Epstein Secrets

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances - stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00100636 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances - stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00066315 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

me, your Honor; and most recently it appears that she spent the last year making concerted efforts to conceal her whereabouts whilst moving around New England, most recently to New Hampshire, which I will discuss momentarily with respect to that particular THE COURT: : -- property. THE COURT: there is

our 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 effect here. To the contrary, th

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances - stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00089372 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances — stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

ead start should she decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00091747 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances — stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

es v. Zinger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 8 EFTA00093087 C6sesel.213-Thilg240401Mt Db~t9tad420Ei1O3 tth M10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

me, your Honor; and most recently it appears that she spent the last year making concerted efforts to conceal her whereabouts whilst moving around New England, most recently to New Hampshire, which I will discuss momentarily with respect to that particular THE COURT: : -- property. THE COURT: there is

our 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 effect here. To the contrary, th

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances - stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA01659420 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ereafter, the defendant — who had previously made many public appearances - stopped appearing in public entirely, instead hiding out in locations in New England. Moreover, it appears that she made intentional efforts to avoid detection, including moving locations at least twice, switching her primary phone

000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00018513 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant