DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal memorandum/brief)
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against the defendant's bail release by highlighting the risk of non-extradition. The Government asserts that France does not extradite its citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and that any anticipatory waiver of extradition to the UK provided by the defendant is unenforceable under the UK Extradition Act of 2003.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the legal arguments regarding bail and extradition (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-...
|
| Peterson | Case Precedent Subject |
An American-born U.S. citizen also considered a French national whose extradition was denied by France; used as an ex...
|
| Stanton | Case Precedent Subject |
Named in the case citation United States v. Stanton.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Justice |
French government body that denied the extradition of Peterson.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution (US Government) arguing against the defendant.
|
|
| Court |
The US District Court handling the current case.
|
|
| British authorities |
Referenced in the Stanton case regarding advice on extradition waivers.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2007-08-22
Unknown (Prior to 2020-12-18)
Initial bail hearing where the Court determined France does not appear to extradite its own citizens.
US Court
The Court
The defendant
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country cited for its non-extradition policy regarding its own citizens.
|
|
|
Country seeking extradition.
|
|
|
Country discussed regarding the enforceability of extradition waivers.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the only framework where France deviates from non-extradition of nationals.
|
Relationships (1)
Ministry of Justice considers... Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied
Key Quotes (5)
"Ministry of Justice considers the American-born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
Quote #1
"France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
Quote #2
"France does not appear to extradite its own citizens."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
Quote #3
"The defendant’s supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
Quote #4
"a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,173 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 21 of 36
Justice on August 22, 2007 which provides that the "Ministry of Justice considers the American-
born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been
denied"). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited
a French citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 ("[T]he principle of non-extradition of
nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the
framework of the European Union.")). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at
the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83).
born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been
denied"). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited
a French citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 ("[T]he principle of non-extradition of
nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the
framework of the European Union.")). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at
the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83).
The defendant’s supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United
Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition
may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means
binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992
WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant’s bail where
defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers,
as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the
fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and
concluding that such a waiver was not an "enforceable undertaking"). Under the United
Kingdom’s Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, "if (and only if) [a person]
has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the
appropriate judge." Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/
2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of
extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the
defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given
Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition
may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means
binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992
WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant’s bail where
defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers,
as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the
fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and
concluding that such a waiver was not an "enforceable undertaking"). Under the United
Kingdom’s Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, "if (and only if) [a person]
has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the
appropriate judge." Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/
2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of
extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the
defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given
18
DOJ-OGR-00002182
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document