OIA
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
SAO
|
Inter agency cooperation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
USANYS Staff
|
Institutional administrative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
USANYS Staff
|
Administrative oversight |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Advisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant U.S. Attorney
|
Professional regulatory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Board of Inquiry
|
Oversight investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's Office
|
Inter agency cooperation |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Investigation / Agency Interviews | MCC New York | View |
| 2021-03-09 | N/A | Receipt of letter from MOJ confirming accuracy of highlighted language. | N/A | View |
| 2020-07-22 | N/A | FOIA request received for Ghislaine Maxwell's mugshot. | D.C. | View |
| 2020-01-31 | N/A | Submission of 'Sweden travel memo' for approval after receiving OIA approval. | SDNY/DOJ | View |
| 2020-01-31 | N/A | Submission of Sweden travel memo for approval. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-01-31 | N/A | Submission of 'Sweden travel memo' for Epstein-related investigation/matter. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00001162.jpg
This legal document argues against a defense submission by asserting that French law and practice systematically prohibit the extradition of French nationals to the United States. It refutes the defense expert's claim of no precedent by citing the 2006 case of Hans Peterson, a dual U.S.-French citizen who confessed to murder in the U.S. but was shielded from U.S. law enforcement by France. The document concludes that any anticipatory waiver of extradition by the defendant would be unenforceable in French courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002183.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002181.jpg
This legal document argues that France's laws and practices prevent the extradition of its nationals, even if they hold dual citizenship with the United States. It refutes a defense expert's claim of no precedent by citing the 2006 case of Hans Peterson, a dual U.S.-French citizen who confessed to murder in the U.S. but was shielded from U.S. law enforcement by France after turning himself in to French authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00002181(1).jpg
This document is page 20 of a government filing (Document 100) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant (Maxwell) represents a flight risk because French law strictly prohibits the extradition of its nationals, even if they hold dual citizenship with the US. The prosecution cites the 2006 case of Hans Peterson as a precedent where France refused to extradite a dual citizen who confessed to murder in the US.
DOJ-OGR-00020082.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00020080.jpg
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues that the defendant poses a flight risk because French law strictly prohibits the extradition of French nationals. The prosecution refutes the defense expert's claim that there is no precedent for this by citing the 2006 case of Hans Peterson, a dual US-French citizen who committed murder in the US but could not be extradited from French territory (Guadeloupe) despite US efforts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity