Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 1 of 24 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON ----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintif

HNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON I Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 2 of 24 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra/Johnson Epstein's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 2 of24 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plainti

majority of Mr. Cassell's assertions in his affidavit are based on a 2005 Vanity Fair article (the "2005 Vanity Fair Article"). See Vicky Ward, "The Talented Mr. Epstein," Vanity Fair <http://vickyward.com/wordpress/archives/30>, (January 24, 2005; accessed June 24, 2009). Mr. Cassell's affidavit is essentially a

Weinstein .... " See Vicky Ward, "You Will Have Jeffrey Epstein to Kick Around!" Vanity Fair <http://www

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

evidence with a new, recently-obtained Declaration – from Epstein himself. See Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Provide Recently-Obtained Affidavit of Jeffrey E. Epstein in Support of Material Facts Supporting Motion for Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein [DE 213]. This Declaration was

iles this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, for appointment 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 billion

Motion to Provide Recently-Obtained Affidavit of Jeffrey E. Epstein in Support of Material Facts Supporting

Motion to Provide Recently-Obtained Affidavit of Jeffrey E. Epstein in Support of Material Facts Supporti

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.

to Secure Potential Judgment (DE 165). Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a response in opposition to the mot

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON T JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469

rt 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 Million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment (DE 165). Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a response in opposition to the motion (DE 198

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

t 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'13'2009 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN! Defendant. JANE DOE

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 $15 MILLION BOND TO SECURE POTENTIAL JUDGMENT Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, submi

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff,

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