DOJ-OGR-00002107.jpg
717 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
717 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues for the extradition of Ms. Maxwell to the United States. It contends that a U.S. trial would best serve the interests of the victims and that it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully oppose extradition on the grounds of her physical or mental health, as the legal threshold for such an argument is exceptionally high.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms Maxwell | Subject of extradition proceedings |
Mentioned throughout the document as the individual whose potential extradition to the United States is being discuss...
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Named in footnote 79 in the case title "United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell" in reference to her bail hearing.
|
| Love |
Named in the case citations "Love v United States" (footnote 76) and "Love v Government of the United States" (footno...
|
|
| Shaw |
Named in the case citation "Shaw v United States" (footnote 79).
|
|
| Dewani |
Named in the case citation "Dewani v Government of South Africa" (footnote 83) and cited again in footnote 85.
|
|
| Miao |
Named in the case citation "Miao v Government of the United States of America" (footnote 84).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| High Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as having held that the interests of victims are served by a trial where they can be present.
|
| United States of America | Government |
Mentioned as the prosecutor in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (footnote 79) and in a case citation (footnote 84).
|
| Government of the United States | Government |
Mentioned in a case citation in footnote 82.
|
| Government of South Africa | Government |
Mentioned in a case citation in footnote 83.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-07-14
A bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell where one victim made a statement in person and another provided a written statement read by the prosecutor.
Court
A potential trial in the United States for Ms. Maxwell, which is argued to be in the best interest of the victims.
United States
Ms Maxwell
victims
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location for a potential trial that would best serve the interests of victims.
|
|
|
Mentioned in relation to Ms. Maxwell's connections, which are argued to not be substantial enough to prevent extradit...
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case citation "Dewani v Government of South Africa" in footnote 83.
|
Key Quotes (1)
"will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be present, they can be so"Source
— High Court
(A holding from the High Court regarding the interests of victims, cited to support the argument for a trial in the United States.)
DOJ-OGR-00002107.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,386 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 29
this as a weighty factor.76 Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the victims77 would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the interests of victims78 “will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be present, they can be so”79. Third, Ms Maxwell’s connections to the UK80 do not appear to be of a type likely to be considered substantial in this context.
Mental and physical condition
34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her81. In order to rely on her physical or mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to meet the statutory test. Most cases in the ‘unjust’ category relate to the persons’ fitness to plead to otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily surmountable.82 and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient83. Even in cases where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be provided84, or an undertaking to return an individual if they are later found to be unfit to plead85, and thus ensure that extradition is possible notwithstanding the requested person’s medical problems.
76 Love v United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28.
77 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).
78 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).
79 Shaw v United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that at Ms Maxwell’s bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 38-40.
80 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g).
81 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91.
82 Love v Government of the United States, para. 122.
83 Dewani v Government of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73.
84 Miao v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37.
85 Dewani.
77 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).
78 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).
79 Shaw v United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that at Ms Maxwell’s bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 38-40.
80 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g).
81 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91.
82 Love v Government of the United States, para. 122.
83 Dewani v Government of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73.
84 Miao v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37.
85 Dewani.
1922623.1
11
11
DOJ-OGR-00002107
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document