Epstein Secrets

iewed as a form of injunctive relief, is more precisely viewed as a pre- judgment seizure of property. In any event, the name is not important. See Rosen v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1530 (11th Cir. 1994) (“federal courts look past the terminology to the actual nature of the relief request

ive, and opportunity to fraudulently transfer assets.” Jane Doe’s Motion to Restrain Fraudulent Transfer of Assets at 11 (quoting United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2001)).2 Epstein completely misses the point of Jane Doe’s means, motive, and opportunity argument, construing it as s

determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of person or property to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered." Rosen v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, under this Rule, this Court looks to Florida law to determine Jane Doe'

a "perfect circumstantial evidence case that [Epstein] ha[s] means, motive, and opportunity" to fraudulently transfer assets. See United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding probable cause for an arrest based solely on a showing of means, motive, and opportunity). The fact tha

the plaintiff seeks only to recover money damages do not fall within the jurisdiction of equity and injunctive relief is therefore unavailable. See Rosen v. Cascade Int'!, Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1529-30 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that the district court Jacked the general equitable authority to issue an

Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets because he purportedly has the means, the motive and the opportunity to do so, citing United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2001). See Injunction Motion (DE #165) at 11. Sparks is completely inapposite as it concerned whether probable cause fo

determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of person or property to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered." Rosen v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, under this Rule, this Court looks to Florida law to determine Jane Doe'

a "perfect circumstantial evidence case that [Epstein] ha[s] means, motive, and opportunity" to fraudulently transfer assets. See United States v. Sparks, 265 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding probable cause for an arrest based solely on a showing of means, motive, and opportunity). The fact tha