Back to Network
6
Shared Docs
0
Same-Page
6 / 7
Mentions
Document Mentions (6 shared documents)
3 mentions
Page EFTA00015539
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F. Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). 5. Private Security is Inadequate, Unfair, and Impractical Here The defe
Page: EFTA00015539 →Page EFTA00015544
leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. g This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
Page: EFTA00015544 →Page EFTA00015553
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00015553 →2 mentions
Page EFTA00024589
purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
Page: EFTA00024589 →Page EFTA00024591
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00024591 →2 mentions
Page EFTA00028302
purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
Page: EFTA00028302 →Page EFTA00028304
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00028304 →Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA00028792
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F. Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). 5. Private Security is Inadequate, Unfair, and Impractical Here The defe
Page: EFTA00028792 →Page EFTA00028797
leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. g This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
Page: EFTA00028797 →2 mentions
Page EFTA00029009
purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
Page: EFTA00029009 →Page EFTA00029011
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00029011 →2 mentions
Page EFTA00030837
purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
Page: EFTA00030837 →Page EFTA00030839
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00030839 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (87)
Entities connected to both Laskow and Benatar
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON35 w/ Laskow·9 w/ Benatar
Michael Jackson
PERSON32 w/ Laskow·9 w/ Benatar
AN
Annabi
PERSON35 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON32 w/ Laskow·8 w/ Benatar
Anderson
PERSON32 w/ Laskow·8 w/ Benatar
Reid Weingarten
PERSON32 w/ Laskow·7 w/ Benatar
Prince Andrew
PERSON32 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar
United States
LOCATION32 w/ Laskow·5 w/ Benatar
CA
Casteneda
PERSON27 w/ Laskow·8 w/ Benatar
Harry Reid
PERSON27 w/ Laskow·7 w/ Benatar
PI
Pitman
PERSON27 w/ Laskow·7 w/ Benatar
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION30 w/ Laskow·3 w/ Benatar
Icarus
PERSON27 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar
New York State
LOCATION26 w/ Laskow·7 w/ Benatar
Richard M. Berman
PERSON26 w/ Laskow·7 w/ Benatar
Amber Southerland
PERSON27 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar
N.Y. Post
ORGANIZATION27 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION26 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar
GL
Gleeson
PERSON24 w/ Laskow·7 w/ Benatar
Ferranti
PERSON24 w/ Laskow·6 w/ Benatar