Epstein Secrets

that the Supreme Court's decision to hear Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, a case questioning the

onlevy), New York Times (01/17, Jimenez), Chicago Tribune (01/17, Meisner), People (01/17, Neumann), the Independent (01/17, Sharp), Forbes (01/17, Gleeson), Daily Mail (01/17, Potter), Fox News (01/17, Ruiz), New York Daily News (01/17, Wilkinson), Patch (01/17, Arnold), and WBBM (CBS-2) (01/17, Feurer

Exhibit V. France Extradition Opinion Exhibit W. Letter of Exhibit X. Letter of EFTA00093221

our Honor, that the defendant was making plans to leave the country. That is the situation, frankly, in the U.S. v. Zarger case, the case by Judge Gleeson in 2000, that the government cites in its brief, but of course doesn't discuss the facts. There is nothing to that effect here. To the contrary, th

lease David Oscar Markus MARKUS/MOSS PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, Florida 33128

es v. Zinger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 8 EFTA00093087 C6sesel.213-Thilg240401Mt Db~t9tad420Ei1O3 tth M10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

titled by (Name) * —- “* cA.* . -a r.A' \ <'.X ' -W. »=*. Trmo> Juveroie Dtsposibdn'r>~ , ' r? « -14»

8 merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’