Epstein Secrets

ase No. 08-CV-80893-Marra/Johnson Epstein's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 8 of 24 close friends with Prince Andrew and therefore it is reasonable to infer Epstein has international financial contacts (Id. 'l[9); (3) Epstein reportedly limited his clients to those

junction Motion Page 8 of 24 close friends with Prince Andrew and therefore it is reasonable to infer Epstein h

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

, Jane Doe has alleged that Epstein has international contacts, having travelled overseas with such famous persons as President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. Is Epstein contesting that he has these international travels? Here again, it is impossible to tell because Epstein has not ex

th such famous persons as President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. Is Epstein contesting that h

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.

tein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marratlohnson Epstein's Memorandum of taw in Opposition to Jane Doe's In/unction Motion Page 8 of 24 close friends with Prince Andrew and therefore it is reasonable to infer Epstein has international financial contacts ULL 19); (3) Epstein reportedly limited his clients to those w

n Motion Page 8 of 24 close friends with Prince Andrew and therefore it is reasonable to infer Epstein h

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