MEMY-1805 marker2-fixhub court-estate-epstein (pepper 16-core): 34/34

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821562/EFTA02821562.md

@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+## FILED
+
+March 17, 2021 ST-2021-RV-00005 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: ) PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80
+
+JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+deceased. )
+
+#### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' NOTICE OF APPEAL & PETITION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS
+
+The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") hereby petitions pursuant to V.I. Super. Ct. R. 322(6)(1) and/or 322.1(b) for review of the Magistrate Judge's February 26, 2021 orders (published March I, 2021)1 in In Re: The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, No. ST-2019-PB-00080, which: (1) Denied the Government's Motion to Intervene in the Probate action as a claimant against the Estate (order attached as Exhibit I); and (2) Struck the Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand (order attached as Exhibit 2). In support thereof, the Government slates as follows:
+
+#### BACKGROUND & LEGAL ARGUMENT
+
+Jeffrey Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019, while in custody in New York for sex crimes. Compl., Gov't U.S. Virgin Islands v. Estate opeffrey Epstein, et at, No. ST-2020-CV-14, r 7 (V.I. Super Ct. Jan. 15, 2020). On August 15, 2019, the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("the Estate") was created. Id.1 8.
+
+I Although the orders are dated February 26, 2021, the Government did not learn of them until it received a press inquiry on March 12, 2021. The Government contacted the Clerk of the Court, who confirmed that it appears that the Government had not been electronically served with the orders. The Clerk of the Court then served the Government with notice of the orders on March 17, 2021. Therefore, the time to appeal under Rule 322(bX1) and/or Rule 322.1(b)(2)(A) should be calculated from March 17, 2021, making the Government's Petition timely.
+
+On November 14, 2019, the Executors of the Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program ("Epstein Fund" or "Fund"). The Motion asked the Magistrate Judge to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program . . . for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein(.]" Id. at I.
+
+On January 15, 2020, the Government filed a lawsuit against the Estate, the 1953 Trust, and numerous Epstein business affiliates and associates for violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq., and civil conspiracy, seeking forfeiture and divestment of assets in favor of the Government, civil penalties, damages, and other remedies.2
+
+The Probate Court's ruling not only fails to recognize the Government's interest, which supports mandatory or permissive intervention, but also ignores the complexity of this proceeding and its significance to Epstein's victims and to the people of the Virgin Islands more broadly. As Plaintiff in its CICO litigation, the Government has an interest in the assets of the Estate, as well as in ensuring that the laws of the Virgin Islands are enforced for the benefit of the Government, the People of the Virgin Islands, and the victims of Epstein's crimes. The Executors of the Estate, who are alleged to have been affiliated with various entities that participated in Epstein's criminal enterprise, cannot adequately stand in for the Government. Therefore, the Government should be allowed to intervene. In re the Estate of Small, 57 V.I. 416, 423 (2012); Hendricks v. Clyne, No. ST-16-CV-147, 2019 WL 918607, at \*2 (V.1. Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 2019); V.I. R. Civ. P. 24.
+
+{sup}`2` The Government filed its operative First Amended Complaint in its CICO action on February 10, 2020 and its Second Amended Complaint on February 20, 2021.
+
+Finally, with or without intervention, the Probate Court had jurisdiction to decide the Government's Emergency Motion. It should be noted that the Presiding Judge in its March 12, 2021 Order in the CICO action (Exhibit 3) recognized the overlapping issues in the CICO and Probate matters. As a result, the Court has asked the parties to brief whether this case should be designated as complex and transferred to the same Superior Court Judge assigned to the CICO matter so the Probate and CICO matters can be "coordinated together" to avoid "inconsistent rulings."
+
+#### ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
+
+- 1. Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government's Motion to Intervene as a claimant against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein.
+- 2. Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand based on lack of standing because the Government is not a party to and was denied intervention in the Probate action, even though it has a claim against the Estate.
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+DENISE N. ESQUIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL
+
+Dated: March 17, 2021 By: /s/ Carol
+
+CAROL , ESQUIRE Chief Deputy Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. U.S. Vir in Isla 00802 Email: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10101
+
+#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Petition complies with the word-count requirement of V.I. Super. Ct. R. 322(b)(2) (773 words) and that a true and correct copy of this petition was served via the electronic filing system and by email to counsel of record on March 17, 2021 to:
+
+> 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 & 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
+
+> By: /s/Cwt CAROL ESQUIRE
+
+FILED March 17, 2021 5T-2019-PB-00080 TAMARA CHARLES :LERK OF THE COURT
+
+# IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. 'SAND ST. JOHN
+
+) IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: ) PROBATE NO. ST-2019-PB-00080 JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) ACTION FOR TESTATE
+
+deceased. ) ADMINISTRATION
+
+#### ORDER
+
+THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion to Intervene filed on January 23, 2020, by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (hereinafter the "Government"), by and through Ariel Esq., Chief of the Civil Division, Virgin Islands Department of Justice, wherein, in pertinent part, the Government moved to intervene in In the Matter of the Estate oPeffrey E. Epstein, Super. Ct. Prob. No. 80/2019 (STT), pursuant to Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. This Motion was argued before the Court on February 4, 2020, on which date the Government was represented by Attorneys Ariel and Pamela Tepper. Consistent with the Court's ruling on even date, this Motion is denied without prejudice.' Accordingly, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene filed January 23, 2020, is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
+
+ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record.
+
+Dated: FebruaryOj V.2021 Nunc pro tune to February 4, 2020
+
+ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court
+
+By: EDOTCIA TH AS-HODGE Court Clerk Supervisor 3 / ( /204(
+
+CAR . H RM o N- ERCELL Magistrate Judge uperior Court of the Virgin Islands
+
+{sup}`I`Notwithstanding the Court's denial of said Motion at the February 4, 2020 hearing, the Government continued to file pleadings with the Court concerning its requested intervention. The Court considers the pleadings filed subsequent to the February 4, 2020 hearing to be advisory or informational in nature. Therefore, the Court will take no action upon said pleadings. The Court notes that at said hearing, it requested that the Co-Executors and the Government resolve their differences concerning the Voluntary Claims Resolution Program.
+
+FILED March 17, 2021 ST-2019-PB-00080 TAMARA CHARLES
+
+:LERK OF THE COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: ) PROBATE NO. ST-2019-PB-00080
+
+JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) ACTION FOR TESTATE deceased. ) ADMINISTRATION
+
+#### ORDER
+
+THIS MATTER is before the Court on an Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand (hereinafter the "Emergency Motion") filed on February 4, 2021, by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (hereinafter the "Government"), by and through Carol an= Esq., Chief Deputy Attorney General, wherein, the Government moves to freeze the assets of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein based upon its contention that the Estate has breached its commitment to fund the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program.
+
+Claimant Alice Poe, by and through A.J. Weiss and Associates (A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq., as counsel), as well as WESTFALL LAW PLLC (Melody Westfall, Esq., as counsel) and Sean a Esq., attorneys for various sexual abuse claimants, each filed a Joinder in Support of the Emergency Motion.' Thereafter, on February 10, 2021, the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, by and through KELI.ERI1ALS KROBLIN PLLC ( Kroblin, Esq., as counsel) filed the Co-Executors' Opposition to Attorney General's Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand. Subsequently, on February 12, 2021, the Government, by and through Attorney MEI, filed the Government's Notice of Complaint Filing Related to Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand.
+
+{sup}`I`WESTFALL LAW PLL oinder in Support of Emergency Motion was filed on February 5, 2021 and on February 9, 2021; Attorney Joinder in Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand was filed on e ruary 5, 2021: and Claimant Alice Poe's Notice of Joinder in Support of Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand was filed on February 9, 2021. WESTFALL LAW PLLC also filed aReply Joinder in Further Support of Emergency Motion on February 22, 2021.
+
+On February 4, 2020, the Court held ahearing on various motions in this case, including the Government's Motion to Intervene filed on January 23, 2020. The Motion to Intervene was argued before the Court on February 4, 2020, on which date the Government was represented by Attorneys Ariel and Pamela Tepper. After considering arguments from Counsel on even date, the Court orally denied the Motion to Intervene without prejudice.{sup}`2` Therefore, because the Government is not aparty to this action and is not permitted to intervene, the Government does not have standing to move the Court to freeze the Estate's assets and all its cash on hand. As such, the Court need not address the Government's arguments arising thereunder.
+
+For these reasons, the Court will use its inherent authority to strike the Emergency Motion and all responses thereto from the record.{sup}`3` Accordingly, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that the: (1) Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, by and through Carol Esq., Chief Deputy Attorney General, on February 4, 2021; (2) Joinder in Support of Emergency Motion filed by WESTFAI.I. LAW PLLC (Melody Westfall, Esq., as counsel), on February 5, 2021; (3) Joinder in Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand filed by Scan Esq., on February 5, 2021; (4) Notice of Joinder in Support of Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand filed by Claimant Alice Poe, by and through A.J. Weiss and Associates (A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq., as counsel) on February 9, 2021; (5) Joinder in Support of Emergency Motion filed by WESTFA1.1. LAW PLLC (Melody Westfall, Esq., as counsel) on February 9, 2021; (6) Co-Executors' Opposition to Attorney General's Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand filed by the Co-Executors, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, by and through KEI.LERIIALS KROBLIN PLLC Krobl in, Esq., as counsel) on February 10, 2021; (7) Government's Notice of Complaint Filing Related
+
+An Order memorializing this ruling was entered on February 24, 2021, none pro tune to the date of the February 4, 2020 hearing.
+
+{sup}`3`See. e.g.. Der Weer v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp.,64 V.I. 107, 126, (V.I. Super. Ct. 2016) ("a court has 'inherent authority to strike any filed paper which it determines to be abusive or otherwise improper under the circumstances.") (quoting Sierra v. United Slates, Civ. No. 97-9329, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14133, at '27 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9. 1998) (unpublished).
+
+to Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, by and through Carol MIB.MI Esq., Chief Deputy Attorney General, on February 12, 2021; and (8) Reply Joinder in Further Support of Emergency Motion filed by WESTFALL LAW PLLC (Melody Westfall, Esq., as counsel) on February 22, 2021, are STRICKEN from the record; and it is further
+
+ORDERED that {sup}`a`copy of this Order shall be directed to coun I of record.
+
+DATED: Februat
+
+ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court
+
+By: /f'.940 DOTC A TH MAS-HODGE Court Clerk Supervisor 3 / /A0.24
+
+CAR • LYN . HERM i N- ERCELL Magistrate Judg; of the uperior ourt of the Virgin Islands
+
+FILED march 17, 2021 5I-2019-PB-00090 TAMARA CIRRUS 'I.ERK OF THE COURT
+
+#### SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. / 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.; AND JOHN AND JANE DOES,
+
+DEFENDANTS.
+
+Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014
+
+Action for Damages
+
+Jury Trial Demanded
+
+#### ORDER
+
+THIS MATTER was referred to the Complex Litigation Division to determine whether to designate this case as complex pursuant to Rule 92 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. The co-executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein filed a motion on February I. 2021 for complex treatment and the Court (Tejo, J.) granted the motion and referred this matter for a determination. In order to avoid delay, and to ensure that all issues relevant to the determination are addressed, the Court will set abriefing schedule for the parties to follow. The Court acknowledges that, in their February I, 2021 motion, the Co-Executors reference the related probate matter, In re: Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080. The Court will also direct the parties to address whether the probate matter should be designated complex so that both matters can be coordinated together in the event that the Court, in its administrative
+
+capacity in the absence of ajudge assigned to the Complex Litigation Division, concludes that the litigation involving the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein should be treated as complex.
+
+Accordingly, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that the movants, the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, have leave to SERVE and FILE a supplemental brief within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this Order, to address, if not already addressed in their February I, 2021 motion, whether In re: Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080, should be designated as complex. or reassigned to the same judge to avoid delay and inconsistent rulings. cf. V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(g); and (2) to identify whether, in their capacity as executors, any other civil actions or proceedings are currently pending in the Superior Court of the Virgin Lslands that also should be reassigned to the same judge to avoid delay, cf. In re Procedure for the Assignment & Reassignment of Related Cases & Proceedings. Case No. SX-2020-MC-00087, {sup}`2020`V.I. LEXIS 75 (V.1. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2020). It is further
+
+ORDERED that all parties to this case, except the Co-Executors, and any panics to the probate matter, except the Co-Executors, MAY SERVE and FILE a response in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after the supplemental response requested above is filed to respond to the February 1, 2021 motion, as supplemented. Failure to respond will be treated as no opposition to the Co-Executor's motion. It is further
+
+ORDERED that the Co-Executors MAY SERVE and FILE a consolidated reply to any and all arguments raised in opposition to their motion, as supplemented, within seven (7) calendar days after the last response is filed. It is further
+
+ORDERED that no extensions of time will be granted as the time for filing an opposition has already passed. All parties are further advised that the Court will decide the motion on the papers without oral argument. It is further
+
+**ORDERED** that the Clerk's Office shall **SERVE** a copy on all parties who appeared in this case as well as any attorneys who appeared in the probate matter, and **DOCKET** a copy of this order and the accompanying notice of entry in the probate matter.
+
+**DONE** and so **ORDERED** this 12{sup}`th` day of March, 2021.
+
+HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS  
+Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
+
+**ATTEST:**
+
+TAMARA CHARLES  
+Clerk of the Court
+
+By: *[Signature]*
+
+Court Clerk *[Signature]*
+
+Dated: 3/12/2021
+
+FILED March 12, 2021 ST-2020-CV-00014 TAMARA CHARLES :LERK OF THE: COURT
+
+### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. "\_'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, et al.,
+
+Defendants.
+
+To:
+
+Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00014 Action: Damages
+
+### NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER
+
+John- B. Pate Linda Carol Laura Arid M. ca A. Kroblin Wi lam um, Marjorie Beth Whalen Andrew Heymann, Shari Natala D'Andrade, Esq. Robert assman, Esq.
+
+> a(n) ORDER dated March 12, 2021 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
+
+John H. Benham, Esq. Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine, Esq. Douglas B. Chanco, Esq. John K. Dema, Esq. Kevin F. D'Amour, Esq. Melody D. Westfall, Esq. A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. Richard Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. Denise N. Esq. Gaylin Vogl". Kevin Boyle, Esq.
+
+Please take notice that on March 12, 2021
+
+Dated: March 12, 2021
+
+By:
+
+Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court
+
+> Cheryl Court ciffttlri

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821562/EFTA02821562.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -41,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821562",
+  "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": "a0819b8b5a8107ac5ceecc0b206aa5cec3e6e27858f1a182b5ebeff7eec42d00",
+  "output_sha256": "5b85d927f6a7f737374b8b0b968bb41687ae1b675c3ad6913defe71e9d82949a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821574/EFTA02821574.md

@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
+FILED March 29, 2021 ST-2019-PB-00080 TAMARA CHARLES :LERK OF THE COURT
+
+## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Deceased. 1 PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 ACTION FOR TESTATE ADMINISTRATION
+
+## CO-EXECUTORS' RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' NOTICE OF APPEAL & PETITION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS
+
+Pursuant to V.I. Super. Ct. R. 322(bX5), the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, hereby respond to the Government of the United States Virgin Islands' ("Government") Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders, filed March 17, 2021 ("Petition").
+
+# CO-EXECUTORS' POSITION STATEMENT
+
+The Government's Petition is too little, too late. Judge Hermon-Percell properly denied the Government's Motion to Intervene in these probate proceedings over thirteen (13) months ago, a fact that the Government inexplicably fails to tell the Court in its Petition. The Government also neglects to inform the Court that the factual basis for its Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand (the "Emergency Motion") is no longer accurate. That motion is thus moot.
+
+# 1. The Government Lost its Motion to Intervene Over Thirteen (13) Months Ago.
+
+The Government filed its Motion to Intervene on January 23, 2020, relying on V.I. Civ. P. Rule 24. As explained in the Co-Executors' January 31, 2020 opposition to that Motion, Rule 24
+
+While the Government cites VI. Supr. Ct. R. 322.1(b) in support of its Petition, that Rule has been repealed.
+
+is inapplicable to these probate proceedings, which are instead governed by Title 15 of the Virgin Islands Code and the Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings.2 On February 4, 2020, the Magistrate Judge expressly denied the Motion to Intervene from the bench:
+
+THE COURT: "[B]efore me I have a motion from the People, the Government to intervene as a claimant intervenor in the matter and I'm going to deny that — the Motion to Intervene. You're here as a claimant. And I'm assuming that you will file your formal creditors claim."
+
+(Official Transcript of Proceedings at 98:8-14, attached as Exhibit B) (emphasis supplied).
+
+There was no uncertainty about the Magistrate Judge's February 4, 2020 ruling, and no excuse for the Government to delay any appeal from it. Rather, the Government elected not to do so. It strains credulity to now believe that the Government was unaware of that ruling and had to await the Magistrate Judge's Order dated February 26, 2021 to realize that the Court denied its Motion to Intervene more than one (I) year earlier.;
+
+Even if the Court ignored the Government's extraordinary delay in filing its Petition, its application lacks merit. As the Magistrate Judge noted on February 4, 2020, the Government a civil litigant against the Estate in the CICO lawsuit entitled Gov't U.S. Virgin Islands v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, et al., No. ST-2020-CV-144 - is in no different position than those asserting claims against the Estate. The Magistrate Judge explained that situation to the Government:
+
+"ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ARIEL : I just have one procedural question, Your Honor. To the extent that you've denied the Government's Motion to Intervene, how would we file any response to — cause
+
+{sup}`2.` The Co-Executors' Opposition to Motion to Intervene is attached as Exhibit A. 3. The Magistrate Judge's Order expressly notes "the Court's denial of said Motion [to Intervene] at the February 4, 2020 hearing." See February 26, 2021 Order at fn. I. 4. Contrary to the Government's representation (Petition at 2 fn. 2), the Court has not granted the Government leave to file its Second Amended Complaint in the CICO action.
+
+we decided to file the Motion To Intervene in order to be able to file the opposition' which has not been formally filed. It was just filed as an attachment.
+
+THE COURT: You come in as claimant, right, so you would be presented before the Court."
+
+Exh. B (February 4, 2020 Hrg. Tr.) at 100: 8-19 (emphasis supplied). Despite Judge Hermon-Percell's direction, the Government never filed a claim in these probate proceedings.6 As the Magistrate Judge made clear, filing a claim is a prerequisite to pursuing relief in a probate proceeding.
+
+For the reasons detailed by the Co-Executors in their opposition to the Motion to Intervene, the Government is required in these probate proceedings to proceed pursuant to the Probate Division's rules, just as any other claimant would.
+
+# 2. The Government's Emergency Motion is Moot.
+
+The Government filed its Emergency Motion on February 3, 2021 based on its contention that the Estate had breached its commitment to fund the EVCP. However, the EVCP is once again fully funded and has been operating as it had since its impleinentation.7 The Government's application is therefore moot.
+
+## ADDITIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
+
+- I. Whether the Government's more-than-thirteen (13) months' delay in appealing from the Magistrate Judge's denial of its Motion to Intervene renders its Petition untimely.
+- 5. See Government's Opposition to Estate's Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program, filed January 20, 2020, in which the Government — alone among all others appearing in these probate proceedings — opposed the Co-Executor? effort to establish the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program ("EVCP"), a widely-heralded alternative dispute resolution process to compensate those claiming sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein. The Magistrate Judge ultimately approved the EVCP by Order dated Junc 2, 2020. 6 The Government's assertions that it acts "as a claimant" and "has a claim against the Estate" (Petition at 3) are belied by its refusal to file such a claim.
+- 7. See March 12, 2021 EVCP Press Release ("Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to Resume Issuance of Compensation Offers"), attached as Exhibit C.
+
+- 2. Whether the Government's failure to file a claim in these probate proceedings provides an additional ground for the Magistrate Judge's ruling that the Government lacked standing to assert its now-moot Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand.
+
+Dated: March 29. 2021
+
+Respectfully,
+
+/s in KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. 966. 1221 & R2019 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 905.1 , 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**
+
+**IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED** that the Position Statement contained in the foregoing Co-Executors' Response to Government of the United States Virgin Islands' Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders complies with the word-count requirements of V.I. Super. Ct. R. 322(b)(5) (780 words) and that a true and correct copy of this Response was served via the electronic filing system to:
+
+John H. Benham, Esq.  
+Law Office of John H. Benham, P.C.  
+[john@benhamlawvi.com](mailto:john@benhamlawvi.com)
+
+Douglas B. Chanco, Esq.  
+Chanco Schiffer P.C.  
+[doug@csfirm.com](mailto:doug@csfirm.com)
+
+Richard Bourne-Vanneck, Esq.  
+Law Offices of Richard P. Bourne-Vanneck, Esq.  
+[richard@rpbvlawoffices.com](mailto:richard@rpbvlawoffices.com)
+
+Kevin F. D'Amour, Esq.  
+Esq. Gaylin Vogel, Esq.  
+Law Offices of Kevin F. D'Amour, P.C.  
+[kevin.damour@comcast.net](mailto:kevin.damour@comcast.net)  
+[gaylin.vogel@comcast.net](mailto:gaylin.vogel@comcast.net)
+
+Melody D. Westfall, Esq.  
+Westfall Law PLLC  
+[mwestfall@westfalllaw.com](mailto:mwestfall@westfalllaw.com)
+
+Denise N. [REDACTED], Esq.  
+Ariel M. [REDACTED], Esq.  
+Carol [REDACTED], Esq.  
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice  
+[REDACTED]  
+[ariel.smith@doj.vi.gov](mailto:ariel.smith@doj.vi.gov)  
+[REDACTED]
+
+A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq.  
+A.J. Weiss & Associates  
+[jeffweiss@weisslaw-vi.net](mailto:jeffweiss@weisslaw-vi.net)
+
+Sean [REDACTED], Esq.  
+Marjorie Rawls [REDACTED], P.C.  
+[sean@marjorierobertspc.com](mailto:sean@marjorierobertspc.com)
+
+John K. Dema, Esq.  
+Law Offices of John K. Dema  
+[jdema@demalaw.com](mailto:jdema@demalaw.com)
+
+Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine,  
+Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine, P.C.  
+[roselaw@viaccess.net](mailto:roselaw@viaccess.net)
+
+Sigrid [REDACTED] McCawley, Esq.  
+David Boies, Esq.  
+Joshua I. Schiller, Esq.  
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP  
+[smmcawley@bsfllp.com](mailto:smmcawley@bsfllp.com)  
+[dboies@bsfllp.com](mailto:dboies@bsfllp.com)  
+[jlschiller@bsfllp.com](mailto:jlschiller@bsfllp.com)
+
+J. [REDACTED] B. Pate, Esq.  
+The Pate Law Firm  
+[pate@sunlawvi.com](mailto:pate@sunlawvi.com)
+
+/s/ [REDACTED] Kroblin
+
+**FILED**  
+March 29, 2021  
+ST-2019-FB-00080  
+TAMARA CHARLES  
+LERK OF THE COURT
+
+IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS  
+DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] & ST. JOHN
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+![](_page_5_Picture_136.jpeg)
+
+| IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF | ) |  |
+| -------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------- |
+| JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, | ) | PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 |
+|  | ) |  |
+| Deceased. | ) | ACTION FOR TESTATE
+ADMINISTRATION |
+
+OPPOSITION TO
+
+GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (CORRECTED BRIEF){sup}`1`
+
+COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through KELLERHALS [REDACTED] KROBLIN PLLC, and hereby oppose the Motion to Intervene filed by the Government of the Virgin Islands (the "GVI"). Because the GVI's Motion to Intervene is flawed both substantively and procedurally, the Court should deny that application.
+
+**I. The Proposed Intervention Serves No Proper Purpose**
+
+The GVI asserts that its intervention in this probate proceeding is, in part, required "to ensure that the administration of the Estate conforms to the laws of the Virgin Islands." (Motion to Intervene at 1.) That is nonsense: under Virgin Islands law, it is the Court's charge — not the GVI's — to oversee the proper administration of estates and ensure their compliance with Virgin Islands law.
+
+The Superior Court has original jurisdiction "to supervise and administer estates and fiduciary relations." 4 V.I.C. § 76(a).
+
+"[T]he Superior Court 'has jurisdiction and the power to administer justice in all matters relating to the affairs of decedents, ... to try and determine all questions, legal or equitable, arising between any or all of the parties to any
+
+{sup}`1` This Corrected Brief in Opposition is filed in place of the Opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene, filed in this Court on behalf of the Co-Executors on Friday, January 31, 2020.
+
+proceeding, ... as to any and all matters necessary to be determined in order to make a full, equitable, and complete disposition of the matter by such order or decree as justice requires.' 15 V.1.C. § 161. The court is unrestricted in its power to dispose of such cases 'as justice requires' and is explicitly authorized to grant letters of administration, direct and control an executor or administrator's conduct, distribute assets, and order the sale of the deceased person's property. Id."
+
+Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480, 489-90 (V.I. 2014). The GVI offers no explanation for why it believes the Court is not up to that task.
+
+Nor does the GVI explain why it waited more than five (5) months to seek to intervene in this proceeding, which the Co-Executors commenced on August 15, 2019. That the GVI decided two (2) weeks ago to commence civil claims and file criminal activity liens against the Estate is a self-created emergency: the GVI has long known that Mr. Epstein (and now the Estate) owns substantial real property in the Virgin Islands.
+
+The GVI also purports to find a "potential conflict of interest" in the Co-Executors' administration of the Estate, in particular in proposing to hire independent, nationally recognized claims administration experts to design and implement the proposed Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). (Motion to Intervene at I.) {sup}`2` That purported conflict does not exist. "The mere existence of a possible adverse interest, without more, is not sufficient grounds for complaint in the Virgin Islands." in re Estate of Vose, 317 F.2d 281, 282, n.4 (3d Cir. 1963) (internal citations omitted). Here, the Co-Executors do not have an interest adverse to the Estate which would prevent them from faithfully administering their fiduciary duties. Nor is there any allegation of neglect or dereliction of their fiduciary duties. Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence that the Co-Executors' manner and conduct in executing their office has run afoul of the
+
+{sup}`2.` The GVI's baseless attack on the Program is dealt with separately in the Estate's Reply to the GVI's Opposition to Estate's Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program, filed Friday, January 31, 2020.
+
+standard of care required of an executor. There is, and can be, no allegation that the Co- Executors have been unfaithful to their trust.
+
+It cannot be a"conflict of interest" for the Co-Executors to have known Mr. Epstein during his lifetime — if that were the case, no one could ever appoint afriend or trusted colleague as executor of his or her estate. Nor can Messrs. Indyke's and Kahn's past and present involvement in "various Epstein business entities" constitute adisqualifying conflict of interest. (Motion to Intervene at 6.) That some of those entities "are alleged to share liability in [Mr.] Epstein's civil and criminal violations in the Virgin Islands and elsewhere" (id. at 6-7) is nothing more than an unsupported, unproven allegation — none of those business entities have ever been criminally charged, and none have ever been found liable for Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct.
+
+# II. The Virgin Islands Code and the Probate Rules Govern, Not Rule <sup>24</sup>
+
+The GVI bottoms its purported right to intervene on Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 24"). (Motion to Intervene at 1, 3, 4, 7.) That is afalse bottom: it is the Virgin Islands Code and the Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings (the "Probate Rules") that set forth the specific steps a purported claimant must take to bring a claim against an estate and participate in aprobate proceeding. Rule 24 has no application to this proceeding.
+
+The exclusive procedure for pursuing a claim against an estate is set forth in Chapter 23 of Title 15 of the Virgin Islands Code and the Probate Rules, entitled "Claims and Charge Against the Estate." See 15 V.I.0 §§ 391-430. The Probate Rules also include provisions governing {sup}`a` claimant's participation in a probate proceeding. To the extent the GVI has aclaim against the Estate, it must follow these mandatory claims procedures to make that claim and participate in these proceedings.
+
+The Virgin Islands Code and the Probate Rules also provide the only procedure for a creditor to present its claim against the Estate. Thus, a creditor must follow the process outlined in 15 V.I.C. § 606(b) in order to properly file a complaint against an estate. See Ottley, supra, 61 V.I. at 493. The language of Section 606(b) is absolute: it forbids a creditor from commencing an action against an estate until it has first presented its claim to the executors, and they have considered and disallowed that claim. See Oat v. Sewer Enters., 46 V.I. 286, 290 (D.V.I. 2004). While all claimants, including the GVI, may file claims with the Estate, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in this probate proceeding. See 15 V.I.C. §§ 391 and 392.3
+
+# The GVI Failed to Follow the Applicable Claims Procedure
+
+Under Virgin Islands law, one who seeks to assert a claim against an estate must first present its claim to the appointed executor or administrator of that estate. See 15 V.I.C. § 391 (requiring "[e]very executor or administrator" to publish in a local newspaper and to post a notice "requir[ing] all persons having claims against the estate to present them, with the proper vouchers, within six months from the date of the notice, to the executor or administrator, at a place within this territory therein specified."). The claimant must conform to the requirements set forth in Title 15, including verification of its claim by affidavit of the claimant or someone with personal knowledge of the relevant facts. See 15 V.I.C. § 393 ("Every claim presented to the executor or administrator shall be verified by the affidavit of the claimant, or someone on his behalf who has personal knowledge of the facts, to the effect that the amount claimed is justly due; that no
+
+{sup}`3.` The GVI does not address how Rule 24 could apply to this probate matter, which is of course governed by the Probate Rules. See V.I. R. PROB. I (providing that "(t]hese Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings shall apply in probate, guardianship, trust and other fiduciary proceedings."). While Rule 1 of the Probate Rules permits the Court to adapt the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure "as appropriate" when "no procedural provision is included [in the Probate Rules]," here there are express procedural provisions in the Probate Rules that govern claims and the participation of claimants in probate proceedings.
+
+payments have been made thereon, except as stated; and that there is no just counterclaim to the same, to the knowledge of the affiant.").
+
+If and when such a claim is presented to an executor, the executor is then required to examine the claim, consider it, and then either accept or reject it. 15 V.I.C. § 394 ("When a claim is presented to the executor or administrator, as prescribed in section 393 of this title, if he is satisfied that the claim thus presented is just, he shall indorse upon it the words 'Examined and approved', with the date thereof, and sign the same officially, and shall pay such claim in due course of administration. If he is not so satisfied he shall indorse thereon the words 'Examined and rejected', with the date thereof, and sign the same officially.").
+
+Here, the GVI failed to follow the claims procedure required by Virgin Islands law to bring a claim against the Estate. Rather than present its claim to the Co-Executors and call on them to review and consider it, GVI instead filed a civil action seeking damages and other relief. That is improper. If the GVI wishes to formally appear in these proceedings, it must (like any other creditor) follow the claims procedure set forth in 15 V.I.C. §§ 391-394: the GVI must present a verified claim, supported by documentation, to the Co-Executors. Pursuant to the statutory scheme, the Co-Executors are then required to assess the GVI's claim and either reject or accept it. Only then would the GVI have standing to participate in this probate proceeding like all other claimants. However, the Virgin Islands Legislature has mandated that an action may be commenced against an executor only after the expiration of twelve (12) months from the date letters testamentary are granted by this Court. Ottley, supra, 61 V.I. at 491 (quoting 15 V.I.C. § 606(a)). These "mandatory" rules apply to all claimants, including the GVI. A claimant is not permitted to bypass the probate process enacted by the Legislature, which was designed precisely for this purpose -- to relieve the executors from defending the estate's rights in both a civil action
+
+and through probate proceedings simultaneously. See Gilley, supra, 61 V.I. at 494. This process also ensures that a claimant will not serve the executor with a summons, in an attempt to gain priority over estate assets to the detriment of other creditors who properly follow the probate process.
+
+## IV. Even if Rule 24 Were Applicable — It is Not — the Contingent Nature of the GVI's Claim Requires the Court to Deny Intervention
+
+On January 15, 2020, the GV1 filed a civil forfeiture action against the Estate in derogation of the applicable statutory requirements set forth in the Virgin Islands Code and Probate Rules. Even assuming the GVI's complaint had not been filed in contravention of these mandatory claims rules, the GVI would merely have a contingent claim — i.e., one that is entirely dependent on its success in that separate action. "[Clouds 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." 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"). Here, even assuming for the sake of argument that Rule 24 is applicable, the Government's contingent interest in a possible favorable judgment in another suit is not an interest significant enough to authorize its intervention.
+
+# V. Conclusion
+
+How and when a creditor may present a claim and participate in a probate proceeding is governed by Title 15 of the Virgin Islands Code and the Probate Rules. If the GVI has a claim against the Estate as alleged in its Motion to Intervene, it must follow the claims procedure set forth in 15 V.I.C. §§ 391-394 and the Probate Rules. The rule under which the GVI seeks to
+
+intervene in this proceeding, Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, does not apply to this probate proceeding. Because the GVI has not satisfied the requisites for its participation in this probate proceeding, the Court should deny the GVI's Motion to Intervene.
+
+Dated: February 3, 2020
+
+Respectfully,
+
+ER ICROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ. WILLIAM L. BLUM, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos.ataggs136, 1221 & R2019 ISERHAI.a KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate\_, 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
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3n° day of February 2020, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene (Corrected Brief) to be served upon:
+
+Via Electronic Mail by Agreement of the Parties:
+
+John H. Benham, Esq. Law Office of John H. Benham, P.C. P.O. Box 11720 St. M, VI 00801 john@benhamlawvi.com
+
+Douglas B. Chanco, Esq. ChancoSchiffer P.C. 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30326 doug®csfirm.corn
+
+A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. A.J. Weiss & Associates 6934 Vessup Lane St. M, VI 00802 jeffiveiss@weisslaw-vi.net
+
+Richard P. Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. Law Offices of Richard Bourne-Vanneck 9800 Buccaneer Mall Suite #9 St. M, VI 00802 richard@rpvb/awoffices.conr
+
+Sean a, Est Marjorie Rawls P.C. P.O. Box 6347 St. M, VI 00804 sean@marjorierobertspc.com
+
+Via First-Class Mail, Postage Prepaid:
+
+Denise N. [REDACTED] Esq.  
+Attorney General  
+Ariel M. [REDACTED] Esq.  
+Chief, Civil Division  
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice  
+34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade  
+GERS Complex, 2{sup}`nd` Floor  
+St. [REDACTED] Virgin Islands 00804
+
+J. [REDACTED] B. Pate, Esq.  
+THE PATE LAW FIRM  
+P.O. Box 370, Christiansted  
+St. Croix, USVI 00821
+
+Kevin F. D'Amour, Esq.  
+Gaylin Vogel Esq.  
+Kevin F. D' Amour, P.C.  
+5143 Palm Passage, Suite 18b & 19b  
+St. [REDACTED] V.I. 00802
+
+John K. Dema, Esq.  
+Law Offices of John K. Dema  
+1236 Strand Street, Suite 103  
+Christiansted, St. Croix  
+U.S. Virgin Islands 00820-5008
+
+
+
+## March 29, 2021 EDIATE RELEASE
+
+ST-2019-PD-00000 t021
+
+TAMARA CHARLES
+
+:LERK OF THE COURT .-.-NTACT
+
+Jeff Solnet
+
+Press@EpsteinVCP.com
+
+## Epstein Victims' Compensation Program to Resume Issuance of Compensation Offers
+
+New York, NY - Today, the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") and its independent Administrator, Jordana ("Jordy") H. , announced that the Program will resume the issuance of compensation determination offers, effective immediately.
+
+On February 4, 2021, announced the temporary suspension of compensation determination offers due to uncertainty about the liquidity of Estate assets to fund the Program. This week, the Estate notified that it had completed the sales of Jeffrey Epstein's New York City and Palm Beach residences, and transferred approximately \$10,000,000 to the Program \* outstanding amount of the last replenishment request. The Estate also provided assurances to , the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands (where Mr. Epstein's estate is being probated), and others that additional funds from the sales of these properties will be made available to the Program to satisfy future replenishment requests and pay eligible claims. With these developments, the Administrator has determined that there is sufficient certainty that eligible claims can be timely and fully paid and has lifted the suspension.
+
+"I am pleased to report that the Program can now resume full operations after this unfortunate and unexpected month-long delay," said-. "We have continued to process claims and hold meetings with claimants in anticipation of the resolution of the Estate's liquidity issue, and will begin issuing compensation offers immediately. I am eager to continue the important work of this Program, and remain deeply committed to ensuring that all eligible claimants receive the compensation and validation they deserve."
+
+To date, the Program has received over 175 claims, far exceeding expectations, and has paid out over \$67 million to eligible claimants. Although the deadline to register new claims has passed, those already found eligible to participate in the Program have through March 25, 2021 to file their claims.
+
+Launched on June 25, 2020, the Program is a voluntary, non-adversarial, confidential claims resolution program that was established to provide fair and expeditious compensation to victims and resolve their sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein Estat m was designed by nationally recognized independent claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg and Camille S. Biros with input from victims' attorneys, the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Estate and other interested parties. The Program operates independently of the Epstein Estate.
+
+For information about the Program, visit https://www.epsteinvcp.com.
+

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821574/EFTA02821574.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -190,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821574",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.empty-image\", \"builtin.table-boundary-padding\", \"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2a72c691610ebc719507c358fa1ff1c3afa2bf5581f212aff73c55dc02b50139",
+  "output_sha256": "216fc9f867569c181742e4abae55d6f8dea2d84be4575d240cb932c12fd2d050",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821589/EFTA02821589.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Apr11 07, 2021 DIVISION OF ST. lIMIEST. JOHN
+
+SI-2021-RV-0000S
+
+TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OFTHE COURT
+
+#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No: ST-2019-PB-00080
+
+Dear Carol MIS Esq.:
+
+The Superior Court received the Notice of Appeal in the above-captioned case, which was docketed in the Appellate Division on March 17, 2021. The appeal is assigned to the Honorable Debra S. Watlinaton and is assigned a new case number: ST-2021-RV-00005. As the person who filed this appeal, it is your responsibility to follow the rules and procedures that apply to the Appellate Division, including the following:
+
+The notice of appeal shall identify the party initiating the appeal, designate the decision or order appealed from, and contain a concise position statement of no more than 780 words in length (or three pages for self-represented parties) which sets forth the issues the party wishes to present for appeal, together with a brief argument in support of the party's position. The notice must include a certificate evidencing service on all other parties to the Magistrate Division proceeding.
+
+## Response:
+
+Within fourteen (14) days of filing and service of the notice of appeal, any other party to the Magistrate Division proceeding may, but is not required, to file a response to the notice of appeal. The response may contain a concise position statement of no more than 780 words in length (or three pages for self-represented parties), which responds to the position statement in the notice of appeal, which may include designating additional issues of review.
+
+## Judgment:
+
+If the Magistrate Division issued a judgment awarding money or other relief (such as a writ of execution, restitution or a permanent restraining order) in a civil case or imposed a sentence (including fines and incarceration) in a criminal case, the judgment is NOT STAYED because a notice of appeal was filed. In civil cases, you must file a motion to request a stay pending appeal and/or post a bond.
+
+## Applicable Rules
+
+Parties involved in the appeal process are advised to consult the Superior Court Rules for procedures goveming that process, specifically Super. Ct. R. 322 and Proroulgation Order No. 2018-005, and all other applicable Court rules. Those Rules may be found on the Superior Court's website, at www.visuperiorcourt.org.
+
+Please be advised that the deadlines set by the assigned judge are to be strictly followed. Fai lure of the Appellant to adhere to the deadlines may result in dismissal of the notice of appeal for failure to prosecute.
+
+If you have any questions or concems you may contact the Office of the Clerk of the Court at (340) 778-9750 or 774-6680.
+
+Sincerely,
+
+TAMARA CHARLES Clerk r ourt
+
+bate Offic II
+
+Dated: ()-1, Di .14/9Wi-
+
+Co to: K ro blin, Esq. — ekroblinliOkellfer.com An rew W. Prejinann, Esq. — ahevmann6iSsolblum.com William Blum, Esq. — wblum@solblum.com Shari D'Andrade, Esq. — sdandrade(a)kellfer,com Andrew Tomback - nndrew.tomback(a)whitecase.com Daniel Weiner - daniel.weincr6Shuzheshubbard.com Marc A. Weinstein - mare.weinsteinkShugheshubbard.com File 04/07/2021

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821589/EFTA02821589.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": 0,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821589",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 0,
+  "fix_ids": "[]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e23a5faeb28c007b57e6f7b8249b755084c6e02ab23116905d7d81a8b6c8dcf0",
+  "output_sha256": "e23a5faeb28c007b57e6f7b8249b755084c6e02ab23116905d7d81a8b6c8dcf0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821591/EFTA02821591.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# FILED
+
+February 04, 2022 09:45 AFI
+
+ST-2 21-RV-0 0 005
+
+TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ) ) Deceased. ) )
+
+¶1 Pending before the Court is a Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review filed by the Government of the Virgin Islands on March 17, 2021. The Appellant, the Government of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter "VI Government"), appeals two Magistrate Orders, both entered on February 26, 2021, which (1) denied the Government's Motion to Intervene in the probate action as a claimant against the Estate (entered nunc pro tune to February 4, 2020) and (2) struck the Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand. For the following reasons, the Magistrate's Orders will be affirmed.
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005 Originating Case No: ST-2019-PB-00080
+
+Cite as 2022 VI Super 15U
+
+# MEMORANDUM OPINION
+
+# FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
+
+¶2 On August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was found dead, while in custody in New York for sex crimes and on August 15, 2019, the probate of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein was created. To "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program...for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein," the Executors of the Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (hereinafter called the Epstein Fund).
+
+¶3 On January 15, 2020, the VI Government filed a lawsuit against the Epstein Estate, the 1953 Trust, and numerous Epstein business affiliates and associates for violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (CICO)1. and for civil conspiracy seeking forfeiture and divestment of assets in favor of the VI Government, civil penalties, damages, and other remedies.2
+
+¶4 On January 23, 2020, the VI Government filed a Motion to Intervene in the probate matter pursuant to Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, on February 4, 2021, the VI Government filed an Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand. The VI
+
+{sup}`&#`x27;14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.
+
+{sup}`2` ICS vl Government's Notice of Appeal.
+
+Government asserted that the Emergency Motion was necessary due to the Estate having breached its commitment to fund the Epstein Victims Compensation Program.
+
+¶5 A hearing on the VI Government's motions was held February 4, 2020, after which the Court orally denied the Motion to Intervene without prejudice as well as the Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand reasoning that because the Government is not a party to this action and is not permitted to intervene. the Government does not have standing to move the Court to freeze the assets and all its cash on hand.3 Consistent with the Court's ruling that the Government lacked standing, the Court issued an Order on February 26, 2021, striking the Government's Emergency Motion and all responses thereto from the record. {sup}`4`
+
+¶6 In response thereto, the Government filed this Appeal and Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders on March 17, 2021. In the Petition, the Government asserts that the "Probate Court's ruling not only fails to recognize the Government's interest, which supports mandatory or permissive intervention, but also ignores the complexity of this proceeding and its significance to Epstein's victims and to the people of the Virgin Islands more broadly."
+
+¶7 On March 29, 2021, the Co-Executors of the Epstein Estate filed the Co-Executors' Response to Government of the United States Virgin Islands' Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders. In their response, the co-executors argued that (I) the Government's appeal is untimely, (2) that the Government's failure to state a claim further substantiates their lack of standing, and (3) that the Government's Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand is Moot.
+
+# JURISDICTION
+
+¶8 A Superior Court judge has jurisdiction to review judgments and orders issued by Magistrate Judges, when they exercise their original jurisdiction as provided for in Title 4 V.I.C. § 123(a). See, V.I. Super. Ct. Rule 322, et. seq. An order or judgment involving probate is a matter that a Superior Court Judge may review if appealed. Title 4 V.I.C. § 123(a)(4).
+
+¶9 V.I. Super. Ct. Rule 322(a) provides that final orders or judgments of the Magistrate Division resolving completely the merits of the cases which came before them pursuant to their original
+
+{sup}`3` A written order was issued on February 26.2021 (nunc pro tune to February 4. 20201.
+
+{sup}`4` A copy of the order was submitted as an Exhibit 2 with the VI Government's Notice of Appeal.
+
+jurisdiction, as provided by Title 4 I 23(a), are immediately appealable to judges of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, as well as any interlocutory orders appealable by law.
+
+¶10 V.I.R. Civ. P. Rule 54 (a) defines a judgment as a decree or order from which an appeal lies. Where an action has multiple claims of reliefs, including third-party claims, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.'
+
+¶11 In the February 26, 2021 Order the Court determined that because the VI Government is not a party, it lacks standing to move the Court in the present action. Therefore, the Court struck the VI Government's Motion to freeze assets and all responses thereto. The determination that the VI Government is not a party to the action was made due to the VI Government's failure to intervene as a claimant as required by the probate rules. However, the Motion to Intervene was denied without prejudice which allowed for the VI Government's error to be corrected and calls into question whether this is a final judgment with respect to the VI Government. Further, there was no recitation made by the Court that "expressly determines" that there is no just reason for delay. As such, this is not a final judgment eligible for appeal.
+
+¶12 Title 4 V.I.C. §123(c) states that a judge of the Superior Court may consider any pretrial matter handled by the magistrate judge where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This Court has determined that the magistrate judge's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law for the foregoing reasons.
+
+## ISSUES RAISED FOR APPEAL BY THE VI GOVERNMENT
+
+- 1. Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government's Motion to Intervene as a claimant against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein.
+- 2. Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand.
+
+# ANALYSIS
+
+- 1. Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government's Motion to Intervene as a claimant against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein.
+
+{sup}`5` V.I.R. Civ.P. Rule 54 lb)
+
+¶13 In its appeal, the VI Government asserts that "as Plaintiff in the CICO action against the Epstein estate and other Epstein businesses, that it has an interest in the assets of the Estate, as well as an interest in ensuring that the laws of the Virgin Islands are enforced for the benefit of the VI Government, the People of the Virgin Islands and the victims of Epstein crimes."' According to the VI Government the Motion to Intervene was filed to ensure that it was adequately represented in the probate matter, but was denied stating that the VI Government should enter as a claimant rather than as an intervenor.
+
+¶14 In the Co-Executors' Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene filed on January 31, 2020, the Co-Executors assert that "it is the Virgin Islands Code and the Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings (the "Probate Rules") that set forth the specific steps a purported claimant must take to bring a claim against an estate and participate in a probate proceeding. Rule 24 has no application to this proceeding." {sup}`7`
+
+¶15 At the February 4, 2020 hearing, the VI Government was advised by the Magistrate Judge that it should enter the proceedings as a claimant as required by Probate Rules. Case law has repeatedly established that "when two statutes cover the same situation, the more specific statute takes precedence over the more general one..."8
+
+116 In this case, the Magistrate Judge was correct in advising the VI Government to enter as a claimant and denying its Rule 24 Motion to Intervene, as the Probate rules are specifically created to address probate proceedings as stated in V.I. R. Prob. Rule 1.9
+
+117 Under the Title 15 V.I.C. § 391, all persons having claims against the estate are required to present their claims within six months from the date of notice of administration. The VI Government was given the opportunity to enter as a claimant, after being so directed at the February 4, 2020 hearing, but failed to do so. However, this Court notes that the VI Government is still able to enter as a claimant under Title 15 V.I.C. § 392 which states in pertinent part that:
+
+... A claim not presented within six months after the first publication of the notice is not barred, but it shall not be paid until the claims presented within that period have been satisfied. and if the
+
+{sup}`6` See Government of the United Stated Virgin Islands' Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review of Magistratc Judge's Orders filed by VI Government on March 17, 2021.
+
+{sup}`7` 5.0 Co-Executors' Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene filed on January 31, 2020.
+
+<sup>&#</sup>x27; Edmond v. U.S., 520 U.S. 651, 657, 117 S. Ct. 1573, 1578, 137 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1997))</p><p><sup>9</sup> These Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings shall apply in probate, guardianship, trust and other fiduciary proceedings.</p><p block-type='Text'>claim is not then due, or if contingent. it shall nevertheless be presented as any other claim. Until the administration has been completed, a claim against the estate not barred by the statute of limitations may be presented. allowed. and paid out of any assets then in the hands of the executor or administrator not otherwise appropriated or liable.</p><p block-type='Text'>¶18 In this instance, the VI Government's failure to enter the probate matter as a claimant within six months of the executors' publicized notice of administrations, does not bar it from being able to move forward as a claimant in the correct manner as provided by the Rules of Probate. The VI Government was directed of the appropriate method to adequately represent its interest by the Magistrate Judge who regularly presides over probate proceedings.10 Yet, it inexplicably failed to abide by the guidance which was intended to achieve the original purpose of the motions.</p><p block-type='Text'>¶19 The notorious nature and history of the deceased individual in this probate matter coupled with its main-stream attention, is not an indication that the case should be treated differently from any other probate case.</p><h1>2. Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand.</h1><p block-type='Text'>¶20 The Magistrate Judge properly denied the VI Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand because the VI Government failed to established standing as a claimant as noted above. Failure to take the necessary steps to enter the case as a claimant, prevented the VI Government from securing the necessary standing to freeze the assets of the Estate. It would have been inappropriate for the Magistrate Judge to grant the Government's Emergency Motion to freeze all assets when the VI Government failed to follow the required procedures as set forth in Title 15 V.I.0 §§ 391- 394 and the relevant probate rules.</p><h1>CONCLUSION</h1><p block-type='Text'>¶22 The premises considered, the Magistrate's Orders entered on February 26, 2021 (nuns pro tune to February 4, 2020), denying the Government's Motion to Intervene in the Probate action and striking the Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand, are AFFIRMED.</p><p><sup>&</sup>quot;"Each magistrate judge may: (4) hear all non-felony traffic offenses, litter cases, misdemeanor criminal cases where the maximum punishment is limited to not more than 364 days imprisonment: arraignment and probable cause hearings in any criminal or traffic offense matter; small claims cases and probate matters" Title 4 V.I.C. I23(a).</p><p block-type='Text'>An Order consistent with this Opinion shall follow.</p><p block-type='Text'>DATED: February O f , 2022</p><p block-type='Text'>ATTEST:</p><p block-type='Text'>Tamara Charles Court</p><p block-type='Text'>By:</p><p block-type='Text'>Brenda Monsanto</p><p block-type='Text'>Court Clerk SupervisorZ 2/0ate•</p><p block-type='Text'>4 44 -0--1</p><p block-type='Text'>DEBRA 5. WATLINGTON Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands</p><p style="text-align: center;">IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS<br/>DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN</p><table border="0" style="width: 100%;">
+<tr>
+<td style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;">
+ IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF<br/>
+ JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,<br/><br/>
+ Deceased.
+ </td>
+<td style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;">
+ )<br/>)<br/>)<br/>)<br/>)<br/>)<br/>)
+ </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td>CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td>Originating Case No: ST-2019-PB-00080</td>
+</tr>
+</table><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>ORDER</u></b></p><p>Consistent with the Memorandum Opinion of even date, it is hereby</p><p><b>ORDERED</b> that the two Magistrate Orders entered on February 26, 2021 (<i>Nunc pro tunc</i> to February 4, 2020) and February 26, 2021 are <b>AFFIRMED</b>; and it is further</p><p><b>ORDERED</b> that Petitioner's Appeal is <b>DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE</b>; and it is further</p><p><b>ORDERED</b> that a copy of this Order and the accompanying Opinion shall be directed to Chief Deputy Attorney General, Carol [REDACTED] - [REDACTED], Esq.; and [REDACTED] Kroblin, Esq.</p><p>DATED: February <u>04</u>, 2022</p><img/><img/>
+ </body>
+ </html></sup>

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821591/EFTA02821591.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -86,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821591",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"swarm-unicode-norm.html-named-entities\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e7e68d9b2d46a09b83f1cbb99cec3bc913c0c4986e3276bc03c6764354c6d6b5",
+  "output_sha256": "269fd0dc36a7549e8bf1e18a86f2a412ba3a2d913c40dc42f2894d2630ef54aa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821598/EFTA02821598.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+## FILED
+
+February V, 2022 09:46 AN
+
+5T-2021-W-0000S
+
+TAMARA CHARLES
+
+CI.ERK OF THE COURT
+
+## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+
+District of St. 1St. John
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: Case Number: ST-2021-RV-00005 JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DECEASED. Action: Magistrate Appeal
+
+To:
+
+## NOTICE of ENTRY of MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
+
+Judges and Magistrate Judges of The Superior Court of the V.I.
+
+Chief De ut Attorney General,
+
+Carol , Esq.
+
+Kroblin, Esq.
+
+IT
+
+Law Library
+
+Law Clerks
+
+Order Book
+
+Please take notice that on February 07, 2022
+
+a(n) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
+
+dated February 4, 2022 was/were entered
+
+by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
+
+Dated: February 07, 2022 Tamara Charles
+
+Clerk of the Court
+
+By:
+
+Brenda Monsanto Court Clerk Supervisor

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821598/EFTA02821598.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": 0,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821598",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 0,
+  "fix_ids": "[]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "567494f4ab903ede5920fa58617ac5a7fa3fda7ac1474a2aef29542af7d2e611",
+  "output_sha256": "567494f4ab903ede5920fa58617ac5a7fa3fda7ac1474a2aef29542af7d2e611",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821599/EFTA02821599.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+#### FILED March 04, 2022 95:36 PH 51-2 02 1-RV-0 0 005 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+
+DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No: ST-2019-00080
+
+#### MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF
+
+COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate"), DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN (the "Co-Executors"), and hereby move this Honorable Court pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 541 for an award of attorneys' fees incurred by the Co-Executors in their successful opposition to the Government of the Virgin Islands' (the "GVI") Motion to Intervene in the Probate Action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, filed January 23, 2020 (the "GVI Motion to Intervene") and the GVI's Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand, filed February 4, 2021 (the "GVI Motion to Freeze Assets" and, together with the GVI Motion to Intervene, the "GVI Motions") and the GVI's Appeal and Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders, filed March 17, 2021 and decided by the Court on February 4, 2022 (the "GVI Appeal"). Counsels' affidavits in support of this motion are submitted herewith.
+
+The Co-Executors prevailed on the GVI Motions before the Magistrate Judge and on the GVI Appeal before this Court. In defending against those applications, the Co-Executors incurred \$112,216.90 in attorneys' fees. The attorneys' fees sought are fair and reasonable, supported by contemporaneous time entries, and reflect the actual time and labor involved in dealing with the far-reaching implications of the GVI Motions, developing a strategy for
+
+responding to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, researching relevant legal issues, drafting the required briefing, and preparing for and appearing at the Probate Division's hearings regarding the GVI Motions.
+
+### BACKGROUND
+
+On August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein died suddenly in the Manhattan Correctional Center in New York City. Since the Epstein Estate's creation on August 15, 2019 and the Probate Division's appointment of Messrs. Indyke and Kahn as Co-Executors on September 6, 2019, the Co-Executors have administered the Epstein Estate in the proceeding entitled In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-2019-00080 (the "Probate Action").
+
+The Epstein Estate is massive, complex and multi-jurisdictional. Initially valued at over \$636 million, the Epstein Estate's assets included cash and personal property (e.g., vehicles, jewelry, artwork, collectibles, furnishings and equipment), fifteen limited liability companies wholly owned by Mr. Epstein, ten corporate entities owned by Mr. Epstein and three entities in which Mr. Epstein held partial ownership interests.' In turn, those entities held a wide variety of cash, investments, real property, aircraft, vehicles and other assets located around the world, including in New York, New Mexico, Florida, France and the Virgin Islands.'
+
+Following Mr. Epstein's death, the Epstein Estate and/or the Co-Executors, acting in that capacity, were named as defendants in a welter of sizeable and complex civil suits. To date, sixty-four individual plaintiffs filed forty-seven lawsuits against the Epstein Estate and/or the Co-Executors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as
+
+I. Verified Inventory, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-00080 (V.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2020). 2. Id.
+
+well as in the state courts of New York, Minnesota and Florida, claiming sexual abuse at the hands of Mr. Epstein. Many of these suits sought unliquidated damages and together contain a litany of factual allegations going back to the 1980s. In addition to their defense of these civil suits, the Co-Executors worked extensively to establish a voluntarily administered, independent claims resolution program (the "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program"), which provided compensation for individual claimants seeking redress for sexual abuse. In November 2019, the Co-Executors sought the Probate Division's approval for this novel program, the first ever established by an estate; Magistrate Judge Carolyn P. Hermon-Percell granted that approval on June 3, 2020.
+
+On January 15, 2020, the GVI filed a lawsuit against the Epstein Estate and numerous Epstein business affiliates and associates for, among other allegations, violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (the "CICO Action").3
+
+On January 23, 2020, the GVI filed the GVI Motion to Intervene, which sought to intervene in the Probate Action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 24"). On February 3, 2020, the Co-Executors filed their opposition to the GVI Motion to Intervene, arguing that (i) intervention by the GVI was unnecessary in light of the Co-Executors' fiduciary duties to the Epstein Estate and Probate Division's original jurisdiction to "supervise and administer estates and fiduciary relations," 4 V.I.C. § 76(a), (ii) the Virgin Islands Code and Probate Rules, rather than Rule 24, govern permissible intervention in the Probate Action, (iii) the GVI failed to follow the applicable claims procedure, and (iv) even if Rule 24
+
+{sup}`3.` In February 2021, the GVI sought leave to amend its complaint in the CICO Action to add the Co-Executors as defendants. That application is pending.
+
+were applicable, the contingent nature of the GVI's claim required the Court's denial of its motion to intervene.
+
+On February 4, 2020, at an all-day hearing held in St. M, Judge Hermon-Percell denied the GVI Motion to Intervene, finding that the GVI was not a party to the Probate Action and was therefore not permitted to intervene in that proceeding.4 Judge Hermon-Percell issued a written order confirming her ruling on February 26, 2021 (nunc pro tune to February 4, 2020).
+
+On February 4, 2021, the GVI filed the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets, arguing that the Probate Division should immediately freeze all of the Epstein Estate's assets and cash on hand because the Epstein Estate allegedly breached its commitment to fund the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and the Co-Executors purportedly mismanaged the Epstein Estate. On February 10, 2021, the Co-Executors filed their opposition to the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets, noting, among other things, (i) the Epstein Estate had already funded the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program with over \$87 million specifically to pay claimants, in addition to regular payments made by the Epstein Estate to cover the costs of the Program's administration and operations, and the Co-Executors were in the process of liquidating additional assets for additional funding :5 (ii) the Co-Executors had not mismanaged the Epstein Estate but were instead complying with applicable Virgin Islands law, (iii) the GVI would not be harmed by denial of the requested relief and, given the Court's earlier denial of the GVI Motion to Intervene
+
+- 4. See February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr., Exhibit 1 at 98:1-16. Among other things, the Court directed the GVI to file a formal claim in the Probate Action if it wished to be heard as a claimant. (Id. at 98:12-14, 100:8-102:16.)
+- 5. The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program ultimately awarded 136 claimants over \$121 million in compensation, which the Epstein Estate fully funded.
+
+and the GVI's continued failure to file a formal claim in the Probate Action, the GVI lacked standing to obtain the relief demanded in the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets, and (iv) the GVI's demand would result in extraordinary harm to the Epstein Estate and would not serve the public interest.
+
+Following a hearing on February 19, 2021, Judge Hermon-Percell struck the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets, finding that, because the Court had previously denied the GVI Motion to Intervene, the GVI lacked standing to move the Court to freeze the Epstein Estate's assets.6
+
+On March 17, 2021, the GVI filed the GVI Appeal, challenging the Probate Division's orders denying the GVI Motion to Intervene and GVI Motion to Freeze Assets. On March 29, 2021, the Co-Executors filed their response to the GVI Appeal, arguing that (i) the GVI's appeal was untimely, (ii) the GVI's continued refusal to file a formal claim in the Probate Action against the Epstein Estate further substantiated the GVI's lack of standing, and (iii) the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets was moot because the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program was fully funded and was operating as it had since its implementation.
+
+On February 4, 2022, this Court (the Honorable Debra S. Watlington) issued a Memorandum Opinion affirming the Magistrate Judge's denial of both the GVI Motion to Intervene and the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets. In its accompanying Order, the Court denied the GVI Appeal with prejudice.'
+
+{sup}`6.` Order, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 (V.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2021). 7. Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005 (V.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2022).
+
+### APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
+
+In a civil action in the Virgin Islands, a prevailing party may recover its costs, including attorneys' fees, pursuant to 5 V.I.0 § 541(a).8 Such attorneys' fees may be awarded against the GVI. See, e.g., Bennett v. Virgin Islands Govt., No. 2004-CV-0031., 2007 BL 131136 (D.V.I. Oct. 22, 2007) (awarding recovery of attorney's fees against the GVI); Berne Corp. v Govt. of the Virgin Is., 2010 US Dist LEXIS 105265, at \*1 (D.V.I. Sep. 30, 2010) (same).
+
+Pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 541(b), awards of attorneys' fees are considered an indemnity for the prevailing party. 5 V.I.C. § 541(b) (absent agreement to the contrary by the parties, "there shall be allowed to the prevailing party in the judgment such sums as the court in its discretion may fix by way of indemnity for his attorney's fees in maintaining the action or defenses thereto"). While such awards lie within the Court's discretion, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands recently made clear that courts do not have unlimited discretion to reduce the amount of requested attorneys' fees. See Mahabir v. Heirs of James Wellington M, S. Ct. Civ. No. 2014-0025, 2021 WL 6100552, at \*2-4 (V.I. Dec. 22. 2021) (finding that Superior Court erred in reducing attorneys' requested hourly rate). Instead, courts must "first calculate the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation," then multiply that numbery of hours "by a reasonable hourly rate, calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Id. at \*2-3 (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)). "The court must then evaluate the attorney's experience and skill and compare their rates to the rates prevailing in
+
+{sup}`8.` Courts in the probate proceedings in the Magistrate Division are likewise empowered to grant costs such as attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. 15 V.I.C. § 165 (costs may be awarded in favor of one party against another, to be paid personally or out of the estate or fund, in any proceedings contested adversely).
+
+the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Id. (citing Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n.11). Courts determining a reasonable hourly rate may also consider factors including:
+
+- (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
+- (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
+- (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
+- (4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
+- (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
+- (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
+- (7) the experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and
+- (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
+
+Yeanvood Enterprises, Inc. v. Antilles Gas Corp., No. ST-17-CV-77, 2017 WL 6316625, at •2 (V.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2017), aff'd, 69 V.I. 863 (2018).
+
+## ARGUMENT
+
+Here, the Co-Executors unquestionably prevailed on the GVI Motion to Intervene and the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets before Judge Hermon-Percell and on the GVI Appeal before this Court. The Court should therefore award attorneys' fees to the Co-Executors.
+
+Contemporaneously recorded, detailed descriptions of the hours expended for legal services rendered by the Epstein Estate's counsel in relation to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, as well as the relevant attorneys' rates, are set forth in the accompanying Affidavits of Daniel H. Weiner and A. Kroblin. As discussed in more detail below, the number of hours expended and rates requested are reasonable.
+
+#### I. The Hours Expended by the Co-Executors' Counsel in Defeating the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal Are Reasonable.
+
+Defeating the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal was of significant importance to the Co-Executors and their administration of the Epstein Estate. The GVI has repeatedly sought to unlawfully seize effective control over the Epstein Estate in an attempt to appropriate for itself the Court's power and the Co-Executors' responsibility under the Virgin Islands Code to administer the Epstein Estate.9 The GVI Motions constituted another such illegitimate attempt, with the GVI seeking to improperly interfere with the Probate Division's authority and the Co-Executors' ability to discharge their legal obligations. Instead of properly filing a claim against the Epstein Estate as expressly instructed by Judge Hermon-Percell on February 4, 2020 and in accordance with the Virgin Islands Rules of Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings—which would have allowed the Co-Executors to properly review that claim and conferred standing on the GVI to seek relief before the Probate Division—the GVI attempted to circumvent the probate process and gain priority over the Epstein Estate's assets to the detriment of other claimants and creditors.10 Likewise, through the GVI Motion to Freeze Assets, the GVI improperly sought to prevent the Co-Executors from paying for the necessary and ongoing administration of the Epstein Estate.
+
+Given the size and complexity of the Epstein Estate and the novel, multifaceted nature of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, the implications of the Motions were far-
+
+{sup}`9.` See, e.g., Co-Executors' Emergency Motion for Order Releasing Funds for Administration of the Estate, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-00080 (V.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2020) (explaining that improper criminal activity lien notices issued by the GVI in January 2020 had brought the administration of the Epstein Estate to a potentially disastrous halt).
+
+{sup}`10.` The GVI finally filed its claim in the Probate Action on February 18, 2022, more than two years after Judge Hermon-Percell directed the GVI to do so.
+
+reaching. The GVI's unauthorized attempt to intervene in the Probate Action and seize control of the Epstein Estate's assets was both extremely unusual and of extraordinary importance to the Epstein Estate. To further complicate matters, the GVI based its improper Motions on unsupported applications of law and baseless accusations concerning the Co-Executors and the Probate Division's ability to effectively administer the Epstein Estate. As a result, the Co-Executors were forced retain counsel to spend considerable time in order to, among other things, evaluate the implications of the GVI Motions on both the Probate Action and the GVI's CICO Action, strategize the proper response to the GVI Motions in light of those implications, research and draft responses to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, prepare to argue the GVI Motions and appear and argue before the Probate Division."
+
+In light of these facts, the Court should conclude that time spent by the Co-Executors' counsel in relation to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal was reasonable.
+
+## IL The Co-Executors' Counsels' Rates Are Reasonable.
+
+To determine a reasonable hourly rate, courts should assess the experience and skill of the prevailing party's attorneys and "compare their rates to the rates prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Mahabir, 2021 WL 6100552, at \*3. The appropriate rate used for this analysis is the "rate at the time of the fee petition, not at the time the services were performed." Anthony v.
+
+II. In total, counsel for the Co-Executors researched and drafted three opposition briefs—each of which required analysis of complex legal issues and far-reaching implications for the Epstein Estate—and prepared for and participated in two substantive hearings before the Probate Court. When broken down, counsel for the Co-Executors spent approximately fiftytwo hours on their opposition briefs to each of the GVI's Motions, twenty-three hours preparing for and participating in the February 4, 2020 Hearing, eight hours preparing for and participating in the February 19, 2021 hearing, and fourteen hours on their opposition brief to the GVI's Appeal.
+
+=, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94323, at \*7 (D.V.I. July 9, 2012) (quoting Lanni v. New Jersey, 259 F.3d 146, 149-50 (3d Cir. 2001)).
+
+Here, the Co-Executors employed highly qualified attorneys from Kellerhals Kroblin PLLC ("Kellerhals"), a law firm with offices in the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York and which is affiliated with New York law firm Blum Heymann LLP (` "), and Hughes Hubbard & LLP ("Hughes Hubbard"), a well-known international law firm with offices in New York, Florida and Paris, each a jurisdiction in which the Epstein Estate has substantial property and in which the Estate faces various complex legal issues. Counsels' rates are listed in the Weiner and Kroblin Affidavits filed herewith and range from \$360 to \$1,315 per hour for attorneys and \$135 for a legal assistant, including relevant discounts negotiated by the Co-Executors. As discussed below, the requested rates for each of the relevant counsel and legal assistants (i) reflect their skills and experience; (ii) constitute customary rates as paid by other clients as well as the Epstein Estate; (iii) are consistent with rates charged by comparable professionals; and (iv) reflect the complexity of the Epstein Estate and the legal issues involved in the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, and the benefits obtained by counsel's successes.
+
+## I. Counsels' Rates Reflect Their Reputation, Skills and Experience.
+
+As detailed further in the Weiner and Kroblin Affidavits and the biographies attached thereto, the Co-Executors' counsel are experienced attorneys whose rates reflect their skills:
+
+# A. A. Kroblin is a member and the lead litigator at Kellerhals.
+
+His focus on civil and commercial litigation includes complex contract disputes, product defects and other tort disputes, arbitration, employment law, commercial banking litigation, and
+
+creditor's side bankruptcy representation. Mr. Kroblin also handles tax litigation cases as well as association, partnership, and corporate litigation matters. In addition to his general trial level practice, Mr. Kroblin handles a broad array of appellate issues. Mr. Kroblin has practiced in the Virgin Islands since 2005; he was previously a law clerk for Virgin Islands Supreme Court Justice Maria M. Cabret in her former position as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Mr. Kroblin also interned for the Federal Trade Commission, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court of California. He is admitted to practice law in New York and the Virgin Islands, as well as before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
+
+B. Shari N. D'Andrade is a litigation associate with Kellerhals with more than eleven years of experience practicing law. She rejoined the firm in 2019 after serving several years as an Assistant Attorney General with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice and General Counsel for the GVI's Bureau of Corrections. There, Ms. D'Andrade handled a broad range of legal matters, including prison litigation, defamation, class action suits, elections disputes, and Title VII employment discrimination cases. Ms. D'Andrade appears regularly before the local and federal courts of the Virgin Islands, including the Virgin Islands Supreme Court. Her practice areas are commercial and civil litigation, civil rights, employment law, personal injury, and medical malpractice. She also has experience in compliance and regulatory matters and corporate governance. Before practicing law, Ms. D'Andrade served as a law clerk for Virgin Islands Superior Court Judge James S. Carroll, III. Ms. D'Andrade graduated with honors from the American University Washington College of Law. During law school, she served as a law clerk for the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Tort Claims Act Section, and was a judicial intern for the Honorable Reggie B. Walton, United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia. Ms. D'Andrade is admitted to practice in the Virgin Islands and New York.
+
+C. Marjorie Whalen is a litigation associate with Kellerhals with more than nine years of experience practicing law. Before joining Kellerhals, she served for two years as a law clerk to the Honorable Kathleen Y. Mackay of the Virgin Islands Superior Court. A member of the Law Review at Roger University School of Law, Ms. Whalen interned for the Honorable 0. Rogeriee Thompson in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Ms. Whalen is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the Virgin Islands.
+
+D. Andrew Heymann is a New York City-based partner at with significant experience handling matters in the Virgin Islands. He has more than thirty years' experience litigating trust, estate and complicated multi jurisdiction commercial disputes, including obtaining judgments defending fiduciaries and beneficiaries in proceedings involving foreign forced heirship, undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent conveyance claims; foreign tribunal arbitrations resulting in the successful dissolution and distribution of international trusts; international reinsurance litigation resulting in multimillion-dollar settlements; and, U.S. tax reporting, advice and financial disclosure cases. He is admitted to practice before the federal, state and territorial courts in the jurisdictions of New York, New Jersey and the Virgin Islands, and before several federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Tax Court.
+
+E. Daniel H. Weiner is a partner at Hughes Hubbard, where he serves as Chair of that firm's Litigation Department and Complex Business Disputes practice. Mr. Weiner, a 1981 graduate cum laude of Princeton University and a 1984 graduate of New York University School of Law, has more than thirty-seven years of experience litigating complex
+
+disputes and has first-chair experience in more than thirty litigations and arbitrations.
+
+Recognized as a leading international arbitration lawyer by Law360, The Legal 500 United States, USA and Global, ranked in USA as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation, and recognized by New York Super Lawyers Business Litigation as a "super lawyer," Mr. Weiner is based in New York City and is licensed to practice law in Florida and New York, as well as before numerous federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and the United States Tax Court, Court of International Trade and U.S. Supreme Court. He has been admitted pro hac vice to practice law in the Virgin Islands in the Probate Action.
+
+### 2. Clients Routinely Pay Counsels' Rates.
+
+As the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has recognized, "no fee is reasonable unless it would be adequate to induce other attorneys to represent similarly situated clients seeking relief comparable to that obtained in the case at hand." Mahabir, 2021 WL 6100552 at \*3. For this purpose, "[t]he value of an attorney's time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate." Id. at \*3. The rates that attorneys actually charge are the best evidence of what the market will bear, as compared to a "rate devised by the court" because "[I]awyers do not come from cookie cutters . . . . Clients are willing to pay more, per hour, for ... better lawyers .... Markets recognize these truths; judges must too." Gasman v. Unisys Corp., 986 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir. 1993) (Easterbrook, J.); see also Rozell v. n, 576 F. Supp. 2d 527, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[T]he range of rates that plaintiffs counsel actually charge their clients ... is obviously strong evidence of what the market will bear.").
+
+Here, the Co-Executors' requested fees are based on their counsel's customary rates. which are routinely paid by clients in the Virgin Islands and around the world. (ICroblin Alt 9111 5-6; Weiner Aff. J'14-6.) In particular, these rates represent the rates that Co-Executors'
+
+counsel is actually paid for work relating to the Epstein Estate. (Kroblin Aff.1 5; Weiner Aff. 1 5.) As rates actually charged and paid, the requested rates are reasonable and consistent with the rates charged in the relevant communities.
+
+### 3. The Requested Rates Reflect the Rates in the Relevant Communities.
+
+The rates charged by each of the Co-Executors' counsel who did work associated with the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal also are commensurate with rates customarily charged by similarly-experienced attorneys for similar work in the relevant communities.
+
+For many years, courts in the Virgin Islands stated that the hourly rate for attorneys practicing in the Virgin Islands was roughly \$300. See, e.g., Diamond Crest, Ltd. v. FNA Service Stations, Inc., Civil No. 591/01, 2006 WL 8418818 (V.I. Super. June 14, 2006) (finding that, in 2006, the standard rates charged by attorneys in the Virgin Islands was \$200- \$400). However, just as the cost of living increased dramatically over the last decade and a half, rates charged by attorneys in the Virgin Islands have also risen. As the Virgin Islands Supreme Court recently cautioned, courts must not allow their pre-conceived notions of customary market rates for attorneys in the Virgin Islands to prevail over the evidence of the prevailing rates set forth in the case before them, such as the customary rates actually charged by the attorneys in question and affidavits evidencing the standard rates. Mahabir, 2021 WL 6100552, at \*3 (finding that the court should not use its preconceived notion of current standard rates as a basis to lower the requested standard rate). As set forth in Mr. Kroblin's Affidavit, the rates requested here for the Kellerhals and attorneys are standard rates charged by experienced attorneys in the Virgin Islands. (Kroblin Aff. 1 6.)
+
+The rate charged by Kellerhals' legal assistant Shauna Betz also is consistent with rates charged by legal assistants in the Virgin Islands. See, e.g., LPP Mortg., Ltd. v. Ferris, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74599, at \*25 n.3 (D.V.I. June 2, 2014) (approving paralegal hourly rates ranging from \$120 to \$150). The Virgin Islands Superior Court recently found reasonable and approved a Kellerhals' paralegal's similar hourly rate. See Matter of Estate of , No. ST-95-PB-53, 2019 WL 3219450, at \*5 (V.I. Super. Feb. 21, 2019) ("The paralegals' hourly legal rate set forth in Attorney Kellerhals' motion between \$135.00 and \$80.00 appears reasonable ....").
+
+The rates charged by Mr. Weiner of Hughes Hubbard likewise reflect the prevalent rates in the relevant community. (Weiner Aff. I 6.) While courts frequently look to the local geographic area to determine the applicable "community" of attorneys against whom to evaluate the attorney's rates, courts addressing attorney's fees for complex cases may look outside their geographic area to find the appropriate hourly rate. See. e.g., Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 3:14-CV-956 (JBA), 2020 WL 4289955, at \*7 (D. Conn. July 27, 2020) (finding that, because the complex litigation was the kind of case for which a local attorney "would need to seek out-of-district counsel to prosecute the case effectively," counsel was "entitled to rates in excess of those that prevail in this district ..."); Polk v. N.Y. State Delft of Corr. Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir. 1983) (holding, as a judge "may consider all of the circumstances of the case," out-of-forum rates were appropriate "upon a showing that the special expertise of counsel from a distant district is required"); Howes v. Medical Components, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 1193, 1196 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (finding that "a party should be entitled to retain the most competent counsel available, particularly in the highly specialized area [at issue] and particularly when its local counsel suggests using an out-of-state law firm for the purpose of litigation.... [because P]laintiffs had a good reason for using non-local counsel, plaintiffs' New York City counsel [were] entitled to recover the reasonable hourly rate for the New York City community.").
+
+Considering the complex, multi jurisdictional nature of the Epstein Estate and the far-reaching implications of the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, this is precisely the type of case where counsel outside of the Virgin Islands with special expertise in similar cases is necessary and appropriate.12
+
+Mr. Weiner's rate is commensurate with other attorneys in the New York City area with similar experience, skill and reputation as well as with other attorneys in relation to matters whose complexity is comparable to administration of the Epstein Estate. (Weiner Aff. II 4, 6); see also, e.g., Trupia v. Astrue, No. 05-CV-6085 (SJF), 2008 WL 858994, at \*4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2008) (awarding what amounted to a \$1,714 hourly fee); McDonald v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-926-FPG, 2019 WL 1375084, at •2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019) (awarding what amounted to a \$1,051 hourly fee); Kanzanjian v. Astrue, No. 09 CIV. 3678 BMC, 2011 WL 284743, at •2-3 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2011) (approving fee award of \$2,100 per hour); Sara Randazzo and Jacqueline Palank, Legal Fees Cross New Mark: \$1,500 an Hour, The Wall St. J. (Feb. 9, 2016), https://www.wsj.com/articlestlegal-fees-reach-new-pinnacle-1-500-anhour-1454960708 (Exhibit 2). Here, Mr. Weiner's requested rate for time spent on the GVI Motions and the GVI Appeal reflects a discount from his current standard rates. (Weiner Aff. ¶ 5.)
+
+{sup}`12.` The USVI Attorney General likewise engaged Motley Rice LLC, a firm with more than 100 attorneys and offices in New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., South Carolina, Rhode Island, Connecticut, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, to represent the GVI in the Probate Action and GVI's CICO action.
+
+#### 4. The Requested Rates Reflect the Benefits Obtained by Counsels' Success as well as the Complexity of the Epstein Estate and the Legal Issues Involved in the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal.
+
+In evaluating the reasonableness of an attorney's rate, the Court also considers factors such as the time and labor involved, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the amount involved and the benefits obtained, and the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer. See, e.g., Yearwood Enterprises, Inc., 2017 WL 6316625, at \*2; Dorval v. Sapphire Vill. Condo. Owners Assn, Nos. 16-50;18-29, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84668, at \*6 (D.V.I. May 11, 2020) (citation omitted).
+
+Here, as discussed above, the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal presented farreaching implications for the Epstein Estate. Evaluating the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, strategizing appropriate responses, researching and drafting those responses, and preparing and appearing for the Court hearings required a substantial amount of time, labor and skill. Likewise, as grant of the GVI Motions or GVI Appeal would have resulted in both (1) the GVI "jumping the line" ahead of numerous claimants and creditors who had properly filed their claims in the Probate Action, and (2) the inability of the Co-Executors to continue to administer the Epstein Estate, the amounts in question and benefits to the Epstein Estate (including the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program) obtained through the Co-Executors' success are substantial.
+
+The nature of the Probate Action likewise has a substantial impact on the Co-Executors' counsel. Given Mr. Epstein's notoriety, the administration of the Epstein Estate has negative reputational consequences for Co-Executors' counsel—particularly USVI counsel, who work in a small community where Mr. Epstein is infamous. This notoriety both makes it
+
+difficult for the Co-Executors to obtain other representation and necessitates a higher hourly rate for their legal services.
+
+Moreover, while the Co-Executors seek in this application only those fees associated with legal work performed on the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, the Court cannot evaluate that work without considering the larger legal requirements of the Epstein Estate. Administration of the Epstein Estate is a massive, multi-jurisdictional task that requires complex and specialized legal work. Not only would it have been fundamentally unreasonable to bring in different counsel separate from those working on the Epstein Estate's legal issues at large in order to address the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, responding to those applications required a thorough understanding of the Epstein Estate. The reasonable rates appropriate in successfully litigating the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal cannot be separated from the reasonable rates appropriate for attorneys involved in administering and litigating the complex issues relating to the Epstein Estate. In considering the required skill, time and labor involved in litigation of the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, the Court should consider the substantial amount of skill, time and labor involved—and the reasonable rates associated with that work—in the Epstein Estate's larger legal work.
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+WHEREFORE, Co-Executors respectfully request that the Court issue an award reimbursing them for their attorneys' fees incurred on the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal in the amount of \$112,216.90.
+
+Respectfully,
+
+Dated: March 4, 2022
+
+*/s/ Shari N. D'Andrade*
+
+**SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ.**  
+**[REDACTED] KROBLIN, ESQ.**  
+**MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ.**  
+V.I. Bar Nos. 1221, 966, & R2019  
+KELLERHALS [REDACTED] KROBLIN PLLC  
+[REDACTED] Palms Professional Building  
+9053 Estate [REDACTED], Suite 101  
+St. [REDACTED], V.I. 00802  
+Telephone: (340) 779-2564  
+Facsimile: (888) 316-9269  
+Email: sdandrade@kellfer.com  
+ckroblin@kellfer.com  
+mwhalen@kellfer.com
+
+**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**
+
+**I HEREBY CERTIFY** that on this 4th day of March 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing **Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law** to be served via VIJEFS upon:
+
+Denise N. [REDACTED], Esq., Attorney General  
+Carol [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Esq., Deputy Attorney General  
+Ariel M. [REDACTED], Esq., Chief, Civil Division  
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice  
+34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade  
+GERS Complex, 2{sup}`nd` Floor  
+St. [REDACTED], Virgin Islands 00804  
+[REDACTED]
+
+Linda J. [REDACTED], Esq.  
+Motley Rice LLC  
+402 9th Street NW, Suite 1001  
+Washington, D.C. 20004  
+lsinger@motleyrice.com
+
+*/s/ Shari N. D'Andrade*

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821599/EFTA02821599.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -28,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821599",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5050059e74c95f4edf4744d6a5e6aa3e10a11a4be2029123aa4e7f984331c32a",
+  "output_sha256": "834e1990d00f472267ce250f0fe1e47d8bfaa401d7a8affe023ac18a826ad1e3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821618/EFTA02821618.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+## FILED
+
+Huth 04, 2022 95:36 PH
+
+51-2 02 1-RV-0 0 005
+
+TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND St JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No: ST-2019-00080
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. Having considered the Motion, the Court will grant the same.
+
+Accordingly, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof is GRANTED; and it is further
+
+ORDERED that reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of One Hundred Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Ninety Cents (\$112,216.90) is hereby awarded in favor of the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn and against the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands; and it is further
+
+ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record.
+
+Dated: , 2022
+
+ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court BY:
+
+Court Clerk Supervisor
+
+DEBRA S. WATLINGTON Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821618/EFTA02821618.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": 0,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821618",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 0,
+  "fix_ids": "[]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "eb7d17c247cd3b191bb50fa2059e37f63d117b97d1ceb96f134d23984d9db4df",
+  "output_sha256": "eb7d17c247cd3b191bb50fa2059e37f63d117b97d1ceb96f134d23984d9db4df",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821619/EFTA02821619.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -476,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821619",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.table-boundary-padding\", \"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4db8a7b816a61319995126a89116910bf2b2a5de4be102ff8dd74658db69cd66",
+  "output_sha256": "0beab706810b4be39e68204990f680b26731328ad2609da2132029529ad1adde",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821825/EFTA02821825.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+Pinch 04, 2022 05:36 PM
+
+ST-2 021-RV-00 0 05
+
+TAMARA CHARLES
+
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+# Exhibit 2
+
+![](_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg)
+
+### Legal Fees Cross New Mark: \$1,500 an Hour
+
+The Wall Street Journal
+
+February 9, 2016 Tuesday
+
+Copyright 2016 Factiya 60, from Dow AS Rights Reserved
+
+FACTIVA
+
+Copyright 2016. Dow MI & Company. Inc.
+
+# THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
+
+Section: Pg. Al
+
+Length: 861 words
+
+Byline: By Sara Randazzo and Jacqueline Palank
+
+## Body
+
+The day of the \$1,500-an-hour lawyer has arrived.
+
+Partners at some of the nation's top law firms are approaching — and, in a few cases, surpassing — that watershed billing rate, making the \$1,000-an-hour legal fees that once seemed so steep look quaint by comparison.
+
+Despite low inflation and weak demand for legal services, rates at large corporate law firms have risen by 3% to 4% a year since the economic downtum, according to Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group.
+
+"We just raise them every year," said John Altorelli, a finance lawyer at DLA Piper LLP in New York, who says the firm has set his rate at more than \$1,500 an hour. Mr. Altorelli, who filed for personal bankruptcy in 2014 to halt a legal battle with the estate of his former law firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, cracked the \$1,000-an-hour mark a decade ago. His fees have risen steadily ever since.
+
+To soften the blow to clients, Mr. Altorelli does more than half his work on some kind of fixed-fee basis. "Using hourly rates is really anachronistic, but we still do it," he said.
+
+Raising rates ensures that law firms keep up with the competition and helps them wrest more money from clients, who routinely demand discounts for all but the most sensitive work.
+
+"If you think of the rules of supply and demand, how in the world can they keep raising their rates?" said Jeff Carr, a former general counsel of oil-and-gas services and equipment company FMC Technologies who for years has been an outspoken opponent of hourly legal rates.
+
+The rate creep has boosted law firms' revenue at a time when many of them are under pressure from lower-cost legal-service providers and corporate clients that are keeping more legal work in-house. Revenue at law firms 4% last year, according to Wells Fargo Private Bank's Legal Specialty Group, though demand just 0.5%.
+
+"Lots of law firms will charge whatever the market can bear," said the head of one of the nation's 200 largest law firms.
+
+Documents filed in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases offer a rare public glimpse at mounting fees. These court filings show the rates of partners specializing in corporate restructuring, as well as those with specialties like tax, litigation and corporate law.
+
+A review of filings over the past three months in about two dozen bankruptcy cases shows that senior partners routinely charge between \$1,200 and \$1,300 an hour, with top rates at several large law firms exceeding \$1,400.
+
+Proskauer LLP's hourly partner billing rate has climbed as high as \$1,475, while Ropes & Gray LLP's tops out at \$1,450, court papers show.
+
+Kirkland & Ellis LLP's top hourly billing rate is now \$1,445. And rates at two firms — Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP -- peak at \$1,425 an hour.
+
+Representatives of the law firms declined to comment.
+
+In disclosing their firmwide rate increases, many firms tell the courts it is a standard way of keeping pace with "economic and other conditions." These include rising fixed costs, such as real estate and salaries.
+
+Still, only elite lawyers can charge \$1,400 an hour or more. Such rates are found almost exclusively in New York and other major markets, and only in the least price-sensitive such as mergers and acquisitions, restructuring, tax, antitrust and high-stakes litigation and appeals.
+
+For lawyers at the very top of those hourly rates can hit \$1,800 or even \$1,950.
+
+"You have a very few people at the very top where price is almost no object." said legal consultant Bruce MacEwen, who likens it to the way celebrities, sports stars and best-selling authors are paid. "It is a talent market."
+
+Most lawyers in the U.S. fall well below those high marks. In a survey of in-house legal departments by BTI Consulting Group, the average highest rate paid for law-firm partners was \$875 an hour in 2015, up more than 27% from three years earlier. Of the respondents, 38% had paid more than \$1,000 an hour for a lawyer, and the highest rate those in the survey paid was \$1,600 an hour.
+
+For many firms, the stated rate is simply a starting point in discussions with corporate law departments. As a result, said legal consultant Bower of Altman Weil, "sophisticated" law firms tend to implement annual rate increases to offset clients' requests for discounts.
+
+Such discounts are becoming more commonplace. A decade ago, law firms could typically get clients to pay around 92% of their stated rates, according to Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor. Last year, that fell to less than 83%.
+
+Smaller companies can get squeezed the most on fees, because they don't send enough work to any one law firm to get the best deals.
+
+Companies with \$4 billion or more in annual revenue were twice as likely as those with less than \$100 million in revenue to use some form of alternative fee, according to a survey from industry trade group the Association of Corporate Counsel.
+
+Some industry watchers view the raise-and-discount approach with skepticism.
+
+"If clients are pushing back on rates, the answer isn't to raise them" and then ask for a discount, Mr. MacEwen said. "The answer is to provide better total value."
+
+License this article from Dow Reprint Service
+
+## Notes
+
+PUBLISHER: Dow & Company, Inc.
+
+Load-Date: February 9, 2016
+
+End of Document

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821825/EFTA02821825.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": 0,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821825",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 0,
+  "fix_ids": "[]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e0f422c0a26800398ec34d2710ee25a6a1284c787040242ea705beb13776a252",
+  "output_sha256": "e0f422c0a26800398ec34d2710ee25a6a1284c787040242ea705beb13776a252",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821829/EFTA02821829.md

@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+Huth 04, 2022 95:36 PH
+
+51-2 02 1-RV-0 0 005
+
+TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+
+DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
+
+IN THE NIA '1 1ER of THE LSI OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+CASE NO.: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No.: ST-2019-00080
+
+### AFFIDAVI CROBLIN
+
+A. Kroblin, Esq., declare and affirm as follows:
+
+I. I am an attorney admitted to practice in New York and the Virgin Islands.
+
+2. I am a 1997 graduate of & Clark College and a 2002 graduate of Golden Gate University School of Law. I have practiced law in the Virgin Islands since 2005. Since 2010, I have been a partner at Kellerhals Kroblin PLLC ("Kellerhals"), counsel in this probate proceeding for the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate"), Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (the "Co-Executors").
+
+3. I attach as Exhibit A copies of the professional profiles of myself, Shari N. D'Andrade, Marjorie Whalen and Andrew Heymann, as posted on the websites of Kellerhals or Blum Heyman LLP a"). Each relevant attorney has reviewed his or her profile and confirmed that the statements therein are true and accurate.
+
+4. I attach as Exhibit B a chart showing the contemporaneous time entries of the Kellerhals and professionals relating to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, as those terms are defined in the Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, filed herewith. The services charged were actually and necessarily performed in connection with the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal.
+
+5. The hourly rates set forth in Exhibit B are the customary rates charged by each attorney listed therein. Clients customarily pay these rates, and the Epstein Estate pays these rates for these firms' representation of the Co-Executors.
+
+6. The hourly rates set forth in Exhibit B are customary and reasonable for similarly experienced attorneys practicing law with firms comparable to Kellerhals and in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
+
+7. I affirm and declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
+
+Date: March 3, 2022
+
+\_SLIM 1mkL, A. Kroblin
+
+# EXHIBIT A
+
+![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg)
+
+# A. Kroblin
+
+### Member
+
+Phone: (340) 779-2564
+
+Fax: (888) 316-9269
+
+Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com
+
+vCard
+
+Kroblin is the lead litigator at Kellerhals Kroblin. His focus on civil and commercial litigation includes complex contract disputes, product defect and other tort disputes, arbitration, employment law, commercial banking litigation, and creditors side bankruptcy representation. Chris also handles tax litigation cases as well as association, partnership, and corporate litigation matters. In addition to his general trial level practice, Chris handles a broad array of appellate issues.
+
+Chris has practiced in the Virgin Islands since 2005. He joined current partners Erika Kellerhals and Greg in 2010 as an of counsel attorney before the three formed Kellerhals Kroblin. His practice is informed by his prior role as a judicial law clerk for Virgin Islands Supreme Court Justice Maria M. Cabret, in her former position as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Chris also interned for the Federal Trade Commission, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court of California.
+
+Chris's academic work includes graduate legal studies at the Washington School of Law. His publications include a Note entitled "Expanding the Jurisdictional Reach for Intentional Torts: Implications for Cyber Contacts," 31 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 51 (2001). In law school Chris was Editor-in-Chief of his school's
+
+### Primary Areas of Practice
+
+- Commercial & Crvil Littgalion
+
+### Education
+
+- Golden Gate University School of Law, in San Francisco California, J.D.
+- and Clark College. in Portland Oregon, B.A.
+
+## Bar Admissions
+
+- New York
+- U.S. Virgin Islands
+- United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
+- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
+
+## Services
+
+corpoateTransscans Tax Planning & Controversy. EDC Program EDC Compliance Services Real Estate Commercial & Civil Litigation Banking & Banking Regulations Probate & Estate Planning
+
+![](_page_4_Picture_9.jpeg)
+
+# Shari N. D'Andrade
+
+### Associate vCard
+
+Shari N. D'Andrade is a civil litigator admitted to practice in the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York. She rejoined the firm in 2019 after serving several years as an Assistant Attorney General with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice and General Counsel for the Government of U.S. Virgin Islands, Bureau of Corrections. There, Shari handled a broad range of legal matters, including prison litigation, defamation, class action suits, elections disputes, and Title VII-employment discrimination cases. Shari argues before the local and federal courts of the Virgin Islands, including the Virgin Islands Supreme Court. Her practice areas are commercial and civil litigation, civil rights, employment law, personal injury, and medical malpractice. She also has experience in compliance and regulatory matters and corporate governance. Before practicing law, Shari served as a judicial law clerk for Virgin Islands Superior Court Judge James S. Carroll, III. Shari graduated with honors from the American University Washington College of Law. During her course work, served as a law clerk for the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Tort Claims Act Section, was a judicial intern for the Honorable Reggie B. Walton, United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, and represented clients in the General Practice Clinic. Shari also studied abroad in the People's Republic of China. Shari earned her undergraduate degree with honors from Howard University.
+
+# Services
+
+#### Corporate Transactions Tax Planning & Controversy EDC Program EDC Compliance Services Real Estate Commercial & Civil Litigation Banking & Banking Regulations Probate & Estate Planning
+
+# Marjorie Whalen
+
+### Associate
+
+Email: mwhalen@kellfer.com
+
+vCard
+
+Marjorie Whalen is a litigation associate with Kellerhals Kroblin PLLC. Before joining Kellerhals Kroblin PLLC in October 2015, she served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Kathleen Y. Mackay of the Virgin Islands Superior Court for two years. As a student at Roger University School of Law, Marjorie was a Notes & Comments Editor on the Roger University Law Review and represented indigent clients as a student attorney in the Law School's Criminal Defense Clinic. For one year during law school, she interned for the Honorable O. Rogeriee Thompson in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
+
+### Primary Areas of Practice
+
+- Commercial & Civil Litigation
+
+### Education
+
+- Roger University School of Law, J.D.
+- Clark University, M.P.A.
+- Clark University, B.A.
+
+### Bar Admissions
+
+- U.S. Virgin Islands
+- Massachusetts
+- Rhode Island
+
+### Services
+
+Corporate Transactions
+
+Tax Planning & Controversy
+
+EDC Program
+
+EDC Compliance Services
+
+Real Estate
+
+Commercial & Civil Litigation
+
+Banking & Banking Regulations
+
+# Andrew Heymann
+
+PARTNER • INTERNATIONAL TRUST, ESTATE, BUSINESS LAWYER
+
+![](_page_7_Picture_3.jpeg)
+
+Andrew W. Heymann provides sophisticated international trust, estate and business planning, combined with estate administration and litigation, allowing him to provide comprehensive services to both U.S. and non-U.S. nationals. He has counseled numerous cross-border transactions, from the purchase of U.S. and non-U.S. businesses by multinational investors to investments in U.S. real property, art and other assets by entrepreneurs, international families and their closely held businesses. He has decades of experience in wealth preservation planning, including the establishment of domestic and foreign asset protection trusts, charitable foundations, family offices and the creation of intergenerational gifting strategies, and has administered complex multinational estates. Mr. Heymann also has more than thirty years' experience litigating trust, estate and complicated multi-jurisdiction commercial disputes (for example, obtaining notable judgments defending fiduciaries and beneficiaries in proceedings involving foreign forced heirship, undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent conveyance claims; foreign tribunal arbitrations resulting in the successful dissolution and distribution of international trusts; international reinsurance litigation resulting in multi-million dollar settlements; and, U.S. tax reporting, advice and financial disclosure cases). He is admitted to practice before the federal, state and territorial courts in the jurisdictions of New York, New Jersey, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and before several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Tax Court.
+
+Mr. Heymann serves as general counsel to a number of international charitable institutions and sits on the boards of several private foundations. He attended university in the United States, England and China, and speaks Mandarin Chinese. He is a longstanding member of the international law, and trusts and estates sections of the New York State Bar Association.
+
+li Download vCard
+
+# EXHIBIT B
+
+# Kellerhals Kroblin PLLC - Client Summary
+
+Clients: 'lEE - Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein - Probate I Projects: I Users: All I Account Managers: All
+
+| Date | Project | Description | Rate/
+Unit Price | Labor Time/
+Quantity | Billable Time/
+Cost Price | Bill Amt/
+Sell Price |
+| ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------- | ------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------- |
+| *** JEE - Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein - Probate** |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| **Andrew Heymann** |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| 01/31/2020 | Representation of Estate | Further drafting supp. brief, and opp. to intervention brief and conferences same. | \$630.00 hr | 6.40 | 6.40 | \$4,032.00 |
+| 02/02/2020 | Representation of Estate | Correspondence re corrected briefs re intervention and supplemental in support of program and related correspondence. | \$630.00 hr | 2.10 | 2.10 | \$1,323.00 |
+| 02/08/2021 | Representation of Estate | Review motion papers, research same and correspondence reply to emergency motion freeze assets | \$660.00 hr | 4.30 | 4.30 | \$2,838.00 |
+| 02/09/2021 | Representation of Estate | Strategize on opposition to AG motion to freeze assets and standard and research same and related advice to clients. | \$660.00 hr | 5.90 | 5.90 | \$3,894.00 |
+| **Total Labor For Andrew Heymann** |  |  | **18.70** |  | **18.70** | **\$12,087.00** |
+| **Total Expense For Andrew Heymann** |  |  |  |  | **\$0.00** | **\$0.00** |
+| **Total For Andrew Heymann** |  |  |  |  |  | **\$12,087.00** |
+| **Kroblin** |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| 01/23/2020 | Representation of Estate | Review Motion for Intervention and Opposition to Claims Program, research re the same, and strategize response. | \$500.00 hr | 2.80 | 2.80 | \$1,400.00 |
+| 01/29/2020 | Representation of Estate | Review / edit Opposition to Motion for Intervention. | \$500.00 hr | 1.60 | 1.60 | \$800.00 |
+| 01/30/2020 | Representation of Estate | Preparation for hearing including proposed agenda, proposed witnesses, and hearing binders, and review of quarterly accounting and edit of the same. | \$500.00 hr | 2.90 | 2.90 | \$1,450.00 |
+| 01/31/2020 | Representation of Estate | Incorporation of final edits to Opposition to Motion to Intervene, Supplemental Brief, and Reply to Opposition to Motion for claims Program. | \$500.00 hr | 4.80 | 4.80 | \$2,400.00 |
+| 02/03/2020 | Representation of Estate | Preparation for hearing. | \$500.00 hr | 4.50 | 4.50 | \$2,250.00 |
+| 02/04/2020 | Representation of Estate | Appearance at hearing for Estate. | \$500.00 hr | 4.50 | 4.50 | \$2,250.00 |
+| 02/04/2021 | Representation of Estate | Review Motion to Freeze assets filled by AG and consider response to the same. | \$500.00 hr | 0.30 | 0.30 | \$150.00 |
+| 02/08/2021 | Representation of Estate | Edits to opposition to A.G. Motion for Emergency Relief (including related research). | \$500.00 hr | 7.40 | 7.40 | \$3,700.00 |
+| 02/09/2021 | Representation of Estate | Review revised Opposition to Motion to Freeze Assets and final version for filing the same. | \$500.00 hr | 0.70 | 0.70 | \$350.00 |
+| 02/18/2021 | Representation of Estate | Preparation for in camera hearing. | \$500.00 hr | 1.60 | 1.60 | \$800.00 |
+| 02/19/2021 | Representation of Estate | Appearance at in camera hearing re EVC fund and GVI Motion | \$500.00 hr | 1.60 | 1.60 | \$800.00 |
+
+| 03/18/2021 | Representation of Estate | Review Notice of Appeal and assist with responding to the same. | \$500.00 hr | 0.50 | 0.50 | \$250.00 |
+| ------------ | -------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------- | -------------------- | ---------- |
+| 03/23/2021 | Representation of Estate | Review draft response to notice of appeal and comments regarding the same as well as review of filing deadline issue. | \$500.00 hr | 0.50 | 0.50 | \$250.00 |
+| 03/29/2021 | Representation of Estate | Review finalized response to notice of appeal for filing. | \$500.00 hr | 0.20 | 0.20 | \$100.00 |
+| 02/07/2022 | Representation of Estate | Review of Order disposing of Government's appeal of orders of intervention and to freeze assets. | \$500.00 hr | 0.30 | 0.30 | \$150.00 |
+|  |  | **Total Labor For** [REDACTED] **Kroblin** | **34.20** | **34.20** | **\$17,100.00** |  |
+|  |  | **Total Expense For** [REDACTED] **Kroblin** | **0.00** | **0.00** | **\$0.00** |  |
+|  |  | **Total For** [REDACTED] **Kroblin** | **0.00** | **0.00** | **\$17,100.00** |  |
+
+#### Marjorie Whalen
+
+| 01/24/2020 | Representation of Estate | Researched intervention in probate matters and relevant Virgin Islands rules and statues. | \$360.00 hr | 2.20 | 2.20 | \$792.00 |
+| ------------------------------------------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | ------ | --------------- | ------------------- |
+| 01/26/2020 | Representation of Estate | Researched law relating to opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene, including whether Estate may be named as party and whether Government may intervene in probate proceeding. | \$360.00 hr | 4.30 | 4.30 | \$1,548.00 |
+| 01/27/2020 | Representation of Estate | Continued drafting memorandum on Government's Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 0.90 | 0.90 | \$324.00 |
+| 01/27/2020 | Representation of Estate | Researched case law for opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 1.10 | 1.10 | \$396.00 |
+| 01/28/2020 | Representation of Estate | Drafted Opposition to Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 5.00 | 5.00 | \$1,800.00 |
+| 01/28/2020 | Representation of Estate | Began to prepare exhibits for February 4 hearing. | \$360.00 hr | 0.20 | 0.20 | \$72.00 |
+| 01/29/2020 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 0.50 | 0.50 | \$180.00 |
+| 01/29/2020 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed and revised Opposition to Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 0.90 | 0.90 | \$324.00 |
+| 01/30/2020 | Representation of Estate | Edits to Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 0.50 | 0.50 | \$180.00 |
+| 02/01/2020 | Representation of Estate | Prepared binders for February 4 hearing. | \$360.00 hr | 5.00 | 5.00 | \$1,800.00 |
+| 02/08/2021 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed citation in AG's emergency motion to title 15, "section 302(b)" and reviewed title 15 of the Virgin Islands Code. | \$360.00 hr | 0.60 | 0.60 | \$216.00 |
+| **Total Labor For Marjorie Whalen** |  |  | **21.20** |  | **21.20** | **\$7,632.00** |
+| **Total Expense For Marjorie Whalen** |  |  |  |  | **\$0.00** | **\$0.00** |
+| **Total For Marjorie Whalen** |  |  |  |  |  | **\$7,632.00** |
+
+#### Shari ['Andrade
+
+| 01/31/2020 | Representation of Estate | Further Revised Opposition to Motion to Intervene | \$400.00 hr | 1.20 | 1.20 | \$480.00 |
+| ------------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------ | ------ | ---------- |
+| 02/01/2020 | Representation of Estate | Corrected Opposition to GVI's Motion to Intervene; revised proposed agenda for February 3, 2020; reviewed pending motions | \$400.00 hr | 2.20 | 2.20 | \$880.00 |
+
+| 02/04/2021 | Representation of Estate | Calendared deadline for response to GVI's emergency motion; tried to gain access to court website for docket; called clerk's office to determine when GVI emergency motion was filed; communication w/team re strategy. | \$400.00 hr | 1.80 | 1.80 | \$720.00 |
+| ------------------------------------------ | -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------- | --------------- | ------------------- | ------------ |
+| 02/08/2021 | Representation of Estate | Researched re other probate cases and requests for injunctive relief; Reviewed Feb. 4 hearing transcript re AG's standing in probate for inclusion in opposition | \$400.00 hr | 3.10 | 3.10 | \$1,240.00 |
+| 02/10/2021 | Representation of Estate | Calendared in camera conference w/judge re GVI's Emergency Motion to Freeze Estate's Assets | \$400.00 hr | 0.20 | 0.20 | \$80.00 |
+| 02/12/2021 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed government's notice of complaint filing related to emergency motion to immediately freeze all estate assets and cash on hand. | \$400.00 hr | 0.20 | 0.20 | \$80.00 |
+| 03/12/2021 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed docket and Order denying GVI's motion to intervene | \$400.00 hr | 0.20 | 0.20 | \$80.00 |
+| 03/23/2021 | Representation of Estate | Researched computation of time for response to appeal; reviewed court docket; reviewed and commented on draft response to notice of appeal. | \$400.00 hr | 1.20 | 1.20 | \$480.00 |
+| 04/07/2021 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed and circulated to clients clerk's notice re docketed appeal; email communication to clerk of court re impact of notice and already filed Estate's response to notice of appeal; communication w/clients and legal team re judicial assignment | \$400.00 hr | 0.60 | 0.60 | \$240.00 |
+| **Total Labor For Shari D'Andrade** |  |  | **10.70** | **10.70** | **\$4,280.00** |  |
+| **Total Expense For Shari D'Andrade** |  |  | **\$0.00** | **\$0.00** | **\$0.00** |  |
+| **Total For Shari D'Andrade** |  |  |  |  | **\$4,280.00** |  |
+
+#### Shaun Betz 2
+
+| 01/31/2020 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit Supplemental Brief, | 5135.00 hr |  |  |  |
+| ------------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------ | ------ | ---------- |
+| 02/03/2020 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit/prepare Opposition to | 5135.00 hr |  |  |  |
+| 02/04/2020 | Representation of Estate | Assist with copies for hearing | \$135.00 hr |  |  |  |
+| 02/28/2020 | Representation of Estate | Receipt and review original GVI's | 5135.00 hr |  |  |  |
+| 02/09/2021 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, placed in file GVI's | 5135.00 hr |  |  |  |
+|  |  | Opposition to Motion to Intervene and Reply to Opposition to Claims Program; prepare same and First Quarter Account for filing with the Probate Court; hand deliver same; prepare mailing of all to Government; hand deliver to Post Office. |  | 2.50 | 2.50 | \$337.50 |
+|  |  | Claimants' Motion to Intervene and corrected Opposition to GVI's Motion to Intervene for filing with the Probate Court; hand deliver to Probate Court; hand deliver same to Probate Court; prepare mailings to counsel; receipt and review date stamped same. |  | 2.00 | 2.00 | \$270.00 |
+|  |  |  |  | 0.50 | 0.50 | \$67.50 |
+|  |  | Opposition to Emergency Motion for Order Releasing Funds; file in Client file folder. |  | 0.20 | 0.20 | 527.00 |
+|  |  | Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze Assets. |  | 0.20 | 0.20 | \$27.00 |
+
+| 02/10/2021 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit/prepare/e-file | \$135.00 hr | 1.10 | 1.10 | \$148.50 |
+| ------------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | ------- | -------- | ------------- |
+| 02/17/2021 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, and place in file date | \$135.00 hr | 0.30 | 0.30 | \$40.50 |
+| 03/18/2021 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, and place in file AG's | 5135.00 hr | 0.30 | 0.30 | \$40.50 |
+| 03/29/2021 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/ediVprepare/e•flle | \$135.00 hr | 1.00 | 1.00 | \$135.00 |
+| 03/31/2021 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, and place in file date | 5135.00 hr | 0.40 | 0.40 | 554.00 |
+|  |  |  | Total Labor For Shauna Betz 2 | 8.50 | 8.50 | \$1,147.50 |
+|  |  |  | Total Expense For Shauna Betz 2 |  | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |
+|  |  |  | Total For Shauna Betz 2 |  |  | \$1,147.50 |
+|  |  | Total Labor For •JEE - Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein • Probate |  |  |  | \$42,246.50 |
+|  |  |  | Grand Total Labor | 93.30 | 93.30 | \$42,246.50 |

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821829/EFTA02821829.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12316,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821829",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 397,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.table-boundary-padding\", \"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\", \"epstein_legal.redaction-normalization.block-characters\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "bbdf7ab0d2cd9bdf92d1ddda385c860376e3d1a837c0f441429941a2ed625858",
+  "output_sha256": "db6370598bcd23ecb66fe5147096d8bce2ff5ed86d569b9ccd9aa09d4b2d213b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821843/EFTA02821843.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+Huth 04, 2022 95:36 PH
+
+51-2 02 1-RV-0 0 005
+
+TAMARA CHARLES
+
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+
+DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+CASE NO.: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No.: ST-2019-00080
+
+### AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL H. WEINER
+
+I, Daniel H. Weiner, Esq., declare and affirm as follows:
+
+1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in Florida and New York. I am admitted pro hac vice to practice in the Virgin Islands in connection with this probate proceeding (the "Probate Action").
+
+2. I am a 1981 graduate cum laude of Princeton University and a 1984 graduate of the New York University School of Law. Since 1993, I have been a partner at Hughes Hubbard and LLP ("Hughes Hubbard"), counsel for Darren K. Indyke as Co-Executor of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein in the Probate Action.
+
+3. I attach as Exhibit A a copy of my professional profile as posted on Hughes Hubbard's website. The facts contained therein are true and accurate.
+
+4. My current standard hourly billing rate is \$1,450. Clients customarily pay this rate for my services.
+
+5. In my representation of Mr. Indyke, I charged \$1,315 per hour for hours billed in in January 2020, which was my standard rate at the time and reflects a 9% discount from my current standard rates. For hours billed in 2021, I charged \$1,251 per hour, which reflects a 10% discount from my standard rate at the time of \$1,390 per hour and a 13.7% discount from my current standard rates. The Epstein Estate pays these rates for my representation of Mr. Indyke.
+
+6. My hourly rates are customary and reasonable for similarly experienced attorneys practicing law with firms similar to Hughes Hubbard in New York City.
+
+7. I attach as Exhibit B a chart showing my contemporaneous time entries relating to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, as those terms are defined in the Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, filed herewith. The services for which I charged were actually and necessarily performed in connection with the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal.
+
+8. I affirm and declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
+
+Date: March 3, 2022
+
+Da el H. Weiner
+
+# EXHIBIT A
+
+## Hughes Hubbard &
+
+# Daniel H. Weiner
+
+Partner
+
+New York City
+
++1(212) 837-6874
+
+daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com
+
+LinkedIn
+
+![](_page_3_Picture_9.jpeg)
+
+Daniel H. Weiner is Chair of Hughes Hubbard Es Litigation Department, Chair of the Complex Business Disputes practice and a partner in the International b Domestic Arbitration and Intellectual Property Disputes groups. Dan is a seasoned trial lawyer who has first-chair experience in more than 30 litigations and arbitrations. He has been recognized as a leading international arbitration lawyer by Law360, The Legal 500 United States, USA. and Global, and ranked in and cultural property law. USA as a leading lawyer both in commercial litigation and in art
+
+#### Professional Activities
+
+- Firm governance: Chair, Litigation Department; Chair, Complex Business Disputes Practice: Member, Executive Committee
+- Member of the Court of Arbitration for Art. Pool of Arbitrators. 2019 present
+- Member of the Art Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. 1995 1998: 2003 2006: 2009 - 2011: 2015 - 2017
+- Member of The Maritime Law Association, 2012 present
+- Member of the Committee on International Commercial Disputes of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. 2011 - 2013
+- Fellow. David Rockefeller Fellows Program of the Partnership for New York City, 2008 2009
+- Deputy special counsel. United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, Fall 1995 - Summer 1996
+
+#### Recognition
+
+- Ranked by USA. 2021 as one of the top Commercial Litigation lawyers in New York
+- Named a 2020 International Arbitration MVP by Law360
+- Listed as a leading Art and Cultural Property Law lawyer by USA, 2020
+
+- Ranked in The Legal 500 United States as one of the top international arbitration lawyers, 2020 and ranked in The Legal 500 as one of the top product liability and mass tort defense lawyers (pharmaceuticals and medical devices), 2012 and 2013 editions
+- Listed in American Lawyer Media's The Best Lawyers in America for International Arbitration-Commercial, 2007 2021 and Art Law. 2018-2021
+- Recognized in New York Super Lawyers Business Litigation, 2007 2019 and 2021
+- Listed as a leading International Arbitration lawyer by USA, 2005 and 2006 editions, and Global. 2007 edition
+
+#### Highlighted Publications
+
+- Co-author. 'Joint Ventures.' Chap. 50 in Successful Partnering Between Inside and Outside Counsel, edited by Robert L. Haig, Thomson Reuters Westlaw and the Association of Corporate Counsel, 2019
+
+#### Highlighted Lectures
+
+- 'Tell Me No Secrets: Privilege as it Applies to In-House Counsel.' Continuing Legal Education lecture presented to 45 Fortune 100 companies, 2004 - present
+
+#### Court Admissions
+
+- United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1985
+- United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 1986
+- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 1989
+- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1994
+- United States Tax Court. 1994
+- United States Supreme Court, 1995
+- United States Court of International Trade, 2005
+- United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2005
+- United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2010
+- United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. 2011
+
+# EXHIBIT B
+
+## Daniel H. Weiner's Fees Charged in Connection with the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal
+
+| WORK DATE 01/28/20 | DESCRIPTION Communications with client group re | HOURS | RATE | AMOUNT |
+| -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | ---------- |
+|  | February 4 hearing (.4); review draft opposition to AG's motion to intervene (1.1). | 1.50 | 1,315.00 | 1,972.50 |
+| 01/29/20 | Revise draft opposition to USVI AG's |  |  |  |
+|  | motion to intervene. | 2.70 | 1,315.00 | 3,550.50 |
+| 1/30/20 | Revise draft opposition to USVI AG's |  |  |  |
+|  | motion to intervene. | 1.80 | 1,315.00 | 2,367.00 |
+| 1/31/20 | Revise opposition to USVI AG's motion |  |  |  |
+|  | to intervene. | 0.9 | 1,315.00 | 1,183.50 |
+| 2/2/20 | Revise draft opposition to claimants' |  |  |  |
+|  | motion to intervene in USVI proceeding. | 2.3 | 1,315.00 | 3,024.50 |
+| 2/4/20 | Prepare for and attend USVI probate |  |  |  |
+|  | court hearing. | 5.1 | 1,315.00 | 6,706.50 |
+| 2/5/21 | Draft response to USVI AG's emergency |  |  |  |
+|  | motion. | 4.4 | 1,251.00 | 5,504.40 |
+| 2/6/21 | Draft and revise opposition to USVI |  |  |  |
+|  | AG's emergency motion. | 5.9 | 1,251.00 | 7,380.90 |
+| 2/7/21 | Draft and revise opposition to USVI |  |  |  |
+|  | AG's emergency motion. | 6.2 | 1,251.00 | 7,756.20 |
+| 2/8/21 | Communications with USVI counsel and |  |  |  |
+|  | revise draft response to USVI AG's emergency motion to freeze assets and expenses. | 4.8 | 1,251.00 | 6,004.80 |
+| 2/9/21 | Revise draft response to emergency |  |  |  |
+|  | motion. | 5.1 | 1,251.00 | 6,380.10 |
+| 2/10/21 | Communications with R. Kahn, D. |  |  |  |
+|  | Indyke re opposition to USVI emergency motion, and revise same. | 1.2 | 1,251.00 | 1,501.20 |
+| 2/19/21 | Prepare for and participate in USVI |  |  |  |
+|  | Probate Court conference re EVCP funding, and report to clients re same. | 4.4 | 1,251.00 | 5,504.40 |
+| 3/18/21 | Review appeal filed by USVI AG and |  |  |  |
+|  | communications re same. | 0.5 | 1,251.00 | 625.50 |
+| 3/21/21 | Draft response to USVI AG's appeals |  |  |  |
+|  | from Magistrate Judge's orders. | 3.8 | 1,251.00 | 4,753.80 |
+| 03/22/21 | Revise draft response to USVI AG's |  |  |  |
+|  | appeal. | 1.40 | 1,251.00 | 1,751.40 |
+
+| WORK DATE 03/23/21 | DESCRJPTION Revise draft response to USVI AG | HOURS | RATE | AMOUNT |
+| -------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | ---------- |
+|  | appeal, and communications with client team, USVI counsel re same. | 0.80 | 1,251.00 | 1,000.80 |
+| 03/25/21 | Revise draft response to USVI AG's |  |  |  |
+|  | appeal, and communications with client team, USVI counsel re same. | 1.10 | 1,251.00 | 1,376.10 |
+| 03/26/21 | Revise draft response to USVI AG's |  |  |  |
+|  | appeal, and communications with USVI counsel re same. | 0.70 | 1,251.00 | 875.70 |
+| 03/27/21 | Respond to client inquiry re draft |  |  |  |
+|  | response to USVI AG appeal (.20); communications with USVI counsel re same (.10). | 0.30 | 1,251.00 | 375.30 |
+| 03/29/21 | Conununications with USVI counsel re |  |  |  |
+|  | opposition to USVI AG's appeal. | 0.30 | 1,251.00 | 375.30 |

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821843/EFTA02821843.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2908,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821843",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 167,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.table-boundary-padding\", \"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1db1c22e88d0a9df53cebc4c2d8b5b6245d8091e723a89128125e21fe08d9d1c",
+  "output_sha256": "f9d6f3fb5a396eb21570e52b6eecf5c8a385e1db1dd2c627910df71f8f0ea3a2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821851/EFTA02821851.md

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+FILED
+
+March 17, 2022 06:09 Pm
+
+ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+TAMARA CR ARLES
+
+## CIIRK OF 'EH t: COL RT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005 JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Deceased. ) Originating Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080
+
+## GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") hereby responds in opposition to the Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees brought by the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate") (the "Epstein Estate's Motion") regarding the Government's Motion to Intervene in the Probate Action, the Government's Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand, and the Government's Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders.
+
+The Epstein Estate's Motion is baseless and should be denied. First, the Epstein Estate is not entitled to attorneys' fees, because the underlying orders are not "judgrnent[s]" and the Epstein Estate is not the "prevailing party". Second, even if underlying orders were judgments and the Epstein Estate was the prevailing party—both of which are not true—the Court should exercise its discretion to deny the Epstein Estate's request for attorneys' fees. Requiring the Government to pay the Epstein Estate's attorneys' fees when the Government may ultimately prevail in its claims and is acting as a law enforcement agency to protect the public is contrary to the policy behind section 541. Third, the Epstein Estate's request for over S112,000 in attorneys' fees is extremely unreasonable.
+
+## BACKGROUND
+
+On January 15, 2020, the Government filed a lawsuit against the Estate, the 1953 Trust, and numerous Epstein business affiliates and associates for violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CIC0"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 el seq., and civil conspiracy, seeking forfeiture and divestment of assets in favor of the Government, civil penalties, damages, and other remedies (a redacted copy of the Government's Second Amended Complaint is attached as Government Exhibit 1). The Government alleges that for decades Jeffrey Epstein conducted an 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 in violation of Virgin Islands criminal laws. See Ex. 1, 2d Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 43-75. The Government further alleges that Southern Trust Company, Inc. a Virgin Islands corporation of which Jeffrey Epstein was President/Director and Co-Executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn were corporate officers—committed fraud against the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority by claiming at least \$80.5 million in unearned tax benefits. See id. still 157-176.
+
+On January 23, 2020, the Government filed its Motion to Intervene in the Probate Action ("Government's Motion to Intervene") and on February 4, 2021, the Government filed its Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand ("Government's Motion to Freeze Assets"). On February 26, 2021, the Court denied the Government's Motion to Intervene without prejudice and directed the Government to file a claim in the Epstein Estate instead of seeking to intervene. The Court also struck the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets.
+
+### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+
+Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+
+Page 3
+
+The Court's orders on the Government's Motion to Intervene and the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets were formally issued on February 26, 2021. On March 17, 2021, the Government filed its Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders ("Government's Petition for Review") pursuant to V.I. Super. Ct. R. 322(b)( I ) and/or 322.1(b).
+
+On February 4, 2022, the Court denied the Government's Petition for Review with prejudice, finding that the underlying orders were not final judgments eligible for appeal.
+
+On February 22, 2022, the Government filed a claim in the Epstein Estate.
+
+## ARGUMENT
+
+## 1. THE EPSTEIN ESTATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER SECTION 541
+
+Section 541(b) provides that courts may award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party in the judgment." 5 V.I.C. § 541.1 Here, the underlying orders are not ludgment[s]" and the Epstein Estate is not the "prevailing party." Thus, the Epstein Estate's requests for attorneys' fees should be denied.
+
+## A. The Orders Underlying the Epstein's Estate's Request For Attorneys' Fees Are Not Judgments
+
+Rule 54 of the Virgin Islands defines judgment as "a decree and any order from which an appeal lies." The Rule embraces two different types of orders: (1 ) any final decision from which an appeal is permitted, and (2) any appealable interlocutory order. See Island Tile and Marble.
+
+The Epstein Estate cites to 15 V.I.C. § 165 to support its request for attorneys' fees. The standard for awarding attorneys' fees under section 165 is the same as the standard for awarding attorneys' fees under 5 V.I.C. § 541. See Kalloo v. Estate of Small, 62 V.I. 571, 582 (V.I. 2015) (applying the attorneys' fees standard of section 5 V.I.C. § 541 to a claim for attorneys' fees under 15 V.I.C. § 165).
+
+## GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+
+Case No. ST-202I-RV-00005
+
+
+Page 4
+
+LLC v. Bertrand, 57 V.I. 596, 614 (V.I. 2012) (citing to 10 Charles Alan Arthur R.M & Mary. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2651 (1998)).2
+
+The orders stemming from the Government's Motion to Intervene and the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets are not final decisions. The orders unquestionably do not dispose of the litigation. Further, the Court denied the Government's Motion to Intervene without prejudice and struck the Government's Motion to Freeze assets—allowing the Government to correct the errors identified by the Court. In addition, the Court's orders do not specify that they are final judgments, and the Court did not "expressly determine() that there is no just reason for delay." V.I. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Superior Court Judge reviewing the Government's Petition for Review found these facts to be determinative in finding that the orders were not final orders eligible for appeal. As such, the Court reviewed the Government's Petition for Review pursuant to its reconsideration authority under 4 V.I.C. § 123(c), not as an appeal pursuant to section 322(6)(1) or 322.1(b). See Feb. 4, 2022 Mem. Order at 3; see also Valerino v. a, 68 V.I. 276, 301 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2018) ("appeal is not the same as reconsideration").
+
+Similarly, these orders are not appealable interlocutory orders. Interlocutory orders can only be appealed in limited circumstances, such as granting/modifying/refusing an injunction, appointing receivers or refusing orders to wind up receivership, and other orders in which the Superior Court judge finds a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
+
+{sup}`2` Decisions by the Virgin Islands Supreme Court and Superior Court interpreting and applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remain applicable where the relevant provision of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure resemble its federal counterpart. See Gov't of the V.J. v. Takata Corp., 67 V.I. 316, 336 & n.13 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2017).
+
+difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation. See 4 V.I.C. § 33(b). None of those circumstances apply here.3
+
+# B. The Epstein Estate Is Not The Prevailing Party
+
+The test adopted by the Superior Court for determining whether a party is a "prevailing party" is whether a party has achieved at least some of the benefits sought in litigation. Rohn v. Daily News Publ'g a.. Inc., 72 V.I. 301, 308-09 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2019). "Under this standard, 'the operative criteria for such an award of attorney's fees is success at the conclusion of proceedings, rather than the means by which success is achieved.'" Id. (internal citation omitted). As such, attorneys' fees are awarded "'at the conclusion of litigation', not in the beginning or in the midst of it." Bell v. Radcliffe, 2014 V.I. LEXIS 119, at \*7 (V.1. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2014) ("None of the defendants are `prevailing parties' because this matter is still pending.") (internal citation omitted).
+
+As discussed above, the Court's denial of the Government's Motion to Intervene and striking of the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets were not final judgments and did not dispose of this litigation. To the contrary, the Government has now filed a claim in this proceeding and is free to seek the same type of relief it requested as an intervenor. Awarding attorneys' fees to the Epstein Estate when the Government may still ultimately prevail and obtain the same relief it requested as an intervenor contradicts the entire notion of a prevailing party.
+
+{sup}`3`The Court did not deny the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets. The Court simply struck the • motion, allowing the Government to later refile.
+
+## II. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 541 TO DENY THE EPSTEIN ESTATE'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+Even if the Court believes the Epstein Estate's request for attorneys' fees satisfies the prerequisites of section 54I—which the Government strongly disputes—the Court should still deny the Epstein Estate's request. It is within the Court's discretion to grant or deny attorneys' fees pursuant to section 541. See Mahabir v. Heirs of 2021 V.1.22, 4 (V.1.2021) ("Section 541(b) provides that the court 'may' award attorneys' fees 'in its discretion."). The policy behind section 541 is that "a party should not have to bear the legal expenses of demonstrating either that it is not at fault or that it is the victim of anther's fault." M & N Aviation, Inc. v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., No. 2010-0083, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37382, at \*6-\*7 (D.V.I. Mar. 21, 2014). As discussed above, the Court has not considered, let alone decided, the merits of the Government's claims. It is possible (and in the Government's view, likely) that the Government will ultimately prevail in its claims against the Epstein Estate, which would make awarding attorneys' fees to the Epstein Estate contrary to the policy behind section 541.
+
+Further, unlike the cases cited by the Epstein Estate, Epstein Estate's Motion at 6, the Government's claims relate to a law enforcement action the Government initiated to protect the public. The Government filed the underlying motions to ensure the Epstein Estate preserved assets to compensate victims and the people of the Virgin Islands for Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. The Court directed the Government to enter the probate action as a claimant—rather than an intervenor—to accomplish this goal. Requiring the Government to pay the Epstein Estate's attorneys' fees under these circumstances is contrary to the spirit of section 541 and unjust.
+
+## III. THE EPSTEIN ESTATE'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS EXTREMELY UNREASONABLE
+
+The Epstein Estate's request for attorneys' fees is extremely unreasonable. Counsel's hourly rates are excessive and their billing entries contain vague descriptions, duplicative tasks, unrelated work, and clerical duties. In the event the Court decides to award attorneys' fees, the attorneys' hourly rates should be reduced to a maximum of \$350 per hour and all inappropriate billing entries should be excluded.
+
+# A. Counsel's Hourly Rates Are Excessive
+
+When determining the reasonableness of an hourly rate, courts compare the hourly rate being charged with the customary charges of Virgin Islands attorneys. See Lakeview Loan Serv., LLC v. Singh, 74 V.I. 439, 449 (V.1. Super. Ct. July 28, 2021). "It is universally accepted that the party seeking fees bears the burden of 'producing satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney's own affidavit—that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonable comparable skill, experience, and reputation.'" Isaac v. Rhonda Crichlow, 2016 V.I. LEXIS 145, \*9 (V.1. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2016) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984)). The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has held that a reasonable hourly rate is calculated according to the prevailing market in the community. See Hodge v. Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110340, at \*4 (D.V.1. Nov. 25, 2009) (noting requested fees must be based on "counsel's usual billing rates, which are in accord with customary and prevailing market rates in the Virgin Islands" for legal services). The Estate's reliance on New York rates and rates above the prevailing market rates for attorneys in the Virgin Islands is misplaced. Virgin Islands courts have found hourly rates between \$250-\$350
+
+### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES In the Matter of the Estate of: Jeffrey E. Epstein Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005 Originating Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080 Page 8
+
+to be reasonable, including a \$350 hourly rate for a trial counsel who had practiced law for 37 years. See Lakeview Loan Serv.. 74 V.I. at 449. In 2019, in Matter of Estate oa, 70 V.I. 110, 114, 117-18 (V.I. 2019), the Court found the \$350 hourly rate of attorney Marjorie Whalen one of the attorneys now representing the Epstein Estate and requesting fees—to be excessive and reduced the hourly rate to \$300.
+
+The Epstein Estate is seeking over \$112,000 for less than 150 hours of work billed at the following hourly rates:
+
+Attorney Daniel H. Weiner \$1,315 (2020) \$1,251 (2021)
+
+Attorney Andrew Heymann \$630 (2020) \$660 (2021)
+
+Attorney Kroblin \$500
+
+Attorney Marjorie Whalen \$360
+
+Attorney Shari D'Andrade \$400
+
+Legal Assistant Shauna Betz \$135
+
+See Epstein Estate's Mot., Aff Daniel H. A. Kroblin, Ex. B. Weiner, Ex. B; Epstein Estate's Mot., Aff.
+
+These hourly rates are excessive and far exceed the customary charges of Virgin Islands attorneys, which range from \$250-\$350 per hour. Attorney Weiner's rate, for example, exceeds the high-end of the customary range by almost \$1,000. If the Court awards the Epstein Estate attorneys' fees, it should reduce each attorney's hourly rate to no more than \$350 per hour.
+
+# B. Several Billing Entries Are Inappropriate And Should Be Excluded
+
+Counsel for the Epstein Estate submitted several, inappropriate billing entries that should be excluded, including entries that contain vague descriptions, duplicative tasks, unrelated matters, and clerical work. A chart identifying the Government's specific objections to counsel's billing entries is attached as Government Exhibit 2.4
+
+# 1. Vague Descriptions
+
+Requests for attorneys' fees must be sufficiently specific to allow the court to determine whether the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed. See Crown Bay Marina, L.P. v. Subbase Drydock, Inc., No. 2018-68, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129178, at \*6 (D.V.I. July 12, 2021). Courts have found that entries lumping together multiple tasks without identifying the amount of time spent on each task are not sufficiently specific. Id.
+
+Several of the Epstein Estate's billing entries have vague descriptions and contain multiple tasks, which makes it impossible for the Government to determine what work counsel performed and how much time counsel spent on each task. See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry Nos. 2, 5, 7-10, 14-15, 32- 33, 40-41, 43-44, 4647, 49, 68-70). For example, Attorney Heymann's description for 5.9 billed hours is: "Strategize on opposition to AG motion to freeze assets and standard and research and related advice to clients." See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry No. 4). Similarly, Attorney D'Andrade's description for 1.8 billed hours is: "Calendared deadline for response to GVI's emergency motion; tried to gain access to court website for docket; called clerk's office to determine when GVI
+
+Government Exhibit 2 is an annotated version of the billing information the Epstein Estate provided in its Motion. The Government created additional columns and rows (all highlighted in gray) to state its objections and make the chart easier to read.
+
+emergency motion was filed; communication w/team re strategy." See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry No. 33).
+
+These vague entries should be excluded.
+
+# 2. Duplicative Tasks
+
+Courts have previously reduced fee awards for duplication of effort among several attorneys, including multiple-lawyer conferences not involving opposing counsel. See Morcher v. Nash, 32 F. Supp. 2d 239, 258 (D.V.I. 1998). The Epstein Estate's Motion contains several billing entries for duplicative work. See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry Nos. 1-6, 8, 11-13, 16-18, 22, 24, 26-28, 30- 32, 36, 38, 50-54, 56-61, 63-70). For example, Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all billed time to drafting and editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene. See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry Nos. 1-2, 5-6, 8, 22, 24, 26-28, 31-32, 50-54). The Government should not have to pay counsel's exorbitant hourly rates for several attorneys to perform the same tasks. Thus, the Court should exclude all duplicative entries.
+
+# 3. Unrelated Matters
+
+The Epstein Estate's Motion also includes tasks unrelated to the Government's Motion to Intervene, the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets, or the Government Petition for Review and should therefore be excluded. See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry Nos. 2, 5, 7- 10, 14-15, 25, 29, 32, 40, 43, 50, 55, 62). In some instances, counsel lumps together these unrelated tasks with tasks that do relate to the at-issue motions, making it impossible for the Government to separate the appropriate and inappropriate billing entries. For example, Attorney ICroblin's description for 2.9 billed hours is: "Preparation for hearing including proposed agenda, proposed witnesses, and hearing binders, and review of the quarterly accounting and edit of the same." See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry No. 7). Reviewing and editing the quarterly accounting is not related to the at-issue motions; however, the
+
+### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES In the Matter of the Estate of: Jeffrey E. Epstein Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005 Originating Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080 Page I I
+
+Government cannot determine what portion of the 2.9 billed hours Attorney Kroblin spent on this task. As such, these types of entries should be excluded.
+
+## 4. Clerical Work
+
+Expenses for clerical work, such as copying and filing, are considered overhead and should be excluded. See Crown Bay Marina, L.P., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129178, at \*6; see also Matter of Estate oS, 70 V.I. at 117 (excluded hours Kellerhals.. Kroblin PLLC billed to contacting Court's clerks regarding status updates and conferences). The Epstein Estate's Motion contains several billing entries for clerical work. See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry Nos. 7, 25, 29, 33, 35, 40-49). For example, Attorney D'Andrade billed five hours (at \$360 per hour) for "prepar(ing) binders for February 4 hearing." See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry No. 29).
+
+In addition, the Epstein Estate's Motion includes billing entries for legal assistant Shauna Betz. Counsel cites to a case in which Ms. Betz's time was included in an award for attorneys' fees, Epstein Estate's Mot. at 14-15; however, counsel failed to explain that in that case, Ms. Betz was identified as a paralegal—not a legal assistant—and the tasks she performed included drafting pleadings. See Matter of Estate of 70 V.I. at 117-18. Here, Ms. Betz's tasks are entirely clerical, such as assisting with copying and filing documents, and should be excluded. See Gov't Ex. 2 (Entry Nos. 40-49); see also Crown Bay Marina, L.P., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129178, at \*6 (citing Jordan v. SEPTA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42123, at \*3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2013) ("Purely clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal rate ...").
+
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES In the Matter of the Estate of: Jeffrey E. Epstein Case No. ST-202I-RV-00005 Originating Case No. ST-2019-PB-00080 Page 12
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+For all the reasons set forth, the Court should deny the Epstein Estate's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees. Alternatively, the Court should exclude the billing entries the Government identifies herein and in Government Exhibit 2 and reduce counsel's hourly rate to a maximum rate of \$350 per hour.
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+DENISE N. ESQUIRE ATTORNE A. ER AL VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
+
+Dated: March 17, 2022 By: /s/ Carol
+
+CAROL ESQUIRE Chief Deputy Attorney eneral Virgin Islands Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 Emu: (340) 774-5666 ext.
+
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS' OPPOSITION TO  
+CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+
+Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+
+Page 13
+
+**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**
+
+IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that this document complies with the page or word limitation  
+set forth in Rule 6-1(e) and a true and correct copy of the Government of the United States Virgin  
+Islands' Opposition to Co-Executors' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees was served via the  
+electronic filing system and by email to counsel of record on March 17, 2022 to:
+
+[REDACTED] KROBLIN, ESQ.  
+ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ.,  
+WILLIAM BLUM, ESQ.  
+SHARI D'ANDRADE, ESQ.  
+MARJORIE WHALEN, 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
+
+DANIEL WEINER  
+HUGHES HUBBARD & REID, LLP  
+One Battery Park Plaza  
+New York, NY 10004-1482  
+United States  
+Email: daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com
+
+By: /s/ Carol [REDACTED]  
+CAROL [REDACTED], ESQUIRE  
+Chief Deputy Attorney General  
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice  
+Office of the Attorney General  
+34-38 Kronprindsens Gade  
+G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor  
+St. [REDACTED], U.S. Virgin Islands 00802  
+Email: [REDACTED]  
+(340) 774-5666 ext. 10101

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821851/EFTA02821851.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -275,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821851",
+  "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": "40ef2695483ff1f176b3e8f810f0e1b8da6538b56edc5249b2d295cc58d89083",
+  "output_sha256": "547a5ad6d4a3049a1853deee182fab606fddc73efd558ec9102b2139a781991a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821864/EFTA02821864.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -105,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821864",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1c3d89e7b4148e47cf2c815fec9b2df5a31262128a5bfe3554b9c7da6d9aa5f9",
+  "output_sha256": "8e1b268058a3f05a35075af46e5857ea0de260de379aad96f3975abf36b08ddc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821941/EFTA02821941.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+FILED
+
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+## Government Exhibit 2
+
+| dr |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| ---- | ---------- | -------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------ | ------ | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| r |  | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
+| 1 | 01/31/20 | Representation of Estate | Further drafting supp. brief, and opp. to intervention brief and conferences same. | \$630.00 hr | 6.4 | 6.4 | \$4,032.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |
+| 2 | 02/02/20 | Representation of Estate | Correspondence re corrected briefs re intervention and supplemental in support of program and related correspondence. | \$630.00 hr | 2.1 | 2.1 | \$1,323.00 | Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified
+
+Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene)
+
+Unrelated Activity ("program" appears to be reference to victims compensation fund) |
+| 3 | 02/08/21 | Representation of Estate | Review motion papers, research same and correspondence reply to emergency motion freeze assets | \$660.00 hr | 4.3 | 4.3 | \$2,838.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to reviewing, drafting, and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 4 | 02/09/21 | Representation of Estate | Strategize on opposition to AG motion to freeze assets and standard and research same and related advice to clients | \$660.00 hr | 5.9 | 5.9 | \$3,894.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to reviewing, drafting, and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+|  |  |  | r r dr |  | 18.7 | 18.7 | \$12,087.00 |  |
+|  |  |  | r dr |  |  |  | \$0 | \$0.00 |
+|  |  |  | r dr |  |  |  | \$12,087.00 |  |
+| r |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| r |  | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
+| 5 | 01/23/20 | Representation of Estate | Review Motion for Intervention and Opposition to Claims Program, research re the same, and strategize response. | \$500.00 hr | 2.8 | 2.8 | \$1,400.00 | Unrelated Activity (Opposition to Claims Program)
+Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |
+| 6 | 01/29/20 | Representation of Estate | Review / edit Opposition to Motion for Intervention. | \$500.00 hr | 1.6 | 1.6 | \$800.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |
+
+| 7 | 01/30/20 | Representation of Estate | Preparation for hearing including proposed agenda, proposed witnesses, and hearing binders, and review of quarterly accounting and edit of the same. | \$500.00 hr | 2.9 | 2.9 | \$1,450.00 | Vague; block billing - unclear to which "hearing" the entry refers and amount of time spent on each activity not specified
+
+Unrelated Activity (quarterly accounting; 2/4/20 hearing (if, in fact, that is the hearing being referenced) related to multiple motions - not just the Government's Motion to Intervene and Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| ---- | ---------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------- | ----- | ----- | ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 8 | 01/31/20 | Representation of Estate | Incorporation of final edits to Opposition to Motion to Intervene, Supplemental Brief, and Reply to Opposition to Motion for claims Program. | \$500.00 hr | 4.8 | 4.8 | \$2,400.00 | Clerical (hearing binders)
+
+Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified
+
+Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene)
+
+Unrelated Activity ("Opposition to Motion for claims program appears to be reference to victims compensation fund) |
+| 9 | 02/03/20 | Representation of Estate | Preparation for hearing. | \$500.00 hr | 4.5 | 4.5 | \$2,250.00 | Vague - unclear to which hearing this entry refers
+
+Unrelated Activity (2/4/20 hearing (if, in fact, that is the hearing being referenced) related to multiple motions - not just the Government's Motion to Intervene and Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 10 | 02/04/20 | Representation of Estate | Appearance at hearing for Estate. | \$500.00 hr | 4.5 | 4.5 | \$2,250.00 | Vague - unclear to which hearing this entry refers
+
+Unrelated Activity (2/4/20 hearing (if, in fact, that is the hearing being referenced) related to multiple motions - not just the Government's Motion to Intervene and Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 11 | 02/04/21 | Representation of Estate | Review Motion to Freeze assets filled by AG and consider response to the same. | \$500.00 hr | 0.3 | 0.3 | \$150.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to reviewing, drafting, and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 12 | 02/08/21 | Representation of Estate | Edits to opposition to A.G. Motion for Emergency Relief (including related research). | \$500.00 hr | 7.4 | 7.4 | \$3,700.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to reviewing, drafting, and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 13 | 02/09/21 | Representation of Estate | Review revised Opposition to Motion to Freeze Assets and final version for filing the same. | \$500.00 hr | 0.7 | 0.7 | \$350.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to reviewing, drafting, and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 14 | 02/18/21 | Representation of Estate | Preparation for in camera hearing. | \$500.00 hr | 1.6 | 1.6 | \$800.00 | Vague - unclear to which hearing this entry refers
+
+Unrelated Activity (Presumably this relates to Hearing Re EVC Fund and GVI Motion listed in entry below; EVC fund not related to Government's Motion to Intervene or Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 15 | 02/19/21 | Representation of Estate | Appearance at in camera hearing re EVC fund and GVI Motion | \$500.00 hr | 1.6 | 1.6 | \$800.00 | Vague - unclear to which "GVI Motion" this entry refers (presumably the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets)
+
+Unrelated Activity (Hearing Re EVC Fund) |
+
+| Review Notice of Appeal and 351.41 |  |  |  | billed for n.-viewsng drallmg and Or editing lesptelsi to |
+| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------ | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 16 0311821 Representation of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| with !eV...lading to the same. Review draft respome to notice of appeal and comments regarding the same as well as review of filing | 350011 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 5250 0) the Governments Notice of Appeal) billed for reviewing. dulling and or editing response to the ( imannicas Notice of Appal) |
+| 17 03/23/21 Ropey-saltation of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| deadline issue. Renew finalized response to With of | \$50011 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 5250.00 billed ter rev loving. drafting ander editing response to |
+| IS 032921 |  |  |  |  |
+| appeal foe filing. | \$50011 | 0.2 | 0.2 | \$10000 |
+| R same atm ion of Estate Renew of Order disposing of Gaveromales appeal of orders of |  |  |  | the Government% Notice of Appeal) |
+| 19 02/0722 Representation of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| intervention and to flow assets. | \$50011 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 515000 |
+| f I r | r r | 34.2 | 34.2 | \$17.100.00 |
+| I r |  |  |  |  |
+| f |  |  | \$0 | WOO |
+| f f r | r |  |  | 517.10000 |
+
+## NI r r
+
+| r |  | r | r Researched intervention In probate matter, and mks ant Virgin blonds | r | r | r | r r |
+| ---- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ----- | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 20 | 011420 | Representation of Estate |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | odes and Stank,. R wsln4 law relating to opposition to Government's Motion to Inten enc. inchahng whelk, Estate may he named as party and whether Gov ern mem may | 5360.001r | 2.2 | 2.2 | \$792.00 |
+| 21 | 012620 | Representation of Estate | intervene in probate proceeding Continued drafting memorandum on | 5360.00 hr | 4.3 | 4.3 | 31,541C 00 Duplication (Attorneys Weiner. I leymann- Kroh! in. Whalen. and Andrade all hill time to shafting andor editing opposition to the Government's Motion to |
+| 22 | 0127/20 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | Government's Motion to Inknene. | 5360.00 hr | 0.9 | 0.9 | \$324.00 |
+|  |  | Iti.nsss tabors of Estate | Researched ease law for opposition to |  |  |  | Intervene) |
+| 23 | 0 1 4mo | Representation of Estate |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | Government's Motion to Went-no. Drafted Opposition to Motion to | 516000 hr | 1.1 | 1.1 | 3396.00 Duplication (Attorneys Weiner. Ilminann. K noth in. Whalen. and Andra& all bill time to drafting antler |
+| 24 | 012120 | Representation of Estate |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | Intervene. Began to prepare exhibits for February | 5160.00 hr | 5 | 5 | 5F10000 Intervene) Unrelated Activity (2.4.10 hearing related to multiple motions . outlast the Government's Motion to Intervene and f :on:rams-nes Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 25 | al 28 -20 | Representatain of Estate |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | 4 hearing. Reviewed Opposition to Government's | 5360.0011 | 0.2 | 02 | \$7209 Clerical Work Duplication (Attorneys Weiner. Heymann. Krobl in. Whalen. and Andrade all bill time to drafting anil'or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to |
+| 26 | (II _2970 | Representation Representatwm ofF state |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | Motion to Intervene. | \$360.00 hr | 0,5 | 0.5 | SI Sri 00 Intervene) |
+
+| Renewed and tensed Opposition to |  |  |  | Duplication (Auer-nays Weiner, I lernann, KmMin. Whalen. and Andrade all bill time to drafting andor editing opposition to the Government's Motion to |
+| -------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------ | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| 27 01/29/20 Represrntatian of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| Motion to Intervene. Edits to Opposition to Gmernmenes | \$360.00 hr | 0.9 | 0.9 | 5324.00 Intenrnel Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Ile)liankKmblin. Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting mutat editing opposition to the(iovernment's Motion to |
+| 214 01/3020 Renrcsentation of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| Motion to linemen.. Prepared binders for February 4 | 5360.001w | 0.5 | 0.5 | SUMO) Intereenel Unrelated Activny42:420 hearing related to multiple motions . not just the Government's Motion to Intervene and Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 29 02/01120 ReprnelitaliOn of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| hearing. Renewed citation in Aas emergency | 3360.00 hr | 5 | 5 | \$1.800.00 Clerical Work Duplication (Attorneys Weiner. Heymann. Kroblin. |
+| 30 02/0821 Representation of Estate |  |  |  |  |
+| motion to title IS. '9CetiOn | 34nor and |  |  |  |
+| Code. | \$360.001w | 0.6 | 0.6 | 5216.1x0 |
+| minted title 15 of the Virgin Islands |  |  |  | andor editing opposition In the Gosernmenes Minion to Freeze Assets/ |
+| r rM r | r | 21.2 | 21.2 | \$7 632 00 |
+| rM r | r |  | \$0 | 5000 |
+| r M r r |  |  |  | 57.623.00 |
+
+| r |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| ---- | ---------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ----- | ----- | ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| r |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| 31 | 01/31/20 | Representation of Estate | Further Revised Opposition to Motion to Intervene | \$400 hr | 1.2 | 1.2 | \$480.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |
+| 32 | 02/01/20 | Representation of Estate | Corrected Opposition to GVI's Motion to Intervene; revised proposed agenda for February 3, 2020; reviewed pending motions | \$400 hr | 2.2 | 2.2 | \$880.00 | Vague; block billing -unclear to which "pending motions" this entry refers and amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+| 33 | 02/04/21 | Representation of Estate | Calendared deadline for response to GVI's emergency motion; tried to gain access to court website for docket; called clerk's office to determine when GVI emergency motion was filed; communication w/team re strategy. | \$400 hr | 1.8 | 1.8 | \$720.00 | Vague; block billing - unclear what is meant by "communication w/team re strategy" and amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+| 34 | 02/08/21 | Representation of Estate | Researched re other probate cases and requests for injunctive relief; Reviewed Feb. 4 hearing transcript re AG's standing in probate for inclusion in opposition | \$400 hr | 3.1 | 3.1 | \$1,240.00 | Clerical Work (calendared deadline; tried to gain access to court website for docket; called clerk's office) |
+
+| 35 | 02/10/21 | Representation of Estate | Calendared in camera conference w/judge re GVI's Emergency Motion to Freeze Estate's Assets | \$400 hr | 0.2 | 0.2 | \$80.00 | Clerical Work |
+| -------- | ---------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | -------- | -------- | ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 36 | 02/12/21 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed government's notice of complaint filing related to emergency motion to immediately freeze all estate assets and cash on hand. | \$400 hr | 0.2 | 0.2 | \$80.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to reviewing, drafting, and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |
+| 37 | 03/12/21 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed docket and Order denying GVI's motion to intervene | \$400 hr | 0.2 | 0.2 | \$80.00 |  |
+| 38 | 03/23/21 | Representation of Estate | Researched computation of time for response to appeal; reviewed court docket; reviewed and commented on draft response to notice of appeal. | \$400 hr | 1.2 | 1.2 | \$480.00 | Duplication (attorneys Weiner, Kroblin, and Andrade all billed for reviewing and drafting and/or editing response to the Government's Petition for Review) |
+| 39 | 04/07/21 | Representation of Estate | Reviewed and circulated to clients clerk's notice re docketed appeal; email communication to clerk of court re impact of notice and already filed Estate's response to notice of appeal; communication w/clients and legal team re judicial assignment | \$400 hr | 0.6 | 0.6 | \$240.00 |  |
+|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | $\tau \quad \tau \quad \tau \quad dr \quad d$ |  | 10.7 | 10.7 | \$4,280.00 |  |
+|  |  |  | $\tau \quad \tau \quad dr \quad d$ |  |  | \$0 | \$0.00 |  |
+|  |  |  | $\tau \quad \tau \quad dr \quad d$ |  |  |  | \$4,280.00 |  |
+| <hr/> |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+| $\tau$ | $\tau$ | $\tau$ | $\tau$ | $\tau$ | $\tau$ | $\tau$ | $\tau$ | Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+| 40 | 01/31/20 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit Supplemental Brief, Opposition to Motion to Intervene and Reply to Opposition to Claims Program; prepare same and First Quarter Account for filing with the Probate Court; hand deliver same; prepare mailing of all to Government; hand deliver to Post Office. | \$135.00 hr | 2.5 | 2.5 | \$337.50 | Unrelated Activity (Reply to Opposition to Claims Program; prepare same and First Quarter Account for filing with the Probate Court; hand deliver same; prepare mailing of all to Government; hand deliver to Post Office." |
+| 41 | 02/03/20 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit/prepare Opposition to Claimants' Motion to Intervene and corrected Opposition to GVI's Motion to Intervene for filing with the Probate Court; hand deliver same to Probate Court; prepare mailings to counsel; receipt and review date stamped same. | \$135.00 hr | 2 | 2 | \$270.00 | Clerical Work (hand delivering documents to court and mailing documents to counsel) |
+| 42 | 02/04/20 | Representation of Estate | Assist with copies for hearing | \$135.00 hr | 0.5 | 0.5 | \$67.50 | Clerical Work |
+| 43 | 02/28/20 | Representation of Estate | Receipt and review original GVI's Opposition to Emergency Motion for Order Releasing Funds; file in Client file folder. | \$135.00 hr | 0.2 | 0.2 | \$27.00 | Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Unrelated Activity (Motion for Order Releasing Funds) |
+
+|  |  |  | Receipt, review, placed in file GVT's Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze Assets. |  |  |  |  | Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+| ---- | ---------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------ | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 44 | 02/09/21 | Representation of Estate | \$135.00 hr | 0.2 | 0.2 | \$27.00 | Clerical Work (filing documents) |  |
+| 45 | 02/10/21 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit/prepare/e-file Opposition to AG's Emergency Motion to Freeze Assets. | \$135.00 hr | 1.1 | 1.1 | \$148.50 | Clerical Work (proofreading; filing) |
+| 46 | 02/17/21 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, and place in file date \$135.00 hr stamped Opposition to Emergency Motion. | \$135.00 hr | 0.3 | 0.3 | \$40.50 | Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+| 47 | 03/18/21 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, and place in file AG's Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review. | \$135.00 hr | 0.3 | 0.3 | \$40.50 | Clerical Work (filing documents) |
+| 48 | 03/29/21 | Representation of Estate | Proofread/edit/prepare/e-file Opposition to Notice of Appeal. | \$135.00 hr | 1 | 1 | \$135.00 | Clerical Work (proofreading; filing) |
+| 49 | 03/31/21 | Representation of Estate | Receipt, review, and place in file date stamped Response to Government's Notice of Appeal. | \$135.00 hr | 0.4 | 0.4 | \$54.00 | Vague; block billing - amount of time spent on each activity not specified |
+|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | r r |  | 8.5 | 8.5 | \$1,147.50 |  |
+|  |  |  | r |  |  | \$0.00 | \$0.00 |  |
+|  |  |  | r |  |  |  | \$1,147.50 |  |
+|  |  |  | r r |  |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | r r |  |  |  | \$42,246.50 |  |
+|  |  |  | r d | r | 93.3 | 93.3 | \$42,246.50 |  |
+|  |  |  | r d | r |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | r r d |  | M | d |  |  |
+| r | r |  | r |  |  | r |  | r |
+| 50 | 01/28/20 |  | Communications with client group re February 4 hearing (.4); review draft opposition to AG's motion to intervene (1.1). | 1,315.00 | 1.50 | 1,972.50 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |  |
+| 51 | 01/29/20 |  | Revise draft opposition to USVI AG's motion to intervene. | 1,315.00 | 2.70 | 3,550.50 | Unrelated Activity (February 4 hearing involved multiple motions - not just the Government's Motion to Intervene and Government's Motion to Freeze Assets) |  |
+| 52 | 1/30/20 |  | Revise draft opposition to USVI AG's motion to intervene. | 1,315.00 | 1.80 | 2,367.00 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |  |
+| 53 | 1/31/20 |  | Revise opposition to USVI AG's motion to intervene. | 1,315.00 | 0.9 | 1,183.50 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |  |
+| 54 | 2/2/20 |  | Revise draft opposition to claimants' motion to intervene in USVI proceeding. | 1,315.00 | 2.3 | 3,024.50 | Duplication (Attorneys Weiner, Heymann, Kroblin, Whalen, and Andrade all bill time to drafting and/or editing opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene) |  |
+
+|  |  | Prepare (or and attend USVI probate |  |  | Unrelated Activity (2.4.20 hearing related to multiple motions - not psi the Govern:ernes Motion to Intervene |
+| ---- | ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 55 | 2420 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | court hcazin Draft response to USVI AG's | 1.315.80 | 5.1 | 6.706.50 |
+| 56 | 2/5/21 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | ententency motion. Draft and mese opposition to USVI | 1251.00 | 4.4 | 5.504.40 |
+| 57 | 2/6121 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  |  | 1,251.00 | 5.9 | 7.380.90 |
+|  |  | AG's emnanwY motion Draft and revise opposition to USVI |  |  | Freeze Assets) |
+| 58 | 22/21 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | , Mrs cincrecneY motion Communications with USVI counsel and revise daft response to USVI AG's emergency motion to freeze assets and | 1251.00 | 6.2 | 7,756.20 |
+| 59 | 24021 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | ex s. Resist draft response to emergency | 1,251.00 | 4.8 | 6.004.80 |
+| 60 | 2/921 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | ration. Communications with R. Kahn. D. Indyte re opposition to USVI | 1,251.00 | 5.1 | 6.380.10 |
+| 61 | 2/1021 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | am h. ....; Prepare (or and participate in USV1 Probate Court conference re EVCP | 1.00 |  | 1301.20 |
+| 62 | 201921 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | ftrnding. mid report to chats re same. Renew appeal filed by USVI AG sod | 1.251.00 | 4.4 | 5.504.40 Unrelated Actisity (confaawe relating to EVCP funding) |
+| 63 | 3/1821 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | communicatiom re tome. Draft response to USVI AG' appeals | 1,251.00 | 0.5 | 625.50 |
+| 64 | 321/21 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | from Magistrate Judges ordaw Resist drift response to USVI AG's | 1.251.00 | 3.8 | 4.'5 |
+| 65 | 0322/21 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | appeal. Resist draft response to USVI AG appeal. and communications with client | 1.251.00 | 1.40 | 1.751.40 |
+| 66 | oaten |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | team. ISVI counsel re same. Resist draft response to USVI Airs appeal. and communications with client | 1.251.00 | 0.110 | 1.000.80 |
+| 67 | 03/2521 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | team. USVI counsel re same Resist draft response IO USVI AG'S | 1251.00 | 1.10 | 1.376.10 |
+| 6a | 01_26_11 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | counsel re sane | 1.251.00 | 0.70 | 875.70 |
+|  |  | appeal. and communications with USVI Respond to client expiry re draft response to USVI AG appeal (.20): communications with USVI contact re |  |  | billed for reviewing. &Amp and editing response to |
+| 69 | 01.2721 |  |  |  |  |
+|  |  | same 1.10). | 1.251.00 | 0.30 | 375.10 |
+
+| 70 | 03/29/21 | | Communications with USVI counsel re opposition to USVI AG's appeal. | 1,251.00 | 0.30 | | | Vague - unclear whether USVI counsel is Estate's local counsel or counsel for the Government
+
+Duplication (if USVI counsel refers to Estate's local counsel and there was a meeting with only attorneys for the Estate in attendance) |
+| ---- | ---------- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------ | -- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+|  |  |  |  |  | r |  |  |  |

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821941/EFTA02821941.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -37427,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821941",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 813,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.table-boundary-padding\", \"epstein_legal.flight-log-tables.normalize\", \"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "353077ff84bffd52a9b102f667b3accdf93d633c6ead27e4670aa9869df628f4",
+  "output_sha256": "3dbb4ac495fc2c97c7e15bfb8d08bac33af26e4675ce6debf33a54bbb09a427e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821950/EFTA02821950.md

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+FILED
+
+April 07, 2022 05:14 141
+
+51-2021-AV-00005
+
+TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No: ST-19-PB-80
+
+### REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate"), DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN (the "Co-Executors"), and submit this reply brief in support of their Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees (the "Motion for Attorneys' Fees") dated March 4, 2022.1
+
+### ARGUMENT
+
+### I. The Co-Executors Are Entitled To Their Attorneys' Fees.
+
+Despite having made the GVI Motions in the Probate Division, the GVI argues in its opposition that (i) the Court orders denying the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal (together, the "Orders") are not "judgments" and a party may not receive attorneys' fees until the entirety of the proceedings are complete, and (ii) the Co-Executors are not the "prevailing party." That is incorrect. First, the GVI ignores that this is a probate matter in which the asserted need for a final judgment resolving the proceeding is neither logical nor required by applicable statute. Second, the GVI's argument that attorneys' fees are not available without a final judgment is inconsistent with longstanding Virgin Islands case law. Third, in light of the nature of the Probate Action, the relief unsuccessfully sought by the GVI in the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, and existing case
+
+I. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Motion for Attorneys' Fees.
+
+law, the Co-Executors were the prevailing party on these applications and are accordingly entitled to an award of their attorneys' fees.
+
+# A. A Final "Judgment" Is Not Required to Obtain Fees in a Probate Matter.
+
+The GVI bases its argument that an award of costs or attorney's fees is available only upon a "judgment" on the language of 5 V.I.C. § 541. (GVI Opp. at 3.) However, the OW disregards the language of 15 V.I.C. § 165, which applies to matters arising in probate proceedings such as the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal. 15 V.I.C. § 165 (stating that it applies "[w]ith respect to matters to which [Chapter 15] relates" and implicitly distinguishing between such matters and "civil action[s] in the district court"). Probate proceedings are distinct, statutory actions that may require the resolution of many disputes, often among multiple parties, before the close of probate. In such matters—and as the Virgin Islands Code recognizes—costs are not reserved for the conclusion of the probate proceeding or a final "judgment," but are instead available "in favor of one party against another ... in any proceedings contested adversely." 15 V.I.C. § 165.
+
+While the GVI notes that the standard for an award of attorneys' fees is the same under 5 V.I.C. § 541 and 15 V.I.C. § 165 (GVI Opp. at 3 n.1), it cites no support—because none exists-for its argument that the purported requirement from Section 541 that there be a final "judgment" applies equally under Section 165 to probate proceedings such as this one. Because the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal were contested, adversarial proceedings, an award of attorneys' fees is available here pursuant to Section 165.
+
+# B. The GVI's Arguments Are Inconsistent with Applicable Case Law.
+
+Even outside of the probate context, no case supports the GVI's argument that fees and costs cannot be awarded absent an appealable judgment. To the contrary, Virgin Islands case
+
+law indicates that, in civil actions, attorneys' fees and costs may be awarded absent a final judgment.
+
+For example, in John v. Maldonado, the parties settled before trial (and therefore without a final judgment, such as the GVI seeks to require here) and the plaintiff thereafter sought reimbursement for his attorney's fees and costs incurred in maintaining the suit before it settled. Civ. No. 536-1988, 1991 V.I. LEXIS 13, at \*5-6 (V.I. Ten. Ct. June 11, 1991). The Court held that the plaintiff could recover his fees and costs, and characterized the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was not the "prevailing party in the judgment" because the parties settled as "almost frivolous, for it has long been settled in the Virgin Islands that 'as long as a plaintiff achieves some of the benefits sought in maintaining a lawsuit, even though that plaintiff does not ultimately succeed in securing the judgment sought, the plaintiff can be considered the prevailing party for purposes of a fee award.'" Id. at \*7 (quoting Ingvolstad v. Kings Wharf Island Enterprises, Inc., 20 V.I. 314, 317 (Dist. Ct. 1983) (citations omitted), aff'd., 734 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1983).
+
+Similarly, in Melendez v.=, the parties engaged in litigation but resolved the matter before trial. Civ. No. 10/1988, 1988 WL 1628341, at \*1 (V.I. Tern Ct. Oct. 28, 1988). The Court awarded fees and costs to the respondent, reasoning that:
+
+> While as a rule the prevailing party is considered to be the one in whose favor a decision or verdict is rendered and a judgment is entered, the term may be construed more broadly. The test is whether a party has achieved at least some of the benefits which were sought in the litigation, even if a judgment is not finally obtained.
+
+Id. at \*3 (citations omitted); see also, e.g., Great Bay Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Socolof, No. ST-I3-CV-426, 2019 V.I. LEXIS 165, at \*7 (V.I. Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2019) ("Whether a party is a prevailing party does not turn on whether it obtained success through litigation—through a formal determination of the Court—but whether it prevailed in obtaining the relief it sought.").
+
+The Third Circuit has likewise repeatedly held that a litigant can be considered the "prevailing party" for purposes of a fee award as long as it achieves some of the benefits it sought in the lawsuit, even though it does not secure a judgment. See, e.g., People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding the plaintiff constituted a "prevailing party" entitled to an award of attorneys' fees where it successfully obtained a preliminary injunction, even where no final "judgment" was reached); P.N. v. Clementon Bd. of Edm, 442 F.3d 848, 855-57 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that party that obtained interim orders requiring action in its favor was "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys' fees); NAACP v. Wilmington Med. Ct., Inc., 689 F.2d 1161, 1165 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding that "a prevailing party can be awarded fees before the conclusion of protracted litigation"). See also Golden v. N.J. Inst. Of Tech., 934 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2019) (finding that party was entitled to attorneys' fees under New Jersey statute requiring a party to prevail where the lawsuit served as the catalyst for desired action).
+
+### C. The Co-Executors Are the Prevailing Party Since the Orders Dispensed with the Then-Pending Litigation.
+
+The Virgin Islands Supreme Court recently directed courts to interpret the term "prevailing party" for the purposes of awarding attorneys' fees "liberally and broadly" "in light of the Legislature's intent to indemnify the party that is not at fault in the litigation." DaCosta v. DaCosta, 74 V.I. 640, 647 (V.I. 2021). Given the underlying Probate Action, the facts underlying the OW Motions and OVI Appeal, the relief awarded in the Orders, and the law discussed above in Sections I.A and B, there can be no doubt that the Co-Executors were the prevailing party here.
+
+The GVI seeks to frame the "prevailing party" analysis in terms of the merits of the claim it filed against the Estate after this Court denied the GVI Appeal with prejudice. But that claim is not what the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal concerned. Rather, those applications exemplified the GVI's attempted interference with the ongoing administration of the Estate and
+
+the Estate's funding of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, based purely on the GVI's separate CICO Action and without the GVI submitting to the jurisdiction of the Probate Division by filing a formal claim—despite Magistrate Judge Hermon-Percell's express direction on February 4, 2020 that the GVI do so. The GVI's consistent strategy throughout these probate proceedings has been to assert that it is entitled to control the administration of the Estate with no regard for probate rules. Through the Orders, the Co-Executors prevailed in obtaining the Court's affirmance that the GVI could not assume the Co-Executors' fiduciary responsibilities and that, if the GVI wishes to be heard in the probate proceedings, it must submit to the Probate Division's jurisdiction and file a claim in the Probate Action. Particularly given the nature of the Probate Action, which requires complex administration completely outside of the final determination of individual claims, this successful realignment of the parties' legal relationship is separate from the merits of the GVI's CICO Action. See supra Section I.B; see also, e.g., Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989) (finding that a party may be the "prevailing party" entitled to legal fees if the resolution of the dispute "changes the legal relationship" between the parties).
+
+# II. An Award of Attorneys' Fees Against The GVI Is Appropriate.
+
+The litigation resolved by the Orders was also separate from the GVI's claim in the Probate Action, which as noted above the GVI did not even file until after the Probate Division issued its Orders and this Court upheld those Orders on the GVI Appeal. That the GVI hopes it will eventually succeed in the CICO Action—which forms the sole basis for its probate claim—is irrelevant to the award of attorneys' fees here, and the Court should not deny the Motion for Attorneys' Fees on that basis.
+
+In addition, the Court should reject the GVI's assertion—for which it once again provides no support—that the Court should not award attorneys' fees because its failed GVI Motions and GVI Appeal allegedly relate to a law enforcement action. (GVI Opp. at 6.) The Virgin Islands Legislature chose to allow prevailing parties to recover costs and attorneys' fees because "a party should not have to bear the legal expenses of demonstrating either that it is not at fault or that it is the victim of another's fault," and it is intended as an indemnity. DaCosta, 74 V.I. at 646-47 (quoting Intl Leasing & Rental Corp. v. Gann, Civ. No. 0840, 2010 WL 1284464, at \*1 (D.V.I. Mar. 23, 2010)) (finding that Section 541 should be interpreted broadly in light of this intent). The GVI's pending CICO Action does not in and of itself entitle the GVI to obtain relief in the Probate Action or use any litigation tactics it chooses to interfere with the orderly administration of the Estate; nor does the GVI's role as a government agency justify forcing the Estate to bear the costs of defending against the GVI's unsuccessful attempts to do so. See Equivest St. , Inc. v. Gov't of Virgin Islands, No. CIV.2001-155, 2004 WL 3037953, at \*7 (D.V.I. Dec. 31, 2004) (rejecting the GVI's argument that it should not have to pay attorneys' fees and costs because of its "financial plight," particularly given the GVI's unwise decision to litigate the matter at issue).
+
+To the extent that equity is relevant to the grant of attorneys' fees, it favors the Co-Executors. The GVI made the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal in a vain effort to impede the administration of the Estate, including funding of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, which provided compensation for 125 individual claimants seeking redress for sexual abuse. Moreover, this litigation was needlessly prolonged by the GVI's year-long delay in appealing the GVI Motion to Intervene and the GVI's refusal to follow Judge Hermon-Percell's direction to observe the requirements of probate claims procedure. The Court should not countenance such disregard for court orders and waste of Estate and judicial resources by immunizing the GVI from the costs of its ill-advised GVI Motions and OW Appeal.
+
+### III. The Co-Executors' Counsels' Rates Are Not Excessive.
+
+In its opposition, the GVI ignores the case law and evidentiary support presented by the Co-Executors regarding the reasonableness of their counsels' rates. Instead, the GVI asserts flatly that attorneys in the Virgin Islands can never, under any circumstances, obtain compensation greater than \$350 per hour. (GVI Opp. at 7-8.) The Court should not credit the GVI's refusal to consider the Virgin Islands Supreme Court's direction that an attorney's normal billing rate is evidence of a reasonable rate, the experience of the attorneys in question, the magnitude and complexity of the Estate and the unprecedented challenge presented by the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, or the evidence that rates for attorneys in the Virgin Islands have risen (like the costs of everything else) in the years since courts approved unchanging rates for Virgin Islands attorneys. As the Virgin Islands Supreme Court recently held, courts cannot simply apply a preconceived belief regarding attorneys' rates in the Virgin Islands—rather, they must consider evidence including the attorneys' normal billing rates. Mahabir v. Heirs of James Wellington S. Ct. Civ. No. 2014-0025, 2021 WL 6100552, at \*3 (V.I. Dec. 22, 2021) (finding that courts should not use preconceived notions of current standard rates as a basis to lower the requested standard rate and that "the value of an attorney's time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate") (quoting Estien v. Christian, 507 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir. 1975)).2
+
+{sup}`2.` With regard to the rates of the Co-Executors' New York counsel, the GVI cites no law in support of its untenable position that the Court should not consider prevailing New York rates in determining reasonable compensation. The GVI's own use of Motley Rice LLC—a firm with more than 100 attorneys and offices in New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., South Carolina, Rhode Island, Connecticut, West Virginia and Pennsylvania—to represent it in the CICO and Probate Actions demonstrates the GVI's recognition that counsel outside of the Virgin Islands with special expertise in similar cases is necessary and appropriate here.
+
+#### IV. The Hours Expended by the Co-Executors' Counsel in Defeating the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal Are Reasonable.
+
+Finally, the GVI argues that the Court should exclude several of the Co-Executors' counsels' time entries because they contain "vague descriptions, duplicative tasks, unrelated matters, and clerical work." (GVI Opp. at 9.) Despite the GVI's contention, those time entries are reasonable.
+
+# A. The Time Entries Are Not Vague.
+
+Courts in the Virgin Islands have recognized that allegedly "vague" billing entries are reasonable where, as here, they are "sufficiently clear to allow [the court] to know the tasks to which [the attorney] devoted his time." v. Blake-Coleman, No. CV 2011-61, 2014 WL 902231, at \*2 (D.V.I. Mar. 7, 2014) (quoting Tenafly Eruv Ass'm Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 195 F.App'x 93 (3d Cir. 2006)) (finding that entries such as "Attn to brief' and "Attn to reply" provided the requisite level of specificity). The Third Circuit has similarly held that time entries that provide the "general nature of the activity and the subject activity where possible," as well as "the date the activity took place and the amount of time worked on the activity," are reasonable. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1191 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Washington v. Phila. Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1038 (3d Cir. 1996) (same).
+
+Likewise, courts in the Virgin Islands have granted attorneys' fees for time entries consisting of so-called "block billing" where the court was "able to determine that the time spent on the various tasks was reasonable." Chem. Bank v. Lampe Fam. Living Tr. (Irrevocable Living Tr. Agreement), No. CV 2018-23, 2019 WL 4259459, at \*3 (D.V.I. Sept. 9, 2019). It is "not necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney." Rode, 892 F.2d at 1190 (quoting Lindy
+
+Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanatory Corp., 487 F.2d 161, 167 (3d Cir.1973)).
+
+Here, the GVI claims that several billing entries are "vague" because they contain "block billing," that certain words contained in the entries are "unclear," or that the amount of time spent on each individual task set forth in the entry is not separately broken out. (GVI Opp. Ex. 2.) That is baseless nit-picking: each of the entries conveys the nature of the activity and overall time worked, and is sufficient for the Court to determine that the amount of time spent was reasonable. Similarly, while the GVI asserts that some entries are "vague" because the GVI claims that it cannot discern to which hearing or motion the entry refers, not only do the entries themselves make that information abundantly clear—for example, the GVI absurdly claims that it cannot tell what hearing the Co-Executors' counsel attended on February 4, 2020, when Judge Hermon-Percell conducted an all-day evidentiary hearing which the GVI's attorneys also attended (GVI Opp. Ex. 2( Kroblin's 10th expressly-listed time entry))—but the attorneys' affidavits attached to the Motion for Attorneys' Fees also state that the relevant time entries relate to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal.
+
+# B. The Time Entries Are Not Duplicative.
+
+The GVI also argues that the Estate's entries are "duplicative" because more than one attorney participated in drafting or revising briefs in successful opposition to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal.
+
+The GVI's argument misses the mark. Courts in the Third Circuit have recognized that "overlapping" billing entries are reasonable when each attorney plays a "differing role" in accomplishing certain tasks or each attorney's presence is "essential" to the completion of the task. See, e.g., Hatchets v. Cty. of Philadelphia, No. CIV.A. 09-1708, 2010 WL 4054285, at •4 (E.D.
+
+Pa. Oct. 15, 2010) (finding that overlapping time entries were reasonable where multiple attorneys billed for attending a conference and a meeting); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., No. CV 14-448-GMS, 2016 WL 10957312, at \*1 n.1 (D. Del. July 14, 2016), aff'd, 876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that, where multiple attorneys billed to complete a particular project, the hours expended were reasonable).
+
+As detailed in the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and discussed above, defeating the Mil Motions and GVI Appeal was of significant importance to the Co-Executors and the Probate Division's oversight over the ongoing administration of the Estate, and those applications had farreaching implications for the Estate and the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. (Mot. for Attorneys' Fees at 8-9, 17-18.) Moreover, the GVI's attempt to intervene in the Probate Action and seize control of the Estate's assets rested on unsupported applications of law and baseless accusations concerning the Co-Executors and the Probate Division's ability to effectively administer the Estate. It is both unsurprising and reasonable that completing the tasks necessary to defeat those applications required the input of different attorneys—each of whom has differing expertise and knowledge of different aspects of the Estate. As each of these attorneys played a different role and was essential to completion of the tasks necessary to defeat the GVI's illconceived applications, there is no unreasonable duplication in the time entries.
+
+Moreover, the rules and orders governing pro hac vice admission to practice law before Virgin Islands courts require that the regularly admitted attorney who moved for a pro hac vice admission review the work of pro hac vice counsel and accompany such counsel to hearings to insure compliance with local rules. See, e.g., V.I. S. Ct. R. 201(a)(4) ("The regularly admitted attorney of record shall be accountable to the Supreme Court for the timely prosecution of such causes and compliance with all applicable rules ..."). Not only is it not duplicative to have both
+
+pro hac vice and regularly admitted Virgin Islands counsel work together on briefs and appear together at hearings, it is actually required.
+
+### C. The Time Entries Do Not Contain Unrelated Entries.
+
+The GVI also incorrectly asserts that the Estate "lumped" together unrelated time entries, pointing mainly to references to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and incidental tasks related to administration of the Estate that arose in direct relation to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal. As discussed above and in the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the GVI's primary purpose in filing the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal was to wrongfully interfere with the ongoing administration of the Estate, including funding of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. The GVI therefore should not be surprised that its applications required some work to defend. As all of the time entries relate to the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal, they are reasonable and should be allowed. See, e.g., Tangible Value, LLC v. Town Sports Intl Holdings, Inc., No. 10-1453-MAS-TJB, 2014 BL 325994, at \*11 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2014) (finding that the "bundling" of numerous tasks under a single entry was reasonable where the tasks were not grouped together "indiscriminately," but were instead related); Washington Federal Savings Bank v. McGuier (In re McGuier), 346 B.R. 151, 168 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2006) (finding that "lumped" time entries were reasonable based on the "specificity of the entries and the Court's actual knowledge of services provided").
+
+# D. The Time Entries Are Not for Clerical Work.
+
+While the GVI complains about time spent by Virgin Islands legal assistant Shauna Betz, the weight of authority holds that time spent by paralegals and legal assistants is properly recoverable. See, e.g., MRL Development, LLC v. Whitecap Investment Corp., Civ. No. 2013-48, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46211, at \*11 (D.V.I. March 23, 2017) (collecting cases). The GVI cites no authority for its bizarre theory that a movant must identify an individual (here, the same individual) as a "paralegal" rather than a "legal assistant" in order for their services to be compensable. See id. (using the terms paralegal and legal assistant interchangeably). Likewise, while the GVI complains that Ms. Betz's work in cases where courts found her time recoverable "included drafting pleadings," her work here likewise include proofreading and reviewing briefs. (See, e.g., GVI Opp. Ex. 2 (Ms. Betz's time entries).)
+
+The GVI's other complaints about purported "clerical work" likewise fail. As each of the time entries relates to preparation and drafting of the Co-Executors' oppositions to the GVI Motions and OVI Appeal, these entries are reasonable.
+
+# CONCLUSION
+
+For the reasons set forth herein and in the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the Co-Executors respectfully request that the Court issue an award reimbursing them for their attorneys' fees incurred in successfully opposing the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal in the amount of \$112,216.90.
+
+Respectfully,
+
+Dated: April 7, 2022 /s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. 966 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@kellfercom mwhalen@kellfer.com
+
+### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of April 2022, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees to be served via VIJEFS upon:
+
+Denise N. Esq., Attorney General Carol , Esq., Deputy Attorney General Mel M. Esq., Chief, Civil Division Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade GERS Complex, r d Floor St. Virgin Islands 00804
+
+Linda J. =, Esq. Motley Rice LLC 402 9th Street NW, Suite 1001 Washington, D.C. 20004 Isinger®motleyrice.com
+
+/il Kroblin

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821950/EFTA02821950.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -4,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821950",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"swarm.html-myst-whitelist\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9636f2a1e8d43ba4f8a56195d9ea8b1bc8a2263aee9b67c9b8d2a79bfd486843",
+  "output_sha256": "b723899840b030ceec191c741af2c59a506192ea83a3ebb41aa3b41d2148f338",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821963/EFTA02821963.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# FILED
+
+Dectiober 20, 2022 02:21 PM 5T-2021-AV-00005 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No: ST-2019-PB-00080
+
+## MOTION TO \\ I IIioR \\ MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
+
+COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate"), DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN (the "Co-Executors"), and hereby move this Honorable Court to withdraw their Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees filed on March 4, 2022 and docketed on March 18, 2022. The ground for the instant motion is that the parties have reached a resolution in the related Govt of USVI v. Epstein Estate et al., ST-2020- CV-00014 matter, and in conjunction with that the Co-Executors have agreed to withdraw their request for attorneys' fees in this action. A proposed order is attached for the Court's consideration.
+
+Dated: December 20, 2022
+
+Respectfully,
+
+/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.I. Bar Nos. 966 1221 & R2019 KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate M, Suite 101 St. M, V.1.00802 Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com sdandrade®kellfercom mwhalen@kellfer.com
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20'h day of December 2022, 1 caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees to be served via VIJEFS upon:
+
+Denise N. Esq., Attorney General Carol Esq., Deputy Attorney General Ariel M. Esq., Chief, Civil Division Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade GERS Complex, r d Floor St. Virgin Islands 00804
+
+Linda J. =, Esq. Motley Rice LLC 402 9th Street NW, Suite 1001 Washington, D.C. 20004
+
+Isinger@motleyrice.com /s/ Kroblin

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821963/EFTA02821963.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": 0,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821963",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 0,
+  "fix_ids": "[]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e205242b23e368fb48adb4e99e3b7e904f347ed2ed4b23ae4fbdad1de18d29b9",
+  "output_sha256": "e205242b23e368fb48adb4e99e3b7e904f347ed2ed4b23ae4fbdad1de18d29b9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821965/EFTA02821965.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+## FILED
+
+Oectiober 20, 2022 02:21 PH
+
+51-2021-RV-00005
+
+TAMARA CHARLES
+
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+
+## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN
+
+IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+
+Deceased.
+
+CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
+
+Originating Case No: ST-2019-PB-00080
+
+## ORDER
+
+THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees. Having considered the Motion, the Court will grant the same.
+
+Accordingly, it is hereby
+
+ORDERED that the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees is GRANTED; 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:
+
+Court Clerk Supervisor
+
+DEBRA S. WATLINGTON Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

marker2-fixhub/court-estate-epstein/EFTA02821965/EFTA02821965.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": 0,
+  "dataset": "marker2",
+  "doc_id": "EFTA02821965",
+  "engine": "marker-pdf-2.0.0+surya-0.22.1",
+  "event_count": 0,
+  "fix_ids": "[]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "01584aa6f0e2960099205d0638e74e2a093166e27d8935b56f04ae1ec46a25db",
+  "output_sha256": "01584aa6f0e2960099205d0638e74e2a093166e27d8935b56f04ae1ec46a25db",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "marker2-court-estate-epstein",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}