Sabhnani
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
two individuals
|
Alleged enslaver enslaved |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | Discussion of the 'Sabhnani' case, a Second Circuit case | N/A | View |
| N/A | Allegation | Allegation that defendants in the Sabhnani case held two individuals in slavery for five years. | N/A | View |
| 2010-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Post-judgment appeal in the case of United States v. Sabhnani, evaluating whether publicity biase... | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
DOJ-OGR-00001600.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 18) dated July 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's assertion that Maxwell is a flight risk, citing her isolation as a protective measure rather than an attempt to flee, and noting that wealth and foreign citizenship alone are insufficient grounds for detention without proof of 'inclination' to flee. It also argues that COVID-19 travel restrictions make flight unlikely and mentions in a footnote that individuals in the media (specifically in the UK) are falsely claiming to have ties to her.
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the legal standards for pre-trial detention concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's dual burden to prove she is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance in court. The document also discusses the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption against release and how the defense can counter it, noting that unlike in the Epstein case, the government is not arguing that Ms. Maxwell is a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001584.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities listing case law citations. It was filed on July 10, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell). The page lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and 'United States v. Kashoggi', referencing rulings from the S.D.N.Y., 2nd Circuit, and other jurisdictions regarding bail or detention issues (inferred from the statute 18 U.S.C. § 3142).
DOJ-OGR-00001454.jpg
This legal document, page 14 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's detention order and for considering a defendant's temporary release. It cites U.S. statutes and several legal precedents, including United States v. Watkins and United States v. Scarborough, to establish that the court applies a 'deferential review' and that a defendant bears the burden of proving temporary release is necessary for their defense or for other compelling reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00001453.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated May 27, 2021, that outlines the applicable law regarding pretrial detention. It details the Government's burden to prove a defendant is a flight risk and discusses the statutory presumption of detention for specific offenses, such as those involving a minor victim. The document cites U.S. statutes and previous case law (United States v. Sabhnani and United States v. Mercedes) to support its legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00001333.jpg
This legal document, page 16 of a filing dated April 12, 2021, outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention. It specifies the factors a court must consider when the government seeks detention for flight risk, as laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The document also details the 'deferential review' standard for appealing a detention order and the conditions under which a judicial officer may permit temporary release of a detained individual.
DOJ-OGR-00001074.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is making a concluding argument to a judge to grant bail for his client. He argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving the client is a flight risk, distinguishing the current case from others and citing a precedent from Judge Raggi in the Sabhnani case before formally requesting the court to grant bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001067.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, capturing an attorney's argument during a bail hearing. The attorney contends that stringent bail conditions can mitigate flight risk without a prolonged hearing on the defendant's assets, citing an observation by Judge Raggi in a previous case. The attorney also informs the presiding judge of forthcoming significant motions that could challenge the indictment itself, urging the court to consider this when weighing the evidence for the bail determination.
DOJ-OGR-00001066.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021) where a defense attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney asserts that transferring funds after being dropped by a bank and filing required disclosures (SDAR) with the Treasury Department in 2018 and 2019 regarding a foreign bank account are acts of compliance, not evidence of hiding assets or intent to evade. The defense also begins to cite Judge Raggi's opinion in the Sabhnani case regarding physical restraint.
DOJ-OGR-00001053.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript dated April 1, 2021, where an attorney argues about bail conditions for a defendant. The attorney references several legal precedents (Khashoggi, Bodmer, Hanson, Sabhnani) to assert that international ties and financial means should lead to stricter bail conditions, not a denial of bail. The current defendant is described as a citizen of England and France with three passports, who has traveled internationally and has financial means, and the attorney cites the Sabhnani case, which involved allegations of holding individuals in slavery, to support their argument regarding bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000979.jpg
This document is page 18 of a defense motion (filed July 10, 2020) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing her decision to stay in the U.S. after Epstein's arrest, and argues that the government overstates the risk posed by the potential length of her sentence. The text cites various legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support the claim that a long potential sentence alone is insufficient grounds for detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000960.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a legal filing (Document 18) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and several other cases regarding bail and detention, referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
DOJ-OGR-00000337.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.
DOJ-OGR-00000336.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 12, 2019, is a memorandum arguing against a defendant's proposal for bail involving home confinement, electronic monitoring, and a private security force. The prosecution contends that these measures are insufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance in court, citing numerous legal precedents that question the security, fairness, and practicality of such "private jail" arrangements. The document asserts that a private security firm cannot replicate the controlled environment of a federal facility and that allowing wealthy defendants to fund their own detention is legally problematic.
DOJ-OGR-00000286.jpg
This document is a legal filing, page 13 of a motion in the case against Mr. Epstein, arguing for his pretrial release. It cites several legal precedents (United States v. Karni, United States v. Hanson, and Sabhnani) where courts ordered the release of defendants despite them being foreign nationals, having few ties to the U.S., facing serious charges, and substantial evidence of guilt. The core argument is that the potential for a significant sentence does not automatically preclude pretrial release.
DOJ-OGR-00000285.jpg
This document is page 12 of a defense filing arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. The defense argues that Epstein's 'tier-one' sex offender status in the U.S. Virgin Islands indicates low risk, and cites legal precedents (Sabhnani, Hansen) where wealthy defendants with foreign ties were granted bail. A significant footnote asserts Epstein is solely a U.S. citizen, his only foreign residence is in France (which has an extradition treaty), and the majority of his assets are in the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00001947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, concludes his argument for his client's bail, asserting the government has failed to prove the client is a flight risk. He asks the judge to grant bail or to keep the proceeding open for a week to allow for the submission of more information.
DOJ-OGR-00001940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An unidentified attorney argues before a judge during a bail hearing, contending that a lengthy examination of their client's assets is unnecessary and intended only for detention, citing a precedent from a Judge Raggi. The attorney also signals their intent to file significant legal motions that could challenge the indictment's validity, which they argue the court should consider when weighing the evidence for bail purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Document 38, Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It argues against an immediate appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the unsealing of civil case documents. The text contends that any potential prejudice to her criminal trial (due to publicity) can be adequately addressed through a standard appeal after a final judgment, rather than an interlocutory appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Maxwell's complaint regarding the unsealing of civil case filings. The author contends that any resulting unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case is not a matter for immediate appeal, but rather an issue that can be reviewed and remedied after a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including Hitchcock, Mohawk Indus., United States v. Sabhnani, and United States v. Elfgeeh, to support the position that post-judgment appeals are the proper venue to address concerns of publicity-biased juries.
DOJ-OGR-00019878.jpg
This document is page 'iii' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists legal precedents cited within the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and 'United States v. Salerno' (1987), along with a citation to 18 U.S.C. § 3142 regarding bail/detention. The page bears a Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019878.
DOJ-OGR-00019856.jpg
This page from a legal document argues against pretrial detention by citing several court precedents. It asserts that constitutional protections and the Bail Reform Act require that any doubts about releasing a defendant be resolved in their favor. The text emphasizes that even if a defendant is deemed a flight risk, the law still favors release under the least restrictive conditions possible.
DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, arguing against the Government's position that Ms. Maxwell is a flight risk solely based on statutory maximum penalties. The defense cites Second Circuit precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to establish that a potential long sentence is insufficient grounds for detention without further evidence of flight risk.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity