David Perry
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant expert witness |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defendant expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell obtained expert reports on extradition law | United Kingdom / France | View |
EFTA00019291.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on December 18, 2020, in support of her renewed motion for bail. The defense argues that the government lacks significant documentary evidence, relies solely on witness testimony from decades ago, and that Maxwell has strong ties to the U.S. through her spouse (whose name is redacted) and friends who have pledged assets. The document also addresses flight risk concerns, arguing that extradition from France or the UK is possible or unlikely to be needed due to waivers, and cites a COVID-19 surge at the detention center as further justification for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001198.jpg
This document is page 9 (filed as page 3 of 15 in a specific docket) of a legal memorandum in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that contrary to government claims, Maxwell could be extradited from France because international treaties supersede national legislation, and that she would likely face extradition and be denied bail if she fled to the UK, supported by expert opinions from Mr. Julié and David Perry. The text refutes the relevance of a 2006 French non-extradition case and asserts that Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be a significant factor in foreign courts.
DOJ-OGR-00001129.jpg
This document is page 33 of a legal filing (dated Dec 14, 2020) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she has executed waivers of extradition and obtained expert reports (specifically from U.K. barrister David Perry) concluding she could not successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France. The text cites various legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) to support the validity of extradition waivers as conditions of release.
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002219(1).jpg
This legal document argues against the government's position on the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It presents expert opinions from Mr. Julié on French law and David Perry on UK law to contend that extradition from France is permissible under the existing treaty and that resisting extradition or obtaining bail in the UK would be highly unlikely. The document refutes the government's reliance on a 2006 case as precedent and clarifies the limited discretion of the Secretary of State to deny extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002005.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell should be granted bail conditions involving an extradition waiver, citing legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) where such waivers were accepted as assurances against flight. The document states Maxwell has obtained expert reports from French and UK experts (specifically David Perry regarding the UK) concluding that she would be unable to resist extradition back to the US if she fled to those countries after signing a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00020047.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by citing several past U.S. court cases where defendants waived extradition rights to demonstrate they were not a flight risk. It then introduces expert reports, specifically one from U.K. barrister David Perry, which conclude it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France back to the United States, further supporting the argument that she is not a flight risk.
Opinion on U.K. Extradition
David Perry's addendum opinion (Ex. B) states that Ms. Maxwell would be 'highly unlikely' to resist extradition from the U.K. and that bail would be 'extremely unlikely'.
Addendum opinion (Ex. B)
Reiterates that waiver is a relevant factor and bail in UK is unlikely.
Addendum Opinion (Ex. B)
Opines on UK extradition likelihood and bail.
Extradition Law Report
Report analyzing likelihood of resisting extradition from UK.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity