Epstein Secrets

ss tampering has been a "traditional ground for pretrial detention by the courts." LaFontaine 210 F.3d at 132-34 (affirming then-U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his

ss tampering has been a "traditional ground for pretrial detention by the courts." LaFontaine 210 F.3d at 132-34 (affirming then-U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his

ss tampering has been a "traditional ground for pretrial detention by the courts." LaFontaine 210 F.3d at 132-34 (affirming then-U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his

ss tampering has been a "traditional ground for pretrial detention by the courts." LaFontaine 210 F.3d at 132-34 (affirming then-U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his