DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
530 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
1
Organizations
9
Locations
8
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
530 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing that discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition, likely in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The author argues that the defendant has not provided cases where such waivers are enforceable and cites several past court decisions (e.g., Epstein, Morrison, Stroh) where courts have deemed such waivers unenforceable, invalid until a formal request is made, or an 'empty gesture'. The document contrasts these with cases cited by the defense (e.g., Cirillo, Salvagno) where waivers were considered but were not the central factor in the court's reasoning.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell |
Mentioned as the subject of a potential extradition decree from France.
|
|
| Cirillo | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Cirillo.
|
| Salvagno | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Salvagno.
|
| Karni | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Karni.
|
| Chen | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Chen.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Epstein.
|
| Morrison | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Morrison.
|
| Stroh | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Stroh.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| French government | government agency |
Mentioned as the body that would decide on an extradition decree for Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
Timeline (8 events)
Locations (9)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country to which extradition is being resisted.
|
|
|
Country whose government would decide on an extradition decree.
|
|
|
Location where an extradition request was pending in the case of United States v. Morrison.
|
|
|
Court location for United States v. Salvagno.
|
|
|
Court location for United States v. Karni.
|
|
|
Court location for United States v. Chen.
|
|
|
Court location for United States v. Epstein.
|
|
|
Court location for United States v. Morrison.
|
|
|
Court location for United States v. Stroh.
|
Key Quotes (6)
"It would . . . become a matter for the French government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell."Source
— Def. Mot., Ex. V ¶ 76
(A quote from a defense motion regarding the process of extradition for Ghislaine Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
Quote #1
"[I]t is highly unlikely that the French government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell. . . ."Source
— Def. Mot., Ex. V ¶ 77
(A quote from a defense motion speculating on the likelihood of the French government extraditing Ghislaine Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
Quote #2
"Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights"Source
— United States v. Epstein
(Described as 'an empty gesture' in the court's opinion.)
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
Quote #3
"an empty gesture."Source
— United States v. Epstein
(The court's description of a defense proposal to waive extradition rights in advance.)
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
Quote #4
"Although the defendants have signed a waiver of extradition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."Source
— United States v. Morrison
(A court opinion on the validity of a waiver of extradition.)
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
Quote #5
"[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any country to which he fled would enforce any waiver of extradition signed under the circumstances presented in this case."Source
— United States v. Stroh
(A court opinion questioning the enforceability of a signed waiver of extradition in a foreign country.)
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,230 characters)
Case 20-cr-700330-AJN Document 108-2 Filed 06/25/20 Page 12 of 22
successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding
indictment dated 7 July 2020.”); Def. Mot., Ex. V ¶ 76 (“It would . . . become a matter for the
French government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms.
Ghislaine Maxwell.”); id. ¶ 77 (“[I]t is highly unlikely that the French government would refuse
to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell. . . .”). Nor has the Defendant
presented any cases where courts addressed the question of whether an anticipatory waiver of
extradition is enforceable; while she cites cases where defendants offered to waive extradition,
the reasoning in those cases turned on other factors and the courts did not dwell on the
enforceability of such waivers. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL
1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119
(N.D.N.Y. 2004); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132 33 (D.D.C. 2004); United
States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992). In those cases, the courts included
such waivers as one among several conditions of release, but they did not make any express
determination that such waivers are enforceable. On the other hand, some courts have expressly
opined that such waivers are unenforceable. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d
306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (describing the “Defense proposal to give advance consent to
extradition and waiver of extradition rights” as “an empty gesture.”); United States v. Morrison,
No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) (“Although the defendants
have signed a waiver of extradition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition
request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal.”); United States v. Stroh, No.
396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) (“[I]t appears that there
is a substantial legal question as to whether any country to which he fled would enforce any
waiver of extradition signed under the circumstances presented in this case. At any event,
indictment dated 7 July 2020.”); Def. Mot., Ex. V ¶ 76 (“It would . . . become a matter for the
French government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms.
Ghislaine Maxwell.”); id. ¶ 77 (“[I]t is highly unlikely that the French government would refuse
to issue and execute an extradition decree against Ms Maxwell. . . .”). Nor has the Defendant
presented any cases where courts addressed the question of whether an anticipatory waiver of
extradition is enforceable; while she cites cases where defendants offered to waive extradition,
the reasoning in those cases turned on other factors and the courts did not dwell on the
enforceability of such waivers. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL
1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119
(N.D.N.Y. 2004); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132 33 (D.D.C. 2004); United
States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992). In those cases, the courts included
such waivers as one among several conditions of release, but they did not make any express
determination that such waivers are enforceable. On the other hand, some courts have expressly
opined that such waivers are unenforceable. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d
306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (describing the “Defense proposal to give advance consent to
extradition and waiver of extradition rights” as “an empty gesture.”); United States v. Morrison,
No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) (“Although the defendants
have signed a waiver of extradition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition
request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal.”); United States v. Stroh, No.
396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) (“[I]t appears that there
is a substantial legal question as to whether any country to which he fled would enforce any
waiver of extradition signed under the circumstances presented in this case. At any event,
12
DOJ-OGR-00001221
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document