Epstein Secrets

ry of the defendant. The government said -- THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, just before you move to that, the three cases that you cited -- Esposito, Dreier, Madoff - factually did any of those cases involve defendants with substantial international and foreign connections? MR. COHEN: No, I don't believe they

ars to have been based on the resources available to defendant, not foreign connections or experience and a record of hiding from being found. In Madoff, the defendant had already been released on a bail package agreed to by the parties for a considerable period of time before the government sought

s hiding and we have evidence, your Honor, that the defendant was making plans to leave the country. That is the situation, frankly, in the U.S. v. Zarger case, the case by Judge Gleeson in 2000, that the government cites in its brief, but of course doesn't discuss the facts. There is nothing to that

ry of the defendant. The government said -- THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, just before you move to that, the three cases that you cited -- Esposito, Dreier, Madoff - factually did any of those cases involve defendants with substantial international and foreign connections? MR. COHEN: No, I don't believe they

ars to have been based on the resources available to defendant, not foreign connections or experience and a record of hiding from being found. In Madoff, the defendant had already been released on a bail package agreed to by the parties for a considerable period of time before the government sought

s hiding and we have evidence, your Honor, that the defendant was making plans to leave the country. That is the situation, frankly, in the U.S. v. Zarger case, the case by Judge Gleeson in 2000, that the government cites in its brief, but of course doesn't discuss the facts. There is nothing to that

The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00013319 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence of any dependents, significant family ties, or employment in the

observed, "home detention with electronic monitoring does not prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant's head start." United States v. Zarger, No. 00- CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *I (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the Defendant now represents that she would be released