DOJ-OGR-00002141.jpg
896 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
896 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing by attorney William Julié regarding the potential extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell from France to the USA. The filing argues that under the US-France Extradition Treaty, a claim of political motivation is unlikely to succeed in preventing her extradition, citing a history of French courts granting US requests and distinguishing her case from a past instance where extradition to Russia was denied on political grounds.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| William JULIÉ | avocat à la cour – attorney at law |
Appears as the author or representative attorney at the top of the page.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Subject of potential extradition |
Mentioned in paragraph 51 as the person who could not oppose her extradition to the USA on the basis of a political m...
|
| Moukhtar Abliazov | prominent figure of the Kazakh opposition |
Mentioned in footnote 24 as an individual whose extradition to Russia was denied by France on the grounds that the re...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Investigating Chamber | judicial body |
Mentioned in paragraphs 48, 50, and 51 as the French judicial body responsible for examining extradition requests.
|
| Cour de cassation | judicial body |
Mentioned in paragraph 50 as France's highest court of appeal, which has only denied one American extradition request...
|
| Conseil d’Etat | judicial body |
Mentioned in footnote 24 as the body that denied the extradition of Moukhtar Abliazov to Russia. Also cited in footno...
|
| wjavocats.com | company |
Appears in the footer as the website and email domain for the law firm.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2016
The Conseil d’Etat denied an extradition request from Russia for Moukhtar Abliazov on the ground that the request was politically motivated.
France
The document presents a legal argument that Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell would not be able to successfully oppose her extradition from France to the USA on the basis of a political motivation claim.
France
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned throughout the document as a party to the Extradition Treaty with France and the country requesting extradi...
|
|
|
Mentioned throughout the document as a party to the Extradition Treaty with the USA and the country from which extrad...
|
|
|
Mentioned in footnote 24 as the country that requested the extradition of Moukhtar Abliazov.
|
|
|
Appears in the footer as the address of the law firm.
|
Relationships (1)
William Julié, an attorney, is presenting a legal argument concerning the potential extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting an attorney-client relationship.
Key Quotes (1)
"[e]xtradition shall not be granted by France when the offense for which extradition is requested is considered by France as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or as an offense inspired by political motives"Source
— Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France
(Cited in paragraph 47 to establish the legal basis for denying extradition for political offenses.)
DOJ-OGR-00002141.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,228 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 17 of 30
William JULIÉ
avocat à la cour – attorney at law
avocat à la cour – attorney at law
47. Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France provides that “[e]xtradition shall not be granted by France when the offense for which extradition is requested is considered by France as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or as an offense inspired by political motives”.
48. A political motivation claim requires the Investigating Chamber to examine, to some extent, the merits of the case. The Court is also required to look into the merits of the case where the requested person argues that there is a manifest inconsistency between the conduct and the legal offenses in respect of which the extradition is sought²³.
49. The conduct described in the indictment does not appear to be manifestly inconsistent with the offenses charged therein.
50. As to political motivation, French courts have never opposed extradition requests from the USA on this ground²⁴. In fact, in the past ten years, only one published decision of the Cour de cassation has denied an American extradition request, on the ground that the Investigating Chamber had not verified that the criminal conduct described in the request constituted a crime in France at the time of commission²⁵. All other published decisions which have ruled on a request from the USA have granted extradition²⁶.
51. In light of the elements contained in the Superseding Indictment, Ms Ghislaine Maxwell could not oppose her extradition to the USA on the basis of a political motivation claim, that would have no serious ground, and therefore the Investigating Chamber would not look into the merits of the case against her.
B. The protection of nationals from extradition under French law and the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France: Lack of an absolute protection
²³ Cass. Crim., 21 November 2007, No. 07-87540.
²⁴ See by contrast, a 2016 recent decision of the Conseil d’Etat to deny extradition to Russia of a prominent figure of the Kazakh opposition, Moukhtar Abliazov, on the ground that the request was politically motivated (available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000033581187/).
²⁵ Cass. Crim., 14 October 2015, No. 15-84426.
²⁶ Cass. Crim., 11 March 2020, No. 19-84023 ; Cass. Crim., 21 February 2017, No. 16-87102 ; Cass. Crim., 23 February 2010, No. 09-88021 ; Conseil d’État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 15 April 2016, No. 390860 ; Conseil d’État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 19 October 2018, No. 421762 ; Cass. Crim., 4 June 2019, No. 18-84398 ; Cass. Crim., 26 November 2019, No. 19-80227 ; Conseil d’État – 2ème et 7ème SSR, 1 June 2011, No. 342419 ; Cass. Crim., 21 June 2016, No. 16-81981 ; Cass. Crim., 4 October 2016, No. 16-84450 ; Cass. Crim., 11 May 2011, No. 11-80942, No. 11-80943 ; Cass. Crim., 10 May 201, No. 11-80989 ; Conseil d’Etat, - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 7 May 2012, No. 352573 ; Cass. Crim. 13 February 2008, No. 07-88009 ; Cass. Crim., 3 March 2015, No. 14-88308 ; Cass. Crim., 11 June 2013, No. 13-81979.
²⁴ See by contrast, a 2016 recent decision of the Conseil d’Etat to deny extradition to Russia of a prominent figure of the Kazakh opposition, Moukhtar Abliazov, on the ground that the request was politically motivated (available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000033581187/).
²⁵ Cass. Crim., 14 October 2015, No. 15-84426.
²⁶ Cass. Crim., 11 March 2020, No. 19-84023 ; Cass. Crim., 21 February 2017, No. 16-87102 ; Cass. Crim., 23 February 2010, No. 09-88021 ; Conseil d’État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 15 April 2016, No. 390860 ; Conseil d’État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 19 October 2018, No. 421762 ; Cass. Crim., 4 June 2019, No. 18-84398 ; Cass. Crim., 26 November 2019, No. 19-80227 ; Conseil d’État – 2ème et 7ème SSR, 1 June 2011, No. 342419 ; Cass. Crim., 21 June 2016, No. 16-81981 ; Cass. Crim., 4 October 2016, No. 16-84450 ; Cass. Crim., 11 May 2011, No. 11-80942, No. 11-80943 ; Cass. Crim., 10 May 201, No. 11-80989 ; Conseil d’Etat, - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 7 May 2012, No. 352573 ; Cass. Crim. 13 February 2008, No. 07-88009 ; Cass. Crim., 3 March 2015, No. 14-88308 ; Cass. Crim., 11 June 2013, No. 13-81979.
51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 – fax. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - 16
www.wjavocats.com - palais C1652
www.wjavocats.com - palais C1652
DOJ-OGR-00002141
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document