Defendant has raised numerous assertions that he does not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community, it is unclear to the Court whether the unsubstantiated claims, absent four questionable affidavits, give rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence the statute requires. Black’s Law Dictionary defines clear and convincing as “proof beyond a reasonable, i.e., a well-founded doubt.” See Black’s Law Dictionary at 317 (4th ed. 1951). In this case, the Court has a doubt that Defendant may not flee or pose a danger to the community based on Defendant’s failure to proffer substantiated evidence. This fail ure leaves the Court no option but to find that Defendant has failed to meet the first prong of § 3143(b). See United States v. Manso-Portes, 838 F.2d 889, 890 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming that Defendant met the first
holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evidence holding that district courts decision to release defendant under  3143b based on mere perforce and not clear and convincing evidence constituted reversible error holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence