Secretary of State
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
appropriate judge
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Procedural |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
requested person
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gary McKinnon
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
High Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
extradition judge
|
Procedural |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | DOJ objection to Section 107(a) of an Act, which would limit a country's time on the Tier II Watc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document describes the legal process and challenges of extradition from the United Kingdom to... | United Kingdom | View |
| N/A | Legal procedure | Sending the case to the Secretary of State. There is no statutory time-limit, but in practice, th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal procedure | An order for extradition can be made within two months of the date the case is sent to the Secret... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Extradition proceedings concerning Ms Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Analysis of the legal arguments and bars to the extradition of Ms Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal review | A review of an extradition case by the Secretary of State, following a judge's decision, to deter... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | A requested person gives consent to extradition, which must be in writing and is irrevocable. Thi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Lodging an application for permission to appeal against discharge by the Secretary of State. Noti... | N/A | View |
| 2012-01-01 | Legal decision | The Secretary of State refused the extradition of Gary McKinnon. | United Kingdom | View |
| 2012-01-01 | N/A | Refusal of Gary McKinnon's extradition by Secretary of State | United Kingdom | View |
| 2012-01-01 | Legal decision | Extradition of Gary McKinnon was refused by the Secretary of State on the basis of mental illness... | United Kingdom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001208.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal opinion written by David Perry QC of 6KBW College Hill, dated December 17, 2020. It analyzes UK extradition law, specifically concluding that no bars to extradition (such as asylum or national security) apply to Ms. Maxwell. It also discusses the rarity of the Secretary of State refusing extradition (citing the Gary McKinnon case) and notes that contested extradition cases typically conclude within two years.
DOJ-OGR-00001207.jpg
This legal document analyzes the potential bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell from the UK to the US. It argues that bars related to oppression or human rights (Article 8 of the ECHR) are unlikely to be available to her, especially given that she absconded from the United States. The document also clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 is not discretionary but is limited to specific statutory grounds.
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-00002229(1).jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, and authored by David Perry QC, analyzes the legal framework for extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States, specifically concerning Ms Maxwell. It argues that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply to her case and highlights the rarity of the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition, citing the past case of Gary McKinnon as an example that is no longer applicable. The document notes that the purpose of the Extradition Act 2003 is to streamline and facilitate extradition, with most cases concluding within two years.
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 103-2) dated December 23, 2020, analyzing UK extradition law in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that if Maxwell were to flee the US to the UK, she would likely be denied bail and her arguments against extradition (oppression, human rights) would fail due to 'bad faith' and the serious nature of the charges. It also clarifies the limited powers of the UK Secretary of State to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002228(1).jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 23, 2020, argues against the availability of certain bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It posits that a finding of oppression is unlikely given she absconded from the United States, and that human rights claims under the ECHR are also improbable. The document further clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is strictly limited by the Extradition Act 2003 and is not a matter of general discretion.
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-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-00002123.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020. It presents a table outlining the strict timelines and procedures for various stages of an extradition appeal process, including lodging applications to the High Court and Supreme Court, and the final removal. The procedures and deadlines are based on specific sections of the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002122.jpg
This document is a table from a legal filing dated December 14, 2020, which outlines the timelines and procedures for extradition cases under the UK's Extradition Act 2003. It details the various stages, including sending the case to the Secretary of State, the order for extradition, and the processes for removal and appeal, citing specific sections of the act. The table distinguishes between procedures for cases where there is an appeal and cases where there is no appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00002121.jpg
This document is Page 26 of a legal filing (Document 97-21) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It contains a table summarizing procedural timelines and statutory rules under the UK's Extradition Act 2003, specifically detailing scenarios where a person consents to extradition versus those requiring a hearing. The document outlines the roles of the Secretary of State and the Extradition Judge in extending deadlines and ordering removal.
DOJ-OGR-00002103.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, discusses procedures for extradition cases, specifically focusing on the effect of consenting to extradition and the legal framework for granting bail. It outlines the statutory considerations for bail under the Bail Act 1976 and notes that in recent US bail appeals before the High Court, bail has been consistently refused, citing the cases of Adeagbo and Singh as examples.
DOJ-OGR-00002102.jpg
This document, a page from a court filing, details the legal framework and timelines for extradition from the UK, with a focus on requests from the US. It explains that while contested cases can take over 10 months, consenting to extradition can reduce the timeframe to within three months. The document outlines the specific legal procedure for giving consent under the Extradition Act 2003, detailing the roles of the judge and the Secretary of State in the process.
DOJ-OGR-00002101.jpg
This document is page 6 of 29 from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 14, 2020. It outlines the legal framework and procedural hurdles for appealing extradition in the United Kingdom under the Extradition Act 2003, noting the specific roles of the Secretary of State, High Court, and Supreme Court. The text emphasizes the rarity of successful appeals to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights in extradition cases.
DOJ-OGR-00002100.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, details the procedural steps of an extradition hearing in the United Kingdom. It explains the specific legal questions a judge must resolve, including technical compliance and human rights compatibility, before a case can proceed. If the judge approves the extradition request, the case is then sent to the Secretary of State, who must consider a different set of potential bars before issuing a final extradition order.
DOJ-OGR-00002099.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, outlines the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States. It specifies that the process is governed by the UK's Extradition Act 2003 and a bilateral treaty signed in 2003, which designates the U.S. as a 'Part 2 territory'. This designation exempts the U.S. from the standard requirement to provide prima facie evidence when requesting an extradition from the UK.
DOJ-OGR-00020126.jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, analyzes the extradition case of Ms. Maxwell from the United Kingdom to the United States. It argues that legal bars to extradition are unlikely to apply to her case, highlighting that the UK Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is exceptionally rare and that the 2003 Extradition Act is designed to facilitate, not hinder, such proceedings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court opinion discussing motions to dismiss in a case involving allegations of material support for terrorism. It analyzes legal precedents such as *Halberstam* and *Boim* to determine if Prince Turki and Prince Sultan can be held liable for supporting charities allegedly linked to al Qaeda, noting distinctions regarding when organizations were officially designated as terrorists. The court examines whether plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to show the defendants knew the charities were fronts for illegal activities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016118.jpg
This document is a page from a Merrill Lynch financial research report dated June 30, 2016, labeled as evidence in a House Oversight Committee investigation. It analyzes the Saudi Public Investment Fund's (PIF) shift from a domestic to a global investor, detailing specific assets and investments such as a $3.5bn stake in Uber. It also discusses the potential economic impact of the JASTA bill ('9/11 bill'), noting Saudi threats to liquidate $750bn in US assets, while predicting that the bill will not significantly hinder Saudi investment in the US due to procedural hurdles and White House opposition.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012382.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice (DOJ) legislative analysis, identified by the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012382'. The DOJ expresses its opposition to several subsections of proposed legislation (Sections 234 and 236) concerning child trafficking and the management of unaccompanied minors, arguing the proposals are burdensome, based on unreliable findings, and too restrictive. The department advocates for greater flexibility for agencies like DHS and HHS and opposes granting HHS access to sensitive law enforcement databases.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012378.jpg
This document is a Department of Justice (DOJ) analysis and opposition to Section 214 of a proposed bill concerning trafficking victims, likely from around 2008. The DOJ argues the bill's grant authorizations are redundant, create conflicts of interest with NGOs, improperly involve the Department of State in domestic issues, and wrongly extend victim benefits to prostitutes under the Mann Act who do not meet the legal definition of a victim unless under 18.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012374.jpg
This document is a Department of Justice (DOJ) analysis objecting to three sections of a proposed anti-trafficking act. The DOJ argues against Section 107 on separation of powers grounds, Section 108 for proposing a logistically difficult and insecure interagency database, and Section 109 for interfering with the President's policy-making authority. The document is part of a larger collection labeled 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' but does not contain any specific information about Jeffrey Epstein or related individuals.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012373.jpg
This document is a Department of Justice (DOJ) analysis of proposed anti-trafficking legislation, marked as page 2 of a collection from 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'. The DOJ raises concerns about several sections, recommending amendments to ensure U.S. international standards mirror domestic policies that prioritize both sex and labor trafficking. The department also advocates for greater flexibility in partnering with aid organizations and in allowing the Secretary of State to evaluate foreign governments' anti-trafficking efforts on a case-by-case basis, especially concerning cases with lenient sentences for cooperating defendants.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-03-05 | Received | FBI (Third Party ... | Secretary of State | $0.00 | Advance check for corporate records request (Pr... | View |
| 2008-03-05 | Received | FBI (Third Party ... | Secretary of State | $0.00 | Advance check requested to pay for certified co... | View |
| 2008-03-05 | Received | Miami | Secretary of State | $0.00 | Advance check to obtain certified copies of rec... | View |
| 2008-03-05 | Received | Miami Third Party... | Secretary of State | $0.00 | Advance check to obtain certified copies of rec... | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity