DOJ-OGR-00002776.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion or order analyzing a defendant's flight risk. The Court is not persuaded by the Defendant's proposals to renounce her UK citizenship or to have a retired federal judge oversee her finances, concluding that she would still be able to delay or resist extradition. The Court maintains that the Defendant remains a flight risk due to her substantial international ties and the incentive to flee.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the court's analysis regarding flight risk, extradition, and proposed conditions for release.
|
| Cohen | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757'.
|
| retired federal judge | Proposed overseer |
The Defendant proposed to have a retired federal judge provide oversight over her financial affairs.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
The judicial body making determinations about the Defendant's flight risk and proposed conditions.
|
| Government | Government agency |
The party arguing against the Defendant's proposals, whose arguments persuaded the Court.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Court is evaluating the Defendant's flight risk and proposed conditions for release, such as renouncing citizenship and financial oversight.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The country of the Defendant's citizenship, which she offered to renounce, and from which extradition is discussed.
|
|
|
Northern District of California, mentioned in a case citation.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of the Defendant's willingness to renounce her French and UK citizenship.
|
Relationships (2)
The Court is making a determination about the Defendant's legal status and conditions for appearance.
The Government is arguing against the Defendant's proposals in a legal proceeding.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,079 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 12
parallel those that the Court articulated when the Defendant proposed signing an extradition waiver. See Dec. Op. at 12–13.
Similar doubts exist as to the Defendant’s offer to renounce her UK citizenship. The Court is persuaded by the Government’s arguments that even if the Defendant were to renounce her UK citizenship, she would still likely be able to delay or resist extradition from the UK. See Gov’t Opp’n at 6–7. And for largely similar reasons, the Court again concludes that the proposed conditions do not meaningfully diminish the Court’s concerns regarding the Defendant’s ability to flee and to frustrate or impair any subsequent extradition attempts. The possibility that the Defendant could successfully resist or forestall extradition heightens the Defendant’s incentive to flee.
To summarize, the Defendant’s willingness to renounce her French and UK citizenship does not sufficiently assuage the Court’s concerns regarding the risk of flight that the Defendant poses. Considerable uncertainty regarding the enforceability and practical impact of the renunciations cloud whatever relevance they might otherwise have to the Court’s assessment of whether the Defendant poses a risk of flight. See United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010). And that same uncertainty—and the possibility that she will be able to successfully resist, or at least delay, extradition—incentivizes flight, particularly because of the Defendant’s substantial international ties.
Nor does the second proposed condition materially alter the Court’s determination that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance. The Defendant proposes to have a retired federal judge provide oversight authority over her financial affairs, and, if granted, he would have the authority to restrain, monitor, and approve disbursement of assets requiring his signature. See Reply at 5. The Court continues to have
10
DOJ-OGR-00002776
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document