Martir
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal brief filed on April 19, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Maxwell). The text argues that the lower court failed to ensure the reliability of the government's evidence during bail hearings, citing legal precedents *LaFontaine* and *Martir*. The defense contends that unlike the *Martir* case, Ms. Maxwell actively challenged the government's 'flimsy proffer' through multiple hearings, but the court accepted the government's claims 'blindly' and 'uncritically.'
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
This legal filing argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell is weak because the anonymous accusers' stories are contradictory, uncorroborated, and fabricated for money and fame, only emerging after Epstein's death. The document also contends that the district judge erred by accepting the indictment as proof of a strong case and that the government's reliance on legal precedents is misplaced due to a lack of meaningful evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed by the Government on April 12, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-770). The text argues against Maxwell's appeal regarding her bail denial, asserting that she poses a flight risk due to foreign ties and wealth, and defending the lower court's use of 'proffers' (evidence summaries) rather than full evidentiary hearings for bail determinations, citing Second Circuit precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
This legal document is a court order from March 22, 2021, reaffirming the decision to detain a defendant. The Court concludes that the Government has shown the defendant is a flight risk and that no proposed conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. The Court's assessment of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including the presumption of detention and the weight of the evidence, remains unchanged despite the defendant's new arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000796.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, discusses the legal principles and precedents surrounding the presumption of remand for serious offenses, emphasizing that this presumption is not easily erased and requires deference to Congress's judgment. It highlights that the U.S. Pretrial Services Department, following an interview with Mr. Epstein, issued a report on July 8, 2019, recommending to the Court that Mr. Epstein continue to be remanded, concluding that no conditions could ensure his compliance or public safety.
DOJ-OGR-00000785.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against granting pretrial release (bail) to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The prosecution (The Government) contends that under federal law (§ 3142), the nature of the charges (sex trafficking of minors) creates a presumption for detention. The document further cites the Government's belief that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to the community and is likely to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice if released.
DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued pretrial detention (remand) of Mr. Epstein. It cites legal precedents establishing a strong presumption of detention for defendants charged with certain serious offenses, arguing this presumption is not easily overcome. The document concludes by highlighting that the U.S. Pretrial Services Department, after interviewing Mr. Epstein, issued a report on July 8, 2019, recommending to the court that he remain in custody.
DOJ-OGR-00000473.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against granting pretrial release (bail) to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. It cites legal statutes and precedents to establish a presumption against release due to the nature of the charges (sex trafficking of a minor) and the existence of a grand jury indictment. The document also references a letter from the Government which claims Mr. Epstein poses a danger to the community and is likely to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice if released.
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, analyzes a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden of producing evidence (regarding financial conditions and family ties) to counter the presumption of being a flight risk. However, citing legal precedents like United States v. Mercedes and Martir, the court asserts that this presumption does not disappear and must still be weighed, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination regarding release conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00002240(1).jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a court filing dated December 30, 2020, analyzes the legal standards for a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden to provide evidence against the presumption of being a flight risk, citing her financial conditions and family ties. However, citing precedents like *United States v. Mercedes* and *Martir*, the court maintains that the presumption of flight does not disappear and must still be given weight, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination.
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002771.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 22, 2021, is a portion of a court filing discussing the legal standards for a defendant's bail motion. It outlines the rebuttable presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), detailing the defendant's burden of production and the government's ultimate burden of persuasion. The document notes that the defendant has filed a third motion for bail, arguing for reconsideration based on new conditions and a purportedly weakened government case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity