Epstein Secrets

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

s. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained — his residence on East 71' Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back) that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

s. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained — his residence on East 71' Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back) that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

s. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained — his residence on East 71' Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back) that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

s. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained — his residence on East 71' Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back) that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in