| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-01 | N/A | Second Circuit Court of Appeals issues opinion in United States v. Boustani | New York | View |
| 2019-03-07 | Legal case | United States v. Boustani, where the defendant was ordered detained pending trial due to risk of ... | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-03-07 | Legal case | United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d... | Eastern District of New York | View |
| 2019-03-07 | Court ruling | In United States v. Boustani, the defendant was ordered detained pending trial due to risk of fli... | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-03-07 | N/A | United States v. Boustani ruling affirmed | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-03-07 | N/A | United States v. Boustani decision affirmed | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Boustani. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Boustani. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
This document is an email chain dated July 18, 2019, circulating a New York Times breaking news alert that Jeffrey Epstein was denied bail. The participants, whose names are redacted, discuss the news with positive sentiment ('Congratulations') and coordinate the retrieval of related legal filings from the EDNY, specifically mentioning 'Boustani appellate filing(s)'.
An email dated July 23, 2019, discussing a response to a bail appeal. The email embeds a news file regarding a federal judge denying Jeffrey Epstein bail and rejecting his request for house arrest. The sender suggests that 'Boustani papers' (likely referring to the Jean Boustani legal case) would be helpful for the current legal strategy.
This legal document argues against a defendant's request for bail. It contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to substantial financial resources, international ties, and a lack of connection to the United States. The document also asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a sufficient reason for release, citing several legal precedents from New York district courts that have denied similar applications.
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 18) from July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail due to COVID-19 risks and the adequacy of the proposed bail package. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six individuals (siblings, relatives, friends) and secured by $3.75 million in UK property, along with home detention, GPS monitoring, and travel restrictions to NY districts. A footnote cites *United States v. Boustani* to argue that private security guards are appropriate given Maxwell's circumstances.
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 10, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the main document, providing the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and span from 1978 to 2020.
This legal document is a page from a court's analysis distinguishing the current defendant's case from several cited legal precedents regarding pre-trial detention. The court contrasts cases where defendants were released (Khashoggi, Bodmer) with cases where they were detained (Boustani, Ho, Epstein), focusing on factors that justify detention such as flight risk, substantial financial resources, dual citizenship, and ties to foreign countries without extradition treaties like Brazil.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
This legal document outlines a series of proposed conditions for the pretrial release of Ms. Maxwell. The conditions include home confinement in New York City with GPS monitoring, supervision by Pretrial Services, surrender of travel documents, and the presence of 24/7 private security guards paid for by Ms. Maxwell. The document argues that these measures, supported by legal precedent from the Second Circuit, are sufficient to ensure she will not flee and will appear in court.
This document is a "Table of Authorities" from a legal filing, specifically page iii of a larger document. It lists thirteen federal court cases, providing their full citations, the dates of the decisions, and the page numbers within the filing where each case is referenced. All listed cases feature the United States as a party.
This legal document excerpt analyzes the factors weighing in favor of Ms. Maxwell's detention, citing the serious nature of the crimes involving minor victims and the substantial sentences she faces if convicted, which could incentivize flight. It notes that the government's evidence, including detailed victim accounts and documentary evidence, appears strong at this early stage of the case.
This document is page 14 of a government filing (Document 220) from July 13, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text argues against granting bail, citing the defendant's vast financial resources, lack of ties to the US, and motivation to flee to a non-extradition country. It also specifically argues that the COVID-19 pandemic does not justify her release, citing precedent from other cases in the district.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against the release of the defendant, Mr. Epstein, pending trial. It presents evidence that he is a serious flight risk due to his wealth, international travel, and significant ties to Brazil, a country without an extradition treaty with the U.S. The document also cites allegations of witness tampering made by victims' attorney David Boies and concludes that no conditions, including an armed guard, would be sufficient to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance at trial, labeling him a danger to the community.
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.
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's release by distinguishing her case from precedents where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and aligning it with cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho, and a 2001 case United States v. Epstein). The 'United States v. Epstein' cited here refers to a 2001 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving a defendant with German/Brazilian dual citizenship, used here as legal precedent for denying bail based on lack of extradition treaties.
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text presents a legal argument supporting the detention of the defendant by distinguishing her case from previous instances where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and comparing her to cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho). Notably, it cites a 2001 case, 'United States v. Epstein,' as precedent for denying bail based on dual citizenship and lack of extradition treaties; however, this 2001 citation likely refers to a different defendant named Epstein (in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) rather than Jeffrey Epstein.
This legal document argues against granting the defendant's proposed bail package by asserting she is a flight risk. The central claim is that the assets securing the bond originated from the defendant herself, who allegedly funneled her wealth to her husband over five years, thereby reducing his personal financial stake and incentive to prevent her from fleeing. The argument is supported by citing the defendant's financial resources, foreign ties, and legal precedent from the Second Circuit regarding bail conditions.
This legal document argues against granting a defendant's proposed bail package. The central claim is that the defendant has funneled the majority of her wealth to her husband over the past five years, and these are the same assets that would be used for the bail bond. Therefore, the husband would not be losing his own money if the defendant were to flee, diminishing the bond's effectiveness as a deterrent. The argument is supported by citing a Second Circuit ruling against bail systems that create a two-tiered system for wealthy versus non-wealthy defendants.
This legal document is a page from a court filing that explains the Court's decision to detain a defendant pending trial. The Court determined that electronic monitoring would be insufficient and rejected the defense's arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. The document then outlines the applicable law for such a decision under the Bail Reform Act, detailing the Government's burden of proof and the factors considered when a defendant is deemed a flight risk.
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's reasoning for detaining the defendant pending trial, citing flight risk, the insufficiency of home security/electronic monitoring, and rejecting arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. It also outlines the 'Applicable Law' under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.) regarding the standards for pretrial detention.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Document 97) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (United States v. Boustani, Bradshaw, Chen, etc.) cited elsewhere in the filing. The page is numbered 'iii' and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00001976.
This page is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, detailing a judge's conclusion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's detention. The court argues for detention based on the serious nature of the crimes involving minors, the flight risk incentivized by a potential 35-year sentence, and the strength of the government's evidence, which includes detailed accounts from multiple victims corroborated by documentary evidence.
This document is the 'Table of Authorities' (page ii) from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), originally filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited within the main brief, including cases such as Hung v. United States, United States v. Boustani, and United States v. Dreier. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019877).
This page from a legal document analyzes several precedent cases to argue for or against the detention of a defendant pending trial. It distinguishes the current case from others like *Khashoggi* and *Bodmer* where defendants were released, and draws parallels to cases like *Boustani*, *Patrick Ho*, and *Epstein* where defendants were detained. The analysis focuses on factors such as flight risk, financial resources, ties to foreign countries, and the existence of extradition treaties.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity