PARIS
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001269.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief authored by attorney William Julié, filed on May 23, 2021. The brief argues that under French law, the prohibition on extraditing nationals should only apply to individuals who are French citizens at the time of the extradition request, not to those who have lost their citizenship. This interpretation aims to prevent the fraudulent acquisition of nationality as a means to escape justice.
DOJ-OGR-00001253.jpg
This document is a formal letter from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice, dated March 9, 2021. It clarifies French legal provisions (Articles 696 et sq., 696-2, and 694-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) regarding the removal of individuals. The letter emphasizes that removal is not granted for individuals who possess French citizenship at the time of the offense, making their French nationality an "insuperable obstacle" to removal.
DOJ-OGR-00001202.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a U.S. government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié critiques the U.S. government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing it misinterprets French extradition law by ignoring the supremacy of international treaties, such as the extradition treaty between the USA and France, over domestic statutes. The core argument is that France may indeed be able to extradite its own citizens under these treaties, contrary to the U.S. government's position.
DOJ-OGR-00001181.jpg
This letter, dated December 11, 2020, is a formal communication from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice. It explains that under French law, France is absolutely prohibited from extraditing any individual who was a French national at the time an alleged crime was committed, regardless of dual nationality. The letter further states that when extradition is denied on these grounds, France is obligated by the principle of 'aut tradere, aut judicare' to prosecute the individual in its own courts.
DOJ-OGR-00001132.jpg
This document is page 30 of a defense filing (Document 197) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 14, 2020. The defense argues that despite the government's initial claims of 'strong' evidence backed by flight logs and diaries, the discovery produced (over 1.2 million documents) contains 'no meaningful documentary corroboration' of the allegations for the indictment period of 1994-1997. The text notes that the majority of evidence produced relates to the 2000s and 2010s, and mentions electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000811.jpg
This document is a page from a court order denying bail for Jeffrey Epstein. The court determines that the defendant poses a significant flight risk due to his wealth, overseas ties (specifically in Paris), and the severity of the potential sentence (45 years). The court cites precedent such as United States v. Abdullahu to support the decision that no conditions can reasonably assure his appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00000608.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript (filed July 26, 2019) detailing a judge's rationale for denying bail to Jeffrey Epstein. The text highlights testimony from victims Annie Farmer and Courtney Wild regarding their safety, the seriousness of sex trafficking charges involving minors as young as 14, and evidence of witness intimidation. It also details Epstein's flight risk, citing his private planes, foreign residence in Paris, and items seized from his NYC mansion, including $70,000 cash, diamonds, and a fake Austrian passport.
DOJ-OGR-00000553.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that his client has meticulously complied with sex offender registration requirements for nine years, informing authorities in the Virgin Islands of travel to Paris, Florida, and New York. The Judge (The Court) questions Weinberg about the specific criteria for reporting presence (the 10-day rule) and questions the registration requirements in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00000285.jpg
This document is page 12 of a defense filing arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. The defense argues that Epstein's 'tier-one' sex offender status in the U.S. Virgin Islands indicates low risk, and cites legal precedents (Sabhnani, Hansen) where wealthy defendants with foreign ties were granted bail. A significant footnote asserts Epstein is solely a U.S. citizen, his only foreign residence is in France (which has an extradition treaty), and the majority of his assets are in the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00000284.jpg
This document is page 11 of a defense memorandum filed on July 11, 2019, arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. The defense asserts that Epstein is not a flight risk, citing his stable family background in the U.S., his business ties, and his history of compliance with sex offender registration requirements in Florida, New York, and the Virgin Islands over the previous decade. It acknowledges his wealth and Paris residence but emphasizes that the majority of his assets are in the U.S. and offers a sealed financial disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00018444.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Kate in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness admits to initiating contact with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, asking to stay with him in New York, and maintaining contact with him via email over the years. Conversely, the witness confirms she had no email correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018430.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Kate. She confirms meeting Jeffrey Epstein near Nags Pub on Kinnerton Street and discusses her relationship with a 'prominent older gentleman' who introduced her to Ghislaine Maxwell and took her to Paris. The testimony also covers her marriage to a restaurateur.
DOJ-OGR-00018415.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on her past modeling work in Europe (Milan, Paris, London) and her subsequent move to the United States on an 'extraordinary ability' visa.
DOJ-OGR-00016194.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Visoski testifies about the travel habits of Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein between 1994 and 2004, stating they primarily used private jets. The witness also recounts that Ms. Maxwell claimed partial ownership of a private jet and describes the conveniences of private air travel compared to commercial flights.
DOJ-OGR-00016139.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The prosecutor outlines the evidence to be presented, detailing Jeffrey Epstein's wealth, luxury properties (Palm Beach, Manhattan, NM, Paris, USVI), and private planes. It specifically defines the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein as intimate partners starting in the early 1990s, transitioning to 'best of friends' and closest associates.
DOJ-OGR-00015469.jpg
This document contains four phone message slips addressed to 'Jeffrey' from February 25th and 26th, 2005. One message is from 'Jean-Luc' referencing a previous conversation and suggesting 'Paris on Saturday.' The other three messages are from a redacted caller (referred to as 'her') asking for return calls, noting at one point she was on her way to the gym. The document is marked as Government Exhibit 1-P-R.
DOJ-OGR-00015418.jpg
This document is a FedEx customs invoice dated December 12, 2002, detailing a shipment sent by Jeffrey E. Epstein and S. Kerlen (Sarah Kellen) from 457 Madison Ave, New York, to 22 Avenue Foch, Apt 2DD, Paris. The shipment contained 'writing pens' with a declared value of $100 USD. The document calculates customs duties and VAT totaling 56.00 (presumably EUR or FFR) paid by FedEx to French Customs.
DOJ-OGR-00015417.jpg
This is a FedEx invoice dated December 12, 2002, detailing a shipment sent on December 6, 2002. The package was sent by S. Kerlen and Jeffrey E. Epstein from 457 Madison Avenue in New York to Valdson Cotrin and J. Epstein at 22 Avenue Foch in Paris. The total cost for duties, taxes, and fees amounted to $64.41.
DOJ-OGR-00015372.jpg
This is a FedEx customs invoice dated November 21, 2002, billing an importer in Paris for taxes related to a shipment from Jeffrey E. Epstein in New York. The package, described as a "THAUMA KIT" with a declared value of $512.00, incurred a French VAT (TVA) of 126.00. Federal Express paid this amount to French Customs on the importer's behalf and is now seeking immediate reimbursement.
DOJ-OGR-00015371.jpg
This is a FedEx invoice dated November 21, 2002, for a shipment sent on November 13, 2002. The package was sent by Mrs. Sherman and Jeffrey E. Epstein from New York to Valdson Cotr N of Epstein & Co in Paris, France. The total charges for duties, taxes, and fees amounted to $137.13.
DOJ-OGR-00002223.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum regarding a defendant's motion for release. Julié refutes the US government's interpretation of a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing that their analysis of French extradition law is incomplete. He asserts that under the French Constitution (Article 55) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 696), international treaties—such as the extradition treaty between the US and France—prevail over domestic law, meaning the key issue is the treaty's terms, not general French legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002223(1).jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié argues that the US government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice is misplaced, as it selectively quotes French law while ignoring the supremacy of international extradition treaties under the French Constitution. The core argument is that the extradition treaty between the USA and France should govern the case, not the specific article of the French criminal code cited by the Minister.
DOJ-OGR-00002202.jpg
This letter from the French Ministry of Justice, dated December 11, 2020, is addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice via its Liaison Magistrate in Paris. It formally explains that French law absolutely prohibits the extradition of any individual who was a French national at the time an alleged crime was committed. The letter contrasts this with the practices of Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S. and clarifies that when extradition is denied on these grounds, French courts are empowered to prosecute the individual under the principle of 'aut tradere, aut judicar' (either extradite or prosecute).
DOJ-OGR-00002202(1).jpg
This letter, dated December 11, 2020, is from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice. It clarifies that French law, specifically Article 696-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, absolutely prohibits the extradition of any individual who was a French national at the time an alleged crime was committed. The letter contrasts this with the legal practices of Anglo-Saxon countries like the United States, which may extradite their own nationals.
DOJ-OGR-00002200.jpg
This is a formal letter dated December 11, 2020, from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice. The letter explains that French law absolutely prohibits the extradition of individuals who were French nationals at the time of the alleged offense, regardless of dual nationality. It clarifies that when France refuses an extradition request on these grounds, it is obligated under the principle of 'aut tradere, aut judicare' (either extradite or prosecute) to bring legal proceedings against the person in its own courts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity