DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
807 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (government's opposition to bail/release)
File Size:
807 KB
Summary
This page from a government filing (opposition to bail) argues that the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) is a flight risk. It highlights that her marriage is not a sufficient tie to the US, noting she lived alone while hiding in New Hampshire and that she and her spouse listed themselves as 'single' on bank trust account forms in 2018. The document also dismisses the defense's offer to waive extradition rights, particularly noting that France generally does not extradite its own nationals.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the bail hearing; identified as Ghislaine Maxwell via Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN; accused of having inconsiste...
|
| Spouse | Husband of Defendant |
Attempted to distance himself from publicity; listed marital status as 'single' on bank forms in 2018.
|
| [REDACTED] | Associate/Relative |
Name redacted in relation to defendant's asserted relationships in the US.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court (SDNY) |
Implied by case citation format (AJN = Judge Alison J. Nathan).
|
|
| The Government |
Arguing against bail/release.
|
|
| Pretrial Services |
Defendant showed 'lack of candor' with this agency.
|
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of arrest and potential ties.
|
|
|
Location where the defendant was 'in hiding' prior to arrest.
|
|
|
Mentioned regarding extradition rights.
|
|
|
Mentioned regarding extradition rights and non-extradition of nationals.
|
Relationships (2)
Referred to as 'spouse' and 'marriage', though they listed themselves as 'single' on 2018 bank documents.
Defendant
→
Family
→
Relatives (US)
Defendant asserts relationships, but Government argues she lived without them while hiding.
Key Quotes (6)
"the defendant's inconsistent statements about the state of their relationship—undermine her assertion that her marriage is a tie that would keep her in the United States."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
Quote #1
"the defendant did not appear to have an issue living alone without these relatives while she was in hiding in New Hampshire"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
Quote #2
"the defendant's offer to sign a so-called 'irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights' is ultimately meaningless"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
Quote #3
"is based on an erroneous assessment of France's position on the extradition of its nationals."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
Quote #4
"On those forms, both the defendant and her spouse listed their marital status as 'single.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
Quote #5
"that lack of candor on a bank form mirrors her lack of candor with Pretrial Services"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002178.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,477 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 17 of 36
time of her arrest. While a friend’s desire to avoid publicity may be understandable, a spouse’s
desire to distance himself in that manner—particularly when coupled with the defendant’s
inconsistent statements about the state of their relationship—undermine her assertion that her
marriage is a tie that would keep her in the United States.³ As for the defendant’s asserted
relationships with [REDACTED] and other relatives in the United States, the defendant did not
appear to have an issue living alone without these relatives while she was in hiding in New
Hampshire, which undercuts any suggestion that these ties would keep her in the United States. In
any event, the defendant could easily receive visits from her family members while living abroad,
and, as noted, the defendant has multiple family members and friends who live abroad.
desire to distance himself in that manner—particularly when coupled with the defendant’s
inconsistent statements about the state of their relationship—undermine her assertion that her
marriage is a tie that would keep her in the United States.³ As for the defendant’s asserted
relationships with [REDACTED] and other relatives in the United States, the defendant did not
appear to have an issue living alone without these relatives while she was in hiding in New
Hampshire, which undercuts any suggestion that these ties would keep her in the United States. In
any event, the defendant could easily receive visits from her family members while living abroad,
and, as noted, the defendant has multiple family members and friends who live abroad.
In addition to those foreign connections and ample means to flee discussed further below,
the defendant will have the ability, once gone, to frustrate any potential extradition. Attempting
to downplay that concern, the defense relies on two legal opinions to claim that the defendant can
irrevocably waive her extradition rights with respect to both the United Kingdom and France.
(Mot. at 25; Def. Ex. U; Def. Ex. V). But the defendant’s offer to sign a so-called “irrevocable
waiver of her extradition rights” is ultimately meaningless: it provides no additional reassurance
whatsoever and, with respect to France, is based on an erroneous assessment of France’s position
on the extradition of its nationals. (Mot. at 25).
the defendant will have the ability, once gone, to frustrate any potential extradition. Attempting
to downplay that concern, the defense relies on two legal opinions to claim that the defendant can
irrevocably waive her extradition rights with respect to both the United Kingdom and France.
(Mot. at 25; Def. Ex. U; Def. Ex. V). But the defendant’s offer to sign a so-called “irrevocable
waiver of her extradition rights” is ultimately meaningless: it provides no additional reassurance
whatsoever and, with respect to France, is based on an erroneous assessment of France’s position
on the extradition of its nationals. (Mot. at 25).
As an initial matter, the Government would need to seek the arrest of the defendant before
such a waiver would even come into play. Even assuming the defendant could be located and
apprehended—which is quite an assumption given the defendant’s access to substantial wealth and
such a waiver would even come into play. Even assuming the defendant could be located and
apprehended—which is quite an assumption given the defendant’s access to substantial wealth and
³ Adding to this confusion, bank records reflect that when the defendant and her spouse established
a trust account in or about 2018, they filled out forms in which they were required to provide
personal information, including marital status. On those forms, both the defendant and her spouse
listed their marital status as “single.” It is unclear why the defendant did not disclose her marital
status to the bank, but that lack of candor on a bank form mirrors her lack of candor with Pretrial
Services in this case, discussed further below.
a trust account in or about 2018, they filled out forms in which they were required to provide
personal information, including marital status. On those forms, both the defendant and her spouse
listed their marital status as “single.” It is unclear why the defendant did not disclose her marital
status to the bank, but that lack of candor on a bank form mirrors her lack of candor with Pretrial
Services in this case, discussed further below.
14
DOJ-OGR-00002178
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document