4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
r importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutte
foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition tr
r importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutte
foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition tr
r importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutte
foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition tr
r importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutte
foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001 ) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition t
Entities connected to both Interstate Facilities and E.D. Penn

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSONSORA Hearing Transcript
PERSONReuven Fenton
PERSONKate Sheehy
PERSONChuck Weber
PERSONMinnici
PERSONB. Counsels'
ORGANIZATIONGoodwin
PERSONE. The Presumption of Remand
ORGANIZATIONS. REP
ORGANIZATIONDefense Counsel's
ORGANIZATIONSexual Exploitation of Children
ORGANIZATIONthe New York State Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Larry Celona
PERSONPalm Beach Police Incident Report
ORGANIZATION
The Palm Beach Post
ORGANIZATION
Ruth Pickholz
PERSONNY Post Article
ORGANIZATIONDefense Counsel/District
ORGANIZATIONCBS 12 News
ORGANIZATION