Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
9
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendan
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA00015540
nstructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected' (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act
Page: EFTA00015540 →Page EFTA00015553
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 detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . limits a fleeing defendant'
Page: EFTA00015553 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (105)
Entities connected to both Gleeson and Borodin
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON36 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
Michael Jackson
PERSON32 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
CA
Casteneda
PERSON32 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
Anderson
PERSON32 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
United States
LOCATION31 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
LA
LaFontaine
PERSON31 w/ Gleeson·10 w/ Borodin
Ferranti
PERSON31 w/ Gleeson·10 w/ Borodin
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON26 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
Reid Weingarten
PERSON25 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
PI
Pitman
PERSON25 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
AN
Annabi
PERSON26 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin
Prince Andrew
PERSON26 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin
Harry Reid
PERSON25 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
New York State
LOCATION25 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION25 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin
Richard M. Berman
PERSON24 w/ Gleeson·14 w/ Borodin
Icarus
PERSON24 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin
N.Y. Post
ORGANIZATION24 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin
the Southern District
LOCATION26 w/ Gleeson·11 w/ Borodin
Amber Southerland
PERSON24 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Borodin