DOJ-OGR-00002785.jpg
706 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (defense motion regarding bail)
File Size:
706 KB
Summary
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 171) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 23, 2021. The defense argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she is willing to renounce both her French and British citizenships and waive extradition rights. The text cites a legal opinion by Mr. Julié regarding French extradition law (Article 696-4) to support the claim that she would not be protected from extradition if she fled to France after renouncing citizenship.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the bail argument; offering to renounce British and French citizenship to prove she is not a flight risk.
|
| Mr. Julié | Legal Expert/Declarant |
Cited for a legal opinion regarding French extradition law and Article 696-4.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
Referred to as 'the government' opposing the bail/extradition arguments.
|
|
| French Courts |
Mentioned in the context of deporting individuals who lost nationality.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Party to extradition treaty.
|
|
|
Party to extradition treaty.
|
Relationships (2)
Discusses her agreement to give up French citizenship.
Discusses her agreement to give up British citizenship.
Key Quotes (3)
"“[I]t cannot have been the intention of French lawmakers that Article 696-4 be construed as meaning that a person who has lost French nationality would still be entitled to be protected from extradition.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002785.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell’s agreement to give up both British and French citizenship and waive any and all right to contest extradition is a formidable challenge to the assertion that Ms. Maxwell would likely flee if released from custody"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002785.jpg
Quote #2
"her willingness to forfeit citizenship birthrights exceeds what is necessary and profoundly demonstrates her commitment to abide by conditions of release and appear at trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002785.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,080 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 171 Filed 03/23/21 Page 5 of 18
The language of the extradition treaty between the United States and France and the
applicable French statues are clear that anyone seeking to contest extradition on the basis of
French citizenship must be a French national at the time of the extradition request. (Id. ¶ 11).
The provisions on which the government relies were not intended to apply in cases where the
person whose extradition is sought had lost French citizenship. To the contrary, it was
designed to apply to individuals who had acquired French citizenship subsequent to the
commission of the alleged crime “in order to avoid fraudulent nationality applications of
offenders seeking to escape extradition.” (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). If the person is no longer a French
national at the time of the request, the provision does not apply. The government cites no case
where the relevant statute was applied to protect a formerly French national from extradition,
and we have found none ourselves. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21). By contrast, there are numerous examples
of French courts deporting individuals who have lost French nationality following the
commission of an offense. (Id. ¶ 21). Accordingly, Mr. Julié concludes: “[I]t cannot have been
the intention of French lawmakers that Article 696-4 be construed as meaning that a person
who has lost French nationality would still be entitled to be protected from extradition.” (Id.
¶ 26).
applicable French statues are clear that anyone seeking to contest extradition on the basis of
French citizenship must be a French national at the time of the extradition request. (Id. ¶ 11).
The provisions on which the government relies were not intended to apply in cases where the
person whose extradition is sought had lost French citizenship. To the contrary, it was
designed to apply to individuals who had acquired French citizenship subsequent to the
commission of the alleged crime “in order to avoid fraudulent nationality applications of
offenders seeking to escape extradition.” (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). If the person is no longer a French
national at the time of the request, the provision does not apply. The government cites no case
where the relevant statute was applied to protect a formerly French national from extradition,
and we have found none ourselves. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21). By contrast, there are numerous examples
of French courts deporting individuals who have lost French nationality following the
commission of an offense. (Id. ¶ 21). Accordingly, Mr. Julié concludes: “[I]t cannot have been
the intention of French lawmakers that Article 696-4 be construed as meaning that a person
who has lost French nationality would still be entitled to be protected from extradition.” (Id.
¶ 26).
Ms. Maxwell’s agreement to give up both British and French citizenship and waive
any and all right to contest extradition is a formidable challenge to the assertion that Ms.
Maxwell would likely flee if released from custody and goes above and beyond the
“reasonable assurances” that the Bail Reform Act requires to grant bail. While we
maintain that Ms. Maxwell’s written waivers of the right to challenge extradition should
suffice, her willingness to forfeit citizenship birthrights exceeds what is necessary and
profoundly demonstrates her commitment to abide by conditions of release and appear at
trial.
any and all right to contest extradition is a formidable challenge to the assertion that Ms.
Maxwell would likely flee if released from custody and goes above and beyond the
“reasonable assurances” that the Bail Reform Act requires to grant bail. While we
maintain that Ms. Maxwell’s written waivers of the right to challenge extradition should
suffice, her willingness to forfeit citizenship birthrights exceeds what is necessary and
profoundly demonstrates her commitment to abide by conditions of release and appear at
trial.
4
DOJ-OGR-00002785
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document