EpsteinProject.org

Court records

2022.03.17__Notice_-_Notice_to_the_Court_1

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

 IN THE P RIOR OURI
  OF THE \'!RGI I LA D


  FILED
March 17, 2022 06:09 ~M
ST-2021 - RV-00005
 TAMARA CHARLE
CLERK OF THE COURT
                                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                                       DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN


                                                                      )
              IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF                          )      Case No. ST-2021-RV-00005
                                                                      )
              JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,                                     )
                                                       Deceased.      )      Originating Case No.
                                                                             ST-2019-PB-00080


                      GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS'
              OPPOSITION TO CO-EXECUTORS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES

                         The Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") hereby responds in

              opposition to the Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees brought by the Co-Executors of the Estate

              of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate") (the "Epstein Estate's Motion") regarding the

              Government's Motion to Intervene in the Probate Action, the Government's Emergency Motion

              to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand, and the Government's Notice of Appeal and

              Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge's Orders.

                         The Epstein Estate's Motion is baseless and should be denied. First, the Epstein Estate is

              not entitled to attorneys' fees, because the underlying orders are not "judgment[s]" and the Epstein

              Estate is not the "prevailing party". Second, even if underlying orders were judgments and the

              Epstein Estate was the prevailing party-both of which are not true-the Court should exerci

[…]

Open in the archive