| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-07-19 | Legal case ruling | A ruling was made in the case of United States v. Cilins in the Southern District of New York. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2013-07-19 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case United States v. Cilins was made, which is cited as precedent that France re... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2013-07-19 | Legal case | United States v. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2013-07-19 | N/A | Ruling in United States v. Cilins cited as precedent. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2013-07-19 | N/A | United States v. Cilins ruling | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2013-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The court decision in the case of Cilins, cited as precedent. | N/A | View |
This is page 19 (Document 100-2) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The US Government argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because waivers of extradition are legally unenforceable in France and the UK. The prosecution cites advice from the OIA and legal precedents to demonstrate that extradition is uncertain and lengthy, justifying continued detention pending trial.
This legal document argues that if the defendant, a French citizen, flees to France, she cannot be extradited to the United States. This assertion is based on a confirmation from the French Ministry of Justice, which stated that France has an inflexible principle of not extraditing its citizens to the U.S. The document further supports this claim with legal precedent from the case *United States v. Cilins*, concluding that any extradition waiver signed in the U.S. would be unenforceable in France.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against the release of the defendant, Mr. Epstein, pending trial. It presents evidence that he is a serious flight risk due to his wealth, international travel, and significant ties to Brazil, a country without an extradition treaty with the U.S. The document also cites allegations of witness tampering made by victims' attorney David Boies and concludes that no conditions, including an armed guard, would be sufficient to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance at trial, labeling him a danger to the community.
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues for the pre-trial detention of the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The prosecution asserts that the severity of the charges, which carry a maximum sentence of 45 years, creates a presumption for remand. The document outlines the strength of the evidence, including victim and witness testimony, physical evidence, and reports of witness tampering, and notes Mr. Epstein's prior felony convictions in Florida involving minors.
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition rights from France and the United Kingdom is not a sufficient guarantee against flight risk. It details how the extradition process in the UK is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to judicial and executive discretion, meaning the defendant could still challenge it. The document concludes by citing legal precedent that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk, thus weighing in favor of detaining the defendant pending trial.
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 100) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant represents a significant flight risk because extradition from the UK or France is legally complex, lengthy, and not guaranteed, even if the defendant currently waives her rights to challenge it. The prosecution cites case law (Namer, Cilins, Abdullahu) to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition supports continued detention pending trial.
This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, argues that an unnamed defendant, who is a French citizen, would be completely protected from extradition to the United States if she were to flee to France. The argument is supported by direct communication from the French Ministry of Justice, which confirmed France's inflexible principle of not extraditing its citizens outside the European Union, and is further bolstered by a legal precedent from the 2013 case, United States v. Cilins.
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because she is a French citizen. The document details that the US Government confirmed with the French Ministry of Justice that France will not extradite its nationals to the US, rendering any 'extradition waiver' signed by the defendant unenforceable if she flees to France.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 100) from the US Government in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on June 18, 2020. The prosecution argues that Maxwell poses a flight risk because she is a French citizen, and French law strictly prohibits the extradition of its own nationals to the United States. The document references a letter from the French Ministry of Justice confirming this policy and notes that any extradition waiver signed by the defendant would be unenforceable in France.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity