High Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Secretary of State
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
EFTA00011192.pdf
This document is a legal opinion provided by David Perry QC regarding the extradition law of England and Wales in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail proceedings in the United States. It outlines the extradition process between the UK and US, potential bars to extradition, human rights considerations, and the implications of Ms. Maxwell waiving her right to extradition. The document concludes that if Ms. Maxwell were to abscond to the UK, it is highly unlikely she would be granted bail or successfully resist extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002124.jpg
This is page 29 of a legal document filed on December 14, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The text explains the legal process for when a court decision becomes final, distinguishing between scenarios with and without an appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the Extradition Act 2003.
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-00002114.jpg
This document is the Curriculum Vitae of David Perry QC, a prominent UK barrister specializing in extradition law. It outlines his extensive career, including roles as Treasury Counsel and a judge, and highlights his expertise in extradition matters. A key event detailed is his co-authorship of a major 2011 independent review for the UK Home Office on the nation's extradition arrangements, which concluded that the 2003 UK-US treaty was fair and did not need renegotiation.
DOJ-OGR-00002108.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, analyzing the potential human rights objections Ghislaine Maxwell might raise against extradition to the US. The text specifically argues that Maxwell is unlikely to succeed in claiming a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR regarding prison conditions, citing numerous legal precedents where such claims were rejected. Footnotes reference specific cases and US detention facilities (MDC and MCC) in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002107.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues for the extradition of Ms. Maxwell to the United States. It contends that a U.S. trial would best serve the interests of the victims and that it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully oppose extradition on the grounds of her physical or mental health, as the legal threshold for such an argument is exceptionally high.
DOJ-OGR-00002106.jpg
This page is part of a legal filing (Document 97-21) filed on December 14, 2020, analyzing the likelihood of Ghislaine Maxwell successfully contesting extradition under UK law. The text argues that Maxwell cannot rely on 'passage of time' or 'forum' bars to prevent extradition, citing that while some conduct occurred in London, the majority of harm occurred in the US. It heavily references the Extradition Act 2003 and various legal precedents (Tollman, Gomes, Kakis).
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-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-00002006.jpg
This document is page 34 of a legal filing from December 14, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details expert opinions from Mr. Perry (UK law) and William Julié (French law), both arguing that Maxwell would be unable to resist extradition to the US from either the UK or France, and would be unlikely to receive bail in the UK if she absconded there. These arguments appear designed to support a request for bail in the US by minimizing her flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020048.jpg
This legal document summarizes expert opinions regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's potential extradition. Mr. Perry, an expert on UK law, concludes that Maxwell is unlikely to successfully resist extradition to the United States or be granted bail. William Julié, an expert on French law, clarifies that, contrary to government representations, the extradition of a French national to the USA is legally permissible.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017257.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a draft manuscript (dated 4.2.12) or memoir, likely by Alan Dershowitz (based on the context of the Tison v. Arizona case), produced as part of a House Oversight investigation. The text details the ethical conflict the author faced as the defense attorney for Ricky and Raymond Tison, balancing his duty to his clients against warnings from other anti-capital punishment lawyers that appealing to the Supreme Court could threaten the *Enmund* precedent. The page recounts the decision to file for certiorari and the subsequent anxiety when the Supreme Court granted review, signaling a potential reversal of favorable case law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017256.jpg
This excerpt details the legal aftermath of the Tison gang crimes, focusing on the defense attorney's efforts to save the surviving brothers from the death penalty by appealing to the Supreme Court. It discusses the application of felony murder laws and analyzes the relevance of the precedent set by *Enmund v. Florida* (1982) regarding culpability and capital punishment. The text also highlights the challenges posed by the changing composition of the Supreme Court, specifically the appointments of conservative justices like Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017251.jpg
This document appears to be a page (p. 164) from a manuscript or book draft, likely by Alan Dershowitz, submitted to the House Oversight Committee. The text reflects on the legal battles surrounding the death penalty in the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically referencing Chief Justice Burger's dissent and the author's collaboration with Justice Goldberg. It concludes by introducing the author's involvement in the case Tison v. Arizona.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017147.jpg
The author reflects on the profound influence of Judge David Bazelon, emphasizing his role in raising enduring legal questions and shaping the author's critical view of the judiciary. The text compares this experience with the author's subsequent clerkship under Justice Arthur Goldberg during a historically tumultuous period involving the Kennedy assassination, noting that while the Supreme Court work was more high-profile, the time with Bazelon was more educationally significant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity