DOJ-OGR-00001158.jpg
751 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Government filing / legal memorandum (opposition to bail)
File Size:
751 KB
Summary
This document is page 13 of a government filing opposing bail for a female defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on the case number). The prosecution argues she is a flight risk due to her three passports, foreign wealth, and lack of employment or children in the US. It highlights inconsistencies in her statements, noting she previously claimed to be divorcing her husband but is now using the marriage to argue for ties to the US, while simultaneously asking to live with a redacted third party rather than said husband.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention hearing; noted as having 3 passports and foreign wealth. (Ghislaine Maxwell based on case nu...
|
| The Defendant's Spouse | Spouse |
Unnamed in text; recently came forward to support defendant despite defendant previously claiming they were divorcing.
|
| [REDACTED] | Associate |
Person the defendant requested to live with if granted bail.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Services |
Produced a report containing defendant's statements about employment and marriage.
|
|
| The Court |
Made the original detention decision.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-07
Defendant's arrest and interview with Pretrial Services.
United States
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Place of citizenship and residence history.
|
|
|
Multi-million dollar property owned by defendant abroad.
|
Relationships (2)
Described as 'in the process of divorcing' in July, but spouse later came forward to support her.
Defendant requested to live with this redacted individual if granted bail.
Key Quotes (4)
"She is a citizen of three countries and holds three passports."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001158.jpg
Quote #1
"the defendant stated in July that she has no children and has no current employment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001158.jpg
Quote #2
"the defendant said she was 'in the process of divorcing her husband.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001158.jpg
Quote #3
"the defendant’s motion asks that she be permitted to live with [REDACTED] if granted bail, not her spouse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001158.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,243 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 13 of 36
French law, is simply incorrect. Accordingly, the defendant’s foreign ties, wealth, and skill at
avoiding detection continue to weigh in favor of detention.
avoiding detection continue to weigh in favor of detention.
First, there can be no serious dispute that the defendant has foreign ties. She is a citizen
of three countries and holds three passports. As was already noted at the original hearing and is
again evidenced in the Renewed Bail Application, the defendant has close relatives and friends
who live abroad, as well as a multi-million dollar foreign property and at least one foreign bank
account. (Tr. 83). In an attempt to minimize the defendant’s foreign ties, the defense emphasizes
the defendant’s relatives and friends in the United States, history of residence in the United States,
and United States citizenship. But the Court was already aware of those factors when making its
original detention decision. (See Tr. 84; Dkt. 18 at 2, 12). The letters and documentation included
in the Renewed Bail Motion simply prove points that were not in dispute. What that
documentation does not do, however, is suggest that the defendant has the kind of ties to this
country that come with any employment in the United States or any dependents living here.
Indeed, as noted in the Pretrial Services Report, the defendant stated in July that she has no children
and has no current employment. (Pretrial Services Report at 3).
of three countries and holds three passports. As was already noted at the original hearing and is
again evidenced in the Renewed Bail Application, the defendant has close relatives and friends
who live abroad, as well as a multi-million dollar foreign property and at least one foreign bank
account. (Tr. 83). In an attempt to minimize the defendant’s foreign ties, the defense emphasizes
the defendant’s relatives and friends in the United States, history of residence in the United States,
and United States citizenship. But the Court was already aware of those factors when making its
original detention decision. (See Tr. 84; Dkt. 18 at 2, 12). The letters and documentation included
in the Renewed Bail Motion simply prove points that were not in dispute. What that
documentation does not do, however, is suggest that the defendant has the kind of ties to this
country that come with any employment in the United States or any dependents living here.
Indeed, as noted in the Pretrial Services Report, the defendant stated in July that she has no children
and has no current employment. (Pretrial Services Report at 3).
The Renewed Bail Motion fails to establish sufficiently strong ties to the United States that
would prevent her from fleeing. Although the defendant now claims her marriage would keep her
in the United States, her motion does not address the plainly inconsistent statements she made to
Pretrial Services at the time of her arrest, when, as documented in the Pretrial Services Report, the
defendant said she was “in the process of divorcing her husband.” (Id.). On this point, it bears
noting that the defendant’s motion asks that she be permitted to live with [REDACTED] if granted bail,
not her spouse. Moreover, the fact that the defendant’s spouse has only now come forward to
support the defendant should be afforded little weight given that he refused to come forward at the
would prevent her from fleeing. Although the defendant now claims her marriage would keep her
in the United States, her motion does not address the plainly inconsistent statements she made to
Pretrial Services at the time of her arrest, when, as documented in the Pretrial Services Report, the
defendant said she was “in the process of divorcing her husband.” (Id.). On this point, it bears
noting that the defendant’s motion asks that she be permitted to live with [REDACTED] if granted bail,
not her spouse. Moreover, the fact that the defendant’s spouse has only now come forward to
support the defendant should be afforded little weight given that he refused to come forward at the
13
DOJ-OGR-00001158
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document