminal activities, the Epstein Enterprise used its airerafts to transport the young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands for purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. + +484.LThe Epstein Enterprise facilitated and participated in the sexual molestation and exploitation of numerous girls between the age of 12 and 17 years old. + +46:49. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts. associates of the Epstein Enterprise. funded by the Epstein Enterprise, lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to locations including the Virgin Islands where, upon information and belief, based on the pattern and practice of the Epstein Enterprise, they were sexually abused and exploited. + +43 Associates in the Epstein Enterprise recruited both victims and abusers into the Epstein Enterprise, participated in sexual acts of rape and abuse of minors and witnessed Epstein and others engage in sexual acts with children. + +48:21,..,As recent as 2018. air traffic controllers and other airport personnel reported seeing Epstein leave his plane with young girls some of whom appeared to be between the age of II and 18 years. + +GVI v. Estate ofJeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 11 of 55 + +4WiLUpon information and belief. based on Epstein's pattern of trafficking and sexually abusing young girls, the Epstein Enterprise trafficked and abused these girls, and others, in the Virgin Islands through 2018. + +3043. When sued in civil court for committing sex trafficking and sex crimes, Epstein never denied engaging in sexual acts with underage females and procuring underage females for prostitution, but instead consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. + +S1,54\_Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise kept a computerized list of underage girls who were in or proximate to the Virgin Islands, and able to be transported to Epstein's residence at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. + +32,65. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct by trafficking children and young women and placing them in sexual servitude and forced labor in the Virgin Islands. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 133 to 138, which prohibit trafficking and sexual abuse. The Epstein Enterprise also repeatedly violated laws against child abuse and neglect, including 14 V.I.C. § 505, which defines the crime of child abuse as knowingly or recklessly causing "a child to suffer physical, mental, or emotional injury," or causing a child to be placed in a situation where such injury is foreseeable, and 14 V.I.C. § 506, which applies, as here, where the child suffers serious physical. mental, or emotional injury as a result of du ft abuse. The harm to Epstein's victims was both fully foreseeable and deeply damaging. + +53756. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, received, procured• obtained, isolated, maintained, and enticed young women and girls to engage in forced labor (such as providing massages) and, ultimately, sexual servitude at his little St. James residence. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 12 of 55 + +\$44L.A IS year old victim was forced into sexual acts with Epstein and others and then attempted to escape by swimming off the Little St. James island. Epstein and others organized a search party that located Strand kept her captive by. among other things. confiscating her passport. + +36;58. Another victim, who was first engaged in provide massages to Epstein, was then forced to perform sexual acts at Little St. lames in the Virgin Islands. When she attempted to escape from the "private island," Epstein and a search party found her, returned her to his house, and suggested physical restraint or harm if she failed to cooperate. + +5b: The Epstein Enterprise deceptively lured underage girls and women into its sex trafficking ring with money and promises of employment, career opportunities and school assistance. The Epstein Enterprise preyed on their financial and other vulnerabilities, and promised victims money, shelter, gifts, employment, tuition and other items of value. For example, participants in the Epstein Enterprise targeted young and underage females under the pretext that they would be paid substantially merely to provide massages to him and others. However, once drawn in. victims were then pressured and coerced to engage in sexual acts. + +544)..,\_The Epstein Enterprise forced underage victims to recruit others to perform services and engage in sexual acts--a trafficking pyramid scheme. + +58-.451. The Epstein Enterprise paid girls for each "meeting,- with additional money if they brought additional girls. Epstein reportedly required three meetings pa day. + +\$9\$2,..The Epstein Enterprise used the term "work" as a code for sexual abuse, and, upon information and belief, reportedly kept computer records of the contact information for the victims. + +6043 Consistent with his creation and use of a complex web of entities to carry out and conceal the criminal trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Enterprise sometimes + +GV I v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 13 of 55 + +paid young women and underage girls he exploited and trafficked through his charitable foundations. + +64,64. Once the girls and women were recruited, participants in the Epstein Enterprise enforced their sexual servitude of victims by coercion, including but not limited to, confiscating passports, controlling and extinguishing external communications, and threatening violence. They also made fraudulent statements to family members of victims, claiming victims were being well cared for and supported financially in college and other educational opportunities. + +62-65. The Epstein Enterprise transported, held, sexually abused. trafficked. and concealed women and children at his property in the Virgin Islands dozens of times ova nearly two decades. + +#### B. The "Epstein Enterprise" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its Criminal Scheme + +64,66 The Epstein Enterprise in 1998 acquired Little St. James in the Virgin Islands as the perfect hideaway and haven for trafficking young women and underage girls for sexual servitude, child abuse and sexual assault. Little St. James is 3 secluded, private island, nearly two miles from St with no other residents. It can be visited only by private boat or helicopter; no public or commercial transportation is available to carry persons on or off the island, and no bridge connects the island to St. =. Epstein had easy access to Little St. lames from the private airfield on St. MB only 10 minutes away by his private helicopter, but the women and children he trafficked, abused, and held there were not able to leave without his permission and assistance, as it was too far and dangerous to swim to St. + +64,Ttin 2016, upon information and belief, using a straw purchaser to hide Epstein's identity, the Epstein Enterpriseacquired Great St. lames; the nearest island to Little St. James By + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 14 of 55 + +then, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise purchased the island for more than \$20 million because its participants wanted to ensure that the island did not become a base from which others could view their activities or visitors. By acquiring ownership and control of Great St. James to the exclusion of others, the Epstein Enterprise created additional barriers to prevent those held involuntarily on Little St. James from escaping or obtaining help from others. + +64,6ALGreat St. lances and Little St. lames are environmentally sensitive locations, with native coral and wildlife protected by federal and tornonal law and enforcement authorities. The Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") regulates and monitors construction in the Coastal Zone to protect, maintain and manage the precious natural resources of the Virgin Islands. Under its authority, DPNR repeatedly issued citations and assessed thousands of dollars of fines for violations of the Virgin Islands construction code and environmental protection laws on both Little St. James and Great St. lama—significant penalties to the agency and to the avenge resident of the Virgin Islands. But because of Epstein's enormous wealth, these lines had little effect in curbing or stopping the Epstein Enterprise's unlawful conduct or conforming its activities to the law. + +64.69. As a result of illegal construction activity of the Epstein Enterprise, the Virgin Islands has inverted, and will incur, significant expenses to remove the illegal construction or remediatc its effects on natural resources in and around Little St. James and Great St. James. The extent of the potential environmental damage is unknown at this time as the illegal construction has not been removed or rani:dined. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 15 of 55 + +6;70. The Epstein Enterprise continues to attempt to prevent or limit DPNR authorities from conducting random inspections on the Little St. James and Great St. James necessary to comply with Virgin Islands law. + +65:71. The Epstein Enterprise's violation of the construction and environmental laws was part of a pattern of behavior in flouting the laws of the Virgin Islands and holding itself above the law. Upon information and belief, as described above, the Epstein Enterprise undertook construction at Great St. James after 2016 to continue the scheme to carry out and conceal his trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and children in the Virgin Islands. These actions are also indicative of the Epstein Enterprise's disregard for Virgin Islands' law. The Epstein Enterprise used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for its illicit purposes. Rather than participating lawfully in this community, the Epstein Enterprise took advantage of the secluded nature of the islands in furtherance of its crimes. + +69.22, As a result of its deplorable and unlawful conduct, the Epstein Enterprise has subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as a hiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes. + +### C. The "Epstein Enterprise" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct + +70:71. The Epstein Enterprise fraudulently concealed its actions to prevent detection by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +;4,74. The secluded properties at Little St. lames and Great St. James were repeatedly used by the Epstein Enterprise as the locations for unlawfully soliciting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, isolating, patronizing, maintaining, deceiving, coercing, and sexually abusing young women and children and concealing these crimes. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 16 of 55 + +7245, The Epstein Enterprise was able to hide the trafficking ring from law enforcement, despite the fact that Epstein was a registered sex offender. Given the isolation of the Little St. James and Great St. James and the nature of the crimes and of the victims targeted by the Epstein Enterprise, the activities of the Epstein Enterprise were not readily detectable. Moreover, Epstein's great wealth and power likely made witnesses reluctant to report their observations to the local law enforcement. + +7446. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise prevented its employees from cooperating with law enforcement. Employees and others were required to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from speaking to or sharing information with law enforcement. If they were contacted by law enforcement they were to notify the Epstein Enterprise and be represented by Epstein's counsel. + +7477. The employees way directed not to communicate or interact with guests visiting Little St. James and were also directed not to disclose to anyone events that occurred on the island. + +74,78. Monitoring a sex offends with his own private islands and the resources to fly victims in and out on private planes and helicopters presented unique challenges and allowed the Epstein Enterprise to limit scrutiny by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +76,79. Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act (nSORCPA") 14 V.I.C. § 1721, et seq. requires sex offenders segieseesdio resister in iho-ssinin-tslamts -their resident jurisdictions and to make periodic in•person appearances to verify and update their registration information. + +77,40. Epstein renewed his registration each year in the Virgin Islands. In addition, beyond this statutory requirement. the Virgin Islands periodically visited—or attempted to visit Little St. James to conduct additional address verifications. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 17 of SS + +7841 At his last verification in July 2018. Epstein refused to permit Virgin Islands Department of Justice Investigators, assisted by United States Marshals, to enter Little St. James beyond its dock, claiming that the dock was his "front door." Instead, Epstein arranged to be met at his office on St. + +79.82. Epstein also misled the Government regarding his travel plans. On March 19,2019, the Virgin Islands was notified that Epstein would be traveling to France for 10 days on the private plane owned by Plan D, LW. His notification form did not disclose travel to any other countries. It was later rliseoretedfound by law enforcement authorities that Epstein also travelled to Vienna and Monaco during that trip. + +the Epstein Enterprise sought to prevent DPNR from conducting routine site visits to inspect unpermitted and potentially damaging construction activity on Great St. James. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly objected to DPNR's inspections referring to than as "invasions" of Epstein's constitutional right to privacy in his home, which he described defined as the entire island. These DPNR inspections are required for all construction and Virgin Islands residents are required to cooperate with the inspections to assure compliance with the law throughout the construction phases. + +81- These efforts represent Epstein Enterprise's intent to conceal its unlawful activity on Little St. James and Great St. James. + +82,8\$. The Epstein Enterprise also created numerous corporations and limited liability companies in the Virgin Islands to help conceal its unlawful activity. Most of these companies were created in 2011 and 2012. soon after Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands. + +8-1.41\_ Epsteinis pilot, Larry Visoski is identified as member or co-member in companies that serviced and maintained the planes that the Epstein Enterprise used to traffick young women + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 18 of 55 + +and children — Freedom Air Petroleum. LLC (registered November 28. 2011 to hold assets); and JEGE. LLC (registered October 19, 2012 to hold assets). + +8442 Other Epstein entities include LS1 Employees. LLC (registered October 27, 2011 to provide services): Southern Financial. LLC (registered February 25, 2013 to provide services) and LS1 Emergency, LLC (registered December 2, 2015 to provide services). + +\$44LSome of these companies held considerable assets: Financial Informatics, Inc. (incorporated November 18, 2011, also known as Southern Trust Company, Inc.) had assets of approximately \$391 million in 2015; and Financial Trust Company, Inc. (incorporated November 6, I 998) had assets of 5212 million when it publicly filed its last balance sheet in 2012. + +86{9.,\_Though Olen absent in the original incorporation or registration documents or annual filings, Epstein ultimately appeared as president, director, manager, or sole mamba of each of these companies. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this complex array of corporate entities—some of which may still be discovered—was to allow Epstein to shelter his assets in order to fund, carry out, and conceal his identity and pattern of criminal conduct. + +8Z90. The Estate continues to engage in a course of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. On November 24, 2019, Epstein's Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. (-Motion"). According to the Motion, the proposed program was to be designed to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." (Motion, at 1). + +88,1LThe program proposed by the Estate, whose executors are trustees of The 1953 Trust and officers in at least two Epstein entities, imposes confidentiality requirements and requires any claimant accepting an award under the program to sacrifice any other claims against + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 19 of 55 + +"any person or entity arising from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct." (Motion, at 5). It acts to conceal the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shield its participants from liability and accountability for the injury they caused to the victims. + +89,92. Two days before his death, Epstein amended The Trust and his Last Will and Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so, as part of a pattern and ongoing effort to conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants. + +### D. The "Epstein Enterprise Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws + +90.93. The pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Epstein and other participants in the Epstein Enterprise violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 605 and 607 of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"). + +9-1,94.. The Epstein Enterprise also violated Title 14, Chapter 3A, The Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act relating to Trafficking of Persons; Titic 14. Chapter 24, relating to Child Protection and Child Abuse and Neglect; Title 14, Chapter 81, relating to Prostitution and Related Offenses; Title IS, Chapter 85, relating to Rapc and Sexual Assault and other related offenses, as well as other Virgin Islands laws. + +92:95. The Epstein Enterprise violated Virgin Islands laws by engaging in the human trafficking of underage girls and young women and commercial sex with young women and underage girls by force, fraud, enticement, or coercion, which save as predicates to the Epstein Enterprise's violations of CICO. + +03,%. Certain participants who recruited-yams women and underage girls to be trafficked and forced into sexual servitude themselves were sexually trafficked and abused by the Epstein Enterprise and may be afforded the protections of 14 V.I.C. 4 145. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 20 of SS + +44,97. Specifically, Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into sexual servitude. Plan 1% LLC repeatedly made flights from the mainland to St. with Epstein and underage girls and young women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity on Little St. James. On some occasions, they would transport Epstein and female children by helicopter to Little St. James. On other occasions, Epstein and the young women and girls would be transported by boat. + +9\$ILGreat St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage girls by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were able to transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse underage girls and young women. + +96.99. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a continuing course of unlawful conduct. + +97-100. After Epstein's suicide, the Epstein Enterprise continued to exist as each of the participants continued to conspire to prevent detection of the breadth and scope of the Epstein Enterprise's criminal wrongdoing and to prevent accountability. These conspiratorial acts arc ongoing. + +98,101. The conduct of the Epstein Entemnse offends the core purpose of the Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 14 V.1 C. 4131 et seq. and violates CICO, enacted to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies." 14 V.I.C. 601. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Comptsint Pap 21 of 55 + +99402. The Epstein Enterprise is an illicit enterprise within the meaning of 14 V.I.C. \*4604 and 605. + +4400401. The Government is entitled to recover civil penalties, damages and other remedies and to extinguish and recoup from the Epstein Enterprise any and all financial and other benefits, and any personal and real property that was used during the course of, or intended for use in the course of the conduct or criminal activity in violation of the laws of the Virgin Islands. The Government is entitled to obtain through divestiture, forfeiture, or other equitable relief all properties and instrumentalities used by the Epstein Enterprise in the criminal pattern of trafficking and sexual abuse in the Virgin Islands, including but not limited toe Great St James and Little St. James, and all other remedies and penalties permitted by law in the interest ofjustice. + +#### E. The Epstein Enterprise Used Corporate Entitles to Defraud the Government and Fund its Criminal Activities + +104. In October 2012 the Southern Trust Company applied for economic benefits from the Economic Development Commission rEDC-1. The EDC is a subsidiary of the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority ("EDAwk a semi-autonomous governmental insmimentality created and governed pursuant to 29 VIC 6 1101. + +105. In sworn testimony at apublic hearing on the tax incentive application conducted tiv the EDC on November IS. 2012. Epstein and his attorney. Ericka Kellerhals, described Southern Trust Company as providing "cutting edge consulting services" in the arca of :bionedical and financial informatics." + +106. The EDC granted Southern Trust Company a 10-year package of economic incentives naming from February I. 2013 until January 31, 2023 that included a 90% exemption from income taxes and 100% exemptions from gross recewls, excise, and withholding taxes in the • Virgin Islands. + +107. Between 2013 and 2019, Southern Trust Company employed 13 different individuals (not including Epstein). Of those 13 individuals. II served in administrative or support roles: six as personal, administrative or executive assistants, receptionists, or as a driveribelper one as an office manager, one as a clerk. and three in accounting or Payroll functions (though only tine was licensed as a certified public accountant). There was one network administrator/IT manager, and a second who was added in 2019. + +J0S. In fact. several of those individualssegmeller oerfonn other l services for Jeffrey EDS1Cirt Though he was reported by Southern Trust Company to be resident of the Virgin Islands. the network\_atorida &Brenton. which liztel an address in Miami, Further. he appears. in fact. to haveservcd as Epstein's driver and picked up luggage and cargo from Eoetan's private planes on his behalf. + +109. Another executive assistant lived at 301 E. 66th Street Apartment 1 1 B. New York, New York. F.pstein's address book units various units in this building's Providing "Apt. for models" and she is publicly identified as a model. As noted above, the Epstein Enterprise used =clang opportunities and contracts as a pretext for Walking underage girls and young women into its sex trafficking scheme. + +110. During several time periods. Southern Trust Company affirmed to EDC that it had no employees who was non-residents. even though it employed non-residents. + +l I. Despite having only one full-time employee working on information technology dwing the bulk of the period, Southern Trust Company reportedly malted net income of 550.3 million in 2013. S67.5 million in 2014. 152,8 million in 2015. and 54.8 million in 2016 and S17.1 GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 23 of 55 + +million in 2017. with aggregate income of S117.8 million in 2014. 5170.6 million in 2015. 5175.3 million in 2016 and \$192.4 million in 2017 or aggregate income for the period of \$656 million. + +112. For the period between January I. 2013 and December 31. 2017. Southern Trust Company received tax exemptions totaling \$73.6 million, + +J13, As of December 31 2017, Southern Trust Company, Inc. elected to file its income tax as an S-comoration, which elects to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credits through to its sole shareholder—Jeffrey Epstein—for tax Purposes. For this time period. Enstein's income tax exemption was \$71.3 million, + +114. Based upon these facts, it is clear that Southern Trust Company didiot perform the "informatics" business represented to the EDC and could not have generated the business income attributable to that business. Instead, upon information and belief. Southern Trust Company existed to secure tax benefits for Epstein. to employ individuals associated with the Epstein Enterprise, and to provide a source of income to support his criminal activities and properties iq the Virgin Islands. + +#### COUNT ONE Human Trafficking - Trafficking an Individual Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"). 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +444.115. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I to 400,1\_11 of this Complaint as if hilly set forth herein. + +442, 6. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enierpnse + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 24 of 55 + +403417. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that riessirturesrArigigge criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining, or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. §§ 133-138. + +104.IIS. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in a control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +4447 119. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +1067120. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 a seq. + +#### COON I 'I WO Human Trafficking - Trafficking an Individual Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 foci,. and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +447,121 The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1406120 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +408-122 \_At all times material herein. each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate Ins prohibiting human trafficking. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 25 of 55 + +409:123. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. § 133 -138. + +340,124. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the 418-Virgin Islands. + +444+J25, At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise. human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §6O1(j). + +441126. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. I4 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT THREE Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Vloladoa of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 a seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +1-1-3,122. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I.44-2126 of this Complaint n if filly set forth herein,, + +444:128. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 26 of 55 + +444,120. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that eenstinitesconstitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to. knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +446,130. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly provided or obtained the labor services of individuals by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, and/or threats of physical restraint: by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm, by means of abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal processes; and by means of the Epstein Enterprise with the intent to cause individuals to believe that, if individuals did not perform such labor or services, individuals would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. + +44-3,111. Defendants through a pattern of enminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +44&132. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest In or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +440413 Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +1-20,I 14. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. 6600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FOUR Human Trafficking— Forced Labor Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §I34 + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein OVIrsii/HAMHEIStComplaint Page 27 of 55 + +4-24,115, The Government restates and 'alleges paragraphs 1.-4-744th4 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +121136. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +4-2-3,137. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the aiminal conspiracy by knowingly using coercion to compel undo-age girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +424138. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, fated labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U Virgin Islands. + +423,139. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise; human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(1). + +-1-26:140, At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FIVE Human Trafficking - Sexual Servitude Vlobtion of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Art ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §135 + +12-7,14 I. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs l-446I40 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 23 of SS + +14&142. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +449443. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that 001164thAOSCOASOIUtO criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO. including, but not limited to, knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity :n violation of 14 V.LC. § 135. + +44(3. 44. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, areas and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +143;145. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +144J 46. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +443, 47 Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +444,1413 At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 er seq. + +COUNT SIX + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 29 of 55 + +#### Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 E.:seq.; 14 V.I.0 §I.35 + +135,149. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1434148 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +134150. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking + +1P-15 I. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join the criminal conspiracy by knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +1-38,152. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others + +11-9.153 Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise. which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the US-Virgin Islands. + +440,154. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Page 30 of 55 + +444,155. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT SEVEN Human Trafficking - Patronizing Minors and Vktims of Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 er seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +442,156. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I-441125 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +443:157. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +444,118. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that coominicesconstitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +445.159. \_In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +4-46,160. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterpnse. + +444,161, Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVIts IkgAmgthiSSomplaint Page 31 of 5.5 + +448462. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattcm of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise + +444.163. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 er seq. + +#### COUNT EIGHT Human Trafficking - Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +4-54164. The Government restates and reallcgcs paragraphs 1-141-9161 of this Complaint as if hilly set forth herein. + +4-54,165 At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +4-52,166. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136437. + +444.167. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +144468. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 32 of 55 + +trafficking, forced tabor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Wig-Virgin Islands. + +444,I69. At all times material herein. each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterpriser; human trafficking. forced labor, and sexual servitude. + +436- 70. At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated hut was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT NINE Child Abuse and Neglect Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act reICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.Ci§505, 506 and 507 + +44.1A 71. . The Government restates and realleges paragraphs l--54.170 of this Complaintagi as if fully set forth herein. + +4344172. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +449.173. TheEpstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that eenatirtitesconstitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO. including, but not limited to. knowingly or recklessly causing a child to suffer physical. mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly causing a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical. mental or emotional injury. in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § \$00 {sup}`a`seq. + +160.174. \_As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous yarn girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 33 of 35 + +46&1 75. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +441 76 Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +163477. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT TEN Child Abuse and Neglect Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §11 505, 506 and 507 + +1647 78, The Government restates and realities paragraphs I.463177 of this Complaintisl as if fully set forth herein. + +443T 79 At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect. + +466180. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy as they knowingly or recklessly caused a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly caused a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.LC. § 500 er seq. + +467181\_ As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +6%11 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 34 of 55 + +444182.. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking. forced labor, sexual servitude and commacial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the-lok& Virgin Islands. + +164183. \_ \_At all times material herein. each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. \*604(j). + +14431134. \_Ai all times material herein. Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT ELEVEN Aggravated Rape Violation of the Criminalb Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700\* + +-141,185, The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I -1-70,3Sit of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +142,186, At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit anerprise + +471187. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that 001t014140WMItlig criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +374188. Epstein and others. using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage gills without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § I 700a + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 35 of 55 + ++740 As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +1467103. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +447,I9l. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +4-4,192. At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V. §600 el seq. + +#### COUNT TWELVE Aggravated Rape Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.LC. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700x + +449:193. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I-378192 of this Complaint as if hilly set forth herein. + +44ifhl94 At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting aggravated rape + ++\$1:195. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the cn mina I conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +4-8.3.106. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +443,197. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Eps:ein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 36 of 55 + +4414,21/8. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the f}&-Virgin Islands. + +44,199. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §6040) + +444.200. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Entcrpnsc in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 er seq. + +#### COUNT THIRTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"). 14 § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +4444.201. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I. 446200 of this Complaint as if hilly set forth herein. + +444202. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein Giirs First Amended Complaint Page 37 of 55 + +489,203. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that ceestimiesonktmjc criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including. but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + ++90,204. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +4447205, As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +4027206. Defmdants through a pattern of aiminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +493207. Defendants benefited. directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +4047708. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. 4600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FOURTEEN Rape In the Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +44S-209. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I-+94208 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +496-210. At all times material herein, each Defendantwined In a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting rapt in the second degree + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 38 of 55 + +497,21 I. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +448412. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the tune of the incidents. + +449,213. As a result of Defendants' actions. numerous minors suffered serious physical, men al and emotional injury. + +200414. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U,S,-Virgin Islands. + +204,215. At all limes material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +201216. At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 a seq. + +### COUNT FIFTEEN + +#### Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +2037217. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I. 202216 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 39 of 55 + +244,2111. At all times mataial herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +205.219. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that tionstimestonstitutc criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +246,220. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +247,221. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +208,222. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +200,223. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +244-224 At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 es seq. + +### COUNT SIXTEEN + +#### Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Conspirtcy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 sissy.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +741.225. Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 244224 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 40 of 55 + +2-1.2,26. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting unlawful sexual contact + +244227. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +244228. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were ova 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +244229. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +244230. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non• financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of miner-girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the-U,S, Virgin Islands. + +24-4231. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +248,212. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et req. + +#### COUNT SEVENTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 a seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624 + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's Pint Amended Complaint Page 41 of 55 + +24442)3. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 248232 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +220434. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise + +2247235. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that oeftstilatesconstitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including the engaging in or facilitating the knowing and/or reckless abuse of minors through the acts alleged herein. + +2-2-2,236 The Epstein Enterprise knowingly persuaded. induced, enticed, and/or coerced young-women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same. + +221.2.31 \_ \_The Epstein Enterprise kept, maintained, and/or permitted his property at Little St. James to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same. + +224-738 The Epstein Enterprise received or offered or agreed to receive women and children at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation. and/or permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes. + +22-5,23\_9. The Epstein Enterprise directed, took. transported. and or offered or agreed to take or transport youngwomen and children to Little St James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation. + +224,240. The Epstein Enterprise knew or should reasonably have known that-lams ef-th• individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVEs first Amended Complaint Page 42 of 55 + +22-7.241. \_As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +22&242. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +2-20,243. Defendants benefited. directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +2-14,244 At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT EIGHTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Conspiracy to Violate the ( riminalli influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624. + +234.245. TheGovernment FtrilMtMft)latiXj and rcallcgcs paragraph I • 110244 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +231246. At all times material herein. each Defendant joined a conspiracy to laws against prostitution. + +2.4.O42. \_Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in or facilitating the persuasion, inducement. enticement or coercion of rims-women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, andior attempted to do the same; keeping. maintaining. and/or permitting Epstein's property at Little St. James, to be used for the purpose of prostitution. lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same; receiving, offering. + +#### GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 43 of 55 + +or agreeing to receive individuals at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted young-women and children to remain there for such purposes; and directing, taking, transporting, and/or offering or agreeing to take or transport young women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation. in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622 and 1624. + +244248. Defendants knew or should reasonably have known that seme-et-the individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +243,249. As a result of Defendants' actions numerous young women and rrunors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +246,250. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the 12,8,Virgin Islands. + +237,25.L\_At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary cnminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. \*60463 + +244252. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO, 14 V.I.C. \*600 et seq. + +GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GV1's Fite Amended Complaint Page44 of 55 + +#### COUNT NINETEEN + +#### Sex Offender Registry + +Violation of the Criminally Influenced sad Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), {sup}`14`V.I.C. § 600 rag.: 14 V.1.C. § 1721 et seq. + +239,253. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I- 248240 of this Complaint as if hilly set forth herein. + +240,244. Epstein was required to, and did, register under the Virgin Islands Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") codified at 14 V. LC. § {sup}`1721` et seq. + +241,255. SORCPA requires FtgiStereclihg offenders ionuired to register provide information relating to intended travel in foreign commerce. + +242456. On at least two occasions, Epstein traveled to Vienna and Monaco without disclosing that travel to the Virgin Islands sex offender registry. + +244,257. Epstein's failure to disclose this travel before, during, or even alter his travel was knowing. + +244,258. \_Epstein's violation SORPCA was part of apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to die affairs of the Epstein Enterprise 14 V.I.C. {sup}`460402` + +#### COUNT TWENTY + +### Frardslent Conveyance + +Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (aCICO"), {sup}`14`V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 + +244,259. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I. 244258 of this Complaint as if hilly set forth herein. + +246.212.Q\_ Al all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 45 of 55 + +24-7,26I. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that oonsiltetesconsikute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +2481262. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death. transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +244,63. At the time of these transfers, Epstein had numerous actions pending aping him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +2.54264. Through these transfers, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed properly and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +154465. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were panics to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property. contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Entaprise, + +251266. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors and claimants, including the Government of the Virgin Islands. in collecting on their judgements, debts and demands. + +151107. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +2.54268. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amendeel\_Complaint Page 46 of 55 + +24-5,269. At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. I4 V.I.C. 4600 et seq. + +#### COUNT PA ENTV-ONE Fraudulent Conveyance Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 el seq.: 14 V.I.C. §4§ 832-833 + +246:270. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I to 2-55269 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +ap:;7]. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyances. + +248-272 Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +239:273. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +260,274. At the time of this transfer, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +265,275. Through this barmier. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GV1's First Amended Complaint Page 47 of 55 + +242,276. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +243477. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent todefeat, hinder. or delay the Government of the Virgin Islands and other creditors and claimants to collect on their judgements, debts and demands. + +264,278. \_Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other nonfinancial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the'l-&-Virgin Islands. + +245.279. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +246:2110. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. \*600 et seq. + +#### COUNT TWENTY-TWO Civil Conspiracy + +267:2%1 The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 766280 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 48 of 55 + +244282. Defendants acted in concert and joined with others to perform the wrongful acts identified in Counts I to 13. among others, concealing the sexual abuse of minor females by unlawful mans. + +249,283. Each co-conspirator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the conduct of the others and about the common unlawful scheme. + +2-10.284. These unlawful acts could not have been carried to the length and extent accomplished without the common understanding shared by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise Defendants. + +2;4,285. Each of the Defendants had a duty to report, stop or terminate the wrongful conduct, but instead each Defendant concealed, assisted and furthered the wrongful acts by use of civil conspiracy. + +2;2,286. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Virgin Island has ban injured. + +273..287. Each co-conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts alleged herein. + +### COUNT TWENTY-THREE + +### Fraudulent Claims Uoon the Government + +### Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICCn, + +14agnalci§842 + +288, The Government restates and italicizes Paragraphs 1.287 of this Complaint as if fully ad forth herein. + +289. At all times relevant and material herein each Defendant directly and indirectly majejjatcd in nr associated vi Jakehseal Enterprise, an illicit entemrise. + +290. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constingt criminal piesliest actialsieligedkyLKQjralimagarUgUimitethosmiliELfrauduknidein upon the Government, + +jt TheEpstein Enterprise misrepresented eitas activities Trent and inastroedthe Southern Trust Company, Inc., in order to obtain and maintain valuable tax incent ives in order to fund the criminal activities of the Evstean Enterprise, In addition, the Epstein Enterprise used Southern Trust Company to employ. nay and conceal the activities of Participants in the criminal actiyiliss of the Entemise. + +292. The Epstein Ememrist made and presented an application for tax incentives tess nyantLealmilyreppliati n; uesiegartjnubc. Southern Trust Company. knowing such claims tgbgfalsejjethjoussfmudflang • o ' ly and willfully falsified concealed or covered up material facts rozardingibt Company: made false or fraudulent statements or representations about the LIWPOSC, activitiey income, and employment of Southern Trust Company; and made and submitted false affidavits knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry + +293. Thee false statements and documents included affidavits. testimo y. an application, and other documents that misreoresented that SoutherningLeginPetingaged in. and failed to disclose it did not and could not carry out, in its stated Purpose of Proyidin9 consulting services in financial and biomedical informatics + +fl undants knovidpOy benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial valkti cajinlyfatemEntgo idthassougglinhuman trafficking. forced labor. sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of undo-age girls and young women in knowing and reckless disregardof the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +295. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acouired and maintained. directly or indircetlYs\_an interest mix control of the Epstein Enterprise or real °remelt& + +296 Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly. from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise + +297. At all times material herein. Defendants engaged in a patient of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. 4600 et sea. + +### COUNT TWENTY-FOUR + +Fraudulent Claims Upon the Governmag Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 .1C, 6 600 0 sea.: 14 V.I.C, 4 843 + +298. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs Ito 297 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +299. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyances + +390 Each Defendant engagedin\_acts that revealed its intent tojoin and.pethdpsj. crinSalsoirflingauLantSnistro immicaingasaSAINsp t. to a vari eniitietegaggliallyEmeingagerptise to avoid, defeat. hinder or delay claim against them. + +341. The Epstein Enterprise misreoresented the purpose. activities. employment. and income of the Southern Trust Company. Inc in order to obtain and maintain valuable tax incentives in order to fund the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. In addition. the Epstein GV I v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 51 of SS + +Enterprise used Southern Trust Company to emnlov. Day. and conceal the activities of participants aukcinminal activities ofthe Entsmalic + +302. The Epstein Enterprise made and presented an application for tax incentives PStir11011V. and ouarterly reports to the F.DC. a commission of the Government. regarding the Southern Trust Company. knowing such claims to be false. fictitious, or fraudulent; knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or covered up material facts regarding the Southern Trust Company; made false or fraudulent statements or representations about the Purpose, activities initme.gaignaloymentsfiegidterp Trust Company and made and submitted false affidavits [mowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry. + +303. These false statements and documents included affidavits, testimony. a0 application, and other documents that tnistepresaned that Southern Trust Company was engaged in and failed to disclose it did not and could not carry out. in its stated purpose of providing consulting services in financial and biomedical informatics + +304. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise. which has engaged in human trafficking. forced labor, sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and young women in {smiting and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands. + +305. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the Primary crialifigP9029g14iShafist forced labor, and sexual servituc 044j1 + +306. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity dal was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 34 V.I.C. 6600 et sea. + +GVI v. Estate of Jcffrcy Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 52 of S5 + +#### Notice of Allegation of PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +234,3(P. The purpose of punitive damages in the common law is to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future. + +2-73,308. This Complaint describes intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and injurious that it shocks the conscience and offends a civilized society. + +2-76r.j09. Punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that have w\_money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not sufficient. + +24-7,310. At all times material herein, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise engaged repeatedly in wrongful acts which were intentional and outrageous. The Government gives notice that it intends to pursue the possibility of punitive damages in any jury verdict. + +#### PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Court + +- A. Enter a judgment in favor of the Government and against Defendants on all counts; +- B. Declare that Defendants, through the Epstein Enterprise, have engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands including but not limited to human trafficking. forced labor and sexual servitude of female children and young women, unlawful sexual contact, child sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, rape, prostitution civil conspiracy and other offenses rolaiedethccd offenses, and civil conspiracy.',; + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GVI's First Amended Complaint Page 53 of 55 + +C. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, enforce and maintain the criminal activity hens the Government is filing contemporaneously with this lawsuit, or shall file in connection with this action; + +D. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX I ) and 14 V.I.C. § 141, issue an order forfeiting and divesting in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands all of Defendants' interests in any real and personal property within the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands used to facilitate the criminal enterprise carried out by the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to little St. James Island and Greater St. James Island,; + +E. Issue an order forfeiting to the Government of the Virgin Islands any proceeds or funds obtained by Defendants, whether directly or indirectly, during the course of the criminal activity of the Epstein Enterprise: + +F. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(ak I ). require Defendants to divest themselves of any real property or other interests in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands used to funher the goals of the Epstein Enterprise. + +G. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX3) and (5), order the dissolution of the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to, order the dissolution of the corporate Defendants; + +H. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX2) enter an injunction to prevent the further criminal conduct, and concealment of the aiminal conduct, by the Epstein Enterprise•, + +I. Pursuant to 14 V.LC. § 607(a)(4), order the revocation of any and all licenses. permits and approvals that had been granted by any agency of the Territory, and require the repayment of any tax benefits that had been bestowed en any Defendant; + +J. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(aX6Xe), award the Government the maximum civil penalty for each and every violation of law committed by the Epstein Enterprise + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein GV1's First Amended Complaint Page 54 of 55 + +K. Pursuant to Id V.I.C. 6 607, award treble damages and all other available remedies, including attorneys' fees and costs; + +L. Award compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants' civil conspiracy; + +M. Void the transfer of assets as fraudulently conveyed to the The 1953 Trust; + +N. Award such equitable relief, including disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as may be just and proper and appropriate, pursuant to 14 608(eK4), to protect the rights of victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the purposes of CICO; + +O. Assess and award a judgment in favor of the Government and against the Defendants for attorneys' fens and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; and + +P. Award any and all other relief this Court deans appropriate. + +The Government demands a jury trial on all Issues so triable. + +RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, + +Dated: February 5.2020 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS + +> DENISE N. ESQUIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 ICronprindseris Cade GERS Building. 2nd Floor St Mil, u.s.v.i. octo2 Tel Email: ep1.fill 111.774- + +{sup}`t` Fennitled: Don't Priphemee 3 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822007/EFTA02822007.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822007/EFTA02822007.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e984e9c7d25b42ef124213f71e54c42999be6434 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822007/EFTA02822007.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -29, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822007", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dfdefc76ec1864de84a2b5fc407f19759d54bddb747d37845ccece4f5d299bb0", + "output_sha256": "3370e7bba93b8570400c81303827afef6238fe7bf4bc62b492ae91c760050e26", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822116/EFTA02822116.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822116/EFTA02822116.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3580b92f565e00e49426707aa0d2a5df59fbe6b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822116/EFTA02822116.md @@ -0,0 +1,925 @@ +## FILED + +CHARLES CLERK OF THE CO,RT + +## EXHIBIT B + +**UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS +DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE +\*\*\*\*\*CICO SUBPOENA\*\*\*\*\* +DUCES TECUM** + +**SUBPOENA FOR: RECORDS                      CASE** + +**IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS** + +**TO: Ghislaine Maxwell +c/o Quintairos, Prieto, [REDACTED] & Boyer, P.A. +4{sup}`th` Floor +Miami, FL 33156** + +**ATTN: Kyle R. Waldner, Esq.** + +Title 14 V.I.C. § 612(a) provides that "[w]henever any person is reasonably suspected to have engaged in, or to be engaging in, or about to engage in any conduct constituting a violation of any of the provisions of section 605r the Attorney General may, in his discretion, conduct an investigation of the conduct. The Attorney General is authorized before the commencement of and during any civil or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine them under oath, or to require the production of any books, documents, records, writings, recordings or tangible things (hereinafter referred to as "documentary material") relevant or material to the investigation, for inspection, reproducing, and/or copying. + +Pursuant to Title 14 V.I.C. Section 612(a), **YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED** to produce forthwith copies of the documents listed in *Exhibit A*: + +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 612(c), the documents requested is in reference to an ongoing investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice of the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 133 and 1624, as well as other Virgin Islands statutes. + +Personal appearance is not required to satisfy this subpoena; instead, please provide the requested information to **Special Agent Tarique Turnbull, Department of Justice.** + +**PLACE:** United States Virgin Islands +Department of Justice +3438 Kronprindsens Gate +G.E.R.S. Complex, 2{sup}`nd` Floor +St. [REDACTED], VI 00802-5712 + +**DATE:** April 17, 2020 + +**TIME:** 3:00 p.m. + +**NOTE:** This subpoena places you on notice of an investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice. You must maintain, and may not destroy, any documents, electronic records, or other material relating to Jeffrey Epstein and the entities described in the subpoena. + +Failure to produce the documents requested may cause the Attorney General to petition the Superior Court to + +compel you to produce the documents requested and to the issuance of a warrant for your arrest, under 'Fide 14 V.I.C. 612(k). + +tb, Esquire + +Chief of the Civil Division + +V.I. Department of Justice + +Office of the Attorney General + +3438 KronprincLsens Gade + +G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor + +St. VI 00802 + +(340) 774-5666 Ext. 10303 + +DATED this M day of March, 2020. + +#### RETURN OF SERVICE + +Received by Server on: Place: + +Served on (Name): Date: At: + +Served by: Title: + +#### DECLARATION OF SERVER + +I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF TIIE United States of America and the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Services Statement is true and correct. + +Executed on: By: + +## Exhibit A + +Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico + +RECORDS DELIVERY ONLY. NO ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN. + +IF RECORDS ARE DELIVERED PRIOR TO April 17, 2020, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR. + +If more than thirty (30) days is needed to respond to this subpoena, please contact the Civil Division Chief, Attorney Ariel M, at the Virgin Islands Department of Justice. + +### I. Definitions + +Unless otherwise specified, the documents specified below are required to be produced for the time period commencing January 1, 1998 and continuing through the present. Where production of account data is provided in electronic format or media the preferred software format to incorporate the data into is Microsoft Excel. + +As used herein, the following terms are defined as indicated: + +- 1. As used herein, the term "Account Holder" shall mean any person or entity in whose name an account is held or where the person or entity has held any ownership or other interest or has had signatory authority. +- 2. "All/Each." The term "all" and "each" shall be construed as all and each. +- 3. "And/Or." The connectives "and" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as nenscary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. +- 4. "Communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). +- 5. "Concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or constituting. +- 6. The terms "Document" or "Documents" are defined to be synonymous and equal in scope to the usage of these terms in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including, without limitation, any written, drawn, printed, typed, photographed or other graphic or electronically or computerized recorded data or compilations of any kind or nature prepared or received by, or in the possession, custody or control of the answering party, its agents, servants, employees or other representatives. Originals, drafts and all nonidentical copies are separate documents within the meaning of this term. + +- 7. The term "identify" when used with reference to a person, means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need to be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. +- 8. The term "identify" when used with reference to documents, means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s). +- 9. The term "identify" when used with reference to an oral communication, discussion, conversation or any other oral statement, shall mean to describe in detail the substance of each such communication, discussion, conversation or statement, state the date of such communication, discussion, conversation or statement, the place where such communication, discussion, conversation or statement was held and identify each person present for such communication, discussion, conversation or statement. +- 10. "Person" means any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association. +- 11. "Referring to", "relating to", "reflecting", "regarding" or "with respect to" mean, without limitation the concepts: pertain to, deal with, concern, reflect, record, report, constitute, contain, mention, describe, discuss, analyze, evaluate, estimate, study, survey, project, assess, support, modify, contradict, criticize, summarize, comment, or otherwise involve, in whole or in part. +- 12. "You means You, along with any organization or entity in which You have management or controlling interests, together with all present and former directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives or any other persons acting, or purporting to act, on Your behalf. + +#### Instructions + +- 1. When providing Your responses, indicate the Request to which each Document or answer responds in the metadata field, Request No. +- 2. Documents produced pursuant to these Requests shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business. +- 3. For each Document that You produce, produce the current version together with all earlier editions or predecessor Documents during the relevant time period, even though the title of earlier Documents may differ from current versions. Format for Documents produced electronically: + - a. Data shall be produced in single page TIFFs at a 300 DPI resolution which are named for the Number of the page. There shall be no more than 1000 images per folder. numbers, confidentiality designations, and redactions shall be burned into the TIFF image file so as not to unreasonably obstruct any information on the page. + - b. Document Unitization. Each page of a Document shall be electronically converted into an image as described above. If a Document is more than one page, the unitization of the Document and any attachments and/or affixed notes shall be maintained as it existed in the original when creating the image file and appropriately designated in the load files. The corresponding parent/attachment relationships, to the extent possible, shall be provided in the load files furnished with each production. + - c. Include Document level text files containing optical character recognition ("OCR") or extracted text named with the Number of the first page of the Document. + - d. Include data load files containing all of the metadata (both system and application — see list below) from the original Native Documents with extension.dat for Concordance. + - e. Include the database field name in the first ►ine **of the metadata file, in such a manner that it is clear how the metadata is organized in the file.** + - **f. Include an image load file for Concordance such as .opt.** + - **g. All hidden text (e.g., track changes, hidden columns, comments, notes, etc.) shall be expanded, extracted, and rendered in the .TIFF file.** + +- h. Documents created in Excel (spreadsheets), .CSV files, Access (databases), and audio and video media files shall be produced in Native format. The extractable metadata and text shall be produced in the same manner as other Documents that originated in electronic form (as described herein) to the extent that metadata exists or is reasonably accessible. +- i. Email attachments and embedded files or links shall be mapped to their parent. +- j. Produce all attachments to responsive Documents attached to the responsive Documents. +- k. De-duplicate prior to production. To the extent that exact duplicate Documents (based on MD5 or SHA-I hash values at the Document level) reside within a party's data set, each party is only required to produce a single copy of a responsive Document, so long as there is a data field that identifies each custodian who had a copy. In addition, Documents may be de-duplicated in such a way as to eliminate earlier or incomplete chains of emails, and produce only the most complete iteration of an email chain so long as there is a data field that identifies each custodian who had a copy. + +### REOUIRED METADATAM: + +| BEGDOC | ENDDOC | +| ----------- | ----------- | +| BEGATTACH | ENDATTACH | +| ATTCOUNT | ATTACH | +| CUSTODIAN | AUTHOR | +| FROM | TO | +| CC | BCC | +| FILESIZE | PGCOUNT | +| DATERECD | TIMERECD | +| DATESENT | TIMESENT | +| CRTDATE | CRTTIME | + +| LASTMODDATE | LASTMODTIME | +| ------------------------- | ---------------------- | +| LASTACCDATE | LASTACCTIME | +| TITLE | SUBJECT | +| EMAILSUBJECT | FILENAME | +| FILEEXT | MD5HASH | +| ORGANIZATION | FULLPATH | +| RECORD_TYPE | VERSION | +| VOLUME | COMMENT | +| PRINTEDDATE | ENTRYID | +| ATTLST | ITEMTYPE | +| PSTINSIDEPATH | ITEMCREATIONTIME | +| REQATTANDEES | REMINDERTIME | +| REPLYTIME | APPOINTMENTSTARTDATE | +| APPOINTMENTDURATIONTIME | APPOINTMENTCONTACT | +| CATEGORY | KEYWORDS | +| MANAGER | LASTAUTHOR | +| ENCRYPTED | FAMILYDATE | +| NATIVELINK | TEXTPATH | + +## 4. Format for hard copies of Documents produced in response to this Request: + +- a. Re-type the question or request to which the Documents respond and firmly attach the Documents to the re-typed request; + +- b. Number all Documents consecutively, consistently with the numbers used for the Documents produced electronically. +- 5. Unless otherwise indicated, the relevant time period for this Request for Production of Documents is January 1, 1998 to the present. +- 6. If no Documents responsive to a particular request exist, so state. +- 7. As to any Document which no longer exists but which You are aware existed at one time, identify such Document with as much particularity as possible, and in addition, identify the last known location of the Document, the reason the Document is no longer in existence, and the person responsible for the Document's disposition. +- 8. For information that You withhold on the basis of privilege, provide a descriptive list of each Document stating the grounds for Your refusal and providing the following information: the name or title of the Document; a description of the nature and subject matter of the Document sufficient to enable a meaningful challenge to the assertion of privilege; the date, author(s), sender(s), and recipient(s) of the Document, including whether the person is an attorney and/or was an employee of Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. at the time the Document was authored, sent or received; and the nature of the privilege. +- 9. These requests shall be deemed continuing in character so as to require prompt supplemental responses if additional Documents called for herein are obtained, discovered, or become known to You between the time of responding to the Requests and the final disposition of this action. +- 10. Social Security numbers may be redacted from documents to the extent required by applicable law. + +#### Requests for the Production of Documents + +Please produce the following: + +- 1. All Documents and discovery obtained or provided in other litigation concerning or concerning allegations that You or Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual abuse, human trafficking, commercial sex, or pornography, including in the Virgin Islands. +- 2. Transcripts and video recordinf of all taken of You in v. Maxwell (No. 15 CV 07433-RWS) and v. Epstein, Maxwell et al (No. 17 Civ. 0616 JGK). + +- 3. All Documents You reference or rely on in the complaint in Maxwell v. Estate ofJeffrey + - E. Epstein Civil Case No. ST-20-CV-155 +- 4. All Documents reflecting or concerning travel to or from the Virgin Islands for You, Jeffrey Epstein, or other individuals. +- 5. All Documents reflecting or concerning communications between You, or Your agent or representative, and Darren IndyIce, or Richard Kahn. +- 6. All Documents reflecting or concerning communications between You, or Your agent or representative, and Jeffrey Epstein. For this Request, provide documents from 1991 to present. +- 7. All Documents reflecting or concerning Your allegation that Jeffrey Epstein agreed to indemnify you, pay Your legal fees, or otherwise provide financial support to You including, but not limited to, the notes referenced in Maxwell v. Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein Civil Case No. ST-20-CV-155 +- 8. All Documents reflecting or concerning your employment for the companies and entities You described in Maxwell v. Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein Civil Case No. ST-20-CV-155 +- 9. All Documents reflecting or concerning massages or other services You arranged or compensated for Jeffrey Epstein. +- 10. All Documents reflecting or concerning a list of masseuses kept for any of the properties owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. +- 11. All photographs of Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not limited to, all photographs of You and Jeffrey Epstein. +- 12. All photographs or videos taken of any of the women or girls who ever provided a massage for Jeffrey Epstein, regardless of location, or any visitor at Great St. James or Little St. James. +- 13. All Documents reflecting or concerning a list of names, numbers, and addresses kept at any of the properties owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. +- 14. All Documents reflecting or concerning lists of names, numbers, and addresses You created or kept in the course of Your employment, as You described in Maxwell v. Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein Civil Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +- 15. All Documents reflecting or concerning the purchase, maintenance, construction, permits, or other services provided to or obtained in connection with Great St. James or Little St. James. +- 16. All Documents reflecting or concerning tax incentives obtained by Epstein or any Epstein Entity from the Government of the Virgin Islands or any agency or entity associated with the Government. +- 17. All Documents reflecting or concerning communications between You, Jeffrey Epstein, or any Epstein Entity with or about the Government of the Virgin Islands, or any agency or entity associated with the Government. +- 18. All Documents reflecting or concerning visitors to or houseguests of Great St. James or Little St. James. +- 19. Documents sufficient to identify all email addresses, telephone numbers, and social media accounts used by You and Jeffrey Epstein. (You may answer this question, rather than provide responsive documents.) +- 20. MI Documents reflecting or concerning communications between You and/or Jeffrey Epstein and any Person who visited or was a houseguest at Great St. James or Little St. James regarding the Person's visit or other visitors to the Island. +- 21. All Documents reflecting or concerning travel on any airplane, helicopter, or boat owned or used by You or Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not limited to, Air Ghislaine. +- 22. All Documents reflecting or concerning transfers or payment of money or other assets between You, Jeffrey Epstein, any Epstein Entity or agent, any entity of which you are an owner, officer, shareholder, or employee. +- 23. All Documents reflecting or concerning bank accounts, securities or other investments, property, or other assets held by or transferred to or from Jeffrey Epstein or any Epstein Entity or agent. +- 24. All Documents reflecting or concerning visas or other travel arrangements for models or other women or girls transported to the United States, including the Virgin Islands. +- 25. All photographs, videos, audio messages, and/or any other visual media or audio recording reflecting You, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or any visitor to Little St. James or Great St. James. + +- 26. All Documents reflecting or concerning the presence of any Person on Little St. James or Great St. James for any purpose, including, but not limited to, any contractors or employees of Epstein or any Epstein Entity. +- 27. All Documents reflecting to any offer of employment or contract of employment, agreement, or non-disclosure agreement for any employee of Jeffrey Epstein or any Epstein Entity, including, but not limited to, temporary, part-time, or kill-time employees, in any capacity, at Little St. James or Great St. James. +- 28. Your telephone and credit card statements. +- 29. All Documents reflecting or concerning payments You received from any Epstein Entity. +- 30. All Documents reflecting or concerning Your role as Director and Treasurer of Financial Trust Company, including, but not limited to, payroll records, client lists, vendor lists, correspondence, bank statements or account documents, and business plans. +- 31. All Documents reflecting or concerning identification documents (such as passports or driver licenses) for visitors to Little St. James or Great St. James. + +## EXHIBIT B + +Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Ghislaine Maxwell + +RECORDS DELIVERY ONLY. NO ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN. IF RECORDS ARE DELIVERED PRIOR TO April 17, 2020, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR. If more than thirty (30) days is needed to respond to this subpoena, please contact the Civil Division Chief, Attorney Ariel at the Virgin Islands Department of Justice. + +#### Individuals and Entities For Which Information To Be Provided + +- 1. Jeffrey E. Epstein +- 2. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +- 3. The 1953 Trust +- 4. Plan D, LW +- 5. Great St. Jim, LLC +- 6. Nautilus, Inc. +- 7. Hyperion Air, LW +- 8. Poplar Inc. +- 9. C.O.U.Q. Foundation +- 10. Epstein Foundation, Inc. +- 11. Epstein Interests +- 12. Gratitude America LTD +- 13. J. Epstein Foundation, Inc. +- 14. Southern Trust Co. +- 15. Financial Trust Co. Inc. +- 16. IGY-AYH St. Holdings, LW. +- 17. Maple, Inc. +- 18. Cypress, Inc. +- 19. Laurel, Inc. +- 20. JEGE, LW. +- 21. Southern Country International + +# EXHIBIT C + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. + +SEALED INDICTMENT + +20 Cr. + +20 Cr. 330 + +COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +#### OVERVIEW + +1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. + +2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to + +Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +#### FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions, including in the below image: + +![](_page_15_Picture_3.jpeg) + +4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with a minor victim. + +b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would + +massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. + +d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. + +e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. + +5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, + +directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. + +#### MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS + +6. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: + +a. A a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_18_Picture_4.jpeg) + +b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_19_Picture_1.jpeg) + +c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_19_Picture_3.jpeg) + +d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, England. + +7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: + +a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for + +and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing + +an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. + +0. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +#### MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT + +8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the + +abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. + +#### STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS + +9. Prom at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GNISDAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GMISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +#### Overt Acts + +11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +#### COUNT TWO + +(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acta) + + +12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAIN7 MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) + +#### COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + + +14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to + +wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that OHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +#### Overt Acts + +17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited nassage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages.. + +through 18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +#### COUNT FOUR (Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + + +including 19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, transport an individual who had not attained the interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent knowingly did age of 18 in that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and + +aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) + +#### COUNT GIVE (Perjury) + + +20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. + +A. I don't know what you're talking about. + +• • • + +- Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? +- A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously (the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +#### COUNT SIX (Perjury) + + +22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +A: No, not that I recall. . . . + +- O. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +- A. No. + +- Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +- A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +- Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +- A. That is my testimony, that is correct. + +• • • + +- Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +- A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +- Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +- A. That is my testimony. + +- Q. You never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +- A. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Title 18, united States Code, Section 1623.) + +F/REPERSON-- + +Shazilvi--- AUDREY USS Acting nited States Attorney Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +V. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +#### INDICTMENT + +(18 U.S.C. §8 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) + +AUDREY STRAUSS + +Acting United States Attorney + +Foreperson + +# EXHIBIT D + +UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +--- + +In re: Subpoena for Records for Ghislaine Maxwell + +Case No.: N/A + +--- + +AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE + +I, Rafael [REDACTED], a Private Process Server, being duly sworn, depose and say: + +That I have been duly authorized to make service of the Subpoena Duces Tecum with Exhibits in the above entitled case. + +That I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or otherwise interested in this action. + +That on 3/20/2020 at 12:10 PM, I served Ghislaine Maxwell c/o Quintairos, Prieto, [REDACTED] & Boyer, P.A. with the Subpoena Duces Tecum with Exhibits at 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, 4th Floor, Miami, Florida 33156 by serving Eric Boyer, Designated Agent, who stated that he/she is authorized to accept service on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell c/o Quintairos, Prieto, [REDACTED] & Boyer, P.A.. + +Eric Boyer is described herein as: + +Gender: Male    Race/Skin: [REDACTED]    Age: 40's    Weight: 180    Height: 5'6"    Hair: [REDACTED]    Glasses: No + +I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct. + +Sworn to before me on 3/24/2020 + +![](_page_33_Picture_98.jpeg) + +![](_page_33_Picture_99.jpeg) + +Client Ref Number:N/A +Job #: 1576402 + +UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS +DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE +\*\*\*\*\*CICO SUBPOENA\*\*\*\*\* +DUCES TECUM + +RD +#10017 +3/20/20 +12:10P +Eric Boyer + +SUBPOENA FOR: RECORDS CASE + +IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +TO: Ghislaine Maxwell +c/o Quintairos, Prieto, [REDACTED] & Boyer, P.A. +4{sup}`th` Floor +Miami, FL 33156 + +ATTN: Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. + +Title 14 V.I.C. § 612(a) provides that "[w]henever any person is reasonably suspected to have engaged in, or to be engaging in, or about to engage in any conduct constituting a violation of any of the provisions of section 605r the Attorney General may, in his discretion, conduct an investigation of the conduct. The Attorney General is authorized before the commencement of and during any civil or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine them under oath, or to require the production of any books, documents, records, writings, recordings or tangible things (hereinafter referred to as "documentary material") relevant or material to the investigation, for inspection, reproducing, and/or copying. + +Pursuant to Title 14 V.I.C. Section 612(a), YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce forthwith copies of the documents listed in *Exhibit A*: + +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 612(c), the documents requested is in reference to an ongoing investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice of the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 133 and 1624, as well as other Virgin Islands statutes. + +Personal appearance is not required to satisfy this subpoena; instead, please provide the requested information to Special Agent Tarique Turnbull, Department of Justice. + +PLACE: United States Virgin Islands +Department of Justice +3438 Kronprindsens Gade +G.E.R.S. Complex, 2{sup}`nd` Floor +St. [REDACTED] VI 00802-5712 + +DATE: April 17, 2020 + +TIME: 3:00 p.m. + +NOTE: This subpoena places you on notice of an investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice. You must maintain, and may not destroy, any documents, electronic records, or other material relating to Jeffrey Epstein and the entities described in the subpoena. + +Failure to produce the documents requested may cause the Attorney General to petition the Superior Court to + +compel you to produce the documents requested and to the issuance of a warrant for your arrest, under Titkl4 6I2(k). + +Arlel h4. Sjnith, Esquire + +Clic( of t ie Civil Division V.I. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 3438 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. VI 00802 (340) 774-5666 Ext. 10303 + +DATED this /9 day of March, 2020. + +#### RETURN OF SERVICE + +Received by Server on Place: + +Served on (Name): Date: At: + +Served by: Title: + +#### DECLARATION OF SERVER + +I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF TICE United States of America and the 'ferritory of the United States Virgin Islands that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Services Statement is true and correct. + +Executed on: By: + +# EXHIBIT E + +From: david.cattie@cattie-law.com + +Sent: Wednesda , April 15, 2020 12:43 PM + +To: Ariel Dave + +Subject: [EXTERNAL MAILjGhislaine Maxwell + +Good day Attorney + +Please note that I have been retained by Ghislaine Maxwell In regard to two subpoenas from your office which were delivered to Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer in Miami Florida. I am not sure about your work schedule in light of the COVID-19 issues, but I would like to meet or set up a conference call with you to discuss these matters. Unfortunately, I am having emergency surgery tomorrow so I will likely not be in a position to meet/conference with you until the middle of next week. Please let me know if/when you would be able to meet and your preferred method to conduct a meeting. Thank you and I hope you are staying safe. + +David J. Cattic, Esq. The Cattle Law Firm, P.C. t7to sal er's Gade St. , Virgin Islands 00802 T. 34o.775.i200/F. 800.878.5237 www.eattie-law.eom + +# EXHIBIT F + +From: =. Linda + +Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 9:42 AM + +To: David Cattie + +Cc: Ariel >; Scott, Carmen + +Subject: f/u on our conversation this week + +Attorney Cattle: + +I hope that you are well. + +When we spoke on Monday, you indicated that you expected to have a response from your client by the end of this week. Can you let us know where things stand? + +I would be happy to set up a call for this afternoon if you would prefer to speak by phone. + +Best, + +Linda + +Linda I Attorney at Law I Motley Rice LLC + +401 9th St. NW, Suite 1001 I Washington, DC 20004 + +o. 202.386.9626 x5626 j f. 202.386.9622 I IsincierOmotlevrice.com + +# EXHIBIT G + +From: david.cattle@cattle-law.com + +Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:52 PM + +To: Linda lsin er motle rice.coml + +Cc: 'Ariel >; Scott, Carmen : 'Carol + +Subject: RE: EXTERNAL-RE: f/u on our conversation this week + +Good day counsels: + +I thank you for your consideration in this matter. I cannot waive the issue of service of the subpoenas, nor can I disclose my client's location to anyone at this time. In the interest of resolving this issue, however, I am willing to collect and provide the documents/items on the attached list. As you know, there are rather broad protective orders in the non-VI litigation which preclude even me from accessing most of the information in those cases. I have determined that I can provide the items on the attached list without running afoul of those protective orders. If you are amenable to resolving the subpoenas in this manner please confirm that in writing (perhaps we should draft a short agreement to that effect) and I will tolled and produce this information to you in short order. + +If you would like to discuss this matter further, please let me know. + +Dave + +![](_page_41_Picture_9.jpeg) + +David J. Cattie, Esq. I Attorney & Counselor at Law + +I The Cattie Law Firm, P.C. + +tel: 340.775.1200/ fax.: 800.878.5237 + +I e-mail: david.cattiePcattie-law.com + +I web: www.cattie-law.com + +I address: 1710 Kongens Gade, St. - V.1. 00802 + +# EXHIBIT H + +From: Linda Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 4:01 PM To: david.cattie@cattie-law.com Cc: 'Ariel= 1; Scott, Carmen; 'Carol= Subject: RE: EXTERNAL-RE: f/u on our conversation this week + +David: + +Apologies for the slow response, and thank you for reaching out. + +First, my reading of the protective order, as with most protective orders, is that Ms. Maxwell can share any document that she produced or other discovery material that she designated confidential. + +Second, also per the protective order, Ms. Maxwell could seek the consent of opposing counsel to produce the materials produced by the opposing party. + +I suspect that would cover at least substantially all of the documents in that litigation. Please let me know if you disagree with my interpretation. + +In part, we focused on these litigation materials because we believe that they would not be burdensome to collect and produce. However, we also would be happy to discuss emails or other records that are relevant to the Government's investigation in Ms. Maxwell's custody and control that could be produced outside of the protective order. + +Please let me know if you would like to discuss. + +Best, Linda + +Linda= I Attorney at Law I Motley Rice LLC 401 9th St. NW, Suite 1001 1 Washington, DC 20004 o. 202.386.9626 x5626 I f. 202.386.9622 I Isinger@motleyrice.com + +# EXHIBIT I + +UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL \*\*\*\*\*GIGO SUBPOENA\*\*\*\*\* DUCES TECUM + +SUBPOENA FOR: RECORDS CASE ST-20-CV-014 + +#### IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +TO: Ghislaine Maxwell do David J. Cattle, Esq. I710a:ens Cade St. V.I., 00802 + +# ATTN: David J. Cattie, Esq. other Virgin Islands statutes. + +Title 14 V.I.C. § 612(a) provides that "[wihenever any person is reasonably suspected to have engaged in, or to be engaging in, or about to engage in any conduct constituting a violation of any of the provisions of section 605r the Attorney General may, in his discretion, conduct an investigation of the conduct. The Attorney General is authorized before the commencement of and during any civil or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine them under oath, or to require the production of any books, documents, records, writings, recordings or tangible things (hereinafter referred to as "documentary material") relevant or material to the investigation, for inspection, reproducing, and/or copying. + +Pursuant to Title 14 V.I.C. Section 612(a), YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce forthwith copies of the documents listed below in Exhibit A: + +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 012(c), the documents requested is in reference to an ongoing investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice of the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking Of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 133 et seq., as well as + +Personal appearance is not required to deliver the documents required by this subpoena; instead, please provide them to Special Agent Tarique Turnbull, Department ofJustice. + +PLACE: United States Virgin Islands DATE: July 2, 2020 Department of Justice 3438 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2i° Floor TIME: 3:00 p.m. St. , Vi 00802-57 12 + +NOTE: This subpoena places you on notice of an investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice. You must maintain, and may not destroy, any documents, electronic records, video or other material relating to Jeffrey Epstein. + +Failure to produce the documents requested may cause the Attorney General to petition the Superior Court to compel you to produce the documents requested and to the issuance of a **warrant for your arrest**, under Title 14 V.I.C. § 612(k). + +DATED this 11{sup}`th` day of June, 2020. + +Ariel [REDACTED], Esquire +Chief of the Civil Division +V.I. Department of Justice +Office of the Attorney General +3438 Kronprindsens Gade +G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor +St. [REDACTED], VI 00802 +(340) 774-5666 Ext. 10155 + +**RETURN OF SERVICE** + +Received by Server on: \_\_\_\_\_ Place: \_\_\_\_\_ + +Served on (Name): \_\_\_\_\_ Date: \_\_\_\_\_ At: \_\_\_\_\_ + +Served by: \_\_\_\_\_ Title: \_\_\_\_\_ + +**DECLARATION OF SERVER** + +I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE United States of America and the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Services Statement is true and correct. + +Executed on: \_\_\_\_\_ By: \_\_\_\_\_ + +# EXHIBIT J + +From: david.cattie@cattie-law.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:00 PM To: Linda Cc: 'Ariel I; Scott, Carmen; 'Carol Subject: RE: EXTERNAL-RE: f/u on our conversation this week Attachments: 2020 06 11 Subpoena Duces Tecum to Ghislaine Maxwell.pdf + +Good day: + +Please note that I have previously advised you that I am not authorized to accept service on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. Today (while I was actually on a Zoom call with Attorney-), the Attorney General's Office attempted to complete service of a CICO Subpoena (attached) through me. I advised the office that I was not authorized to accept service on her behalf. Also, please note that while the subpoena demands documents attached as Exhibit "A", there is no such exhibit attached thereto. + +David Cattie + +![](_page_48_Picture_4.jpeg) + +David J. Cattie, Esq. I Attorney & Counselor at Law + +I The Cattie Law Firm, P.C. + +I tel: 340.775.1200/ fax.: 800.878.5237 + +I e-mail: david.cattieRcattie-law.com + +I web: www.cattie-law.com + +I address: tyto Kongens Gade, St. V.I. oo8oz + +# EXHIBIT K + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE 43 + +Plaintiff No. 17 Civ. 00616 (JGK) + +v. + +JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, LESLEY GROFF and NATALYA + +Defendants. + +#### PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION TO APPROVE ALTERNATE SERVICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(e)(1) + +Plaintiff, , by and through her undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 308(5) files this Renewed Motion to Approve Alternative Service and for grounds thereof states: + +As this Court is aware, Defendant Maxwell is also a defendant in another action in the Southern District of New York, v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433 RWS. In that action, Maxwell is represented by counsel who appeared before that Court on her behalf as recently as November 8, 2017. Despite that fact, Maxwell will apparently not authorize her counsel to accept service of the complaint in this case. Indeed, Maxwell's counsel has gone so far as to hire their own separate legal counsel to argue to this Court that they should not have to accept service in this case. Yet in this very case, Maxwell has already actively participated, including having counsel make a request for additional time to serve her answer and attempting to impose + +{sup}`&#`x27; Plaintiff has decided to reveal her identity in connection with this matter and has filed a Notice to Change Case Caption. + +restrictions on the case of discovery materials. See DE 69 and November 23, 2017 Letter to Judge Koeltl, Exhibit D. + +While this Court originally granted Plaintiff Motion for Alternate Service (DE 57), Maxwell's counsel sought reconsideration of that Order on October 30, 2017. This Court held a hearing on November 28, 2017 and issued an Order on November 30, 2017 instructing to again attempt service on Defendant Maxwell on or before January 5, 2018: "By that date, the plaintiff will file either proof of service or a renewed application to the alternate service." DE 90. As directed, has made the following attempts to effectuate service on Maxwell: + +- provided Maxwell's counsel of record in the v. Maxwell case a copy of the summons and complaint; +- emailed a copy of the summons and complaint to the following email address which is publicly associated with Maxwell. panax@ellmax.com. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit I, December 4, 2017 E-mail; +- retained, at significant expense, a private investigation firm to attempt to effectuate service at locations associated with Maxwell in New York and New Jersey, including the following addresses: + - I. 116 E. 65th Street, New York, NY 10065; + - 2. 457 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022; and + - 3. 55 Monterey Avenue, Teaneck, NJ 07666. + +As detailed in the affidavit of Investigator Douglas Mercer (See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2), at one location, it was clear that individuals were present in the home but were refusing to answer the door and accept service; + +- conducted a public record search of the London Townhome that was identified in Epstein's Phone Directory as being associated with Defendant Maxwell: 44 Kinnerton Street, London. The UK government record demonstrates that title to the property was changed on March 17, 2016 to Square Properties Limited and is no longer owned by Defendant Maxwell rendering attempts at service in London futile. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Summary of Title NGL948023; and + +- Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell is also identified as the founder of the TerraMar Project on its websitc. The organization has a New York address for its headquarters at 326 E. 65111Street #326, New York, New York 10065. The email address identified with the organization is hellogtheterramarproject.org. On January 4, 2018, we served a copy of the summons and complaint to the following potential email addresses: + +- I. gmaxwell(a.theterramaroroject.org; +- 2. maxwellggtheterramarproject.org; +- 3. ghislaine(rr)theterramaroroiect.org; +- 4. gmax(t4theterramarproject.org; +- 5. maxwell(a),theterramaroroioct.org; and +- 6. ghislaine.maxwell@theterramarproiect.org. + +See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4. The only email address which received a delivery failure message was maxwell@theterramarproiect.org. + +Accordingly, having made renewed — and unsuccessful efforts — to serve Maxwell through conventional means, now renews her request for alternative service as such means as the Court respectfully suggests that, as the Court allowed in its previous order, that service of the complaints on current legal counsel representing her in a related matter before this Court and other publicly identified email accounts be permitted as a means of alternative service. + +#### MEMORANDUM OF LAW + +Service of a Complaint should not be a game of cat and mouse particularly where the defendant is represented by counsel in a matter pending in the same district. See Carillo v. Hagerty, No. 3:05CV1417 (MRK), 2006 WL 2165679, at \*1 (D. Conn. July 31, 2006) (court + +finding defendant should not benefit from service gamesmanship reasoning that: "service of process is not intended to be a game of hide and seek or cat and mouse."). + +Based on the exhaustion of the other methods of service delineated above, moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), for an order permitting service by an alternative method. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that service upon a party may be effected by "following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made." Accordingly, Defendant Maxwell may be served pursuant to CPLR § 308, which provides several methods by which service upon a natural person may be effectuated, including personal service; service by "delivering the summons ... to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served" and then mailing the summons to the individual's "last know residence;" or service by "affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served" and then "mailing the summons to such person at his or her last known residence" or to his or her place of business - so called "nail and mail" service. CPLR §§ 308(1), (2) & (4). + +If service under CPLR §§ 308(1), (2) & (4) is impracticable, CPLR § 308(5) permits service "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs." The determination of whether service is impracticable "depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case." Securities & Exch. Comm'n v. HGI, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 3866 (DLC), 1999 WL 1021087, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1999). Although the plaintiff must show impracticability of service, there is no requirement of "proof of due diligence or of actual prior attempts to serve a party under the other provisions of the statute." Id. "When usual methods of service prove impracticable, service + +that is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the interested party of the pendency of the action will suffice."D.R.I., Inc. v. Dennis, No. 03 Civ. 10026 (PKL), 2004 WL 1237511, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2004). + +New York Courts consistently affirm their right to direct or approve alternative methods of service where regular service has been deemed "impracticable." For example, in Dobkin v. Chapman, 21 N.Y.2d 490, 498, 289 N.Y.S.2d 161, 168 (1968), the New York Court of Appeals held that where a plaintiff could not follow the prescribed methods of service as set forth in § 308, Courts are "given the discretion to fashion other means adapted to the particular facts of the case before it" pursuant to § 308(5) (referred to in Dobkin as § 308(4), the predecessor to § 308(5)). Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that a Court's discretion to fashion such methods of service "must be broad" if the statute is to be "meaningful." Id. at 499, 289 N.Y.S.2d at 168. + +There is no doubt that Defendant Maxwell has had actual notice and knowledge of the claims asserted in this Complaint. has tried multiple alternative avenues to serve Maxwell, including (1) sending the documents to her current counsel in another matter, (2) investigating and attempting service at multiple locations known to be associated with Defendant Maxwell, and (3) emailing the documents to Defendant Maxwell's publicly available email address. As a result, this Court should deem the service methods attempted to be sufficient and grant the Motion for Alternate Service. See Rampersad v. Deutsche Bank Secs., Inc., No. 02 Civ. 7311 (LTS), 2003 WL21073951, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2003) (authorizing alternative service under § 308(5) when Plaintiff was unable to determine Defendant's residence or place of business after "extensive Internet searches" and inquires with Defendant's former clients); Javier H. v. -Botello, 217 F.R.D. 308, 309 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (service by publication authorized when individual Defendant was a fugitive from the criminal justice system; was likely aware of + +the pending civil action through his relatives, who were co-Defendants; and when the Court determined that Defendant would likely read a newspaper that was circulated in the region of his last known residence); see also Inc., 1999 WL 1021087, at \*1 (service by publication in USA Today authorized when Defendant's whereabouts were unknown, efforts to locate his home or business address by searching computer databases failed, and there existed no record that he designated an agent for service); D.R.L. Inc., 2004 WL 1237511, at •2 (after Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to serve Defendant through a process server and searched databases for his address, Court authorized service by sending process by certified mail to Defendant's last known address; by publishing the action in a local newspaper; and by emailing it to Plaintiffs last known email address). + +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for this Court to enter an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Alternative Service Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)( I) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 308(5) upon Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and finding that the service efforts made by Plaintiff's counsel herein are sufficient. Dated: January 5, 2018 + +Respectfully submitted, + +BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP + +Is/ Sigrid McCawley + +Sigrid S. McCawley (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) + +Meredith (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) + +Boies Schiller Flexner LLP + +401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 + +Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 + +Tel: (954) 356-0011 + +J. , Esq. + +Stanley Pottinger, Esq. + +425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 + +Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 + +Tel: (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 + +Paul G. Cassell (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52022 + +{sup}`2` This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of January, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF. + +Kimo S. Peluso Sher Tremonte, LLP 90Broad Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10004 knelusoashertremonte.com Counsel for Haddon, P.C. + +ct + +Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca. Es . HADDON, & P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Email: ImenninecrAlunflaw.com inagliuczahmflaw.com + +John E. Stephenson, Jr. Jonathan D. Parente ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 John.stenhensortab.alston.com Jonathan.parente@alston.com Alexander S. Lorenzo ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue Ncw York, NY 10016 alexander.Iorenzo rialston.com Counsel for Defendant + +Michael Justin Michael A. Keotirm STEPTOE & LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 mmillerabstepkg•com ichue.stentoe.com Counsel for Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff + +> Is Sigrid McCawlev Sigrid McCawley + +# EXHIBIT L + +2018 WL 637421 + +Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. New York. + +, Plaintiff, + +Jeffrey EPSTEIN, et al., Defendants. + +17-cv-616 (JGK) + +Signed 01/30/2018 + +#### Attorneys and Law Firms + +Justin Y.K. Michael Campion , Steptoc & LLR Alexander Seton Lorenzo. Alston & Bird, I.I.P, New York, NY, Laura A. Menninger, I laddon. and P.C.. Denver, CO. John E. Stephenson. Jr.. Alston & Bird 1.1.P, Atlanta, GA. for Defendants. + +#### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER + +John (1 Koeltl, United States District Judge + +\*1 The plaintiff, I , has moved the Court to approve alternative service on the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and to find that service has been effected. The plaintiff asserts that, despite diligent measures. she has been unable to serve Maxwell personally. The plaintiff argues, however, that she has taken reasonable measures to provide Maxwell with notice of the pending lawsuit and requests that this service should be deemed sufficient. Non-party Haddon & M. P.C. ("Haddon M"), Maxwell's counsel in another litigation pending in this Court. has refused to accept service on behalf of Maxwell and has objected to becoming a general agent of process for Maxwell, but has taken no position on the plaintiff's application to deem service effected through the email efforts that the plaintiff has already made. Neither Maxwell nor any representative of Maxwell has otherwise opposed the current motion. + +Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(eg 1) permits a plaintiff to serve a defendant by following the procedures set forth by state law in the state where the district court is located. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 308 sets forth available methods of service. Where service under §§ 308(1), (2). or (4)—which generally provide variants of personal service—is impracticable, § 308(5) provides that + +the Court may approve alternative service methods. Sc.e e.g,. Rampersad v. Deutsche Bank Sec.. Inc., No. 02 cv-73 I I (LTSXAJP), 2003 WI. 21073951. at • I (S.D.N.Y. May 9. 2003). Service under § 308(5) requires a showing of impracticability of the other methods of service, but does not require a showing of due diligence. Isia + +The plaintiff has taken various steps in an effort to serve Maxwell personally—all to no avail. The plaintiff retained a private investigation firm to attempt to determine where Maxwell resides, and that firm attempted service at three physical addresses potentially associated with Maxwell. The plaintiff also emailed the summons and complaint to several email addresses that are publicly associated with Maxwell. only one of which has been returned as undelivered. The plaintiff has also provided a copy of the summons and complaint to I laddon who currently represents Maxwell in another litigation pending in this district. + +Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has demonstrated impracticability, because she has made numerous efforts to obtain information about the defendant's current residence and general contact infonnation to effectuate personal service but has been unable to locate Maxwell. Sec, es,. S.E.C. v. Nnebc. No. 01-cv-5247 (KMW), 2003 WL 402377. at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2003) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiff has demonstrated that service on Maxwell is impracticable and thus grants the motion for alternative service. + +\*2 Further, the steps already taken by the plaintiff to serve Maxwell are "reasonably calculated, under the circumstances. to apprise [her] of the pendency of the action and afford [her] an opportunity to present [heir objections." and the Court therefore deems service of the summons and complaint to be complete as to defendant Maxwell. See. e.g . Doria v. Love. No. 15-CV-3271 (LGS). 2015 WL 4039849, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. July I, 2015) (holding that service upon the defendant's counsel in an unrelated matter was sufficient); Rampersad, 2003 WL 21073951, at • 1. + +Finally, Haddon objection to becoming a general agent of process for Maxwell is unfounded. The Court's ruling that service by email and personal delivery to Haddon has been reasonably calculated to provide Maxwell with notice of this lawsuit and an opportunity to respond does not turn Haddon into a general agent for Maxwell. Indeed. this order does not even require Haddon to accept service on behalf of Maxwell. but rather finds that service on Haddon is likely to provide notice of the lawsuit to Maxwell, given that Haddon is presumably in contact with Maxwell with regards to their representation of her in the other pending matter. Sec Bozza. 2015 WL 4039849, at •2. + +Accordingly. the motion for alternative service is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion pending at Docket Number 97. Defendant Maxwell's time to move + +or answer is twenty-one days from the date of this order. If Maxwell chooses not to appear, the plaintiff may pursue whatever remedies are available, including the entry• of a default judgment. + +SO ORDERED. + +All Citations + +Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 637421 + +#### Footnotes + +1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption to name No. 96. as the plaintiff. See Docket + +End of Docuniont + +tgr 2020 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U.S. Government Works. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822116/EFTA02822116.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822116/EFTA02822116.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b9a6efcead28da7b2eba604fe0d372a90bfac13 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822116/EFTA02822116.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -807, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822116", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 59, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.bold-heading\", \"builtin.empty-image\", \"builtin.table-boundary-padding\", \"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": false, + "input_sha256": "63de9667ceac0cff88430b63fafea8fb3969d137a6cc66abc6bf42b0f244d118", + "output_sha256": "abe70a1cb12253fe4c752dae6c946ffb47603c5c69cc67c140dbc919b1d3f690", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822177/EFTA02822177.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822177/EFTA02822177.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16c44e32cf9952125ed922958c85fd696faed531 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822177/EFTA02822177.md @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ +# FILED + +July 12, + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*St\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +PLAINTIFF, + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +DEFENDANTS. + +## GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' MOTION TO INTERVENE + +The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves for an order permitting the Government to intervene in this action as of right pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or else by leave pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The Government states in support of its motion as follows. + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") filed this action seeking indemnification for and advancement of expenses incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein and his affiliated businesses "in connection with any threatened, pending, or completed suit, proceeding, or investigation relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims." Complaint ¶ I. Since the filing of this action, Maxwell has been arrested by + +federal authorities on charges that she assisted, facilitated, and participated in Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls. + +The Government has two distinct but closely related interests that support intervention in this action. First, the Government has a pending action in the Virgin Islands against Defendants herein—the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke, and Richard D. Kahn—and others under the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO), 14 V.I.C. §§ 601 et seq. See Ex. A (Gov't of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. Indyke et al., No. ST-20-CV-14 (First Amended Complaint, filed 2/5/20)) ("FAC"). The Government alleges that Defendants committed and conspired to commit criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse activity. The Government's primary interest for intervention is to ensure that the Epstein Estate's assets are not wrongfully dissipated by Maxwell's suspect claims for indemnification and "advancement" of legal expenses, and instead are preserved to satisfy the CICO judgment, which seeks forfeiture, divestiture, disgorgement, and payment of maximum civil penalties and damages by the Epstein Estate. + +Second, the Government also is investigating Maxwell's participation in Epstein's criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct pursuant to its authority under CICO, 14 V.I.C. § 612, to investigate reasonably suspected criminal activity. The Government has attempted to serve a CICO Subpoena Duces Tecum on Maxwell stating that: + +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 612(c), the documentation requested is in reference to an ongoing investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice of the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 133 and 1624, as well as other Virgin Islands statutes. + +Ex. B (Government's CICO Subpoena Duces Tecum to Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 19, 2020) at 1. Maxwell resisted and evaded service of the subpoena during the three and a half + +months after its issuance. The Government's second intervention interest thus is to ensure that Maxwell is compelled to respond to its investigatory subpoena through this action in which she is a party and has consented to the Court's jurisdiction. + +The Government's need to intervene is further fueled by Maxwell's inappropriate use of the Virgin Islands courts to seek payment and reimbursement from the Epstein criminal enterprise, while she circumvents the service of process of Government subpoenas related to her involvement in that criminal enterprise. + +Based upon either or both of the Government's interests with respect to all parties in this action and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court should grant the Government intervention as of right under V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or else by leave under V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(b). + +# STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATED TO INTERVENTION + +## A. Maxwell's Arrest on Federal Criminal Sex-Trafficking Charges Related to Her Involvement with Epstein's Conduct. + +On July 2, 2020, federal authorities arrested Ms. Maxwell on six federal criminal charges related to her involvement with Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct. See Ex. C (Indictment, United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (S.D.N.Y.)). + +Maxwell is charged with Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts (Count One), Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts (Count Two), Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity (Count Three), and Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity (Count Four). Id. All of these charges stem from Maxwell's role "in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein." Id.,111; see &soli 2 ("GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's + +residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse."). + +Maxwell also is charged with two counts of Perjury for giving false testimony concealing the foregoing conduct of both Epstein and herself. See id, Counts Five and Six. + +## B. The Government's CICO Investigation of Maxwell's Participation in the Epstein Enterprise. + +The Government is and has been actively investigating Maxwell's participation in the criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct of the Epstein Enterprise. See Ex. B (Government's CICO Subpoena) (seeking documentation "in reference to an ongoing investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice of the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 133 and 1624, as well as other Virgin Islands statutes"). + +Prior to Maxwell's arrest, the Government made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to serve its CICO subpoena on her. On March 24, 2020, the Government served the subpoena on Maxwell's counsel in this action, Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. See Ex. D (Certificate of service). + +On April 15, 2020, David J. Cattie, Esq. notified the Government that Ms. Maxwell had retained him in regard to the Government's subpoenas. See Ex. E (Cattie to email, 4/15/20). The subpoena was clearly received by Maxwell, and Attorney Cattie contacted the Government on her behalf to negotiate a possible resolution of the subpoena. Given that Attorney Cattie nonetheless raised concerns about service on Maxwell, the Government asked that Maxwell authorize him to accept service of the subpoena or disclose her whereabouts, so that it could serve her personally. See Ex. F (email from L. to D. Cattie, May 1, 2020). On May 12, 2020, almost two months after the Government's initial attempts at service, Mr. Cattie responded that he "cannot waive the issue of service of the subpoenas, nor can I disclose my client's location to anyone at this time." Ex. G (email from D. Cattie to L. May 12, 2020) (emphasis added). + +After Mr. Cattie refused to accept or waive service, the Government -- in good faith - continued to negotiate for release of the requested documents in lieu of enforcing the CICO Subpoena. See Ex. H (Email from L. to D. Cattie, May 28, 2020). Those negotiations also failed, and the Government attempted service of a second CICO Subpoena on Ms. Maxwell's counsel on June 11, 2020. See Ex. I (second subpoena).' Mr. Cattie once more stated that he was not "authorized" to accept service on her behalf. Ex. J (Email from D. Cattie to L. June 17, 2020). And again, Mr. Cattie did not offer to provide Maxwell's location to allow the Government to effectuate service. Id. To date, Maxwell has not acknowledged or responded to either of the Government's CICO Subpoenas. + +After Epstein's most recent arrest on July 8, 2019 and his death in prison on August 10, 2019, see Complaint, ¶ 23, and before her own arrest on July 2, 2020, Maxwell was in hiding. Numerous media outlets reported on her unknown whereabouts, including The Sun, the Washington Examiner, Vanity Fair, BBC, CNN, CNBC, the Telegraph, The Guardian, and Page Six.2 At the same time, her counsel was actively litigating in other Courts to keep shielded from public view thousands of pages of court records that would expose her involvement and + +I The second CICO Subpoena, see Ex. I is identical to the fast one served on March 24, 2020. + +{sup}`2` See, e.g., hups://wynv.vanityfair.coin/news/2019/11/hunt-for-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-enabler-ghislaine-maxwell; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/18/ghislaine-maxwell-prince-andrew-friend-jeffrey-epsteincontroversy-hiding; hups://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/decil 2/she-was-so-dangerous-where-in-the-worldis-the-notorious-ghislaine-maxwell; httpsJ/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50927651; hilps://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/08/uk/who-is-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-intl-gbdindex.html; https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/14/ghislaine-maxwell-location-unknown-jeffrey-epstein-accusers-eye-her.html; ht s://www.washin tonexarniner.com/news/ibi-investi atin -'effre -e stein-facilitator- hislaine-maxwell; + +prosecutors-announced/; up-for-epstein-lawsuit/. https://pagesix.com/2020/01/11/ghislaine-maxwell-flies-under-the-radar-while-lawyering- + +participation in Epstein's heinous crimes. See, e.g., v. Maxwell, 15-cv-7433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.). + +Maxwell also was actively litigating this action with counsel appearing on her behalf. See, e.g., Joint Motion to Stay proceedings, filed June 2, 2020 in Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al Case No.: ST-20-CV-15, in the Superior Court of the United States Virgin Islands. + +Even before Epstein's 2019 arrest and death, locating and serving Maxwell was impracticable. In 2017, a victim suing Maxwell in yet another matter related to Maxwell's participation in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, attempted to serve Maxwell in a number of ways, including by providing Maxwell's attorneys at Haddon a copy of the summons and complaint, emailing a copy of the summons and complaint to gmax@ellmax.com, and attempting to effectuate service at three locations associated with Maxwell in New York and New Jersey. See Ex. K (Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein. et al., 17 Civ. 00616-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 97) at 2-3. + +Despite those attempts, was unable to personally serve Maxwell and filed a motion asking the court to approve alternative service. Id. On January 30, 2018, the Honorable John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York held that had demonstrated that serving Maxwell was impracticable under New York law and that providing copies of the summons and complaint to her counsel, was reasonably calculated to provide Maxwell with notice of the lawsuit given that they were presumably in contact with Maxwell. See Ex. L v. Epstein, No. 17-CV-616 (JGK), 2018 WL 637421, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2018)). + +Maxwell thus has engaged in repeated instances of avoiding service of the type that the Government has encountered in its CICO investigation of her alleged criminal sex-trafficking conduct that also is at issue in this coverage action filed by none other than Maxwell herself. + +## C. The Government's CICO Acton Against Defendants the Epstein Estate, Indyke, and Kahn, and Others. + +The Government alleges in its CICO action against Defendants herein—the Epstein Estate, Indyke, and Kahn—that Epstein was a resident of the Virgin Islands and maintained a residence on Little St. James Island, which he owned, from 1998 until his death in prison in 2019. Ex. A (FAC) ¶ 5. In 2016, Mr. Epstein purchased a second island—Great St. James. Id. By this time, he was a registered sex offender, having been convicted in Florida of procuring a minor for prostitution. Id., ¶ 6. + +The Government alleges that Epstein for decades conducted an enterprise (the "Epstein Enterprise") whereby he used his web of businesses in the Virgin Islands to transport female victims, many of them children, to his privately-owned Little St. James Island, where they were sexually abused, injured, and held captive. Id ,¶1 40-41. Flight logs show that between 2001 and 2019, Defendants transported girls and young women to the Virgin Islands and then helicoptered them to Little St. James. ld.,1 46. Air traffic controller reports state that some victims appeared to be as young as 11 years old. Id., ¶ 51. Epstein and his associates lured these girls and young women to his island with promises of modeling and other career opportunities. Id.,1149. Once they arrived, they were sexually abused, exploited, and held captive. Id. + +Epstein's privately-owned islands in the Virgin Islands were essential to the sextrafficking enterprise. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly two miles off-shore from St. with no other residents. Id., ¶ 66. It is accessible only by private boat or helicopter, with no public or commercial transportation servicing the island. Id. When two of the victims, one age 15, attempted to escape from Little St. James, Epstein was able to organize search parties, locate them, return them to his house, and then confiscate the 15-year old girl's passport to hinder her ability to escape again. Id., ¶¶ 57-58. + +The Government alleges that Epstein and the CICO Defendants violated CICO by committing and conspiring to commit criminal human trafficking offenses based upon the foregoing conduct. See id., ¶¶ 115-170 (Counts 1-VIII). The Government further alleges that they violated CICO by committing and conspiring to commit various child-abuse, neglect, rape, unlawful-sexual-contact, prostitution, and sex-offender-registry-related offenses based upon the foregoing sexual-abuse conduct. See 171-258 (Counts IX-XIX). The Government also alleges that Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to conceal the unlawful sexual abuse alleged. See id.,111281-287 (Count XXII). + +The Government is seeking civil penalties for each violation of law, treble damages, and compensatory and punitive damages for civil conspiracy. Id., Prayer for Relief ¶11J-L, O. The Government also seeks equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as warranted pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 608(c)(4), to protect the rights of victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with CICO's purposes. Id.. Prayer for Relief¶¶ N, P. The Government further seeks forfeiture and divestiture in favor of the Government as to all CIC Defendants' interests in any real and personal property in the Virgin Islands used to facilitate or further the goals of the criminal Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to Little St. James and Great St. James Islands, and in any proceeds or funds obtained by them during the course of the criminal Epstein Enterprise. Id., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ D-F. + +# ARGUMENT + +## A. Legal Standards + +The Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provide for a person to intervene as of right in a pending action as follows: + +On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: + +(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. + +V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). + +The civil rules also provide for a person to intervene by permission of the court in a pending action as follows: + +On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: + +(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. + +V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). + +"The purpose of the rule governing intervention is to enable one not named as a party who has a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation to protect himself from an action that might be detrimental to him." Hendricks v. Clyne, No. ST-16-cv-147, 2019 WL 918607, at "1 (V.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 2019). + +## B. The Government Satisfies Rule 24(a)'s Requirements to Intervene of Riaht. + +A party seeking to intervene as of right must establish three elements: "(1) a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the pending litigation, (2) a substantial risk that the disposition of the litigation will impair the interest, and (3) the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest." Id. The Government satisfies all of these requirements. + +#### 1. The Government Has Sufficient Interests in the Subject Matter of this Action. + +The Government has two distinct but related interests in the subject matter of this action-- Maxwell's claim against the Epstein Estate for indemnification and "advancement" of legal + +expenses for any suit involving her relationship with Epstein and his affiliated businesses. + +Complaint ¶ 1; see also id., ¶¶ 17-19 (Epstein indemnified and advanced Maxwell's costs for suits and investigations "relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims."). Either or both of the Government's interests is sufficient for its intervention as of right. + +First, the Government has an interest as a litigant against Defendants to ensure that the Epstein Estate's assets are preserved to satisfy the judgment it seeks on its CICO claims. The Government is seeking an order requiring forfeiture, divestiture, disgorgement, and payment of maximum civil penalties and damages. See Ex. B (CICO FAC), Prayer for Relief¶¶ D-P. Maxwell's claims in this action threaten the Government's litigation interests by seeking to wrongfully dissipate the Epstein Estate's assets on a joint tortfeasor's undocumented and otherwise suspect claim of entitlement to indemnification and "advancement" of legal expenses for criminal or civil actions addressing her involvement in Epstein's sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct. + +Numerous federal courts applying the identically worded Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) have held that a tort claimant has a sufficiently developed interest to intervene as of right in a coveragerelated action involving the tort defendant. In Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1991), the appeals court reversed denial of intervention as of right by class action plaintiffs in a separate declaratory judgment action by the insurer of the class action defendant seeking to disavow coverage. See id. at 260. The appeals court addressed the proposed intervenors' interest, which was contingent since they had not obtained a judgment at the time their intervention was denied, and, after weighing the relevant arguments, held that "the Teague Intervenors stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the district court judgment on [the insurer's] complaint" and that this "interest in the subject matter of this litigation is a significantly protectable interest." + +Id.; see also Security Ins. Co. v. Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377, 1381 (7th Cir. 1995) (permitting tort claimant to intervene in insurer's declaratory judgment action against tort defendant). + +Based on the Fourth Circuit's Teague decision, a federal district court permitted sexabuse tort claimants to intervene in an action brought by the tort defendant seeking a declaration as to coverage by an insurer. See v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No. 11-1258, 2011 WL 3241452, at \*I (D. Md. July 28, 2011). Following Teague, the court held that the sex-abuse tort claimants had a sufficiently protected interest to intervene as of right." See id. at •2 ("Plainly, it is of great importance to the tort plaintiffs to persuade this Court that Fire[man]'s Fund is obligated to indemnify If this Court ultimately determines that Fireman's Fund is not required to indemnify , the Does will only be able to satisfy any judgment they obtain against from his assets, rather than from the resources of the insurer."). + +The only difference between the Government's position here and the tort claimant intervenors' positions in Teague and is that here the CICO Defendants are in the role of potential insurer. In Maxwell's suit against the Epstein estate, the Estate's assets are similar to those of an insurer, as both the Government and Maxwell are seeking recovery from the same Estate proceeds, which Maxwell is attempting to use as insurance. Thus, the Government's interest in ensuring the availability of hinds to satisfy its own judgment would be threatened here not by the denial of coverage (as in Teague), but by the provision of coverage using the Estate's assets to indemnify Maxwell. But this is a distinction without a difference, as the interest itself is the same—ensuring the availability of Estate funds to satisfy the Government's potential + +judgment against a possible co-conspirator in the CICO enterprise. This interest by itself supports intervention.3 + +Second, the Government also has an interest as a potential litigant authorized by statute to investigate Maxwell's involvement in the same criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct that is the subject of the CICO action against the Epstein Estate, Indyke, and Kahn. Under CICO, "[w]henever any person is reasonably suspected to have engaged in . . . any conduct constituting a violation of any of the provisions of [14 V.I.C. § 605] the Attorney General may, in [her] discretion, conduct an investigation of the conduct." 14 V.I.C. § 6I2(a). The Attorney General is expressly authorized "before the commencement of and during any civil or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter to subpoena witnesses . . . or to require the production of any books, documents, records, writings, recordings or tangible things . . . relevant or material to the investigation . ..." Id. + +Pursuant to this express statutory authority, the Attorney General is and has been investigating Maxwell's involvement with Epstein's criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct in anticipation of a potential action against her. See Ex. B (CICO Subpoena) (describing investigation of "the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates"); see also 14 V.I.C. § 612(a) ("The Attorney General is authorized before the commencement of and during any civil or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter to subpoena witnesses . . . or to require the production of any ... documents . . . relevant or material to the investigation ...."). Thus, to the extent the + +{sup}`3` Although the Government at present has Criminal Activity Liens on certain Estate Assets pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, limitations on the scope of pre-trial restraints mean that the Liens do not and cannot ensure the availability of sufficient funds to satisfy a judgment. + +Government may intervene as of right to assert its interest in its statutory enforcement action, it also may do so to assert its statutory investigative interest related to much the same conduct. + +In sum, the Government has both active litigation interests and statutorily authorized investigatory interests with respect to the parties on both sides of this action. Either or both of these interests in the conduct and outcome of this action is sufficient for the Government to intervene of right under Rule 24(a). + +# 2. The Government's Interests Will Be Impaired Absent Intervention. + +There is considerable risk bordering on near certainty that the disposition of this action will impair the Government's litigation and/or investigatory interests if the Court denies intervention. In Teague, supra, the Fourth Circuit held that the tort-claimant intervenors demonstrated impairment of their interest based upon the possibility of the tort defendant's loss of coverage. See 931 F.2d at 261 ("We also find that the Teague Intervenors' ability to protect their interest would be impaired or impeded by disposition of ERC's action" as they would have to satisfy their judgment from other assets of the insureds and the existence and amount of such assets are questionable."). + +Here, there is far greater likelihood that the Government's interests will be impaired if it is denied intervention. As to its litigation interest, if Maxwell succeeds on her undocumented and otherwise suspect claim against the Epstein Estate for indemnification and "advancement" of legal expenses, this will diminish the Estate's available funds to satisfy the judgment the Government seeks against it in the CICO action. This potential impairment due to a loss of funds available to the tort defendant is identical to that found by the U.S. Court of Appeals to support intervention as of right in Teague. + +As to its separate but related investigatory interest against Maxwell, the Government has demonstrated that she repeatedly and deliberately evaded service of its CICO subpoena prior to her arrest. See supra, Preliminary Statement and Factual Background § B. She also has resisted service in other civil actions brought by Epstein's and her victims. By virtue of her lawsuit, Maxwell has already subjected herself to the jurisdiction of this Court. It would be supremely inequitable to allow Maxwell to make use of the courts of the Virgin Islands to assert her affirmative claims for indemnification for her involvement in the Epstein criminal enterprise, and yet still avoid complying with a lawful subpoena authorized by the laws of the Virgin Islands as part of an investigation into this very criminal conduct. If the Government cannot intervene in this action that she initiated, Maxwell may refuse to comply with the Government's subpoena, yet still proceed in her separate action and leave the Government with little to no recourse. As a result, the Government's investigatory and enforcement interests will be irreparably impaired. + +For either or both of these reasons, the Court should find that the Government's interests will likely be impaired if intervention is denied, and for this reason too the Government may intervene of right under Rule 24(a). + +#### 3. The Epstein Estate Cannot Adequately Represent the Government's Interests. + +Finally, there is no serious question but that the Government's enforcement and investigatory interests under CICO are not adequately represented by the current parties to this case— Ghislaine Maxwell, the Epstein Estate, and its Co-Executors. + +The Epstein Estate and its Co-Executors are defendants in the Government's existing CICO action involving Epstein's and his associates' criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct, and show no inclination to be anything but adversarial to the Government's interests. They are refusing to comply with discovery, and even are seeking to prevent the Government + +from issuing subpoenas to key fact witnesses, such as the house managers for Little St. James, where Epstein (and likely Maxwell) sexually abused girls and women in the Virgin Islands. See Gov't of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. Indyke et al., No. ST-20-CV-I4, Co-Executors' Opp. to Government's Motions for Issuance of Letters Rogatory (filed 6/17/20). + +Although the Epstein Estate nominally has an interest in preserving its own funds as against Maxwell's claim for indemnification, Maxwell's evident involvement in Epstein's alleged criminal conduct makes her a critical fact witness with whom the Estate is very likely to try to cooperate. Cf. Teague, 931 F.2d at 262 ("[T]here is a significant chance that [the tort defendants] might be less vigorous than the Teague Intervenors in defending their claim to be insureds under the ERC policy."). That Maxwell and the Epstein Estate are not truly adversarial is demonstrated by the fact that they jointly moved to stay the Estate's pending motion to dismiss until a date when its primary grounds for dismissal (the one-year time bar from the granting of letters of administration under 15 V.I.C. § 606(a)) will no longer apply. See Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings (filed 6/1/20). + +Maxwell likewise has evaded and refused to accept service of the Government's CICO subpoena for months before she was arrested by federal authorities on charges identical to those under investigation. She therefore is demonstrably adverse to the Government with respect to both the availability of the Epstein Estate's funds and conduct of the Government's investigation. + +The Government therefore has no potential ally in this action between likely tortfeasors as to its interests in both uncovering and obtaining redress for the criminal conduct of Epstein, Maxwell, and/or their associates. The conduct of both parties—Maxwell and the Epstein Estate—demonstrates clearly that both have a far stronger interest in obstructing the Government's investigation and enforcement than they do in any claims as between themselves. + +For all of these reasons, the Court should grant the Government intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). + +## C. The Government Also Satisfies Rule 24(b)'s Requirements for Permissive Intervention. + +"Rule 24(b) applies a substantially more relaxed standard for permissive intervention, since the proposed intervenor need not demonstrate the sort of interest required for intervention as of right." Meyers v. No. ST-I2-cv-394, 2017 WL 10636962, at \*3 (V.I. Super. Ct. April 24, 2017). The proposed intervenor need only demonstrate that the proposed intervention is timely and that the intervenor's claim shares a common question of law or fact with the claims already in the case. See, e.g., Hendricks, supra, 2019 WL 918607, at \*1. The Government readily satisfies both of these requirements. + +First, the Government's motion to intervene is timely. The Court assesses timeliness based on the length of delay in seeking intervention, the prejudicial impact of delay on existing parties, prejudice to the would-be intervenor if intervention is denied, and other factors affecting fairness. Id. Here, all of these factors favor permitting the Government to intervene. Maxwell filed this action less than four months ago, on March 12, 2020. During this time, Defendants have not yet answered the Complaint. Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss and shortly thereafter, in lieu of Maxwell opposing the Estate's motion, the Estate and Maxwell moved jointly to stay the action until September 7, 2020. See Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings (filed 6/1/20). The Government's intervention thus will not disrupt or slow down active litigation. + +By contrast, denial of intervention would be highly prejudicial to the Government for the reasons discussed above. First, the Government's CICO claims against Defendants, its potential claims against Maxwell, and Maxwell's claims against the Defendants all present a common question of law or fact—Who is liable to pay a judgment on the Government's CICO claims + +against Defendants and/or Maxwell for their involvement in or connection to the rape, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Epstein and his associates? + +In Security Ins. Co., supra, the Seventh Circuit addressed federal Rule 24(b)'s identical requirement that there be a "common question of law or fact," and found that it was "clearly met in this case" involving intervention by a tort claimant in the tort defendant's coverage action. + +See 69 F.3d 1381; cf. also Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l REO Mgmt., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2000) ("Thus, while the insurance contract may not be an issue in the underlying case in Superior Court, the factual similarities between the two cases are enough to establish a common question of fact. Specifically, both the present case and the underlying case arise from alleged carbon monoxide emissions from a furnace in the defendant's building that began on February 23, 1995. In addition, neither case can be decided without determining the source of the applicant's injuries. Accordingly, for purposes of Rule 24(b), the court finds a common question of fact in the present lawsuit and the underlying lawsuit in Superior Court."). + +Second, if Maxwell succeeds on her undocumented and suspect claims for indemnification by the Epstein Estate, that will threaten the availability of Estate funds to satisfy the Government's potential judgment in its CICO action. Second, since Maxwell has repeatedly and deliberately evaded service of the Government's investigatory subpoena during the past four months, as she has resisted service in other civil actions brought by Epstein's and her victims, this action is her only known connection to the Virgin Islands through which the Government can enforce its investigatory subpoena against her. Denial of intervention therefore would also harm the Government's investigatory and enforcement interests. For each of these reasons, the Court should hold that the Government's motion is timely filed. + +Since the Government's motion is timely and its actual and potential CICO claims concerning Epstein's sex-trafficking enterprise and Maxwell's involvement in it present common questions of law and/or fact to those presented in this action for coverage as to those claims, the Court should grant the Government's motion to intervene and deem its CICO subpoena attached as Exhibit B to be served on Maxwell. This will allow the Government both to ensure its interest in preventing the dissipation of the Epstein Estate's assets and to enforce its subpoena and pursue potential and as appropriate independent claims against Maxwell. For either or both of these reasons, the Government may intervene by leave pursuant to Rule 24(b). + +## CONCLUSION + +For all of the reasons set forth, the Government's Motion to Intervene in this action should be granted. Respectfully submitted, + +> DENISE N. ESQUIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +Dated: July 10, 2020 By: s/Ariel M ARIEL M. ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Vir in Islands 00802 Email: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10155 + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Motion to Intervene complies with the word and page requirements of V.I.R. Civ. P. 6-1(e) and a true and correct copy of the Motion was served via regular mail, postage prepaid, with a courtesy copy sent by email to counsel of record on July 10, 2020 to: + +KYLE R. WALDNER, ES QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 41b Floor Miami, FL 33156 E-mail: kwaldner@qpwblaw.com & BOYER, P.A. + +DAVID CATTIE, ESQ. THE CATTLE LAW FIRM, P.C. 171aiens Gade St. , V.I., 00802 e-mail: david.cattie@cattie-law.com + +KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ., WILLIAM BLUM, ESQ. SHARI D'ANDRADE ES . KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate , Suite 101 St. V.I. 00802-3602 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com aheymann@solblum.com wblum@solblum.com sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen@kellfer.com + +ANDREW TOMBACK McLaughlin & Stem, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 United States Email: ATomback®mclaughlinstem.com + +DANIEL WEINER MARC A. WEINSTEIN HUGHES HUBBARD & REID, LLP One Battery Park Plaza + +New York, NY 10004-1482 + +United States + +Email: daniel.weiner®hugheshubbard.com + +marc.weinsteinathuv..heshubbard.com + +By: s/Ariel M. + +ARIEL M. ESQUIRE + +Assistant Attorney General + +Virgin Islands Department of Justice + +Office of the Attorney General + +34-38 Kron rindsens Gade + +St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +Email: + +(340) 774-5666 ext. 10155 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822177/EFTA02822177.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822177/EFTA02822177.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..372b648bb2e86516a3d3c04191c710abbec1f192 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822177/EFTA02822177.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -8, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822177", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2b930914f357a8fa503ae74703cbf23b230c06d16b54de878fe55c9ba5892c86", + "output_sha256": "e74990646ded2791ac3770a666e819c23bc26d1d25723a6a0a6c8e98ba6d47eb", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822197/EFTA02822197.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822197/EFTA02822197.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bd702d5505167d47dd491790f124d0b978bb62d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822197/EFTA02822197.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## FILED + +July 30, 2020 + +## TAMARA CHARLES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CLERK OF THE COURT DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME + +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED TO, by and between Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL ("Plaintiff") and proposed Intervenor, the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS (the "Government"), by and through their respective undersigned attorneys, that Plaintiff shall have up to and including Monday, August 17, 2020 to respond to the Government's Motion to Intervene in the above-captioned action. + +Dated: July 30, 2020 + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4'b Floor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: /s/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@oowblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +DENISE N. M, ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Proposed Intervenor 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. M, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 T: (340) 774-5666 + +By: /s/ Ariel M. Ariel M. Esq. ariel @doj.vi.gov V.I. Bar No.: + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email and U.S. Mail this tlt day of July, 2020 to: + +Kroblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802 ckroblin@kellfer.com + +Ariel M. =, Esq. VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. . U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +Is/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@qpwblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822197/EFTA02822197.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822197/EFTA02822197.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a151de876cac9e6127736f88412fe4c0757051cc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822197/EFTA02822197.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822197", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fade87c3b1b7a60fdbd3c2c0e940415d0a75222c43c82fe9752b995832ef2c5b", + "output_sha256": "fade87c3b1b7a60fdbd3c2c0e940415d0a75222c43c82fe9752b995832ef2c5b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822200/EFTA02822200.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822200/EFTA02822200.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9647e3bf429f3ee51f664661034918eaa3ca5b27 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822200/EFTA02822200.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +**FILED** + +August 03, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +District of St. [REDACTED] / St. John + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, +Plaintiff + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 +Action: Debt + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN et al, +Defendant. + +NOTICE of ENTRY +of +(2)ORDERS + +To: KYLE R. WALDNER, ESQ. DENISE [REDACTED] ESQ. + +Please take notice that on +a(n) \_\_\_\_\_ +dated AUGUST 3, 2020 was/were entered +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: August 03, 2020 + +Tamara Charles +Clerk of the Court + +By: + +Donna Donovan +Court Clerk Supervisor \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822200/EFTA02822200.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822200/EFTA02822200.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ebd837f11840173a4aaafd256aad75b6924ca40 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822200/EFTA02822200.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -133, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822200", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "955c20535c6057f2c408a03455d4ecb1a88fba05a6e361f7150afeb3010914ff", + "output_sha256": "8da02ceddbbc4cb0092d5751f42adbc031c582201aa676e4208bf1e5ccee1c1b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822201/EFTA02822201.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822201/EFTA02822201.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cfaed68a518a0704a49cc8e53853554f5cf99ed3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822201/EFTA02822201.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## FILED + +August 03, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINli MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN g INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings between the parties hereto. The premises having been duly considered, it is hereby: + +ORDERED that the Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings is GRANTED; and it is further + +ORDERED that Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be due on or by September 7, 2020; and it is further + +ORDERED that a certified copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record. + +Dated: 41. 3 , {sup}`2020` + +ATTEST: TAM RA CHAR + +Clerk our( By: De uty Clerk + +JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT + +OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822201/EFTA02822201.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822201/EFTA02822201.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4bc14ff6b4870c77f7286c3b1bdc0ceb3bfabb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822201/EFTA02822201.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -4, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822201", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "ef031c1619927bf43dd9886b960283c6924461cbf708d7956e1706feab242919", + "output_sha256": "1e2d44194c243984b1184dd920912ddad00eb078d70963aec59dcaccceabdfdc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822202/EFTA02822202.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822202/EFTA02822202.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db69cec35028223a1869248805ce62824a80f816 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822202/EFTA02822202.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +August 03, 2020 + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +DARREN [REDACTED]. INDYKE, in his capacity as +EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY +E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his +capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE +OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a +New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +**ORDER** + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Stipulation for Extension of Time between +Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL and proposed Intervenor, the GOVERNMENT OF THE +UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS. The premises having been duly considered, it is hereby: + +ORDERED that the Stipulation is APPROVED; and it is further + +ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including Monday, August 17, 2020 to +respond to the Government's Motion to Intervene in the above-captioned action; and it is further + +ORDERED that a certified copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record. + +Dated: Aug. 3, 2020 + +ATTEST: +Clerk of the Court +By: + +Deputy Clerk + +*Hanna Maxwell* +JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT +OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +*[Signature]* +8/3/2020 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822202/EFTA02822202.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822202/EFTA02822202.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9c018e2dd746edf07fcaaf62c69e59b071e1c2d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822202/EFTA02822202.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -34, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822202", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "515866e96d7f62bcb18aa0c682917ff4c3d6f9d8e6a2f304688dba39fd578196", + "output_sha256": "862948416420a8136131bf700a6f1ebb4c615a2aa22119e62b4b81d360f7edd0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822203/EFTA02822203.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822203/EFTA02822203.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d55b134caaa2f5660c7875a79dfe5aeac511600b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822203/EFTA02822203.md @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@ +# FILED + +September 08, 2020 + +#### TAMARA CHARLES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CLERK OF THE COURT DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE + +Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL ("Plaintiff), by counsel, pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 24, hereby opposes the Motion to Intervene' (the "Motion to Intervene") filed by nonparty, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (the "Government"). + +## L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Motion to Intervene must be denied because it is procedurally defective and the Government has no sufficient basis to intervene in this case. The Government seeks to intervene for two reasons. First, it vaguely seeks to "ensure that the Epstein Estate's assets are not wrongfully dissipated," without articulating how it proposes to do so. GVI Mtn. at 2. Second, it asks this Court to enforce its unserved criminal CICO Subpoenas to Plaintiff and, more generally, to investigate Plaintiff in order to establish a predicate for future criminal charges + +I The Government Motion to Intervene is cited herein by page number as "GVI Mm." + +against her. GVI Mtn. at 2-3. These grounds are meritless and do not provide a sufficient basis to intervene in this case. + +First, the Government failed to comply with Rule 24(c)'s requirement that its motion be accompanied "by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." V.I.R.Civ.P. 24(c) (emphasis added). This failure alone disposes of the Government's motion. + +Even on its merits, the Government's motion is fatally flawed. The Government's contingent claim to the "Epstein Estate's assets" is not a sufficient interest for intervention. The Government ignores law from this jurisdiction that an interest contingent upon a favorable judgment in an underlying suit is insufficient to sustain intervention of right under Rule 24. Even if it were, such interest would not practically be impaired here since the Government has filed Criminal Activity Liens covering the Estate's assets.2 + +Next, the Government's extraordinary and unprecedented request that it be allowed to commandeer this civil case to function as an ann of its criminal investigation of Plaintiff and lay the predicate for future criminal charges against her is flatly contrary to law and cannot justify intervention.. Intervention is not appropriate where the party seeking to intervene has other means to protect its interests. The Government, of course, is no ordinary would-be intervenor in a civil action between private parties. Here, the Government has a number of investigatory tools + +{sup}`2` In making its argument that intervention is necessary to prevent the dissipation of Estate assets, the Government repeatedly disparages Plaintiff's claim for indemnification as "undocumented and otherwise suspect." GVI Mtn. at 10, 13. The Government is in no place to assess the merits of Plaintiff's claims, nor is such an inquiry appropriate under Rule 24. Moreover, we note that certain of the Government's own claims in its Motion to Intervene and CICO complaint against the Estate seem ripped from the tabloid headlines from dubious sources like The Sun and Page Six, rather than being based on verified facts. See, e.g., GVI Mm. at 5 (citing, inter alia, The Sun and Page Six to support the suggestion that Plaintiff "has engaged in repeated instances of avoiding service"). + +at its disposal to obtain any information it deems necessary, including the power to issue CICO subpoenas (which it has done) and compel compliance (which it has not attempted to do). The Government should not be allowed to bypass this process by intruding into this civil action so that it can use this Court to help enforce its criminal subpoenas, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the simple contract dispute over indemnification at issue in this case. The Government should likewise not be allowed to act beyond its already considerable statutory authority. The appropriate scope and manner of the Government's criminal investigation of a private, nonresident of the Virgin Islands is not a matter for this Court; rather, it a question that should be addressed by the courts having proper jurisdiction over the criminal investigation. + +In sum, the Government's purported interests do not fit anywhere in this case. Instead, it should continue to use the broad statutory powers it already has to protect its alleged interests. The Court should therefore deny the Government's motion with prejudice. + +## II. ARGUMENT + +### A. The Motion is Procedurally Defective Because the Government Failed to File a Proposed Pleading in Intervention in Compliance With Rule 24(c) + +Rule 24(c) requires that a motion to intervene "must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." V.I..R.Civ.P. 24(c) (emphasis added).; This identical provision under the federal rules is intended to ensure that parties receive advance notice of the claims that an intervenor plans to set forth if intervention is permitted. SEC v. Investors Sec. Leasing Corp., 610 F.2d 175, 178 (3d Cir. 1979). + +{sup}`3` The Reporter's Note to the rule restates the mandatory nature of this requirement. See Reporter's Note to V.I.R.Civ.P. 24 ("Plhe intervention application must attach a copy of the pleading which the proposed intervening party would present.") + +The Court may deny a motion to intervene that is not accompanied by a proposed pleading in intervention. See, e.g., id. at 178 ("Because the requirements of [R]ule 24(c) were not complied with, the owners were not proper parties in the district court."); JLS Equities LLC v. River Funding, LLC, 2020 WL 1503403, at \*1-2 (D.N.J. Jan. 2, 2020) ("Affinity's motion to intervene is [denied without prejudice] to refiling with a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought"); Aetna Inc. v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., 330 F.R.D. 427, 431-32 (E.D. Pa. 2019); Montanez v. Beard, No. 04-2569, 2015 WL 2451770, at \*4 (M.D. Pa. May 21, 2015); Surety Admen, Inc. v. Samara, No. 04-5177, 2006 WL 891430, at \*3 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2006); Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd., 160 F.R.D. 66, 67 (E.D. Pa. 1995); Hecker v. Wierzba Insulation LLC, No. 12-CV-682-WMC, 2013 WL 12234527, at \*I (W.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2013) ("Since Rural Mutual failed to file a proposed pleading with its motion, the court will deny Rural Mutual's motion to intervene without prejudice to refiling."); Kubiak v. Meltzer, 2013 WL 1114203, at \*2 (N.D. 111. Mar. 15, 2013) ("Because Mr. Leventhal fails to attach a proposed pleading, his motion to intervene is denied."); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tara Follese, Charles Case, 2010 WL 11646738, at \*2 (D. Minn. May 7, 2010). + +Here, the Government's failure to provide its proposed complaint in intervention requires the Court to deny its motion. As further explained below, this is no harmless error. The Government's Motion to Intervene itself does not adequately provide notice to Plaintiff of the precise nature of its claims. Without a proposed pleading, Plaintiff cannot discern whether the Government has a "sufficient interest in the litigation" that "may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter by the disposition of the action" as required for intervention under Rule 24(a), and cannot discern whether the Government "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question or law or fact" as required for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)( I )(B). Specifically, it is not clear to Plaintiff how the Government's purported interests would be integrated into this litigation, how it proposes to "ensure that the Epstein Estate's assets are not wrongfully dissipated," how it proposes to advance its so-called "investigatory interests" in the context of this civil case, or what ultimate relief it purports to seek from this Court. Since the Government has not sufficiently provided notice to the existing parties of the basis and nature of its claims in this Court, its motion to intervene must be denied.4 + +#### B. The Government Fails to Satisfy Rule 24's Requirements for Intenention of Right + +#### i. The Government cannot demonstrate a cognizable interest that would be impaired absent its intervention as required by Rule 24(a)(2) + +The Government did not file a proposed pleading in intervention under Rule 24(c) because it cannot — it has no protectable interest in this case. Rule 24(a) requires the "claim or defense" to relate to an interest "relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action" and that it "is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [the Government's] ability to protect its interest." V.I.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). The Government here suggests that intervention "will allow [it] both to ensure its interest in preventing the dissipation of the Epstein Estate's assets and to enforce its subpoena and pursue potential and as appropriate independent claims against Maxwell." GVI Mm. at 18 (emphasis + +{sup}`4`Should this Court require the Government to comply with Rule 24(c) to file a proposed complaint in intervention, Plaintiff asks that she be afforded a further opportunity to address the Government's Motion to Intervene after reviewing the proposed pleading, and hereby reserves the right to do so. As stated herein, Plaintiff is not able to fully address the Government's arguments since the Government has not yet provided a proposed complaint stating its precise claims and prayer for relief. + +added). The Government thus concedes that any potential "claims" it may have at this point are purely speculative. In short, the Government effectively concedes it has no protectable interest within the meaning of Rule 24(a)(2) by failing to proffer a proposed pleading as required by Rule 24(c). + +Nevertheless, in its brief, the Government vaguely identifies two distinct "interests" that form the basis of its Motion to Intervene: + +> First, the Government suggests that its "primary interest for intervention is to ensure that the Epstein Estate's assets are not wrongfully dissipated by Maxwell's suspect claims for indemnification and 'advancement' of legal expenses, and instead are preserved to satisfy the CICO judgment, which seeks forfeiture, divestiture, disgorgement, and payment of maximum civil penalties and damages by the Epstein Estate." GVI Mtn. at 2. Second the Government asks this Court to compel Plaintiff's compliance with certain criminal CICO subpoenas and otherwise aid in its criminal investigation of Plaintiff so that it can "pursue potential and as appropriate independent claims against [Plaintiff]." GVI Mtn. at 3; 18. + +Neither of these interests justifies intervention. + +#### a. The Government's contingent claim to the Estate's assets is not a sufficient interest for intervention + +First, the Government's contingent claim to the Epstein Estate's assets is not a sufficient interest for intervention.5 The Government lays claim to these assets in its recently filed civil + +Again, it is unclear how the Government proposes to vindicate this interest in the context of this litigation since it has not filed a proposed pleading in intervention. + +forfeiture action in the Virgin Islands against Defendants herein—the Estate and the Trustees under the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO), 14 V.I.C. §§ 601 et seq. The parties to that action are not at issue as no answer has yet been filed by the defendants.6 The Government thus merely has a claim that is contingent upon its success in a separate action. "[C]ourts in this circuit that have been confronted with the issue have consistently held that intervention pursuant to Rule 24(aX2) is inappropriate where the proposed intervenor's interest is contingent upon prevailing on a tort claim in a separate action." Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Virgin Is. Port Auth, 224 F.R.D. 372, 375-376 (D.V.I. 2004) ("Proposed Intervenors cannot deny that any interest they have or may have in this matter is purely contingent upon a favorable judgment in their underlying suit . . . . The Court finds that such a contingent interest is insufficient to sustain intervention of right"); Mountain Top Condo. Ass'n v. Dave Stabbert Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361, 366 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) ("In general, a mere economic interest in the outcome of the litigation is insufficient to support a motion to intervene.") + +Citing two cases, the Government claims that "numerous" courts have held that "a tort claimant has a sufficiently developed interest to intervene as of right in a coverage-related action involving the tort defendant." GVI Mm. at 10-11 (citing Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1991); v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3241452, at \*1 (D. Md. July 28, 2011)). However, neither of the cases that the Government cites hails from this jurisdiction. And, needless to say, neither case involves a government entity proposing to intervene in a civil + +{sup}`6` The Government's operative pleading in the civil forfeiture action is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to Intervene. The Estate and Trustees moved to dismiss this pleading. + +action between private parties in order to investigate a potential target for CICO liability and to secure its position in an unrelated CICO action.7 + +Even assuming that cases involving intervention by individual claimants in coveragerelated matters are sufficiently analogous to the novel circumstances here, the Government's argument still fails. The Government conspicuously ignores cases from this jurisdiction that are directly on point. In General Star Indemnity Co. v. Virgin Islands Port Authority, 224 F.R.D. 372 (D.V.I. 2004), the Virgin Islands District Court held that an interest that is contingent upon a favorable judgment in an underlying suit "is insufficient to sustain intervention of right" under the federal equivalent to Rule 24: + +> Proposed Intervenors' only interest in the matter at bar is to ensure that VIPA has sufficient resources to satisfy any judgment Proposed Intervenors may be able to obtain in the underlying suit against VIPA. Accordingly, the Court finds that Proposed Intervenors have asserted a purely economic interest. + +The Attorney General brings this action to seek all remedies available to the Government of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and public safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant the claims of victims who were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. + +Moreover, the alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein already have a perfectly adequate mechanism in place to protect their interests vis-a-vis the Estate. As the Court is aware, the Estate set up a Victim's Compensation Program to award compensation out of Estate funds to alleged Epstein victims who file an appropriate submission. + +{sup}`7` The Government suggests in its Motion to Intervene that its civil forfeiture action against the Estate is designed to "protect the rights of victims," casting itself as akin to a "tort claimant" and the Estate as an "insurer," the Government did not file its CICO complaint against the Estate on behalf of any victims. GVI Mtn. 10-11. The operative pleading in that action expressly states at Paragraph 39 that: + +Id., at 376. The General Star Court found that "courts in this circuit that have been confronted with the issue `have consistently held that intervention pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) is inappropriate where the proposed intervenor's interest is contingent upon prevailing on a tort claim in a separate action.'" Id. (citing Continental Casualty Co. v. SSM Group, Inc., 1995 WL 422780 at \*3 (E.D.Pa. July 13, 1995) and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 76 F.R.D. 656, 658-59 (W.D.Pa.1977)). + +The Government also conveniently ignores precedent from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reaching the same conclusion. For example, in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Treesdale, Inc., 419 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit concluded that a contingent interest in insurance proceeds is too remote and speculative to satisfy the interest requirement under the federal equivalent to Rule 24. The Treesdale Court noted that "the mere fact that a lawsuit may impede a third party's ability to recover in a separate suit does not ordinarily give the third party a right to intervene." Id., at 223. It ultimately found that + +> Appellants [i.e., the tort plaintiffs] have no contractual relationship with either Liberty Mutual [i.e., the insurer] or PMP [Le., the insured tort defendant], and the declaratory judgment action between Liberty Mutual and PMP will not have an immediate, adverse effect on them. Rather, the impact is collateral and (given the dispute about PMP's solvency) speculative. At most, the declaratory judgment action may impact their ability to collect any judgment obtained in their personal injury actions. However, that is not enough to support intervention of right under Mountain Top. + +Id., at 225 (citing Mountain Top, supra, 72 F.3d 361). + +In 2010, the Virgin Islands District Court again rejected a tort claimant's attempt to intervene in a coverage action between the insured and its insurer. See ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Axiom Constr. & Design Works, LLC, 2010 WL 11565292, at \*3 (D.V.I. Dec. 9, 2010). Applying Treesdale, the ACE Court denied the motion to intervene on the grounds that the proposed intervenor's interest was "a mere economic interest in the proceeds of Axiom's policy with ACE, and not a property interest or a legally protectable interest" Id. + +The holdings in General Star, Treesdale, and ACE are consistent with decisions in similar cases across the country finding generally that an intervenor must demonstrate more than "a mere provable claim" in order to be entitled to intervention of right, see Independent Petrochemical Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 105 F.R.D. 106, 110 (D.D.C.1985), and specifically that a contingent interest in insurance proceeds is too remote and speculative to justify intervention in a coverage action under Rule 24(a). See In re HealthSouth Corp. Ins. litigation, 219 F.R.D. 688 (N.D.Ala. 2004); Ace American Ins. Co. v. Paradise Divers, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.Fla. 2003); Redland Ins. Co. v. Chillingsworth Venture, Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 206 (N.D.Ohio 1997). + +Second, the Government's purported interest in the Estate would not be affected or impaired as a practical matter by the disposition of this lawsuit. That is because the Government on January 30, 2020 filed certain Criminal Activity Liens on Estate assets pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610. These liens cover all real and personal property located in the Virgin Islands in the name or under the signatory authority of the Estate. See Criminal Activity Liens bearing document numbers 2020000423 and 2020000424, copies of which are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "1." These Criminal Activity Liens provide that + +> Any trustee, executor, person or institution who moves, transfers or conveys title to personal or real property upon which a Criminal Activity Lien Notice has been filed in the iudicial subdivision in which the personal or real property is located, and who transfers or conveys such property while + +#### having actual notice of the Criminal Activity Lien Notice, shall be liable to the Attorney General in accordance with Title 14 V.I.C. § 610(1)(1)(2) or (3). + +(Emphasis in original.) The Government's position is that these Criminal Activity Liens are effective for up to twelve years, or until January 23, 2032, if properly renewed, that only the Attorney General can release these liens, that this Court may not vacate them, and that the liens cover all assets and property used in connection with the alleged unlawful activity.In the Government's view, that apparently includes all of the Estate's assets and property. See Government's Opposition to Motion to Vacate Criminal Activity Lien Notices, filed on June 11, 2020 in the Government's CICO action against the Estate, et al., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "2." The Motion to Intervene self-servingly seeks to downplay the scope of these liens, asserting vaguely in a one sentence footnote that the Court should ignore them for the purpose of deciding its Motion to Intervene due to "limitations on the scope of pretrial restraints" that the Government does not explain. GVI Mtn. at 12 n. 3. It is impossible to credit this assertion in light of the government's detailed defense of the breadth of these liens in its CICO action against the Estate. + +By their own terms, the Criminal Activity Liens subject the Executors to liability under 14 V.I.C. § 610 for any transfer or conveyance of Estate property. Again, the Government has already availed itself of sweeping, statutory powers designed to secure its interests in the Estate and accomplish everything that it purports to do by intervening in this case. + +In sum, the Government's purely contingent interest of a possible favorable judgment in another suit is not a significant interest authorizing intervention. Even assuming that it was. there + +is no chance it would be impaired as a practical matter. Accordingly, for this reason, the Government's Motion to Intervene should be denied.8 + +#### b. The Government's interest in advancing its criminal investigation of Plaintiff through this civil proceeding is improper and not a sufficient interest for intervention + +The Government's so-called "investigatory interest against [Plaintiff]" is not an appropriate or sufficient interest to support intervention here. By the Government's own admission, it seeks to intervene here to supplement its broad investigatory powers under the Virgin Islands CICO statute, 14 V.I.C. § 600, et seq., and coopt this Court to help enforce its + +{sup}`8` By inserting itself in this action, the Government also seeks to circumvent issues of personal jurisdiction as to any claim it may seek to assert against Plaintiff—a non-resident of the Virgin Islands—relating to any recovery from the Estate. It is well-established that a litigant's consent to jurisdiction in one case does not constitute consent to personal jurisdiction in that forum ad infinitum. See, e.g., Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro Ed Altri-Gestione Motonave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria, 937 F.2d 44, 50 n.5 (2d Cir. 1991) ("A party's consent to jurisdiction in one case, however, extends to that case alone. It in no way opens that party up to other lawsuits in the same jurisdiction in which consent was given, where the party does not consent and no other jurisdictional basis is available."); Funai Elec. Co. v. Personalized Media Cornmc'ns, LLC, 2016 WL 370708, at \*2-3 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2016) (defendant that filed two earlier patent suits in Delaware against unrelated defendants did not consent to jurisdiction in Delaware); Fesniak v. Equifax Mortgage Servs. LLC, 2015 WL 2412119, at \*6 (D. N.J. May 21, 2015) ("Plaintiff cites no authority to support the theory that Credit Plus' participation in a prior lawsuit in this forum concerning different claims with different parties constitutes consent to settle all future disputes in New Jersey."); Otsuka Phann. Co. v. Mylan Inc., 106 F.Supp.3d 456, 467 n.10 (D.N.J. 2015); Olympia Steel Bldg. Sys. Corp. v. Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC, 2007 WL 1816281, at \*3 (W.D. Pa. June 22, 2007) (general jurisdiction would not arise where defendant participated in litigation on entirely different claims with entirely different parties) (citing Bowers v. NET! Techs., Inc., 690 F.Supp. 349, 356 (E.D. Pa. 1988); Simplicity Inc. v. MTS Prods., Inc., 2006 WL 924993, at \*7 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2006) ); Bertolini-Mier v. Upper Valley Neurology Neurosurgery, P.C., 2016 WL 7174646, at \*3 (D. Vt. Dec. 7, 2016) (defendant's filing of six lawsuits in Vermont courts did not amount to consent to personal jurisdiction in Vermont; prior lawsuits were not related to present case). Plaintiff reserves the right to move to dismiss any complaint in intervention by the Government for lack of personal jurisdiction. + +criminal subpoenas in order to establish a predicate for criminal charges against Plaintiff.9 This investigation is unrelated to any matter at issue in this civil proceeding. Not surprisingly, the Government cites no case supporting this basis for intervention, nor could it. Needless to say, the Government's extraordinary proposition is improper and not a sufficient interest for intervention. + +"Intervention generally is not appropriate where the applicant can protect its interests and/or recover on its claim through some other means." v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506, 526 (5th Cir. 1994). In , a third party moved to intervene to gain access to documents and testimony to use those materials in its own action against the same defendant. Id. at 525-26. The court denied the motion to intervene "as a matter of law," reasoning that the movant had "no rights or claims that [it] wanted the district court to adjudicate." Id. A movant-in-intervention that is in collateral litigation with the same defendant can protect any interest it has by filing discovery requests in its own case. Id. See also Head v. Jellico Housing Auth., 870 F.2d 1117, 1124-25 (6th Cir. 1989) (affirming denial of intervention where intervenor had substantially similar complaint pending elsewhere and therefore had "availed herself of other adequate means of asserting her rights"). + +Here, the Government seeks to take the unprecedented step of intervening in this case for the purpose of aiding its criminal investigation of Plaintiff "in anticipation of a potential action against her." GVI Mtn. at 12. The Government, however, has a number of "other means" available to protect its interests, even more so than the private litigants in and Head. The Government, as prosecutor, has a host of investigatory tools at its disposal to obtain any + +{sup}`9` The Government states that it is "investigating Maxwell's participation in Epstein's criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct pursuant to its authority under CICO, 14 V.I.C. § 612, to investigate reasonably suspected criminal activity." GVI Mm. at 2. + +information it deems necessary for a potential prosecution, including those available under the Virgin Islands CICO statute. In fact, the Government even admits to using them, stating that it has already attempted service of CICO Subpoenas to Plaintiff for certain materials. GVI Mtn. at 4-5. Contrary to the Government's repeated suggestion, Plaintiff did not "evade service" of the CICO Subpoenas. Rather, these were served to persons who did not have authority to accept them. In any case, the Government does not explain why it has not made efforts to serve Plaintiff now that it presumably knows the jurisdiction where she is presently located.10 + +Despite complaining that Plaintiff has not responded to the unserved CICO Subpoenas, the Government ignores the availability of statutory remedies to address this issue. Specifically, the CICO statute provides that "the Attorney General may petition the court of the judicial subdivision where the witness resides for an order requiring the witness to attend and to testify or to produce the documentary material." 14 V.I.C. § 6I2(k) (emphasis added). The Government thus has the power to initiate an original action to address issues of compliance with its CICO Subpoenas, and therefore need not resort to shoehorning this issue into this unrelated civil action. + +Notably, the Virgin Islands CICO statute requires that the Government bring an action to compel compliance with its process in the judicial subdivision where the witness resides. The Government would ask the Court here (in this unrelated civil action between private parties) to ignore this statute and the protections it affords a non-resident accused, like Plaintiff. The Government's deliberate attempt to exercise the powers given to it under the CICO statute, while + +{sup}`10` Instead, the Government spends three full pages explaining how it delivered the CICO Subpoenas to persons who did not have authority to accept them. See GVI Mtn. at 4-6. The Government's complaints that "locating and serving" Plaintiff "[e]ven before Epstein's 2019 arrest and death" was "impracticable" are irrelevant and do not justify the Government's request to use this civil case as a means to enforce its criminal subpoenas. + +seeking to avoid the statutory limitations on those powers, sets an ominous precedent and should not be lightly condoned. + +There is simply no support for the Government's remarkable request. In fact, courts typically only allow government intervention in civil cases for the opposite purpose — so the government can seek a stay of discovery in order to prevent discovery in the civil case from being used to circumvent the more limited scope of discovery in a parallel criminal matter. See, e.g., Sec. & Exch. Commit v. Fishoff, 2016 WL 1262508, at \*2 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2016) (citing cases). Even then, courts require that the issues in the criminal and civil cases "substantialnyi overlap" before entering a stay. Id. Here, on the other hand, the Government seeks an "end run" around the criminal process that already exists so it can use the civil process as one more tool against Plaintiff. + +In sum, the Government's unprecedented request to intervene in this case to advance its so-called "investigatory interest" must be denied because it is patently improper and because the Government has a number of other tools at its disposal to obtain any information it believes is necessary. This Court should require the Government to employ the tools available to it as investigator and prosecutor and deny its attempt to bypass judicial scrutiny in those cases to which it is already a party. + +#### The Government's claimed interest in the outcome of this case is adequately protected by Estate within the meaning of Rule 24(a) + +The Government is not entitled to intervene under Rule 24(a) for the additional reason that "existing parties adequately represent [the Government's] interest." V.I.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Rule 24(a) does not require that Defendants here have "identical" interests to a would-be intervenor. The issue is whether they have "the same ultimate objective." Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir. 1976). For example, "if there is a party charged by law with representing [a would-be intervenor's] interest, then a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate why this representation is not adequate." Mountain Top, 72 F.3d at 368-69 (emphasis added) (citing 7C =, & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1908, at 318-19). + +Here, as the Government concedes, the Trustees have "an interest in preserving Ithe Estate's] funds against [Plaintiff's] claim for indemnification." GVI Mm. at 15. In fact, the Trustees are "charged by law" to "faithfully and diligently perform the duties of [their] trust" at the risk of their removal. 15 V.I.C. § 240. Under Virgin Islands law, the Executors owe fiduciary duties to all who may have a beneficial interest in the estate. In re Estate of Cummings, 1985 WL 1177815, at \*5 (Ten. V.I. Nov. 26, 1985). Further, "[t]he Virgin Islands Probate Code prescribes stringent ethical standards of a person holding the trust office of executor or administrator." Estate of Christensen, 1998 WL 242722, at \*3 (Ten. V.I. Mar. 25, 1998). Finally, as noted above, the Government's Criminal Activity Liens subject the Executors to liability under 14 V.I.C. § 610 for any transfer or conveyance of Estate property. To the extent that the Government is concerned with the dissipation of the Estate's assets, the Trustees adequately represent the Government's interest here. + +The Government's suggestions that Plaintiff and Defendants "are not truly adversarial" are unsupported innuendos. The Government asserts that Plaintiff's "evident involvement in Epstein's alleged criminal conduct makes her a critical fact witness with whom the Estate is very likely to try to cooperate." Such a statement is not only improper—Plaintiff is innocent until + +proven guilty and has maintained her innocence from the beginning—but provides no coherent explanation for why Plaintiff and Defendants are somehow not "adversarial." As explained above, Defendants have every incentive to defend Plaintiff's claim vigorously. Indeed, Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in this action. Defendants further apparently take no position as to the instant Motion to Intervene. Putting aside the Government's pure speculation, there is no actual support for the notion that the Executors would fail to "faithfully and diligently perform the duties of [their] trust" as required by Virgin Islands law. + +In sum, any interest the Government arguably has is coextensive with Defendants and is thus adequately represented by Defendants. + +### C. The Government Fails to Satisfy Rule 24's Requirements for Permissive Intervention + +#### i. The Government cannot articulate a "claim or defense" required for permissive intervention + +The Government also fails to satisfy the standards for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Rule 24(b)(1)(B) permits intervention, in a court's discretion, where the proposed intervenor has a "claim or defense" that shares "a common question of law or fact" with the main action. V.I.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(B). Here, the Government's CICO complaint against the Estate and its Trustees and criminal CICO investigation of Plaintiff do not share common questions of law or fact with this indemnification action. Indeed, the matters could not be more distinct. The Government's stated intent for intervention is to "investigat[e] [Plaintiff's] [alleged] participation in the criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct of the Epstein Enterprise." at GVI Mtn. + +It Plaintiff categorically denies all allegations of personal conduct in the Motion to Intervene. + +at 4. This inquiry will involve a completely different set of witnesses, different operative facts, different procedural rules, and different (novel) legal issues, than the instant action, which does not involve "conduct of the Epstein Enterprise" and is governed by principles of contract law. There is no question of law or fact that these matters would share.12 + +#### ii. The Government will cause undue delay and prejudice if it is allowed to intervene under Rule 24(b) + +Rule 24(b) is also clear that the Court "must" consider whether the proposed intervention "will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights." V.I.R.Civ.P. 24(6)(3).13 Unwittingly, the Government's Motion to Intervene demonstrates why its intervention would cause "undu[e] delay and prejudice" to Plaintiff, if not completely derail this case. Throughout its motion, the Government proposes to inject legal issues that diverge substantially from those involved in this indemnification action. These would include novel, complex issues of first impression concerning the Government's intent to conduct a criminal investigation of Plaintiff within the context of this civil action. These issues would assuredly and + +- (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer, employee or governmental body, agency or board; or +- (B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under a statute or executive order. + +V.I.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2). The Government does not even mention this rule, nor can there be any argument that it applies here. + +{sup}`12` Notably, Rule 24 also expressly contemplates intervention by government entities. The rule allows the Government to officially intervene on behalf of the public interest in any case where a party's claim or defense is based on: + +{sup}`13` See also 7C Charles Alan =, Arthur R. , & Mary ■ **Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1911 (citing Chadima v. Nat'l Fid. Life Ins. Co., 848 F. Supp. 1418, 1423 (D. Iowa 1994)).** + +unnecessarily clog this Court's docket. This indemnification action will take longer and cost more if the parties are required to litigate such unrelated, collateral issues. The Government's Motion to Intervene shows exactly why its participation would cause the very delay and prejudice that Rule 24(b) prohibits. + +"Additional parties always take additional time that may result in delay and that thus may support the denial of intervention." 7C Charles Alan In Arthur R. & Mary Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1913, at p. 481. That fact requires this Court to consider whether the Government's intervention would add value to the litigation. See 6 James Wm. Moore, Moores Federal Practice § 24.10[2][b] (1998). For the reasons discussed above, the Government's intervention would not. Because anything that the Government's wants to do can be adequately done in the other proceedings in which it is involved and by using the enormous statutory powers at its disposal that are not available to private civil litigants, its Motion to Intervene should be denied. + +## HI. CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Government's motion is procedurally defective and its grounds for relief are meritless. The Government simply has not met its burden of showing that it has standing to assert any "claim or defense," much less one that is appropriate in the context of this proceeding. The Government's intervention would unduly delay this case and prejudice Plaintiff. Its Motion to Intervene therefore should be denied. + +Dated: September 8, 2020 + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: Is/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@qpwblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, which complies with the word and page requirements of V.I.R.Civ.P. 6-1(e), was served via email and U.S. Mail this 8th day of September, 2020 to: + +ii•Croblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate IME, Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802 ckroblin@kellfer.com + +Ariel M. =, Esq. (AAG) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 '.vi. ov + +> /s/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@ciowblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +#### VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL + +34.38 Eronprindsens Cade GERS Complex, 2 Floor Sc. v.i. 00802 (340) 774-5666 En: (340) 776-3494 Doc 4\* 2020000423 01/30/2020 10:40 Ni N Pages 3 Official Records of ST / ST 30114 ERICA DOVER M.P.A., REC0RIER OF ((HG Fees 10.00 + +![](_page_20_Picture_1.jpeg) + +#213 Estate La Rein. RR I Roe 6151, KIngshill St. Croix, V.I. 00850 (310)773.0295 Fax: (340) 773-1425 + +# CRIMINAL ACTIVITY LIEN NOTICE + +## Title 14 V.I.C. §610 CRIMINALLY INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT + +TO: Ms. Erica Dover Director, Recorder of Deeds Office of the Lieutenant Governor 5049 Kongens Gade St. , VI 00802 + +RE: Parcel Number 109803010100, consisting of 3.1 million square feet of land (Commonly known as "Little St. James") + +LET IT BE KNOWN THAT the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands hereby files a Criminal Activity Lien Notice pursuant to Chapter 30, Title 14 V.I.C. § 610, based on a civil proceeding, Case No. ST-2020-CV-14, having been instituted by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands under Chapter 30 of the Virgin Islands Code, namely, the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Otgankations Act (C/CO), is pending in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands naming the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. as defendants. + +8 C4 + +In conformity with Title 14 V.I.C. §610(e), from the time of the filing of this Criminal Activity Lien Notice, a Criminal Activity Lien in favor of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands is created on the following: + +- 1. Any and personal or real property located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands in the name of, or under the signatory authority of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; +- 2. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. Any beneficial Interest of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY E. +- 3. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. in any personal or real property located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands. Any and all bank accounts, certificates of deposits and any other accounts in the name of, or under the signatory authority of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. + +Pursuant to Title 14 V.I.C. § 610(a), the Director of the Record of Deeds, of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor shall, upon the presentation of a Criminal Activity Lien Notice, immediately record it in the official records. + +O n ra O O O + +Any trustee, executor, person or institution who moves, transfers or conveys title to personal or real property upon which a Criminal Activity Lien Notice has been filed in the judicial subdivision in which the personal or real property is located, and who transfers or conveys such property while having actual notice of the Criminal Activity Lien Notice, shall be liable to the Attorney General in accordance with Title 14 V.LC. 610(1)(1)(2) or (3). + +> DENISE N. ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL + +DATED: January 02,, 2020 By: + +AR I, 1. RIITIL SQ. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department oflustice 3438 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Building, 2nd Floor St. M, V.I. 00802 (340) 774-5666 Ext. 10101 + +> 0 N (1 N S O .ts N + +#### VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTNI ENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL + +34.38 KronprIndsens Gade GERS Complex, 2" Floor St. M. V.I. 00802 (340) 774-5666 In: (340) 776-3494 + +![](_page_23_Picture_1.jpeg) + +8213 Estate La Rene RR I Box 6151. Kingshill St. Croix, V.1.00850 (340) 773-0295 Fax: (340) 773-1425 + +# CRIMINAL ACTIVITY LIEN NOTICE + +Title 14 V.I.C. §610 CRIMINALLY INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT + +TO: Ms. Erica Dover Director, Recorder of Deeds Office of the Lieutenant Governor 5049 Kongens Gade St. VI 00802 + +RE: Parcel Number 109801010100, consisting of 3.5 million square feet of land Parcel Number 109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land Parcel Number 109801010300, consisting of 1.2 million square feet of land (Collectively known as "Great St. James") + +LET IT BE KNOWN THAT the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands hereby files a Criminal Activity Lien Notice pursuant to Chapter 30, Title 14 V.I.C. 610, based on a civil proceeding, Case No. ST-2020-CV-I4, having been instituted by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands under Chapter 30 of the Virgin Islands Code, namely, the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ICICOA is pending in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands naming the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. as defendants. + +In conformity with Title 14 V.I.C. §610(e), from the time of the filing of this Criminal Activity Lien Notice, a Criminal Activity Lien in favor of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands is created on the following: + +- 1. Any and personal or real property located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands in the name of, or under the signatory authority of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. +- 2. Any beneficial Interest of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. in any personal or real property located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands. +- 3. Any and all bank accounts, certificates of deposits and any other accounts in the name of, or under the signatory authority of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC.; AND POPLAR, INC. + +Pursuant to Title 14 V.1.C. § 610(a). the Director of the Record of Deeds, of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor shall, upon the presentation of a Criminal Activity Lien Notice, immediately record it in the official records. + +Any trustee, executor, person or institution who moves, transfers or conveys title to personal or real property upon which a Criminal Activity Lien Notice has been filed in the judicial subdivision in which the personal or real property is located, and who transfers or conveys such property while having actual notice of the Criminal Activity Lien Notice, shall be liable to the Attorney General in accordance with Title 14 V.I.C. § 610(11( I )(2) or (3). + +> DENISE N. ESQ. ATTORNEY GENERAL + +DATED: January 025/ , 2020 By: + +KIEL 111. M1TH, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice 3438 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Building, 20 Floor St. MI, V.I. 00802 (340) 774-5666 Ext. 10101 + +> 0 a 8 a a A A + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, + +PLAINTIFF, + +V. + +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; POPLAR, Inc.; SOUTHERN TRUST COMPANY, INC.; JOHN AND JANE DOES, + +DEFENDANTS. + +Case No.: ST-20-CV-14 + +ACTION FOR DAMAGES + +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + +#### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VACATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY LIEN NOTICES + +The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") hereby responds in opposition to the motion filed March 17, 2020 by Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein Estate") and Co-Administrators of the 1953 Trust, to vacate the Government's Criminal Activity Lien Notices. The Government states in opposition as follows. + +#### INTRODUCTION + +On January 15, 2020, the Government filed this action under the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. §§ 600 et seq. against the Epstein Estate and various Epstein-controlled entities. On February 5, 2020, the Government filed its Amended Complaint, adding, inter alia, Indyke and Kahn as Defendants in their capacities as Co-Executors of the Epstein Estate and Co-Administrators of the 1953 Trust. + +The Government alleges that decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein engaged in a criminal sexual trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands, wherein he used his vast wealth and property holdings and a deliberately opaque web of corporations and companies to transport young women and girls to his privately-owned islands where they were held captive and subject to severe and extensive sexual abuse. Epstein committed suicide in prison in August 2019 after he was indicted and incarcerated on federal charges of trafficking and sexually abusing girls as young as 14. Defendants Indyke and Kahn, in addition to being Co-Executors of the Epstein Estate, also are officers in several of the companies Epstein used in his criminal enterprise. + +Pursuant to its authority under 14 V.I.C. § 610, the Government filed Criminal Activity Lien Notices establishing liens in its favor on Epstein-owned property or beneficial interests therein located in the Virgin Islands and on the accounts of specified Epstein entities based in the Virgin Islands. + +In their motion to vacate the Criminal Activity Liens, lndyke and Kahn seek for the Epstein Estate to proceed wholly unfettered as though none of Epstein's credibly-alleged conduct ever occurred. They seek a blank check for the Epstein Estate by urging the Court to vacate the Government's Criminal Activity Liens in their entirety. As evidence of the free reign they seek for the Epstein Estate, the Government has approved and offered to permit future releases of Estate + +funds for administration and asset preservation upon a proper accounting of these items. See Ex. A (Government's Notice to Probate Court, filed Feb. 11, 2020), at 1-3. But Indyke and Kahn refused to provide this. Instead, they first filed an Emergency Motion with the Probate Court, asking that Court to vacate the Government's Liens even though it lacked jurisdiction because this Court's jurisdiction over the Government's Criminal Activity Liens under CICO is exclusive. + +Now, Indyke and Kahn ask this Court to vacate the Liens in their entirety, arguing that both they as Executors and the Epstein Estate itself are exempt from CICO's Criminal Activity Lien provisions based on various legal and factual contentions, none of which has merit. Their position, at bottom, is that any restraint on their use of Epstein Estate funds is impermissible. This position is inconsistent with the Government's express authority under CICO, the egregious conduct of the decedent and his associated entities, and the substantial claims asserted against the Estate by both the Government and individual victims. + +The Court thus should reject Indyke and Kahn's motion as both legally baseless and factually untenable. + +## STATEMENT OF FACTS + +## A. Jeffrey Epstein's Alleged Child Sex-Trafficking Enterprise + +The Government filed its operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against the Epstein Estate, Indyke, Kahn, and various Epstein-owned entities on February 5, 2020. The Government alleges that decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein was a resident of the Virgin Islands and maintained a residence since 1998 on Little St. James Island, which he owned. FAC, ¶ 5. In 2016, he purchased a second island—Great St. James. Id. By this time, he also was a registered sex offender because he was convicted in Florida of procuring a minor for prostitution. Id., ¶ 6. + +The Government alleges that Mr. Epstein for decades conducted an enterprise (the "Epstein Enterprise") whereby he used his web of businesses in the Virgin Islands to transport female victims, many of them children, to his privately-owned Little St. James Island, where they were sexually abused, injured, and held captive. Id., ¶¶ 40-41. Flight logs show that between 2001 and 2019, girls and young women were transported to the Virgin Islands and then helicoptered to Little St. James. Id.,1 46. Air traffic controller reports state that some victims appeared to be as young as 11 years old. Id., ¶ 51. Mr. Epstein and his associates lured these girls and young women to his island with promises of modeling and other career opportunities. Id., ¶ 49. Once they arrived, though, they were sexually abused, exploited, and held captive. Id. + +Mr. Epstein's privately-owned islands in the Virgin Islands were essential to the sextrafficking enterprise. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly two miles off-shore from St. with no other residents. Id., ¶ 66. It is accessible only by private boat or helicopter, with no public or commercial transportation servicing the island. Id. When two victims, one age 15, attempted to escape from Little St. James, Mr. Epstein organized search parties that located them, returned them to his house, and then confiscated the I5-year old girl's passport to hinder her ability to escape again. Id., ¶¶ 57-58. Mr. Epstein's acquisition of the second island—Great St. James—in 2016 provided an additional layer of security, allowing him to better ensure that authorities could not observe the sex-trafficking activity on Little St. James and that the victims could not escape. Id., 1 67. + +Mr. Epstein's Virgin Islands-based corporations and companies also played central roles in the criminal sex-trafficking enterprise. Defendant Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into sexual servitude. Id., ¶ 97. Defendants Great St. Jim, LLC and + +Nautilus, Inc.—for which Defendants Indyke and Kahn served, respectively, as Secretary and Treasurer—knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of underage girls and young women by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates could transport, transfer, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse them. Id., ¶¶ 23-29, 98. + +Defendant Southern Trust Company, Inc., of which Epstein was President/Director and Defendants Indyke and Kahn were respectively Secretary/Director and Treasurer/Director, fraudulently obtained tens of millions of dollars in tax exemptions from the Virgin Islands between 2012 and 2019. Id., ¶¶ 37, 112. Southern Trust Company held itself out as providing "cutting edge consulting services" in the area of "biomedical and financial informatics." Id.,111104-106. In fact, it had only one full-time employee working on information technology before 2019, while numerous other administrative or support employees performed personal services for Epstein, and the company itself existed solely or primarily to secure tax benefits that helped support his criminal activities and properties in the Virgin Islands. Id., ¶¶ 107-111, 113-114. + +## B. The Government's Criminal Activity Lien Notices + +Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, the Government filed and served Criminal Activity Lien Notices covering Mr. Epstein's Virgin Islands-based properties, beneficial interests therein, and accounts. Specifically, the Government's notices created liens on the following: + +- I. Any personal or real property located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands in the name of, or under the signatory authority of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; AND POPLAR, INC. +- 2. Any beneficial interest of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY + - E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; AND POPLAR, INC. in any personal or real property located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands; + +- 3. Any and all bank accounts, certificates of deposits and any other accounts in the name of, or under the signatory authority of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; AND POPLAR, INC. + +Ex B (Criminal Activity Lien Notice, dated Jan. 23, 2020). + +#### C. The Attorney General's Attempts to Ensure Lawful Administration of the Epstein Estate + +On February 5, 2020, Shauna Betz, Legal Assistant at Kellerhals Kroblin PLLC (Attorneys for the Epstein Estate, Indyke, and Kahn) sent email correspondence to the Attorney General from attorney Kroblin, Esq., objecting to the Criminal Activity Lien hold ("Lien") the Government placed on accounts in the name of "The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein," "Nautilus, Inc.," and "Great St. Jim, LLC" at the First Bank of Puerto Rico on January 31, 2020. See Ex. A (Government's Notice to Probate Court, filed Feb. 11, 2020) at 1. The next day, February 6, 2020, the Attorney General responded by email and offered to schedule a meeting for the following day, which Attorney Kroblin accepted. See id. at 2. + +On February 7, 2020, the Attorney General and Attorney Kroblin met in person. Attorney Kroblin expressed concern that the Lien would prevent the Epstein Estate from paying its expenses to maintain and preserve its assets. See id. The Attorney General recognized the importance of the Epstein Estate meeting its expenses for maintenance and preservation and so offered, pursuant to her express and exclusive and express authority under 14 V.I.C. § 610(r), to release sufficient funds to meet such expenses once the Epstein Estate identifies the expenses and the amounts of funds needed to satisfy them. See id. + +On Sunday February 9, 2020, the Attorney General followed up and memorialized the meeting by sending an email again conveying her willingness to accommodate an immediate + +release of funds sufficient to pay necessary expenses to manage, maintain, and preserve estate assets, and stating that the Attorney General's Office eagerly awaited the listing of expenses to facilitate the prompt release of funds for payment. See id. In that same email, the Attorney General also stated her intent to follow up about the proposed Epstein victims' compensation program fund that also was discussed briefly at the in-person meeting. See id. + +Rather than provide the requested itemization, however, Counsel for the Epstein Estate, Indyke, and Kahn (Attorney Kroblin) sent an email to the Attorney General on Monday February 10, 2020 stating that the Estate had that morning filed to seek an emergency Order from the Probate Court because FirstBank had conveyed that the hold would remain in place absent a court order. See id. at 3. The Attorney General has opposed the Epstein Estate's emergency motion, which is pending before the Probate Court. + +After the Epstein Estate filed its Probate Court emergency motion, the Attorney General continued to try to reach a common understanding with the Estate over what constitutes reasonable administration expenses. See Ex. C (March 17, 2020 email to Estate's counsel). + +On March 17, 2020, Defendants Indyke and Kahn filed their motion for this Court to vacate the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. + +Despite Defendants' motions, the Attorney General has approved release of \$14.76 million from the Government's Criminal Activity Liens--\$10.4 million for Estate administration, maintenance expenses, and attorneys' fees, and has continued to seek a common understanding with the Estate on how to verify such expenses in the future, see Ex. D (May 18-27, 2020 emails between counsel) (5/20/20 email), plus an additional \$4.36 million for administration of a victims compensation fund. Defendants, however, continue to refuse to cooperate. They insist that the Government's Criminal Activity Liens cannot be enforced against them and that they should have + +unfettered control over funds used and obtained in connection with the Epstein Enterprise. See id. (5/21/20 email). + +### D. Unexplained Estate Transactions Involving Tens of Millions of Dollars + +On May 14, 2020, Counsel for the Government wrote Counsel for the Epstein Estate inquiring about irregularities in the Estate's accounting involving tens of millions of dollars. See Ex. E (May 14, 2020 letter by Government's Counsel). The first of these involves the Estate's payment of \$15.5 million to Epstein-owned Southern Country International, Ltd. ("SCI"), which the Estate represents to be repayment of a loan by SCI to Epstein for his legal expenses after his arrest in July 2019, but for which there is no record of any loan made by SCI. See id. at 1-2. This therefore is an unaccounted-for disbursement of \$15.5 million by the Epstein Estate. + +The second irregularity involves the Estate's transfer of \$24 million from Epstein-owned SCI to Epstein-owned Defendant Southern Trust Company. The Estate made this transfer from SCI to Southern Trust on December 18, 2019—the day before it made the above \$15.5 million payment to SCI—but did not disclose this payment until over four months later. See id. at 2-3. None of these transactions are consistent with SCI's banking license, which limits its activities, except in narrow circumstances, to non-resident individuals and entities, see 9 V.I.C. § 726(b), which excludes both Epstein and Southern Trust. + +Defendants have not explained these irregularities involving tens of millions of dollars of Epstein Estate funds. They also refuse to provide a basis for their requests for additional releases of funds covered by the Government's Criminal Activity Liens, insisting instead that they have complete control over these funds used and obtained in connection with the Epstein Enterprise. + +#### ARGUMENT + +In their Motion to Vacate, Defendants Indyke and Kahn raise a series of arguments that, if accepted, would effectively nullify the Attorney General's enforcement authority under CICO and other laws where a primary wrongdoer is deceased and his or her property and assets used in connection with the wrongful conduct go to probate. These arguments are contrary both to CICO's express provisions giving the Attorney General statutory authority to enforce Criminal Activity Liens and to the estate administration statutes that Defendants invoke. The Court therefore should reject each of Defendants' arguments as set forth below. + +#### A. The Court Should Not Vacate or Release the Government's Criminal Activity Liens Against Defendants While This CICO Action is Pending. + +Under CICO, where the Government has filed a civil or criminal action against a party and concurrently filed a Criminal Activity Lien Notice, only the Attorney General may release the liens thereunder while the action is pending. The relevant CICO sections provide first that "[u]pon the institution of any criminal or civil proceeding or action under this chapter, the Attorney General . . may file . . . a Criminal Activity Lien Notice" and that the "clerk of the trial court shall upon the presentation of a Criminal Activity Lien Notice, immediately record it in the official records." 14 V.I.C. § 610(a). The Government has done this here. See Ex. B (Criminal Activity Lien Notice, dated Jan. 23, 2020). + +The Government's "filing of a Criminal Activity Lien Notice creates from the time of its filing, a lien in favor of the Government of the Territory of the Virgin Islands" on the named person or entity's "personal or real property situated in the Territory of the Virgin Islands" and on "any beneficial interest in it located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands." 14 V.I.C. § 610(c)(1)- (2) (emphasis added); see also 14 V.1.C. § 610(f) ("The lien shall commence and attach as of the time of filing of the Criminal Activity Lien Notice . . ."). The Government's Criminal Activity + +Liens thus already are attached to all of the Epstein Estate's known property and interests located within the Virgin Islands connected to his criminal enterprise. + +Once the Government's Criminal Activity Liens were filed and attached, they "shall continue thereafter until expiration, termination or release as provided herein." 14 V.I.C. § 610(0. The Act provides with respect to expiration that "[t]he term of a Criminal Activity Lien Notice shall be for a period of 6 years from the date of filing" and subject to renewal for one additional 6-year period upon Notice filed by the Attorney General. 14 V.I.C. § 610(q). The Government's Liens on the Epstein Estate thus shall continue in effect until either January 23, 2026, or January 23, 2032, absent a termination or release as provided in the Act. + +Where, as here, the Government's underlying CICO action still is pending, only the Attorney General may release any property or interest from the Criminal Activity Liens. This is the express command of the statute, which provides in relevant part that: + +The Attorney General . . . filing the Criminal Activity Lien Notice may release, in whole or in part, any Criminal Activity Lien Notice or may release any personal or real property or beneficial interest in it from the Criminal Activity Lien Notice upon such terms and conditions as he may determine. + +14 V.I.C. § 610(r) (emphasis added). The Act thus is unambiguous that where a Criminal Activity Lien Notice has commenced and attached upon the Attorney General's filing of an action and Notice, the Attorney General has sole authority to vacate or release the Liens upon terms and conditions she deems appropriate. This means that the Court may not, with the one exception addressed below, vacate or release the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. + +The one instance where CICO permits the Court to release or extinguish a Criminal Activity Lien does not apply here. The Act provides that where "no criminal or civil proceeding or action under this chapter is then pending against the person named in a Criminal Activity Lien Notice, any person named in a Criminal Activity Lien Notice may institute an action .. . seeking a release or extinguishment of the notice," which a court may grant upon the appropriate factual findings. 14 V.I.C. § 610(t)(1)-(3). This exception does not apply here because the Government's CICO action against the Epstein Estate is pending. The Court therefore may not vacate or release the Government's Criminal Activity Liens as Defendants request. + +This statutory remedial scheme enables the Attorney General to ensure that property and assets used in or obtained from unlawful conduct are not shielded from law enforcement. It also protects defendants by allowing them to challenge the underlying allegations through, for example, a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment to ensure there is sufficient legal and factual basis for the Government's action. Where no action is pending, the § 610(t) review process likewise protects a lien defendant's due process rights. Where an action is pending, like here, the Criminal Activity Liens are to remain in place until the Government's claims are resolved. + +In sum, Defendants' request that the Court vacate or release the Government's Criminal Activity Liens is contrary to CICO's lien-enforcement statutory provisions. In light of the Legislature's purpose in enacting CICO to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic . . . power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by . . providing to law enforcement . . . new civil sanctions and remedies," 14 V.I.C. § 601, the Court may not grant this relief while the Government's CICO action against the Epstein Estate is pending. The Defendant's motion to vacate therefore must be summarily denied. + +## B. The Government's Criminal Activity Liens are Valid. + +## 1. The Criminal Activity Liens Apply to the Estate's Property. + +Defendants Indyke and Kahn contend that CICO "excludes executors of estates from the reach of Criminal Activity Lien Notices." Motion to Vacate at 8 (citing 14 V.I.C. § 604(r)) (emphasis in original). This is incorrect. Although § 604(r) excludes executors from the Act's definition of "Trustee," this is immaterial to the Government's claims and Liens for two reasons. + +First, § 610(e)'s "trustee" provisions do not support vacature of the Government's Criminal Activity Liens on Epstein Estate assets. These provisions merely exempt the personal or real property of the trustees themselves from a Criminal Activity Lien where the trustees are not named in their personal capacity. See V .I.C. § 610(m). That has no relevance to this case because the Government's Liens are not on Defendant Indyke or Kahn's personal property, but on the Epstein Estate's property and assets. + +Second, and closely related, CICO also does not apply only to trustees. Rather, its Criminal Activity Lien Notice provisions apply broadly to any "person or other entity named in the [Lien] notice . . .." 14 V.1.C. § 610(e) (emphasis added). Thus, even if the Co-Executors are not deemed trustees under CICO, they do not have to be because the Act applies far more broadly to any other person or entity named—such as the Epstein Estate, each Epstein-controlled company, and each individual named in this lawsuit. + +Section 604(r)'s exclusion of executors from the Act's definition of a "trustee" thus is irrelevant to the validity and scope of the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. + +## 2. The Government Sued the Proper Parties in Interest + +Defendants Indyke and Kahn also argue that it was improper for the Government to name the Epstein Estate and the 1953 Trust as defendants in the CICO action because neither is a legal entity that can be sued. See Motion to Vacate at 8-9. This argument that the Epstein Estate and 1953 Trust are not "persons" that can be sued under CICO makes no reference to Virgin Islands law, under which both entities clearly can be sued for two separate and independent reasons. + +First, in Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.1.480 (2014), the Supreme Court addressed a lawsuit naming an estate as defendant. See id. at 486 ("Ottley named Bell's estate, Eboni, and Gerard (collectively, 'Appelles') as defendants in the action."). In deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court squarely held that it was permissible for the plaintiff to sue the estate. See id. at 500 ("Ottley correctly named Bell's estate as the defendant, and although not necessary, additionally listed the two heirs entitled to inherit her interest in the [disputed] property."). In Francis v. Ruan Living Trust, No. ST-15-cv-177, 2016 V.I. LEXIS 160, 2016 WL 5867452 (Super. Ct. Oct. 5, 2016), this Court held the same with respect to a plaintiff's claims against a trust. See id. at \*13 ("Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim of negligence . . . against Defendant Ruan Trust.") (emphasis added). These decisions thus demonstrate that both the Epstein Estate and the 1953 Trust are properly subject to suit. + +Second, the Court also should reject the argument that the Epstein Estate and 1953 Trust cannot be sued because this would undermine CICO's enforcement scheme by shielding Epstein's egregious conduct and the property and assets he used to carry it out from law-enforcement. The Government seeks to preserve the Estate's assets to satisfy claims for civil penalties, repayment of fraudulently obtained tax benefits, and restitution for victims. As discussed, supra, § A, the Legislature enacted CICO to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies." 14 V.I.C. § 601. Exempting the Epstein Estate and 1953 Trust from the Act's Criminal Activity Lien remedy would thwart these purposes by allowing the wrongdoer's estate and beneficiaries to retain property and assets used for egregiously unlawful purposes. + +In sum, the Epstein Estate and its Co-Executors' arguments on the alleged impropriety of the Government's CICO action against the Epstein Estate and the 1953 Trust are legally incorrect. The Court should reject these arguments as grounds for vacating the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. + +#### 3. Civil Forfeiture is an Available Remedy to the Government Under CICO, Though Not Necessary to Maintain its Criminal Activity Liens. + +Defendants Indyke and Kahn next argue that the Court must vacate the Government's Criminal Activity Liens because CICO does not permit civil forfeiture, and "[w]ithout a valid forfeiture claim, the Attorney General has no basis to freeze the Estate's assets pending the outcome of this action." Motion to Vacate at 10-12. Both parts of this argument are incorrect. CICO does provide for the Attorney General to obtain civil forfeiture, and the Criminal Activity Liens would be valid even if it did not. Each of these arguments is taken in turn. + +First, CICO provides for civil forfeiture. The Supreme Court squarely has recognized this. See In re Najawicz, 52 V.1.311, 333 (2009) ("CICO provides for both civil and criminal forfeitures . . . ."). Defendants ask this Court to ignore the Supreme Court's statement on this point as dictum that is incorrect. See Motion to Vacate at 10. The Supreme Court did not err on this point. + +Under 14 V.I.C. § 607, the Government's remedies in civil cases where it proves conduct violating the Act include a judgment "ordering any defendant to divest himself of any interest in any enterprise, or in any real property[.]" 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1). Defendants acknowledge this remedy,but try to dismiss it as irrelevant because "the Decedent no longer has an interest to be divested." Motion to Vacate at 11. This cavalier assertion does nothing to differentiate between divestiture and forfeiture as civil remedies available to the Government. Whether the Government seeks forfeiture, divestiture, or both (as here), Jeffrey Epstein still will be deceased. This argument thus is just another attempt to shield the Epstein Estate's assets from law enforcement altogether. + +Moreover, even if Defendants could meaningfully distinguish between divestiture and forfeiture under § 607 (which they cannot), the Government still could obtain forfeiture in this civil action. This is because § 607 also provides that "[n]one of the above provisions shall be held to limit the existing equitable powers of the trial court." 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(6). The Court's retained equitable powers include the power to order forfeiture based upon proven misconduct. See generally Ottley, supra, 61 V.I. at 496 n.12 ("[A] court may properly find that an administrator forfeited the right to raise [15 V.I.C.] section 606 as a defense due to equitable considerations."); see also Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc., 6 Cal. 5th 59, 237 (2018) ("The law takes these case-specific factors into account because forfeiture of compensation is, in the end, an equitable remedy."); Prozinski v. Northeast Real Estate Set-vs., LLC, 797 N.E.2d 415, 424 n.9 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) ("Forfeiture is an equitable remedy."); Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 237 (Tex. 1999) ("[W]e look to the jurisprudential underpinnings of the equitable remedy of forfeiture."). + +It is true that equity sometimes disfavors forfeiture. See, e.g., v. Domain, 6 V.I. 599, 604 (1968) ("Equity relieves against a forfeiture where no real fault is committed . . . .") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This, however, is not a case where no fault was committed. Just the opposite, the appalling, numerous, and well-documented allegations by the Government and dozens of Epstein's victims confirm that equity commands that Epstein's Estate be denied the ability to deplete or transfer these assets to Epstein's beneficiaries. Forfeiture thus is and should be an available civil or equitable remedy. + +Second, Defendants' "no civil forfeiture" argument for vacating the Government's Criminal Activity Liens also fails because the Liens are expressly authorized by statute without regard to civil forfeiture. Under 14 V.I.C. § 610, the Attorney General may file a Criminal Activity + +Lien Notice "[u]pon the institution of any criminal or civil proceeding or action under this chapter[.]" 14 V.I.C. § 610(a). The Legislature thus did not condition the availability of Criminal Activity Liens on the assertion of forfeiture claims. + +Indeed, if Defendants were correct both that the Liens require a forfeiture claim and that forfeiture is unavailable in civil actions, then the Government could never file a Lien Notice in a civil action. The plain language of § 610 permitting Criminal Activity Liens in criminal and civil actions alike thus clearly refutes these arguments. And for good reason, as the Government's Liens will ensure the availability of Epstein Estate assets to satisfy its claims not only for forfeiture and divestiture, but also for maximum civil penalties, treble damages, disgorgement, restitution, and such other relief as the Court deems proper. See FAC, Prayer for Relief, y¶ D, E, F, J, K, N, P. + +For each of these reasons, the Court should reject Defendants Indyke and Kahn's "no civil forfeiture" arguments for vacature and should reaffirm the validity of the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. + +## 4. The Criminal Activity Liens are not Overbroad. + +The Government's Criminal Activity Liens are appropriately tailored to property used in the course of Mr. Epstein's alleged child sex-trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands. Under CICO, the Government may place a lien upon any personal or real property situated in the Virgin Islands where the notice is filed which then or thereafter was owned by the person named and upon any beneficial interest therein then or thereafter owned by the person named. 14 V.I.C. § 610(e)(1)-(2). In In re Najawicz, supra, the Supreme Court clarified that "on its face, CICO clearly allows for pre-trial restraint only of 'real or personal property used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through, conduct in violation of [CICO]."' 52 V.I. at 343 (quoting 14 V.I.C. § 606(c) forfeiture provision). + +The Government's Criminal Activity Liens here do no more than this. With respect to the assets beyond Mr. Epstein's islands and aircraft referenced in Defendants Indyke and Kahn's motion, see Motion to Vacate at 14, the Lien Notices placed a hold on accounts held by the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein; Nautilus, Inc.; and Great St. Jim LLC. See Ex. F (Feb. 4, 2020 letter of FirstBank to Co-Executors). Mr. Epstein and both named entities are central to the alleged child sex-trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands. See FAC, ¶ 40 ("Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands."); ¶ 27 ("Great St. Jim, LLC . . . owns at least three properties that make up Great St. James .. . ."); ¶ 28 ("Epstein is listed as manager and a member of Great St. Jim, LLC and the nature of its business is described as `holding assets."'); ¶ 98 ("Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage girls by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were able to transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse underage girls and young women."). + +In light of these allegations specifically connecting each accountholder to the Epstein sextrafficking enterprise, Defendants' argument that "at best the Liens might attach to Little St. James Island and the three identified aircraft," Motion to Vacate at 14, is incorrect. Although Mr. Epstein's privately-owned islands clearly were central to the enterprise, so too were the activities and resources of the companies he controlled. The Criminal Activity Liens thus are appropriately tailored to the conduct of the Epstein Enterprise. + +The Court also should reject Defendants' undeveloped argument about the geographic scope of the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. See Motion to Vacate at 14-15 ("The + +Defendants request that the Court's Order specifically state that the Liens do not cover real or personal property or accounts located outside of the Virgin Islands."). Since Defendants do not specify which property or accounts they allege to be located outside of the Virgin Islands, the Court should decline this invitation to issue a blanket advisory opinion. Cf. In re Media Ventures Inc., 30 V.I. 43, 45 (Terr. Ct. 1994) (Hodge, V.) ("The Court therefore finds that no actual case or controversy exists which needs to be addressed, and that Petitioner is in effect asking this court for an advisory opinion. This request must therefore be denied."). The Government's Criminal Activity Liens are appropriately tailored to property and assets used in connection with the unlawful conduct alleged, and thus should not be vacated either in whole or in any part. + +#### C. The Government's Criminal Activity Liens Do Not Conflict with Legitimate Estate Administration. + +Finally, the Court also should reject Defendants Indyke's and Kahn's separate argument that the "expenses of Estate administration have priority" over the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. Motion to Vacate at 15. This question is not presented on the facts before the Court because the Government does not seek to prohibit the Epstein Estate from making truly administrative and preservation-related expenditures. + +Rather, the Attorney General repeatedly has sought an accounting from Defendants Indyke and Kahn to ensure that any Estate funds they release are used for these and only these legitimate purposes. See supra, Statement of Facts §§ C-D. The requested accounting would ensure that both the Estate's administrative and preservation purposes and the Government's law-enforcement interests are served. CI 15 V.I.C. § 161 (requiring Probate Court to administer justice in all matters relating to the affairs of decedents "in the manner prescribed by law.") (emphasis added). Defendants Indyke and Kahn, however, refuse to provide the Government or this Court with any accounting in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Epstein Estate. Their failure to do so either in their Motion to Vacate or elsewhere makes their argument for a determination of "priority" nothing more than another improper attempt to obtain an advisory opinion by this Court. + +Moreover, the "manner prescribed by law" for disposition of the Epstein Estate's property and assets subject to the Government's Criminal Activity Liens is set forth in CICO itself, specifically 14 V.I.C. § 610. This provision gives the Attorney General sole authority to set the terms and conditions for release of property subject to a Criminal Activity Lien while a CICO action is pending: + +The Attorney General or United States Attorney filing the Criminal Activity Lien Notice may release, in whole or in part, any Criminal Activity Lien Notice or may release any personal or real property or beneficial interest in it from the Criminal Activity Lien Notice upon such terms and conditions as he may determine. + +14 V.I.C. § 610(r) (emphasis added). Thus, any release of Epstein Estate property or assets covered by the Government's Criminal Activity Liens must be upon such terms and conditions as the Attorney General permits. + +The Attorney General is appropriately exercising her authority under CICO by requesting an accounting to ensure that released Epstein Estate funds are put to legitimate administration and preservation uses. She does not seek to prohibit the Epstein Estate from making necessary administrative and preservation expenditures. Just the opposite, she seeks to ensure that released Estate funds are used for these legitimate purposes and no other. Toward this end, the Attorney General has approved release of \$10.4 million for Epstein Estate administration and preservation expenses to date. See supra, Statement of Facts § C. This is both her exclusive right and her duty under CICO to ensure that the statute's law-enforcement objectives are served and not evaded. + +Since Defendants Indyke and Kahn as Co-Executors have refused to provide the Attorney General or this Court with any accounting of the Epstein Estate's legitimate administrative and preservation expenses, their request here for a blanket determination of priority improperly seeks + +an advisory opinion and/or is contrary to CICO's Criminal Activity Lien provisions. For either or both reasons, their motion to vacate should be denied. + +The Government credibly alleges that Jeffrey Epstein used his Virgin Islands properties and network of Virgin Islands-based companies to fund (through fraudulently-obtained tax benefits) and operate an unlawful sex-trafficking enterprise in which dozens of underage girls and young women were sexually abused and held captive. The Epstein Estate Co-Executors' motion to vacate the Government's Criminal Activity Liens is nothing less than an attempt to use Epstein's jailhouse suicide as a vehicle to sweep this sordid history under the rug and allow Epstein's beneficiaries to retain the instrumentalities of the enterprise at the expense of its victims. The Court should reject the motion and enforce the Government's Liens against the Epstein Estate. + +**CONCLUSION** + +For all of the reasons set forth, Defendants Indyke and Kahn's motion to vacate the Government's Criminal Activity Liens should be denied. + +Respectfully submitted, + +DENISE N. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE +ATTORNEY GENERAL +VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +Dated: June 11, 2020 + + +(340) 774-5666 ext. 10155 + +**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** + +IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Opposition to Motion complies with the word and page requirements of V.I.R. Civ. P. 6-1(e) and a true and correct copy of the Opposition was served via regular mail, postage prepaid, with a courtesy copy sent by email to counsel of record on June 11, 2020 to: + +[REDACTED] KROBLIN, ESQ. +ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ., +WILLIAM BLUM, ESQ. +SHARI D'ANDRADE, ESQ. +KELLERHALS [REDACTED] KROBLIN PLLC +[REDACTED] Palms Professional Building +9053 Estate [REDACTED], Suite 101 +St. [REDACTED], V.I. 00802-3602 +Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com +aheymann@solblum.com +wblum@solblum.com +sdandrade@kellfer.com +mwhalen@kellfer.com + +ANDREW TOMBACK +[REDACTED] & CASE, LLP +1221 Avenue of the Americas +New York, New York 10020-1095 +United States +Email: andrew.tomback@whitecase.com + +DANIEL WEINER +MARC A. WEINSTEIN +HUGHES HUBBARD & REID, LLP +One Battery Park Plaza +New York, NY 10004-1482 +United States +Email: daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com +marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com + + +St. [REDACTED] U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 +Email: [REDACTED] +(340) 774-5666 ext. 10155 + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LW, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +#### ORDER + +This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Intervene (the "Motion") filed by nonparty, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (the "Government"). The Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby + +ORDERED, that the Government's Motion is hereby DENIED; and it is further + +ORDERED, that a certified copy of this Order shall be distributed to counsel of record. + +Dated: + +ATTEST: Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court + + +Dated: + +JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822203/EFTA02822203.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822203/EFTA02822203.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3f7f1fa48b37d88741b8f88e80be0b2b5199783 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822203/EFTA02822203.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -63, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822203", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dec6300eea7080f31e22e5d490de0a7d8a3a5ffafb25625a9d432d1edd439b7d", + "output_sha256": "46c280f376cd7426b60eca483e8626ab368021c5e0fa71bc2e671f5e58f56216", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822253/EFTA02822253.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822253/EFTA02822253.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a9fd4424a5fd4dae16806d6b93f488a04ed75d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822253/EFTA02822253.md @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +# FILED + +September 08, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LW, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +# PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS + +Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL ("Plaintiff'), by counsel, pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 12, hereby opposes the Motion to Dismiss' (the "Motion to Dismiss") filed by Defendants DARREN K. INDYKE ("Indyke") and RICHARD D. KAHN ("Kahn") (collectively, the "Co-Executors"), in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"). + +# L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Defendants' Motion to dismiss must be denied because its primary basis is now moot and it secondary arguments have no sufficient basis. + +First, Co-Executors' argument that Plaintiffs claim against them is premature in violation of 15 V.I.0 § 606(a) is no longer viable. While the Co-Executors argue that they may + +The Motion to Dismiss is cited herein by page number as "MTD." + +not be sued until the expiration of twelve months from the granting of letters testamentary, that time has now passed. Under the Virgin Islands Supreme Court's ruling in Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480 (2014), this action may proceed against the Co-Executors. + +Next, Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's claim for common law indemnification is premature on the grounds that a judgment has not yet been rendered against her likewise must fail. Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts supporting each element of a claim for common law indemnification recognized in this jurisdiction. + +Finally, NES, LLC's argument that Plaintiff's claim for indemnification fails to state a claim is meritless and depends entirely on irrelevant matters that fall outside the four corners of the Complaint. NES, LLC improperly invites this Court to award it summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff's claim based on a company operating agreement adopted long after Plaintiff served as a company manager. Because this document does not directly pertain to the allegations of the Complaint, this Court should exclude it from its consideration of the Motion to Dismiss and consider only the allegations in the Complaint (viewing these allegations and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Plaintiff). Since NES, LLC does not otherwise argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against it upon which relief can be granted, its motion must be denied. + +# II. STANDARD + +A motion to dismiss under V.I. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) must be decided based upon V.I. R. Civ. P. 8's pleading standards. The Virgin Islands is a "Notice" pleading jurisdiction. Under Rule 8(a)(2), a claim for relief must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief-because this is a notice pleading jurisdiction ... . Rule 8's adoption + +"eliminates the [federal] plausibility standard and instead will permit a complaint so long as it adequately alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it." Milk- + +y. Mapp, 67 V.I. 574, 585 (V.I. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); + +see also V.I. R. Civ. P. 8, Comment (this approach "declines to enter dismissals of cases based + +on failure to allege specific facts which, if established, plausibly entitle the pleader to relief."). In + +applying this standard, the Court must "'view the facts alleged in the pleadings and the + +inferences to be drawn from these facts, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."' Pedro v. + +Ranger Am. of the V.I., Inc., 70 V.I. 251, 264 (Super. Ct. 2019) (quoting v. AIG Ins. of + +P.R., 56 V.I. 558, 566 (V.I. 2012)). Rule 8 "will permit a complaint so long as it adequately + +alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it[,]" + +67 V.I. at 585, and "declines to enter dismissals of cases based on failure to allege specific facts + +which, if established, plausibly entitle the pleader to relief," V.I. R. Civ. P. 8, Comment. + +# III. ARGUMENT + +## A. The Estate May Be Sued In Its Own Capacity And Is Properly Named As A Defendant + +Defendants suggest in a footnote that it was improper for Plaintiff to name the Estate as + +defendant in this action because it "does not have a separate identity and may not be sued as a + +party." See MTD at 2 n. 1. Defendants do not cite any provision of Virgin Islands law in support + +of this argument. In fact, there is no provision of Virgin Islands law precluding an action against + +an estate, no Virgin Islands has held that it is improper to do so, and courts in this jurisdiction customarily allow it.2 + +For example, in Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480 (2014), the Virgin Islands Supreme Court addressed a lawsuit naming an estate as defendant. See id. at 486 ("Ottley named Bell's estate, Eboni, and Gerard . . . as defendants in the action."). In deciding the appeal, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the plaintiff to sue the estate. See id. at 500 ("Ottley correctly named Bell's estate as the defendant, and although not necessary, additionally listed the two heirs entitled to inherit her interest in the property."). Consistent with this decision, Courts in the Virgin Islands have commonly recognized estates as legal entities that can sue and be sued. See, e.g., Laforce v. Estate of Laforce, 2019 WL 7987454, at \*2 (V.I. Super. Dec. 27, 2019); Garvey v. Estate of Moorhead, 2016 WL 9503603, at \*2 (V.I. Super. Aug. 1, 2016); Kalloo v. Estate of Small, 2015 WL 1514572, at \*1 (V.I. Mar. 27, 2015); Guardian Ins. Co. v. Estate of Knight-David, 2015 WL 5782098, at \*1 (V.I. Super. Sept. 30, 2015); Estate of Ludington v. Jaber, 2011 WL 1304470, at \*1 (V.I. Mar. 22, 2011). These decisions thus demonstrate that the Estate is properly subject to suit in this case. + +In sum, Defendants' argument that the Estate may not be sued as a party is unsupported by any law, is inconsistent with the law and practice of this jurisdiction, and must be rejected. + +{sup}`2` Defendants' sole citation in support of their argument is to an American Jurisprudence treatise—which in turn relies on a single Illinois state court opinion from 1981—that clearly does not reflect the law or practice of this jurisdiction. + +## B. Plaintiff's Claims Are Not Premature + +#### i. Plaintiff's claims against the Co-Executors are ripe and may proceed + +First, the Co-Executors argue that Plaintiff's claim against them is premature in violation of 15 V.I.0 § 606(a). See MTD at 4. This statute provides that + +> [a]n action may be commenced against an executor or administrator at any time after the expiration of twelve months from the granting of letters testamentary or of administration and until the final settlement of the estate and discharge of such executor or administrator from the trust, and not otherwise. + +Citing this provision, the Co-Executors argue that Plaintiff may not maintain an action against them "until September 6, 2020." See MTD at 4. Since this date has now passed, the Co-Executors argument under 15 V.I.0 § 606 is now moot. + +Further, the fact that Plaintiff commenced this action before the conclusion of the twelvemonth letters testamentary period does not require dismissal. Facing this exact scenario, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court in Ottley v. Estate of Bell held that the Superior Court erred in dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with 15 V.I.0 § 606 where the claim had ripened by the time the trial court dismissed it. 2014 WL 5471948, at \*6 ("Because Ottley could have immediately refiled the complaint, and the law does not generally require a useless act, the Superior Court erred in dismissing Ottley's complaint for the \$60,000 debt on the basis of noncompliance with section 606(b).") Thus, even assuming Plaintiff was not in compliance with Section 606(a) at the time she filed her Complaint, Plaintiff's claims against the Co-Executors are now ripe by the Co-Executors' own measure and may proceed.; + +{sup}`3` 15 V.I.C. § 606(b) further provides that "[a]n action against an executor or administrator shall not be commenced until the claim of the plaintiff has been duly presented to + +#### ii. Plaintiff's common-law claim for indemnification is ripe and may proceed + +Second, Defendants suggest in a footnote that Plaintiff's common-law claim for indemnification is premature on the grounds that "a party may not assert a common-law claim for indemnification in a separate action before a judgment has been rendered against her." See MTD at 6 n.5. + +Defendants cite one case for this proposition, Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2017 WL 772808 (V.I. Super. Feb. 28, 2017). That case flatly contradicts Defendants' suggestion and plainly does not require dismissal of Plaintiff's claim here. In fact, Willie expressly allows a party to ` lead" a common law indemnification claim before a judgment has been rendered. Id., at \*30 ("The Court also agrees that before a party can prevail on, but not plead, a common law indemnification claim, there must have been a determination that the person who initially brought suit (in this case, Mr. Willie) was in fact injured.") (Emphasis added.) Indeed, courts in this jurisdiction commonly allow claims for indemnification to proceed despite the absence of any underlying judgment. Vandenhouten v. Olde Towne Tours, LLC, 2009 WL 1956360, at \*5 (D.V.I. July 8, 2009) ("there is no merit to Francis's contention that any indemnity claim against him must await a determination that Olde Towne is liable to the Vandenhoutens"); v. Sunrise Med. (US), LLC, 2013 WL 3775461, at \*6 (D.V.I. July 17, 2013). + +Under Willie, upon which Defendants rely, + +[t]o state a claim for common law indemnification, the indemnitee must allege that (1) it has been or may be sued (2) for damages, (3) proximately caused by the indemnitor's actions or inactions, and + +such executor or administrator and by him disallowed." Defendants do not—and could not claim that Plaintiff is in violation of this provision. Here, Plaintiff submitted a claim to the Estate and the Estate did not honor it. Compl. 11 28-29. + +(4) but for the relationship between the indemnitee and the indemnitor, the indemnitee would not have been sued or found liable. + +Willie, 2017 WL 772808, at \*42 (emphasis added).4 + +Here, Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts supporting each of these elements. First, Plaintiff alleges that she "has incurred and will continue to incur significant legal fees, personal + +The Superior Court reached the opposite conclusion in In re Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos Litig. Series, 2006 WL 1084317 (V.I. Super. Mar. 6, 2006). In Manbodh, the Superior Court (through now-Justice, Hon. Maria Cabret) held that the rule for common law indemnification claims contained in the Restatement (Third) of Tort is the majority rule and the best rule for the USVI: + +In sum, while both the Restatement (Second) and the Restatement (Third) contain more modern approaches to common law contribution and indemnification, the Restatement (Third) represents the current majority substantive law. In the Restatement (Third), the drafters promote the interests of both flexibility and judicial economy by supplying security for settlors. ... For all of these reasons, and in an effort to establish the best total set of rules by bridging the gaps in substantive tort law, this Court acknowledges the current majority rule and adopts the provisions of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability, Topic 3 for the substantive requirements for common law contribution and indemnification. + +Id. at \*10. It is likely that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion, as that Court has acknowledged that a "strong preference exists for following the most recent Restatement over an older version." Banks v. Intl Rental & Leasing Corp., 2011 WL 6299025, at \*6 (V.I. Dec. 15, 2011). + +Plaintiff does not necessarily concede that Willie properly states the elements of a common law indemnification claim in this jurisdiction. The Willie opinion, more than anything, demonstrates that this is not a settled area of law because the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has not yet spoken to the issue. In Willie, the Superior Court recognizes that a "key difference" between the Restatement (Second) of Tort and the Restatement (Third) of Tort regarding "Apportionment of Liability" centers on whether a pre-judgment claim is ultimately viable, and that the Restatement (Third) allows such claims while the earlier restatement does not. Id. at 30 (citing Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 22(a)). Nevertheless, the Superior Court in Willie ultimately held that it would require an underlying judgment before entering any judgment on the merits on a common law claim for indemnification. + +security costs, and other costs in connection with legal suits, proceedings, and investigations relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims." Compl. 1 25. Second, Plaintiff alleges that she "incurred these legal fees and expenses as a direct result of Epstein's acts and/or omissions." Compl. 1 43. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he suits, proceedings, and/or investigations for which Maxwell seeks indemnification were instituted against Maxwell solely because she was an employee of Epstein and his affiliated businesses." Comp1.1 42. + +For all of the foregoing masons, Plaintiff's claim for common law indemnification is viable. + +## C. NES, LLC's Request That The Court Consider Matters Outside The Pleadings Should Be Rejected + +Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim for indemnification against NES, LLC fails because "NES has no obligation to indemnify [Plaintiff] for or advance her fees and expenses" under the "Operating Agreement of NES, LLC dated January 1, 2014" (hereinafter, the "2014 Operating Agreement"). See MTD at 6. While Plaintiff did not expressly reference or premise her claims on the 2014 Operating Agreement, Defendants submit a copy of this Operating Agreement with its Opposition and invites the Court to consider it as part of the "pleadings." See MTD at 6. In other words, NES, LLC seeks judgment on the merits of this claim based entirely on matters outside the pleadings. + +In ruling on a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, courts 'assume all reasonable factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all fair inferences from such allegations.'" Arno v. Hess Corp., 2019 WL 5295588, at \*14 (citation omitted). "The basic purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint to state an actionable claim, not to test the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint." Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). + +"[C]ourts [in the Virgin Islands] have the discretion to exclude extra-pleading materials attached to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief." Stanley v. Virgin Islands Bureau of Corr., 2020 WL 1639902, at •4 (V.I. Super. Apr. 1, 2020) (citing Howell v. U.S.V.I. Police Dep't, 67 V.I. 149, 158 n.4 (Super. Ct. 2016)). In Howell, the defendant submitted two documents with its pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Howell, 67 V.I. 149, 158 n.4. Finding that those documents "[did] not directly pertain to any allegation asserted in the complaint" and "[were] not relevant to deciding the present motion to dismiss," the Court did not convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment and decided the motion based on the allegations in the complaint. /d. + +Here, Defendants fail to demonstrate the relevance of its extraneous submission. Defendants ask this Court to accept, without a verified statements, that the 2014 Operating Agreement is the controlling document here. Indeed, the document raises more questions than it answers. According to the first page of the 2014 Operating Agreement, NES, LLC was formed in 1998. Presumably, there exist earlier operating agreements relating to the company. Plaintiff may enjoy rights under prior LLC operating agreements. See, e.g., Branin v. Roe Inv. Counsel, LLC, 2014 WL 2961084, at \*8 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2014) (finding that an enforceable right to + +{sup}`5` The rules in fact require the Court to reject Defendants' unverified statements regarding the 2014 Operating Agreement and otherwise. See V.1.R.Civ.P. 6-1(d) (requiring that "thenavailable" affidavits and other documents supporting a party's position to be filed simultaneously with a motion that contains allegations of fact not appearing of record). For example, Defendants apparently ask the Court to conclude based on the representation of its counsel, without any independent support, that Plaintiff has engaged in "fraud, gross negligence, or reckless or intentional misconduct." See MTD at 7. + +indemnification can vest in accordance with the terms of an operating agreement such that it may not thereafter be rescinded by a later amendment to the agreement). + +Further Plaintiff was a manager of the LLC during the mid-2000s, well before the effective date of the 2014 Operating Agreement. Compl. III 15; 46. The company thus had a different management structure, and surely a different operating agreement, at the time that Plaintiff was a company manager. Plaintiff is entitled to discover all circumstances surrounding the company and its indemnification and/or advancement rights and policies over time, including any in effect during her time as manager, before she is required to respond to Defendants' motion seeking judgment on the merits of the claim. Plaintiff is not able to do so now due to the Estate's refusal to voluntarily provide any documents relating to the company. See Compl. 151 ("By ... letter dated November 22, 2019 [to the Co-Executors], Maxwell requested copies of documents setting forth applicable indemnification and/or advancement rights and policies, including any operating agreements for NES, LLC, and never received a response.") + +Defendants themselves suggest that the Court should consider the 2014 Operating Agreement pursuant to the so-called "incorporation-by-reference" doctrine, claiming that Plaintiff "expressly incorporates by reference NES's corporate organizational documents in her Complaint." See MTD at 6 n.6. This doctrine is not applicable here.6 The "incorporation-byreference" doctrine allows a court to "review the actual document referenced in the complaint" + +{sup}`6` The "incorporation-by-reference" doctrine has not been expressly adopted by the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, has not been widely embraced in the Virgin Islands, and Defendants ultimately fail to establish that this jurisdiction should recognize this common law rule. See Gov't of the V.I. v. =, 2014 WL 702639, at \*3 (V.I. Feb 24, 2014), referencing Banks v. Intl Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I.2011) ("[T]he Superior Court, when considering a question not foreclosed by prior precedent ... must perform a three-part analysis as set forth in Banks"). + +to ensure that language has not been taken out of context. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. v. Daniel, 2020 WL 1819622, at \*8 (V.I. Super. Apr. 8, 2020) (emphasis added). Unlike the Hess case, upon which Defendants rely, Plaintiff's Complaint does not expressly reference the 2014 Operating Agreement, which is, in any event, not relevant to the claims hem. Plaintiff did not incorporate by reference any particular version of the operating agreement because she was unable to do so. The operative operating agreements are not in her possession. Plaintiff asked the Estate for documents pertaining to NES, LLC before commencing this action but was refused. The "incorporation-by-reference" doctrine is therefore inapplicable here.? + +Finally, in the event that this Court elects to consider the extraneous documents submitted by Defendants with their Motion to Dismiss, thereby converting the motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff asks that she have a reasonable opportunity to conduct the discovery described herein. Rule 12(d) provides that: + +> If, on a motion under Rule 12(6)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion. + +{sup}`7` To the extent Defendants suggest that the 2014 Operating Agreement is not a "matter outside the pleading" for some other reason, any such suggestion too must fail. "[Ably written or oral evidence introduced challenging the pleadings that `does not merely reiterate what is said in the pleadings, will constitute a matter outside the pleading for the purpose of triggering a conversion, if not excluded?" Raymond v. Assefa, 2017 WL 5303467, at \*3 (V.I. Super. Nov. 8, 2017) (citing In re Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos Litigation Series, 47 V.I. 375, 382 (V.I. Super 2006. A court may only consider, without requiring the conversion of a motion the following: "(1) exhibits attached to the pleadings, (2) matters that the court can take judicial notice of [sic], and (3) items of unquestioned authenticity that are referred to in the challenged pleading and are integral to the pleader's claim for relief." Id. The 2014 Operating Agreement falls into none of these categories. + +V.I.R.Civ.P. 12(d) (emphasis added). The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced the requirement that a non-moving party have notice and a fair opportunity to be heard with respect to any grounds for summary judgment raised sua sponte. United Corp. v. Hamed, 2016 WL 154893, at •5 (V.I. Jan. 12, 2016); Raymond v. Assefa, 2017 WL 5303467, at •3 (V.I. Super. Nov. 8, 2017) (listing Virgin Islands Supreme Court cases). Failure to give a nonmoving party adequate notice before conversion constitutes reversible error. Stanley, 2020 WL 1639902, at \*5. + +Here, NES, LLC may not be permitted to obtain a summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for indemnification before Plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to conduct essential discovery. NES, LLC has not moved to dismiss the Complaint because Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief. Instead, NES, LLC seeks judgment on the merits. The applicable rules of procedure contemplate that a party may conduct necessary discovery before a response to a Rule 56 motion must be made. See, e.g., V.I.R.Civ.P. 56(d) ("If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may ... defer considering the motion or deny it; ... allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or ... issue any other appropriate order.").8 Here, this necessary discovery is exclusively in the possession of NES, LLC and the other Defendants. The Court should therefore deny NES, LLC's Rule 56 motion so that the parties can conduct discovery on the issues presented therein. + +In sum, because the 2014 Operating Agreement does not "directly pertain to any allegation asserted in the [Clomplaint," the Court should exclude it from its consideration of the + +{sup}`8` Plaintiff reserves the right to file a motion pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 56(d) in the event that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. + +Motion to Dismiss and consider only the allegations in the Complaint. See Howell, supra, at 158 n.4 (emphasis added). In the event the Court elects to consider this agreement and converts the Motion to Dismiss to a Rule 56 motion, Plaintiff asks that consideration of such motion be deferred until she can conduct necessary discovery. + +# IV. CONCLUSION + +Defendants' arguments in support of dismissal lack legal support and must fail. Their Motion to Dismiss therefore should be denied. + +Dated: September 8, 2020 + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: /s/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@emblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, which complies with the word and page requirements of V.I.R.Civ.P. 6-1(e), was served via email and U.S. Mail this 8th day of September, 2020 to: + +Kroblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. , V.1.00802 ckroblin@kellfer.com + +Ariel M. =, Esq. (AAG) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +Is/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@cumblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LW, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +#### ORDER + +This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") filed by Defendants DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate, and NES, LLC ("NES"). The Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby + +ORDERED, that the Motion is hereby DENIED; and it is further + +ORDERED, that a certified copy of this Order shall be distributed to counsel of record. + +Dated: + +ATTEST: Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court By: Dated: + +JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822253/EFTA02822253.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822253/EFTA02822253.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f574dbcbe64092870dcb29304c3f0dd12f4d00b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822253/EFTA02822253.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -24, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822253", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2fa2e59f0a32ff0dfd21a64aad7c0ed3b3396bf201833be16855c266a5b6ade3", + "output_sha256": "aeaaa561dfa2f78f3942641aaa7289447e55b50ba0a9acd4b78dc814d94fdb45", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822268/EFTA02822268.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822268/EFTA02822268.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9eca59f393f0e19c39d8cec41bf7273d588c01ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822268/EFTA02822268.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +## FILED + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF ME COURT + +## EXHIBIT + +![](_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg) + +Palms Professional Building, 9053 Estate Suite 101, St. Villard, VI. 00802 +340.779.2564 Telephone | 1.888.316.9269 Fax | [www.kellfer.com](http://www.kellfer.com) + +September 15, 2020 + +**By E-Filing** + +Honorable Carolyn P. Hermon-Percell +Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands +Magistrate Division +Barbell Plaza South +St. U.S. Virgin Islands + +**Re: Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein** +Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 + +Dear Magistrate Hermon-Percell: + +We write on behalf of the Estate in response to the Government's September 10, 2020 letter. The Government's letter, as well as the Government's August 18, 2020 letter, is yet further confirmation that the Attorney General is improperly usurping the roles of the Court and the Co-Executors in this probate proceeding. Although the Attorney General's liens are invalid, she is unfairly making use of the fact that there is no assigned judge in that case to rule on the Co-Executors' motions to vacate those liens and dismiss that action. Just as Your Honor directed the Attorney General in February 2020 to lift her liens to allow the Estate to operate, the Court should do so again here, where the Attorney General is crippling the administration of the Estate. + +The Attorney General's suggestion in her August 18 Letter{sup}`1` that the Co-Executors seek to conceal information about the administration of the Estate is not only unfounded, unfair, and misleading, it is squarely at odds with reality. By making those accusations, the Attorney General not only suggests that the Government is entitled to such information -- it is not -- but also pretends that the Government does not already have that information and that the Co-Executors are improperly seeking to withhold it. That is false: the Attorney General has issued two subpoenas, purportedly as a discovery tool in the Government's ongoing investigation, to FirstBank for records of the Estate's operating account. The first subpoena, served in February 2020, covered the period from 1998 through February 2020. The second subpoena, served in June 2020, called for all records of every transaction conducted from the Estate's operating account from February 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020. Putting aside whether those subpoenas, issued without notice to the Estate, comport with the legitimate exercise of the Government's authority under CICO, they provide the Government with the very information it complains to the Court it needs to release funds for administration of the Estate. The Estate has confirmed that FirstBank produced records for every transaction, of every size, conducted by the Estate from that account through June 30, 2020. For example, the Attorney General, having received and reviewed such records, required FirstBank to provide additional + +--- + +{sup}`1` To the extent the Attorney General served her August 18 letter on counsel for the Estate, we are not aware of that service and were not aware of that letter until the Attorney General attached it to her September 10 filing. That is the only reason the Estate did not previously respond to the Attorney General's August 18 letter. + +Icrrnon-Pcrecll I P. Carolyn Honorable to Letter + +2020 15, September 2 Page + +described were which 2020 June through May period the during transactions 37 for information Attorney the which for transactions These Offset." "ACH as statements account the on generically two \$1,000, than less involving transactions 16 included information additional such required General 37 the of all for detail requested the provided FirstBank \$60. as little as for were which of transactions for information needs she that suggestion General's Attorney the Thus, transactions. by transaction every about information has General Attorney the since disingenuous, is \$5,000 above penny. the to down Estate the + +criminal Epstein's in participants "protect to trying is Estate the that argues also General Attorney The and of employees former and current certain indemnifying is Estate the because simply enterprise" Attorney The suit. General's Attorney the in defendants more or one of behalf on professionals discovery stay to motion -pending long a has Estate the that fact the Despite backwards. it has General that for plan discovery a adopted not has action that in Court the and suit, General's Attorney the in and individuals of swath a to subpoenas wide-ranging serve to continues General Attorney the matter, and employees former and current as well as action that in defendants certain including entities, accusations false) (and serious leveling for penchant General's Attorney the Given professionals. financial any that belief apparent her and Epstein, Mr. with associated individual any against many act, criminal a constitutes somehow entities various his or Epstein Mr. by conducted transaction counsel. afford cannot Many counsel. need they that determined have employees former and current which representation, legal for fees legal for indemnification requested understandably have many And agency enforcement law government a that troubling deeply is It afford. cannot otherwise they -less scope a of face the in representation legal for opportunity the individuals affording that contends concealment. of act an constitutes investigation enforcement law + +transactions financial "structured" Indyke -Executor Co that suggestion General's Attorney the Finally, only not is Court the to letter a in accusation baseless a such make To libelous. and false absolutely is an betrays it officer, enforcement law highest Territory's the of unbecoming and unprofessional them prevent to intended -Executors Co the intimidate to General Attorney the by effort ongoing to General Attorney the directed expressly Court the While duties. duciary fi their out carrying from the so, doing in duties duciary fi their exercise and Estate the administer to -Executors Co the permit instructions. Court's the ignoring on intent appears General Attorney + +to Court the ask urgently we 2020, 9, September and 14 August dated letters our in forth set As Attorney the for Order an issue to alternatively, or matter, this resolve to videoconference a schedule Estate's the in requested amount the in account FirstBank Estate's the on ens li the release to General harm. irreparable suffering of verge the on is Estate The General. Attorney the with correspondence + +submitted, Respectfully + +A/C + +Kroblin + +-Executors Co the for Counsel + +record of Counsel cc: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822268/EFTA02822268.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822268/EFTA02822268.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a55ba6293d4ffaada3e1140974e6bcfd0f1f6d63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822268/EFTA02822268.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -8, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822268", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0b93a43a196829c79ee63c34dd955754a6f6b9c1fec0903340d6c235e61d7de6", + "output_sha256": "8e4289449de104a169be43a736c752ba8375a2e63a2e732b76d48ce42e7f1328", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822271/EFTA02822271.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822271/EFTA02822271.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca0f96f217681d40b71f3ed2a7b744adae7f91e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822271/EFTA02822271.md @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +# FILED + +September 22, 2020 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OHNE COURT + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, ) + +) ) ) ) + +Plaintiff, ) Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +vs. ) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN ) K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF ) THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as ) EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ) EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited ) Liability Company, ) + +Defendant. ) + +#### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE + +The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Reply Brief in support of its motion for an order permitting the Government to intervene in this action as of right pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or else by leave pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The Government states in further support of its motion as follows. + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The Government moves to intervene in this action by Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell seeking indemnification and advancement of legal expenses from Defendants the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and its Co-Executors—Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn—on two distinct but closely related grounds. First, the Government has an interest in preserving Epstein Estate funds to satisfy a judgment in its pending action against Defendants alleging that Epstein and others engaged in a criminal sex-trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands for which the Government seeks forfeiture, divestiture, disgorgement, and payment of civil penalties and damages under the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. §§ 601 et seq. Second, the Government has an investigatory interest in Maxwell's involvement with Epstein's criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct pursuant to its authority under CICO, 14 V.I.C. § 612, which Maxwell has thwarted by resisting and evading service of the Government's investigatory subpoena, even while she has invoked the jurisdiction of the Virgin Islands Courts to obtain indemnification for the very same alleged conduct. + +Maxwell opposes the Government's motion to intervene on numerous grounds, none of which have merit. First, Maxwell contends she lacks sufficient notice of the Government's claims because it failed to attach a pleading as required by V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(c). This is incorrect. The Government attached as Exhibit A to its motion the Amended Complaint in its CICO action setting forth all of its claims against Defendants and the factual bases therefor. The CICO Complaint serves Rule 24's purpose of giving the parties notice of what the Government's claims and interests are. See, e.g., U.S. v. Metro St. Louis Sewer Dist, 589 F.3d 829, 834 (8th Cir. 2009) ("Appellees argue that MIEC's failure to submit a pleading is sufficient to deny its motion to intervene, but we conclude that the statement of interest satisfies Rule 24(c) because it provides sufficient notice to the court and the parties of MIEC's interests."); Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., 373 F.3d 1199, 1236 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("The Government and Microsoft make no claim they had inadequate notice of the intervenors' appeal, and we find no reason to bar intervention based solely upon this technical [lack of pleading] defect, if defect it be."). Maxwell and the Epstein Estate have ample notice of the Government's claims and interests. + +Second, Maxwell argues that the Government's pending CICO claims against Defendants do not provide a sufficient interest because they are contingent, not yet having been litigated to judgment. Maxwell relies almost entirely on federal court cases within the Third Circuit for this argument. These cases are not controlling. See Bruni v. Alger, 71 V.I. 71, 76 n.11 (Super. Ct. 2019) (decisions interpreting federal rules of procedure are persuasive, not binding, authority as to analogous Virgin Islands Rules provisions). Here, far more persuasive are decisions in at least six other federal Circuits rejecting the Third Circuit's analysis and holding that a pending claim may provide a sufficient interest for intervention in the defendant's coverage action. See, e.g., Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Tramsp., 295 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (10th Cir. 2002) ("The threat of economic injury from the outcome of litigation undoubtedly gives a petitioner the requisite interest [in intervention as of right]."); Security Ins. Co. v. Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377, 1380- 81 (7th Cir. 1995); Teague v. Baker, 931 F.2d 259, 261 (4th Cir. 1991); TIG Specialty Ins. Co. v. Fin. Web.com, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 336, 338 (M.D. Ha. 2002); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Summit Ind's Co., 143 F.R.D. 129, 134 (N.D. Ohio 1992); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. 110 F.R.D. 549, 552 (D.R.1. 1986). The Government has a clear and sufficient interest in the outcome of this action. + +Third, Maxwell argues that intervention is unnecessary because the Government's interest in ensuring availability of the Epstein Estate's funds is secured by the Government's Criminal Activity Liens placed pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610. This is incorrect because the Government's Criminal Activity Liens under CICO are limited to Epstein's funds or property situated or owned in the Virgin Islands, see 14 V.I.C. § 610(e)(1)-(2), and because the Epstein Estate is fighting enforcement of the Government's Liens at every turn. See Exhibit M hereto (Letter of Counsel for Epstein Estate and Co-Executors to Probate Court, Sept. 15, 2020) at 2 ("[W]e urgently ask the Court to ... issue an Order for the Attorney General to release the liens on the Estate's FirstBank account in the amount [\$7,200,000] requested in the Estate's correspondence with the Attorney General."). + +Finally, Maxwell argues that the Government's interest in the outcome of this case is adequately protected by the Epstein Estate's interest in protecting its own funds. This, too, is incorrect. Numerous of the above-cited federal courts reject the same argument that the parties to a coverage action can adequately represent the interests of a tort claimant. See, e.g., Security Ins., 69 F.3d at 1381; Teague, 931 F.3d at 262. Here, the Epstein Estate and its Co-Executors clearly are inadequate to represent the Government's interest in preserving Estate funds because + +- Maxwell herself pleads that "Indyke, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate, also made assurances to Maxwell that Maxwell's legal fees and obligations would be reimbursed by Epstein and the Estate ...." Complaint, ¶ 21; and +- Indyke and Kahn admit that "the Estate is indemnifying certain current and former employees of and professionals on behalf of one or more defendants in the Attorney General's suit." Ex. M (Letter of Counsel for Epstein Estate and Co-Executors to Probate Court, Sept. 15, 2020) at 2. + +There thus is no question that the Co-Executors are not acting to preserve Estate funds. The Government's interest in preservation thus is not adequately represented by the Epstein Estate or its Co-Executors, the Defendants in the Government's CICO enforcement action. + +For all of these reasons and as set forth more fully below, the Court should grant the Government's motion to intervene. + +# ARGUMENT + +## A. The Motion Gives Ample Notice of the Government's Claims and Interests. + +Maxwell begins her opposition by arguing that the Government's motion to intervene is "procedurally defective" because it does not attach a pleading as required by Rule 24(c) and that, because of this alleged failure, the motion "does not adequately provide notice to Plaintiff of the + +precise nature of [the Government's] claims." Opposition at 3-4. This argument is factually and/or legally incorrect. + +Rule 24 provides that a motion to intervene "must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(c). The Government satisfied this requirement by attaching as Exhibit A to its motion its First Amended Complaint in its CICO action against Defendants the Epstein Estate and its Co-Executors and others. The CICO Complaint is 54 pages, contains 114 paragraphs of factual allegations, and states 24 separate counts setting forth the legal grounds for each item of relief the Government seeks from Defendants. The Government also attached as Exhibit B its CICO Subpoena Duces Tecum, the service of which Maxwell previously resisted and evaded, which states clearly that the Government is seeking documents from her related to "the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates" in violation of Virgin Islands law. Maxwell does not even address the Government's submission of its CICO Complaint or Subpoena, let alone explain how or why they do not satisfy the Rule's requirement of a pleading to give notice of interest. + +Since Maxwell ignores the Government's attached CICO Complaint and Subpoena, she does not address whether or how Rule 24(c) contemplates something different. But even if it did, this would be purely a matter of form, not substance, because the CICO Complaint and subpoena clearly satisfy the pleading provision's purpose—to give the litigating parties notice of the intervening party's claims and interest. See generally In re LO.F., 62 V.I. 655, 665 (2015) ("It is a settled rule that in the construction of statutes an interpretation is never to be adopted that would defeat the purpose of the enactment.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). + +This is the conclusion reached by numerous federal circuit courts of appeal in applying the identical pleading provision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). See Peaje fm's. LLC v. -Padilla, 845 F.3d 505, 515 (1st Cir. 2017) ("Accordingly, denial of a motion to intervene based solely on the movant's failure to attach a pleading, absent prejudice to any party, constitutes an abuse of discretion."); Metro St. Louis, supra, 569 F.3d at 834 ("[T]he statement of interest satisfies Rule 24(c) because it provides sufficient notice to the court and the parties of MIEC's interests."); Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd., 425 F.3d 309, 314 (6th Cir. 2005) ("Furthermore, neither party has ever claimed that any prejudice would result from granting the motion to intervene despite the failure to attach a pleading; the parties are clearly on notice as to Hillandale Committee's position and arguments."); Mass. v. Microsoft, supra, 373 F.3d at 1236 n.19 ("The Government and Microsoft make no claim they had inadequate notice of the intervenors' appeal, and we find no reason to bar intervention based solely upon this technical defect, if defect it be."). + +Since Maxwell cannot plausibly claim lack of notice of the Government's interests in preservation of the Epstein Estate's funds and in service of its CICO investigatory subpoena, her argument for denial of intervention based upon Rule 24(c) fails and should be rejected. + +## B. The Government Has a Clear and Sufficient Interest in the Outcome of this Action. + +Maxwell next argues that the Government's interest in preservation of Epstein Estate funds is insufficient for intervention because the interest is "contingent" until a judgment is entered in the Government's CICO action against the Estate. The Court should reject this argument because it relies upon an overly rigid and stringent conception of the "interest" that supports intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). + +Maxwell cites as support for her argument decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands, which was bound by Third Circuit precedent. See Opposition at 6-7 (citing Mountain Top Condo Assn v. Dave Stabbert Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 261, 366 (3d Cir. 1995); Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. V.I. Port Auth., 224 F.R.D. 372, 375-76 (D.V.I. 2004)). These decisions, however, both applying Federal Rule 24, are not controlling on this Court's application of Virgin Islands Rule 24. See, e.g., Bnini v. Alger, supra, 71 V.I. at 76 n.11 (decisions applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are persuasive, not binding authority, as to analogous Virgin Islands Rules). + +Here, the Court should not find the Third Circuit's interpretation of Federal Rule 24 persuasive because it is contrary to decisions of courts in at least six other federal circuits—the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits—which find that the holder of a pending claim may have a sufficient interest to intervene in a related coverage case. See Utahns for Better Transp., supra, 295 F.3d at 1115 ("The threat of economic injury from the outcome of litigation undoubtedly gives a petition the requisite interest" to intervene); Security Ins. Co., supra, 69 F.3d at 1380-81 (affirming grant of intervention by tort claimant in coverage action); Teague, supra, 931 F.2d at 261 ("[O]ther [courts] have allowed intervention in a dispute between an insurer and its insured even when the intervenor's interest is contingent on the outcome of other litigation. We find the reasoning of this latter authority persuasive.") (citations omitted); TIG Specialty Ins. Co., supra, 208 F.R.D. at 338 (potential deprivation of source of recovery if intervenor prevails on its claim is a sufficient interest); St. Paul Fire & Marine, supra, 143 F.R.D. at 134 ("There is nothing in the wording or history of Rule 24 which indicates intent to exclude would be intervenors whose interest in the pending litigation is not yet vested.") (quoting New Hampshire Ins. Co., supra, 110 F.R.D. at 552); see also Romero v. Bd. of Cty. Comm 'n, 313 F.R.D. 133, 140 (D.N.M. 2016) ("[T]he Tenth Circuit and numerous other Courts of Appeal have permitted intervenors with a contingent interest to intervene."). + +In Teague, supra, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that class action plaintiffs seeking to intervene in a coverage action involving the class action defendant had a sufficient interest because they "stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the district court's judgment" in the coverage case. 931 F.2d at 261. That same conclusion applies here. If this Court rules that the Epstein Estate must indemnify Maxwell for claims related to her relationship with Epstein and to "advance" her attorneys' fees (while she is in prison awaiting trial on federal criminal charges), then the Government stands to lose funds for the satisfaction of a judgment in its CICO action against the Epstein Estate. + +Maxwell also argues that the Government's separate but related investigatory interest under CICO as to her involvement with Epstein's conduct is not sufficient to support intervention. See Opposition at 12-14. Maxwell focuses primarily on the Government's ability to enforce its CICO subpoena by other means, rather than on the investigatory interest itself. The Government's interest is established by statute, 14 V.I.C. § 612(a), and involves the same subject matter as this action—Maxwell's relationship to the Epstein Enterprise's conduct. Compare Maxwell Complaint, ¶ 1 ("This is an action for indemnification for and advancement of the attorneys' fees, security costs, costs to find safe accommodation, and all other expenses Maxwell has reasonably incurred and will incur by reason of her employment relationship with Jeffrey E. Epstein ('Epstein') and his affiliated businesses . . . ."); with Gov't Ex. B (CICO Subpoena) (seeking documents from Maxwell related to "the rape, abuse, exploitation and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates" in violation of Virgin Islands law). This related interest thus provides an additional basis supporting the Government's intervention. + +Based on the substantial weight and persuasive force of the foregoing authority applying the analogous federal rules provision, the Court should hold that the Government's pending CICO claims against the Epstein Estate provide it with a clear and sufficient interest to intervene to ensure preservation of Estate funds. + +#### C. The Government's Interest in Preserving Epstein Estate Funds for Payment of a Judgment May Be Impaired Absent Allowance of Intervention. + +Maxwell separately argues that the Government's interest in preservation of Epstein Estate funds will not be impaired by any judgment or resolution of this action because the Government has placed Criminal Activity Liens on certain Estate assets pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610. See Opposition at 10-11. The Court should reject this argument because it ignores the difference in scope between all Epstein Estate assets and those covered by the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. + +CICO's Criminal Activity Lien provisions permit the Government to place liens upon a CICO defendant's property that is "situated in the Territory of the Virgin Islands" or its "beneficial interest" that is "located in the Territory of the Virgin Islands." 14 V.I.C. § 610(e)(1)-(2). Maxwell acknowledges this territorial limitation. See Opposition at 10 ("These liens cover all real and personal property located in the Virgin Islands in the name or under the signatory authority of the Estate.") (emphasis in original). + +The Government's claims for forfeiture, divestiture, maximum civil penalties per violation, treble and punitive damages, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains under CICO, see Ex. A-CICO Complaint at 53-54 (Prayer for Relief), are not so limited. See 14 V.I.C. § 607(c), (e) (provisions for awarding damages and civil penalties, without territorial limit). + +Since the Epstein Estate assets covered by the Government's Criminal Activity Liens are not co-extensive with the relief the Government may obtain through a judgment on its CICO claims, the Court should reject Maxwell's argument that the Liens alone are sufficient to secure the Government's interests without intervention. + +Although the foregoing suffices to reject Maxwell's argument, it also bears emphasis that Defendants the Epstein Estate and its Co-Executors are resisting and seeking to evade the Government's Criminal Activity Liens at every turn. As just one example, even though the Attorney General and the Superior Court in the CICO action have sole and exclusive authority to release funds covered by the Liens, see 14 V.I.C. § 610(r) (Attorney General's authority), (t) (CICO Court's authority), the Co-Executors repeatedly have asked and currently are asking the Probate Court to order release of over \$7,000,000 covered by the Government's Criminal Activity Liens. See Ex. M hereto (Letter of Counsel for Epstein Estate and Co-Executors to Probate Court, Sept. 15, 2020) at 2 ("[W]e urgently ask the Court to . . . issue an Order for the Attorney General to release the liens on the Estate's FirstBank account in the amount [\$7,200,000] requested in the Estate's correspondence with the Attorney General."). While these requests have no legal merit, their existence is at least relevant to Maxwell's assertion that the Government's interest are absolutely secured by the Criminal Activity Liens. + +Maxwell also argues that the Government's investigatory interest under CICO as to her involvement with Epstein's conduct will not be impaired absent intervention because the Government may protect this interest by other means—by enforcing its CICO subpoena in the state where she resides. See Opposition at 14 (citing 14 V.I.C. § 612(k)). In so arguing, Maxwell admits that she avoided service of the Government's CICO Subpoena by refusing to authorize her attorney in the Virgin Islands to accept service. See Opposition at 14 (Government's subpoenas "were served to persons who did not have authority to accept them."). She also does not deny that she resisted or evaded service in the, previously unknown, state where she resided prior to her + +arrest. See Gov't Motion at 4-6. She also does not consent to service or to a court's personal jurisdiction over her as a citizen of New York where she is imprisoned. She has, however, consented to this Court's jurisdiction over her claims related to her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This action in this Court thus is the one venue in which the Government's investigatory interest is certain not to be impaired. + +For all of these reasons, the Court should reject Maxwell's argument and should hold that the Government's interests in preservation of Epstein Estate funds and in advancement of its investigation of Maxwell may be impaired absent intervention. + +## D. The Epstein Estate Does Not Adequately Represent the Government's Interests. + +Maxwell also argues that the Government may not intervene because the Epstein Estate and its Co-Executors, in her telling, share and thus adequately represent the Government's interest in preserving Estate funds. See Opposition at 15-17 ("To the extent that the Government is concerned with the dissipation of the Estate's assets, the Trustees adequately represent the Government's interest here."). They do not. + +Maxwell's own Complaint allegations undercut this argument. As one of the grounds for her alleged right to indemnification and advancement of legal costs, Maxwell alleges that separate and apart from Epstein's promises, Defendant "Indyke, in his capacity as an Executor of the Estate, also made assurances to Maxwell that Maxwell's legal fees and obligations would be reimbursed by Epstein and the Estate, and that Maxwell's legal fees and expenses would be paid going forward." Complaint, ¶ 21 (emphasis added). How this promise by Indyke squares with his "fiduciary duties to all who may have a beneficial interest in the estate," Opposition at 15, or to otherwise preserve Epstein Estate funds, Maxwell does not say. + +Nonetheless, her allegation that Indyke is offering up Epstein Estate funds for the legal defense of persons not specifically identified as Estate beneficiaries is borne out by Indyke and Kahn's recent admission to the Probate Court that this is exactly what they are doing. Their counsel's September 15, 2020 letter to the Probate Court acknowledges that "the Estate is indemnifying certain current and former employees of and professionals on behalf of one or more defendants in the Attorney General's suit." Ex. M hereto (Sept. 15, 2020 letter) at 2. Specifically, the Government has learned that the Estate is paying the legal fees for an immigration attorney it believes may have obtained visas for Epstein's trafficking victims. Paying the legal fees of individuals alleged to have participated in Epstein's trafficking enterprise demonstrates the Estate's interest in preventing the disclosure of information relevant to the Government's case in the Government's case, and belies Maxwell's assertion that the Government's and the Estate's interests in preservation of funds are perfectly aligned. + +At risk of stating the obvious, the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and its Co-Executors are not adequate representatives for the Government's interest in preserving the availability of Estate funds to satisfy a CICO action judgment based upon Epstein's sex-trafficking and other related criminal conduct. The Court therefore should grant the Government intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). + +### E. The Government Also Satisfies Rule 24(b)'s Requirements for Permissive Intervention. + +Maxwell's arguments for denying permissive intervention pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(b) also have no merit and should be rejected if intervention as of right is denied (which it should not be). + +Maxwell first argues that permissive intervention should be denied because the Government's claims do not share "a common question of law or fact," V.I. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), + +with the claims in her indemnification action. See Opposition at 17. This is incorrect. The Government's CICO claims against Defendants, its investigated claims against Maxwell, and Maxwell's claims against Defendants all present the common question of: Who is liable to pay a judgment on the Government's CICO claims against Defendants (and/or Maxwell) for their involvement in or connection to the rape, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Epstein and his associates? + +Numerous federal courts have addressed the question of whether a tort claim and an indemnification claim present a common question of law or fact, and concluded that they do. See Security Ins. Co., supra, 69 F.3d at 1381 (common question and independent jurisdiction requirements "are clearly met in this case"); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l REO Mgmt, 205 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2000) ("Thus, while the insurance contract may not be an issue in the underlying case in Superior Court, the factual similarities between the two cases are enough to establish a common question of fact. Specifically, both the present case and the underlying case arise from alleged carbon monoxide emissions from a furnace in the defendant's building that began on February 23, 1995. In addition, neither case can be decided without determining the source of the applicant's injuries. Accordingly, for purposes of [Federal] Rule 24(b), the court finds a common question of fact in the present lawsuit and the underlying lawsuit in Superior Court."). This Court should hold the same here. + +Maxwell's next and final argument is that the Government's intervention will cause undue delay and prejudice because the Government "proposes to inject legal issues that diverge substantially from those involved in this indemnification action." Opposition at 18. Not so. + +The only such issues Maxwell identifies are those "concerning the Government's intent to conduct a criminal investigation of Plaintiff within the context of this civil action." Id. This question, however, would be answered by the intervention itself. Once intervention is granted, the Government will seek to: (a) oppose unauthorized expenditures of Epstein Estate's funds, which Maxwell contends already is or should be the Estate's position, see Opposition at 16; and (b) enforce its investigatory subpoena against Maxwell, which raises a discrete question clearly answered under 14 V.I.C. § 612(a), as Maxwell also appears to recognize (but nonetheless wants to be answered in any other court where she has not yet consented to jurisdiction), see Opposition at 13-14. + +At bottom, the only thing the Government's intervention threatens is to provide facts answering the questions already raised by Maxwell's indemnification claim in this action. Maxwell seeks indemnification from the Epstein Estate based upon her purported "prior employment relationship" with Epstein and his businesses in connection with any claim "related to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims." Complaint, I 1 (emphasis added). The Epstein Estate's Co-Executors already are "indemnifying certain current and former employees of and professionals on behalf of Epstein's companies. Ex. M (Sept. 15, 2020 letter to Probate Court). Only the Government stands at the ready to determine: + +- what actual conduct by Epstein and Maxwell is at issue in connection with claims by Epstein's "alleged victims;" +- whether the criminal sex-trafficking and sexual abuse conduct that is alleged would fall within the scope of any purported employment relationship; and/or +- whether, employment relationship or no, it is a legitimate expenditure of Epstein Estate funds to provide legal representation to persons connected to an alleged criminal sex-trafficking enterprise instead of preserving funds for the Estate's true beneficiaries and claimants. + +Thus, rather than unduly complicate this litigation, the Government's intervention would guide it towards a fact-based resolution of the issues Maxwell's indemnification claims actually present. + +For each of these reasons, the Court should grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) if intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) is denied (which it should not be). + +#### CONCLUSION + +For all of the reasons set forth herein and in the moving papers, the Court should grant the Government's motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) or else by permission under Rule 24(b). + +Respectfully submitted, + +DENISE N. ESQUIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL + +Dated: September 22. 2020 By: Ia o + +CAROL ESQ. Chief Deputy Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 3438 'Cron rindsens Gade St. U.S. Vi in Islands 00802 Email: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10101 + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene complies with the word and page requirements of V.I.R. Civ. P. 6-1(e) and a true and correct copy of the Motion was served via regular mail, postage prepaid, with a courtesy copy sent by email to counsel of record on September 22, 2020 to: + +KYLE R. WALDNER, ES QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4 Floor Miami, FL 33156 E-mail: kwaldner@qpwblaw.com & BOYER, P.A. + +DAVID CATTIE, ESQ. THE CATTIE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1710 Gade St. V.I., 00802 e-mail: david.cattie@cattie-law.com + +KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ., WILLIAM BLUM, ESQ. SHARI D'ANDRADE, ES . KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. , V.E. 00802-3602 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com aheymann@solblum.com wblum@solblum.com sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen@kellfer.com + +ANDREW TOMBACK McLaughlin & Stem, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 United States Email: ATomback@mclaughlinstern.com DANIEL WEINER MARC A. WEINSTEIN! HUGHES HUBBARD & REID, LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004-1482 United States Email: daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com + +> /S/ Carol CAROL ESQ. Chief Deputy Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 3438 !Cron rindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 Email: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10101 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822271/EFTA02822271.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822271/EFTA02822271.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7c7a725a8159869b4412add880ae0516eac2c27 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822271/EFTA02822271.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822271", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a672fa75e1f3d777f44b74727dcf4f5544f9aaebbc311604306fbdbdef2b536f", + "output_sha256": "a672fa75e1f3d777f44b74727dcf4f5544f9aaebbc311604306fbdbdef2b536f", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822288/EFTA02822288.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822288/EFTA02822288.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..392036c0cc952efd98b11cc06dee06d597f5c925 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822288/EFTA02822288.md @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ +# FILED + +September 28. 2020 + +#### TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OFTHE COURT + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +x + +UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INDICTMENT + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +x + +SEALED + +20 Cr. + +20 Cr. 330 + +#### COUNT ONE + +(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + +The Grand Jury charges: + +#### OVERVIEW + +1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple. minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18. + +2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to + + + +Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. + +# FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions, including in the below image: + +![](_page_1_Picture_4.jpeg) + +4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: + +a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with a minor victim. + +b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would + +massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. + +d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. + +e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. + +5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, + +directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. + +#### MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS + +6. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: + +a. A a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg) + +b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: + +![](_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg) + +c. A ranch in Santa Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence") following photograph: Fe, New Mexico owned by , which is depicted in the + +![](_page_5_Picture_4.jpeg) + +d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, England. + +7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: + +a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for + +and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing + +an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. + +c. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. + +# MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT + +8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the + +abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. + +#### STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS + +9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. + +# Overt Acts + +11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +## COUNT TWO + +## (Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) + + +12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) + +## COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + + +14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to + +wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). + +# Overt Acts + +17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: + +a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. + +b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. + +d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) + +## COUNT FOUR (Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) + + +18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and + +aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) + +## COUNT FIVE (Perjury) + + +20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +- Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. +- A. I don't know what you're talking about. + +Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? + +A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +## COUNT SIX (Perjury) + + +22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. + +23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GRISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: + +> Q: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? + +A: No, not that I recall. . . . + +Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? + +A. No. + +. . . + +Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? + +A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. + +Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? + +A. That is my testimony, that is correct. + +. . . + +Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? + +A. I have not given anyone a massage. + +Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? + +A. That is my testimony. + +Q. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony? + +A. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage. + +(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) + +Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + +v. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Defendant. + +### INDICTMENT + +(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) + +> AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney + +Foreperson \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822288/EFTA02822288.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822288/EFTA02822288.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc159947ac3a452e807f7c83a760d846ac27c8dc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822288/EFTA02822288.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -179, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822288", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3a2b3df44069ad425c24b50cfdbc6f45b2b11a3678998775ca7c1c66e6f9a27c", + "output_sha256": "de14f35f3238c40097e889aa44898a040908beb1a12f57514af6f6621e5f8c7a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822306/EFTA02822306.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822306/EFTA02822306.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c4d96979f6d4b00839f5bd58eab4865921eb4f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822306/EFTA02822306.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +# FILED + +September 28, 2020 + +### TAMARA CHARLES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CLERK OF THE COURT DIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN + +CHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO. ST-20-CV-155 + +# CO-EXECUTORS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"), an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate, respectfully submit this Reply Brief in further support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed in this action on May 1, 2020 (the "Motion to Dismiss"). + +### I. MAXWELL'S CLAIM FOR COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION IS UNRIPE AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED. + +Maxwell initially filed her Complaint prematurely in violation of 15 V.I.C. § 606(a). (Motion to Dismiss at 1-2, 4-6.) After forcing the Co-Executors to file the Motion to Dismiss, Maxwell implicitly conceded her error and, on June 1, 2020, jointly moved with the Co-Executors for a stay of this action until the required one-year waiting period had passed. While the Court granted the stay on August 3, 2020, and Maxwell is no longer in violation of section 606(a), her claim for common law indemnification remains unripe for adjudication until judgments are rendered in the underlying actions against her pending in New York state and federal courts. + +Under the ripeness doctrine, courts in the Virgin Islands "will defer from ruling on a claim when ongoing or potential future litigation precludes an informed determination of the issues." v. =, 59 V.I. 611, 628 (V.I. 2013). For example, in =, the plaintiff, a convicted felon, pursued a legal malpractice action in Superior Court against his criminal defense attorney while his habeas corpus petitions were on appeal in federal and local courts and while the Ethics and Grievance Committee of the Virgin Islands Bar Association investigated the attorney's conduct. Id. at 615-20. After attorney moved to dismiss, the Superior Court considered claims on their merits, ultimately granting the motion. Id. On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the decision, holding that the Superior Court "committed a fundamental error" when it considered any aspect of claims on the merits rather than sua sponte dismissing the complaint for lack of ripeness. Id. at 621. Because criminal appeal and other related actions had not yet been decided (and he still had the ability to file additional habeas petitions), the Superior Court "severely disrupted comity amongst federal and local courts by creating inconsistent adjudications of essentially the same factual and legal issues." Id. at 630. + +Similarly, in Virgin Islands Government Hospitals and Health Facilities Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 50 V.I. 276 (V.I. 2008), the Supreme Court vacated an order granting an award of attorney's fees because "the presence of ongoing litigation precludes an informed determination of whether the moving party is in fact entitled to attorney's fees under the relevant law" and "the prevailing party [could not yet] be ascertained." Id. at 280-81. And in Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority v. Sound Solutions, LLC, the Superior Court dismissed a claim seeking costs and fees arising from an ongoing underlying case as unripe, holding that + +determination of the issue would "force this Court to assess and rule on whether Defendants' [underlying case] is meritorious before such a determination has been made in that case itself" and "there is a substantial possibility that the final disposition in [the underlying case] would moot this cause of action here, or at least substantially alter the appropriate remedy." No. ST-14-cv-558, 2015 WL 3429078, at \*4–5 (V.I. Super. Ct. May 27, 2015). As the *Sound Solutions* court found, "[i]t would be improper to allow this case to proceed when the relevant facts are so unstable." *Id.* at \*5. + +The same reasoning applies here, where the predicate criminal and civil actions accusing Maxwell of sexual abuse and other misconduct are pending in front of various state and federal courts.{sup}`1` As a matter of public policy, Maxwell cannot be indemnified for intentional wrongdoing, including criminal conduct.{sup}`2` As a result, any determination of Maxwell's common law + +--- + +1. 1. The Co-Executors previously described the civil actions pending against Maxwell in the New York state and federal courts. (Motion to Dismiss at 3 n.3.) On June 29, 2020, Maxwell was criminally indicted in the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and two counts of perjury. (See Indictment, a copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit D** (Exhibits A-C were attached to the original Motion to Dismiss).) Her criminal trial is scheduled to begin in New York federal court on July 12, 2021. +2. 2. As this Court has held, "an agreement is against public policy if it is injurious to the interests of the public . . . . The Court has a duty to refuse to enforce a contract that is contrary to public policy and tends to injure the public good." *Berne Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands*, 46 V.I. 106, 115 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2004). Courts across the country—including in New York, where the underlying actions against Maxwell are pending—hold that indemnification for intentional wrongdoing is against public policy because it would promote illegality and allow a wrongdoer to cause intentional injury with impunity. *See, e.g., Austro v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.*, 66 N.Y.2d 674, 676 (1985) (indemnification of party for "damages flowing from the intentional causation of injury" void as against public policy); *Equitex, Inc. v. Ungar*, 60 P.3d 746, 750 (Colo. App. 2002) ("Public policy prohibits 'indemnifying a party for damages resulting from intentional or willful wrongful acts.'") (quoting *Bohrer v. Church Mut. Ins. Co.*, 12 P.3d 854, 856 (Colo. App. 2000)); *In re RFC and RESCAP Liquidating Tr. Action*, 332 F.Supp. 3d 1101, 1134–35 (D. Minn. 2018) (indemnification void as against public policy "where the indemnitor shows that the indemnitee's underlying conduct was intentional, willful, or wanton"). *See also* Restatement (Third) of Torts § 22(e) ("Except for contractual indemnity, a vicariously liable person can obtain indemnity from the person whose negligence was imputed only + +indemnification claim in this proceeding risks inconsistent adjudication, wastes judicial resources, and threatens to disrupt comity between New York and Virgin Islands courts. In addition, if Maxwell's claim is allowed to proceed, discovery and fact-finding will have to be duplicated, and discovery in this case regarding the facts and circumstances of the underlying civil and criminal cases against Maxwell will have to be taken while those underlying cases are ongoing. Moreover, common law indemnity may not apply at all if any of numerous different events relating to the underlying proceedings occur, including if Maxwell is found (1) guilty of the crimes with which she is charged, or (2) civilly liable due to her own misconduct toward young girls, rather than her performance of legitimate, employment-related duties for Mr. Epstein or his affiliated businesses. In these circumstances, the doctrine of ripeness requires dismissal of Maxwell's common law indemnification claim.3 + +The authorities Maxwell cites in her Opposition reinforce the Co-Executors' position. Those sources make clear that, because an indemnitee must discharge liability of the indemnitor in order to receive indemnification, an indemnitee may not plead a claim for common law indemnity unless it is (i) in the original suit, while that original suit is pending, or (ii) in a separate, + +if the vicariously liable person is not independently liable."); 8 Williston on Contracts § 19:19 (4th ed.) (indemnification agreements "tending to promote a breach of duty to the public" generally not upheld). Cf. Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.1.23, 34 (V.1. Super. Ct. 2017) (conducting an analysis under Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011), and finding that the Virgin Islands recognizes common law indemnification "when an innocent party is held vicariously liable for the actions of the true torffiasorl (emphasis in original). + +{sup}`3.` Courts in other jurisdictions also have found unripe claims for common law indemnification brought in a separate action prior to determination of the underlying proceedings. See, e.g., Medline Indus., Inc. v. Ram Med., Inc., 892 F. Supp. 2d 957, 966-67 (N.D. III. 2012) (dismissing claim for common law indemnification under Illinois law as unripe when no underlying judgments had yet been rendered); Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Kingsway Am. Agency, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-1195, 2013 WL 214634, at •10 (M.D. Penn. Jan. 18, 2013) (same, under Pennsylvania law); Gramercy Advisors, LLC v. BDO USA, LLP, No. FSTCV136020625S, 2015 WL 2191655, at \*3-4 (Conn. Sup Ct. Apr. 9, 2015) (same, under Connecticut law). + +"subsequent suit against the indemnitor." Restatement (Third) of Torts § 22, cmt. i (emphasis added) (listing cases); see also Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23, 30 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2017) (denying motion to dismiss counterclaims for common law indemnification where claims were brought in original tort suit); Manbodh v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (In re Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos Lit. Series), 47 V.I. 375 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2006) (in original tort action where various parties brought claims for common law indemnification against third-party defendants, converting motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment and holding that the Restatement (Third) of Torts set forth applicable law). None of these sources supports Maxwell's argument that she may pursue this independent action for common law indemnification while the underlying actions against her—both criminal and civil—remain pending in other jurisdictions. + +In particular, Maxwell's contention that Willie "expressly allows a party to 'plead' a common law indemnification claim before a judgment has been rendered," is critically misleading as applied to the present facts. (See Opposition at 6.) In performing a Banks analysis to determine the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands with respect to common law indemnification,' the Willie court canvassed Virgin Islands precedent since 1980, concluding that there are two types of common law indemnification cases. In the first type of indemnity case, a party may plead an indemnity claim before it is found liable if it does so "through a counterclaim or third-party complaint" in the underlying liability action. Id. This was the situation in Willie. In the second type of case, a party may bring a separate claim for indemnification "after a party has been found liable" in the underlying liability action. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, in a separate action for indemnification—such as the present case—a purported indemnitee (here, Maxwell) may not + +{sup}`4.` Until the Supreme Court rules on this issue, it remains an open question whether a claim for common law indemnification is a viable cause of action in the Virgin Islands post-Banks. + +assert a claim for common law indemnification unless and until her liability has been determined in the underlying actions.{sup}`5` + +## II. MAXWELL'S CLAIM AGAINST NES FAILS.6 + +### A. The Court Should Dismiss Maxwell's Claim Against NES as a Matter of Law. + +Maxwell alleges upon information and belief that NES's governing corporate documents entitle her to the advancement of expenses and indemnification that she now demands. (Compl. + +--- + +5. All three of the other decisions cited by Plaintiff—*Vandenhouten v. Olde Towne Tours, LLC*, No. 20008-41, 2009 WL 1956360, at \*5 (D.V.I. July 8, 2009), [REDACTED] v. *Sunrise Med. (US), LLC*, No. 2012/29, 2013 WL 3775461, at \*6 (D.V.I. July 17, 2013) and *Manbodh*, 47 V.I. 392-95—are the first type of case, where an indemnity claim was asserted in an existing action as a counterclaim or third-party claim, and are therefore inapplicable here. Moreover, while Maxwell incorrectly asserts that *Manbodh* is directly contrary to the relevant holding in *Willie, Manbodh* says nothing about bringing a separate claim for indemnification while the underlying action remains pending, and that was not the situation faced by that court. Instead, *Manbodh* holds that the Restatement (Third) of Torts, rather than the First or Second Restatements, sets forth applicable law. *Id.* at 392-94. As discussed above, the Restatement (Third) of Torts provides that a claim for indemnification may be brought in the original underlying action or a subsequent suit: + +Except when a contract for indemnity provides otherwise . . . an indemnitee must extinguish the liability of the indemnitor to collect indemnity. The indemnitee may do so either by a settlement with the plaintiff that by its terms or by application of law discharges the indemnitor from liability or by satisfaction of judgment that by operation of law discharges the indemnitor from liability. . . . An indemnitee may, however, assert a *claim* for indemnity and obtain a contingent judgment *in an action where the indemnitee is sued by the plaintiff as permitted by procedural rules*, even though liability of the indemnitor has not yet been discharged. + +Restatement (Third) of Torts § 22(b) (emphasis added, in part); *see also* cmt. i (quoted above), notes to cmt. i ("[V]irtually all states permit the indemnitee to assert his claim in the original suit, by cross-complaint or impleader, or in a *subsequent* suit against the indemnitor.") (emphasis added). + +6. The Court also should dismiss Maxwell's claims against the Estate itself. While Maxwell continues to incorrectly assert that the Estate is a legal entity that can be sued (*see* Opposition at 3-4), it is a basic tenet of trusts and estates law that "[a]n estate is not a person or a legal entity and cannot sue or be sued; an estate can only act by and through a personal representative and therefore any action must be brought by or against the executor or representative of the estate." 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 847; *see also, e.g.*, 31 Am. Jur. 2d Executors and Administrators § 1141 (2016) ("Since estates are not natural or artificial persons, and they lack legal capacity to sue or be sued, an action against an estate must be brought against an administrator or executor as the representative of the estate."); [REDACTED] v. *Estate of Kilburn*, No. 3:13-cv-00627-LRH-WGC, 2014 WL 3613701, at \*3 (D. Nev. July 21, 2014) ("It has long been recognized that an estate is not a legal entity, but rather a collection of assets and liabilities. Consequently, an estate cannot sue or be sued, and it is thus proper to name the representative + +1 47.) However, when presented with the actual corporate document in question—the NES Operating Agreement—Maxwell ignores the effect of that document, which unambiguously allows NES to decline her claims for indemnification and advancement of fees and expenses. (See Motion to Dismiss 6—8)7 Instead, Maxwell contends that she should be allowed to conduct a fishing expedition in the hopes of finding some other document that might undermine the unambiguous language of NES's Operating Agreement. That is not the law. + +As Maxwell acknowledges, courts deciding a motion to dismiss may consider "items of unquestioned authenticity that are referred to in the challenged pleading and are integral to the pleader's claim for relief." (Opposition at 11 n.7.) Put another way, this Court is free to consider "documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleadings." Groff v. Cane Bay Partners VI, LLLP, No. SX-15-CV-127, 2017 WL 2709832, at •1-2 (V.1. Super. Ct. June 20, 2017). "The reasoning underlying this approach is particularly sound where the exhibit being considered is the very document forming the basis of a plaintiff's complaint." Id. at • 1.8 + +of the estate, rather than the estate itself, as a party."). This principle is reflected in 15 V.1.C. § 606 ("Commencement of action against executor or administrator"). While Maxwell cites cases in which an estate has been named as a defendant, there is no indication that the status of the estate as a entity with the capacity to be sued was at issue in any of those proceedings. The Court should decline Maxwell's invitation to create law recognizing an estate as a separate legal entity here. + +- 7. The NES Operating Agreement also forbids indemnification for "fraud, gross negligence, or reckless or intentional misconduct." (NES Operating Agreement, attached as Exhibit C to the Motion to Dismiss, § VI.B.1.) +- 8. As discussed in the Co-Executors' opening brief (Motion to Dismiss at 6-7 & n.7), the "incorporation by reference" doctrine "permits a court to review the actual document referenced in the complaint 'to ensure that the plaintiff has not misrepresented its contents and that any inference the plaintiff seeks to have drawn is a reasonable one' . . . [and] 'limits the ability of the plaintiff to take language out of context?" Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. v. Daniel, No. SX-05-CV- 165, 2020 WL 1819622, at •8 (V.1. Super. Ct. Apr. 8, 2020) (quoting Amalgamated Bank v. Yahoo! Inc., 132 A.3d 752, 797 (Del. Ch. 2016), overruled in part on other grounds by Tiger v. Boast Apparel, Inc., 214 A.3d 933, 939 (Del. 2019)). "Without the ability to consider the document at issue in its entirety, complaints that quoted + +Here, Maxwell does not contest the authenticity of the NES Operating Agreement attached to the Co-Executors' Motion to Dismiss.9 And the NES Operating Agreement is "integral" to Maxwell's claim that she is entitled to mandatory indemnification and the advancement of fees and a myriad of other costs due to the "corporate organizational documents for NES." (Compl. 1 47.) Under applicable New York law, I° "[t]he operating agreement is the primary governing instrument for" a New York LLC, and must contain "any provision not inconsistent with law or its articles of organization relating to (i) the business of the LLC, (ii) the conduct of its affairs and (iii) the rights, powers, preferences, limitations or responsibilities of its members, managers, employees or agents." N.Y. Limit. Liab. Co. Ch. 34, Refs & Annos § 5.1. In other words, Maxwell's claim for contractual indemnification is based on her allegations about the contents of NES's corporate organization documents and, under New York law, the NES Operating Agreement is NES's corporate organization document. See Groff, 2017 WL 2709832, at \*1-2 (in a case asserting claims for breach of an employment agreement and breach of the implied covenant + +only selected and misleading portions of such documents could not be dismissed under Rule I2(b)(6) even though they would be doomed to failure." Id. In addition, the Court may consider "a document attached to a motion to dismiss ... if the attached document is: "(1) central to the Plaintiff's claim; and (2) undisputed." Id. (quoting Ackah v. Hershey Foods Corp., 236 F. Supp. 2d 440, 443 (M.D. Pa. 2002)). That is the case here. + +- 9. While Maxwell argues that the Court cannot consider the NES Operating Agreement because "[t]he operative operating agreements are not in her possession," there is no legal or factual basis to believe that an earlier, different version of the NES Operating Agreement even existed. (Tellingly, the language of the NES Operating Agreement does not reference or purport to amend any prior operating agreements.) Maxwell cites no support for the proposition that she can allege, upon information and belief, what she believes a purported previous operating agreement may say and then defeat the Co-Executors' Motion to Dismiss based on the NES Operating Agreement by simply claiming that she does not have that supposed earlier document. +- 10. NES is a New York limited liability company governed by New York law. (See Complaint p. 1 (identifying NES as a "New York Limited Liability Company"); Operating Agreement §§ I, VIII.E.) + +of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the original offer letter and form employment contract can be considered on motion to dismiss). + +To the extent that Maxwell now argues that her claim for indemnification from NES is based on an implied or unwritten corporate obligation that she might find evidence of, if only she were allowed to rummage through NES's files, this argument is barred by the New York Statute of Frauds. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-701(a)(2) (requiring an agreement to be in writing if "by its terms is not to be performed within one year of the making thereof or the performance of which is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime" or it "[i]s a special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person")." Such an argument is also barred by the Virgin Islands Statute of Frauds. 28 V.I.C. § 244 (2019) (voiding any unwritten agreement that (1) "by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof" or (2) constitutes "[a] special promise to answer for the debt, default, or misdoings of another person"); see, e.g., Guye v. Lutheran Soc. Servs. of the Virgin Islands, Inc., No. SX-10-CV-119, 2011 WL 13116070, at \*3- 4 (V.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss claim for the alleged breach of an employment agreement pursuant to the Virgin Islands Statute of Frauds where plaintiff did not assert the existence of a valid, written agreement); Arawak Foods, Inc. v. Lawaetz, No. 764/1983, 1985 WL 1264047, at \*3 (Terr. V.I. Feb. 21, 1985) (letter stating that defendant personally + +{sup}`11.` New York limited liability companies without written operating agreements apply the default provisions set forth in New York statutes, which permit—but do not require—a company to choose to indemnify employees under certain circumstances. See, e.g., In re Eight of Swords, LLC, 96 A.D.3d 839, 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (when no written operating agreement exists, the LLC is subject to the "numerous sections in the [Limited Liability Company Law] that set forth default provisions applicable to the limited liability company"); N.Y. Limit. Liab. Co. § 420. + +guaranteed that a corporation's debt would be paid found insufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds). 12 + +Materials outside of the NES Operating Agreement likewise are insufficient to undermine the unambiguous language of that Agreement. See, e.g., Borriello v. Loconte, No. 503180/2013, 2014 WL 702172, at \*6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 24, 2014) (finding that, where operating agreement provided for indemnification but was silent on the issue of advancement of fees, LLC members could not vote to advance legal fees); N.Y. Limit. Liab. Co. Ch. 34, Refs & Annos § 5.2.2 (material outside of written operating agreement insufficient to find obligation in face of written operating agreement). Finally, Maxwell's assertions that there are "presumably" or "surely" earlier operating agreements of NES and that she "may" have rights pursuant to those agreements (Opposition at 9-10) are mere speculation—not even rising to the level of factual allegations insufficient to support her complaint. See, e.g., Brathwaite v. HD.V.I. Holding Co., Inc., No. ST-I6-CV-764, 2017 WL 2295123 at \*2 (V.I. Super. Ct. May 24, 2017) (a complaint must "adequately allgen facts that put an accused on notice of claims brought against it") (emphasis added). 13 + +{sup}`12.` To the extent that Maxwell's first cause of action is based on an alleged oral promise, it is likewise barred in its entirety by the Statute of Frauds. See, e.g., MacKay v. Paesano, 185 A.D.3d 915, 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) (where breach of contract action dismissed based on Statute of Frauds, promissory estoppel claim also correctly dismissed as an impermissible attempt to circumvent the Statute of Frauds). + +{sup}`13.` Maxwell does not respond to that portion of the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss Count Three of her Complaint to the extent it seeks contractual indemnification from "other entities" not named as defendants. (Motion to Dismiss at 8 n.8.) As the Complaint fails to allege the necessary elements of a claim for contractual indemnification against these additional entities, the Court should dismiss Count Three as against them. + +### B. In the Alternative, the Court Should Convert this Motion to a Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismiss Maxwell's Claim Against NES. + +To the extent that the Court concludes that it may not consider the NES Operating Agreement on this motion to dismiss, the Court should convert this proceeding to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(d) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Stanley v. Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections, No. ST-16-MC-075, 2020 WL 1639902, at \*5 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 1, 2020) (holding that the notice requirement of Rule 12(d) was satisfied where moving party attached material outside of pleadings, opposing party noted that it was outside of pleadings and that, in consideration thereof, the Cout would convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, and opponent received additional time to respond in order to provide contrary factual materials). "[W]hen considering a motion for summary judgment, a trial judge can consider material outside the pleadings, including affidavits, responses to discovery, and other evidence to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact." Racz v. Cheetham, ST-17-CV-461, 2019 WL 7985359, at \*2 (V.I. Super. Ct. Nov. 21, 2019) (granting summary judgment). + +Summary judgment is appropriate where, as here, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." V.I. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a). Once the party moving for summary judgment has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact, "the responding party must introduce some evidence showing a genuine issue for trial. To carry this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on its allegations alone, but must present actual evidence, amounting to more than a scintilla, in support of its position." v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority, 67 V.I. 727, 742 (V.I. 2017) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). While the nonmovant may show "by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition," V.I. R. Civ. Proc. 56(d), + +it cannot require additional discovery without showing that "the facts sought exist." Family Home and Finance Center, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Morig. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming grant of summary judgment despite nonmovant's argument that discovery was needed to oppose); see also, e.g., Carney v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 813 (2d Cir. 1994) (affirming grant of summary judgment where nonmovant merely speculated about evidence that could be adduced in discovery). + +As discussed above and in the Motion to Dismiss, the language of the NES Operating Agreement unambiguously demonstrates that NES has no obligation to indemnify Maxwell or advance her fees and expenses. (See Motion to Dismiss at 6-9 & Ex. C.) Even if Maxwell could adduce evidence of an implied agreement or oral promise for indemnification, such an agreement or promise could not give rise to an enforceable indemnification obligation. (Supra § ILA.) And while Maxwell speculates (again, without basis in law or fact) that there are "presumably" earlier operating agreements of NES and that she "may" have rights pursuant to those hypothetical agreements (Opposition at 9-10), such speculation—which does not even rise to the level of a factual allegation sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss—is insufficient to meet Maxwell's burden here. Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists and Maxwell offers nothing more than her mere hope that discovery could possibly reveal something that might support her claim, the Court should dismiss Maxwell's claim against NES. + +# III. CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth herein and in the Co-Executors' Motion to Dismiss, the Court should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.14 + +{sup}`14.` In recent briefing on its motion to intervene in this action, the Government of the Virgin Islands asserts that, where Maxwell's claims for indemnification are concerned, "the Epstein Estate and its Co- + +Respectfully, + +Dated: September 28, 2020 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ. WILLIAM L. BLUM, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. 966 266 136, 1221 & R2019 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com aheymann@solblum.com wblum@solblum.com sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 28'h day of September 2020, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VIJEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4'h Floor Miami, FL 33156 lovaldner®qpwblaw.com /s/ Kroblin + +Executors clearly arc inadequate to represent the Government's interest in preserving Estate Funds . . . ," bizarrely accepting as gospel truth Maxwell's allegation that one of the Co-Executors orally agreed to indemnify her. (Gov't of the U.S. Virgin Islands' Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene, dated September 22, 2020, at 4 (emphasis in original).) That is nonsense: as the Court is well aware, the Co-Executors refused to indemnify Maxwell. Maxwell brought this action seeking to obtain indemnification; by this Motion, the Co-Executors seek to dismiss Maxwell's claims for indemnification in their entirety. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822306/EFTA02822306.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822306/EFTA02822306.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73f470c59dd8f2da2e15194721aa309ad64865a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822306/EFTA02822306.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -36, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822306", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "24f0b6deb98484b9e31aa05a4be5286b3c3fee573af789e298b31b3bad2e26ab", + "output_sha256": "711bcc0d0f1864d871a6a640d3638061a6fae3ab426caf0f00adacdc00fc08c2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822319/EFTA02822319.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822319/EFTA02822319.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b1897978747f99fc7969a6472cf369b1246285b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822319/EFTA02822319.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +**FILED** +February 11, 2021 +ST-2020-CV-00155 +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS** +District of St. [REDACTED] /St. John + +**GHISLAINE MAXWELL,** +**Plaintiff** + +v. + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 +Action: Debt + +**ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN et al,** +**Defendant.** + +**NOTICE of ENTRY** +**of** +**AN ORDER** + +To: Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. + +Hon.Judge Harold W.L. Willocks + + + +Please take notice that on February 11, 2021 + +a(n) \_\_\_\_\_ + +**ORDER** + +dated FEBRUARY 11, 2021 was/were entered +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: February 11, 2021 + +Tamara Charles +Clerk of the Court + +By: + +**Donna Donovan** +Court Clerk Supervisor \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822319/EFTA02822319.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822319/EFTA02822319.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28503703959eb7ef160d85b2fa51c6e337bff11a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822319/EFTA02822319.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -183, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822319", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bbefdb61ca37f37900dfe06c3a86845257e65fd9ecba94d39b1c83d34862a636", + "output_sha256": "cbccb3202e4085602d5ff121b7b0095cfc8f4a15972460e00f8c35e967f93f45", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822320/EFTA02822320.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822320/EFTA02822320.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5208abd66597feab94d453019dcae764547988d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822320/EFTA02822320.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## FILED + +February 11, 2021 5T-2020-CV-QOM TAMARA CHARLES CI.ERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. fl AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, A New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CASE NO. ST-20-CV-155 + +## ORDER + +THE COURT, sua sponte, and the premises having been considered, it is hereby + +ORDERED that, pursuant to V.I.R. Civ. P. 92(e)(1), this matter is forwarded to the + +Complex Division to consider and determine whether this case should be treated as complex. + +ORDERED that copies of this order shall be distributed to the Presiding Judge and counsel + +of record. + +DATED: February 11, 2021 + +ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Cler oft Court + +BY: + +D I NA DONO AN Curt Clerk Supervisor Ju M. Tejo rior Court e Virgin Islands \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822320/EFTA02822320.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822320/EFTA02822320.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ece067c07872d722b48361bb60a09c68412d0e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822320/EFTA02822320.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822320", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "37140801c6f389888eaab0ca6edc143406d1c667ab26f708a77e6abab61ea0f3", + "output_sha256": "37140801c6f389888eaab0ca6edc143406d1c667ab26f708a77e6abab61ea0f3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822321/EFTA02822321.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822321/EFTA02822321.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15e170ff9d32131d09487c71e449a0df35fefa47 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822321/EFTA02822321.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +FILED + +March 11. 2021 + +ST-20,10-Cv-0011,1, + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CI1RK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. St. John + +GHISIAINE MAXWELL, Plaintiff, + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, et al., Defendants. + +To: + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 Action: Debt + +## NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +K le R. Waldner, Esq. + +A. Kroblin, Esq. + +Ariel M. , Esq., AAG + +Please take notice that on March 17, 2021 + +a(n) ORDER + +dated March 17, 2021 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: March 17, 2021 + +By: + +Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court + +Cheryl Court Clerk DI \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822321/EFTA02822321.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822321/EFTA02822321.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f77d5cf389c21a21f75602bdb98f41c29829d2ff --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822321/EFTA02822321.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822321", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9663f3ecf0c49ffdc792479702549f2b345a561074faa1f62495069a39f96a52", + "output_sha256": "9663f3ecf0c49ffdc792479702549f2b345a561074faa1f62495069a39f96a52", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822322/EFTA02822322.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822322/EFTA02822322.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..475de064520c7c7234890329ca2b63e30b5c424a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822322/EFTA02822322.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +March 17, 2021 + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +## SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF St / St JOHN + +Case No. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +PLAINTIFF, Action for Indemnification + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; AND NES, LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, + +DEFENDANTS. + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER was referred, sua spume, by Order dated and entered February II, 2021, to determine whether the case should be treated as complex. The Court issues this Order to set a briefing schedule for the parties to follow in addressing that question. Additionally, upon reviewing the case, the Court notes that the Government of the Virgin Islands ("Government") moved to intervene. Assuming, for purposes of this determination only, that the motion would be granted, the Court will allow the Government to be heard as to whether complex treatment is appropriate. The Court takes judicial notice that a similar order was entered on March 12, 2021, in Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014, Goventment of the Virgin Islands r. Dart-en K. hidyke, e at, setting a briefing schedule for the parties to follow as to whether that case should be designated as complex. Considering that the Co-Executors are parties in both cases, and in the related probate matter, and further that the Co-Executors filed the motion in Case No. ST-2020- CV-00014 to designate it as complex, the Court will direct them to respond first, whether in support or in opposition to complex treatment, followed by Plaintiff Ghislane Maxwell and the Government. Further + +**ORDER** + + + +response by the Co-Executors will only be permitted on motion showing cause but should be accompanied by the proposed surresponse, if any. + +Accordingly, it is hereby + +**ORDERED** that the Co-Executors **MAY SERVE** and **FILE** a response in writing **within ten (10) days** from the date of entry of this Order addressing whether this case should be designated as complex and/or assigned to the same judge as Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014 to avoid delay and inconsistent rulings. Plaintiff Ghislane Maxwell and the Government of the Virgin Islands **MAY SERVE** and **FILE** a reply to the Co-Executors' response **within fifteen (15) days** from the date the Co-Executors file their response, if any, or if none, then **within fifteen (15) days** from when the response was due. It is further + +**ORDERED** that failure to file a response or reply will be construed as no objection to designating this case as complex or assigning it to the same judge as the other related cases. No extensions of time will be granted given the length of time that has already passed since the February 11, 2021 Order was entered without response from the current or prospective parties. Lastly, the Court will make its decision based on the papers without oral argument. + +A copy of this Order shall be served on Kyle R. Waldner, Esq., [REDACTED] Kroblin, Esq., and Assistant Attorney General Ariel M. [REDACTED], Esq. + +**DONE and so ORDERED this 17{sup}`th` day of March, 2021.** + +**HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS +Presiding Judge of the Superior Court** + +**ATTEST:** +TAMARA CHARLES +Clerk of the Court + diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822322/EFTA02822322.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822322/EFTA02822322.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4932c4567e1202e2779563b7e0198299edc045df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822322/EFTA02822322.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -25, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822322", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "59f9b7c7aae773abff280cae5635c5306ae1b8b57db4fd9dbd6be83f5ede34e5", + "output_sha256": "877fe707e08b66fe1db51400511a10bfb6beedbc72c4b9e25f4912b4af85c8a3", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822324/EFTA02822324.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822324/EFTA02822324.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..847dcf37832fa3ee11b85c431105f2907d380b70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822324/EFTA02822324.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +Hatch 29, 2021 + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DISTRICT OF ST. & ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +CIVIL NO. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +) ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN) K. INDYICE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF ) THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as ) EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY ) E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York ) Limited Rabin() Company, ) ) Delcodams. ) ) + +## BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT'S MARCH 17, 2021 ORDER + +COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, and hereby submit this brief pursuant to the Court's March 17, 2021 Order. + +#### DISCUSSION + +The Court's March 17, 2021 Order requests that the Estate address whether this case should be: (i) designated as complex, and (ii) assigned to the same judge as Case No. ST-2020- CV-00014 to avoid delay or inconsistent rulings. + +The Court should not designate this matter complex. A "complex" case "requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel." V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(a). This is not such a case. Rather, it is a simple, one (1) issue dispute—whether Maxwell is entitled to indemnification of legal fees. Moreover, the Rule 92(c) factors do not weigh in favor of complex designation: the action + +does not involve a large number of parties, claims, or claimants; the case does not require special expertise or case processing by the Complex Litigation Division judge or staff; and the case does not implicate the various potential efficiencies of coordinated proceedings. + +Nor would coordination of this matter with Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014 (the "CICO action") significantly advance judicial efficiency. As noted above, this matter is a simple one, based on a nine (9) page complaint asserting three (3) indemnification claims and seeking as its sole remedy indemnification of legal fees and costs. The pending motion to dismiss in this matter raises two (2) arguments. By contrast, the Government's proposed Second Amended Complaint in the CICO action is seventy-six (76) pages long, asserts twenty-six (26) CICO claims, alleges a multi-decade long criminal enterprise, and seeks a laundry list of remedies, including forfeiture, divestiture, the dissolution of entities, injunctions, revocation of licenses, receivership, monetary penalties, and punitive damages. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint raises at least ten (10) separate legal issues, none of which overlap with the issues raised in the motion to dismiss in this matter. Given the distinct nature of the claims and legal issues presented in the two matters, there is little risk of inconsistent rulings should the cases remain assigned to different judges. Nor are there issues of delay in either matter that would be alleviated by coordination of both matters before a single judge. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth above, the Court should not designate this matter complex nor assign the case to the same judge assigned to the CICO action. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: March 29, 2021 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. .966 1 1221 & R2019 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen®kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of March 2021, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Brief in Response to Court's March 17, 2021 Order, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VIJEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, • Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4'b Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldner®qpwblaw.com + +Mel M. =, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +// Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822324/EFTA02822324.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822324/EFTA02822324.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d720bfe3661e3cae05d0f22de4fb7baf638f52ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822324/EFTA02822324.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822324", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "99929bb7d04b85f3e22cbff670328396d9a23db3c802c2e8e66adcd6ca76b9ee", + "output_sha256": "99929bb7d04b85f3e22cbff670328396d9a23db3c802c2e8e66adcd6ca76b9ee", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822327/EFTA02822327.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822327/EFTA02822327.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a56f4f22a7ce071d6805d0e8967ed9349a28dac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822327/EFTA02822327.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +## FILED + +April 02, 2021 + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +v. + + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. ) + +INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD ) + +D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, ) + +LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company ) + + +Defendants. ) + + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +COMES NOW, C. Rhea, Esq., of C. Rhea, P.C., and enters his appearance as counsel for Defendant Richard D. Kahn in his capacity as the Executor for the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and requests that copies of all further pleadings and filings be delivered to him at the address appearing below. + +Dated: April 2, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, + +A MI sabgu + +C. Rhea, Esq. + +VI Bar No. 220 + +C. Rhea, PC + +1533 Appling Dr. + +Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 + +340-2444058 + +grhea@rpwb.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 2, 2021, I filed the foregoing, which complies with the page and/or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's electronic filing system and selected the "eService" method to automatically serve the following individuals: + +K le Waldner, Esq. + +Kroblin, Esq. + +Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq. + +Carol Esq. + +Is! C. Rhea \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822327/EFTA02822327.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822327/EFTA02822327.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a24177998dba111e1113a4a716a089d5e189d693 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822327/EFTA02822327.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -6, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822327", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "f65b3b3514ccaf210d5f8111ec5168eb1e84112edc58d55a643d1b460320192a", + "output_sha256": "10385f2d6b11f050076f154efae58c0d33b416e89def69d416be558dd42940c0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822329/EFTA02822329.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822329/EFTA02822329.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6807bfb1d630c49a5080314dbf513eb838d1bee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822329/EFTA02822329.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +April 13, 2021 + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +Plaintiff, + +VS. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO CO-EXECUTORS' BRIEF PURSUANT TO MARCH 17, 2021 ORDER + +Plaintiff, GHISLAINE MAXWELL (hereinafter, "Plaintiff), pursuant to this Court's Order dated March 17, 2021, hereby files her reply to the brief filed on March 29, 2021 by Co-Executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (the "Co-Executors"). In short, Plaintiff agrees that the Court should not designate this matter complex or assign the case to the judge assigned to Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Darren K. Indyke, a at (the "CICO action"). + +First, this action for indemnification does not meet the Complex Litigation Division's assignment criteria. Plainly, this case does not "require[] exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel." V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(a). Nor does this action fit within any of the categories of "presumptively complex claims" established by V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(b). Plaintiff's claims do not involve a mass tort or toxic tort; do not involve a design defect; do not arise out of a natural disaster; are not a class action; and do not involve insurance claims arising out of multi-party proceedings. Further, none of the factors in V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(c)(1)—which all relate to mass tort fact patterns applies here. Finally, the factors enumerated in V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(c)(2) strongly weigh against assignment. Notably, as far as Plaintiff is aware, no judge is presently assigned to the Complex Litigation Division. Assigning this action to a division without a judge will only cause unreasonable delay and increase the burden on the judicial system and on the parties. See, e.g., Highland Credit Opportunities CDO, Ltd v.=-Freke, 2021 WL 1040502, \*6 (V.I. Super. Mar. 17, 2021) ("[D]esignating this case as complex now, when there is no judge assigned exclusively to the Complex Litigation Division at this moment, would be tantamount to staying the case.") There is also no apparent need for specialized expertise or case processing here, and no advantage to coordinating discovery or other procedures with any other action. + +Second, there is no reason to assign the case to the same judge assigned to the CICO action. Plaintiff is not a party to the CICO action. To Plaintiff's knowledge, there are no facts or claims in common between this action and the CICO action. Therefore, assignment of this case to the same judge handling the CICO action is not necessary to avoid delay or inconsistent rulings. + +## CONCLUSION + +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this case not be transferred to the Complex Litigation Division and that it remain with its presently assigned judge. + +Dated: April 13, 2021 + +Respectfully submitted, + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: Is/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldnereqpwblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 13, 2021, I filed the foregoing, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's electronic filing system, which will send a notice of such filing to the following: + +Kroblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate MI, Suite 101 St. , V.1.00802 ckroblin@kellfer.com + +Mel M. =, Esq. (AAG) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. , U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +MC. Rhea, Esq. C. RHEA, PC 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 grhea@rpwb.com + +Is/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822329/EFTA02822329.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822329/EFTA02822329.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d199ee796d30b348c86b07d4f0f3ad7dc106d54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822329/EFTA02822329.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822329", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4afa3da043cea3fa93a5e715f19067832ece7f9c04615f35d763f18f05aba8ba", + "output_sha256": "4afa3da043cea3fa93a5e715f19067832ece7f9c04615f35d763f18f05aba8ba", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822333/EFTA02822333.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822333/EFTA02822333.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdf8f493118bec912fc61dbfb989f873732e8290 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822333/EFTA02822333.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +Decerrber 07, 2021 35:23 Pm + +57-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +## CLERK OF THE COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. 1St. John + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, + +PLAINTIFF, + +V. + +DARREN K. INDYKE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST, Er AL., + +DEFENDANTS. + +GHISIAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ET AL., + +Defendants. + +IN RE: ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Deceased. + +## NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014 + +Action: Damages + +Case No. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Indemnification + +Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080 + +To: Hon. Kathleen Mackay C. Rhea Hon. Sigrid M. Tejo Kevin F. D'Amour Hon. Carolyn P. Hermon-Percell Christogher A. Kroblin B. Pate Linda Jill Douglas B. Chance Marlorie Beth Whalen Arid M. Richard Bourne-Vanneck John K. Dema Andrew Hemann + +Melody D. Westfall William L Blum A. Jeffrey Weiss + +Sean + +Boyle Kevin + +Benham H. John + +Glassman Robert + +N. Denise + +D'Andrade a Natal Shari Waldner R. Kyle + +Ballentine Simmonds Rosalie + +2021 07, December on that notice take Please ORDER a(n) + +entered was/were 2021 07, December dated + +matter. -titled above the in Clerk the by + +Charles Tamara 2021 08, December Dated: + +By: + +Court the of Clerk + +ov, + +Cheryl + +III Clerk Court \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822333/EFTA02822333.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822333/EFTA02822333.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1597e3b9264141a8ee66a37956503312c91f879 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822333/EFTA02822333.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822333", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "dfe9021409d5e6d27801886d85bd1e7875c7852d9cb28a185962d34dcf4bc3a2", + "output_sha256": "dfe9021409d5e6d27801886d85bd1e7875c7852d9cb28a185962d34dcf4bc3a2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822335/EFTA02822335.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822335/EFTA02822335.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23b4f28883a40420024a9c503209c9aa94b005fa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822335/EFTA02822335.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +## CLERK OF THE COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. / ST. JOHN + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, + +PLAINTIFF, + +v. + +DARRF.N K. INDYKE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; RICHARD D. KAHN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUS'T; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; POPLAR, INC.; SOUTHERN TRUST COMPANY, INC.; AND JOHN AND JANE DOES, + +DEFENDANTS. + +GHISLAINF. MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; AND NES, LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, + +Defendants. + +IN RE: ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +deceased. + +Case No. ST•2020-CV-00014 + +Action for Damages + +Jury Trial Demanded + +Case No. ST-2020-CV-00I55 + +Action for Indemnification + +Case No. ST•2019•PB.00080 + +## ORDER + +THESE MATTERS are before the Court to determine whether they should be designated as complex or, in the alternative, assigned to the same judge as related cases. For the reasons stated below, + +the Court will designate Government of the United S►ates **Virgin Islands v. Darren K. Indyke, et al.** (hereinafter "Ittdyke") as complex and assign the case to the undersigned judge for all further proceedings. The Court will also designate Ghislane Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at (hereinafter "Maxwell") as complex and reassign it to the undersigned for all further proceedings. Finally, the Court will decline to designate the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein probate proceeding as complex at this time. + +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and Administrators of the 1953 Trust (hereinafter "Co-Executors") and Defendants in Indyke and Maxwell, filed a motion in Indyke to have that case designated complex. The Plaintiff, Government of the United States Virgin Islands (hereinafter "the Government"), did not oppose. The Court (Tejo, J.) referred the motion to the Complex Litigation Division for determination.' This Court, in its administrative capacity, issued an Order, setting a briefing schedule. The Court also asked the parties to address whether the related probate proceeding, which the Co-Executors had referenced in their motion to designate Indyke as complex, should also be designated complex or, alternatively, whether the same judge should handle both cases. Leave was granted to identify other related cases that might benefit from being assigned to the same judge. The Co-Executors filed a supplemental brief in support of their motion, to which the Government responded. The Co-Executors also filed a reply. Defendant Southern Trust Company had appeared in Indyke (by filing a motion for a protective order) but did not respond as to whether the case should be designated as complex. None of the other Defendants have appeared to date, despite having been served. + +After the Order issued in Indyke, the Court (Tejo, J.) referred a second case, Ghislane Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, to determinate whether it, too, should be treated as complex. This Court, again in its administrative capacity, issued a briefing schedule and, as earlier, inquired whether, if Maxwell + +I The Honorable Sigrid M. Tejo then recused from Indyke. after which the Clerk's Office reassigned the case to the Honorable Denise M. Francois. who also recused. At present. Indyke is assigned to the Honorable Kathleen Mackay. + +was not designated complex, it should be assigned to the same judge as Indyke and the probate case. The Co-Executors, and the Plaintiff, Ghislane Maxwell (hereinafter "Ghislane"), filed briefs in response. Although the Government had filed a motion to intervene in Maxwell, the Government did not file a brief. + +The Court turns first to Indyke. In their supplemental brief, the Co-Executors gave little attention to the question asked, whether this case should be designated as complex. Instead, they focused on the related question whether the probate matter should be designated as complex or, alternatively, both cases assigned to the same judge. The Co-Executors did adequately address the criteria for designating Indyke as complex in their initial motion for complex treatment, however. Hence, the Court accepts their earlier arguments and finds no harm from omitting those points in their supplemental brief. The Government, by contrast, initially filed a one-page response to the Co-Executor's motion to state its non-opposition to designating this case as complex. a position the Government reiterated in its brief in response to the Co-Executor's supplemental brief. Although the Government did touch on why it believes this case should be designated as complex, it too devoted much of its brief to addressing whether the probate proceeding should be treated as complex or both matters assigned to the same judge. The Court will address the arguments for and against designating the probate case as complex further below. + +In short, both the Government and the Co-Executors agree that Indyke is complex and should be so designated. Considering that the parties are in agreement, and that litigants generally have the right to choose the division in which their case is heard, the Court concurs that Indyke should be designated as complex. More than the panics' agreement compels this conclusion, however. As the Co-Executors point out in their motion, "the number of defendants (10), the nature and number of the statutory claims (twentythree (23) CICO counts), the purported duration of the alleged criminal activity (more than two (2) decades), and the myriad financial transactions and tax matters at issue weigh substantially in favor of [complex treatment] . .. ." (Mot. 2, filed Feb. 1, 2021.) And, as the Government notes in its response, if + +its motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted, the number of parties and claims in lndyke will only expand. Although this case does not fit within any of the categories of presumptively complex cases, see V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(b), "a single case, unrelated to any other and regardless of the number of parties, can also be complex if it 'requires exceptional judicial management.' Highland Credit Opportunities CDO. Ltd. v.=-Freke, 74 V.1.275, 281 (Super. Ct. 2021) (quoting Sixteen Plus Corp. v. Yousef, 72 V.I. 610, 627 (Super. Ct. 2020)). Given the number of defendants, the type and nature of the claims, and the potential need to coordinate proceedings with other cases, both within and without this jurisdiction, it is clear that Indyke is complex and will be so designated. + +The Court turns next to Maxwell. Both the Co-Executors and Ghislane agree that the case is not complex. The Co-Executors note that Maxwell "is a simple, one (I) issue dispute—whether Maxwell is entitled to indemnification of legal fees." (Co-Executors' Br. I, filed Mar. 29, 2021.) The case does not fall within any of the presumptively complex categories, nor will it require exceptional judicial management, they contend. The Co-Executors also do not believe the case needs to be assigned to the same judge as Indyke or the probate case. However, they fail to explain why. Ghislane, for her part, concurs with the Co-Executors on both points: complex treatment is not warranted and there is no mason to assign this case to the same judge as lndyke or the probate, she says. + +Although the Court agrees, in general, with Ghislane and the Co-Executors that, at first glance, Maxwell does not appear to be complex, both sides neglected to mention (or intentionally omitted) that the Government has moved to intervene. In its motion, the Government maintains that Ghislane is the subject of a local investigation concerning her role in Epstein's alleged criminal activity and that she has evaded attempts to serve her with a CICO subpoena. What's more, the Government moved to intervene in Maxwell as of right and by permission, claiming an interest in the funds Ghislane seeks to cover legal fees and expenses. Ghislane opposed the Government's motion to intervene. The Co-Executors did not + +respond to it. But neither side noted the potential for the Government to be involved in Maxwell, should its motion be granted, which would transform "a simple one (1) issue dispute" into a much more complicated case. Both sides' failure to reference this development undermines their purported certainty as to the simplicity of the case. + +What's more, Ghislane and the Co-Executors fail to recognize that Maxwell could be seen as presumptively complex once Intlyke is designated as complex. Cf. V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(b). Although the language of Rule 92(bX6) speaks of "insurance coverage claims (including indemnification and contribution claims) arising out of multi-party proceedings in any of the above categories of cases," id., meaning the other category of presumptively-complex cases, the overall intent of the rule is to allow for "satellite litigation" involving insurance coverage issues to also be designated as complex. Accord Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Century Indem. Co., Case No. 115CV286500, 2016 Cal. Super. LEXIS 273, \*2-3 (Cal. Santa Clara Cty Super. Ct. Mar. 23, 2016) ("Insurance coverage cases ... are complex in part because of the complexity of the underlying actions from which they arise. . . . (Clomplex cases often generate satellite litigation dealing with insurance coverage issues, which involve extremely complex sets of documents and facts." (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). It would be counterintuitive to allow a single case to be designated as complex—because it requires exceptional judicial management—but not designate any satellite litigation later spawned by that same case as complex. + +At first glance, Maxwell does not appear to be satellite litigation generated by Indyke — because Ghislane is not a party to Indyke, at least not yet. But the Government has disclosed that Ghislane is the subject of an investigation and the target of subpoenas issued in Indyke and Ghislane seeks indemnification in Maxwell for "any threatened, pending, or completed suit, proceeding, or investigation relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims." (Compl. I, filed Mar. 12, 2020, filed Mar. 12, + +2020.) Since Ghislane seeks payment for legal fees incurred due to pending investigations and threatened suits, it follows that a portion the indemnification claims at issue in Maxwell arise out of lndyke. Thus, the Court will likewise designate Maxwell as complex as an indemnification case arising out of lndyke. See V.I. R. Civ. P. 96(b)(6). Cf. Santa Clam Valley Water Dist., 2016 Cal. Super. LEXIS 273 at \*4 ("The insurance coverage claims in this action are likely to implicate difficult and/or novel legal issues that will require extensive pretrial motions. Some of these issues could potentially be dispositive, and the Court and the parties may benefit significantly from the procedures available through complex case management. such as framing discrete legal issues for resolution, phasing discovery, and perhaps undertaking mini-trials on threshold issues."). + +The Court turns next to the Epstein probate. The Government supports designating the probate case as complex. The Co-Executors oppose it. As a threshold point, the Court notes that probate proceedings can be designated as complex. See V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(a) ("A complex case is a civil action or proceeding ...." (emphasis added)). Thus, the Epstein probate is eligible for complex treatment. A probate case would never qualify as presumptively complex, however. Instead, it would have to warrant "exceptional judicial management]" V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(a). Considering that Co-Executors themselves refer to the estate as being "of ... enormous size and complexity[,]" (Supp. Br. 3), involving "a welter of activity related to administration[,]" id. at 2, and potentially remaining in existence for "years down the road[,]" (Reply Br. 3, filed Apr. 6,2021)— it certainly seems as if the Epstein probate qualifies as complex. + +In fact, the magistrate judge appointed a special to assist with the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund, which underscores the exceptional judicial management the probate proceeding has already demanded. See also V.I. R. Civ. P. 95 ("Because complex cases inherently present exceptional circumstances, the judge assigned to the Complex Litigation Division may appoint and assign a to assist with any of the cases pending in the Complex Litigation Division, whether individual cases, related + +cases, or case[s] . . . . ); accord In re: Authorization for the Creation & Appointment of Staff + +S. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2021-0012, 2021 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 14 (V.I. Aug. 12, 2021). Of course, this is not to say that any case in which a is appointed is per se complex. But the question here is whether "an estate of this enormous size and complexity[,]" (Supp. Br. 3), has already consumed (or will consume) too large a portion of judicial resources in contrast with other cases and proceedings pending before the same judicial officer. After all, the definition of "[a] complex case is a civil action or proceeding that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel." V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(a). The Complex Litigation Division has additional resources not available to other divisions of the court. + +The Co-Executors proffer the probate should not be designated complex because the magistrate judge has "adeptly handled the many challenges associated with administration of the Estate, including the establishment and successful operations of the EVCP [or Epstein Victims' Compensation Program]." (Supp. Br. 5, filed Mar. 19, 2021: see also id. at 1-2 ("[D]uring the 19 months that Judge Hermon-Percell has handled the probate proceedings, she has presided over a continuous stream of case filings, hearings and other activities, and has an in-depth knowledge of the myriad issues pertaining to administration of this complex Estate."); id. at 3 (detailing extensive proceedings between 2019 and 2021).) The Court joins the Co-Executors in lauding the magistrate judge's efforts to date. But this Court, in its administrative capacity, must also be mindful of caseloads and efficient case management. See 4 V.I.C. § 72b(a) ("[The presiding judge] shall from time to time designate the judges who are to sit in each judicial division and divide the business in such manner as will secure the prompt dispatch of the business of the court and equalize the case loads of the several judges . .. ."). What's more, the very same point the Co-Executors make might now support complex designation since the magistrate judge has retired. Thus, even if the + +probate case is not designated as complex, a new judge will be assigned and have to familiarize herself or himself with the case, which will have the same effect as "removing the one judge who has both historical and ongoing knowledge of the probate proceeding . . . ." (Reply Br. 2, filed Apr. 6, 2021.) Thus, the arguments in favor of leaving the status quo in place no longer carry the same weight. + +That said, the Court cannot overlook the Co-Executors' concerns about requests to designate cases as complex masquerading as attempts at "judge shopping." Cf. la-Freke. 74 V.I. at 285 (noting that the motion for complex treatment was untimely and came after assigned judge had twice ruled against the movant). Here, the party who motioned for complex treatment opposes treating the probate matter as complex. It was the Court who asked the parties to consider whether the probate case should be among all the "Epstein cases" to be assigned or reassigned to the same judge. Thus, this is not an instance where the party seeking complex treatment did so in order to "seek() a new audience . . ." (Reply Br. 4.) But the Co-Executors' concerns are still valid insofar as they relate to the Government's support for designating the probate as complex when viewed against the larger backdrop, namely the authority the Government has wielded over the Estate's assets, freezing most of the assets pursuant to Criminal Activity Lien Notices authorized by Title 14, Section 610 of the Virgin Islands Code. The record also reflects that the Probate Court and the Government have been at loggerheads at times. The Government's request to have the probate case designated as complex could give reason to pause. Again, however, the magistrate judge has retired and thus, the Co-Executors' concerns lack the force they once had.' + +{sup}`2` To be fair. the Co-Executors could also be seen as "seeklight new audience[.]" (Reply Br. 3). insofar as they suggested that the Government should consent to having the magistrate judge assigned to the Estate probate try htdyke by consent. Cf. 4 V.I.C. I23(d) ("Upon consent of the parties, the magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a jury or non-jury civil matter. including trial and enter a judgment in the case."). The Co-Executors only made this suggestion after this Court questioned whether the probate should be designated as complex or reassigned to the same judge as Indyke if that case, ultimately, were designated complex. + +Having considered the arguments of the Co-Executors and the Government, the Court cannot find at this time that the probate should be designated as complex. Again, probate cases can meet the definition of a complex case and, if ever there were a probate case that could be deemed complex, the Epstein probate case may be it. But the magistrate judge who was assigned to the probate has handled it well and the Court trusts that her successor will too. What's more, the judicial officer who will take over the probate case retains the discretion to refer it for complex treatment at a later date. Cf. M-Freke, 74 V.I. at 283-84 ("Referral by the assigned judge or self-designation by the parties are the two ways in which a case is designated complex. Referral by the assigned judge does not have a time limit." (citing V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(e)(1))). + +Similarly, the Court does not find that assigning the probate case to the same judge presiding over Maxwell and lndyke is appropriate here. "[A]ssigning related cases to different judicial officers is inefficient, wasteful of scarce judicial resources, and may result in inconsistent determinations . . ."Dt re: Procedure for the Assignment & Reassignment of Related Cases & Proceedings, No. SX-2020-MC-00087, 2020 V.I. LEXIS 75, \*I (V.1. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2020).1B1y contrast, 'assigning related cases to the same judge can be more efficient because the judge has knowledge of both cases and their respective procedural histories and can issue any other orders short of formal consolidation to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.— Id. at \*1-2 (brackets and ellipses omitted) (quoting In re: Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos Litig. Series, 69 V.I. 394, 422 (V.1. Super. Ct. 2018)). "Civil cases are deemed related when two or more lawsuits: (I) concern the same property (real or personal); or (2) involve the same or similar claim(s) between one or more of the same parties (or their successors-in-interest) that arises out of the same event, transaction, or contract." Id. at \*2 (promulgation as Super. Ct. R. 17.1 pending). + +Under this definition, Indyke and Maxwell are clearly related. Both cases concern the same property (Estate assets) and arising out of Epstein's alleged criminal activity. Moreover, the Co-Executors + +moved to dismiss Indyke and Maxwell partly for the same reasons — because the Government and Ghislane, respectively, did not comply with the statutory waiting period before asserting claims against the Estate and further failed to submit their claims to the Co-Executors before bringing suit. Having different judges decide this same legal question would be inefficient and might result in inconsistent decisions, thereby increasing cost and delay. Contra V.I. R. Civ. P I. In truth, however, all three cases—Indyke, Maxwell, and the Epstein probate—do orbit the same axis: the assets of the Estate. That is, all three cases concern the same issue: "Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") and his affiliated businesses[,]" (Comp1.1 I, Maxwell), the distribution of his assets and the assets of his affiliated businesses, and the claims and demands upon them. + +In one respect the Court does agree with the Co-Executors, that "probate proceedings do not [necessarily] share the same civil litigation features (as regular civil actions]. and thus do not easily lend themselves to . coordination . (Supp. Br. 5 n.2.). Unlike mass tort actions or multiple toxic torts cases involving the same defendants, or even regular civil cases, there will be little overlap between htdyke and Maxwell and the Epstein probate case — at least insofar as discovery, motion practice, and general pretrial litigation is concerned. The Court does not agree, however, that coordination would "have only limited benefits." id. In fact, the overlapping legal questions—and potential for inconsistent rulings—has been a source of concern for the Court. For example, the Co-Executors contend that the Government and Ghislane each should have waited twelve months before asserting claims against the Estate and further that the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction over their claims. For these reasons, among others, the Co-Executors moved to dismiss each case. Assuming, arguendo, that the judges assigned to Maxwell and Indyke were to agree and dismissed the cases—or stay them pending the filing of a claim in the probate case—the magistrate judge could still rule differently, rejecting the claims as premature or improper, which would leave the Government and Ghislane in legal limbo —forced to incur the costs of an appeal. There certainly are overlapping legal and factual issues between all three cases and any assertion to the contrary, or that coordination of all three cases before the same judge would not be more efficient, is mistaken. + +In the end, however, the Court will decline to reassign the probate case as a related case for one simple mason: the balance of caseloads and efficient case management. The Court has decided to designate Maxwell and Indyke as complex and assign them both to itself in furtherance of an earlier decision to share some of the caseload of the Complex Litigation Division. This Court still retains, however, an active general jurisdiction docket of regular civil and criminal cases, as well as an Appellate Division docket of magistrate appeals and appeals and petitions for writs or review of administrative agency decisions. To take on a complicated probate case, which may continue for years, with a special appointed, and hearings and other protracted issues that have sometimes consumed a full day on the bench — the drain on this Court's other cases might be too much. For this reason, the Court will decline to deem the probate case related. + +Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby + +ORDERED that the Motion for Complex Treatment filed by Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn on February I, 2021, in Government of site Virgin Islands v. Darren K. hzdyke, et at, Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014, is GRANTED. The Clerk's Office shall DESIGNATE Case No. ST-2020- CV-00014 as COMPLEX and REASSIGN it to the docket of the undersigned judge. Venue remains in the St. / St. John Division. It is further + +ORDERED that the Clerk's Office shall DESIGNATE Ghislane Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, Case No. ST-2020-CV-00155 as COMPLEX and REASSIGN it to the docket of the undersigned judge. Venue remains in the St. / St. John Division. It is further + +ORDERED that Government of the Virgin Islands v. Darren K. Indyke, et at, Case No. ST-2020- CV-00014, and Ghislane Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, Case No. ST-2020-CV-00155, are DEEMED RELATED so that proceedings short of formal consolidation may be coordinated between the two cases. It is further + +ORDERED that In re: Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. ST-20 I948-00080 remains assigned to the magistrate judge and any request (insofar as it could be viewed as such) to designate the probate case as complex or to assign it to the same judge as Government of the Virgin Islands v. Darren K. Indyke, a al., Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014, as a related case is DENIED without prejudice. + +DONE and so ORDERED this 4 :k.h day of December, 2021. + +C id ) VelA t HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS + +ATTEST: Presiding Judge of the Superior Court + +Tamara Charles + +Clerk of the Court + +By: L. -?' ,7" + +Court Cler Dated: ir.V7/.2e, z \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822335/EFTA02822335.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822335/EFTA02822335.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7ea9f18fd1ecb77f31ae1c9e434e387a20064fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822335/EFTA02822335.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -4, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822335", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "48be36504461d93579582c8119883e299a9445562c2dbeacaf2926305bb8a320", + "output_sha256": "82ed71b6c8e5607ce6de17940831facb84ac5e0e164e923a5440a48b2118fd96", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822347/EFTA02822347.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822347/EFTA02822347.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd3b8ddae91d7ad920b7c1af46611f1c700711d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822347/EFTA02822347.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +FILED + +February 22, 2022 07:35 PM + +5T-2 02 0 -CV-0 0155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. 'St. John + +Ghislaine Maxwell, Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Plaintiff, ction: Debt + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN I. + +INDYKE in his capacity as EXECUTOR of THE + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. + +KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES + +IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a + +New York limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +To: K le R. Waldner, Es + +A. Kroblin Es + +Linda J. + +Ariel M. + +Carol L. + +C. Rhea Es•. + +## NOTICE of ENTRY + +of + +## ORDER + +Please take notice that on February 22, 2022 + +## a(n) ORDER + +dated February 22, 2022 was/were entered + +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: February 22, 2022 + +By: + +Tamara Charles + +Clerk of the Court + +t + +Cheryl + +Court Clerk HI \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822347/EFTA02822347.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822347/EFTA02822347.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ab3615a93adc105cb44211cf903108befc0d688 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822347/EFTA02822347.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822347", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e8b24df7a2c2df1a246c8ecf7e03a46ece153f9fc8f28d7915af1c0c4d8567dc", + "output_sha256": "e8b24df7a2c2df1a246c8ecf7e03a46ece153f9fc8f28d7915af1c0c4d8567dc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822348/EFTA02822348.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822348/EFTA02822348.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20e576a5c5ae3df7a4368de3672270cfe79dfd44 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822348/EFTA02822348.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +February 22, 2022 07:32 PM + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +**SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] / ST. JOHN** + +**GHISLAINE MAXWELL,** + +**Case No. ST-2020-CV-00155** + +**PLAINTIFF,** + +**Action for Indemnification** + +**v.** + +**ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; +DARREN [REDACTED]. INDYKE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS +EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY +E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, IN HIS +CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; AND NES, LLC, A +NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,** + +**DEFENDANTS.** + +**ORDER** + +**THIS MATTER** is before the Court for review *sua sponte*. It is hereby + +**ORDERED** that a Status Conference shall take place on March 9, 2022, at 9AM, via zoom. + +**DONE and so ORDERED this 22{sup}`nd` day of February, 2022.** + +**ATTEST:** + +Tamara Charles, +Clerk of the Court + +By: + +Dated: + +2/22/2022 + +Harold W.L. Willocks +Presiding Judge of the Superior Court \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822348/EFTA02822348.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822348/EFTA02822348.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c317c70a7e04be45138ea0c99a93bacb36832671 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822348/EFTA02822348.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -14, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822348", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 3, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "8c8d5eac40b2c1530633e32a3e1f473155794172ef28f4dfbf720e3fd34e5606", + "output_sha256": "cdbef868c26a867837ece1bcc58049ebaff9f866cc654feb44033664bb629fff", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822349/EFTA02822349.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822349/EFTA02822349.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d912e7a334093081d1f2f779a5ba8cc65c7c16e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822349/EFTA02822349.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Such 09, 2022 12:01 PM + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +v. + +## RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. 'St. John + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Plaintiff, Action: Debt + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN INDYKE in his capacity as EXECUTOR of THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York limited Liability Company, Defendants. + +Type of Case: Civil ❑Domestic Relations ❑Small Claims ❑Probate + +Date of Hearing: March 09, 2022 + +Plaintiff Appeared: ❑Yes ONo Defendant Appeared: ❑Yes ONo + +Witness Sworn: ❑Yes ❑No Defendant Acknowledged Debt: ❑Yes ❑No + +ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Kyle IL Waldner, Esq. a A. Kroblin, Esq. + +WITNESS FOR PLAINTIFF WITNESS FOR DEFENDANT + +## Clerk Notes + +This matter came before the Court for a Status Hearing. The Court inquired of the parties who were the attorneys on the case and informed them to file a notice of appearance if they have not done so. Further, the Court gave the parties until August 1, 2022, to file their briefs. + +Commenced: 09:00 AM Judge Presiding: Hon. Harold W.L. Willocks + +Adjourned: 10:08 AM Court Reporter: Sandra ME + +By: + +Cheryl Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822349/EFTA02822349.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822349/EFTA02822349.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b97373aad0a868ed07a9213fc95060cc68defc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822349/EFTA02822349.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822349", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "427884c653fbe68d0c119757c01b04504e22e0908c0af67f4ea87fa09d210f68", + "output_sha256": "427884c653fbe68d0c119757c01b04504e22e0908c0af67f4ea87fa09d210f68", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822350/EFTA02822350.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822350/EFTA02822350.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87b30c047b6547a62229fab5b8e882a253ba46c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822350/EFTA02822350.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +FILED + +July 01, 2022 05:25 PH + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. 'St. John + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN I. + +INDYKE in his capacity as EXECUTOR of THE + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. + +KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES + +IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a + +New York limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Debt + +## NOTICE of ENTRY + +of + +## ORDER + +To: K le R. Waldner, Esq. + +A. Kroblin, Esq. + +C. Rhea, Esq. + +Slip. , + +Carol L. Esq. + +Andrew W. Heymann, Esq. + +L. Blum, Esq. + +Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq. + +Marjorie Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on July 1, 2022, + +## a(n) ORDER + +dated July 1, 2022 was/were entered + +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: July 1, 2022 + +By: + +Tamara Charles + +Clerk of the Court + +Cheryl + +Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822350/EFTA02822350.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822350/EFTA02822350.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0973ceef8e5c8c3557dfe1c2705d313a6110b920 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822350/EFTA02822350.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822350", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "37443b502af8e7ba3106e94dcd08dc6e0ad225ef4198ca109d9f48a964ce7f7d", + "output_sha256": "37443b502af8e7ba3106e94dcd08dc6e0ad225ef4198ca109d9f48a964ce7f7d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822351/EFTA02822351.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822351/EFTA02822351.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e47764bf744069069f7dabbc898236a1c49e3491 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822351/EFTA02822351.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +July 01, 2022 05:12 IN + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## SUPERIOR COURT OS1RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. / ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CASE NO. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Complex Litigation Division + +Action for Indemnification + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the undersigned following a review of the file. + +The parties appeared before the Judge for a status conference on March 9, 2022. According to the record of the clerk, the Judge directed the parties to submit briefs on or before August 1, 2022, on whether Virgin Islands public policy barred one or more of Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell's claims. The undersigned, having attended the hearing, recalls that Plaintiffs counsel had also requested a longer period of time to file the briefs in light of the then-pending criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. No date was given for another status conference, however. + +In furtherance of the undersigned's duty to oversee the management of the complex litigation cases, and to hold case management and scheduling conferences in complex litigation cases, see generally In re. Auth. for the Creation & Appointment of Staff for Complex Lit. Div. of Super. Ct. of the V.I., Admin Order No. 2021-0012 (V.I. Aug. 12, 2021), available at 2021 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 4 / 2021 WL 3562551, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for a remote Status Conference on Friday, July 29, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., call-in details to be provided in advance by email. + +Counsel shall come prepared to address the status of the case, including the motion to intervene filed by the Government of the Virgin Islands on July 13, 2020, as well as counsel's available dates when the undersigned could hear argument and issue a recommendation to the Judge on the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants on May 1, 2020, once the supplemental briefing has been filed. + +**DONE and SO ORDERED** this 1st day of July, 2022. + +ATTEST: +TAMARA CHARLES +Clerk of the Court + diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822351/EFTA02822351.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822351/EFTA02822351.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de7e1fe101dce3b56fdaa8f8e2c32576392e97ec --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822351/EFTA02822351.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -10, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822351", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "034ae17c9cbcdd3f094dd2632f40ca36d40f53b88fcb7e11c8a431506b59651c", + "output_sha256": "fd76576f2402ab2f975cab8a1b32f7034cdb844c43532771022235e0cf03498c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822353/EFTA02822353.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822353/EFTA02822353.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b947de9cdb04c8ab6b44e509d7d860d8c4f5336f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822353/EFTA02822353.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +FILED + +July 29, 2022 02:59 P/9 + +51-2 02 0 -CV-0 0155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. St. John + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, PLAINTIFF, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al., DEFENDANTS. + +Type of Case: Civil ❑Domestic Relations ❑Small Claims ❑Probate + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Debt + +Date of Hearing: July 29, 2022 + +Plaintiff Appeared: ❑Yes ❑No Defendant Appeared: ❑Yes ❑No + +Witness Sworn: ❑Yes ❑No Defendant Acknowledged Debt: ❑Yes ❑No + +ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. + +ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT A. Kroblin, Esq. William L. Blum, Esq. Daniel Weiner, Esq. Carol n, Esq. Daniel Ruzumna, Esq. + +WITNESS FOR PLAINTIFF WITNESS FOR DEFENDANT + +## Clerk Notes + +This matter came before the Court for a status conference. After hearing from the parties, the parties were given directives to meet and confer and to file a joint notice by next Friday on if they want oral arguments on the two motions (Motion to Dismiss and the Governments motion to intervene). In another case, ST-2020-CV-00014, Staff Casper advised the parties also to meet and confer and to notify the Court by Tuesday of next week as to their availability for a hearing date regarding ST-2020-CV-00014. + +Commenced: 09:00 AM Adjourned: 09:19 AM Judge Presiding: Hon. Harold W.L. Willocks Court Reporter: Randall Belsvik By: + +Cheryl Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822353/EFTA02822353.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822353/EFTA02822353.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5866824e9c26120fa03e5424cefdb9c47a92eba7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822353/EFTA02822353.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822353", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "4c3e6ddaa7c3b06d1d1e1010e3919f89b9b947f95d5aa838d406c98e740cca6b", + "output_sha256": "4c3e6ddaa7c3b06d1d1e1010e3919f89b9b947f95d5aa838d406c98e740cca6b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822354/EFTA02822354.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822354/EFTA02822354.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0c18df18aae7c371a5721bd80f295e2411596e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822354/EFTA02822354.md @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ +August 01, 2022 06:00 PH + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +# PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER + +Plaintiff, GHISLAINE MAXWELL (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), pursuant to this Court's oral directive at the status conference held on March 9, 2022, hereby files her brief as to whether Virgin Islands public policy bars one or more of her claims in this action. + +## INTRODUCTION + +This is an action for indemnification for the attorneys' fees, security costs, costs to find safe accommodation, and all other expenses Plaintiff has incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") and his businesses. From approximately 1999 through at least 2006, Maxwell was employed by Epstein and several of his businesses, including NES LLC. In this capacity, Plaintiff was responsible for managing Epstein's properties in the U.S. Virgin Islands and elsewhere. In the wake of Epstein's 2008 guilty plea in Florida to a felony charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor, Plaintiff has + +incurred legal fees and expenses in connection with various legal proceedings relating to Epstein, his businesses, and his alleged victims. + +Plaintiff seeks indemnity under three distinct theories: (1) Epstein promised Plaintiff that he would indemnify her for any expenses incurred by reason of her employment relationship with him and his businesses, and Plaintiff relied on that promise; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to indemnification under a common law theory due to her employment relationship with Epstein and his businesses; and (3) NES, LLC (and other possible companies) must indemnify Plaintiff for legal fees, personal security costs, and other expenses incurred by reason of her agency relationship to NES, LLC. + +In the briefing on Co-Executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn's (the "Co-Executors") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, the Co-Executors suggest that Plaintiff "cannot be indemnified for intentional wrongdoing, including criminal conduct." See Co-Executors' Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated September 28, 2020 (the "Reply"), at pp. 3-4, n. 2. As shown below, Virgin Islands public policy does not bar Plaintiff's indemnity claims in this action. + +# ARGUMENT + +### 1. Plaintiffs' Claims May Not Be Barred as a Matter of Public at This Preliminary Stage of the Proceedings. + +### A. Virgin Islands public policy does not necessarily bar Plaintiff's contractual indemnity claims.' + +In support of its original argument that Plaintiff "cannot be indemnified for intentional + +I As an initial matter, the Co-Executors' public policy defense arises in the contract law context. Therefore, it would not operate to bar Plaintiff's claims to the extent that they arise under common law or general corporation law theories. + +wrongdoing, including criminal conduct," the Co-Executors cite a single Virgin Islands case, Berne Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 46 V.I. 106, 115 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2004) for the general proposition that "[t]he Court has a duty to refuse to enforce a contract that is contrary to public policy and tends to injure the public good." See Reply, at pp. 3-4, n. 2. The Co-Executors posit that glows across the country—including in New York, where the underlying actions against Maxwell are pending—hold that indemnification for intentional wrongdoing is against public policy because it would promote illegality and allow a wrongdoer to cause intentional injury with impunity," but cite no Virgin Islands case for this proposition. Finally, the Co-Executors cite a Virgin Islands case, Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23, 34 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2017), for the notion that the Virgin Islands recognizes common law indemnification "when an innocent party is held vicariously liable for the actions of the true tortfeasor." See Reply, at p. 4, n. 2 (emphasis in original). The Co-Executors cite no other Virgin Islands case, statute, rule, or regulation that defines relevant Virgin Islands public policy or what may be "contrary to [its) public policy." + +To determine the public policy of this forum, Virgin Islands case law, statutes, rules, and regulations must be examined. In re Catalyst Third-Party Litig., 2020 WL 1862216, \*26 (V.I. Super. April 13, 2020) (citing Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Co., 283 U.S. 353, 357 (1931) ("In determining whether the contract here in question contravenes the public policy of Arkansas, the constitution, laws and judicial decisions of that State and as well the applicable principles of the common law are to be considered. Primarily it is for the lawmakers to determine the public policy of the State."); v. , 9 V.I. 554, 558 (3d Cir. 1973) ("I find nothing in the statutory or decisional law in the Virgin Islands to indicate that a common law marriage, + +even if prohibited, is against the public policy of this forum."' (citation omitted)). In Catalyst, this Court declined to follow longstanding Third Circuit precedent — at the risk of "disrupting the state of the law" that "Virgin Islands companies and companies doing business in the Virgin Islands ha[d] come to rely on — because the Third Circuit did not consider Virgin Islands cases or statutes, "relied almost exclusively on federal precedent, even though the question at issue in each case involved ... Virgin Islands public policy," and "did not attempt to identify the best approach for the Virgin Islands." Id. + +In light of the following Virgin Islands public policy, which is derived from Virgin Islands case law, statutes, and rules, the Co-Executors are incorrect in their assertion that Plaintiff "cannot be indemnified for intentional wrongdoing, including criminal conduct," and their reliance on the public policy of other jurisdictions is misplaced: + +## i. Freedom of contract in indemnification context + +"[T]he underlying purpose of contract law ... is to hold parties to their agreements so that they receive the benefit of their bargains." Phillip v. Marsh-Monsanto, 66 V.I. 612, 621 (V.I. 2017) (citations omitted). The Catalyst Court found that: + +> Virgin Islands businesses and residents, and companies doing business in the Virgin Islands, have assumed that Virgin Islands common law will let them agree among themselves how to allocate responsibility for loss, liability, injury, and damages and further, that Virgin Islands courts would enforce such agreements and provide a remedy if breached. The law of contracts is designed to effectuate exchanges and to protect the expectancy interest of parties to private bargained-for agreements. + +Catalyst, 2020 WL 1862216, at \*13 (citing Phillip, 66 V.I. at 621) (internal quotation marks omitted). While "the Virgin Islands Legislature has not weighed in on indemnification agreements, including agreements whereby one party agrees to indemnify another party for that party's own negligence," the Virgin Islands Supreme Court promulgated a rule that potentially requires a lawyer to indemnify the financial institution servicing client trust accounts even if the institution is negligent. Id. (citing V.I. S. Ct. R. 211.1.15-3(j) ("Every lawyer or law firm maintaining a trust account in the Virgin Islands shall, as a condition thereof, be conclusively deemed to have consented to the reporting and production requirements by financial institutions mandated by Rule 211.1.15-5 and shall indemnify and hold harmless the financial institution for its compliance with such reporting and production requirement.")). + +# ii. Indemnification among joint tortfeasors + +Virgin Islands courts have recognized the right to common law indemnity between joint tortfeasors. That is, under Virgin Island law, a party seeking indemnification is not required prove that it was not at fault in causing a plaintiff's injuries. See, e.g., Dublin v. Virgin Islands Tel. Corp., 15 V.I. 214, 227 (Ten. V.I. June 9, 1978) (holding "that a right to contribution or indemnity against a joint tortfeasor exists in the Virgin Islands."Xciting, inter alia, Silverlight v. Huggins, 10 V.I. 638 (3d Cir 1973); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886B (Indemnity Between Tortfeasors). Cf. 5 V.I.C. § 1451 (Virgin Islands comparative negligence statute silent on issue of a right to indemnity among joint tortfeasors). Indeed, Virgin Islands courts have long recognized that "[t]here is no public policy which prevents judicial enforcement of an agreement to shift liability for the consequences of one's own negligence." Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 626 F. Supp. 882, 884, 22 V.I. 139, 143 (D.V.I. 1986) (citing Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. INA, 758 F.2d 132 (3d Cir.1985); United States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203, 211, 90 S.Ct. 880, 885, 25 L.Ed.2d 224 (1970)); Dominic v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 624 F. Supp. 117, 119 (D.V.I. 1985) ("CS&M's contention that the agreement in question, which + +indemnifies HOVIC against its own negligence, is void against public policy, would come as a surprise to the Third Circuit. This appellate court has resolved so many disputes involving these agreements, that the public policy issue has long been put to rest. ... Repeatedly the circuit court has held that there is no public policy which prevents judicial enforcement of an agreement to shift liability for the consequences of one's own negligence.")2 See also, Catalyst, 2020 WL 1862216. \*26 ("[T]he Court agrees that the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands is to recognize a cause of action for breach of an indemnification agreement. And, whether an indemnification agreement covers A's negligence, B's negligence, or A through Z's negligence is for the contracting parties to decide.") + +The foregoing is consistent with the Restatement. which provided the rules of decision in this jurisdiction from 1921 to 2011 (where there was no contrary local law).3 The Restatement on indemnity does not make a distinction between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886B; Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 22 (1999 & Supp.2006) ("When two or more persons are or may be liable for the same harm and one of them discharges the liability of another in whole or in part by settlement ..., the person discharging the liability is entitled to recover indemnity in the amount paid to the plaintiff, plus reasonable legal expenses. if ... the indemnitor has agreed by contract to indemnify the indemnitee...."). See also r. & Co., 113 Haw. 406, 417, 153 P.3d 1091, 1102 (Haw. 2007) ("Restatement (Second) § 886B does not distinguish between intentional and other + +{sup}`2` While the Catalyst Court criticized the reasoning employed in Hess and Dominic, they have been approvingly cited over the years and remain good law. + +{sup}`3` 1 V.I.C. § 4; Banks v. Mel Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011). + +forms of tort. Accordingly, the Restatement (Second) does not foreclose a right of indemnity for intentional torts in the present matter.") + +In any event, there is no public policy, case, statute, or other provision of Virgin Islands law barring a contracting party from indemnification for an intentional or willful act. + +#### iii. Indemnification for criminal acts under General Corporation Law + +Under certain circumstances, Virgin Islands law provides that indemnification may be appropriate even if the indemnitee has been convicted of a criminal charge. Specifically, the General Corporation Law codified at Title 13 of the Virgin Islands Code provides in pertinent part that: + +> (a) A corporation shall have power to indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (other than an action by or in the right of the corporation) by reason of the fact that he is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, against expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection with such action, suit or proceeding if: + +(1) he acted: + +(A) in good faith; and + +(B) in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation; and + +(2) with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, he had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. The termination of any action, suit or proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nob contendere or its equivalent, shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the + +corporation, and with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful. + +13 V.I.C. § 67a (emphasis added). + +Clearly, the Virgin Islands' General Corporation Law statute reflects Virgin Islands public policy and is not in violation of Virgin Islands public policy. Plaintiff here was entitled to rely on Epstein's promise of indemnification because it was entirely consistent with this Virgin Islands indemnification statute. + +- B. There is no basis to bar Plaintiff's claims as a matter of public policy at the Rule 12 stage. + - i. Plaintiff has no notice to date of any extra-pleading materials the Co-Executors want this Court to consider in connection with their Motion to Dismiss. + +The Co-Executors' Motion to Dismiss is made pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 12(bX6). "The basic purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint to state an actionable claim, not to test the truth of the fact alleged in the complaint." Arno v. Hess Corp., 71 V.I. 463, 495, (V.I. Super. October 17, 2019) (citation omitted). Courts have the discretion to exclude extra-pleading materials attached to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, or else convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment to be able to address it. Stanley v. Virgin Islands Bureau of Corr., 2020 WL 1639902, \*4 (V.I. Super. April I, 2020). If the Court ultimately chooses to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, it must notify the parties so they can "present all the material that is pertinent...." V.I. R. Civ. P. 12(d). See also United Corp. v. Named, 64 V.I. 297, 307 (V.I. 2016). Courts addressing the issue "have found that failure to give adequate notice to the parties before conversion constitutes reversible error." Stanley, 2020 WL 1639902, •5 (quotation and citation + +omitted). + +Here, in advancing their public policy argument, the Co-Executors are not challenging whether Plaintiff states a claim for relief. Instead, the Co-Executors seek judgment on the merits on the theory that Plaintiff "cannot be indemnified for intentional wrongdoing, including criminal conduct." The Co-Executors have not yet asked this Court to consider any specific extra-pleading materials that purport to establish such "intentional wrongdoing, including criminal conduct," despite having the burden to do so. See, e.g., Maduro v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 901525, \*3 (V.I.2008) (under Virgin Islands law, the burden of proving an affirmative defense in a civil case is on the defendant); Bryan v. Fawkes, 2014 WL 5409110, \*26 (V.1.2014) (citing 5 V.I.C. § 740(5)) (the party against whom the affirmative defense is asserted is "not required to prove a negative"). + +Plaintiff objects to the Court's consideration of any matters outside the pleadings that the Estate may submit with its Brief since the briefing on the motion is closed and Plaintiff will have been deprived of an opportunity to respond. + +- ii. The SDNY judgment of conviction, to the extent considered, does not conclusively decide any issues presented in this action. + +In considering a motion to dismiss, a court may consider only the complaint, matters of public record, and indisputably authentic documents that the complaint relies upon. Courts have defined "public records" narrowly for the purpose of a motion to dismiss, which includes "criminal case dispositions such as convictions or mistrials, letter decisions of government agencies, and published reports of administrative bodies." Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1197 (3d Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted); see also v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d. Cir. 2014) (applying the Pension definition of public + +records narrowly and refusing to consider press releases not attached to a complaint); Bostic v. AT & T of Virgin Islands, 166 F. Supp. 2d 350, 354 (D.V.I. 2001). A court may then only consider a criminal case conviction to establish the fact of the criminal case and conviction but may not consider it for the truth of any matters asserted therein. Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir.1991) ("Courts routinely take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts ... not for the truth of the matters asserted in other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings."); Crews v. Cnty. of Nassau, 2007 WL 316568, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007) ("The Court takes judicial notice of certain documents and proceedings in the underlying criminal action only to establish the fact of such litigation, including (1) the notice of alibi dated September 27, 2005, and (2) the transcript of Crews' September 22, 2005 arraignment in Nassau County Court") + +In v. Kendall Cnty., Ill., 807 F.2d 95, 99 (7th Cir. 1986), cited by the Pension Court, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' bad faith prosecution claims, where the district court considered case "dispositions" of underlying cases referenced in, but not actually filed with, the complaint. After considering these case "dispositions," the district court found that the "defendants have successfully prosecuted the plaintiffs on three obscenity charges," and thus found that the plaintiffs failed to set forth facts supporting an inference of bad faith prosecution. Id. at 101. The Court held that the "district court did not err in considering these undisputed matters appearing on the public record." Id. 99, n.6. + +Here, assuming that the Co-Executors will offer Plaintiff's judgment of conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") in support of their public + +policy argument, the Court may only consider this record to establish the existence and disposition of the SDNY proceeding. The SDNY judgment entered on June 29, 2022 here reflects that only Plaintiff was adjudicated guilty of offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 2423, and 18 U.S.C. § 1591. See, Judgment entered June 29, 2022 in SDNY Case No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Document 696. While the Court might take judicial notice that Plaintiff was adjudicated guilty of these three offenses, the Court may not make any other findings based on the SDNY judgment or draw any inferences from the SDNY judgment favorable to Defendants at this stage. See, supra, at 99. See also, v. AIG Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 56 V.I. 558, 566 (V.I. 2012) (on Rule 12(bX6) motion, Court "view[s] the facts alleged in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.") Because the relevance of the SDNY disposition to this action is not apparent on its face, it provides no actual support for the suggestion that public policy bars the claims in this action. + +Further, for a judgment to have preclusive effect and bar relitigation of an issue under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, an asserting party must satisfy the following elements: + +> (I) the issue to be barred is identical to an issue actually and necessarily decided in the prior action; (2) the prior action was adjudicated in a decision that was final, valid, and on the merits; (3) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. + +Stewart v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Land Use Appeals, 66 V.1.522, 549-50 (V.I. 2017) (emphasis added). + +Here, the Co-Executors' have not yet identified what specific issues they contend have + +already been decided by the SDNY that are identical in this case. In fact, the narrow issues tried before the SDNY do not necessarily overlap with Plaintiffs' claims here, which include indemnification for expenses incurred in connection with a civil lawsuit filed by (who did not testify in the SDNY proceeding), investigations relating to Epstein, and security services incurred in 2019 in the wake of intense media scrutiny following Epstein's arrest. To the extent that Plaintiffs claims relate to expenses that Plaintiff incurred exclusively because of Epstein's actions, such claims would clearly not be subject to any public policy bar. Simply put, the SDNY judgment of conviction does not conclusively establish any issue presented here and is not dispositive of this action. + +Finally, Plaintiff has appealed the SDNY conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While Virgin Islands courts have not spoken on the issue, many courts have found that a trial court judgment of conviction is not final for purposes of res judicata or collateral estoppel when it is on appeal. See, e.g., People ex reL Gow v. Mitchell Bros.' Santa Ana Theater, 161 Cal.Rptr. 562, 568 (Cal.Ct.App.1980); v. Transp. Ins. Co., 169 Ga.App. 504, 313 S.E.2d 761, 763 (Ga.Ct.App.1984); Dupre v. Floyd, 825 So.2d 1238, 1240-41 (La.Ct.App.2002) (per curium), writ denied, 840 So.2d 546 (La.2003); Petition of Donovan, 137 N.H. 78, 623 A.2d 1322, 1324 (N.H.1993); Benham v. Plotner, 795 P.2d 510, 512 (Okla.1990); McBurney v. Aldrich, 816 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991); Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 417 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1992); Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 204 W.Va. 465, 513 S.E.2d 692, 703 (W.Va. 1998). + +### II. Plaintiff's Common Law Indemnity Claims Not Barred. + +The Co-Executors' public policy defense does not apply to Plaintiff's common law indemnity claims since the defense allows a party to avoid enforcement of a contract. See, Berne, supra, 46 V.I. at 115 (public policy is a defense to the enforceability of a contract); Brouillard v. DLJ Mortg. Cap., Inc., 63 V.I. 788, 794 (V.I. 2015) (same). In fact, as a matter of common law, the Virgin Islands courts recognize the right to indemnity between joint tortfeasors. See infra, Section I(A)(ii). See also 41 Am. Jur. 2d Indemnity § 21 ("Generally, indemnity will be granted where the indemnitee has incurred tort liability by performing an act not manifestly wrong at the direction or for the benefit of, and in reliance upon, the indemnitor.") (citing Horrabin v. City of Des Moines, 198 Iowa 549, 199 N.W. 988, 38 A.L.R. 554 (1924); v. General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 14 Wis. 2d I, 109 N.W.2d 462, 88 A.L.R.2d 1347 (1961)). As such, Virgin Islands public policy does not impact Plaintiff's common law indemnity claims. + +# III. Plaintiff's Corporate Indemnity Claims Not Barred. + +Nor does Virgin Islands public policy bar Plaintiff's indemnity claims that may arise under Virgin Islands General Corporation Law. As noted above, this law provides that a corporation may indemnify any person who "was or is" a party to a civil or criminal proceeding by reason of the person's relationship with the corporation "against expenses (including attorneys' fees)," incurred in connection with the proceeding if the person "in good faith" and "in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation." 13 V.I.C. § 67a(a). In the case of a "criminal proceeding," the person must have had "no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful." Id. + +The termination of any action, suit or proceeding by ... conviction... shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful. + +Id. (emphasis added). At this stage, the facts of Plaintiff's conduct as an agent of NES, LLC and belief that she was acting in the company's interest have never been litigated. As such, Plaintiff's corporate indemnity claims may not be barred or adjudicated at this stage because they would involve issues not actually and necessarily decided in any prior action. Stewart, 66 V.I. at 549-50. + +# IV. The Co-Executors' Public Policy Defense Has Been Waived. + +Any objection by the Co-Executors to indemnification on grounds of public policy should be found to have been waived by Epstein's past actions here. + +Waiver is defined as "the voluntary relinquishment of a known right." v. Sharp, No. CV 2008-0020, 2021 WL 2228492, at \*11 (D.V.I. June 1, 2021), affd, No. 21-2254, 2022 WL 2712869 (3d Cir. July 13, 2022); accord Ringo v. Southland Gaming of U.S. Virgin Islands, Inc., No. ST-10-CV-116, 2010 WL 7746074, at \*3 (V.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010); Abramsen v. Bedminster, 45 V.I. 3, 10 (Terr.Ct.2002). "Waiver requires 'a clear, unequivocal, and decisive act of the party showing such a purpose or acts amounting to an estoppel on his part."' Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC, 2013 WL 68731, at \*4 (quoting Caner v. Exxon Co. USA, 177 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir.1999)); accord Ringo, 2010 WL 7746074, at \*3. See also Dewerd v. Bushfteld, 993 F. Supp. 365, 369 (D.V.I. 1998) ("Waiver ... may be shown by express declarations, or by acts and declarations manifesting an intent and purpose not to claim the + +supposed advantage, or it may be shown by a course of acts and conduct, and in some cases will be implied therefrom.") + +While courts in this jurisdiction have not addressed the specific issue presented here, courts in other jurisdictions have found that a party can waive a defense of contract illegality through voluntary conduct (e.g., performance of the contract) that is inconsistent with the defense. See, e.g., C.R. Klewin Ne., LLC v. City of Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 919 A.2d 1002 (Conn. 2007) (City, by participating for 20 days in arbitration proceeding which took place over a year after indictment of public official that set forth operative facts forming basis for claim that municipal public works contract was illegal, waived defense that contract, which included arbitration provision, was illegal.). See also, AAOT Foreign Econ. Ass'n (VO) Technostroyexport v. Ina Dev. & Trade Servs., Inc., 139 F.3d 980, 981 (2d Cir. 1998) (by disavowing any illegality claim "until an adverse award was rendered," petitioner "waived its right to assert the public policy exception"); v. Faulkner, 114 S.E.2d 542, 543 (Ga. App. 1960) ("If a contract be illegal as against public policy, its invalidity will be a defence while it remains unexecuted. If the illegal contract be in part performed and money has been paid in pursuance of it, no action will lie to recover the money back."). + +Here, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint as follows: + +- 17. Since the time of Epstein's Florida state proceeding to the present, Maxwell has incurred legal fees and expenses in connection with various suits, proceedings, and investigations relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims. +- 18. Consistent with his repeated promises, Epstein indemnified Maxwell and advanced legal fees and settlement costs when the were incurred in connection with a lawsuit filed by against Epstein in 2017 (Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17-cv-00616- JGK). + +- 19. Consistent with his repeated promises, Epstein also paid Maxwell's le ls incurred in connection with a civil suit filed by against Epstein in 2009. + +See Complaint, ¶1 17-19. At this preliminary, Rule 12(bX6) stage, the Court "must accept [these) factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." v. Treasure Bay Virgin Islands Corp., 63 V.I. 357, 360 (V.I. Super. Ct. August 31, 2015); supra, 56 V.I. at 566. + +By advancing legal fees and expenses in connection with past legal proceedings, which were for the benefit of Plaintiff, Epstein made it clear that he believed Plaintiff had committed no wrong and/or was entitled to indemnification. Any objection to the contrary should found to be waived. + +## V. The Co-Executors May Not Raise Any Objection to Indemnification on Public Policy Grounds Due to Unclean Hands. + +Finally, the Co-Executors should be estopped from raising any objection to indemnification on public policy grounds due to unclean hands. The "'unclean hands' doctrine is based on the principle that a party who has committed wrongdoing should not be allowed to come into court and request a remedy for its own personal benefit." In re Prosser, 2012 WL 6737781, at \*17 (Bank:. D.V.I. Dec. 20, 2012) (citing In re New Valley Corp., 181 F.3d 517, 525 (3d Cir.1999); Sunshine Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. KMart Corp., 42 V.I. 397, 407, 85 F. Supp. 2d 537, 544 (D.V.I. Jan. 27, 2000) ("It is an ancient and established maxim of equity jurisprudence that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. If a party seeks relief in equity, he must be able to show that on his part there has been honesty and fair dealing.") (quoting + +v. =, 257 F.2d 495, 500 (3d Cir.1958)). In Sunshine Shopping, the court held that the defendant could be precluded from raising an equitable defense to a forfeiture clause in a lease due to its own "unclean hands." Id. + +Here, having engaged in the wrongful conduct that caused Plaintiff to incur legal and other expenses in the first place, Epstein (and by association, the Estate) should not be permitted to prevail in this action by relying upon a salutary public policy. + +## CONCLUSION + +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to find that Virgin Islands public policy does not bar her indemnity claims in this action. + +Dated: August 1, 2022 Respectfully submitted, + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: /s/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldneraamblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August I, 2022, I filed the foregoing, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's electronic filing system, which will send a notice of such filing to the following: + +Kroblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 ckroblin@kellfer.com + +Atiel M. = Esq. (AAG) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. RHEA, PC 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 grhea@rpwb.com + +/s/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822354/EFTA02822354.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822354/EFTA02822354.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbd87c341caa9e019baeb59ed36392e3524ecb38 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822354/EFTA02822354.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -8, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822354", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1daeba28991897ea4c600a9c4e5f08a65e10251b8fa4ae1c2de3f3029f832185", + "output_sha256": "6a5f614cba4444e7952cecae1725c7c67f5c637cca952aed2aab3666a575b7b7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822372/EFTA02822372.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822372/EFTA02822372.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47abe80a62dd0529de593204e87ce8a63e6b1f81 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822372/EFTA02822372.md @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +# FILED + +August 01, 2022 04:45 PH + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +#### CO-EXECUTORS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"), an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate, respectfully submit this Supplemental Brief in further support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed in this action on May I, 2020 (the "Motion to Dismiss") and in accordance with this Court's direction during the March 9, 2022 status conference in this matter. + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +As the Co-Executors demonstrated in their Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss filed in this action on September 28, 2020 (the "Reply"), courts around the country hold that indemnification for individuals convicted of criminal behavior violates public policy + +because it would promote illegality and allow wrongdoers to cause intentional injury with impunity. (Reply at 3-4, n.2.) Courts should not encourage intentional criminal wrongdoing by allowing a party to escape all financial consequences for those acts. + +Here, it is indisputable that the suits, proceedings and investigations for which Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell demands that Defendants indemnify her are all predicated on Maxwell's own intentional criminal actions. (See Motion to Dismiss at 3-4, n.3 (describing the basis of civil suits against Maxwell, each of which was premised on intentional abusive actions by Maxwell herself); Reply at 3 n.1 and Ex. D (describing and attaching Maxwell's criminal indictment in the Southern District of New York).) On December 29, 2021, a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found Maxwell guilty of multiple counts of criminal activity; on June 29, 2022, Judge Alison Nathan entered judgment against Maxwell for conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking of an individual under the age of eighteen.' For these felonies, Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered Maxwell to pay a fine of \$750,000. During sentencing, Judge Nathan rejected Maxwell's argument that she was being + +I. See Judgment. USA v. Maxwell. No. 20-CR-00330 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29. 2022). ECF No. 696. Judge Nathan dismissed two of five counts for which the jury found Maxwell guilty as multiplicative and the Government agreed to dismiss two perjury counts against Maxwell that Judge Nathan previously severed from the determination of the counts considered by the jury. Id.; see also Joint Letter, USA v. Marvell, (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10. 2022). ECF No. 574 ("In the event the defendant's post-trial motions are denied, the Government is prepared to dismiss the severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing. in light of the victims' significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again."). + +punished for Mr. Epstein's actions, stating "Miss Maxwell is not punished in place of Epstein ... Miss Maxwell is being punished for the role that she played."2 + +The Court should not allow individuals (here, Maxwell) convicted of criminal acts of sexual violence against minors to escape the financial consequences of their actions. Because indemnification in this situation is contrary to public policy, and for the reasons set forth in the Motion to Dismiss and Reply, the Court should dismiss Maxwell's claims.3 + +## ARGUMENT + +## I. Public Policy Bars Maxwell's Claims for Indemnification Based on Contract. + +As the Court has recognized, "an agreement is against public policy if it is injurious to the interests of the public . . . . The Court has a duty to refuse to enforce a contract that is contrary to public policy and tends to injure the public good." Berne Corp. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 46 V.I. 106, 115 (Super. Ct. 2004); see also Gourmet Gallery Crown Bay, Inc. v. Crown Bay Marina, LP., 68 V.I. 584, 601-02 (V.I. 2018) (affirming Superior Court's determination that "rigid enforcement of private agreements that threaten the interests of third parties . . . is against public policy."). + +Applying this principle to indemnification agreements, courts across the country including in New York, the situs of the underlying civil and criminal actions against Maxwell- + +{sup}`2.` See Lauren Del Valle, Ghislainc Maxwell's Attorneys Appeal her Federal Conviction and Sentence CNN (July 8, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/usighislaine-maxwell-appeal/index.html. The transcript from Maxwell's June 28. 2022 sentencing hearing is not yet publicly available on the docket. See Transcript, USA v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-00330 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 22, 2022), ECF No. 737 (docket text setting August 12, 2022 deadline for transcription redaction requests and indicating that transcript will be available through PACER on October 20, 2022). + +{sup}`3.` The NES Operating Agreement (as that term is defined in the Motion to Dismiss) expressly forbids indemnification of Maxwell for claims that are "the result of fraud, gross negligence, or reckless or intentional misconduct." (NES Operating Agreement Section VI.B.I, at pp. 5-6.) As further detailed in the Motion to Dismiss and Reply. the Court should dismiss Maxwell's claim for indemnification under the NES Operating Agreement based on the terms of that Agreement. + +routinely hold that contractual indemnification for those found guilty of intentional criminal wrongdoing is unenforceable as against public policy because it would promote illegality and allow a wrongdoer to cause criminal injury with impunity. See, e.g., Homesite Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Frost, No. CV 20-00024-M-DLC, 2020 WL 5369847, at \*5 (D. Mont. Sept. 8, 2020) ("in Montana there is an unmistakable public policy against . . . indemnification for criminal acts."); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gen. Mills, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-201-TWT, 2019 BL 223294, at \*11 (N.D. Ga. Jun. 14, 2019) (if the Plaintiff is ultimately found to have been criminally negligent, then public policy would preclude indemnification."); Utica First Ins. Co. v. Maclean, No. CIV.A. 08-1138, 2009 WL 415988, at \*4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2009) ("[rlequiring an insurance company to defend or indemnify its insured for . .. criminal acts would also violate public policy in Pennsylvania."); BDO Seidman, LLP v. Harris, 379 III. App. 3d 918, 925 (III. App. Ct. 2008) (itlaken together, the stipulation of facts pursuant to the PTD agreement shows that plaintiff engaged in conduct which constituted misprision of felony by knowingly concealing the felony fraud of its client, SBU. Under New York public policy. . . indemnification for such criminal conduct is barred by public policy."); Equitex, Inc. v. Ungar, 60 P.3d 746, 750 (Cob. App. 2002) ("[plublic policy prohibits indemnifying a party for damages resulting from intentional or willful wrongful acts.") (internal quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 8 ("a contract or bond by which one party undertakes to indemnify the other against the consequences of an illegal act is generally held illegal and void."). And Virgin Islands statutory law regarding indemnification likewise indicates that indemnification for willful or wanton acts is inappropriate. 10 V.I.C. § 101 (providing for indemnification of law enforcement officers unless, inter alia, the officer seeks indemnification for "any willful or wanton act"). + +The Court should follow the holdings of Virgin Islands courts, the great majority of courts in other jurisdictions and legal treatises to find that public policy requires rejection of contractual indemnification for claims or expenses arising from Maxwell's criminal actions here. To hold otherwise would be to encourage individuals like Maxwell — a convicted felon — to engage in crimes victimizing minors with the knowledge that they can offload to others the financial repercussions of their actions and are entitled to incur whatever costs they deem necessary in order to hide from criminal or other repercussions.4 + +## IL Public Policy Also Bars Maxwell's Claims for Promissory Estoppel or Common Law Indemnification. + +The public policy concerns that bar enforcement of contractual indemnification for those found guilty of intentional criminal acts apply with equal force to common law indemnification or indemnification based on promissory estoppel. Both of these doctrines arise in equity and are based on concepts of restitution and unjust enrichment. See, e.g., Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23, 46 (Super. Ct. 2017) ("[t]he right to indemnity ... is a common law equitable remedy . . . ."); Appleton v. Harrigan, No. ST-10-CV-275, 2012 WL 13219651, at •5 (Sup. Ct. Dec. 6, 2012) ("Mike a claim of unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy."). Equity does not condone a criminal actor receiving financial immunity from the consequences of her crimes. Indemnification based on either promissory estoppel or common law is not viable + +{sup}`4.` The few cases suggesting that contractual indemnification for intentional wrongdoing may be possible are readily distinguishable from the situation here, with such cases generally both requiring provisions that clearly and unambiguously express the indemnitor's intention to provide indemnity for intentional acts and involving situations where the indemnified party's actions could not be proven to be intentional, much less criminal. See. e.g., Gibbs-Alfano v. Burton, 281 F.3d 12, 22-23 (2d Cir. 2002) (acknowledging that contractual indemnification for intentional acts is unenforceable, but finding that the indemnification clause in question was enforceable because there was no finding or factually strong suggestion that the indemnified party's actions were intentional). Here. Maxwell does not allege any contractual provisions that clearly and unambiguously call for indemnification of intentional or criminal acts and, as discussed further in the Motion to Dismiss, the Reply and by the New York court handling the criminal case against Maxwell. the allegations against Maxwell are based on her own intentional criminal actions. + +(and violates public policy) where, as here, the indemnitee has been convicted of an intentional criminal act. Courts cannot enforce a judgment upholding a[n] agreement in law or in equity that is against public policy." Cruse v. Callwood, 55 V.I. 999, 1003 (D.V.I. 2010) (parties to a pyramid scheme cannot recover on a theory of restitution when they were aware of the nature of the scheme); see also, e.g., Willie, 66 V.I. at 92 (Virgin Islands recognizes common law indemnification "where an innocent party is held vicariously liable for the actions of the true tortfeasor") (emphasis in original); Equitex, 60 P.3d at 750 (rejecting a promissory estoppel claim for indemnification because "equitable doctrines such as promissory estoppel may not be used to enforce an agreement in favor of a wrongdoer"). + +Research has not identified any case that permitted indemnification pursuant to promissory estoppel or common law where, as here, the purported indemnitee has been convicted of an intentional criminal act. This long-standing judicial stricture, as well as the equitable nature of both promissory estoppel and common law indemnification, public policy and the facts of this case all strongly suggest that the Court should not be the first to permit common law indemnification for one found guilty of intentional criminal acts. The crimes for which Maxwell stands convicted are based on her own affirmative criminal behavior. As Judge Nathan in the District Court for the Southern District of New York stated in sentencing Maxwell to 20 years in prison for her crimes, "Miss Maxwell is not punished in place of Epstein . . . Miss Maxwell is being punished for the role that she played."5 Maxwell cannot employ equitable doctrines to escape the financial consequences of her intentional criminal acts. + +{sup}`5.` See supra n. 2. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the reasons set forth herein and in the Co-Executors' Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, the Court should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: August 1, 2022 /s/ Shari N. D'Andrade + +SHARI N. D'AND\_ RADE tESQ KROBLIN, ESQ. + +V.I. Bar Nos. 1221 & 966 + +KELLERHALS Kamm PLLC + +Palms Professional Building + +9053 Estate M, Suite 101 + +St. , V.I. 00802 + +Telephone: (340) 779-2564 + +Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 + +Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com + +sdandrade@kellfer.com + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 1, 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VUEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldnereqpwblaw.com + +Carol e A l !Erg. Esq. Aril Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. Rhea, P.C. 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 grhea@rpwb.com /s/ Shari N. D'Andrade \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822372/EFTA02822372.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822372/EFTA02822372.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46259d475b771c95e4e7635ed838a863de3efcee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822372/EFTA02822372.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -16, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822372", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3973cd4cfdf9d9fd728227ad1e0a056e1f7f345eed35b6a4e0373dcf549d881d", + "output_sha256": "f76850fab1103e77ac136514f3a5c22096f31a0cd56e48ec8f355157b98aa422", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822380/EFTA02822380.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822380/EFTA02822380.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..111ba34915fd013c65cbc3c7ac226629d91055e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822380/EFTA02822380.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +## FILED + +August 02, 2022 06:12 PH + +51-202 0 -CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +v. + +) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. ) + +INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD ) + +D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ) + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, ) + +LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company ) ) + +Defendants. + +) ) + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +COMES NOW, pro hac vice-admitted counsel Daniel S. Ruzumna, of Patterson Belknap & Tyler, LLP, and hereby enters his appearance as Co-Counsel for Defendant Richard D. Kahn in his capacity as co-executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and requests that copies of all further pleadings and filings be delivered to him at the address appearing below. + +Dated: August 2, 2022 + +Respectfully, + +/s/ Daniel S. Ruzumna + +Daniel S. Ruzumna, Esq. + +V.I. Bar No. PHV4357 + +Patterson Belknap & Taylor, LLP + +1133 Avenue of the Americas + +New York, New York 10583 + +Telephone: (212) 336-2034 + +Facsimile: (212) 336-1205 + +Email: dnizumna(pbwt.coni + +C. Esq.' + +VI Bar No. 220 + +C. Rhea, PC + +1533 Appling Drive Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 + +340-244-8768 + +grhea@rpwb.com + +I Added per VI ST DIST CT RCP Rule 5.4(h)(I). + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 2, 2022, I filed the foregoing, which complies with the page and/or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's electronic filing system and selected the "eService" method to automatically serve the following individuals: + +K le Waldner, Esq. Kroblin, Esq. Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq. Carol n, Esq. Andrew Heymann, Esq. William L. Blum, Esq. + +Ar/ Daniel S. Ruzumna \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822380/EFTA02822380.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822380/EFTA02822380.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4286b82fb8192313aa48c37d143885ad4f677f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822380/EFTA02822380.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822380", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "fa07cd83ecd667129da7365fe8072219b05c17c61fa9ed74012ba3d48d8a81bf", + "output_sha256": "fa07cd83ecd667129da7365fe8072219b05c17c61fa9ed74012ba3d48d8a81bf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822382/EFTA02822382.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822382/EFTA02822382.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68f14e40221be15f5aebd27f582aa4c768e6689a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822382/EFTA02822382.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS** +District of St. [REDACTED] / St. John + +**GHISLAINE MAXWELL,** +**PLAINTIFF,** + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 +Action: Debt + +v. + +**ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al.,** +**DEFENDANTS.** + +**NOTICE of ENTRY** +**of** +**ORDER** + +**To:** Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. +[REDACTED] A. Kroblin, Esq. +[REDACTED] C. Rhea, Esq. +Ariel M. Smmith, Esq. +Carol L. [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Esq. + +Andrew W. Heymann, Esq. +William L. Blum, Esq. +Shari Natalya D'Andrade, Esq. +Marjorie Beth Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on August 02, 2022, + +a(n) Order +dated August 2, 2022 was entered +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: August 02, 2022 + +By: Tamara Charles +Clerk of the Court + +Paula Claxton +Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822382/EFTA02822382.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822382/EFTA02822382.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ddfbc692782f2200d0e1c2a02d6c35b496b1218 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822382/EFTA02822382.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822382", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "3b81b20f10f51398dbfdba6756ddb270f8bf040b7537df85863420cfb81bdd1a", + "output_sha256": "ebbea156be5c4df8ee05e82753a7f3bfcc73608199ccd549821fbd16418fa2cc", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822383/EFTA02822383.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822383/EFTA02822383.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25b42bea5cfdafd4780b670ded889bcc1ad05616 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822383/EFTA02822383.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +August 02, 2022 32:52 PM + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## SUPERIOR COURT O RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. / ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CASE NO. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Complex Litigation Division + +Action for Indemnification + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER came before the undersigned for a brief status conference. After discussing the status of the case, the undersigned directed counsel to meet and confer and jointly file a notice on or before Friday, August 5, 2022, stating whether the parties would like to present oral argument on the Defendants' motion to dismiss or on the motion to intervene filed by the Government of the Virgin Islands. The parties were also to notify the Court if there was any consensus regarding the Defendants' statement on the record that they would like to file a response to the motion to intervene. Pursuant to Rule 85 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned's directives are hereby reduced to writing. The parties are DIRECTED to SERVE and FILE a NOTICE jointly on or before Friday, August 5, 2022, as to whether oral argument is requested on the motion to dismiss and/or the motion to intervene as well as whether there is any agreement among the parties regarding the Defendants' request to submit a response to the motion to intervene. + +In addition to reducing the above to writing, the undersigned notes a concern that arose after the status conference had concluded, namely that several attorneys appeared remotely for the status conference who have not filed notices of appearance + +in this case. So that the record is clear and the Clerk's Office has accurate information as to current counsel of record, counsel are directed to review the docket of this case, which is available via public access, and either file a notice of appearance for those attorney (including any admitted *pro hac vice*) who are still of record but have not formally appeared on this case by filing a notice, or a notice of withdrawal for those attorneys (if any) who previously appeared but have subsequently withdrawn. + +**DONE and SO ORDERED** this 2nd day of August, 2022. + +ATTEST: + +TAMARA CHARLES +Clerk of the Court + diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822383/EFTA02822383.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822383/EFTA02822383.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d63d448d8c04b979b3795d6d87bb2ae5ca2fe659 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822383/EFTA02822383.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -10, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822383", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "033f8a0433a840aa6e725b4907b09be0d0e27ac4c22df705cca79118b0690a4c", + "output_sha256": "681b59387499148829d9d49a09ef6d3425086c33c5fa661ea09555299449bc4b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822385/EFTA02822385.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822385/EFTA02822385.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b50f9d53cda7ab980c0dda36012c6d33a804a22c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822385/EFTA02822385.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +August 09, 2022 04:14 PH + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## NOTICE OF W IT I I DR AWAL AS COUNSEL + +COMES NOW, KELLERHAI KROBLIN PLLC, by and through Kroblin, Esq., and Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq., and hereby files this Notice of Withdrawal to withdraw as counsel for Defendant RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the above-captioned proceeding as Attorney Rhea has appeared for Richard D. Kahn in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. + +Dated: August 4, 2022 + +Respectfully, + +/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building + +9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 4, 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Notice of Withdrawal, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VIJEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, E.±4 Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldner@qpwblaw.com + +Carol Esq. Ariel M. Esq. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. Rhea, P.C. 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 + +grhea@rpwb.com /s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822385/EFTA02822385.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822385/EFTA02822385.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1524c0552d7c3573fc7ec5d98b844126f84d49d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822385/EFTA02822385.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822385", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c711d0d61021958462c44346ed6bfb5d48b180e81d4173f436b1c623b1b346a5", + "output_sha256": "c711d0d61021958462c44346ed6bfb5d48b180e81d4173f436b1c623b1b346a5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822387/EFTA02822387.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822387/EFTA02822387.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00f8f7fca6a388d93a1a4c45a3bd896f27a89378 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822387/EFTA02822387.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +## FILED + +August 09, 2022 04:10 PH + +51-202 0 -CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +COMES NOW KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC, by and through Kroblin, Esq., and Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq., and hereby appear for Defendant NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, in the above-captioned proceeding. It is respectfully requested that all pleadings, notices, orders, or other documents filed in the above-captioned case be served on the undersigned. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: August 4, 2022 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. V.I. 00802 + +Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 4, 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VUEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, EA Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldner@gpwbiaw.com + +Carol Esq. Ariel M. Esq. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. , U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. Rhea, P.C. 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 + +grhea@rpwb.com Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822387/EFTA02822387.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822387/EFTA02822387.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e975d8855b9ee0cd135db0925489f09cd2d843d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822387/EFTA02822387.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822387", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "9a37e13cc02f4f73bc5d10a6499de4fa3a4a5def1c0055fd9d7a07ce20cc92e1", + "output_sha256": "9a37e13cc02f4f73bc5d10a6499de4fa3a4a5def1c0055fd9d7a07ce20cc92e1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822389/EFTA02822389.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822389/EFTA02822389.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9647b580b6a9f0fc438156d64d651d496a8ada73 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822389/EFTA02822389.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +FILED + +August 09, 2022 03:46 PH + +51-2 02 0 -CV-0 0 155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +COMES NOW KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC, by and through Kroblin, Esq., and Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq., and hereby appear for Defendant DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the above-captioned proceeding. It is respectfully requested that all pleadings, notices, orders, or other documents filed in the above-captioned case be served on the undersigned. + +Dated: August 4, 2022 + +Respectfully, + +/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building + +9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 4, 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VIJEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, E.±q Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldner@qpwblaw.com + +Carol Esq. Ariel M. Esq. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. Rhea, P.C. 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 + +grhea@rpwb.com /s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822389/EFTA02822389.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822389/EFTA02822389.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f029a4e28f97494db80c060467e60d9545011cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822389/EFTA02822389.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822389", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "87c8d6d5734e51a32f06b45527b40d3638d0d4db8079cb9d5449d2baedd85ba2", + "output_sha256": "87c8d6d5734e51a32f06b45527b40d3638d0d4db8079cb9d5449d2baedd85ba2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822391/EFTA02822391.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822391/EFTA02822391.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..213640036aa9f042fb3bb75eed47415be42b0f2a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822391/EFTA02822391.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +## FILED + +August 09, 2022 03:51 PM + +5T-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +COMES NOW, KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC, by and through Kroblin, Esq., and Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq., and hereby appear for Defendant The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, along with pro hac vice admitted Co-Counsel Daniel H. Weiner. It is respectfully requested that all pleadings, notices, orders, or other documents tiled in the above-captioned case be served on the undersigned. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: August 4, 2022 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate ME, Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com + +Is/ Daniel H. Weiner + +DANIEL H. WEINER V.I. Bar No. PHV4223 HUGHES HuBEARD & LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 837-6460 Facsimile: (212) 299-6460 daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 4, 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VIJEFS upon: + +Kyle R. Waldner, Es Quintairos, Prieto, MI & Boyer, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 kwaldner@qpwblaw.com + +Carol Esq. Mel M. Esq. Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. Rhea, P.C. 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 + +grhea@rpwb.com /s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822391/EFTA02822391.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822391/EFTA02822391.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea3d4f1f992aa1912a57644e79ed485b82fa545c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822391/EFTA02822391.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822391", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "c5f499f95976f0c1e89166ed63482ffb42b41fa071d0724e9fffefffe3f3f912", + "output_sha256": "c5f499f95976f0c1e89166ed63482ffb42b41fa071d0724e9fffefffe3f3f912", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822393/EFTA02822393.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822393/EFTA02822393.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a4b0005f290db03b8ec02127c0a8fe40d725d6d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822393/EFTA02822393.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +## FILED + +August 05, 2022 03:59 PH + +51-202 0 -CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## JOINT NOTICE TO COURT PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED AUGUST 2, 2022 + +Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL ("Plaintiff), Defendants ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as Executor of The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as Executor of The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company (collectively, "Defendants"), and Proposed Intervenor GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS ("GVI") through their respective undersigned attorneys, pursuant to this Court's Order dated August 2, 2022, advise as follows: + +- I. Defendants request oral argument on the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff does not waive, and expressly reserves, the right to present oral argument in connection with the motion to dismiss should the Court choose to hear the same. + +2. Plaintiff and Defendants request oral argument on the motion to intervene. The GVI does not waive, and expressly reserves, the right to present oral argument in connection with the motion to intervene should the Court choose to hear the same. + +3. The GVI objects to any request by Defendants to file a response in opposition to the motion to intervene. + +4. Plaintiff does not object to any request by Defendants to file a response in opposition to the motion to intervene. + +Dated: August 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted: + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4'hFloor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: Is/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@vwblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +KELLERHALS KRoBLIN PLLC Attorneys for Defendants Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein, Darren K. lndyke in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Jeffery E. Epstein, and NES, LLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 T: (340) 779-2564 F: (888) 316-9269 + +By: /s/ Kroblin Kroblin, Esq. ckroblin@kellfer.com V.I. Bar No.: 966 + +C. RHEA, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Richard D. Kahn 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 T: (340) 244-8768 + +By: /s/ C. Rhea C. Rhea, Esq. grhea@rpwb.com V.I. Bar No.: + +VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor Government of the United States Virgin Islands + +DENISE N. ESQUIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL + +By: /s/ Carol Carol Esq. Arid M. Esq. Assistant Attorneys General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. M, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 Tel: (340) 774-5666 Email: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822393/EFTA02822393.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822393/EFTA02822393.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..169d3c2d2f5fabb1b74ef476115aae30e3d9d905 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822393/EFTA02822393.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822393", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "60ee2632f96f8ca9710b24e9866e0f13f1f42669ab964c095ee836f33bc819f7", + "output_sha256": "60ee2632f96f8ca9710b24e9866e0f13f1f42669ab964c095ee836f33bc819f7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822396/EFTA02822396.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822396/EFTA02822396.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e20b5ddd2f97a96b97f8525cbb55c7eae13a4d9d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822396/EFTA02822396.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS** +District of St. [REDACTED] / St. John + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, +PLAINTIFF, + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 +Action: Debt + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al., +DEFENDANTS. + +**NOTICE of ENTRY +of +ORDER** + +To: Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. +[REDACTED] A. Kroblin, Esq. +[REDACTED] C. Rhea, Esq. +Ariel M. [REDACTED] Esq. +Carol L. [REDACTED] Esq. + +Andrew W. Heymann, Esq. +William L. Blum, Esq. +Shari Natalya D'Andrade, Esq. +Marjorie Beth Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on August 09, 2022, + +a(n) Order +dated August 9, 2022 was entered +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: August 09, 2022 + +By: Tamara Charles +Clerk of the Court + +Paula Claxton +Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822396/EFTA02822396.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822396/EFTA02822396.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37066e3187a6902c543f33034c2d4243c1a6f1ac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822396/EFTA02822396.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822396", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "45f46cc23a0dcda5132a96e93d6744df90d2a2ba6d683ff0c21ddc21570f71e4", + "output_sha256": "9b5ac54e567bc9a0499eb514f55925f2cb9caac4e881d8c27f7b28c2b6e403bf", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822397/EFTA02822397.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822397/EFTA02822397.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fb0db27dfa73540bc1ba77949eee37461e5849a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822397/EFTA02822397.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +August 09, 2022 11:23 AN + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +## CLERK OF THE COURT SUPERIOR COURT RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF STUN / ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CASE NO. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Complex Litigation Division + +Action for Indemnification + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the undersigned further to the Joint Notice filed by Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the proposed Intervenor Government of the United States Virgin Islands. Defendants request oral argument on their motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff does not oppose. Plaintiff and Defendants request oral argument on the Government's motion to intervene. Defendants also indicate that they would like to file a response to the Government's motion to intervene, which the Government opposes. + +Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-0012, the Staff has broad authority—in cases and individual cases under cases—to "[r]egulate all proceedings by . . . addressing pretrial and posttrial matters . ." (Admin. Order No. 2021-0012, p.3.) This case is not a under a case, however, and thus, the Staff authority is not as broad. But in all complex cases, the Staff has authority to "[m]ake or recommend findings of facts and conclusions of law on dispositive motions," to "[m]ake formal and informal recommendations and reports to the judge regarding any matter pertinent to the proceedings[,]" and to "[c]onduct legal analysis of parties' motions or other submissions and make recommended findings of facts and conclusions of law . . . ." Id. The Staff also has authority to "[e]stablish, + +manage and supervise discovery plans and other related schedules . . . ." Id. at 2. Consequently, while the undersigned may not be able to decide whether to grant the Defendants leave to respond to the motion to intervene out of time, the undersigned can establish a schedule by when such motion should be filed. Accordingly, it is hereby + +ORDERED that the following deadlines shall govern further briefing on the motion to intervene: if Defendants intend to request leave to respond to the motion to intervene, they must serve and file a motion on or before Friday, August 19, 2022; Plaintiff and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands may serve and file a Response on or before Friday, August 26, 2022; and Defendants may serve and file a Reply on or before Friday, September 2, 2022. In order to reduce further delay, and assuming a motion for leave to respond out of time is filed, it is further + +ORDERED that any responses and replies to the motion to intervene should be served and filed by the same deadlines given above, but as a stand-alone document, and not as an attachment to another filing. Counsel are advised that this briefing schedule is intended to reduce delay and does not mean that further briefing on the motion to intervene will be considered by the undersigned or the Judge. Should the Judge decide to grant the motion for leave to file out of time, (if such motion is filed), the briefing will already be on file. Should the Judge decide to deny the motion, the additional briefing can be stricken. It is further + +ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for a remote Hearing and Oral Argument on Friday, September 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. on (1) the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on May 1, 2020; and (2) the motion to intervene filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands on July 13, 2020. The undersigned will also hear argument on (3) the motion for leave to file a response to the motion to intervene out of time, assuming such motion is filed. + +DONE and SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2022. + +ATTEST: JOSEPH T. GASPER + +TAMARA CHARLES Staff Clerk of he Court i\_ + +By: 0 A Gan. C' .4010)A-CourjClyik .,,,, Date: )e'. V , op:W..4-774-9 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822397/EFTA02822397.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822397/EFTA02822397.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ffa23d04d25d6ba305ceae424122a1772c4bc2c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822397/EFTA02822397.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822397", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "bf266eba5ee0eee91bfca7f4ae99784cd0ea8403c033e976e69864c76b8aede7", + "output_sha256": "bf266eba5ee0eee91bfca7f4ae99784cd0ea8403c033e976e69864c76b8aede7", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822399/EFTA02822399.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822399/EFTA02822399.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb95bf9eeb00930d1d60c5ae8bcc3c8d93f32a63 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822399/EFTA02822399.md @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +**FILED** +August 25, 2022 01:16 PM +ST-2020-CV-00155 +**TAMARA CHARLES** +**CLERK OF THE COURT** + +CASE INFORMATION AND LITIGANT DATA FORM + +Plaintiff(s) - Page 1 + +CASE NO. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +DATE OF FILING: 03/12/2020 + +PARTY INFORMATION + +**PLAINTIFF 1: (FULL NAME)** + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +**ALIAS:** \_\_\_\_\_ + +**PLACE OF BIRTH:** \_\_\_\_\_ + +**DOB:** / / / +MONTH/DAY/YEAR + +**PLAINTIFF 2: (FULL NAME)** + + +**PLACE OF BIRTH:** \_\_\_\_\_ + +**DOB:** / / / +MONTH/DAY/YEAR + +**MAILING ADDRESS: (Include zip code)** + +FCI TALLAHASSEE - FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION + +P.O. BOX 5000 + +TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314 + +**PHYSICAL ADDRESS:** + +501 CAPITAL CIRCLE, NE + +TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 + +**PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT:** + + +**EMAIL ADDRESS:** + + +HOME TELEPHONE: (850) 878-2173 ( ) + +CELL NUMBER: ( ) ( ) + +WORK NO.: ( ) ( ) + +FAX NO.: ( ) ( ) + +ATTORNEY INFORMATION + + CHECK HERE IF APPEARING PRO SE (ON YOUR OWN BEHALF, WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY) + +**ATTORNEY 1: (FULL NAME)** + + +**MAILING ADDRESS: (Include zip code)** + + +**PHYSICAL OFFICE ADDRESS:** + + Check if Same as Mailing Address + + + Check if Same as Mailing Address + +**EMAIL ADDRESS:** + + +HOME TELEPHONE: ( ) ( ) + +CELL NUMBER: ( ) ( ) + +WORK NO.: ( ) ( ) + +FAX NO.: ( ) ( ) + +### CASE INFORMATION AND LITIGANT DATA FORM + +n Check here if there are more than two (2) plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs' attorneys involved in this case, and attach a separate sheet that includes the required information for all such additional persons. + +### CASE INFORMATION + +Place an X next to the case type that best describes this case: + +#### CIVIL ACTIONS: + +#### TRACK 1: + +(Basic): + +#### TRACK 2: + +(Standard) + +#### TRACK 3: + +(Complex) + +# TRACK 4: + +(Review/ + +Administrative Appeals) + +### TRACK 5: + +(Specialized + +Actions/PITA) + +O Debt/Foreclosure O Eminent Domain O Condemnation ❑ Debt Collection ['Enforcement of Settlement/Arbitration Award cEnforcement and Execution Actions + +O Contract (Goods, Employment Contracts, Buyer-Plaintiff disputes over goods; Other) O Intentional Torts (Non-personal injury; Personal Injury; assault battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) O Real Property Dispgtes (Partition/Quiet Title/Ownership-Use disputes/Boundary disputes/Values Disputes) ILI Tax-related matters O Non-domestic relations Injunctive Relief Actions (Permanent and Preliminary Injunction)• O Automobile negligence (to include personal injury, property loss and wrongful death resulting therefrom) O Malpractice (medical, legal, other professional) O Premises Liability ❑ Slander/Libel/Defamation O Negligence O Negligent infliction of emotional distress ❑Fraud/Bad Faith Civil-Other (civil actions not specifically listed in a separate case type, for example:Civil Contempt actions; Action for Declaratory Judgment; Actions for Accounting; Appointment of Receiver; Enforcement of Equitable Liens; Equitable Relief; Interpleader; Wrongful Attachment and Stay of Execution, Conciliation; Conciliation; Dissolution of Instrument; Dissolution of Partnership; Forfeiture) + +(\*NOTE: Temporary Restraining Orders/Injunctive Relief are filed as emergency actions and considered on Track 6. Permanent and Preliminary injunctions are considered on this track) + +O Class Action O Product liability O Toxic Tort O Wrongful/Employment Disputes ❑ Product Liability-Tobacco + +O Writ of Review/Admin. Appeal O Petition for Review of Magistrate Decision + +O Habeas Corpus/Prisoner petitions O Expungement O Extradition O Foreign Judgment O Judicial Review/Mandamus O Civil Miscellaneous-Other (civil miscellaneous actions not specifically listed in a separate case type, to include: Petitions for mediator qualification/certification petitions; process server qualification; Letter Rogatory/pre-case discovery petitions etc.) + +TRACK 6: O Small Claims O Landlord/Tenant/FED (EMERGENCY O Petition for Temporary Restraining Order O Other Emergency Petitions + +/EXPEDITED + +PETITIONS) + +**FAMILY ACTIONS:** + +**TRACK 1:** Uncontested Divorce; Dissolution of Vesper Marriage Legal Separation + +**SUMMARY** Visitation Paternity; Adoption; Conservatorship/Trusteeship; Name Change, + +**PROCEEDINGS** PINS petitions, Guardianship (Juvenile) + +**TRACK 2:** Custody (UCCA, Foreign Judgment, and Private Custody); Child support (All child support) + +**STANDARD** Abuse; Neglect; Dependency/Child Victim; Contested Divorce + +**TRACK 3:** Juvenile Delinquency; Custody (Public); Termination of Parental Rights + +**COMPLEX** + +**TRACK 4:** Petition for Restraining Order (DV); Involuntary Commitment; Guardianship (Adult); + +**EMERGENCY PETITIONS** Marriage Application; Emergency Relief of any kind (i.e. emergency temporary custody, etc.) + +**PROBATE ACTIONS:** + +**TRACK 1:** Summary Administration; Settlement Without Administration; Wills for Safekeeping; + +**SUMMARY OR EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS** Ancillary Probate Matters; Registration of Foreign Wills + +**TRACK 2:** Settlement WITH Administration, Probate for Wrongful Death Actions; Probate by Creditor; All other Probate matters not specified in Track 1. + +**LIST/SPECIFY ALL CAUSES OF ACTION PLED:** Action for indemnification under contract, common law, and corporations law theories. + +**SIGNATURE(S) -- (Each Plaintiff's Attorney or Pro Se Litigant is Required to Sign and Date the document below):** + +Kyle R. Waldner +PRINT + +PRINT + +/s/ Kyle R. Waldner +SIGNATURE + +SIGNATURE + +8/19/2022 +DATED + +DATED \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822399/EFTA02822399.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822399/EFTA02822399.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9830acd9e5cb9ea6aa13370c3330fc897eff6695 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822399/EFTA02822399.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -168, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822399", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6bbf0cec6400e466d75e342420dee669684f4e7c35b989134b218dfdbcddf975", + "output_sha256": "4800f7f94d65c6f4845f36e496b2e8e7157d7cc64b1e3aa761bbad43a6c7b92c", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822402/EFTA02822402.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822402/EFTA02822402.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd122b9851c5243f0678885d7da6df3b34f79985 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822402/EFTA02822402.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +FILED + +August 25, 2022 01:16 PH + +5T-2020-CP-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## VERIFIED STATEMENT OF KYLE R. WALDNER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW + +I, Kyle IL Waldner, pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 84, state that: + +- 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all Courts in the Virgin Islands. +- 2. 1, through the law firm of Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. (collectively, the "Firm"), represent Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell (the "Client") in the captioned matter. + - 3. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. +- 4. The Firm has notified the Client of its intent to withdraw from the representation in this matter, which efforts are accurately described in the Firm's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff filed on August 25, 2022. +- 5. The Client has been advised to obtain new counsel, and will be provided, by U.S. Mail with a copy of the Firm's motion to withdraw pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 6-5. + +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day of August, 2022. + +A/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822402/EFTA02822402.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822402/EFTA02822402.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df77452a33d5db562293e448a6ff8165ae7eb05f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822402/EFTA02822402.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822402", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1b9adfb22171d3a7e19485005ebd75d0603f5364893f614eac199f95e63718b6", + "output_sha256": "1b9adfb22171d3a7e19485005ebd75d0603f5364893f614eac199f95e63718b6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822404/EFTA02822404.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822404/EFTA02822404.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81f8fa84c707bfad0813936276cdb1064bd01d04 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822404/EFTA02822404.md @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +August 25, 2022 01:16 PH + +5T-2020-CP-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF + +Pursuant to V.I. Supreme Court Rule 211.1.16(b) and V.I.R.Civ.P. 6-5, Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. and Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. (collectively, the "Firm"), hereby move to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL. In support hereof, the Firm states: + +- 1. The Firm was retained as counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to a certain engagement agreement, which required Plaintiff to timely pay the Firm's invoices for services rendered in this matter. The agreement also gave the Firm the right to terminate the engagement and withdraw from this representation for non-payment of any invoice. +- 2. The Firm provided legal services to Plaintiff in connection with this matter and invoiced Plaintiff for legal fees and expenses incurred. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, Plaintiff has failed to make payments to satisfy the Firm's outstanding invoices. The Firm has + +determined that this representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on it and has been rendered unreasonably difficult by these failures. + +3. On August 1, 2022, the Finn notified Plaintiff through her representatives (including her brother, Kevin Maxwell) that unless payment was received, it would seek withdrawal. Having not received the requested payment, on August 16, 2022 the Firm communicated to Plaintiff via certified mail, addressed to FCI Tallahassee, P.O. Box 5000, Tallahassee, FL 32314, with a copy by email to Plaintiff's representatives, that it has terminated its representation of Plaintiff in this matter pursuant to V.I.S.CT.R. 211.1.16(b) and would withdraw as counsel. The Firm advised that Plaintiff should secure substitute counsel as soon as possible, and that it would arrange for a swift transfer of the file to Plaintiff's new counsel. + +4. The termination of the attorney-client relationship is addressed by V.I.S.CT.R. 211.1.16, which provides in part that, "a lawyer may withdraw from representing the interests of the client if: (1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; ... (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled; (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists." + +5. Given the present circumstances, withdrawal at this point can be accomplished without material adverse impact upon Plaintiff,' while compelling the Firm to represent a client + +Two motions are presently pending: (1) the Estate's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; and (2) the Government of the Virgin Islands' Motion to Intervene. Both motions are + +not paying its invoices would represent an unreasonable financial burden upon it. Accordingly, the Firm should be permitted to withdraw pursuant to V.I.S.CT.R. 211.1.16(b)(1). + +6. In support of this motion, pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 6-5, the Firm submits the attached verified statement and updated civil litigant data form for Plaintiff. Further, as reflected in the certificate of service below, these moving papers will be served upon Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. + +WHEREFORE, the Firm respectfully asks this Court to grant it leave to withdraw its appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, to relieve and absolve it of further responsibility in this matter, to stay all existing deadlines for sixty (60) day to afford Plaintiff time to obtain new counsel, and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems proper and just. + +Dated: August 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted, + +QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, MI & BOYER, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4 Floor Miami, FL 33156 T: (340) 693-0230 F: (340) 693-0300 + +By: /s/ Kyle R. Waldner Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. kwaldner@qpwblaw.com V.I. Bar No.: 1038 + +fully briefed. The parties have not yet had a Rule 16 conference and discovery has not yet commenced. Given the posture of this matter, the Firm's withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on Plaintiff because there is time for new counsel to appear and get up to speed before the discovery phase in this matter commences. In an abundance of caution, the Firm further requests that the Court enter a sixty (60) day stay of this matter to afford Plaintiff time to obtain new counsel. + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 25, 2022, I filed the foregoing, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), with the Clerk of the Court using the Court's electronic filing system, which will send a notice of such filing to the following: + +Kroblin, Esq. KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802 ckroblin@kellfer.com + +Adel M. =, Esq. (AAG) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. , U.S. Vir in Islands 00802 + +C. Rhea, Esq. C. RHEA, PC 1533 Appling Dr. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 grhea@rpwb.com + +I will also cause a copy of the foregoing motion to be served by U.S. Mail to: + +Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Register Number: 02879-509 FCI Tallahassee Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 5000 Tallahassee, FL 32314 + +Is/ Kyle R. Waldner + +Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822404/EFTA02822404.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822404/EFTA02822404.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a3e69df00f92ad414843b3ac01866475ecd38f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822404/EFTA02822404.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822404", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e1479c8cd363ff1e1d87c0ee17495aa721cad5776e118ea49cb4a3b10bcd71b0", + "output_sha256": "e1479c8cd363ff1e1d87c0ee17495aa721cad5776e118ea49cb4a3b10bcd71b0", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822408/EFTA02822408.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822408/EFTA02822408.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c73d8440ebac834131e093ed9a015b1dca5f9d4f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822408/EFTA02822408.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +August 25, 2022 01:20 PH + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff filed by Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. and Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. It appearing that all parties have been duly served and that movants have complied with the requirements of V.I. S. CT. R. 211.1.16(b) and V.I. R. CIV. P. 6-5, and the premises having been considered, it is hereby: + +ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff is GRANTED and that Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. and Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. are relieved and absolved of further responsibility in this matter; and it is further + +ORDERED that this matter is stayed for sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order to afford Plaintiff time to retain new counsel; and it is further + +ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain new counsel and notify the Court of new counsel within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order; and it is further + +ORDERED that, until such time that new counsel enters an appearance on Plaintiff's behalf herein, all further pleadings, motions, discovery, orders, and any and all other communications concerning this matter be sent to Plaintiff by U.S. Mail to: Ms. Ghislaine + +Maxwell, Register Number: 02879-509, FCI Tallahassee, P.O. Box 5000, Tallahassee, FL 32314; and it is further + +ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be delivered to counsel of record. + +Dated: , 2022 + +HON. HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ATTEST: OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court + +By: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822408/EFTA02822408.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822408/EFTA02822408.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4ff5a312f57b75242ea68c29cbea43778554792 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822408/EFTA02822408.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822408", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "e001a727dfe37617a7208b582057fd06a9388fd84a4f1e8671fab9eb045b7818", + "output_sha256": "e001a727dfe37617a7208b582057fd06a9388fd84a4f1e8671fab9eb045b7818", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822410/EFTA02822410.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822410/EFTA02822410.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efb7d8c34d78817e6cc779e0d60104d689186b4e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822410/EFTA02822410.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Septerker 07, 2322 05:25 P + +5I-2020-C1-00155 + +TAMARA CH ARIA'S CLERK OF THE COURT •••••••••• •••• I SS V • + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COUTSILIHE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +VS. + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff filed by Quintairos, Prieto, & Boyer, P.A. and Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. It appearing that all parties have been duly served and that movants have complied with the requirements of V.I. S. CT. R. 211.1.16(b) and V.I. R. CIV. P. 6-5, and the premises having been considered, it is hereby: + +ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff is GRANTED and that Quintairos, Prieto,M & Boyer, P.A. and Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. are relieved and absolved of further responsibility in this matter; and it is further + +ORDERED that this matter is stayed for sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order to afford Plaintiff time to retain new counsel; and it is further + +ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain new counsel and notify the Court of new counsel within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order; and it is further + +ORDERED that, until such time that new counsel enters an appearance on Plaintiff's behalf herein, all further pleadings, motions, discovery, orders, and any and all other communications concerning this matter be sent to Plaintiff by U.S. Mail to: Ms. Ghislaine + +Maxwell, Register Number: 02879-509, FCI Tallahassee, P.O. Box 5000, Tallahassee, FL 32314; and it is further + +ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be delivered to counsel of record. + +Dated: St L I , 2022 + +ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court + +g te /C--- 9/ 7/ 1D2-Z-By: + +—7:Zicrze/6)( + +ON. HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822410/EFTA02822410.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822410/EFTA02822410.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62fd6960f8527d657d884301184bd8f2a8a81cf9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822410/EFTA02822410.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822410", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a012596e3ae226d3eb9b0f69cf2028a15bf644e4dd79bc6c83cb5ce8a57aec58", + "output_sha256": "a012596e3ae226d3eb9b0f69cf2028a15bf644e4dd79bc6c83cb5ce8a57aec58", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822412/EFTA02822412.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822412/EFTA02822412.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6fe462c8ed3843489c90d06d009318967764d7d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822412/EFTA02822412.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +FILED + +SepterbeT 09, 2022 06:01 n + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. 'St. John + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN I. INDYKE in his capacity as EXECUTOR of THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York limited Liability Company, Defendants. + +> To: Ghislaine Maxwell K le R. Waldner, Esq. A. Kroblin, Esq. Daniel S. Ruzumma, Esq. + +Dated: September 8, 2022 Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Debt + +## NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq. Andrew W. Heymann, Esq. L. Blum, Esq. Marjorie Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on September 8, 2022 + +a(n) ORDER + +dated September 7, 2022 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +By: + +Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court + +Cheryl Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822412/EFTA02822412.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822412/EFTA02822412.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5197773c343716009d54b17606e70cf3a8172e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822412/EFTA02822412.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822412", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "83a5d8d84ff72235727320f1f2a1d6fe12cbfc93db7124c66a65c9370c4ea717", + "output_sha256": "83a5d8d84ff72235727320f1f2a1d6fe12cbfc93db7124c66a65c9370c4ea717", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822413/EFTA02822413.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822413/EFTA02822413.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b0787e61f0eec99033628dd798c2768bd4f683b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822413/EFTA02822413.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## FILED + +February 15, 2023 95:97 PM + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +## TAMARA CHARLES 4THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CLERK OF THE COURT District of St. 'St. John + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN I. INDYKE in his capacity as EXECUTOR of THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York limited Liability Company, Defendants. + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Debt + +## NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +To: Ghislaine Maxwell a Rhea, Esq. A. Kroblin, Esq. Andrew W. He L. Blum, Esq. Shari N. D'Andrade E . Carol L. Esq. Ariel M. Esq. Daniel S. Ruzumma, Esq. Marjorie Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on February 15, 2023 + +a(n) ORDER dated February 15, 2023 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: February 15, 2023 Tamara Charles + +Clerk of the Court + +Ii\. + +Cheryl Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822413/EFTA02822413.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822413/EFTA02822413.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..684ef660cae835585fe6a3d83de84a71980acfc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822413/EFTA02822413.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822413", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "536b72d7e0608bcf63d4eac0089d04e440c751276589bb531c339ee99d602c15", + "output_sha256": "536b72d7e0608bcf63d4eac0089d04e440c751276589bb531c339ee99d602c15", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822414/EFTA02822414.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822414/EFTA02822414.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f0205282302a34145b7d2a990acd34b08c6c50c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822414/EFTA02822414.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +## FILED + +February 15, 2023 04:54 PM ST-2020-CV-00155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## SUPERIOR COURT O RGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. / ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +Case No. ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Complex Litigation Division + +Action for Indemnification + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the undersigned following a review of the case. On September 7, 2022, the Court (Willocks, J.) granted a motion filed by Kyle R. Waldner, Esq. on August 25, 2022, asking permission to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell. The order granting Attorney Waldner's motion was entered the next day, on September 8, 2022, and a copy was served on Ms. Maxwell on September 15, 2022. To date, Ms. Maxwell has not responded to the order and her case remains pending without movement. To determine if Ms. Maxwell intends to pursue her claims, the undersigned will hold a hearing. + +Accordingly, it is hereby + +ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for a remote Hearing before the undersigned on Friday, March 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. AST (9:00 a.m. ET) via Microsoft Teams. As Ms. Maxwell is, at present, without an attorney, the undersigned directs the Clerk's Office to forward a copy of this order to the institution where she is incarcerated (FCI Tallahassee) at the email address listed on its website: TAL-ExecAssistant@bop.gov The undersigned further requests that, if FCI Tallahassee cannot facilitate Ms. Maxwell appearing remotely via Microsoft Teams, the Institution notify the Staff at as soon as possible so other + +arrangements can be made. The undersigned also requests that FCI Tallahassee notify the Staff [REDACTED] by email if there is a conflict with the date of the hearing. It is further + +**ORDERED** that a copy of this order be served on Plaintiff via certified mail, return-receipt requested, at the address listed in the September 7, 2022 Order, and forwarded to counsel for the Defendants, and to counsel for the Government of the Virgin Islands in light of the Government's pending motion to intervene. + +**DONE and SO ORDERED** this 15th day of February, 2023. + +ATTEST: +TAMARA CHARLES +Clerk of the Court + +By: [Signature] +Court Clerk +Date: 02-15-2023 + diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822414/EFTA02822414.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822414/EFTA02822414.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19fcfb0583da0e227d5fac374138b10094c7ae1e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822414/EFTA02822414.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -5, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822414", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "833f07a9648f198cca68da1a7686b19e8086ffd73720488e31c62641ee097eaa", + "output_sha256": "da564b94d9a6b769585a6e0b240c392eccb32aff34d78318c0addc527e415244", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822416/EFTA02822416.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822416/EFTA02822416.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b7394856f8b7d3eacc37791468ee2aaa4fbfaac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822416/EFTA02822416.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## FILED + +February 21, 2023 01:56 PH 51-2020-CV-00155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +PLAINTIFF, + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +DEFENDANTS. + +## GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO INTERVENE + +The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws it Motion to Intervene, which was filed in the abovecaptioned action on July 10, 2020, in light of the Government's recent settlement of its separatelyfiled action against Defendant the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. + +Respectfully submitted, + +CAROL ESQUIRE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE + +Dated: February 21, 2023 By: /s/ Aricl NI. ARIEL M. ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. , U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 Email: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10155 + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of Motion to Intervene was served via regular mail, postage prepaid, with a courtesy copy sent by email to counsel of record on February 21, 2023 to: + +KYLE R. WALDNER, ESS QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, & BOYER, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 E-mail: kwaldner@qpwblaw.com + +DAVID CATTLE, ESQ. THE CATTIE LAW FIRM, P.C. 17101,7ns Gade St. , V.I., 00802 e-mail: david.cattie@cattie-law.com + +KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ., WILLIAM BLUM, ESQ. SHARI D'ANDRADE ES . KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802-3602 Email: cicroblin@kellfer.com aheymann@solblum.com wblum@solblum.com sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen@kellfer.com + +ANDREW TOMBACK McLaughlin & Stem, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 United States Email: ATomback@mclaughlinstem.com + +DANIEL WEINER MARC A. WEINSTEIN HUGHES HUBBARD & REID, LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004-1482 United States Email: daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com + +By: /s/ Ariel M. ARIEL M. ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 Email: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10155 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822416/EFTA02822416.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822416/EFTA02822416.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48e76e37afd70d0dedc627142c9ff7172764cd7f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822416/EFTA02822416.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822416", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "6680ec42d4dd2b94442e44dcf96967425aad54ad2453bcc78fdfc63853d652f2", + "output_sha256": "6680ec42d4dd2b94442e44dcf96967425aad54ad2453bcc78fdfc63853d652f2", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822419/EFTA02822419.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822419/EFTA02822419.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..639140f9c887bdaf1e331bc1738ac274aa7fa1ab --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822419/EFTA02822419.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## FILED + +February 21, 2023 01:56 PH + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Case No. ST-20-CV-155 + +PLAINTIFF, + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN • INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +DEFENDANTS. + +## ORDER + +Before the Court is the Government's Withdrawal of its Motion to Intervene filed on July 10, 2020. In support of its motion to withdraw, the Government points to its recent settlement of its separately filed action against Defendant the Estate of Jeffery E. Epstein. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby + +ORDERED that the Government's Withdrawal of its Motion to Intervene is GRANTED; and it is further + +ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on all counsel of record. + +Judge of the Superior Court + +ATTEST: + +By: + +Clerk of Superior Court \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822419/EFTA02822419.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822419/EFTA02822419.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..845e3f280e1402d70f4af0a7b613856624856513 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822419/EFTA02822419.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822419", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "63be80f6ab91058ba134ededb842651dfe7a04e9ed42a97567514b24ee8b6e95", + "output_sha256": "63be80f6ab91058ba134ededb842651dfe7a04e9ed42a97567514b24ee8b6e95", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822420/EFTA02822420.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822420/EFTA02822420.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87a2ae66c6b9daa8df21ccc0fdcf9627f513648b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822420/EFTA02822420.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +FILED March 17, 2023 10:44 Ni 51-2020-Cv-00155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. St. John + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Case Number. ST-2020-CV-00155 PLAINTIFF, Action: Debt + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al., DEFENDANTS. + +Type of Case: Civil ❑Domestic Relations ❑Small Claims ❑Probate + +Date of Trial: March 17, 2023 + +Ghlslane Maxwell Appeared: ®Yes ❑No Appeared: ❑Yes ❑No + +Witness Sworn: ❑Yes rI No Defendant Acknowledged Debt: ❑Yes ❑No + +Amount Sued for: (lick or tap here to enter test. Case Postponed to: + +> ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Ghlslalne Maxwell, Pro se + +ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Gorden . Rhea, Esq., Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq., Daniel S. Ruzumma, Esq. + +WITNESS FOR PLAINTIFF WITNESS FOR DEFENDANT + +By Default: ❑Yes ❑No + +Amount Judgement: Court Cost: Attorney's Fee: + +Case Dismissed: ❑Yes ❑No + +## Clerk Notes + +This matter came on for a Status Conference. The court ask Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell if it is her intent to proceed with the lawsuit or squashed it. Ms. Maxwell replied to the court she would proceed with the lawsuit, and also she is looking for new counsel and asking the court for more time to find new counsel. The Attorneys for the Defendants have no objections for her getting an additional Sixty (60) days to find counsel. + +Commenced: 10:00 a.m. Staff Presiding: Gasper, II Adjourned: 10:04 a.m. Court Reporter: Randall Bels•ik By: + +Paula Claxton Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822420/EFTA02822420.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822420/EFTA02822420.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d1338816decbadeaab9c81a1e53d05a097baf4d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822420/EFTA02822420.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822420", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "83e6a0f47ba6b4d474bee21722c065735251c2c7cc0a82813477039664f7198a", + "output_sha256": "83e6a0f47ba6b4d474bee21722c065735251c2c7cc0a82813477039664f7198a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822421/EFTA02822421.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822421/EFTA02822421.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20dc2558191eaca5b92415e999116d2b27abe3d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822421/EFTA02822421.md @@ -0,0 +1,186 @@ +# FILED + +SepterbeT 19, 2023 08:20 n + +51-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +#### CO-EXECUTORS'MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO COMPEL HER TO APPEAR PRO SE + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"), an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate (collectively, "Defendants"), respectfully submit this motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), or alternatively to compel Plaintiff to appear pro se so that the action may proceed so that the pending motion to dismiss can be adjudicated. + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") brings this action against Defendants seeking common law and contractual indemnification for attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in unsuccessfully defending herself in a criminal prosecution brought in the Southern District of New York. On September 7, 2022, the Court permitted Maxwell's counsel to withdraw and ordered Maxwell to obtain new counsel within 60 days, and entered a stay of the proceedings. Maxwell did not obtain new counsel within the designated period, nor in the following four months. At a hearing on March 17, 2023, Maxwell was again ordered to obtain new counsel within 60 days, but again failed to do so then or in the months following. Despite the Court's order and despite that she, as the plaintiff, initiated this action, Maxwell has not obtained new counsel and has not entered her appearance pro se. Her refusal to follow court orders and to prosecute this case warrants dismissal pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Procedure 41(b). Specifically, under the factors articulated by the Virgin Islands Supreme Court in Halliday v. Footlocker Specialty, Inc., 53 V.I. 505, 510 (V.I. 2010), the Court should dismiss Maxwell's claim because: (1) Maxwell is personally responsible for obtaining counsel in this matter, (2) Defendants are prejudiced by Maxwell's dilatory conduct as it has stalled this action for over a year; (3) Maxwell has a history of dilatory conduct as she has now disregarded two Court orders; (4) Maxwell's conduct is willful as she is aware of the Court's orders and has neither followed them nor, if she cannot afford new counsel, appeared pro se; (5) dismissal is an appropriate sanction; and (6) Maxwell's indemnification claims fail on their face. Thus, for the reasons set forth in this brief, the Court should dismiss the Complaint under Rule 41(b) or order her to appear pro se within 30 days so that the case may proceed. + +## BACKGROUND + +On March 12, 2020, Maxwell instituted this action against the Estate and NES, seeking contractual and common law indemnification of attorneys' fees and other costs incurred as a result of her criminal prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Maxwell alleges that these costs were incurred "by reason of her prior employment relationship with Jeffrey E. Epstein and his affiliated businesses." Compl. ¶ 1. On May 1, 2020, the Estate and NES moved to dismiss Maxwell's complaint pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 12(6)(6) because (I) Maxwell's claim against the Co-Executors was premature; and (2) Maxwell's indemnification claims are barred by NES's 2014 operating agreement. On June I, 2020, the parties jointly moved for a stay of the action until the statutory one-year waiting period elapsed on September 7, 2020. The Court granted the parties' motion, and a stay was entered. The stay was lifted on September 8, 2020, and Maxwell filed her opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 11, 2020, the Co-Executors of the Estate formally rejected Maxwell's claim for indemnification. Subsequently, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, arguing that Maxwell's claims for indemnification were unripe until judgments were rendered in the civil and criminal actions pending against her in New York, as indemnity would not apply if judgment were rendered against her. + +On December 29, 2021, a jury found Maxwell guilty of multiple crimes, including conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of an individual under the age of eighteen. U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered Maxwell to pay a fine of \$750,000 for + +these offenses.' During the sentencing proceeding, Judge Nathan rejected Maxwell's argument that she was being punished for Epstein's actions, stating that the evidence at trial established that Maxwell "was instrumental in the abuse of several underage girls," and that Maxwell was "not punished in place of Epstein . . . Ms. Maxwell is being punished for the role that she played."' + +On July 1, 2022, the Court requested additional briefing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. Specifically, the Court sought further briefing on the Defendants' argument that Maxwell's common law and contractual indemnification claims were barred by public policy in light of her criminal convictions. In accordance with the Court's order, Defendants further briefed the issue, and Maxwell filed a response. Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss remains pending before this Court. + +Subsequently, Maxwell's attorney moved to withdraw as counsel from this proceeding. The Court granted the motion on September 7, 2022, ordered Maxwell to obtain new counsel within 60 days, and entered a stay. Maxwell failed to comply with the Court's order. At a hearing on March 17, 2023, Maxwell was again ordered to obtain new counsel within 60 days. She has again failed to do so. Maxwell's failure to comply with the Court's orders warrants dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) or, at a minimum, the issuance of an order compelling her to appear pro se so that the motion to dismiss can be resolved. + +I See Judgment, USA v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-00330 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2022), ECF No. 696. Judge Nathan dismissed two of five counts for which the jury found Maxwell guilty as multiplicative, and the Government agreed to dismiss two perjury counts against Maxwell that Judge Nathan previously severed from the determination of the counts considered by the jury. Id. + +{sup}`2` Transcript at 89:8-25, USA v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-00330 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2022), ECF No. 779. + +#### ARGUMENT + +Maxwell's counsel withdrew from his representation over one year ago, and since that time, this case has lain dormant. Though the Court has granted her ample time to find new counsel and ordered her to do so, Maxwell has not done so. Additionally, to the extent Maxwell is unable to retain new counsel, nothing precludes her from litigating her claims pro se, but she has thus far declined to do so. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Maxwell's Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b). + +Under Rule 41(b), dismissal is warranted if the "plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order." In weighing dismissal under Rule 41(b), the trial court considers six factors: "(1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense." Halliday v. Footlocker Specialty, Inc., 53 V.I. 505, 510 (V.I. 2010). The court does not have to conclude that all six factors weigh against the opposing party in order to find that dismissal is warranted. Nolasco Comms., Inc. v. Bonneville Grp. V.I. Corp., No. SX-15-CV-0220, 2019 WL 937584, at \*1 (V.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2019). + +Here, all six factors weigh in favor of dismissal: (1) Maxwell is personally responsible for obtaining counsel in this matter or, if she lacks the resources to do so, entering an appearance pro se; (2) Defendants are prejudiced by Maxwell's dilatory conduct as it has stalled this action for over a year; (3) Maxwell has a history of dilatory conduct in that she has now disregarded two of the Court's orders; (4) Maxwell's conduct is willful as she is aware of the Court's orders and disregarded them; (5) dismissal is an appropriate sanction under the circumstances; and (6) Maxwell's indemnification claims fail on their face. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Maxwell's Complaint. + +## 1. Maxwell Is Personally Responsible for Obtaining Counsel or Appearing Pro Se. + +As a litigant, Maxwell is responsible for retaining her own counsel or, if she is without the means to engage counsel, to move forward on a pro se basis. Where the plaintiff is personally responsible for failing to comply with a Court order rather than her attorney, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Carroll v. Sharkey, No. ST-18-CV-212, 2020 WL 8457889, at \*2 (V.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2020); Nolasco Comm., Inc., 2019 WL 937584, at \*2. There is no question that Maxwell is ultimately responsible for securing representation in this matter. Additionally, as evidenced by the docketed notice of receipt and her presence at the March 17, 2023 hearing, Maxwell is aware of her previous counsel's withdrawal and the Court's orders directing her to obtain new counsel. Nonetheless, she has failed to comply and has made no attempt to appear pro se.' Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. + +## 2. Defendants Are Prejudiced by Maxwell's Dilatory Conduct. + +Maxwell's dilatory conduct is prejudicial to Defendants. "Prejudice to the opposing party is generally demonstrated by either increased expense to the opposing party arising from the extra costs associated with filings responding to dilatory behavior or increased difficulty in the opposing parties' ability to present or defend their claim(s) due to the improper behavior." Hassan v. Brian/Bryan =, No. SX-2017-CV-302, 2023 WL 3246697, at \*3 (V.I. Super. Ct. May 1, + +{sup}`3` The Rules make clear that Maxwell is responsible for informing the Court whether she wishes to proceed pro se. Rule 3-1(c) provides that if a party's representation changes, either by obtaining new counsel or proceeding on a pro se basis, the party "is personally responsible" for alerting the court when such changes occur by filing a notice with updated contact information. Though Maxwell's counsel did so on withdrawal in this matter, it does not excuse Maxwell from keeping the Court appraised of her intentions to prosecute her claims. + +2023) (quoting Molloy v. Independence Blue Cross, 56 V.I. 155, 189 (V.I. 2012)). Here, Maxwell's failure to follow the Court's orders and either retain new counsel or appear pro se has resulted in a one-year delay in this matter. Maxwell's claims arise from events that occurred dating back to 2009. See Compl. ¶ 19. As time passes, evidence could be lost, memories will fade, and witnesses may become unavailable. If Maxwell is permitted to further delay this case, it will make it more difficult for Defendants to refute her claims. Moreover, Defendants, as Co-Executors to the Estate, are seeking to complete probate and to bring the Estate to a close. While this matter remains pending, the Co-Executors are barred from doing so. As such, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. + +## 3. Maxwell Has a History of Dilatoriness. + +Maxwell has a history of dilatoriness as evidenced by her two-time failure to comply with the Court's orders. Indeed, where a litigant has failed to respond to multiple court orders, courts have concluded there is a history of dilatoriness that warrants dismissal. Carroll, 2020 WL 8457889, at \*3. Maxwell has now disregarded two court orders and has taken no action to prosecute her claim since September 2022. As a result, this case has been stagnant for more than a year. Therefore, Maxwell's history of dilatory conduct warrants dismissal. + +# 4. Maxwell's Conduct is Willful. + +Maxwell's failure to comply with the Court's orders is willful, which weighs in favor of dismissal. Willful or bad faith conduct is "deliberate and contumacious." Nolasco Comms. Inc., 2019 WL 937584, at \*2. As discussed, Maxwell is aware of the Court's orders and has not complied, requested additional time to comply, or taken any steps to appear pro se. This demonstrates that her failure to comply with the Court's orders is willful. See Carroll, 2020 WL 8457889, at \*3 (finding that the plaintiff's conduct was willful where the plaintiff failed to retain + +new counsel or appear pro se seven months after being ordered to do so). Even if her failure to obtain new counsel is due to her incarceration, nothing prevents Maxwell from entering an appearance and litigating her claims pro se. See id.; v. , 14 V.I. 466, 471 (D.V.I. 1977) (noting that individuals have a constitutional right to represent themselves). Nonetheless, she has not done so and has instead disregarded the Court's orders and let her action languish at the expense of Defendants. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. + +#### 5. Dismissal Is an Appropriate Sanction for Maxwell's Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders. + +Dismissal is an appropriate sanction for Maxwell's failure to comply with the Court orders because alternative sanctions would not be effective in this matter. Alternate sanctions typically considered by courts include "excluding evidence, precluding witnesses, striking portions of the pleadings, or imposing monetary sanctions." Hassan, 2023 WL 3246697, at \*3. However, where there is "a lack[] of clear interest on Plaintiff's part to pursue [her] case," other sanctions are not appropriate, and dismissal is warranted. Id.; see also v. Gov't of the V.I., No. 2007-35, 2011 WL 2650637, at \*4 (D.V.I. July 6, 2011) ("Where as here, a party, rather than an attorney, is the cause of undue delay, alternative sanctions often prove unsuccessful."). Here, Maxwell has been granted ample time to retain new counsel or to prosecute her claim pro se. Her failure to do so demonstrates a lack of interest on her part to pursue her claims. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. + +#### 6. Maxwell's Contractual and Common Law Indemnification Claims Fail on the Merits. + +Finally, because Maxwell's common law and contractual indemnification claims are not viable, her Complaint should be dismissed. "A claim, or defense, will be deemed meritorious when the allegations of the pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff or would constitute a complete defense." Hassan, 2023 WL 3246697, at \*4. As briefed in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, both contractual and common law indemnification for individuals convicted of intentional criminal conduct violates public policy because it would promote illegality and allow wrongdoers to cause injury with impunity. Courts across the country routinely hold that contractual indemnification for those found guilty of intentional criminal acts is unenforceable as against public policy. See, e.g., Homesite Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Frost, No. CV 20-00024-M-DLC, 2020 WL 5369847, at \*5 (D. Mont. Sept. 8, 2020) ("in Montana there is an unmistakable public policy against . . . indemnification for criminal acts."); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gen. Mills, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-201-TWT, 2019 BL 223294, at \*11 (N.D. Ga. Jun. 14, 2019) ("if the Plaintiff is ultimately found to have been criminally negligent, then public policy would preclude indemnification."); Utica First Ins. Co. v. Maclean, No. CIV.A. 08-1138, 2009 WL 415988, at \*4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2009) ("[r]equiring an insurance company to defend or indemnify its insured for . . . criminal acts would also violate public policy in Pennsylvania.'); BDO Seidman, LLP v. Harris, 379 III. App. 3d 918, 925 (III. App. Ct. 2008) ("[t]aken together, the stipulation of facts pursuant to the PTD agreement shows that plaintiff engaged in conduct which constituted misprision of felony by knowingly concealing the felony fraud of its client, SBU. Under New York public policy. . . indemnification for such criminal conduct is barred by public policy."); Equitex, Inc. v. Ungar, 60 P.3d 746, 750 (Colo. App. 2002) ("[p]ublic policy prohibits indemnifying a party for damages resulting from intentional or willful wrongful acts.") (internal quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 8 ("a contract or bond by which one party undertakes to indemnify the other against the consequences of an illegal act is generally held illegal and void."). The Court should follow this well-established principle and reject Maxwell's contractual indemnity claim. + +Additionally, the public policy concerns that bar enforcement of contractual indemnification for those convicted of intentional criminal acts apply with equal force to common law indemnification claims or indemnification based on promissory estoppel. Both of these are equitable doctrines. See, e.g., Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23, 46 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2017) ("[t]he right to indemnity . . . is a common law equitable remedy . . . ."); Appleton v. Harrigan, No. ST-10-CV-275, 2012 WL 13219651, at •5 (V.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2012) ("[I]ike a claim of unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy."). Equity does not condone a criminal actor receiving financial immunity from the consequences of her crimes. Indemnification based on either promissory estoppel or common law is not viable (and violates public policy) where, as here, the indemnitee has been convicted of an intentional criminal act. Courts cannot enforce a judgment upholding a[n] agreement in law or in equity that is against public policy." Cruse v. Cawood, 55 V.I. 999, 1003 (D.V.I. 2010) (parties to a pyramid scheme cannot recover on a theory of restitution when they were aware of the nature of the scheme); see also, e.g., Willie, 66 V.I. at 92 (Virgin Islands recognizes common law indemnification "where an innocent party is held vicariously liable for the actions of the true tortfeasor") (emphasis in original); Equitex, 60 P.3d at 750 (rejecting a promissory estoppel claim for indemnification because "equitable doctrines such as promissory estoppel may not be used to enforce an agreement in favor of a wrongdoer"). Accordingly, Maxwell's common law indemnification claims are similarly precluded by her criminal conviction. Thus, the final factor weighs in favor of dismissal. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the Complaint. In the alternative, if the Court is not inclined to dismiss the Complaint, Maxwell should be ordered to appear pro se within 30 days or face dismissal of the Complaint. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: September 19, 2023 + + + + +/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. + +SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ + +V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 + +KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC + +Palms Professional Building + +9053 Estate M, Suite 101 + +St. M, V.I. 00802 + +Telephone: (340) 779-2564 + +Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com + +sdandradeekellfer.com + +Counsel for Executor Darren K. Indyke, the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and NES, LLC + +/s/ Daniel H. Weiner + +DANIEL H. WEINER + +V.I. Bar No. PHV4223 + +HUGHES HUBBARD & LLP + +One Battery Park Plaza + +New York, New York 10004 + +Telephone: (212) 837-6460 + +Facsimile: (212) 299-6460 + +daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com + +Counsel for the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +C. Rhea C. Rhea, Esq. + +VI Bar No. 220 + +C. Rhea, PC + +1533 Appling Drive + +Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 + +Telephone: 340-244-8768 + +grhea@rpwb.com + +Counsel for Executor Richard D. Kahn + +/s/ Daniel S. Ruzumna + +Daniel S. Ruzumna, Esq. + +V.I. Bar No. PHV4357 + +Patterson Belknap & Taylor, LLP + +1133 Avenue of the Americas + +New York New York 10583 + +Telephone: (212) 336-2034 + +Email: druzumna@pbwt.com + +Counsel for Executor Richard D. Kahn + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 20, 2023, I will cause a true and exact copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via First-Class Mail return receipt requested upon: + +Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Register Number 02879-509 FCI Tallahassee P O Box 5000 Tallahassee FL 32314 + +/s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822421/EFTA02822421.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822421/EFTA02822421.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..536fec9ea0aba61362881f09c1a9a0b0fae4f481 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822421/EFTA02822421.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -83, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822421", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 2, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "5ad48cebda9fcd3fdd21ebb496cc272d4f9ba37f583fb3fb18c6fa1f5e4b9fbd", + "output_sha256": "fb146852c8e5164c601d3fa51ad3f3bca0b995934e0acd9e402fecc9fe9499e1", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822433/EFTA02822433.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822433/EFTA02822433.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d6cd77f32e050094f07e134898ecff12cf6147c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822433/EFTA02822433.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +FILED Septerber 19, 2023 09:20 P! ST-2 02 0 -CV-0 0155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN g INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Darren Indyke, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Richard D. Kahn, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, Pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 411, or Alternatively to Compel Plaintiff to Appear Pro Se (the "Motion"). Having considered the Motion, the Court will grant the same. + +Accordingly, it is hereby + +ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED; and it is further + +ORDERED that the Complaint in this matter is DISMISSED; and it is further + +ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record. + +Dated: + +ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court BY: + +HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS PRESIDING JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822433/EFTA02822433.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822433/EFTA02822433.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59b50eb7f3ea95688611ab223e3e1523f6857e00 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822433/EFTA02822433.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822433", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "7329223bbd54d056e81e1f3bae79d57c7d075c69b06d83dfa77e4be36c4771a5", + "output_sha256": "7329223bbd54d056e81e1f3bae79d57c7d075c69b06d83dfa77e4be36c4771a5", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822434/EFTA02822434.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822434/EFTA02822434.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e54139cd0d02386cb99d4c5fefae5feee5c260f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822434/EFTA02822434.md @@ -0,0 +1,218 @@ +**FILED** +October 03, 2023 01:36 PM +ST-2020-CV-00155 +TAMARA CHARLES +CLERK OF THE COURT + +this is a copy of filing + +by Ms. Maxwell dated May 18, 2023 + +She only has access to +US Postal Service as an +inmate + +Respectfully submitted +G Maxwell + +SUPREME COURT +2023 OCT -3 PM 2:46 + +OFFICIAL USE + +Verified Mail Fee + +Sales Services & Fees \$ ... +Return Receipt (withdraw) ... +Certified Mail Restricted Delivery \$ ... +Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ... +MAY 13 2023 + +Postmark Here + +Postage ... CITALLAHASSEE, FL + +Send To + +State and Apt. No. of PO Box No. ST Thomas +15 SCAPS + +My, State, 21P-4\* + +State Form 3800, April 2019 - U.S. Circuit County ... See file version for Instructions + +KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants + +CIVIL NO. ST-CV-00155 + +COMPLEX + +PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO STATUS HEARING + +Ghislaine Maxwell (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), is appearing PRO SE following the withdrawal of her Attorney Kyle R. Waldner. (Order Granting Motion to Withdraw) (Doc. 50). A status hearing was held March 17th 2023. Present was Plaintiff and Counsel for Darren K. Indyke ("Indyke") and Richard D. Kahn ("Kahn") in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES") (collectively, the "Defendants"). A 60 day stay of proceedings to allow Plaintiff to find New Counsel was proposed and accepted without objection. This response is filed to provide the court with a status update in accordance with this courts direction. + +PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +This is an action for indemnification for the attorneys' fees, security costs, costs to find safe accommodation and all other expenses Plaintiff has incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with Jeffrey E. Epstein. ("Epstein") and his businesses. Pending before this court, in above referenced matter, are Defendants' arguments to dismiss Plaintiff's case: Co-Executors Supplemental Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss (see "SMTD"). (Doc. 36). Co-Executors Reply Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss (see "RBMD"). (Doc. 20). Motion to Dismiss & Incorporated Memorandum of Law (see "MTD"). (Doc. 7). And Plaintiff's arguments why the Defendants' filings for dismissal in above case should not prevail: Plaintiff's Brief In Response to Court Order (See "PB"). (Doc. 39). Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (See "POMD"). (Doc. 18). The motion. Is fully briefed. The parties have not yet had Rule 16 conference and discovery has not yet commenced. Plaintiff is proceeding PRO SE whilst she continues to search for New Counsel. Plaintiff is requesting a stay to give her more time to find New Counsel. Additionally Plaintiff is requesting more time to review the case file which she received and reviewed for the first time the third week April 2023. (see Exhibit A). Plaintiff seeks more time to read the relevant law and statutes so she can respond to court orders and other judicial requirements, to further study and review all court documents and relevant evidence to understand the arguments, as, should Plaintiff be unable to retain New Counsel, she will continue to represent herself PRO SE and she is seeking more time to be able to do so effectively and judiciously. Further, Plaintiff is requesting a stay whilst the United States Court of Appeals for the second Circuit: Case 22-14626-CR (see "Appeal"). (See Exhibit B). Is adjudicated as all counts could be vacated and dismissed rendering various arguments the Defendants' put forward for dismissal in the above case no longer valid. + +Filed +May 16th 2023 11.30am +ST - 2020-CV-00155 + + +Plaintiff + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN +DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as +EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. +KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +and NES, LLC a New York Limited +Liability Company, + +CIVIL NO. ST-CV-00155 + +COMPLEX + +Defendants + +### PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO STATUS HEARING + +Ghislaine Maxwell (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), is appearing PRO SE following the withdrawal of her Attorney Kyle R. Waldner. (Order Granting Motion to Withdraw) (Doc. 50). A status hearing was held March 17th 2023. Present was Plaintiff and Counsel for Darren K. Indyke ("Indyke") and Richard D. Kahn ("Kahn") in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES") (collectively, the "Defendants"). A 60 day stay of proceedings to allow Plaintiff to find New Counsel was proposed and accepted without objection. This response is filed to provide the court with a status update in accordance with this court direction. + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +This is an action for indemnification for the attorneys' fees, security costs, costs to find safe accommodation and all other expenses Plaintiff has incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with Jeffrey E. Epstein. ("Epstein") and his businesses. Pending before this court, in above referenced matter, are Defendants' arguments to dismiss Plaintiff's case: Co-Executors Supplemental Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss (see "SMTD"). (Doc. 36). Co-Executors Reply Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss (see "RBMD"). (Doc. 20). Motion to Dismiss & Incorporated Memorandum of Law (see "MTD"). (Doc. 7). And Plaintiff's arguments why the Defendants' filings for dismissal in above case should not prevail: Plaintiff's Brief In Response to Court Order (See "PB"). (Doc. 39). Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (See "POMD"). (Doc. 18). The motion is fully briefed. The parties have not yet had Rule 16 conference and discovery has not yet commenced. Plaintiff is proceeding PRO SE whilst she continues to search for New Counsel. Plaintiff is requesting a stay to give her more time to find New Counsel. Additionally Plaintiff is requesting more time to review the case file which she received and reviewed for the first time the third week April 2023. (see Exhibit A). Plaintiff seeks more time to [REDACTED] the relevant law and statutes so she can respond to court orders and other judicial requirements, to further study and review all court documents and relevant evidence to understand the arguments, etc, should Plaintiff be unable to retain New Counsel, she will continue to represent herself PRO SE and she is seeking more time to be able to do so effectively and judiciously. Further, Plaintiff is requesting a stay whilst the United States Court of Appeals for the second Circuit: Case 22-14626-CR (see "Appeal"). (See Exhibit B). is adjudicated as all courts could be vocated and dismissed rendering various arguments the Defendants' put forward for dismissal in the above case no longer valid. + +ARGUMENT + +"The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants". [REDACTED] V. Treasure Bay V.I. Corp., 2016 WL 9503682, at \*3 (V.I. Super. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Landis V. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). Generally, the party seeking a stay "must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else." Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. To that end, in determining whether to grant a motion to stay, courts have considered the following factors: (1) whether a stay will simplify issues and promote judicial economy; (2) the balance of harm to the parties; and (3) the length of the requested stay. See [REDACTED], 2016 WL 9503682, at \*3; Cheyney State Coll. Faculty V. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 737-38 (3d Cir. 1983) (citing Landis, 299 U.S.at 254 -55). There is no prejudice to the Defendants', nor have they suggested any, for the Court had to grant a stay, and there is likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail in the court of Appeal. + +UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT + +Plaintiff filed her appeal 28th February 2023. (See Appeal). (See Exhibit B). Plaintiff has asked the Appeal court to over turn her conviction based on errors made by both the government and the trial court, several of which are fatal and which would result in the dismissal of the criminal proceedings. Point 1: "All counts should be dismissed pursuant to the Non Prosecution agreement". Point 2. "All counts are barred by statute of limitations". Point 3 "Plaintiff was denied her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because a juror made false statements in Voir Dire as to material facts that if known would have provided valid basis to remove him for cause". Point 4. "The court constructively amended counts 3 & 4 of the indictment". Defendants', in case before this court, have argued for its dismissal, in part, as Plaintiff, "cannot be indemnified for intentional wrong doing including criminal conduct" (See RBMD at pp 3-4 n.2.). (Doc. 20). The outcome of the Plaintiff's appeal could render various of the Defendants' arguments for dismissal invalid as they would not hold water as the Plaintiff would no longer be convicted of criminal conduct. A stay is requested for judicial economy until such time that the Appeal court has ruled. + +PLAINTIFF SEEKING NEW COUNSEL + +Plaintiff is seeking New Counsel as she is aware it is preferable for all parties to be represented for efficiency and for judicial economy. Plaintiff faces challenges finding New Counsel as many potential candidates are conflicted and Plaintiff is facing financial constraints. All incarcerated people have communication challenges, as Plaintiff does. Her situation is not unique but for the courts consideration, it bears noting that Plaintiff has no ability to write snail mail, E Mail, or call any potential new attorney with client attorney privilege. Communications with client attorney privilege are permitted with attorneys of record. Communications with others require pre approval which lends itself to potential delays for approval. Plaintiff is seeking a stay because of the extra time she needs, due to the particular challenges elucidated, to find and communicate with potential new Counsel. + +PRO SE REPRESENTATION + +In the event that Plaintiff cannot retain New Counsel she will continue to represent herself. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and has been for almost the entire pendency of the above case. Plaintiff, along with all other incarcerated people, faces challenges working with the courts and with counsel due to difficulties encountered in Prison. As noted in Plaintiff's Appeal, "From that day (of her arrest) Maxwell was held in solitary confinement...By the time of trial, Maxwell was so disorientated and diminished that she was unable meaningfully to assist in her own defense much less to testify". (see Appeal. p.12)(Exhibit B). Participating in any legal proceedings was rendered impossible due to the "inhumane conditions" she endured. "Her conditions of confinement ranging from sleep deprivation to fact of access to legal counsel and discovery to prepare for trial", were seminal. (see Statement).(see Exhibit C). Plaintiff's entire incarceration has been spent whilst Covid protocols were in place which added additional hurdles, as it did for all other inmates, including but not limited to restrictions on in person legal visits as Covid spread. Post conviction, Plaintiff was moved to a different institution and she is currently housed under slightly less restrictive conditions, but there are still many impediments and hurdles Plaintiff needs to overcome to be able to work effectively and efficiently on the above case. The court may be not be aware that Plaintiff has no access to a computer to type any document per court norms, expectations, and requirements, no internet access to do research, and no consistent or reliable use of a flat surface to write on. There has been no photocopying machine available for inmates since November 15th, 2022 in Plaintiff's current place of incarceration. Access to a printer is not consistent and random events interfere with daily prison life and are a regular occurrence making meaningful planning or execution of work challenging. Further, once under the aegis of BOP an inmate enters a veritable technological black hole where Prison computers, that allow legal research on a closed system, give the appearance of working on an old DOS program and additional research is conducted through antiquated legal books and the use of a typewriter or pen and paper which is available for taking notes, taking those incarcerated back in time to a period Pre 1980's. In addition, however, Plaintiff has no access to relevant Virgin Island law which she was told she would have to purchase separately. (see Exhibit D). Plaintiff is respectfully requesting more time to allow her to research legal arguments, purchase and have delivered to her up to date relevant legal books, prepare and locate various documents, all with the intention to avoid delays, to promote judicial economy going forward should she be unable to find New Counsel and continue before this court PRO SE. + +CLAIMS AGAINST NES AND OTHER ENTITIES + +Plaintiff is surprised by Defendants' improper invitation to dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on NES 2014 Operating Agreement, a period of time long after Plaintiff ceased working for Epstein. (see Compl. p15. n46). (Doc 1). It is a bridge to far to suggest a sophisticated businessman like Epstein, sole member of NES, with experienced lawyers and financial advisors, would forgo the protections afforded by an Operating Agreement for 16 years, from 1998 - 2014 the date the Defendants' produced NES Operating Agreement. (See MTD & attached Exhibit C, NES Operating Agreement). (Doc 7). Defendants' suggest there is no legal or factual basis to believe that an earlier different agreement ever existed (telling the language of the NES operating agreement does not reference or purport to amend any prior operating agreement) (see RBMD. p.8 n.9.). (Doc. 20). These arguments are self serving. Even if the court were to credit Defendants' arguments, and it should not, under New York Law limited liability companies, when no Operating Agreement exists, the LLC is subject to "numerous sections in the (Limited Liability Company Law) that set forth default provisions applicable to the limited liability company "). N.Y. Limit. Liab. Co. 420. Plaintiff seeks additional time to review NY Limited Liability Company law, and additional case law relevant to arguments presented, and to review Virgin Island law whilst searching for an earlier Operating Agreement Plaintiff believes exists. + +Plaintiff was employed by various other entities owned by Epstein (see Compl. p.8 n.52). (Doc.1). Defendants' suggested that other entities Plaintiff said she was employed by only "likely" had indemnity, and that her claims are "too thin" to satisfy the requirement for all elements of her claim. (see MTD p.8 n.8). (Doc 7). Plaintiff has located a lawsuit filed in early 2000's. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Nelson Shanks v. Leslie Wexner and Abigail Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein and J. Epstein and Co. Inc and Ghislaine Maxwell. Case No. 02-7671. ("Shanks"). (See Exhibit E). The lawsuit was regarding the non payment for painting the Wexner family by Shanks. Plaintiff was indemnified for her involvement in the Shanks suit, as she was for other suits (see PB p.12). (Doc 39). This affirmatively demonstrates Defendants' indemnifying Plaintiff for legal costs and is illustrative of a pattern that supports Plaintiff's argument that she was indemnified for all legal proceedings incurred by reason of her employment by Epstein. Plaintiff is also aware of new ongoing litigation surrounding Epstein and the Estate through which previously undisclosed information continues to surface, and Plaintiff is researching, believing that it contains pertinent information. As an example of new probative information that has come to light, in an interview that Epstein gave in his own voice that was recently aired, Epstein is quoted saying in part of the interview, "it's, it's just unfair because she (Plaintiff) really plays no role, and Ghislaine was never, never ever a part of any of this stuff." (Netflix: Filthy Rich. 25th Nov, 2022). + +CONCLUSIONFor the reasons set forth herein Plaintiff respectfully requests a 180 day stay of proceedings, or until Plaintiff's Appeal is rendered or any amount of time this court deems right and proper. + +Respectfully submitted, + +LD.# GDPR- 509 +Federal Correctional Institutional +501 Capital Circle NE +Tallahassee, FL 32301 + +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN** + +CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESPSTEIN, DARREN K. INKYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. ESPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EXPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Defendants, + +**TRANSMITTED HERE WITHIN** + +Complete Copy of Entire file case ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TO BE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE INMATE ONLY. + +Please signed and return, or email. + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +4/21/23 + +DATE and TIME + +Superior Court of the Virgin Islands +P.O. Box 70 +St. [REDACTED], U.S. V.I. 00804-0070 + +Paula claxton@vicourts.org + +22-1426-CR + +# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 7-FOR"THE SECOND CIRCUIT + +## PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE + +WWW.Aidaislaw.com + +### RESPONSE TO INMATE REQUEST TO STAFF MEMBER + +NAME: Maxwell, Ghislaine + +Register Number: 02879-309 Unit: B South + +This is in response to your Inmate Request to Staff Member dated April 21, 2023, and received in this office on April 25, 2023. You request access to Virgin Island cal./ for your pending case in the Superior Court of the Virgin islands, Division of St. and St. John. As relief, you request books or comprehensive computer access for research of legal relevance. + +Inmate access to legal materials is governed by Program Statement 1315 07, Legal Activities, Inmate. Per that Program Statement, each Warden must establish a main law library containing the materials listed in the Required Main Law Library Materials (Attachment A). The Bureau is not mandated to provide state case law and/or other state legal materials. Pursuant to Program Statement 5266 11, incoming Publications, you may purchase legal materials from outside the institution. + +I trust this ad es4s our concerns. + +Megan G. Marlow, or Date + +IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA + +NELSON SHANKS +1163 State Road +Andalusia, PA 19020 + +v. + +LESLIE and ABIGAIL WEXNER, h/w +One Whitebarn Road +New Albany, OH 43054 + +Case No. 02-7671 + +and + +JEFFREY B. EPSTEIN, individually +and d/b/a J. EPSTEIN AND +COMPANY, INC. +New York, NY 10022 + +and + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL +New York, NY 10022 + +### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +This is to certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing, + +# Plaintiff's Response to Status Hearing + +upon the following addresses, by placing same in a sealed envelope, bearing sufficient postage for the delivery via United States Mail Service to: + +Ariel M. IIIII Esq. (AAG) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsesn Gade St. ,U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +and deposited in the postal box provided for inmates on the grounds of the Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, Florida 32301 on this 16th day of Mav 2023 + + +Litigation is deemed FILED at the time it was delivered to prison authorities. + +See: Houston v. Lack, 487 US 266, 101 L Ed 2d 245, 108 S Ct 2379 (1988). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822434/EFTA02822434.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822434/EFTA02822434.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9f44ab5982d247f1f09a1dca5e6407e524f9531 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822434/EFTA02822434.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -192, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822434", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 4, + "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "a1df846b20e48015327547994ac13f4d8c45bc0e08bd6e92dbdf5b6145c4905d", + "output_sha256": "2b813445c96a6dac4c10c15e58d9f2c210ebfb6e442dd015c6777e3e373a4766", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822446/EFTA02822446.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822446/EFTA02822446.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ba75893d58fefb0987e47f8966bece2d98b63b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822446/EFTA02822446.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +FILED + +October 03.2023 01:36 PM + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## TRANSMITTAL + +TO: TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT + +FROM: VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ. Clerk of the Court + +BY: Reisha Corneiro Deputy Clerk II + +DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2023 + +RE: + +- 1. FILING DATED MAY 18, 2023 RECEIVED FROM GHISLAINE MAXWELL + +Should you have any questions, please contact the clerk's Office. Thank you very much for your attention in this matter. + +PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE REFERENCE BY SIGNING BELOW. THANK YOU. + +RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED BY: + +DATE: TIME: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822446/EFTA02822446.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822446/EFTA02822446.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee9b93845a799f343b10464ba13c76e4581652e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822446/EFTA02822446.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822446", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "28401df790e57a8aeb87ffdf6b5f2e55176e3a8dbcf97021e62deca1d6eb2108", + "output_sha256": "28401df790e57a8aeb87ffdf6b5f2e55176e3a8dbcf97021e62deca1d6eb2108", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822447/EFTA02822447.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822447/EFTA02822447.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfc80caad413b991ee4c66f788dae4b46fb0ac41 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822447/EFTA02822447.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +FILED + +October 31.2023 04:36 PM + +ST-2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## CO-EXECUTORS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS. OR ALTERNATIVELY. COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR PRO SE + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"), an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate (collectively, "Defendants"), respectfully submit this reply in support of their supplemental motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, or alternatively, to compel Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") to appear pro se. + +#### ARGUMENT + +Maxwell initiated the instant action over three and a half years ago, seeking contractual and common law indemnification of attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in connection with her criminal prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Subsequently, Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). That motion has been fully briefed and pending before this Court since August 2022. + +The Court has held off ruling on Defendants' motion because, in September 2022, Maxwell's counsel withdrew, and the Court stayed the proceedings to allow Maxwell time to seek new representation. By March 2023, Maxwell still had not secured new counsel, and the Court granted her an additional sixty days to do so. + +Having received no indication from Maxwell that she had retained new counsel or intended to proceed pro se, on September 19, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, or alternatively, to compel Maxwell to appear pro se. But on October 3, the Court received a filing from Maxwell—apparently dated May 16, 2023—in response to the Court's March 2023 Order.' In her filing, Maxwell seeks an additional one hundred-eighty days to secure new counsel and requests yet another stay during the pendency of the appeal of her criminal conviction. + +Maxwell's perpetual delay in prosecuting her claims must end. Maxwell's filing sets forth no new grounds to support her request for more time to secure counsel. Instead, she merely details the difficulties of obtaining counsel while incarcerated. But Maxwell's incarceration is the result of her crimes, and it does not excuse her from diligently prosecuting her claims in accordance with the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. v. Herbert, 69 V.I. 963, 697 (V.I. 2018) ("Although we have traditionally given pro se litigants greater leeway where they have not followed the technical rules of pleading and procedure, self-representation is not a license excusing compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." (cleaned up)). Indeed, Maxwell's response to the Court's March 2023 Order demonstrates that: (1) she was aware of the + +{sup}`&#`x27; While the Court received Maxwell's filing on October 3, Maxwell did not serve Defendants with a copy. Defendants did not receive a copy until October 17, when the Court alerted Defendants of the filing. + +Court's direction to identify new counsel or appear pro se, and (2) she had ample time to find new counsel and still has not done so. Given that the additional one hundred eighty days requested will expire shortly with no further word from Maxwell or appearances from counsel, Maxwell should not be permitted to delay this matter further. + +Moreover, as she indicates in her filing, if Maxwell is unable to obtain new counsel which appears to be the case thus far, as no appearance of counsel has been entered—she will be proceeding in this matter pro se. Maxwell has indicated her willingness to proceed pro se, and that status does not justify any further delay of the Court's consideration of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, Defendants' Motion has already been fully briefed by all parties when Maxwell was still represented by counsel. Whether Maxwell is able to obtain counsel or not should have no effect on the Court's consideration of the Motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should lift the stay and address Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss. + +Finally, this matter should not be further stayed during the pendency of Maxwell's criminal appeal. While Maxwell's criminal conviction is one reason why her indemnification claims are barred, Defendants also set forth several other arguments in their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion that independently support dismissal of her claims, including that (1) NES's operating agreement bars Maxwell's claims and (2) the lawsuits for which Maxwell seeks indemnification are not related to her performance of legitimate, employment-related duties on behalf of Epstein or his affiliated entities. Thus, the outcome of Maxwell's criminal appeal does not preclude the Court from ruling on Defendants' Motion. As detailed in Defendants' supplemental Motion, the Estate is prevented from completing probate and bringing the Estate to a close while this matter remains pending and + +thus, any further delay is prejudicial. Consequently, Maxwell's request for a further stay should be denied. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Defendants' supplemental Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, or alternatively, should lift the stay, compel Maxwell's pro se appearance, and rule on the Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: October 31, 2023 + +Dated October 31, 2023 + +/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 ICELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com Counsel for Executor Darren K. Indyke, the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and NES, LLC + +Is/ Daniel H. Weiner DANIEL H. WEINER V.I. Bar No. PHV4223 HUGHES HUBBARD & LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 837-6460 Facsimile: (212) 299-6460 daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com Counsel for the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Dated October 31, 2023 + +Dated October 31, 2023 + +/s/ C. Rhea C. Rhea, Esq. VI Bar No. 220 C. Rhea, PC 1533 Appling Drive Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: 340-244-8768 grhea@rpwb.com Counsel for Executor Richard D. Kahn + +Is/ Daniel S. Ruzumna Daniel S. Ruzumna, Esq. V.I. Bar No. PHV4357 Patterson Belknap & Taylor, LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10583 Telephone: (212) 336-2034 Email: druzumna@pbwt.com Counsel for Executor Richard D. Kahn + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 31, 2023, I will cause a true and exact copy of the foregoing Co-Executors' Reply in Support of Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Compel Plaintiff to Appear Pro Se, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via Certified Mail return receipt requested upon: + +Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Register Number 02879-509 FCI Tallahassee P O Box 5000 + +Tallahassee FL 32314 /s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822447/EFTA02822447.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822447/EFTA02822447.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..562f1fb7924c68ac84542e974687ddb7b19302ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822447/EFTA02822447.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -4, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822447", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "d5c1bc4ef792a128b474e6d3bd7f94e8b47d864527c283f356b21d3e75d57ff3", + "output_sha256": "84e0d170a86925427b58e223d1615e4f6dbe915098dd87e5a9b7a3d7465ec29a", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822452/EFTA02822452.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822452/EFTA02822452.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a365f9dced194e0348333d51e753c857fac4bf17 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822452/EFTA02822452.md @@ -0,0 +1,555 @@ +December 22. 023 02:26 PM + +ST-2020-CV 00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +I0 + +II + +12 + +13 + +14 + +I5 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +### SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +GIIISLAINE MAXWELL + +Plaintiff, + +vs. + +DIVISION OF ST aST JOHN + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E EPSTEIN;DARREN K INDYKE in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN; RICHARD D KAHN in his capacity as Executor of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company + +Defendants + +Case No.: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE + +Plaintiff's response to Co-Executors Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or alternatively to compel her to appear Pro-Se + +### Preliminary Statement + +Ghislaine Maxwell appears pro-se and respectively submits this reply in support of the continued stay in proceedings whilst her Appeal against Conviction in Southern District New York is pending, and while she continues to seek counsel, as she requested in plaintiffs response to a status hearing filed May 16th, 2023. + +Plaintiff will continue to appear, pro se and respond to any court orders in the absence of legal counsel and given the stringent constraints placed upon her by the BOP PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - 1 + +1 2 whilst in FCI Tallahassee. The Plaintiff opposes a defendant's motion to dismiss, and denies she has failed to prosecute her claims. + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +I0 + +II + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +### iltgammil + +Plaintiff brought this action 3/12/2020 prior to being swept into Epstein's criminal proceedings as she was not party to Epstein's first criminal proceedings and was not identified or referenced in his 2019 indictments. + +This action was initiated only after months of seeking contact with the Estate before the plaintiff was indicted and when the Estate could have dealt with her claims but she was ignored. Plaintiff was represented by counsel during the pendency of this case until the court granted plaintiff's attorney's right to withdraw September 7, 2022. + +The defendants allege that the plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders and willfully so. Neither is true. The Plaintiff submitted her reply per the court's order May 16, 2023 at the FCI Tallahassee Post Office, and with the postal order of proof of service and required by the BOP. + +Litigation is deemed filed at the time delivered to prison authority, Housten v LACK 487 U.S. 266; 101 LE D2 D245; 108 SCT2379 (1988). + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +Plaintiff will continue to comply with all and any Court Orders. The Estate argues as dismissal of the case as a suitable sanction. But the Court should disregard such David and Goliath tactics as the allegations are untrue and baseless. + +# ARGUMENT + +The Defendants argue for dismissal of Plaintiff's Case as her contractual and Common Law indemnification claims fail on the merits. The Plaintiff in Plaintiff's Brief in response to the Court order argued that the Plaintiffs common law indemnity claims are not barred and there is not basis to bar Plaintiffs claims as a matter of public policy at the Rule 12 stage according to Virgin Islands Law. Indemnification from criminal acts under the General Corporations Law are provided for under Virgin Islands Law as indemnification may be appropriate if the indemnitee had been convicted of a criminal charge. Specifically the general Corporation Law codified at Title 13 of the Virgin Island Codes provides for such detailed in Plaintiffs Brief in response to the Court Order dated August 1 2022. Further the co-executors public policy defense does not apply to Plaintiffs common law indemnity claims since the defense allows a party to avoid enforcement of a Contract (see Berne supra 46 VI at 150 ; Brouillard vs DLJ Mortg. Cap Inc 63 VI 788,794 VI 2015. As a matter of Common Law the Virgin Islands Courts recognize the right to indemnity between joint tortfeasors see infra Section 1 A(2) see also 41 AMJUR2d Indemnity 21 citing Horrabin vs City of Desmoines 198 Iowa 549; 199 NW 988 , 38 ALR 544 (1924). vs General ACC Fire and Life ASSUR.Corp 14 WIS 2d 1,109 NW 2d 462,88 ALR 2d; 1347 (1961). Virgin Islands Policy does not impact Plaintiffs + +PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - 3 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +I8 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +common law indemnity claims and nor does Virgin Islands public policy bar Plaintiffs indemnity claims that arise under Virgin Islands General Corporation Law. + +This law provides that a Corporation may indemnity any person who "was or is" party to civil or criminal proceeding by reason of the persons relationship with the Corporation "against expenses including attorney fees" . 13 VIC 67 a(a). In the case of a criminal proceeding the person must have had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. These arguments are fully expanded in Plaintiffs brief in response to the Court ORDER. + +Under New York Law, Courts routinely order indemnification where a Director is charged with intentional misconduct. If the director or officer satisfied the requirements of NY Biz Corp law a Court may order the Corporation to advance litigation expenses not withstanding the corporations allegations that the director or officer engaged in wrong doing against the Corporation. + +Advance payment of fees is authorized if the Defendant has raised genuine issues of fact or law NYBizCorpLaw 724 (c) .New York law provides for the indemnification of officers and directors for litigation expenses under certain circumstances. NYBizCorpLaw 722,723. New York also provides that the statutory indemnification procedures are not exclusive and authorizes a Corporation to agree to indemnify officers and directors. + +The Court utilizes 724(c) to direct the advance payment of fees where the indemnification was provided for by a corporate by law, contract or as well when no corporate PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - 4 + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +indemnification agreement existed as alleged by the Estate who claims that NES LLC operated without corporate indemnification for 16 years prior to their production of documents in 2014 from 1998 to 2014, the date the defense introduced the alleged first operating agreement, see the Motion to Dismiss and attached Exhibit C which is NES Operating Agreement. + +The co-executors should not raise any objection to indemnification on public policy grounds in addition due to unclean hands. They should be estopped from raising any objection for that reason. The unclean hands doctrine is based on the principle that a party who has committed wrongdoing should not be allowed to come into court and request a remedy for its own personal benefit. In re Prosser, 2012, WL 6-7-377. 81 at Star 17, BanIcr V.I., December 2012, citing In RE: New Valley Corp. 181 S3d, 517-525, 3rd Circuit 1999, Sunshine Shopping Center STCTR. Inc. vs. K-Mart Corp. 42 VI, 397, 407, 85 S SUP, 2d, 537, 544, DVI, Gen 27, 2000. " It is an ancient and established maximum equity jurisprudence that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. If a Party seeks relief in equity he must be able to show that on his part there has been honesty and fair dealing." vs 257 F 2D 495 500 3rd Circuit 1958. v. S (3d Cir. 1958) + +In Sunshine Shopping the court held that the defendant could be precluded from raising an equitable defense to forfeiture clause in the least due to his own "unclean hands". + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +It + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +I8 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +The Estate also fails to fully consider and take into consideration Epstein's intent that he and the Estate protect and indemnify employees and co-conspirators of Epstein. This is elucidated in the non-Prosecution agreement, which is detailed in the OPR, The Report of the Office of Professional Responsibility dated November 2020. + +The Department of Justice and Epstein's representatives worked for months with prosecutors to fashion the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that covered his employees and his co-conspirators. The document itself was described as "transactional immunity" by the prosecutors. + +The prosecutors describe the NPA as conferring transactional immunity, as the broadest and strongest protection that the Department of Justice offers. Initial language included in the NPA, "concludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges that might be in the future brought against the full co-conspirators or any employees arising out of ongoing federal investigations are precluded." page 164. Whilst language was modified slightly, so as not to be so detailed, the intent was, and the broad scope of the coverage is what remained, page 166 and 237. The broad sweep of the Non-Prosecution Agreement coupled with the previous indemnification payments demonstates epsteins desire to indemnify his employees co conpsimtors etc. + +The co-executors have not yet identified what specific issues they contend have already been decided by the Southern District of New York (SDNY), but are identical in this case. In fact, the narrow issues tried before the SDNY do not necessarily PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - 6 + +I + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +I + +12 + +13 + +14 + +Is + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +overlap with the Plaintiff's claims here, which include indemnification of requests to code in connection with the civil law suit filed by Jennifer Araroz. She did not testify in the SDNY proceedings. + +Plaintiffs claims for indemnification relate to Investigations regarding Epstein and security services incurred in 2019 in the wake of intense media scrutiny following Epstein's arrest. To the extent that Plaintiff's claims relate to expenses that Plaintiff incurred exclusively because of Epstein's actions in such claims would be clearly not be subject to any policy bar. Simply put the SDNY Judgment of Conviction does not conclusively establish any issue presented here and is not dispositive of the claims in this action as previously argued in Plaintiff's response to this Court. + +It should also be noted that on information and belief, that the two representatives of Epstein's estate are also substantial beneficiaries of the Estate, namely DARREN INDYKE In his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey, E. Epstein., and Richard D. Kahn in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein are Employees, officers and or directors of NES. L.L.C, a New York Limited Liability Company On information and belief, Indyke and Kahn, are having their litigation expenses paid by the Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein. Epsteins clearly wanted to indemnify his employees as noted by by Indyke and Kahn's indemnification on information and belief, and on plaintiffs previous suits being indemnified by Epstein whilst he was alive and as noted in previous filings. + +PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - 7 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +26 + +27 + +28 + +Plaintiffs claims may not be barred as a matter of public policy at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, and Virgin Islands' public policy is not necessarily barred Plaintiff's contractual indemnity claims because the underlying purpose of contract law is to hold parties to their agreement so that they receive the benefits of their bargains. + +Phillip vs Marsh,- Monsanto, 6-6-VI-612, 6-21-VI-2017. Because the Virgin Islands courts have recognized the right to common law indemnity between joint tortfeasors and because, in the certain circumstances, Virgin Island provides that indemnification may be appropriate even if the indemnitee has been convicted of criminal charge. And because there's no basis of our plaintiffs claim as a matter of public policy at the rule 12 stage. And because the Southern District of New York judgment of conviction, to the extent considered does not conclusively decide any issues presented in this action. + +And because co-executors's public policy defense does not apply to plaintiff common law identity claims, since the defense allowed the party to avoid enforcement of a contract. And because any objection to co executor's indemnification on ground for public policy should be found to have been waved by Epsteins past actions. + +And fmally, because the co-executors may not raise any objection on indemnification on public policy grounds due to unclean hands, + +# Conclusion + +PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE - + +1 Epstein having engaged in the wrongful conduct, as the court stated causing +2 Plaintiff to incur legal and other expenses in the first place; Epstein and by association, +3 his Estate should not be permitted to prevail in this action by relying on a salutary +4 public policy. The plaintiff respectfully ask his court to find a Virgin Islands public +5 policy, does not bar her indemnity claims in this action. +6 + +7 *Respectfully Denied* +8 *J. Megaell* +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19 +20 +21 +22 +23 +24 +25 +26 +27 +28 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822452/EFTA02822452.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822452/EFTA02822452.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6a58347021f06c6f9d9ba81e862444601391d56 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822452/EFTA02822452.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822452", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "011312421ad072eb87a69a2c68ccf95439fedaef1c6637f6466c61d25d0b35d8", + "output_sha256": "011312421ad072eb87a69a2c68ccf95439fedaef1c6637f6466c61d25d0b35d8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822461/EFTA02822461.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822461/EFTA02822461.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e858f9a60c1b2b943e3affad788b63e03b21c64 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822461/EFTA02822461.md @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +FILED January 16. 2024 11:47 AM ST-2020-CV-00155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY K ESTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +#### CO-EXECUTORS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS, OR ALTERNATIVELY. COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR PRO SE + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through their undersigned counsel, in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), and on behalf of the Estate and NES, LLC ("NES"), an entity administered in probate by the Co-Executors as part of the Estate (collectively, "Defendants"), respectfully submit this reply in support of their supplemental motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, or alternatively, to compel Plaintiff Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") to appear pro se. + +## BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY + +Almost four years ago, Maxwell initiated this action, seeking contractual and common law indemnification of attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in connection with her criminal prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Subsequently, Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Procedure 12(6)(6) (hereinafter, the "Rule 12(bX6) Motion"). In their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, Defendants argued that (1) NES's operating agreement bars Maxwell's claims; (2) the lawsuits for which Maxwell seeks indemnification are not related to her performance of legitimate, employment-related duties on behalf of Epstein or his affiliated entities; and (3) Maxwell's criminal conviction precludes her indemnification claims as a matter of public policy. That Motion has been fully briefed and pending before this Court since August 2022. + +In September 2022, the Court stayed these proceedings to allow Maxwell to secure new representation after her attorney withdrew. Six months later, in March 2023, Maxwell still had not engaged new counsel and the Court granted her an additional 60 days to do so. Again, Maxwell did not engage new counsel. + +Having received no indication from Maxwell that she had retained new counsel or intended to proceed pro se, on September 19, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, or alternatively, to compel Maxwell to appear pro se (hereinafter, the "Rule 41(b) Motion"). But on October 3, 2023, the Court docketed a filing from Maxwell—apparently dated May 16, 2023—in response to the Court's March 2023 order.' In that filing, Maxwell sought an additional 180 days to secure new counsel and requested yet another stay during the pendency of the appeal of her criminal conviction. Defendants opposed a stay on October 31, 2023. + +On December 22, 2023, the Court received Maxwell's opposition to Defendants' Rule 41(b) Motion.' In her opposition, Maxwell indicated that she still has not secured counsel and + +While the Court docketed Maxwell's filing on October 3, 2023, Maxwell did not serve Defendants with a copy. Defendants did not receive a copy until October 17, 2023, when the Court alerted Defendants of the filing. + +{sup}`2`Again, Maxwell failed to serve Defendants with a copy of her opposition brief. + +repeated her request to continue the stay while she seeks counsel. Additionally, she presented several substantive arguments in relation to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. + +Maxwell's stalling must end. As with her May 16, 2023 filing, Maxwell's opposition sets forth no new grounds or good cause for continuing the stay in this matter. Further, Maxwell's arguments as to the merits of Defendants' Rule 12(6)(6) Motion should be rejected—indeed, each of Maxwell's substantive arguments here merely parrot her prior briefing on the long-pending Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and are no more convincing today than they were more than a year ago. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should lift the stay and address Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. + +## ARGUMENT + +Maxwell's most recent filing is yet another attempt to delay these proceedings—an attempt the Court should decline to entertain. While Defendants' Rule 41(b) Motion was premised in part on Maxwell's perceived disregard of the Court's March 2023 Order—which Maxwell apparently did respond to in May 2023, but just failed to serve Defendants—the fact remains that this case has lain dormant for well over a year and Maxwell is no closer to finding new counsel. Under the circumstances, Defendants respectfully request that the Court lift the stay and address Defendants' pending Rule 12(b)(6) Motion at its earliest convenience. + +Moreover, Maxwell's arguments opposing Defendants' Rule 12(6)(6) motion have already been briefed by her then-counsel and presented to the Court, further militating in favor of lifting the stay and ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Indeed, Maxwell repeats the arguments made in her prior briefing, specifically that (1) Virgin Islands' public policy does not bar her indemnification claims; (2) Defendants' supposed unclean hands bar them from asserting a public policy defense; (3) Epstein intended to indemnify her for her criminal conduct; and (4) her criminal + +conviction is not dispositive of her claims. Opp'n Br. at 3-7. Each of these arguments lacks merit, as outlined in Defendants' prior briefing. First, Virgin Islands' public policy prohibits indemnification for those who have engaged in intentional criminal conduct. Second, the doctrine of unclean hands has no application to Defendants' public policy defense. Third, the language of NES's Operating Agreement plainly demonstrates that there was no intent to indemnify Maxwell for her intentional criminal conduct. Finally, Maxwell's criminal conviction is one of several reasons to dismiss her claims. There is no continuing reason to stay this action; respectfully, the Court should now consider and grant Defendants' pending Rule 12(bX6) Motion. + +# I. The Stay Should Be Lifted. + +There is no reasonable basis to further delay this matter. Though Maxwell once again requests more time to secure new counsel, she fails to offer any new grounds or good cause to support such a request. The Court has granted Maxwell ample time to find new counsel, but she has been unable to do so. The Court should decline to entertain additional requests from Maxwell. And though Maxwell is unrepresented, this does not excuse her from diligently prosecuting her claims in accordance with the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. v. Herbert, 69 V.I. 963, 697 (V.I. 2018) ("Although we have traditionally given pro se litigants greater leeway where they have not followed the technical rules of pleading and procedure, self-representation is not a license excusing compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.") (cleaned up). Indeed, as detailed in Defendants' Rule 41(b) Motion, Maxwell's failure to abide by the rules of procedure—specifically, Rule 41(b)—is prejudicial to Defendants. As each day passes, evidence could be lost, memories will fade, and witnesses may become unavailable, making it all the more difficult for Defendants to refute Maxwell's claims. Further, though other matters remain open, the Estate cannot complete its probate proceedings and bring the Estate to a close while this indemnification matter remains pending. Thus, any further requests for a stay should be denied. + +Moreover, as Maxwell indicates in her opposition, she will "continue to appear" in this matter pro se. Maxwell has now indicated her willingness to proceed pro se twice—in her May 16 filing and the most recent opposition—and that status does not justify any further delay of the Court's consideration of Defendants' Rule 12(bX6) Motion. That Motion was briefed by all parties when Maxwell was still represented by counsel. Whether Maxwell is able to obtain counsel or not should have no effect on the Court's consideration of the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should lift the stay. + +# II. Maxwell's Substantive Arguments Are Meritless. + +In her most recent opposition, Maxwell offers several substantive arguments in opposition to Defendants' Rule I2(b)(6) Motion—all of which have been addressed previously and lack merit. + +First, Maxwell falsely contends that public policy does not bar her contractual and common law indemnity claims. She notes that Virgin Islands common law recognizes a right of indemnity as between two tortfeasors, and that Virgin Islands statutes permit indemnification for corporate officers and employees who engage in criminal conduct on behalf of the corporation. See Opp'n Br. at 3. But common law indemnity is an equitable remedy, and such a remedy is barred where the claimant has been convicted of intentional criminal conduct as is the case here. See, e.g., Cruse v. Callwood, 55 V.I. 999, 1003 (D.V.I. 2010) (parties to a pyramid scheme cannot recover on a theory of restitution when they were aware of the nature of the scheme); Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23, 92 (Super. Ct. V.I. 2017) (Virgin Islands recognizes common law indemnification "where an innocent party is held vicariously liable for the actions of the true tortfeasor") (emphasis in original). Similarly, Virgin Islands statutory law permitting indemnification for criminal acts requires the claimant to have acted (1) in good faith and (2) without reasonable cause to believe her conduct was unlawful. See 13 V.I.C. § 67a. Maxwell does not even attempt to explain how she meets these requirements, nor could she. She was convicted + +of several offenses related to her intentional criminal misconduct. As Judge Alison Nathan reflected at her sentencing, Maxwell "was instrumental in the abuse of several underage girls," and is now being "punished for the role that she played."3 The law is clear: public policy bars indemnification for a claimant's intentional criminal wrongdoing. Such is the case here. + +Second, Maxwell argues that the doctrine of unclean hands estops Defendants from raising a public policy defense. However, it is Maxwell who is seeking an equitable remedy (indemnification) for her intentional wrongdoing—not Defendants. Additionally, the assertion of unclean hands requires that the individual's alleged wrongful conduct bear relation to the transaction at issue, here, Maxwell's indemnification. See In re New Valley Corp., 181 F.3d 517, 523 (3d Cir. 1999). But Maxwell fails to identify any purported wrongdoing by Defendants in relation to her indemnification claims. Thus, the doctrine of unclean hands does not preclude Defendants' public policy defense. + +Third, Maxwell argues that Epstein's conduct prior to his death, specifically negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement, and the Estate's assumed indemnification of others support a finding that Epstein intended to "indemnify employees and [his] co-conspirators." Opp'n Br. at 6. However, the NES Operating Agreement expressly prohibits indemnification for claims that are "the result of... reckless or intentional misconduct." Given this unambiguous language, Maxwell cannot be indemnified for her intentional criminal misconduct. See Matter of Carpe Diem 1969 LLC, No. 2017-56, 2019 WL 3413841, at \*5 (D.V.I. July 29, 2019) ("[C]ourts assume that the intent of the parties to an instrument is embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear + +{sup}`3` Transcript at 89:8-25, USA v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-00330 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2022), ECF No. 779. + +and unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the agreement.") (cleaned up). + +Fourth, Maxwell wrongly asserts that her conviction does "not conclusively establish any issue presented here" and is "not dispositive" of her indemnification claims. Br. at 7. Though Maxwell's conviction is currently on appeal,' there are other bases set forth in the Rule 12(6)(6) Motion that independently support dismissal of her claims, including that the lawsuits for which Maxwell seeks indemnification are not related to her performance of legitimate, employmentrelated duties on behalf of Epstein or his affiliated entities. Accordingly, there is no need to await the outcome of Maxwell's appeal. In sum, Maxwell's substantive arguments in opposition to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion are meritless and should be rejected. + +## CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Rule 41(b) Motion. lift the stay. and grant the pending Rule 12(bX6) Motion. + +Respectfully, + +Dated: January 16, 2024 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate • Suite 101 St. , V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfencom + +As discussed in Defendants' prior briefing, the Court should decline to stay these proceedings during the pendency of Maxwell's criminal appeal. The appeal has not yet been scheduled for oral argument, see Appeal No. 22-1426 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2023), ECF No. 90, and as described above, further delay in this matter is prejudicial to Defendants' ability to refute Maxwell's claims or administer the Estate. + +Counsel for Executor Darren K. Indyke, the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and NES, LLC + +Dated January 16, 2024 + +Dated January 16, 2024 + +/s/ Daniel H. Weiner + +DANIEL H. WEINER + +V.I. Bar No. PHV4223 + +HUGHES HUBBARD & LLP + +One Battery Park Plaza + +New York, New York 10004 + +Telephone: (212) 837-6460 + +Facsimile: (212) 299-6460 + +daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com + +Counsel for the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +/s/ C. Rhea + +C. RHEA, ESQ. + +VI Bar No. 220 + +C. Rhea, PC + +1533 Appling Drive + +Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 + +Telephone: 340-244-8768 + +grhea@rpwb.com + +Counsel for Executor Richard D. Kahn + +Dated January 16, 2024 /s/ Daniel S. Ruzumna + +DANIEL S. RUZUMNA, ESQ. + +V.I. Bar No. PHV4357 + +Patterson Belknap & Taylor, LLP + +1133 Avenue of the Americas + +New York, New York 10583 + +Telephone: (212) 336-2034 + +Email: druzumna@pbwt.com + +Counsel for Executor Richard D. Kahn + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 16, 2024, I will cause a true and exact copy of the foregoing Co-Executors' Reply in Support of Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Compel Plaintiff to Appear Pro Se, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via Certified Mail return receipt requested upon: + +Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Register Number 02879-509 FCI Tallahassee P O Box 5000 + +Tallahassee FL 32314 /s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822461/EFTA02822461.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822461/EFTA02822461.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78e372c170d3d1d33c192129177a7037addaec19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822461/EFTA02822461.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": -8, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822461", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0435d6144fb27f89f0b28c0ced12d516d2b166d3d3f17bf5dd5dc525ac3bf868", + "output_sha256": "395a83a10c17fea1eea1c0fea711cb7794f778e2da1720235a83fa781db4f91b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822470/EFTA02822470.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822470/EFTA02822470.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fda3bf15cc096b4c3d2933b8edfad078f730a57a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822470/EFTA02822470.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +FILED January 29.2024 12:24 PM ST-2020-CV-00155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +GHISLAINE MAXWELL, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +CIVIL NO: ST-20-CV-155 + +COMPLEX + +## NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 19. 2024. a true and exact copy of the Co-Executors' Reply in Support of Supplemental .\ lotion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Compel Plaintiff to Appear Pro Se, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6- 1(e), to be served via Certified Mail return receipt requested upon: + +Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Register Number 02879-509 FCI Tallahassee P O Box 5000 Tallahassee FL 32314 + +Respectfully, + +Dated: January 29, 2024 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 29, 2024, a true and exact copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing Amended Certificate of Service, which complies with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via Certified Mail return receipt requested upon: + +Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Register Number 02879-509 FCI Tallahassee P.O. Box 5000 + +Tallahassee FL 32314 /s/ Kroblin \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822470/EFTA02822470.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822470/EFTA02822470.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9fa01f8bcb1acfe11999a315f7ad04cbe57e16f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822470/EFTA02822470.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822470", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "0125e3bfa3268d928ee9c9da642fd8cd5289eb3b91b2e5a3533846668dec59d8", + "output_sha256": "0125e3bfa3268d928ee9c9da642fd8cd5289eb3b91b2e5a3533846668dec59d8", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822472/EFTA02822472.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822472/EFTA02822472.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d59d9792ac54ed57f812602bf1cd8895949938f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822472/EFTA02822472.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +## FILED + +April. 16, 2025 12:13 PM ST -2020 -CV-00155 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX + +IN RE: REASSIGNMENT OF UNGROUPED COMPLEX CASES Case No. SX-2025-MC-00024 + +## ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO COMPLEX LITIGATION DIVISION + +This matter came before the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court upon review of case assignments to Honorable Judge Ernest E. Morris, Jr. In so doing the undersigned makes the following observations: + +WHEREAS Judge Morris succeeded then Judge Harold W. L. Willocks, as a general jurisdiction superior court judge, when he took the oath of office on July 23, 2024; + +WHEREAS the following 15 cases are currently assigned to Judge Morris, + +| ST-2019-CV-602 | +| ---------------- | +| ST-2020-CV-155 | +| SX-1997-CV-328 | +| SX-2000-CV-328 | +| SX-2002-CV-598 | +| SX-2002-CV-641 | +| SX-2005-CV-273 | +| SX-2005-CV-583 | +| SX-2005-CV-661 | +| SX-2006-CV-627 | +| SX-2009-CV-299 | +| SX-2016-CV-434 | +| SX-2018-CV-381 | +| SX-2018-CV-146 | +| SX-2020-CV-684 | + +WHEREAS these cases were previously assigned to then Judge Willocks per his agreement to assist the Complex Litigation Division, and were inherited and reassigned to Judge Morris' docket via the routine assignment procedure for new judges; + +WHEREAS this Court previously determined all of the cases as complex; and + +WHEREAS the undersigned concludes it is in the best interest of judicial efficiency that all such cases should be managed as complex cases within the Complex Litigation Division, pursuant to V.I.R. Civ. P. 92(c) and (d), to promote the efficient utilization of judicial resources and the facilities and personnel of the court; + +NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby + +ORDERED that, pursuant to Title 4, Virgin Islands Code, Section 72b(a), all 15 cases (listed in the second "Whereas Clause" above) shall be and are reassigned to the Complex Litigation Division to be presided over by the Complex Litigation Division Judge, Honorable Alphonso G. Andrews, Jr. + +Date: April /6,, 2025 + +Debra s. Watlington Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands + +Attest: + +Tamara Charles + +Clerkof the Co By + +Date: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822472/EFTA02822472.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822472/EFTA02822472.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb2b7639297e760c3fa80563ba94330da07fb498 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822472/EFTA02822472.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 2, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822472", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 1, + "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\"]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "445c4cdedaa54cd661c1d0b738b5b5d04d6ec2fcef16fc1268c4fb1efe50f77c", + "output_sha256": "4109ce1f7c74c4d0ed8af18b5aeae2362cef37475dc7d4a4cdb278a16bd9060d", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822474/EFTA02822474.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822474/EFTA02822474.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fccf928826ea1d60dea3cbe4163da2c17eb7c2df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822474/EFTA02822474.md @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +FILED + +April. 16, 2025 06:20 Fig + +ST -2020-CV-00155 + +## TAMARA CHARLES 4 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +District of St. 1St. John + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN g + +INDYKE in his capadty as EXECUTOR of THE + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. + +KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES + +IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a + +New York limited Liability Company, + +Defendants. + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Debt + +## NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +To: Ghislaine Maxwell + +a Andrew W. Heymann, Esq. + +Rhea, Esq. + +A. Kroblin, Esq. + +L. Blum, Esq. + +Shari N. D'Andrade E + +Carol L. Esq. + +Ariel M. + +Daniel S. Ruzumma, Esq. + +Marjorie Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on April 16, 2025 + +## a(n) ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT + +dated April 16, 2025 was/were entered + +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: April 16, 2025 Tamara Charles + +By: + +Clerk of the Court + +Cheryl Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822474/EFTA02822474.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822474/EFTA02822474.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..750f74700e16fafad23869ee88feefb4e67a06d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822474/EFTA02822474.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822474", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "1f893d73eef8e5697f80cec2f655bfb42f6e2853ecf8bbef274b21acbf05b09b", + "output_sha256": "1f893d73eef8e5697f80cec2f655bfb42f6e2853ecf8bbef274b21acbf05b09b", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +} diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822475/EFTA02822475.md b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822475/EFTA02822475.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a9e7738cee5750c78d2c4663a38751145471d82 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822475/EFTA02822475.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +## FILED + +April 23, 2025 01:16 PM + +ST -2020-CV-00155 + +TAMARA CHARLES + +CLERK OF THE COURT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS + +District of St. 'St. John + +Ghislaine Maxwell, + +Plaintiff, + +v . + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN I. INDYKE in his capacity as EXECUTOR of THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF HIE ES IAIE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York limited Liability Company, Defendants. + +Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00155 + +Action: Debt + +## AMENDED NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +To: Ghislaine Maxwell + +AM. A. Kroblin, Esq. + +Andrew W. Heymann, Esq. + +L. Blum, Esq. + +Shari N. D'Andrade, Esq. + +Ariel M. , Esq. + +Daniel S. Ruzumma, Esq. + +Marjorie Whalen, Esq. + +Please take notice that on April 16, 2025 + +## a(n) ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT + +dated April 16, 2025 was/were entered + +by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: April 16, 2025 + +By: + +Tamara Charles + +Clerk of the Court + +Cheryl + +Court Clerk III \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822475/EFTA02822475.receipt.json b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822475/EFTA02822475.receipt.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d94bca5398258c6e79c68ed186adc8fed8f0fb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2-fixhub/court-maxwell-v-estate/EFTA02822475/EFTA02822475.receipt.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "byte_delta": 0, + "dataset": "marker2", + "doc_id": "EFTA02822475", + "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1", + "event_count": 0, + "fix_ids": "[]", + "idempotent": true, + "input_sha256": "2d49c6bf6dceb05491e1f963746cbd94b93090e74a4c48b57049dff53b1fd5b6", + "output_sha256": "2d49c6bf6dceb05491e1f963746cbd94b93090e74a4c48b57049dff53b1fd5b6", + "page_markers": false, + "source_id": "marker2-court-maxwell-v-estate", + "text_format": "markdown" +}