Epstein Secrets

n. § 726.105(1)(a). Jane Doe has made such a showing, as explained in the next paragraph in text. 5 For this reason, Epstein’s citation of In re Stewart, 280 B.R. 268, 285 (Bkrtcy. M.D. Fla. 2001), is not on point. In that case, the plaintiff had merely made allegations without providing any support

ction to prevent “transfer[ring] assets abroad” and distinguishing De Beers). In one final attempt to obscure this Court’s power, Epstein cites Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So.2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993), as rejecting plaintiff’s motion to prohibit a defendant from transferring assets. Mem. in Opp.

tor is fraudulently transferring assets. Jane Doe fails to point to one iota of evidence that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. In In re Stewart, 280 B.R. 268 (M.D. Fla. 2001), proceedings were brought to set aside certain transfers of the debtor as fraudulent to creditors. The bankruptcy tr

er, in her First Amended Complaint (DE #38), Jane Doe does not seek an injunction nor does she assert a claim under Fla. Stat. §726.101 et seq. See Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So. 2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a party must ''file suit under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act" to enjoin frau

tor is fraudulently transferring assets. Jane Doe fails to point to one iota of evidence that Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets. In In re Stewart 280 B.R. 268 (M.D. Fla. 2001), proceedings were brought to set aside certain transfers of the debtor as fraudulent to creditors. The bankruptcy trus

leges the defendant may be dissipating assets; a judgment for money damages is adequate and injunctive relief is improper) (citations omitted). The Lawhon court also noted that the order was similar to a pit-judgment writ of attachment. 611 So. 2d at 1368. "A writ of attachment cannot issue unless the