Epstein Secrets

21 United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988) 13, 18 United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) 16 United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) 16 United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) 16 United States v. Kashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048

WL 3536277 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020) 10 United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) 18 United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) 9, 10, 16, 18 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 9 United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1

21 22 23 24 25 that are relevant to that, which I was going to get to, your Honor, are Khashoggi, U.S. v. Khashoggi, U.S. v. Bodmer, U.S. v. Hanson, and Sabhnani itself, all of which involve defendants with substantial connections. And I might follow up on your Honor's question, when you take

n that never shifts, has not made a showing as required, that our client is a risk of flight. When you consider the risk, as Judge Raggi put it, in Sabhnani, the actual risk of flight, not fantasy and not speculation, when you consider that the only factors they really point to are ones that the cases

21 22 23 24 25 that are relevant to that, which I was going to get to, your Honor, are Khashoggi, U.S. v. Khashoggi, U.S. v. Bodmer, U.S. v. Hanson, and Sabhnani itself, all of which involve defendants with substantial connections. And I might follow up on your Honor's question, when you take

n that never shifts, has not made a showing as required, that our client is a risk of flight. When you consider the risk, as Judge Raggi put it, in Sabhnani, the actual risk of flight, not fantasy and not speculation, when you consider that the only factors they really point to are ones that the cases