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

nited States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir.1986) (serious intent to flee is an important factor); United States v. Cole, 715 F. Supp. 677, 679 (E.D. Pa.1988) (defendant told undercover agents he would flee if arrested). In fact, Mr. Epstein has displayed long-term, consistent compliance with Court orders

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

nited States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir.1986) (serious intent to flee is an important factor); United States v. Cole, 715 F. Supp. 677, 679 (E.D. Pa.1988) (defendant told undercover agents he would flee if arrested). In fact, Mr. Epstein has displayed long-term, consistent compliance with Court orders

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

nited States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir.1986) (serious intent to flee is an important factor); United States v. Cole, 715 F. Supp. 677, 679 (E.D. Pa.1988) (defendant told undercover agents he would flee if arrested). In fact, Mr. Epstein has displayed long-term, consistent compliance with Court orders

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

nited States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir.1986) (serious intent to flee is an important factor); United States v. Cole, 715 F. Supp. 677, 679 (E.D. Pa.1988) (defendant told undercover agents he would flee if arrested). In fact, Mr. Epstein has displayed long-term, consistent compliance with Court orders