Back to Network
8
Shared Docs
8
Same-Page
8 / 9
Mentions
Document Mentions (8 shared documents)
3 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00015539Same page
At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce his head start should he decide to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with ele
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 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 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00024591Same page
rable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 8 merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home dete
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 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00018514Same page
ing device. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would merely reduce her head start should she decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 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
Page: EFTA00018514 →ation for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant's head start"); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9
Page: EFTA00018514 →Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00028304Same page
as required. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home dete
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 →2 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00028792Same page
At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce his head start should he decide to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with ele
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 →2 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00029011Same page
rable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 8 merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home dete
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 →Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00030252Same page
been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home dete
Page: EFTA00030252 →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). D. Private Security is Inadequate and Raises Numerous Questions and Chall
Page: EFTA00030252 →2 mentions1 same-page
Page EFTA00030839Same page
rable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 8 merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home dete
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 (88)
Entities connected to both Zarger and Benatar
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON11 w/ Zarger·9 w/ Benatar
Second Circuit
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Zarger·8 w/ Benatar
Michael Jackson
PERSON8 w/ Zarger·9 w/ Benatar
District Court for the Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION9 w/ Zarger·8 w/ Benatar
Anderson
PERSON8 w/ Zarger·8 w/ Benatar
CA
Casteneda
PERSON8 w/ Zarger·8 w/ Benatar
GL
Gleeson
PERSON9 w/ Zarger·7 w/ Benatar
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON7 w/ Zarger·8 w/ Benatar
Richard M. Berman
PERSON7 w/ Zarger·7 w/ Benatar
PI
Pitman
PERSON7 w/ Zarger·7 w/ Benatar
Harry Reid
PERSON7 w/ Zarger·7 w/ Benatar
Reid Weingarten
PERSON7 w/ Zarger·7 w/ Benatar
AN
Annabi
PERSON8 w/ Zarger·6 w/ Benatar
New York State
LOCATION6 w/ Zarger·7 w/ Benatar
Amber Southerland
PERSON6 w/ Zarger·6 w/ Benatar
LA
Laskow
PERSON6 w/ Zarger·6 w/ Benatar
LA
LaFontaine
PERSON6 w/ Zarger·6 w/ Benatar
United States
LOCATION7 w/ Zarger·5 w/ Benatar
The Fantasist
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Zarger·6 w/ Benatar
Prince Andrew
PERSON6 w/ Zarger·6 w/ Benatar