Back to Network
10
Shared Docs
9
Same-Page
10 / 10
Mentions
Document Mentions (10 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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
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
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA00015545
. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w
Page: EFTA00015545 →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 (116)
Entities connected to both Gleeson and Bonestroo
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON36 w/ Gleeson·18 w/ Bonestroo
United States
LOCATION31 w/ Gleeson·17 w/ Bonestroo
CA
Casteneda
PERSON32 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo
Michael Jackson
PERSON32 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo
Anderson
PERSON32 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON26 w/ Gleeson·17 w/ Bonestroo
Harry Reid
PERSON25 w/ Gleeson·17 w/ Bonestroo
the Southern District
LOCATION26 w/ Gleeson·16 w/ Bonestroo
Reid Weingarten
PERSON25 w/ Gleeson·17 w/ Bonestroo
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION24 w/ Gleeson·17 w/ Bonestroo
LA
LaFontaine
PERSON31 w/ Gleeson·10 w/ Bonestroo
Ferranti
PERSON31 w/ Gleeson·10 w/ Bonestroo
Richard M. Berman
PERSON24 w/ Gleeson·17 w/ Bonestroo
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION25 w/ Gleeson·15 w/ Bonestroo
Prince Andrew
PERSON26 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo
AN
Annabi
PERSON26 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo
PI
Pitman
PERSON25 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION25 w/ Gleeson·12 w/ Bonestroo
New York State
LOCATION25 w/ Gleeson·12 w/ Bonestroo
N.Y. Post
ORGANIZATION24 w/ Gleeson·13 w/ Bonestroo