DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN “e@, IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 ) ) Deceased. ) ACTION FOR TESTATE ) ADMINISTRATION CO-EXECUTORS’ REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO RELEASE OF LIENS AND IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER RELEASING FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE, COME NOW the Co-Fxecutors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the “Estate”, DARREN K. INDYKE & RICHARD D. KAHN, and submit this brief (1) in reply to the Government’s Opposition to Request to Extinguish Criminal Activity Liens dated February 11, 2020 (“Gov't Opp. Br.”) and (2) in further support of their Emergency Motion for Order Releasing Funds for Administration of Estate dated February 10, 2020 (the “Emergency Motion”) The crisis for the Estate envisaged by the Emergency Motion has unfortunately come to pass: prevented by the Government's Liens* from paying the Estate’s bills as they come due, the Co-Executors have hed retumed for “insufficient funds” multiple payments for upkeep of the Estate’s properties (including electric bills and pest-control services), been unable to pay the salaries of caretakers for the Estate’s residences in Florida, New Mexico, and New York, been prevented from preserving or selling Estate property that requires regular maintenance, including aircraft and other vehicles, and can no longer pay for the defense of the twenty-two (22) lawsuits pending against the Estate arising from claims of sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein, including the civil forfeiture action asserted by the Government as the basis for the imposition of the Liens, The Estate's voluntary compensation program to assist victims — a plan praised by the Court and All capitalized terms have the same meaning as defined in the Estate's prior submissions to the Cour ¥Estate of Jefir tein Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 2 uniformly lauded by claimants’ counsel — is now mired in unfunded limbo, Expensive and time- consuming discovery has begun in earnest in the New York civil litigations. Without the Court’s immediate intervention to release funds for the Co-Executors’ administration of the Estate, the Liens will continue to cause serious harm to the Estate, which is accelerating daily at an alarming rate, The Co-Executors are not alone in protesting the damage caused by the Government's Liens: in addition to claimants’ counsel who spoke unanimously in support of the Estate’s voluntary compensation program at the Court’s February 4, 2020 hearing in this matter (the “February 4 Hearing”), individual claimants before the Court have also pointed out the gross ‘overreach inherent in the Liens.’ The Government's bizarre response — i.e., that this Court is simply powerless to act, and the Attorney General (rather than the Court) is the appropriate entity to review and approve/disapprove each of the Estate’s proposed expenses in administering the Estate — has no basis in Virgin Islands law. It is one thing for a private litigant to attempt to usurp the Court’s authority and jurisdiction; itis quite another — and far more dangerous to the rule of Jaw — where the Government seeks to do so. That is the situation here. Argument THE HARM THE ESTATE IS SUFFERING IS IMMEDIATE AND REAL. The harm caused by the Government's Lien-imposed freeze on the Estate's account at FirstBank is no longer theoretical — it is now immediate and real. Since the Co-Executors filed the Emergeney Motion on February 10, 2020, the Estate has suffered the following damage, 2. See, eg., Claimant's Objection to Notice of Liens filed by the Goverment of the Virgin Islands, dated February 11, 2020 (Claimant Jennifer Danielle Araoz joining in the Co-Executors’ Supplemental Brief Regarding Co- Executors’ Obligations to Satisfy Expenses of Administration Nonwithstanding Liens Issued to "The Estate,” filed January 31, 2020; Ms. Araoz expressly requests that the Court "[d]ecTare GVI's liens invalid and extinguish same, ‘and relain control of the assets and property of the Estate”)Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 3 ‘* The Estate could not meet payroll with respect to all three (3) mainland properties — the New Mexico ranch, the Palm Beach, Florida house and the New York townhouse. The Estate’s employees charged with safeguarding and maintaining those properties, who depend on their paychecks to make ends meet, will soon be forced to seek other employment. Even checks for employee health insurance coverage have bounced.’ ‘+ The Estate is also unable to fund payroll for Little Saint James Island and Great Saint James Island. Without the constant upkeep those properties require, substantial degradation (including mold and water damage) will quickly develop in the buildings and other structures on those islands. As with the Estate’s mainland properties, the Estate’s unpaid employees will soon be forced to seek employment elsewhere. ‘© The Estate’s electricity payments for the New Mexico ranch and the Palm Beach house were not funded. The public utility companies in New Mexico and Florida will not continue to supply cleetricity to those properties without payment. ‘* The Estate’s imminent sale of one (1) helicopter for which it had a signed letter of intent predating the Govemment’s CICO action and Lien as well as confirmation of Buyer's funding has been stalled and is in serious jeopardy of being lost * The Estate’s efforts to sell this and its other aircrafi, which had been progressing rapidly, have now been placed on indefinite hold. Periodic inspection and maintenance expenses for all that equipment are substantial and continue to accrue; as those inspections and maintenance are postponed due to the Lien on the Estate’s account, the aircraft will rapidly fall into disrepair and depreciate in value. * The Co-Executors have now been forced to halt midstream the appraisal process with respect to all of the Estate’s assets * The Estate can no longer pay its counsel. On February 11, 2020, the Co-Exeeutors’ counsel informed the Honorable Debra C. Freeman of the United States District Court for the Southem District of New York, who oversees all pretrial proceedings in the New York civil litigations, that the Co-Executors may not be able to proceed with defense of the twenty-one (21) lawsuits brought by individual claimants alleging sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein.4 * With the Estate's voluntary compensation program now paralyzed, Judge Freeman told the New York civil litigants and the Estate that “I can't do anything about the attomey Is impossible 1o review these types of multi-jurisdictional items with the Attorney General, even assuming she has authority to usurp the role of this Court. 4. See Transcript of SDNY Proceedings dated February 11, 2020, copy attached hereto as Exhibit A, at 12:17-13:25Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No, ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 4 general in the Virgin Islands,” and authorized the parties to commence full-scale pretrial discovery. And they have. 5 ‘The harm that the Government's Liens continue to inflict on the Estate mounts with cach passing day. TL. THE VOLUNTARY COMPENSATION PROGRAM IS AT GRAVE RISK. Based on the testimony adduced and exhibits entered during the February 4 Hearing, the transcript of which is attached as Exhibit B, the Estate's proposed voluntary compensation program (the “Program”) is unquestionably in the best interests of all parties with a legitimate interest in the Estate.5. Yet the sole opponent of the Program, the Attorney General, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the following facts: the Program is desired by the individual claimants and farther delay will seriously harm them; the Program will be run by nationally renowned, independent administrators highly sensitive to the claimants’ needs and interests; the claimants’ confidentiality will be protected; the Co-Executors have selected preeminent experts who are beyond reproach; the Co-Executors are acting within their fiduciary duties in attempting to establish the Program; and the Attorney General's accusations of conflict are baseless. As Jordana Feldman and Kenneth Feinberg testified at length at the February 4 Hearing, time is of the essence in getting the Program underway,7 Id, a 21:13-16, Notably, even though she was forced to open the floodgates for discovery, Judge Freeman indicated that she is “rooting” for the Program and asked that stateside counsel “keep reporting back to me as to what's happening” in the Viggin Islands proceedings; she also wished the parties “[gJood luck with the settlement fund concept. I'm rooting for you.” 1d, at 21:13-16, 66:18-19. It is rare indeed for a federal judge to express a ‘view regarding a matter pending in unother jurisdiction. Obviously, the Program, even before itis up and running, thas developed a substantial following. (THE COURT: ... I think we agreed that everybody believes this 6. See February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr. at 113: ‘program isa great program... February 4, 2020 Hearing Ts., Exhibit B at 142:18-143:22 (Feldman); 186:8-14 (Feinberg)Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No, ST-19-PB-80) Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page S At the February 4 Hearing, Your Honor repeatedly urged the Attorney General and the Co- Executors to make their best efforts to resolve the sole issue of funding for the Program and to report back to the Court.8 Rather than do so, however, the Attorney General announced her dissatisfaction in toro with the Program, publicly declaring her plan to scrap it entirely and replace it at some unstated time in the future with an undefined, indeterminate program of her own making, to be run by people she selects. See Letter of the Attomey General to Christopher A. Kroblin dated February 10, 2020, copy attached hereto as Exhibit C. Indeed, at the February 4 Hearing, the Attorney General failed to see the value of the Program or recognize the trauma to the claimants from further delay. See Tr. at 82:5-6 (where the Attomey General downplayed the Program noting that “We can hear all about, you know, the touchy-feely, or whatever”) In response, Program Administrator Feldman wrote to the Attorney General in yet another attempt? to correct the Government's misunderstandings concerning the Program; Ms. Feldman also repeated her offer to meet in person with the Attorney General to further explain the purpose, structure and function of the Program “I renew my request to meet with you to address your concems and initiate aproductive dialogue. That type of personal, ongoing engagement has been critical to providing the victims’ attomeys with confidence in the Program and in my ability to administer it and remain independent. After participating in candid and collaborative discussions about the design of the Program, the victims’ attomeys see for themselves that we are not here to Go the Bstate’s bidding, and that we are open-minded and receptive to their recommendations. In fact, some victims have stayed their pending litigation because they believe that the Program offers a bona fide alternative, even, 8, February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr,, Exhibit B at 76:8-10; 148:3-18; 152:23-25; 192:4-12; 2044-10, 9. Ms, Feldman initially wrote to the Atomey General on January 16, 2020, inviting, comments on the proposed Program and suggesting a meeting to discuss its planned mission and operations. See February 4, 2020 Hearing Exhibit 3. The Attomey General did not deign to respond. See February 4, 2020 Hearing ‘Ty. at 123:17-124.,Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply fo Gov't Opposition fo Release of Liens Page 6 though we made clear that victims need not stay their litigation to participate “These victims are on the cusp of seeing their long-derailed hopes of receiving fair compensation realized. It is in everyone’s interest 10 make that happen “Lagain renew my offer to meet with you to discuss your concerns. 1 stand at the ready and available to meet.” See Letter of Jordana H. Feldman to the Attomey General dated February 12, 2020, copy attached hereto as Exhibit D. Regrettably, the Atoey General showed no interest in meeting with Ms. Feldman Meanwhile, the Co-Executors’ counsel met with the Attomey General and communicated, both orally and in writing, the critical importance — both to the Estate and the multiple individual claimants — of resolving the issue of funding for the Program. See Letter of Christopher A. Kroblin to the Attomey General dated February 12, 2020, copy attached hereto as Exhibit E. Entreaties by the individual claimants, their counsel, Ms. Feldman and the Co-Executors have fallen on deaf ears. The Attomey General continues to pressure the Co-Executors as she seeks to usurp the Court’s role in overseeing administration of the Pstate. The Attorney General informed the Co-Executors that, unless they submit every single Estate expense for her prior review and approval — presumably including counsel fees incurred in the Fstate's defense of the Government's civil CICO action — she will not follow the Court’s directive of the February 4 Hearing authorizing the Co-Executors to administer the Estate." Finally, when the Co-Executors communicated their willingness to discuss the amount of Estate funds to be set aside to satisfy the ° See Bahibit CProbate No, ST-19-PB-80 Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Page 7 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Government's forfeiture claims should it prevail, the Attorney General responded by expressing her view that all the Estate’s funds belong to the Government. That posture cannot stand. I. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE LIENS CANNOT APPLY TO THE CO- EXECUTORS OR “THE ESTATE”. At the February 4 Hearing, the Court ruled that the Co-Executors are permitted to pay ordinary expenses of administration from the Estate’s operating account, subject to their fiduciary duties and reporting requirements imposed under the Virgin Islands Code (the “Code”). See February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr., 68:17-69:14, The Attorney General's counsel conceded et that time that the Co-Executors must be allowed to pay the Estate’s employees (id. at 69:4-6); while she was “not happy” with the Court’s ruling that the Co-Execulors are also permitted to pay the Estate's litigation counsel (id. at 69:13-14), the Attorney General intentionally submitted herself to the Court’s jurisdiction and is bound by its rulings. Nor is the Attomey General correct on the law. As the Co-Executors explain in the Emergency Motion, the Attorney General served the Liens on the Co-Executors in violation of applicable Virgin Islands law — 14 V.LC. § 604(r) — which expressly excludes executors of estates from the reach of Criminal Activity Lien Notices. While a civil Criminal Activity Lien Notice may be served on trustees pursuant to 14 V.LC. § 610, CICO defines a trustee as expressly excluding an executor who is appointed by, or under the control of, or accountable to, the Court. 14 V.LC. § 604(7). ‘Thus, @ Section 610 Criminal Activity Lien Notice may not be served on an executor by virtue of 14 V.LC. § 604(0). The CICO pretrial lien provisions specifically define a “Person” and a “Trustee” who may be served with a lien, Jd, “The term “trustee” “does not include an assignee or trustee for an insolvent debtor, a guardian under the Veterans’ Guardianship Act, or an executor, administrator, administrator with will annexed, testamentary trustee, conservator, guardian or committee,Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No, ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release Page 8 court.” Jd, (emphasis added). There appointed by, or under the control of, or accountable can be no mistaking the legislative intent here: CICO liens may not be issued to court-appointed executors and may not attach property held by them in that capacity. The Government nevertheless argues that the definition of “Person” includes the “Epstein Estate.” See Gov't Opp. Br. at 2, 7. That is mistaken. “[A] cause of action against a decedent's estate must be brought against a decedent's personal representative.” Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Estate of Pond, 2012 Dist. LEXIS 45366, at *4 (D.V.1. Mar. 30, 2012). Although the terms “estate” and “trust” are used loosely in day-to-day practice, it is well-established that an estate is not a juridical entity. An estate does not and cannot hold title to property; rather, the personal representatives of an estate hold tile on behalf of an estate in their fiduciary capacity (just as the trustees of a trust do on behalf of a trust). The Court should not permit the Goverment to end-run the statutory prohibition against imposing CICO liens on executors. Contrary to the Government’s argument, a “Person” defined under CICO, 14 V.LC. § 604(1), means an entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property, such as a corporation. See Govt. of the United States Virgin Is. v. Takata Corp., 67 V.1. 316, 369 (V.1. Super. Ct. 2017) (holding that, since corporations are capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property, they fall within the definition of “person” under CICO). In contrast, the Virgin Islar Legislature intended to exclude estates, which can only act through their executors (and administrators), from such liens. If the statute precludes liens from being imposed on executors, it most certainly must preclude liens from being imposed on “estates”, which cannot be sued andEstate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 9 the statutory cannot act except through their executors. To hold otherwise would be to null exclusion of executors." Since the Co-Executors hold title to Mr. Epstein’s USVI assets, serving in their representative capacity as an arm of the Court (Ottley v. Estate of Bell, 61 V.1. 480, 493 (V.L 2014)), the Co-Exeeutors are specifically excluded from CICO’s lien provisions; as a result, the Liens served on the Co-Executors and the “Epstein Estate” are invalid. It is well within the Court's authority to dectare that the Liens do not apply to the Court-appointed Co-Executors, IV. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PRESENT ITS CLAIMS TO THE CO- EXECUTORS AS REQUIRED. contends that the requirements of 15 V.LC. §§ 392 and 606 do not ‘The Government als apply 10 it or its Lien because it does not have a “claim” against the Estate within the meaning of the Code. See Gov't Opp. Br. at 8-9. Once again, the Government misunderstands Virgin Islands probate law A “claim under 15 V.LC. § 392 encompasses an attempt “Yo recover a debt or property from an estate.” Ottley, supra, 61 V.1. at 498 (V.1. 2014) (emphasis added). While a claim typically contemplates “the debts that the deceased incurred during their lifetime and which creditor is attempting to recover from the estate,” id., at 499, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has never limited “claims” to the recovery of debts, Rather, the Supreme Court in Ottley, in 11 The Government nevertheless argues that an estate can be a defendant by pointing to the caption in Oatley Estate of Bell, 61 V.1. 480 (V.1. 2014). See Gov't Op. Br., at 2, The Government again misepprehends fundamental principles of probate practice. A lawsuit against an estate generally must be filed against the named executors (or administrators), in their representative capacities, and is typically captioned in the pleadings as , Plaintiff v. [Named Execator or Administrator) of the Estate of [the named Decedent), Devease asa defendant in hisyher representative capacity” or something similar. In reported decisions, the usual style for the name of the judicial proceeding refers to “In re Estate of [the named Decedent)”. “This is what the reported docision in Oxley reflects. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court noted in Oirley, the plaintiff sued the estate and its administrators. Jd., at 496, Beyond this, whether the estate was properly named as a defendant in Outiey, or rot, and whether or not this was raised as a defense in Ottley, an estate clearly is nota “person” who is subject t0 alien under the CICO statureEstate of Jefirey F. Fy Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 10 determining that the partition action at issue was not a claim against the estate, noted that the partition action was not an attempt to recover a “debt or property” from the estate, either of which would constitute a “claim” that is required to be presented to the executors. Nor, as the Government contends, is its CICO forfeiture action akin to the partition action at issue in Ottley. In that case, the Supreme Court found analogous the decision in Ames v. Ames, 170 Kan. 227 (Kan. 1950), adopting its reasoning as to why a partition action is not a claim for property from an estate, noting that “[tJhe Kansas Supreme Court determined that because the son had an existing interest in the property ... it was within his rights as cotenant to request the court to divide up the property outside of the probate proceedings..." Id., at 499-500. Likewise, in Ottley, pursuant to a prior divorce decree, the plaintiff seeking partition already owned outside of the estate a one-half interest in the property that was asserted to be part of the estate, Ortley, at 499 n.18 (“it is undisputed that Ottley and Bell held the property together as tenants in common.”) Here, the Government attempts to recover from the Estate assets that are not owned by the Government — rather, those assets form part of this probate proceeding, and are subject to the Court’s original jurisdiction. ‘The Government asserts an interest in Estate property, property that was not owned by the Government prior to this proceeding, because the property was allegedly involved in criminal activity. The Estate disputes the CICO claims, which the Government will be required to prove by # preponderance of the evidence. See 14 V.I.C. § 607(a). The Government's claim to recover 12, At the February 4 Hearing, the Attomey General's counsel acknowledged that the Government's claims in the CICO matter are no different than those claims asserted by individual claimants asserting sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein, See February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr. at 88:20-89°6. (“ATTORNEY SMITH: I just want to clarify one thing. The claims that are represented here {by individual claimants] are the same kind of claims that the Government has ... I's the same exact type of claims for those who are in New Yerk courts or other courts. So there's no distinction between the claims that the Government has in terms of the nature of the claims and claims that are presented by these other claimant in this case.”) (emphasis supplied.)Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein Probate No, ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page I property allegedly used to commit CICO violations cannot be construed as anything but an attempt s precisely the by the Government “to recover property from an estate.” See Ottley, at 499. This type of claim that must be presented to the Co-Executors as a condition precedent to the institution oflegal proceedings. See, ¢.g., Weinstein v, Carrane, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8916 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (dismissing RICO action against executor of estate because the RICO claim was not registered against the executor pursuant to the Probate Act of Illinois); Oat v. Sewer Enters., 46 V.1. 286 (D.V.1. 2004) (presentment required with respect to a claim to foreclose under mortgages secured by an interest in specific estate property). Because the Government did not present its claims to the Co-Executors before filing its sued CICO complaint, those claims are invalid. The Court may properly declare that the Liens — i in reliance on invalid underlying claims — have no impact on the Estate’s property, which remains in the Court’s custody and subject to its exclusive jurisdiction. V. THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO DECLARE THE LIENS INVALID WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY IN ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. This Court has the exclusive jurisdiction and power to administer justice in all matters relating to the afluirs of decedents, 15 V.I.C. § 161. Therefore, the Court has full power to make orders, judgments and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper (o administer justice in matters that come before it. ‘The administration of the Estate is paramount over claims against the Estate. Title 15, Section 568 of the Virgin Islands Code expressly states that “an executor or administrator shall be allowed in the settlement of his account all necessary expenses incurred in the care, management and settlement of the estate, including reasonable attomeys’ fees and any necessary litigation or matter requiring legal advice or counsel.” 15 V.LC. § $68, The Code enumerates the priority of claims for payment and expressly states that the “executor... may retain in his hands in preferenceEstate of Jeffrey EB. Epstein Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 12, to any claim or charge against the estate, the amount of his own compensation and the necessary sts in full force and expenses of administration.” 15 V.LC. § 421, This absolute preference this statutory authority echoes the long-standing common law in American jurisprudence. See generally, Martin v, Dennett, 626 P.24 473, 474-75 (Utah, 1981); In re Holmes' Estate, 1 A.24 42. 42-45 (N.J. Orph, 1938). Therefore, the law prohibits the Attorney General from interfering with the just administration of the Estate, especially where the Government placed a Lien on the Estate's bank account that is specifically used for administration. The Attomey General has failed to cite to any law that directly supports her proposition that her claim is entitled to priority or can prevent the administration of this Estate. The Court is empowered to direct the Government to release a en that reaches into this Court and grabs assets in the exclusive custody of the Court, and thereby impedes the just administration of the Estate. Thus, this Court has the power to direct the Government to release the Liens; indeed, the Government has intentionally and voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. VI. EXPENSES OF ESTATE ADMINISTRATION HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE LIENS. Finally, in contending that no identified claimant has priority over the Liens (Gov't. Opp. Br. at 3), the Government fails to acknowledge those individual claimants who filed claims prior to issuance of the Liens, cach of whom has an interest in the assets of the Estate. See 15 V.LC. § 610(f); see also 15 V.LC. § 421 (“Preferences in payment of claims and charges”). ‘The Code clearly sets forth that expenses of administration supersede claims. See 15 V.1.C. §§ 421 and 568. 1fadministration expenses are not a first charge upon the assets of an estate, there would be absolutely no assurance that estates could ever be administered. Jn re Rothstein's Estate, 151 Misc, 466, 271 N.Y.S. 365 (N.Y. 1933). As the Co-Executors explain in the Emergency Motion, it is settled Virgin Islands law that payment of the Estate’s administrative expenses takesEstare of Joffrey E. Epstein Probate No, ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page 13, priority over the later-filed Liens, Additionally, as noted, the Government's pretrial Liens have been imposed on the Estate's operating bank account, which has no connection to the relief that the Government has sought in its CICO action —i.e., forfeiture of the shares of the USVI companies holding title to Little St. James Island and Great St. James Island, + + 8 8 WHEREFORE, the Co-Executors seek an Order vacating the Criminal Activity Lien Notices issued by the Attorney General on January 31, 2020, To the extent the Court leaves those Liens in place, it should direct the Atomney General and FirstBank that the Co-Executors are permitted to use Estate funds to pay the administrative expenses of the Estate and preserve assets, rept Dated: February 20, 2020 GEL, CHRISTOPHER Me halle KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ. WILLIAM L. BLUM, FSQ. SHARIN. D’ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. V.L Bar Nos. 966, 266, 136, 1221 & R2019 KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC 9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101 St. Thomas, V.1. 00802 ‘Telephone: (340) 779-2564 Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com aheymann@solblum.com whlum@solblum.com: sdandrade@kellfer.com mwhalen@kellfer.comEstate of Jeffrey E. Fpstcin Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 Reply to Gov't Opposition to Release of Liens Page I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20" day of February 2020, | caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Co-Executors’ Reply to Government's Opposition to Release of Liens and in Further Support of Emergency Motion for Order Releasing Funds for Administration of Estate to be served upon: ‘Via Electronic Mail by Agreement of the Parties: John H. Benham, Esq, A. lefirey Weiss, Esq Law Office of John H. Benham, P.C. A.J. Weiss & Associates P.O. Box 11720 6934 Vessup Lane St. Thomas, V1 00801 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Jjohn@benhamlawvi.com Leffiveiss@weisslaw-vi net Douglas B. Chanco, Esq, Sean Foster, Esq. ChancoSchiffer P.C. Marjorie Rawls Roberts, P.C. 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750 P.O. Box 6347 Atlanta, GA 30326 St. Thomas, VI 00804 doug@esfirm.com sean@marjorierobertspe.com Richard Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. Kevin F, D'Amour Law Offices of Richard Bourne-Vanneck Gaylin Vogel, Esq 9800 Buccaneer Mall Suite #9 5143 Palm Passage, 18b & 19b St. Thomas, VI 00802 St. Thomas, VI00802 richard @rpvblawoffices.com kevin. damour@comcast.net gaylin.vogel@comeast.net John K. Dema Law Offices of John K. Dema Melody D. Westfall, Esq. 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 Westfall Law PLLC St. Croix, VI 5032 Anchor Way, Suite 8 jdema@demalaw.com Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 movesifall@westfalllaw.com Via Hand Delivery Denise N. George, Esq. Attomey General Ariel M. Smith, Esq. Chief, Civil Division Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade GERS Complex, 2™ Floor \ aa St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00804 dune