| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-03-09 | N/A | Receipt of letter from MOJ confirming accuracy of highlighted language. | N/A | View |
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.
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.
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.
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing that she is not a flight risk. The defense refutes the government's interpretation of her actions (like buying a home with a trust) as evidence of intent to flee, claiming they were for protection. It also argues that her willingness to waive extradition rights to France and the UK shows her commitment to facing charges, countering the government's claims about French extradition law.
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.
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.
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, 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