Epstein Secrets

ng United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), 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), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the

5, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) 19 United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) 28 United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 7, 8 United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)

rating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at *3. DISCUSSION Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this

ng United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), 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), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the

ly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk." United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that "a release order may be rec

ourt overlooked information or 7 EFTA00089161 incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at *3. DISCUSSION Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this

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

ited States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632 (D.N.M. 2000) 8 United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985) 35 United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 8 United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003

ng United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), 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), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the

5, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) 19 United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) 28 United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 7, 8 United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)

rating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at *3. DISCUSSION Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this

that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00066968 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

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre

that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00154338 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

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre

that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00083764 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

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre

that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00086927 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

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre

that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00093438 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

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre

that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00099922 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

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre