Judge Raggi
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001074.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is making a concluding argument to a judge to grant bail for his client. He argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving the client is a flight risk, distinguishing the current case from others and citing a precedent from Judge Raggi in the Sabhnani case before formally requesting the court to grant bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001067.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, capturing an attorney's argument during a bail hearing. The attorney contends that stringent bail conditions can mitigate flight risk without a prolonged hearing on the defendant's assets, citing an observation by Judge Raggi in a previous case. The attorney also informs the presiding judge of forthcoming significant motions that could challenge the indictment itself, urging the court to consider this when weighing the evidence for the bail determination.
DOJ-OGR-00001066.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021) where a defense attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney asserts that transferring funds after being dropped by a bank and filing required disclosures (SDAR) with the Treasury Department in 2018 and 2019 regarding a foreign bank account are acts of compliance, not evidence of hiding assets or intent to evade. The defense also begins to cite Judge Raggi's opinion in the Sabhnani case regarding physical restraint.
DOJ-OGR-00001947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, concludes his argument for his client's bail, asserting the government has failed to prove the client is a flight risk. He asks the judge to grant bail or to keep the proceeding open for a week to allow for the submission of more information.
DOJ-OGR-00001940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An unidentified attorney argues before a judge during a bail hearing, contending that a lengthy examination of their client's assets is unnecessary and intended only for detention, citing a precedent from a Judge Raggi. The attorney also signals their intent to file significant legal motions that could challenge the indictment's validity, which they argue the court should consider when weighing the evidence for bail purposes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity