Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: The USVI Attempts To Intervene In The Maxwell/Epstein Estate Lawsuit (9/6/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The USVI Attempts To Intervene In The Maxwell/Epstein Estate Lawsuit (9/6/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to dive right back into
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: the Ghislaine Maxwell court documents, and we're going to start
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: taking a look at the U.S. government of the Virgin
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Islands and their motion to intervene. Case number ST-20-CV-155, Ghislaine
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Maxwell plaintiff versus the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. The
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Government of the United States Virgin Islands Motion to Intervene
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, by and
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves for an order permitting
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: the Government to intervene in this action as a right
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of pursuant to VIR Civ P-24A or else by leave
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: pursuant to VIR Civ P-24B. The Government states in support
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: of its motion as follows. The Preliminary Statement plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell,
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: filed this action seeking identification for an advancement of expenses
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: incurred by reason of her prior employment relationship with decedent
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey E. Epstein and his affiliated businesses in connection with
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: any threatened pending or completed suit proceeding or investigation relating
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: to Epstein, his affiliated businesses, and his alleged victims. Complaint
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: number one. Since the filing of this action, Maxwell has
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: been arrested by federal authorities on charges that she assisted, facilitated,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: and participated in Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls. The
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: government has two distinct but closely related interests that support
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: intervention in this action. First, the government has a pending
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: action in the Virgin Islands against defendants herein, the estate
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Endyke, and Richard Kahn,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: and others, under the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: 14 BIC Section 601. See Government of the U.S. Virgin
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: Islands v. Indyke, et al., No. ST-20-CV-14. First amended complaint
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: filed 2520. The government alleges that defendants committed and conspired
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: to commit criminal sex trafficking and sexual abuse activity. The
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: government's primary interest for intervention is to ensure that the
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Epstein estate's assets are not wrongfully dissipated by Maxwell's suspect
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: claims for identification and advancement of legal expenses, and instead
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: are preserved to satisfy the SECO judgment, which seeks forfeiture, divestiture, disgorgement,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: and payment of maximum civil penalties and damages by the
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Epstein estate. Second, the government... also is investigating Maxwell's participation
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: in Epstein's criminal sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct pursuant
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: to its authority under SECO 14VIC Section 612 to investigate
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: reasonably suspected criminal activity. The government has attempted to serve
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: a SECO subpoena to Sistecum on Maxwell stating that, pursuant
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: to 14VIC Section 612C, the documentation requested is in reference
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: to an ongoing investigation of by the Virgin Islands Department
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: of Justice, of the rape, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: young women and underage girls by Jeffrey Epstein and his
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: associates in violation of 14 VIC Section 133 and 1624,
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: as well as other Virgin Islands statutes. Example B. Government
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: SECO subpoena deuces Tecum to Glenn Maxwell, dated March 19, 2020,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: at 1.00. Maxwell resisted and evaded service of the subpoena
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: during the three and a half months after its issuance.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: The government's second intervention interest thus is to ensure that
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Maxwell is compelled to respond to its investigatory subpoena through
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: this action in which she is a party and has
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: consented to the court's jurisdiction. The government's need to intervene
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: is further fueled by Maxwell's inappropriate use of the Virgin
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: Islands courts to seek payment and reimbursement from the Epstein
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: criminal enterprise while she circumvents the service of process of
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: government subpoenas related to her involvement in that criminal enterprise.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Based upon either or both of the government's interests with
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: respect to all parties, this action is And for the
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: reasons set forth herein, the court should grant the government's
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: intervention as of a right under V.I.R. Civ P. 24A
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: or else leave under V.I.R. Civ P. 24B. Statement of
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: facts related to the intervention. A. Maxwell's arrest on federal
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: criminal sex trafficking charges related to her involvement with Epstein's conduct.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: On July 2nd, 2020, federal authorities arrested Ms. Maxwell on...
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: six federal criminal charges related to her involvement with Epstein's
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: alleged sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct. See example C,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: indictment in United States of America versus Ghislaine Maxwell, number 20-CR-330-SDNY.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Maxwell is charged with conspiracy to entice minors to engage
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: in illegal sex acts, count one, enticement of a minor
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, count two,
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: sexual activity, count three, and transportation of a minor with
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, count number four.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: All of these charges stem from Maxwell's role in the
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. C. Also,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: which Maxwell knew and intended would result in grooming for
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: the subjection of sexual abuse. Maxwell also is charged with
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: two counts of perjury for giving false testimony concealing the
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: foregoing conduct of both Epstein and herself. B. The government's
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: SECO investigation of Maxwell's participation in Epstein's enterprise. The government
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: is and has been actively investigating Maxwell's participation in criminal
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct of the Epstein enterprise.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: See example B, government SECO subpoena, seeking documentation in reference
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: to an ongoing investigation by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: of the rape, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of young women
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: and underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: in violation of 14 Virgin Island Code Section 133 and 1624,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: as well as other Virgin Island statutes. Prior to Maxwell's arrest,
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: the government made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to serve its
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: SECO subpoena honor. On March 24, 2020, the government served
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: the subpoena on Maxwell's counsel in this action, Kyle R. Waldner,
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: see example D, Certificate of Service. On April 15, 2020,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: David J. Caddy, Esquire, notified the government that Ms. Maxwell
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: had retained him in regard to the government subpoenas. See
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: example E, Caddy to Smith email, 4-14-20. The subpoena was
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: clearly received by Maxwell and Attorney Caddy contacted the government
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: on her behalf to negotiate a possible resolution to the subpoena.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: Given that Attorney Caddy nonetheless raised concerns about service on Maxwell,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: the government asked that Maxwell authorize him to accept service
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: of the subpoena or disclose her whereabouts so that it
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: could serve her personally. See Example F, email from Laura
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: Singer to D. Caddy, May 1, 2020. On May 12, 2020,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: almost two months after the government's initial attempts at service, Ms.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Caddy responded that he cannot waive the issue of service
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: of the subpoena, nor can I disclose my client's location
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: to anyone at this time. Example G, email from D.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: Caddy to Singer, May 12, 2020. After Mr. Caddy refused
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: to accept or waive service, the government, in good faith,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: continued to negotiate for release of the requested documents in
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: lieu of enforcing the SECO subpoena. See example H, email
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: from Singer to Caddy, May 28, 2020. Those negotiations also failed,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: and the government attempted service of a second SECO subpoena
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: on Ms. Maxwell's counsel on June 11, 2020. See example 1,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: second subpoena. Mr. Caddy, once more, stated that he was
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: not authorized to accept service on her behalf, example J,
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: emailed from Caddy to Elsinger June 17, 2020, and again Mr.
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: Caddy did not offer to provide Maxwell's location to allow
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: the government to effectuate service. To date, Maxwell has not
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: acknowledged or responded to either of the government's SECO subpoenas.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: After Epstein's most recent arrest on July 8, 2019, and
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: his death in prison on August 10, 2019, and before
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: her own arrest on July 2, 2020, Maxwell was in hiding.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Numerous media outlets reported on her unknown whereabouts, including The Sun,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: The Washington Examiner, Vanity Fair, BBC, CNN, CNBC, The Telegraph,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: The Guardian, and Page Six. At that time, her counsel
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: was actively litigating in other courts to keep shielded from
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: public view thousands of pages of court records that would
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: expose her involvement and participation in Epstein's heinous crimes. C.E.
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: Roberts v. Maxwell, 15-CV-7433-LAP. Maxwell also was actively litigating this
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: action with counsel appearing on her behalf. CEG joint motion
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: to state proceedings filed June 2, 2020, in Maxwell v.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, case number ST-20-CV-15, in the
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: Superior Court's Court of the United States, Virgin Islands. Even
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: before Epstein's 2019 arrest and death, locating and serving Maxwell
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: was impractical. In 2017, Sarah Ransom, a victim suing Maxwell
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: in yet another matter related to Maxwell's participation in Epstein's
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking scheme, attempted to serve Maxwell in a number
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: of ways, including by providing Maxwell's attorneys at Haddon Morgan
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: a copy of the summons and complaint, emailing a copy
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: of the summons and complaint to gmax at lmax.com, and
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: attempting to effectuate service at three locations associated with Maxwell
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: in New York and New Jersey. Despite those attempts, Ransom
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: was unable to personally serve Maxwell and filed a motion
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: asking the court to approve alternative service. On January 30, 2018,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: the Honorable John G. Coddle of the Southern District of
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: New York held that Ransom had demonstrated that serving Maxwell
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: was impractical under New York law and providing copies of
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: the summons and complaints to her counsel was reasonably calculated
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: to provide Maxwell with notice of the lawsuit given that
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: they were presumably in contact with Maxwell. Maxwell thus stated,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: has engaged in repeated instances of avoiding service of the
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: type that the government has encountered in its SECO investigation
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: of her alleged criminal sex trafficking conduct that is also
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: at issue in this coverage action filed by none other
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: than Maxwell herself. All right, folks, we're going to wrap
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: up right there. And in the next episode, talking about
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: the topic, we'll pick up where we left off. All
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: to pick right back up where we left off with
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Virgin Islands and their motion to intervene. C.
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: The government's SECO action against defendants, the Epstein estate, Indyke
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: and Kahn, and others. The government alleges in its SECO
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: action against defendants herein, the Epstein estate, Indyke and Kahn,
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: that Epstein was a resident of the Virgin Islands and
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: maintained a residence on Little St. James Island, which he
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: owned from 1998 until his death in prison in 2019.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: Example A. In 2016, Mr. Epstein purchased a second island,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: Greater St. James. By this time, he was a registered
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: sex offender, having been convicted in Florida of procuring a
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: minor for prostitution. The government alleges that Epstein for decades
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: conducted an enterprise, the Epstein Enterprise, that he used his
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: web of businesses in the Virgin Islands to transport female victims,
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: many of them children, to his privately owned Little St.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: James Island, where they were sexually abused, injured, and held captive.
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: Flight logs show that between 2001 and 2019, defendant transported
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, and then
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: helicoptered them to Little St. James. Air traffic controller reports
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: state that some victims appeared to be as young as
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: 11 years old. Epstein and his associates lured these girls
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: and young women to his island with promises of modeling
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: and other career opportunities. Once they arrived, they were sexually abused, exploited,
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: and held captive. Epstein's privately owned islands in the Virgin
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: Islands were essentially the sex trafficking enterprise. Little St. James
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: is a secluded private island nearly two miles offshore from St.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: Thomas with no other residents. It's accessible only by private
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: boat or helicopter with no public or commercial transportation servicing
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: the island. When two of the victims, one age 15,
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: attempted to escape from Little St. James Island, Epstein was
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: able to organize search parties, locate them, return them to
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: his house, and then confiscate the 15-year-old girl's passport, to
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: hinder her ability to escape again. The government alleges that
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein and the SECO defendants violated SECO by committing and
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: conspiring to commit criminal human trafficking offenses based upon the
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: foregoing conduct. CID at 115 through 170. The government further
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: alleges that they violated SECO by committing and conspiring to
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: commit various child abuse, neglect, rape, unlawful sexual contact, prostitution,
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: and and sex offender registry-related offenses based upon the foregoing
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse conduct. CID at 171 through 258. The government
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: also alleges that the defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: to conceal the unlawful sexual abuse that's alleged. The government
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: is seeking civil penalties for each violation of law, treble damages,
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: and compensatory and punitive damages for civil conspiracy. prayer for relief,
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: J through L and O. The government also seeks equitable relief,
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: including but not limited to disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: as warranted pursuant to Virgin Island Code 14, Section 608C
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: and 4, to protect the rights of victims and innocent
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: SECO's purposes, ID, prayer for relief. NP, the government, further
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: seeks forfeiture and divestiture in favor of the government as
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: to all CIC defendants' interests in any real and personal
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: property in the Virgin Islands used to facilitate or further
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: the goals of the criminal Epstein enterprise, including but not
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: limited to Little St. James and Great St. James Island,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: and any proceeds or funds obtained by them during the
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: course of the criminal enterprise. The Argument Legal Standards The
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provide for a person
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: to intervene, as of right, in a pending action as follows.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who, to,
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: is the subject of the action and is so situated
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: that disposing of the action is may, as a practical matter,
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: impair or impede the movement's ability to protect its interests
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. The civil rules
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: also provide for a person to intervene by permission of
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: the court in a pending action as follows. On timely motion,
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: the court may permit anyone to intervene who b. has
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: a claim or defense that shares with the main action
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: a common question of law or fact. Virgin Island Civil
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: Code P-24B and 1B. The purpose of the rule governing
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: intervention is to enable one, not named as a party,
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: who has a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest in
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: the subject matter of the litigation to protect himself from
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: an action that might be detrimental to him. Hendricks v. Klein, No. ST16-CV-147,
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: 2019 WL918607, at 1. Virgin Islands Supreme Court, February 20th, 2019. B.
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: The government satisfies Rule 24A' s requirements to intervene of right.
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: A party seeking to intervene as a right must establish
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: three elements. One, a sufficient interest in the subject matter
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: of the pending litigation. Two, a substantial risk that the
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: disposition of the litigation will impair the interest. And three,
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest. The
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: government satisfies all of these requirements. 1. The government has
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: sufficient interest in the subject matter of this action. The
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: government has two distinct but related interests in the subject
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: matter of this action. Maxwell's claim against Epstein's estate for
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: identification and advancement of legal expenses for any suit involving
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: her relationship with Epstein and his affiliated businesses. Complaint 1.
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: See also ID at 17-19. Epstein identified and advanced Maxwell's
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: costs for suits and investigations relating to Epstein, his affiliated businesses,
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: and his alleged victims. Either or both of the government's
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: interests is sufficient for its intervention of right. First, the
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: government has an interest as a litigant against defendant to
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: ensure that the Epstein estate's assets are preserved to satisfy
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: the judgment it seeks on its SECO claims. The government
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: is seeking to An order requiring forfeiture, divestiture, disgorgement, and
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: payment of maximum civil penalties and damages. See example B,
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: SECO FAC. Prayer for Relief, DP. Maxwell's claims in this
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: action threaten the government's litigation interests by seeking to wrongfully
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: dissipate the Epstein estate's assets on a joint, fortfeasor, undocumented,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: and otherwise suspect claim of entitlement to identification and advancement
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: of legal expenses for criminal or civil actions. addressing her
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: involvement in Epstein sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct. Numerous
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: federal courts applying the identically worded FedR-CIV-P24A have held that
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: a tort claimant has a sufficiently developed interest to intervene,
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: as a right, in a coverage-related action involving the tort defendant.
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: In Teague v. Baker, 931 F2D-249, Fourth Circuit 1991, the
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: appeals court reversed denial of intervention as a right by
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: class action plaintiffs in a separate declaratory judgment actioned by
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: the insurer of the class action defendant seeking to disavow coverage,
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: CIDA 260. The appeals court addressed the proposed intervener's interest,
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: which was contingent since they had not obtained a judgment
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: at the time their intervention was denied, and after weighing
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: the relevant arguments held that the Teague interveners stand to
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: gain or lose by the direct legal operation of of
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: the district court judgment on the insurer's complaint, and that
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: this interest in the subject matter of this litigation is
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: a significantly protectable interest. ID, see also Security Insurance Company v. Shipperit, Inc., 69F. 3D, 1377, 1381,
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: 7th Circuit, 1995, permitting tort claimant to intervene in insurer's
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: declaratory judgment, action against tort defendant. Based on the Fourth
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: Circuit's Teague decision, a federal district court permitted sex abuse
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: tort claimants to intervene in an action brought by the
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: tort defendant seeking a declaration as to the coverage by
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: an insurer. See Harrison v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, No. 11-1258-2011, WL-324-1452,
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: at 1, Maryland, July 28, 2011. Following Teague, The court
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: held that sex abuse tort claimants had a sufficiently protected
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: interest to intervene as a right. See idea 2. Plainly,
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: it is of great importance to the tort plaintiffs to
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: persuade this court that fireman fund is obligated to identify Harrison.
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: If this court ultimately determines that fireman's fund is not
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: required to identify Harrison, the does will only be able
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: to satisfy any judgment they obtain against Harrison from his
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: assets rather than from the resources of the insurer. The
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: only difference between the government's position here and the tort
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: claimant intervener's position in Teague and Harrison is that here
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: the SECO defendants are in the role of potential insurer.
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: In Maxwell's suit against Epstein's estate, the estate's assets are
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: similar to those of an insurer, as both the government
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: and Maxwell are seeking recovery from the same estate proceeds
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: which Maxwell is attempting to use as insurance. Thus, the
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: government's interest and ensuring the availability of funds to satisfy
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: its own judgment would be threatened here, not by the
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: denial of coverage, as in Teague, but by the provision
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: of coverage using the estate's assets to identify Maxwell. But
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: this is a distinction without a difference, as the interest
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: itself is the same, ensuring the availability of estate funds
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: to satisfy the government's potential judgment against possible co-conspirator in
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: the SECO enterprise. This interest by itself supports intervention. Second,
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: the government has an interest as a potential litigant authorized
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: by statute to investigate Maxwell's involvement in the same criminal
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct that is the subject
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: of the SECO action against the Epstein estate in Dykin Conn.
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: Under SECO, whenever any person is reasonably suspected to have
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: engaged in any conduct constituting a violation of any of
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: the provisions of Virgin Island Code 14 Section 605. The
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: Attorney General may, in her discretion, conduct an investigation of
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: the conduct. Virgin Island Code 14 Section 612A. The Attorney
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: General is expressly authorized before the commencement of and during
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: any civil or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: to subpoena witnesses. or to require the production of any books, documents, records, writings, recordings,
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: or tangible things relevant or material to the investigation. Pursuant
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: to this express statutory authority, the Attorney General is and
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: has been investigating Maxwell's involvement with Epstein's criminal sex trafficking
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: and sexual abuse conduct in anticipation of a potential action
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: against her. See Example B, Seco Subpoena, describing investigation of
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: the rape, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of young women and
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: underage girls by Jeffrey E. Epstein and his associates. See
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: also Virgin Island Code 14, Section 612A. The Attorney General
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: is authorized before the commencement of and during any civil
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: or criminal proceeding or action under this chapter to subpoena
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: witnesses or to require the production of any documents relevant
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: or material to the investigation. Thus, to the extent that
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: the government may intervene as a right to assert its
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: interest in this statutory enforcement action, it also may do
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: so to assert its statutory investigative interests related to much
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: the same conduct. In sum, the government has both active
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: litigation interests and statutorily authorized investigatory interests with respect to
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: the parties on both sides of this action. Either or
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: both of these interests in the conduct and outcome of
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: this action is sufficient for the government to intervene of
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: right under Rule 24a. All right, folks, we're going to
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: wrap up right there. And in the next episode, we're
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: going to finish this bad boy off. All of the
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome back to
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: right back up where we left off with the USVI
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: and their motion to intervene in the beef between Glenn Maxwell,
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: and the Epstein estate. 3. The Epstein estate cannot adequately
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: represent the government's interests. Finally, there is no serious question
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: that the government's enforcement and investigatory interests under SECO are
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: not adequately represented by the current parties to this case,
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell, the Epstein estate, and its co-executors. The Epstein
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: estate and its co-executors are defendants in the government's existing
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: SECO action involving Epstein and his associates' criminal sex trafficking
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: and sexual abuse conduct and show no inclination to be
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: anything but adversarial to the government's interests. They are refusing
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: to comply with discovery and are even seeking to prevent
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: the government from issuing subpoenas to key fact witnesses such
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: as the house managers for Little St. James, where Epstein
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: and likely Maxwell... sexually abused girls and women in the
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands. See the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v.
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: Indyke et al. No. ST-20-CV-14 co-executors opposition to government's motion
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: to issuance of letters rogatory, which was filed on the
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: 17th of June of 2020. Although the Epstein estate Nominally
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: has an interest in preserving its own funds as against
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's claim for identification. Maxwell's evident involvement in Epstein's alleged
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: criminal conduct makes her a critical fact witness with whom
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: the estate is very likely to try to cooperate. CF
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: Teague 931 F2D at 262. There is a significant chance
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: that the tort defendants might be less vigorous than the
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: Teague interveners in defending their claim to be insured under
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: the ERC policy. that Maxwell and Epstein's estate are not
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: truly adversarial, is demonstrated by the fact that they jointly
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: moved to stay the estate's pending motion to dismiss until
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: a date when its primary grounds for dismissal, the one-year
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: time bar from granting of letters of administration under Virgin
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: Island Code 15 at 606A, will no longer apply. See
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, Filed 6-1-2020. Maxwell, likewise, has
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: evaded and refused to accept service of the government's CICO
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: subpoena for months before she was arrested by federal authorities
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: on charges identical to those under investigation. She, therefore, is
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: demonstrably adverse to the government with respect to both the
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: availability of the Epstein estate's funds and the conduct of
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: the government's investigation. The government, therefore, has no potential ally
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: in this action, between likely tortfeasors as to its interest
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: in both uncovering and obtaining redress for the criminal conduct
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: of Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. The conduct of both parties,
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: Maxwell and Epstein's estate, demonstrates clearly that both have a
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: far stronger interest in obstructing the government's investigation and enforcement
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: than they do in any claims as between themselves. For
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: all these reasons, the court, should grant the government's intervention
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: as of right under Rule 24a. c. The government also
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: satisfies Rule 24b' s requirement for a permissive intervention. Rule 24b
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: applies a substantially more relaxed standard for a permissive intervention,
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: since the proposed intervener need not demonstrate the sort of
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: interest required for intervention as of right. Myers v. George, No. ST-12,
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: CV 394, 2017 WL 106-36962 at 3, Virgin Island Supreme Court,
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: April 24, 2017. The proposed intervener needed only to demonstrate
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: the proposed intervention is timely and that the intervener's claim
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: shares a common question of law or effect with the
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: claims already in the case. CEG Hendricks Supra, 2019 WL
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: 918607 at 1, the government readily supplies both of these requirements. First,
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: the government's motion to intervene is timely. The court assesses
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: timeliness based on the length and delay in seeking intervention,
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: the prejudicial impact of delay on existing parties, prejudice to
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: the would-be intervener if intervention is denied, and other factors
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: affecting fairness. Here, all of these factors favor permitting the
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: government to intervene. Maxwell filed this action less than four
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: months ago on March 12, 2020. During this time, defendants
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: have not yet answered the complaint. Instead, they filed a
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss and shortly thereafter, in lieu of Maxwell
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: opposing the estate's motion, the estate and Maxwell moved jointly
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: to stay the action until September 7, 2020. See joint
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: motion to stay proceedings filed on 6-1-20. The government's intervention
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: thus will not disrupt or slow down active litigation. By contrast,
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: denial of intervention would be highly prejudicial to the government
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: for the reasons discussed above. First, the government's SECO claims
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: against defendants Its potential claims against Maxwell and Maxwell's claims
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: against the defendants all present a common question of law
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: or fact. Who is liable to pay a judgment on
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: the government's SECO claims against defendants and or Maxwell for
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: their involvement in or connection to the rape, abuse, exploitation,
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: Epstein and his associates? Insecurity Insurance Company, SUPRA, the Seventh
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: Circuit Addressed Federal Rule 24B' s identical requirement that there be
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: a common question of law or fact and found that
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: it was clearly met in this case, involving intervention by
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: a tort claimant in the tort defendant's coverage action. C-69F3D-1381-CF,
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: also Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company versus National REO Management Incorporated, 205-FRD-16-DDC-2000. Thus,
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: while the insurance contract may not be an issue in
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: the underlying case in Superior Court, the factual similarities between
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: the two cases are enough to establish a common question
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: of fact. Specifically, both the present case and the underlying
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: case arise from alleged carbon monoxide emissions from a furnace
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: in the defendant's building that began on February 23, 1995.
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: In addition, neither case can be decided without determining the
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: source of the applicant's injuries, accordingly for purposes of Rule 24b,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: the court finds a common question of fact in the
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: present lawsuit and the underlying lawsuit in Superior Court. Second,
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: if Maxwell succeeds on her undocumented and suspect claims for
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: identification by the Epstein estate, that will threaten the availability
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: of estate funds to satisfy the government's potential judgment in
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: its SECO action. Second, since Maxwell has repeatedly and deliberately
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: evaded service of the government's investigatory subpoena during the past
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: four months, as she has resisted service in other civil
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: actions brought by Epstein and her victims, in the actions
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: in her only known connection to the Virgin Islands through
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: which the government can enforce its investigatory subpoena against her.
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: Denial of intervention, therefore, would harm the government's investigatory and
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: enforcement interests. For each of these reasons, the court should
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: hold that the government's motion is timely filed. Since the
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: government's motion is timely and its actual and potential SECO
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: claims concerning Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise and Maxwell's involvement in
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: it present common questions of law and or fact to
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: those presented in this action for coverage as to those claims,
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: the court should grant the government's motion to intervene and
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: deem its SECO subpoena attached as Exhibit B to be
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: served on Maxwell. This will allow the government to both
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: ensure its interest in preventing or the dissipation of the
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: Epstein estate's assets, and to enforce its subpoena and pursue
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: potential and as appropriate independent claims against Maxwell. For either
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: or both of these reasons, the government may intervene by
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: leave pursuant to Rule 24b. Conclusion For all the reasons
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: set forth, the government's motion to intervene in this action
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: should be granted. Respectfully submitted by Denise George and this
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: was dated on July 10th, 2020. All right, folks, well,
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: there is the U.S. Virgin Islands and their motion to intervene.
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: And this case is still ongoing, obviously. And the estate
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: and Ghislaine Maxwell are still trying to battle it out. Now,
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: as far as the U.S. Virgin Islands is concerned, they
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: got their bag already. So what do they care? But
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: the battle between Ghislaine Maxwell and the estate is still ongoing.
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: And to say that that back and forth has been
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: contentious would be putting it lightly. All right, everybody, that's
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: going to do it for this one. All of the
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Chronicles. Today's episode, we're going to dive right
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: back into those court documents, and we're going to take
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: a look at the state's opposition to the U.S. Virgin
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: Islands and their motion to intervene in the lawsuit. Case
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: number ST-19-PB. In the matter of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein.
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: Opposition to motion to intervene. Comes now. The co-executors of
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. The estate. Darren K.
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: Endike and Richard D. Kahn. And hereby oppose the motion
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: to intervene. Filed by the government of the Virgin Islands.
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: And in support thereof. State as follows. 1. The Virgin
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: Islands Code and Probate Rules. not VIR, govern the Virgin
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: Islands Code set forth the specific steps a purported claimant
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: must take to bring a claim against an estate and
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: participate in a probate proceeding. Here, the government alleges it
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: has a claim against the estate. See motion to intervene
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: at 1, 6, and 7. Thus, the government is a
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: potential claimant or creditor of the estate. However, Rather than
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: adhere to the procedures set forth in the Virgin Islands
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: Code and the Virgin Islands Rule for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings,
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: the government seeks to intervene in the probate of the
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: estate pursuant to the Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure,
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: Rule No. 24. But Rule No. 24 has no application
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: in this proceeding. Probate proceedings in the Superior Court are
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: governed by Title 15 of the Virgin Islands Code and
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: the probate rules. The procedure for pursuing a claim against
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: the estate is set forth in Chapters 23 of Title 15,
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: entitled Claims in Charge Against the Estate. See Virgin Island
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: Code 15, Section 391 through 430. The probate rules also
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: include provisions governing a claimant's participation in a probate proceeding.
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: To the extent the government has a claim, the government
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: must follow the mandatory claims procedure to make a claim
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: and participate in these proceedings. Remember, this is all about
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: the USVI collecting that bag. This is the process that
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: they used to get there. The Virgin Islands Code and
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: the probate rules provide the only procedure for presenting a
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: claim against the estate. A claimant or creditor must follow
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: the process outlined in Virgin Island Code 15 and Section 606B,
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: in order to properly file a complaint against an estate. C.
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: Otley v. Estate of Bell, 61, Virgin Islands, 480, 493,
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands, 2014. The language of 606B is mandatory. It
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: forbids a claimant or creditor from commencing an action against
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: an estate until she has first presented her claim to
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: the executors and they have disallowed that claim. C. Oat v.
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: Sewer enters. 46 Virgin Islands, 286, 290, DVI, 2004. Thus,
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: all creditors, including the government, must first present their claims
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: to the co-executors, subject to the original jurisdiction of this court,
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: in this probate proceeding. See Virgin Island Code 15, Section 392,
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: and Section 391. The government did not follow the required
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: statutory procedure before filing its complaint against the estate. Case
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: number ST-20. No complaint may be filed against the estate
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: until the claim has been properly presented to the co-executors. Thus,
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: for purposes of this proceeding, the government does not yet
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: have a valid claim against the estate. Accordingly, its motion
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: to intervene pursuant to VIR CIV P24 must be denied. 2.
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: The Applicable Claims Procedure Persons who seek to assert a
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: claim against an estate must present their claim to the
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: appointed executor or administrator of the estate. See Virgin Island
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: Code 15, Section 391, requiring every executor or administrator to
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: publish in a local newspaper and to post a notice
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: requiring all persons having claims against the estate to present
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: them with a proper vouchers within six months from the
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: date of the notice to the executor or administrator at
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: a place within this territory therein specified. The claim must
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: conform to the requirements set forth in Title 15, including
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: verification of the claim by affidavit of the claimant or
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: someone with personal knowledge. See Virgin Island Code 15, Section 393.
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: Every claim presented to the executor or administrator shall be
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: verified by the affidavit of the claimant or someone on
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: his behalf. who has personal knowledge of the facts, to
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: the effect that the amount claimed is justly due, that
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: no payments have been made thereon except as stated. and
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: that there is no just counterclaim to the same, to
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: the knowledge of the affiant. When such a claim is
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: presented to an executor, the executor examines the claim and
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: either accepts or rejects the claim. Virgin Island Code 15,
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: Section 394. When a claim is presented to the executor
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: or administrator, as prescribed in section 393 of this title,
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: if he is satisfied that the claim thus presented is just,
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: he shall endorse upon it the words examined and approved,
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: with the date thereof, and sign the same officially, and
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: shall pay such a claim in due course of administration.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: If he is not satisfied, he shall endorse thereon the
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: words examined and rejected, with the date thereof, and sign
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: the same officially. Moreover, an action against an executor or
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: administrator shall not be commenced until the claim of the
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: plaintiff has been duly presented to such executor or administrator
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: and by him disallowed. Virgin Island Code 15, Section 606B.
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: As noted above, the government has failed to follow the
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: mandatory claims processing procedure and is required for it to
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: bring a claim against the estate. Part 3, Rule 24.
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: It's inapplicable. The government... is an ostensible claimant or creditor
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: of the estate. However, rather than adhering to the applicable
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: claims processing statute as required, first presenting its purported claim
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: to the co-executors, the government seeks to intervene pursuant Rule 24.
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: If the government wishes to formally appear in this proceeding,
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: it must, like any other creditor, follow the claims procedure
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: set forth in Virgin Island Code 15, Sections 391 through 394.
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: That is, the government must present a verified claim, supported
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: by documentation, to the co-executors. Pursuant to the statutory scheme,
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: the co-executors are then required to assess the government's claim
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: and either reject or accept it. From that stage, the
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: government may participate in the probate of the estate under
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: the procedural provisions governing accepted or rejected claims as applicable. Notably,
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: the government's motion to intervene does not address how Rule
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: 24 is applicable to this probate matter, which is governed
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: by the U.S. Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings.
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: See Virgin Island Rules for Probate 1. Providing that these
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: Virgin Island Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings shall apply
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: in probate, guardianship, trust, and other fiduciary proceedings. Additionally, The
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: government's request to intervene as a party in these probate
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: proceedings makes little sense because there are no parties in
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: probate proceedings as reflected by the caption of this and
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: every probate proceeding in the Virgin Islands. Rule number one
• 42:22
  Speaker 1: of the probate rules permits the court to adapt the
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: Virgin Island rules of civil procedure as appropriate when no
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: procedural provision is included in the probate rules. Here, however,
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: there are procedural provisions in the probate rules and the
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands Code governing claims and the participation of claimants
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: in estate proceedings. Rule 11 of the probate rules mirrors
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: the statutory requirements of Virgin Island Code 15, Section 391,
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: with respect to the publication and posting of a notice
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: to creditors instructing all persons having claims against the estate
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: to present or deliver to the executor or administrator their
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: claims verified by affidavit to a place within the territories
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: specified in the notice within six months from the date
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: of the notice. Probate Rule 16 authorizes an heir, creditor,
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: or other person with an interest in the estate to
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: seek a citation in the event an inventory or account
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: is not filed. Pursuant to Probate Rule 17, a copy
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: of the Notice of Hearing of the Final Account shall
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: be mailed to each creditor with unsatisfied claims. Further clarifying
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: the extent to which a creditor may participate in a
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: probate proceeding, Rule 17 further provides that any interested person,
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: to include creditors, objecting to the final account of the
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: proposed distribution therein, shall file a statement of their objection
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: in writing and and serve same upon the administrator or
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: executor prior to the final hearing. Plainly, the probate rules
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: include procedural provisions for the participation of a creditor in
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: a probate proceeding. Accordingly, Rule 24 has no application to
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: this probate proceeding. Section 4 Even if Rule 24 were applicable,
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: it is not. Intervention should still be denied. As currently postured,
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: the government has filed a separate civil forfeiture action against
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: the estate. As noted above, its complaint was filed in
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: derogation of the applicable statutory requirements set forth in the
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands Code and Probate Rules. Assuming the complaint had
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: not been filed in a contravention to the mandatory claims
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: processing rules, the government would merely have a claim that
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: is contingent upon its success in a separate action. Courts
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: in this circuit that have been confronted with the issue
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: have consistently held that intervention pursuant to Rule 24A2 is
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: inappropriate where the proposed intervener's interest is contingent upon prevailing
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: on a tort claim in a separate case. General Starr,
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: INDEM Company v. Virgin Island Port Authority, 224, FRD 372, 375,
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: and 76, Virgin Islands, 2004. Proposed interveners cannot deny that
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: any interest they may or may have in this matter
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: is purely contingent upon a favorable judgment in their underlying suit.
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: The court finds that such a contingent interest is insufficient
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: to sustain intervention of right. Here, assuming, for the sake
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: of argument, that Rule 24 is applicable, the government purely
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: contingent interest of a possible favorable judgment in another suit
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: is not considered a significant interest authorizing intervention. Accordingly, from
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: this alternative reason, the government's motion to intervene should be denied. 10.
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: Conclusion How and when a creditor may present a claim
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: and participate in a probate proceeding is governed by Title
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: 15 of the Virgin Islands Code and the probate rules.
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: If the government has a claim against the estate, as
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: alleged in its motion to intervene, the government must follow
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: the claimed procedure set forth in Virgin Island Rule 15,
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: Section 391 through 394, and probate rules. Rule 24, under
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: which government seeks to participate in this probate proceeding, is
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: inapplicable because the rules that do apply, the probate rules,
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: include provisions for the participation of a creditor. Accordingly, the
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: government's motion to intervene must be denied. This was signed
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: on January 31st of 2020, and it was signed by
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: Christopher Allen Croblan. All right, everybody, that's going to do
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: it for this one. All of the information that goes
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.