Back to Network
10
Shared Docs
9
Same-Page
10 / 10
Mentions
Document Mentions (10 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
. 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
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
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 EFTA00015549
rings and the government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United Stat
Page: EFTA00015549 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (109)
Entities connected to both Bonestroo and LaFontaine
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON18 w/ Bonestroo·37 w/ LaFontaine
United States
LOCATION17 w/ Bonestroo·33 w/ LaFontaine
Michael Jackson
PERSON13 w/ Bonestroo·37 w/ LaFontaine
the Southern District
LOCATION16 w/ Bonestroo·30 w/ LaFontaine
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION15 w/ Bonestroo·31 w/ LaFontaine
Anderson
PERSON13 w/ Bonestroo·31 w/ LaFontaine
CA
Casteneda
PERSON13 w/ Bonestroo·31 w/ LaFontaine
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON17 w/ Bonestroo·27 w/ LaFontaine
Reid Weingarten
PERSON17 w/ Bonestroo·26 w/ LaFontaine
Harry Reid
PERSON17 w/ Bonestroo·26 w/ LaFontaine
New York State
LOCATION12 w/ Bonestroo·30 w/ LaFontaine
GL
Gleeson
PERSON10 w/ Bonestroo·31 w/ LaFontaine
Amber Southerland
PERSON13 w/ Bonestroo·28 w/ LaFontaine
Ferranti
PERSON10 w/ Bonestroo·31 w/ LaFontaine
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION12 w/ Bonestroo·29 w/ LaFontaine
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION17 w/ Bonestroo·24 w/ LaFontaine
Richard M. Berman
PERSON17 w/ Bonestroo·23 w/ LaFontaine
Contreras
PERSON10 w/ Bonestroo·30 w/ LaFontaine
Icarus
PERSON13 w/ Bonestroo·24 w/ LaFontaine
Prince Andrew
PERSON13 w/ Bonestroo·24 w/ LaFontaine