Back to People & Entities
BE
Benatar
Person
10
Total Mentions
9
Documents
99
Connected Entities
Benatar appears in the documents exclusively as a legal precedent cited in bail and flight risk arguments, with no direct connection to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates.
All 10 mentions of Benatar are identical legal citations from the case 'United States v. Benatar' (2002), used in bail motion arguments. The citations appear in multiple documents (EFTA00015532, EFTA00018505, etc.) discussing flight risk and electronic monitoring, but Benatar is never discussed as a person or party of interest in the Epstein investigation.
Key Highlights
- •All mentions are identical legal citations (United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262) used as precedent in bail arguments
- •No evidence of personal connection, communication, or involvement with Jeffrey Epstein or his associates
- •Appears in at least 9 different documents, all citing the same case for the proposition that electronic monitoring is insufficient to prevent flight
- •The name appears in legal footnotes, not in the substantive discussion of Epstein's case
Frequently Asked Questions
Books for Further Reading
Document Mentions (9)
2 mentions
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F. Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). 5. Private Security is Inadequate, Unfair, and Impractical Here The defe
Page: EFTA00015539 →Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00015553 →1 mention
ation for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant's head start"); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9
Page: EFTA00018514 →1 mention
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00024591 →Sponsored
1 mention
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00028304 →1 mention
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F. Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). 5. Private Security is Inadequate, Unfair, and Impractical Here The defe
Page: EFTA00028792 →1 mention
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00029011 →Sponsored
1 mention
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). D. Private Security is Inadequate and Raises Numerous Questions and Chall
Page: EFTA00030252 →1 mention
8 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). : Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
1 mention
Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to
Page: EFTA00030839 →Sponsored
Connected Entities(20 of 99)
Second Circuit
Organization9 docs9 co-mentions
District Court for the Southern District of New York
Organization9 docs9 co-mentions
CA
Casteneda
Person9 docs9 co-mentions
Jeffrey Epstein
PersonAmerican sex offender and financier (1953–2019)
9 docs9 co-mentions
Anderson
PersonBrazilian association football player (born 1988)
9 docs9 co-mentions
ZA
Zarger
Person9 docs9 co-mentions
N.D. Cal.
Location8 docs8 co-mentions
MW
Martin Weinberg
PersonAmerican attorney (born 1946)
8 docs8 co-mentions
GL
Gleeson
Person8 docs8 co-mentions
Harry Reid
PersonAmerican politician (1939–2021)
8 docs8 co-mentions
PI
Pitman
Person8 docs8 co-mentions
Reid Weingarten
PersonTown in the valley of the Schussen River, in the district of Ravensburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
8 docs8 co-mentions
Prince Andrew
PersonThird child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (born 1960)
7 docs7 co-mentions
New York State
Location7 docs7 co-mentions
Amber Southerland
Person7 docs7 co-mentions
Icarus
Person7 docs7 co-mentions
U.S. Virgin Islands
LocationUnincorporated territory of the United States of America
7 docs7 co-mentions
LA
Laskow
Person7 docs7 co-mentions
Ferranti
Person7 docs7 co-mentions
Richard M. Berman
PersonAmerican judge
7 docs7 co-mentions