DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
752 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
8
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
752 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal arguments concerning the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites various legal precedents, noting that while some defendants have offered such waivers, courts have often not ruled on their enforceability or have deemed them unenforceable, as in the Epstein case where it was called an "empty gesture." The document highlights the significant legal uncertainty surrounding whether a foreign country would enforce such a waiver, making it a contentious point in the defendant's case against extradition to the United States.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as 'Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell' and 'Ms Maxwell' in the context of a potential extradition decree by the French ...
|
| Cirillo | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Cirillo'.
|
| Salvagno | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Salvagno'.
|
| Karni | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Karni'.
|
| Chen | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Chen'.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Epstein'.
|
| Morrison | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Morrison'.
|
| Stroh | Defendant |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Stroh'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| French government | government agency |
Mentioned as the body that would decide whether to issue an extradition decree against Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| United States | government agency |
The country to which extradition is being resisted. Also the plaintiff in several cited court cases.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears as part of a document identifier in the footer (DOJ-OGR-00002244).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-12-30
Document 106 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
United States
Locations (8)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The country seeking extradition.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a quote from the 'United States v. Morrison' case regarding a pending extradition request.
|
|
|
Northern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Salvagno.
|
|
|
District of D.C., mentioned in the citation for United States v. Karni.
|
|
|
Northern District of California, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Chen.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Epstein.
|
|
|
Western District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Morrison.
|
|
|
District of Connecticut, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Stroh.
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's resistance to extradition to the United States, where she is a defendant in a criminal case.
The document states that it would be a matter for the French government to decide on an extradition decree against Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (5)
"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
(Quoted from a defense motion regarding the process of extradition involving the French government.)
DOJ-OGR-00002244.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
(Quoted from a defense motion, speculating on the likely action of the French government.)
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
Quote #2
"Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights” as “an empty gesture."Source
— United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
(A description from a court opinion characterizing a defense proposal as unenforceable.)
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
Quote #3
"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, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016)
(A quote from a court opinion explaining conditions under which a waiver of extradition might not be valid.)
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
Quote #4
"[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, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000)
(A quote from a court opinion highlighting the legal uncertainty surrounding the enforcement of extradition waivers in foreign countries.)
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,229 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 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-00002244
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document