DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
735 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (denial of bail/release)
File Size:
735 KB
Summary
This is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court is analyzing the defendant's flight risk, concluding that her French citizenship, potential to flee to Israel, and extraordinary financial resources justify continued detention. The judge argues that anticipatory extradition waivers are insufficient because the defendant could still frustrate or delay the extradition process.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention hearing; identified by Case ID 1:20-cr-00330-AJN as Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses he...
|
| Esposito | Legal Citation Subject |
Referenced in case law United States v. Esposito.
|
| Khashoggi | Legal Citation Subject |
Referenced in case law United States v. Khashoggi regarding extradition waivers.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case caption format and legal citations.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, cited in legal precedents.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in the footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00002245.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Discussed as a potential location for flight and the difficulties of extradition from there.
|
|
|
Implied by the mention of 'French citizenship'.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"extradition from Israel (or any other country) would be, at best, a difficult and lengthy process and, at worst, impossible."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
Quote #1
"The likelihood that the Defendant would be able to frustrate any extradition requests... weighs strongly in favor of detention."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
Quote #2
"the Defendant’s extraordinary financial resources also continue to provide her the means to flee the country and to do so undetected."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
Quote #3
"her experience avoiding detection (whether from the government, the press, or otherwise), do bear significantly on the flight risk analysis."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002245(1).jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,201 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 13 of 22
extradition from Israel (or any other country) would be, at best, a difficult and lengthy process
and, at worst, impossible.”).
and, at worst, impossible.”).
Having carefully reviewed the experts’ reports and the cases cited by the Defendant,² the
Court’s analysis of the relationship between the Defendant’s French citizenship and the risk of
flight remains fundamentally unchanged. Its reasoning is guided in part by the substantial legal
questions regarding the legal weight of anticipatory extradition waivers and the likelihood that
any extradition would be a difficult and lengthy process (including, for instance, the likelihood
that the Defendant would contest the validity of those waivers and the duration it would take to
resolve those legal disputes). The likelihood that the Defendant would be able to frustrate any
extradition requests—even if she were correct that she would be unable to stop extradition
entirely—weighs strongly in favor of detention.
Court’s analysis of the relationship between the Defendant’s French citizenship and the risk of
flight remains fundamentally unchanged. Its reasoning is guided in part by the substantial legal
questions regarding the legal weight of anticipatory extradition waivers and the likelihood that
any extradition would be a difficult and lengthy process (including, for instance, the likelihood
that the Defendant would contest the validity of those waivers and the duration it would take to
resolve those legal disputes). The likelihood that the Defendant would be able to frustrate any
extradition requests—even if she were correct that she would be unable to stop extradition
entirely—weighs strongly in favor of detention.
In addition, the Defendant’s extraordinary financial resources also continue to provide
her the means to flee the country and to do so undetected. To be sure, this factor alone does not
by itself justify continued detention. But as the Court noted at the initial bail hearing, the
Defendant’s financial resources, in combination with her substantial international ties and
foreign connections and her experience avoiding detection (whether from the government, the
press, or otherwise), do bear significantly on the flight risk analysis. See Tr. at 88:6–88:23
(distinguishing this case from United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018),
her the means to flee the country and to do so undetected. To be sure, this factor alone does not
by itself justify continued detention. But as the Court noted at the initial bail hearing, the
Defendant’s financial resources, in combination with her substantial international ties and
foreign connections and her experience avoiding detection (whether from the government, the
press, or otherwise), do bear significantly on the flight risk analysis. See Tr. at 88:6–88:23
(distinguishing this case from United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018),
² The Defendant also argues that “a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order
has been recognized as an indication of the defendant’s intent not to flee.” Def. Mot. at 27
(citing United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). The Court places
little weight on this argument. Under the Defendant’s theory, a defendant could strategically
offer to waive the right to extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that
might result. The Court is unpersuaded.
has been recognized as an indication of the defendant’s intent not to flee.” Def. Mot. at 27
(citing United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). The Court places
little weight on this argument. Under the Defendant’s theory, a defendant could strategically
offer to waive the right to extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that
might result. The Court is unpersuaded.
13
DOJ-OGR-00002245
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document