| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-05-21 | Court decision | A court decision was made in the case of United States v. Rowe. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-05-21 | Court ruling | Decision in the case of United States v. Rowe, cited as legal precedent. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-05-21 | Legal case | Court ruling in United States v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-05-21 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Rowe, 2003 WL 21196846. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-05-21 | Legal case | United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2003-05-21 | Legal proceeding | Citation of the court case United States v. Rowe. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-05-21 | Court decision | In United States v. Rowe, the court noted that a release order could be reconsidered even if the ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The author, likely the prosecution (Government), contends that the defendant remains an extreme flight risk due to strong evidence, substantial resources, and foreign ties to a non-extraditing country. The document dismisses the defendant's new proposals—renouncing foreign citizenship and placing some assets under monitorship—as insufficient to ensure their appearance in court and urges the motion to be denied.
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 28, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. Her defense proposes two additional conditions to assure the court she is not a flight risk, specifically offering to formally renounce her citizenships in France and the United Kingdom and surrender all passports. The defense argues that giving up citizenship, described as a 'precious and priceless asset,' demonstrates her commitment to appearing in court.
This legal document is a page from a motion arguing for a defendant's release on bail. The defendant proposes a new, comprehensive $28.5 million bail package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family. The proposed conditions also include home confinement with GPS monitoring, custody by a family member, and security services, all intended to mitigate the court's previous concerns about her being a flight risk.
This legal document outlines the statutory framework for pretrial detention in cases involving minor victims, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. It details the defendant's burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption and clarifies that the government retains the ultimate burden of proof. The document also specifies the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened, primarily requiring new, material information that was previously unknown to the moving party.
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 argues for the reconsideration of Ms. Maxwell's bail application. It cites several legal precedents that allow a court to reopen bail hearings based on new evidence or changed circumstances. The primary new evidence cited is the voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produced by the government after the initial hearing, which the defense claims raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
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 a page from a legal filing dated September 22, 2021, that discusses the legal standards for pretrial detention and the reopening of bail hearings. It references the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), which allows for reopening a hearing with new, material information, and also cites case law (Raniere, Havens, Rowe, Petrov) to establish that a court has inherent authority to reconsider its own bail decisions even without new evidence.
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues against allowing the Government to bypass the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by moving jurisdictions ('parachuting into a new circuit'). It cites various legal precedents to argue that the court should apply the law of the circuit where the violation or agreement occurred (referencing the 11th Circuit) to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights in the plea-bargaining process.
This legal document is a court filing from December 30, 2020, detailing a defendant's new motion for bail. The defendant proposes a $28.5 million bail package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family, to address the court's previous concerns about flight risk. The proposed conditions also include home confinement with GPS monitoring, custody by a family member, and travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
This page is from a legal filing dated December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the defendant is not explicitly named in the body text. The text outlines legal arguments regarding pre-trial detention, citing the Bail Reform Act and specific statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423) related to sex offenses involving minors, which create a presumption of detention. It discusses the legal standards for reopening a detention hearing and the burden of proof regarding flight risk, citing precedents from the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y.
This page is from a legal filing dated December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the defendant is not explicitly named in the body text. The text outlines legal arguments regarding pre-trial detention, citing the Bail Reform Act and specific statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423) related to sex offenses involving minors, which create a presumption of detention. It discusses the legal standards for reopening a detention hearing and the burden of proof regarding flight risk, citing precedents from the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y.
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, part of a court filing, argues for the reconsideration of a bail decision for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (United States v. Lee, Bradshaw, Rowe, and Petrov) to establish that the Court has the inherent authority to reopen a bail hearing, especially when new evidence is presented. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial new information, including over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government, which was unavailable at her initial hearing and raises questions about the strength of the government's case.
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 legal document argues for limiting the application of the 'Annabi' doctrine. It contends that this doctrine, from the Second Circuit, should not apply to a plea agreement originating in the Eleventh Circuit, where precedent dictates that ambiguities are resolved against the government. The document also asserts that the Annabi doctrine should only be applied when new charges are 'sufficiently distinct' from the original ones.
This legal document is part of a motion where a defendant proposes a new, comprehensive bail package to secure release from pretrial detention. The defendant offers a $28.5 million package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family, along with conditions like home confinement, GPS monitoring, and restricted travel. The motion cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider its previous bail decisions.
This document is page 7 of a legal brief filed by the Department of Justice, seemingly in relation to a detention hearing. The text argues that defendants charged with sex trafficking of minors (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423) face a presumption of detention because no conditions can assure their appearance or community safety. It cites various legal precedents (English, Mercedes, Petrov) to support the Government's position that the burden is on the defendant to rebut this presumption, and discusses the standards for reopening a detention hearing.
This legal document argues that the court should reconsider Ms. Maxwell's bail application based on new evidence. It cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider such decisions and states that Ms. Maxwell has received over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government since her initial hearing, which allegedly raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity