DOJ-OGR-00000547.jpg
570 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
570 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues that their client, Mr. Epstein, is not a flight risk. The attorney cites past actions as evidence, including not fleeing before his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), hiring lawyers, and serving time in county jail, from which he was released in 2010. The document also mentions a past legal dispute in New York regarding Mr. Epstein's classification.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein | Subject of discussion |
Mentioned in reference to his past conduct, legal disputes, and incarceration, as part of an argument that he is not ...
|
| Mr. Epstein's counsel | Attorney |
Mentioned as having a belief during a past legal dispute regarding Mr. Epstein's classification in New York.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
The individual being addressed by the speaker in the court proceeding.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI | Government agency |
Mentioned as having given attention to the subject of the discussion.
|
| New York Appellate Division | Court |
Mentioned as a court whose decision Mr. Epstein has not re-challenged.
|
| New York Supreme Court | Court |
Mentioned as a court whose decision Mr. Epstein has not re-challenged.
|
| the Court | Court |
Mentioned as having made a determination in a past legal dispute involving Mr. Epstein.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2010
A legal dispute occurred regarding Mr. Epstein's classification in New York, where his counsel argued it should be restricted to the offense of conviction.
New York
prior to 2010
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the New York Appellate Division, New York Supreme Court, and a legal classification dispute.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a place the subject agreed to go.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the place the subject went to and was released from in 2010.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states "Mr. Epstein's counsel at the time believed that the classification in New York should be restricted...", indicating a client-attorney relationship.
Key Quotes (3)
"He didn't flee."Source
— Unknown (likely Mr. Epstein's counsel)
(An assertion made to argue that the subject is not a flight risk, referring to his behavior before the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00000547.jpg
Quote #1
"He didn't run away."Source
— Unknown (likely Mr. Epstein's counsel)
(A statement reinforcing the argument that the subject is not a flight risk, noting he hired lawyers to defend himself.)
DOJ-OGR-00000547.jpg
Quote #2
"he signed up to go to state jail, county jail."Source
— Unknown (likely Mr. Epstein's counsel)
(Presented as evidence of the subject's past compliance with legal consequences during the NPA period.)
DOJ-OGR-00000547.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,421 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 37 of 74 37
of attention by the FBI.
He didn't flee. This was all before the NPA while he
was facing the very same 1591 and even additional statutes that
carried additional potential federal penalties, interstate
travel, interstate communications.
Again, we have to infer from the past what the future
conduct would be. I think it's important that he hired lawyers
to defend him. He didn't run away.
Despite the fact there was no bail, no conditions, he
didn't have the publicity he has now, he could have, if he was
a fleer, left at that time and done what the government fears
he would do today if released under an enormous set of
conditions that I will ask to supplement.
Two is the next period was the NPA period. Again, he
signed up to go to state jail, county jail. He went to county
jail. He got out in 2010. He was subject to the
registrations.
And if I can go back in to try and answer your Honor's
questions on registration. He has not reapplied challenging
the New York Appellate Division or the New York Supreme Court
decision.
There was a legal dispute. Mr. Epstein's counsel at
the time believed that the classification in New York should be
restricted to the offense of conviction. And the Court
determined that it would rely instead on an affidavit that it
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000547
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document