DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
763 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (bail determination)
File Size:
763 KB
Summary
This document is page 30 of a court filing from July 18, 2019, denying aspects of Jeffrey Epstein's bail proposal. The Court argues that the defense's home confinement plan would require excessive judicial oversight and that private security is less secure than actual jail. The Court also dismisses Epstein's offer to waive extradition rights as an 'empty gesture' that no foreign country would likely honor if he fled.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the bail hearing; proposing home confinement and collateral.
|
| Trustee(s) | Proposed Supervisors |
Individuals designated by the defense to live with and supervise Mr. Epstein during home confinement.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Bureau of Prisons |
Cited as the appropriate professionals for oversight, contrasting with defense's proposal.
|
|
| U.S. Marshals Service |
Cited as appropriate professionals for oversight.
|
|
| Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs |
Source of information regarding the invalidity of anticipatory extradition waivers.
|
|
| The Court |
The entity issuing the opinion/order, rejecting the defense's proposals.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-07-18
Court filing rejecting defense bail package proposal.
Court
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in context of extradition treaties.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York (cited in case law).
|
|
|
Eastern District of New York (cited in case law).
|
Relationships (1)
reporting by so-called Trustee(s) designated to live with and supervise Mr. Epstein
Key Quotes (4)
"The defense bail package proposes excessive involvement of the Court in routine aspects of Mr. Epstein’s proposed home confinement. This is not the Court’s function."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
Quote #1
"The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court’s view, an empty gesture."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
Quote #2
"The Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
Quote #3
"the defendant could choose to flee to a jurisdiction with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000813.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,177 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 30 of 33
(2) The defense bail package proposes excessive involvement of the Court in routine aspects of Mr. Epstein’s proposed home confinement. This is not the Court’s function. See United States v. Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681423, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) (“The [bail package] . . . proposed by the defense is not reasonable because, in too many respects, it substitutes judicial oversight and management for (more appropriate) reliance upon trained, experienced, and qualified professionals from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service.”). The Defense package components would embroil the Court in issues, among others, relating to the level of force that may be used to secure the Defendant, who may enter the residence, daily reporting by Mr. Epstein, and reporting by so-called Trustee(s) designated to live with and supervise Mr. Epstein. See United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“The questions about the legal authorization for the private security firm to use force against defendant should he violate the terms of his release, and the questions over whether the guards can or should be armed, underscore the legal and practical uncertainties - indeed, the imperfections - of the private jail-like concept envisioned by defendant, as compared to the more secure option of an actual jail.”).
(3) The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court’s view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court’s jurisdiction. According to the Government, “The Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to a jurisdiction with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty.” Dkt. 11 at 7.
(4) Although the Defense has stated that Mr. Epstein would be agreeable to putting up “any amount” of collateral or signing “any bond” the Court would require, there has, to date,
30
DOJ-OGR-00000813
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document