Jeffrey Epstein Bail Hearing

The Judge in Jeffrey Epstein's case in the SDNY said he likely won't rule today on whether Jeffrey Epstein will be granted release on bail.

Bail is not intended to be punitive. Even though there is a presumption that he is a flight risk and danger to the community based solely on the nature of his charges, the statute allows him to present evidence to rebut the presumption. If he does, the government must prove flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence and danger to the community by the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. The Court can still consider the presumption in making its final decision.

Epstein successfully completed his community supervision after jail and has incurred no new charges until now, and these charges relate to activity before his Florida case. Photographs in a safe is all the prosecutor has to show he's still a danger. 14 years of compliance in my view is enough to rebut the presumption. [More...]

Madoff got bail and surrendered. Epstein should get bail. I think these charges will ultimately be thrown out. It's way too late to rescind the NPA since Epstein relied to his detriment on it, and regardless of whether the agreement is limited to the SDFL, the SDFL and SDNY are both the same sovereign, the United States of America.

I wonder what Trump is thinking. Everytime he throws out an absurd statement like he did yeterday about the two Congresswomen, he's trying to deflect attention from another bigger problem. I think his incendiary remarks were intended to keep people from thinking and talking about him and Epstein.

< ICE Raids: Exercise Your Rights | El Chapo Gets Life, Rebukes U.S. for Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    According (none / 0) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    to this
    Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was supposed to check in with New York City police officers every 90 days since he was registered as a sex offender in 2011 ― but he never once showed up, according to a New York Post report.
    he did not completely comply with his plea deal.

    The Murdoch New York Post is not (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    the most reliable of news sources, but if true that would be a significant felony. I am dubious, because it is an obvious thing for prosecutors to have checked before returning the current charges.  And because compliance would be an easy, obvious and important thing for Epstein to stay on top of, to avoid further trouble and/or scrutiny. If true, failure to comply with SORNA registration would be a significant new criminal charge, as well as potentially a violation of the old agreement that might even release the government from its promises.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    According to an NYPD source, (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 16, 2019 at 03:05:56 AM EST
    Epstein changed his leal reidence to is private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands b/4 his first report date.

    Very interesting factoid re bail, he had an expired passport in another name, not U.S. passport.


    Without presuming (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    To have an opinion on whether or not he should be released on bail I do not think he will be.

    Neither do I. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    It's really hard for me to work up any sympathy for a guy like Jeffrey Epstein. In that regard, his defense counsel team has a thankless task and their work's cut out for them.

    All that said, I do take seriously Jeralyn's argument. My concern is whether Epstein is being held for new crimes since committed in the wake of the 2007 Acosta agreement, or is he being raked over the coals again on old charges ostensibly covered by that agreement.

    As appalling and noxious as Alex Acosta's deal with Epstein was, it was fully within his scope of authority as U.S. Attorney to broker that sort of arrangement. The government can't simply toss aside a legally binding agreement just because one of its parties is thoroughly repulsive in character. Maybe Jeralyn or Peter can explain whether double jeopardy would apply here.

    Anyway, Cap'n, I hope the weather isn't causing you too much trouble at home. Looks nasty. It's terribly humid over here in Hilo. Take care.



    I am pretty sure that Jeralyn explained why (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    there is no double jeopardy issue last week some time. But in short, two reasons: First, as reaffirmed just last month by the Supreme Court, Double Jeopardy presupposes two proceedings by the "same sovereign," which does not include a State, on the one hand, and the federal authorities on the other. And second, Epstein was never even "in jeopardy" a first time on the current charges, even though he was threatened with a federal prosecution in Florida, because he was neither convicted nor acquitted, nor did he even face trial, on those charges. In fact, I believe (IIRC) the infamous negotiation with Acosta resulted in the proposed 53-count federal (Florida) indictment never being filed against Epstein at all.

    Thank you, Peter. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 16, 2019 at 02:46:14 AM EST
    Well, that sounds pretty cut and dried. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:56:42 PM EST

    Plans to flee (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 12:45:35 PM EST

    Federal prosecutors say a search of Jeffrey Epstein's home safe turned up a bogus passport that listed a Saudi Arabia residence along with "piles of cash" and "dozens of diamonds.


    An expired passport (of what nation)? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    How would that help someone to flee?

    Still (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    It's a bit odd.  And only serves as a reminder of how easy it would be for him to get a nice new one.

    Also my admittedly non-legal opinion of the fact that it's being reported he as his lawyers seem willing to literally do "almost anything", at least financially speaking, to get him freed could quite possibly end up being a reason to not free him.


    Rawstory (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    The government revealed the expansion of the case at the day's bail hearing. In searching the defendant's house, investigators found an old passport with Epstein picture and a fake name that listed Saudi Arabia as the location of his residence, the prosecutor said.

    The judge was surprised at this revelation, NBC News reported, asking the attorney, "Say again?"

    "The passport was issued in the name of a foreign country, it was issued in the 1980s, it is expired, it shows a picture of Jeffrey Epstein, and another name," said Rossmiller.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 08:58:16 PM EST
    They have not said what country issued the fake passport.

    Wondering what's the over/under on Russia.  Saudi Arabia would also be interesting but it seems like they might have said that since that was listed as his residence.


    Maybe he was (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 10:58:22 PM EST
    working for the CIA (only half joking, I have no idea)

    Acosta sez (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 16, 2019 at 06:56:47 AM EST
    "He belonged to intelligence"

    It was Austria (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2019 at 08:39:21 PM EST
    from the latest govt. filing.

    Probably would not help to flee now. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 16, 2019 at 11:33:52 AM EST
    OTOH, the most obvious reason for possessing a fake passport in the first place is as a bug out option.

    What you said about (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    Distracting from Epstein was pretty much proven with the afternoon driveway rant about how the Fab Four "hate our country"

    The FF are about to hold a news conference to respond.

    This is pretty dramatic (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    Presley throws a little shade at Nancy, we are more than four.

    Omar is making heads explode nationwide by quoting Trump with expletives included.

    Two to go.


    So, yes (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 05:53:27 PM EST
    Clearly intended to distract.  And it's working but I'm not sure it's going to work the way he hopes.

    Plus, he is going to need to quadruple down on Thursday when the judge decides what to do , so, good luck with that Donald.


    UC Global, a private Spanish security company hired by Ecuador to look into Julian Assange's activities while he took refuge in that country's London embassy, determined that Assange and Wikileaks were likely working in concert with Russian intelligence agencies during the 2016 U.S. election season.

    (Sigh!) So many scandals, so little time.


    No, it isn't. (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 07:05:22 PM EST
    "It's way too late to rescind the NPA since Epstein relied to his detriment on it,"

    if it was entered into illegally to begin with, it was void on its face (basic contract law, and this agreement was a contract), and his reliance on it was hardly to his detriment; he couldn't even be bothered to meet its minimum requirements. it made him a free man, able to use his (questionable) wealth, unfettered, to do pretty much anything he wanted. bear in mind, the people are also entitled to a fair trial, and it's long settled case law that criminals don't get to benefit from their illegal acts.

    in reality, he should have been the subject of a RICO investigation, with his assets frozen, because he is involved in an ongoing, organized criminal activity. I'm not surprised Acosta didn't pursue that avenue originally, but I am surprised the current federal investigation hasn't. that would eliminate the question of bail, because he wouldn't have the resources to afford it.

    virtually all of this is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 15, 2019 at 10:56:33 PM EST
    incorrect from a legal and factual standpoint.

    Jeralyn, a little OT, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 17, 2019 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    I am sure this will interest you.

    El Chapo gets life plus thirty years.