DOJ-OGR-00019872.jpg
530 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
530 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, argues that an unnamed defendant is a significant flight risk and should be denied bail. The prosecution asserts that since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019, the defendant has been actively hiding, using an alias ('G Max'), changing phone numbers, and purchasing a 156-acre property in New Hampshire with cash through an anonymized LLC. The document concludes that due to her international connections, financial means, and lack of ties to the U.S., no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| unnamed defendant | defendant |
The subject of the legal filing, argued to be a flight risk.
|
| Epstein |
An indictment against him was unsealed in July 2019, after which the defendant went into hiding.
|
|
| G Max | alias |
An alias used by the defendant to register her primary phone number.
|
| Zarger | defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'United States v. Zarger'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The entity submitting the argument that the defendant is a flight risk.
|
| anonymized LLC | company |
A carefully anonymized LLC was used by the defendant to make an all-cash purchase of a property in December 2019.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2019-07
The defendant stopped appearing in public and went into hiding in New England.
New England
2019-12
The defendant acquired a 156-acre property in an all-cash purchase through an anonymized LLC.
Bradford, New Hampshire
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The defendant was hiding out in locations in New England.
|
|
|
Location of a 156-acre property acquired by the defendant.
|
|
|
The defendant is argued to have no ties that would motivate her to remain in the United States.
|
|
|
A property in Bradford, New Hampshire, acquired by the defendant in an all-cash purchase where she appears to have be...
|
Relationships (1)
The document states the defendant went into hiding immediately after an indictment against Epstein was unsealed, suggesting a connection that made her fear legal repercussions.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,193 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 20-2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 10
The defendant’s international connections and significant financial means would present a clear risk of flight under normal circumstances, but in this case, the risk of flight is exacerbated by the transient nature of defendant’s current lifestyle. In particular, the defendant has effectively been in hiding for approximately a year, since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019. Thereafter, the defendant – who had previously made many public appearances – stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone number (which she registered under the name “G Max”) and email address, and ordering packages for delivery with a different person listed on the shipping label. Most recently, the defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections.
The defendant appears to have no ties that would motivate her to remain in the United States. She has no children, does not reside with any immediate family members, and does not appear to have any employment that would require her to remain in the United States. Nor does she appear to have any permanent ties to any particular location in the United States. As such, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant will not be able to meet her burden of overcoming the presumption of detention, because there are no bail conditions that could reasonably assure the defendant’s continued appearance in this case.
In particular, home confinement with electronic monitoring would be inadequate to mitigate the high risk that the defendant would flee, as she could easily remove a monitoring device. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would merely reduce her head start should she decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1
8
DOJ-OGR-00019872
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document