DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
788 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion (government opposition to bail)
File Size:
788 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) opposing bail for the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It details her evasion of FBI agents during her arrest, including fleeing and wrapping a phone in tin foil, and argues she prioritized private security over law enforcement. Additionally, it asserts she was deceptive with Pretrial Services regarding her finances, possessing 'vast resources' far exceeding the $3.8 million she initially disclosed.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN); accused of evading arrest, hiding assets, and prioritizing pri...
|
| FBI Agents | Law Enforcement |
Attempted to approach the defendant; were disobeyed by the defendant.
|
| Private Security Guards | Security |
Employed by the defendant; their protocols were prioritized over FBI directives.
|
| Pretrial Services | Court Agency |
Interviewed the defendant regarding assets; allegedly deceived by the defendant.
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal Defense |
Argued regarding the tin foil incident and offered to provide financial pictures.
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
Previously found the defendant sought to evade law enforcement; assumed defendant had more assets than disclosed.
|
Organizations (4)
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Defendant fled and disobeyed directives despite agents announcing themselves.
Defendant prioritized security protocols over federal law enforcement directives.
Key Quotes (5)
"the act of wrapping a cellphone in tin foil has no conceivable relevance to concerns about the press."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
Quote #1
"the defendant sought to evade not only the press, but also law enforcement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
Quote #2
"the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services regarding the assets in her control."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
Quote #3
"The finances outlined in the defense submission confirm the Government’s suspicion that the defendant has access to far more than $3.8 million"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
Quote #4
"confirm that the defendant is a person of substantial means with vast resources."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,404 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 25 of 36
(Def. Ex. S ¶ 12). Moreover, the FBI announced themselves as federal agents to the defendant
when they first approached her. Thus, even if the defendant was following her private security’s
protocol when she fled, she did so knowing that she was disobeying the directives of FBI agents,
not members of the media or general public. Those actions raise the very real concern, particularly
in light of the terms of her proposed package, that the defendant would prioritize the directives of
her private security guards over the directives of federal law enforcement. Further, the act of
wrapping a cellphone in tin foil has no conceivable relevance to concerns about the press. The
defense argues that the defendant only took those measures because that particular phone number
had been released to the public, but that just suggests the defendant believed that was the only
number of which law enforcement was aware. In other words, there is still reason to believe, as
the Court previously found, that in the year leading up to her arrest, the defendant sought to evade
not only the press, but also law enforcement. (Tr. 87).
when they first approached her. Thus, even if the defendant was following her private security’s
protocol when she fled, she did so knowing that she was disobeying the directives of FBI agents,
not members of the media or general public. Those actions raise the very real concern, particularly
in light of the terms of her proposed package, that the defendant would prioritize the directives of
her private security guards over the directives of federal law enforcement. Further, the act of
wrapping a cellphone in tin foil has no conceivable relevance to concerns about the press. The
defense argues that the defendant only took those measures because that particular phone number
had been released to the public, but that just suggests the defendant believed that was the only
number of which law enforcement was aware. In other words, there is still reason to believe, as
the Court previously found, that in the year leading up to her arrest, the defendant sought to evade
not only the press, but also law enforcement. (Tr. 87).
Third, the defendant has access to significant wealth. At the initial bail hearing, the
Government expressed doubt that the defendant’s assets were limited to the approximately $3.8
million she reported to Pretrial Services, and noted that it appeared the defendant was less than
candid with Pretrial Services regarding the assets in her control. (Tr. 28-30, 72-73). The finances
outlined in the defense submission confirm the Government’s suspicion that the defendant has
access to far more than $3.8 million, confirm that the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial
Services (and, by extension, the Court) during her interview, and confirm that the defendant is a
person of substantial means with vast resources.5 The defendant’s apparent willingness to deceive
Government expressed doubt that the defendant’s assets were limited to the approximately $3.8
million she reported to Pretrial Services, and noted that it appeared the defendant was less than
candid with Pretrial Services regarding the assets in her control. (Tr. 28-30, 72-73). The finances
outlined in the defense submission confirm the Government’s suspicion that the defendant has
access to far more than $3.8 million, confirm that the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial
Services (and, by extension, the Court) during her interview, and confirm that the defendant is a
person of substantial means with vast resources.5 The defendant’s apparent willingness to deceive
_________________________
5 As noted above, the Court effectively assumed the defendant had considerably more assets than
those disclosed to Pretrial Services in rejecting defense counsel’s repeated offer to provide a more
fulsome picture of the defendant’s finances and concluding that even assuming the defense could
provide a clearer description of the defendant’s assets, detention was still warranted. (See Tr. 87).
5 As noted above, the Court effectively assumed the defendant had considerably more assets than
those disclosed to Pretrial Services in rejecting defense counsel’s repeated offer to provide a more
fulsome picture of the defendant’s finances and concluding that even assuming the defense could
provide a clearer description of the defendant’s assets, detention was still warranted. (See Tr. 87).
22
DOJ-OGR-00002186
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document