Epstein Secrets

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

in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 22 of 24 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Epstein respectfully requests the Court deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 DAVID A. YAREMA, ESQ. Flo

ane Doe's Request for Admissions attached as Exhibit C to Injunction Motion (DE #165). Based on this unsupported presumption of fraudulent transfer, Jane Doe asks the Court to impose significant and unjustified restraints on Epstein's assets. Simply put, Jane Doe is improperly seeking assurance she will b

rse inference would be wholly unreliable and is clearly impermissible under the instant circumstances. Additionally, granting the relief sought by Jane Doc based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir.

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

e's Injunction Motion Page 5 of24 relief requested by Jane Doe. For the following reasons, the Court must deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. II. JANE DOE'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IS BASED ON SPECULATION AND HEARSAY AND CONTAINS NO MATERIAL "FACTS" Jane Doe's "Statement of Material Facts" relies h

JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $1

failed to show unavailability of an adequate remedy at law and the likelihood of irreparable harm, two elements essential to entry of an injunction); Lawhon v. Mason, 611 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (quashing trial court order requiring defendant to Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 400 Entered on FLS

8-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ____________________________________/ ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15

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.

of a receiver to take charge of Epstein’s property and to post a $15 million bond to secure any potential judgment in this case. As explained in Jane Doe’s motion, Epstein is a billionaire who recently has been fraudulently transferring his assets overseas and elsewhere with the intent to prevent Jane D