Benatar
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002-10-10 | Legal ruling | Legal ruling in the case of United States v. Benatar. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2002-10-10 | Legal proceeding | Court ruling in the case of United States v. Benatar regarding electronic monitoring. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2002-10-10 | Court ruling | In United States v. Benatar, the court made a similar ruling regarding bail conditions. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2002-10-10 | Legal case | United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) | Eastern District of New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001496.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing from the U.S. Attorney's office, dated July 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The government argues that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and that no conditions of bail would ensure their presence in court. Citing several legal precedents, the filing respectfully requests that the defendant's application for bail be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and willingness to hide. The author dismisses proposed bail conditions like a $1 million bond from a security company and GPS monitoring as insufficient, citing several legal precedents (U.S. v. Banki, Zarger, and Benatar) where similar measures were deemed inadequate for high-risk defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00000997.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant should be denied bail and home confinement. The prosecution contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her access to over $20 million in financial resources, her refusal to account for this wealth, and her ability to maintain relationships remotely. The document cites several legal precedents to argue that GPS ankle-bracelet monitoring is not a reliable means of preventing flight.
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-00002190(1).jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number). The text presents the prosecution's argument against granting bail, citing the defendant's wealth, foreign ties, and skill at hiding as flight risks. It argues that a 'privately funded jail' and GPS monitoring are insufficient to ensure appearance in court, citing legal precedents (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) to support the claim that electronic monitoring merely reduces a head start rather than preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00019873.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing from the U.S. Government, dated July 2, 2020, submitted by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss. The prosecution argues that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and, citing several legal precedents, requests that the court deny any application for bail. The document was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 18, 2020, argues for the continued detention of a female defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and skill at hiding. The filing dismisses proposed bail conditions, such as private security guards and GPS monitoring, as insufficient to ensure her appearance in court. To support its position, the document cites several past federal cases (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) where courts denied bail under similar circumstances, deeming electronic monitoring and home confinement inadequate for high-risk defendants.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity