EPSTEIN
page 7 / 115 . OCR, unverified
Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine,
Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine, P.C.
roselaw@viaccess.net
Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esq.
David Boies, Esq.
Joshua I. Schiller, Esq.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
smmcawley@bsfilp.com
dboies@bs(llp.com
i Isch iller@bsfllp.com
J. Russell B. Pate, Esq.
The Pate Law Fi1m
pate@sunlawvi.com
Isl Christopher Allen Kroblin
OFTH.E VIRGIN ISLANDS
"
FILED
Marc h 2 9, 2 02 1
ST-201 9-PB-00080
TAMARA CHARLES
:LER]( OF THE COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN
********************************
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
)
)
)
)
PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80
ACTION FOR TESTATE
ADMINISTRATION
Deceased.
OPPOSITION TO
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (CORRECTED BRIEF)1
COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"),
DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, by and through KELLERHALS FERGUSON
KROBLIN PLLC, and hereby oppose the Motion to Intervene filed by the Government of the Virgin
Islands (the "GVI"). Because the GVI's Motion to Intervene is flawed both substantively and
procedurally, the Court should deny that application.
I.
The Proposed Intervention Serves No Proper Purpose
The GVI asserts that its intervention in this probate proceeding is, in part, required "to
ensure that the administration of the Estate conforms to the laws of the Virgin Islands." (Motion
to Intervene at 1.) That is nonsense: under Virgin Islands law, it is the Court's charge -
not the
GVI's -
to oversee the proper administration of estates and ensure their compliance with Virgin
Islands law.
The Superior Court has original jurisdiction "to supervise and administer estates and
fiduciary relations." 4 V.I.C. § 76(a).
"[T]he Superior Court 'has jurisdiction and the power to administer justice
in all matters relating to the affairs of decedents, ... to try and determine all
questions, legal or equitable, arising between any or all of the parties to any
This Corrected Brief in Opposition is filed in place of the Opposition to the Government's Motion to Intervene,
filed in this Court on behalfofthe Co-Executors on Friday, January 31, 2020.
Exhibit A
Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene (Corrected Brief)
Probate No. ST-19-PB-80
Page2
proceeding, ... as to any and all matters necessary to be determined in order
to make a full, equitable, and complete disposition of the matter by such
order or decree as justice requires.'
V.I.C. § 161.
The court is
unrestricted in its power to dispose of such cases 'as justice requires' and is
explicitly authorized to grant letters of administration, direct and control an
executor or administrator's conduct, distribute assets, and order the sale of
the deceased person's property. Id."
Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.I. 480, 489-90 (V.I. 2014). The GVI offers no explanation for why
it believes the Court is not up to that task.
Nor does the GVI explain why it waited more than.five (5) months to seek to intervene in
this proceeding, which the Co-Executors commenced on August 15, 2019. That the GVI decided
two (2) weeks ago to commence civil claims and file criminal activity liens against the Estate is a
self-created emergency: the GVI has long known that Mr. Epstein (and now the Estate) owns
substantial real property in the Virgin Islands.
The GVI also purports to find a "potential conflict of interest" in the Co-Executors'
administration of the Estate, in particular in proposing to hire independent, nationally recognized
claims administration experts to design and implement the proposed Epstein Victims'
Compensation Program (the "Program"). (Motion to Intervene at 1.) 2 That purported conflict
does not exist. "The mere existence of a possible adverse interest, without more, is not sufficient
grounds for complaint in the Virgin Islands." In re Estate of Vose, 317 F.2d 281, 282, n.4 (3d Cir.
1963) (internal citations omitted). Here, the Co-Executors do not have an interest adverse to the
Estate which would prevent them from faithfully administering their fiduciary duties. Nor is there
any allegation of neglect or dereliction of their fiduciary duties. Indeed, there is absolutely no
evidence that the Co-Executors' manner and conduct in executing their office has run afoul of the
2. The GVI's baseless attack on the Program is dealt with separately in the Estate's Reply to the GVI's Opposition
to Estate's Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program, filed Friday, January 31, 2020.
Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
Opposition to Government's Motion to Intervene (Corrected Brief)
Probate No. ST-19-PB-80
Page3
standard of care required of an executor. There is, and can be, no allegation that the Co- Executors
have been unfaithful to their trust.
It cannot be a "conflict of interest" for the Co-Executors to have known Mr. Epstein during
his lifetime -
if that were the case, no one could ever appoint a friend or trusted co11eague as