DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court memorandum (government filing in opposition to bail)
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This is page 19 (Document 100-2) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The US Government argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because waivers of extradition are legally unenforceable in France and the UK. The prosecution cites advice from the OIA and legal precedents to demonstrate that extradition is uncertain and lengthy, justifying continued detention pending trial.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) | Defendant |
Subject of the flight risk argument; described as having citizenship/ties to France and UK.
|
| Secretary of State (UK) | Government Official |
Mentioned as having discretion to deny extradition even after court orders.
|
| Namer | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Namer regarding flight risk.
|
| Cilins | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in case law regarding flight risk.
|
| Abdullahu | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Abdullahu regarding flight risk.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
The party filing this document (implied by 'The Government understands...').
|
|
| OIA |
Office of International Affairs; consulted by the prosecution regarding UK extradition processes.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case header Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Southern District of NY).
|
|
| 6th Circuit Court |
Cited in legal precedent.
|
|
| D.N.J. |
District of New Jersey, cited in legal precedent.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-12-18
Filing of Document 100-2 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
US District Court
US Government
Defense
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction seeking to try the defendant.
|
|
|
Country of potential flight/extradition concern.
|
|
|
Country of potential flight/extradition concern.
|
Relationships (2)
Government arguing for detention/against bail for the defendant.
The Government understands from OIA...
Key Quotes (4)
"The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
Quote #1
"she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
Quote #2
"The defendant’s written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant will not flee to a third country"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
Quote #3
"Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a defendant’s flight risk"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,208 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100-2 Filed 12/18/20 Page 22 of 36
to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant
could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.
could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.
Further, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition
based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of
time, forum, and considerations of the individual’s mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at
§§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary
of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands
from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain,
and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately
successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.
based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of
time, forum, and considerations of the individual’s mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at
§§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary
of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands
from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain,
and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately
successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.
Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge
being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the
United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of
course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with
which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant’s written waivers of
extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant
will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be
impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a
defendant’s flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants
pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir.
Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433,
443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of
detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,
being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the
United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of
course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with
which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant’s written waivers of
extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant
will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be
impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a
defendant’s flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants
pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir.
Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433,
443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of
detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,
19
DOJ-OGR-00001164
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document