DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
730 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal memorandum)
File Size:
730 KB
Summary
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 103) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 23, 2020. The text argues against the government's concerns regarding Maxwell's flight risk, utilizing expert opinions from Mr. Julié (French law) and David Perry (UK law) to assert that extradition from France or the UK would be legally permissible and likely, and that bail in the UK would be denied. It specifically refutes the relevance of a 2006 precedent where France refused extradition, arguing that international treaties prevail over French national legislation.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of extradition and bail arguments; citizen of US and France.
|
| Mr. Julié | Legal Expert (French Law) |
Provided a rebuttal report explaining French extradition law and the French Constitution.
|
| David Perry | Legal Expert (UK Extradition) |
Provided an opinion that Maxwell would be unlikely to resist extradition from the UK or receive bail there.
|
| Secretary of State | Government Official |
Mentioned in footnote regarding discretion to deny extradition.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MOJ |
Ministry of Justice (implied); issued a letter regarding French Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
|
| French Courts |
Judicial body that would rule on extradition requests.
|
|
| U.S. Court |
Judicial body setting bail conditions.
|
|
| United States Government |
Prosecution/Opposing party relying on a 2006 case precedent.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2006
Case where France refused to extradite a French national who was also a U.S. citizen.
France
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country seeking potential extradition; location of court proceedings.
|
|
|
Country of potential refuge; discussion of its extradition laws.
|
|
|
Country of potential refuge; discussion of its extradition laws.
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Julié provides expert opinion supporting Maxwell's legal arguments.
David Perry provides expert opinion regarding UK extradition supporting Maxwell's legal arguments.
Key Quotes (4)
"extradition of a French national to the United States is legally permissible if the extradition treaty between the United States and France provides for it"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
Quote #1
"it is 'highly unlikely' that an extradition decree would not be issued."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
Quote #2
"bail would be 'extremely unlikely.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
Quote #3
"waiver would be 'a highly relevant factor' in the U.K. proceeding"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,383 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103 Filed 12/23/20 Page 13 of 15
as Mr. Julié’s accompanying rebuttal report explains (see Ex. A), the MOJ letter ignores that the
extradition provisions in French Code of Criminal Procedure apply only in the absence of an
international agreement providing otherwise. (Id. at 1). This rule is necessitated by the French
Constitution, which requires that international agreements prevail over national legislation. (Id.).
Thus, extradition of a French national to the United States is legally permissible if the extradition
treaty between the United States and France provides for it—which it does. (Id. at 3).
extradition provisions in French Code of Criminal Procedure apply only in the absence of an
international agreement providing otherwise. (Id. at 1). This rule is necessitated by the French
Constitution, which requires that international agreements prevail over national legislation. (Id.).
Thus, extradition of a French national to the United States is legally permissible if the extradition
treaty between the United States and France provides for it—which it does. (Id. at 3).
The government’s reliance on a 2006 case—in which France refused to extradite a
French national who was also a U.S. citizen—provides no precedent as to how a French court
would rule on an extradition request regarding Ms. Maxwell because, as Mr. Julié notes, the
United States did not challenge the refusal in the French courts. (Id. at 2-3). Nor does it
undermine Mr. Julié’s opinion that, in the unusual circumstance where a citizen of both countries
has executed an extradition waiver and then fled to France in violation of bail conditions set by a
U.S. court, it is “highly unlikely” that an extradition decree would not be issued. (Id. at 3).
French national who was also a U.S. citizen—provides no precedent as to how a French court
would rule on an extradition request regarding Ms. Maxwell because, as Mr. Julié notes, the
United States did not challenge the refusal in the French courts. (Id. at 2-3). Nor does it
undermine Mr. Julié’s opinion that, in the unusual circumstance where a citizen of both countries
has executed an extradition waiver and then fled to France in violation of bail conditions set by a
U.S. court, it is “highly unlikely” that an extradition decree would not be issued. (Id. at 3).
The government offers no rebuttal to the opinion of Ms. Maxwell’s U.K. extradition
expert, David Perry. Nor does it dispute Mr. Perry’s opinion that Ms. Maxwell would be “highly
unlikely” to successfully resist extradition from the United Kingdom, that her waiver would be
admissible in any extradition proceeding, and that—contrary to the government’s representation
at the initial bail hearing (Tr. 27)—bail would be “extremely unlikely.” (See Def. Mem. Ex. U at
¶ 39). Mr. Perry’s addendum opinion (attached as Ex. B) reiterates these points, opining that the
waiver would be “a highly relevant factor” in the U.K. proceeding, both to the likelihood of
extradition and to the likelihood of bail while the proceeding is pending. (Id. ¶ 3).7
expert, David Perry. Nor does it dispute Mr. Perry’s opinion that Ms. Maxwell would be “highly
unlikely” to successfully resist extradition from the United Kingdom, that her waiver would be
admissible in any extradition proceeding, and that—contrary to the government’s representation
at the initial bail hearing (Tr. 27)—bail would be “extremely unlikely.” (See Def. Mem. Ex. U at
¶ 39). Mr. Perry’s addendum opinion (attached as Ex. B) reiterates these points, opining that the
waiver would be “a highly relevant factor” in the U.K. proceeding, both to the likelihood of
extradition and to the likelihood of bail while the proceeding is pending. (Id. ¶ 3).7
7 Nor, as the government suggests, does the Secretary of State have general “discretion to deny extradition” after a
court has entered a final extradition order. (See Gov. Mem. at 19). That discretion is limited to a handful of
exceptional circumstances that would likely be inapplicable to Ms. Maxwell’s case. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5).
court has entered a final extradition order. (See Gov. Mem. at 19). That discretion is limited to a handful of
exceptional circumstances that would likely be inapplicable to Ms. Maxwell’s case. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5).
9
DOJ-OGR-00002219
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document