DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (page 18 of a brief, document 102 in case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a government filing (Document 102) from June 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues against bail by highlighting flight risks, specifically noting that France does not extradite its own citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and arguing that any 'anticipatory waiver' of extradition the defendant might sign regarding the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable under UK law (referencing the Extradition Act of 2003 and U.S. v. Stanton). The prosecution asserts that such waivers are meaningless until a defendant is physically present before a British judge.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant | Accused |
Subject of the bail/extradition argument (implied Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN)
|
| Peterson | Precedent Subject |
American-born U.S. citizen/French national whose extradition was denied by France
|
| Stanton | Precedent Defendant |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Stanton (1992)
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Justice |
French government body
|
|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Court handling the Stanton case and the current case
|
|
| British authorities |
Advisory body in the Stanton case
|
|
| European Union |
Political framework mentioned regarding extradition laws
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country with non-extradition policy for nationals
|
|
|
Country requesting extradition
|
|
|
Country where defendant might flee/waive extradition
|
|
|
Southern District of New York (Legal jurisdiction)
|
Relationships (2)
Ministry of Justice considers... Peterson to also be a French national
The defendant’s supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom
Key Quotes (5)
"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"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
Quote #1
"[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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
Quote #2
"Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
Quote #3
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
Quote #4
"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...'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,179 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 102 Filed 06/18/20 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-00020081
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document