DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
695 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size:
695 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), denying a renewed motion for bail. The text outlines the Defendant's proposals for release, including paid private security, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and arguments regarding COVID-19 conditions in jail. Despite these arguments and new financial information, the Court concludes that no conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the bail hearing (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN identifier); proposing security measu...
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
Reviewing the motion for bail; concludes detention is still warranted.
|
| Pretrial Services | Government Agency |
Agency that would need to approve movements or medical visits.
|
| Security guards | Private Security |
Proposed on-premises guards paid by the Defendant to prevent escape.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Services |
Supervisory body for defendants.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; argued the defendant attempted to evade law enforcement.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-12-30
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Defendant's family ties.
|
|
|
Country mentioned regarding extradition waivers.
|
|
|
Country mentioned regarding extradition waivers.
|
Relationships (2)
evidence of the Defendant’s family ties in the United States
weakness of the Government’s case against her
Key Quotes (5)
"the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
Quote #1
"waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United Kingdom and France"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
Quote #2
"evidence that according to her rebuts the Government’s original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior to her arrest"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
Quote #3
"the Defendant argues that the conditions of her confinement, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
Quote #4
"the Court again concludes that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002238.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,055 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 6 of 22
counsel, medical visits, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services. Id. at 2–3.
Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who
would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or
Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3.
Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who
would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or
Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3.
The motion also presents new information that, according to the Defendant, addresses the
concerns that the Court articulated when it determined that detention was warranted. This newly
presented information, most of which was available to the Defendant at the time of the initial bail
hearing, includes evidence of the Defendant’s family ties in the United States, see Def. Mot. at
10–14; a detailed financial report that provides a more comprehensive outlook on the
Defendant’s financial conditions and assets, see id. at 15–18; evidence that according to her
rebuts the Government’s original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior
to her arrest, see id. at 18–25; waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United
Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions claiming that the Defendant would not be able
to resist extradition if she were to execute the waivers, see id. at 25–29; and evidence that she
argues lays bare the weakness of the Government’s case against her, see id. at 30–34.
concerns that the Court articulated when it determined that detention was warranted. This newly
presented information, most of which was available to the Defendant at the time of the initial bail
hearing, includes evidence of the Defendant’s family ties in the United States, see Def. Mot. at
10–14; a detailed financial report that provides a more comprehensive outlook on the
Defendant’s financial conditions and assets, see id. at 15–18; evidence that according to her
rebuts the Government’s original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior
to her arrest, see id. at 18–25; waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United
Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions claiming that the Defendant would not be able
to resist extradition if she were to execute the waivers, see id. at 25–29; and evidence that she
argues lays bare the weakness of the Government’s case against her, see id. at 30–34.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the conditions of her confinement, including as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release. She claims that the
conditions imposed are punitive and that those conditions interfere with her ability to participate
in her defense, and she asserts that these factors further militate in favor of release. See id. at 34–
38.
of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release. She claims that the
conditions imposed are punitive and that those conditions interfere with her ability to participate
in her defense, and she asserts that these factors further militate in favor of release. See id. at 34–
38.
Having carefully considered all of the Defendant’s arguments, the Court again concludes
that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that
that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that
6
DOJ-OGR-00002238
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document