Zarger
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-08-04 | Legal ruling | Rejection of a defendant's application for bail in the case of United States v. Zarger. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2000-08-04 | Legal proceeding | Court rejected a defendant's application for bail in the case of United States v. Zarger. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2000-08-04 | Court ruling | In United States v. Zarger, the court rejected the defendant's application for bail. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2000-08-04 | Legal case | United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) | Eastern District of New York | View |
| 2000-01-01 | Legal case | The U.S. v. Zarger case presided over by Judge Gleeson. | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2000-01-01 | Legal case | The U.S. v. Zarger case, presided over by Judge Gleeson, which the government cited in its brief. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001495.jpg
This legal document argues that 'the defendant' presents a clear risk of flight due to international connections, significant financial means, and a transient lifestyle. The defendant has been in hiding since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019, making efforts to avoid detection, including an all-cash property purchase in December 2019 through an anonymized LLC. The document concludes that home confinement with electronic monitoring would be inadequate to prevent the defendant from fleeing.
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-00001082.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where an attorney is arguing against their client being a flight risk. The attorney distinguishes their client's case from the U.S. v. Zarger case cited by the government, noting their client was in New Hampshire at the time of arrest and not making plans to leave the country. The attorney also references a prior felony conviction of a Mr. Epstein and a previous proceeding before Judge Berman.
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-00001955.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where an attorney argues for their client, likely concerning bail. The attorney refutes the government's claim that the client is a flight risk by distinguishing the current case from precedents like 'U.S. v. Zarger' and a prior case involving a 'Mr. Epstein', emphasizing that their client was in New Hampshire at the time of arrest and not making plans to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00019872.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, argues that an unnamed defendant is a significant flight risk and should be denied bail. The prosecution asserts that since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019, the defendant has been actively hiding, using an alias ('G Max'), changing phone numbers, and purchasing a 156-acre property in New Hampshire with cash through an anonymized LLC. The document concludes that due to her international connections, financial means, and lack of ties to the U.S., no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
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