DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
4
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable. It supports this claim by referencing France's strict policy against extraditing its own citizens to the U.S. and by citing the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires a judge to evaluate any such waiver in person with the defendant represented by counsel, rendering anticipatory waivers meaningless.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Justice | government agency |
Refers to the French Ministry of Justice, which considered and denied an extradition request for Peterson.
|
| Government | government agency |
The party arguing the case, likely the U.S. Government, which is stated to be unaware of any instance of France extra...
|
| European Union | supranational organization |
Mentioned as the framework within which France's extradition law operates.
|
| Court | judicial body |
Mentioned as having correctly determined at an initial bail hearing that France does not extradite its own citizens.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1992-02-04
The S.D.N.Y. court denied a modification of a defendant's bail in the case United States v. Stanton.
S.D.N.Y.
2007-08-22
The French Ministry of Justice provided its position that it considers Peterson a French national and denied the extradition request.
France
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Discussed in relation to its principle of not extraditing its own citizens.
|
|
|
The country to which France has reportedly never extradited a French citizen. Also the plaintiff in 'United States v....
|
|
|
The country to which the defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights applies, and whose extradition laws are be...
|
|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, the court that decided the 'United States v. Stanton' case in 1992.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that France has a principle of non-extradition of its nationals to the United States.
The document discusses the defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom and argues it is unenforceable under UK law.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ministry of Justice considers the American-born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied"Source
— Ministry of Justice
(A provision from a communication by the French Ministry of Justice on August 22, 2007.)
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
Quote #1
"[T]he principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union."Source
— Unknown
(Cited from 'Ex. B at 4' to describe France's established extradition policy.)
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
Quote #2
"enforceable undertaking"Source
— Unknown
(A legal term used to describe what an extradition waiver was concluded not to be in the 'United States v. Stanton' case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
Quote #3
"if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge."Source
— United Kingdom’s Extradition Act of 2003
(Quoting the condition under which consent to extradition is permitted under UK law.)
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,171 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 21 of 36
Justice on August 22, 2007 which provides that the “Ministry of Justice considers the American-born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied”). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited a French citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 (“[T]he principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union.”)). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83).
The defendant’s supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant’s bail where defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers, as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and concluding that such a waiver was not an “enforceable undertaking”). Under the United Kingdom’s Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, “if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge.” Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given
The defendant’s supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant’s bail where defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers, as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and concluding that such a waiver was not an “enforceable undertaking”). Under the United Kingdom’s Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, “if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge.” Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given
18
DOJ-OGR-00002182
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document