| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
location
Switzerland
|
Citizenship |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | Discussion of the legal case 'U.S. v. Bodmer' | N/A | View |
| 2004-06-28 | N/A | United States v. Bodmer ruling | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2004-06-28 | N/A | United States v. Bodmer decision | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2004-06-28 | Court ruling | In United States v. Bodmer, the court set conditions of bail for a defendant who had consented to... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2004-06-28 | Legal case | United States v. Bodmer, where bail was set for a defendant who had consented to extradition, wit... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2004-06-28 | Legal case | United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2004-01-28 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Bodmer. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2004-01-28 | Court case | The case of United States v. Bodmer, where the defendant was released to home confinement with GP... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Bodmer case proceedings | United States Court | View |
This is page 50 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020. The defense counsel is arguing for bail by citing legal precedents (Bodmer and Khashoggi) where foreign citizens with extradition concerns or significant wealth were granted bail. The lawyer argues that denying bail simply because France does not extradite citizens would effectively bar all French citizens from bail in the US.
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 document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 18) dated July 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's assertion that Maxwell is a flight risk, citing her isolation as a protective measure rather than an attempt to flee, and noting that wealth and foreign citizenship alone are insufficient grounds for detention without proof of 'inclination' to flee. It also argues that COVID-19 travel restrictions make flight unlikely and mentions in a footnote that individuals in the media (specifically in the UK) are falsely claiming to have ties to her.
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 10, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the main document, providing the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and span from 1978 to 2020.
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 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 document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
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 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 document is the 'Table of Authorities' (page ii) from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), originally filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited within the main brief, including cases such as Hung v. United States, United States v. Boustani, and United States v. Dreier. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019877).
This legal document argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk, citing Supreme Court precedent on bail. It references the case of United States v. Bodmer, where a defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's speculative arguments. The document concludes that Ms. Maxwell should receive similar treatment to other defendants granted bond.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity