| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | Discussion of the legal case 'U.S. v. Khashoggi' | N/A | View |
| 1989-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Defendant Khashoggi waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland and traveled to the Uni... | Switzerland | View |
| 1989-01-01 | Court ruling | In United States v. Khashoggi, the defendant was ordered released pending trial. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Khashoggi, where the defendant was released pending trial after waiving extradit... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | United States v. Khashoggi ruling | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | United States v. Khashoggi decision | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | Khashoggi case proceedings | United States Court | View |
This legal document discusses cases involving Khashoggi, Bodmer, Hanson, and Sabhnani. It mentions a defendant who is a citizen of England and France and has three passports, and the document discusses the defendant's international travel and financial means.
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 document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 102) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. It contends that her proposed $28.5 million bond package exceeds necessary requirements for ensuring her presence in court. The document features a table comparing Maxwell's proposed bail conditions (including private security and electronic monitoring) to those of other high-profile defendants like Bernie Madoff and Khashoggi, highlighting that her package is stricter than those previously granted release.
This document is page 33 of a legal filing (dated Dec 14, 2020) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she has executed waivers of extradition and obtained expert reports (specifically from U.K. barrister David Perry) concluding she could not successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France. The text cites various legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) to support the validity of extradition waivers as conditions of release.
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 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.
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's flight risk. The court concludes that despite the defendant's arguments, factors such as their French citizenship, extraordinary financial resources, international ties, and the difficulty of extradition weigh strongly in favor of continued detention. The court dismisses the defendant's argument about waiving extradition rights as potentially strategic and unpersuasive.
This is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court is analyzing the defendant's flight risk, concluding that her French citizenship, potential to flee to Israel, and extraordinary financial resources justify continued detention. The judge argues that anticipatory extradition waivers are insufficient because the defendant could still frustrate or delay the extradition process.
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 that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
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 legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues for the approval of a proposed $28.5 million bail package for defendant Ms. Maxwell. It contends that this package is more than sufficient to ensure her appearance in court by comparing it to the less restrictive bail conditions of other high-profile defendants with significant financial means and foreign citizenships. A table is provided to illustrate these precedents, detailing bond amounts and conditions for defendants such as Madoff, Khashoggi, and others.
This page is from a legal filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell should be granted bail conditions involving an extradition waiver, citing legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) where such waivers were accepted as assurances against flight. The document states Maxwell has obtained expert reports from French and UK experts (specifically David Perry regarding the UK) concluding that she would be unable to resist extradition back to the US if she fled to those countries after signing a waiver.
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 document is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), denying release/bail for the Defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court argues that the Defendant poses a significant flight risk due to her French citizenship, the difficulty of extradition (specifically mentioning Israel), her extraordinary financial resources, and her proven ability to avoid detection. The Court explicitly rejects the Defendant's argument that waiving extradition rights indicates an intent not to flee.
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.
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing entitled 'Table of Authorities' from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 18, 2020. It lists numerous legal precedents cited in the filing, primarily 'United States v. [Defendant]' cases. Notably, the list includes two citations for 'United States v. Epstein' (one from 2001 in E.D. Pa. and one from 2019 in S.D.N.Y.) and one for 'United States v. Madoff'.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by citing several past U.S. court cases where defendants waived extradition rights to demonstrate they were not a flight risk. It then introduces expert reports, specifically one from U.K. barrister David Perry, which conclude it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France back to the United States, further supporting the argument that she is not a flight risk.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Khashoggi | Court | $10,000,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity