European Union
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-02-01 | N/A | Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America came into force | International | View |
| 2010-02-01 | N/A | Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the USA came into force. | International | View |
| 2004-03-09 | N/A | Law transposing the framework decision on the European arrest warrant. | France | View |
| 2003-06-25 | N/A | Signing of Agreement on Extradition between USA and EU. | Washington | View |
| 2003-06-25 | Treaty signing | Signing of the Agreement on Extradition between the European Union and the USA. | N/A | View |
| 2003-06-25 | Agreement signing | The Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union was signed. | N/A | View |
| 2003-06-25 | N/A | Extradition Treaty signed with European Union (Pending) | European Union | View |
| 2002-05-01 | N/A | European Union froze assets of seven Hezbollah-affiliated individuals. | European Union | View |
| 0015-04-01 | N/A | Quartet meeting | Berlin | View |
EFTA00022206.pdf
This document is a chapter from a legal textbook or guidance manual titled 'Chapter A7: Mutual Legal Assistance in Cases of Fraud,' released on July 13, 2019. It details the legal framework, international conventions, and statutory powers (such as CICA 2003 and POCA 2002) governing how the UK provides and requests assistance in cross-border fraud investigations, including freezing assets and gathering evidence. The document contains no specific information regarding Jeffrey Epstein, flight logs, or specific criminal events, but rather outlines the laws that would be applicable to such international investigations.
EFTA00016784.pdf
This document is a legal opinion by French attorney William Julié, dated December 18, 2020, submitted in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for release. Julié argues against the US government's position that France would not extradite Maxwell because of her French citizenship. He contends that under the US-France Extradition Treaty and the EU-US Agreement, France retains the discretion to extradite nationals and, unlike the 2007 Hans Peterson case, would likely do so in Maxwell's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001601.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing arguing for bail for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly mitigates her flight risk, citing a recent ruling in another case (U.S. v. El Mokadem) where a defendant was released for this reason. The filing also distinguishes Maxwell's case from Epstein's, arguing the government does not allege she poses a current danger to the community, and that her alleged offenses ended in 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00001268.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Exhibit 120-2) authored by attorney William Julié. It outlines legal arguments regarding extradition requests between the United States and France, specifically focusing on the 'nationality protection' clause in the 1996 Extradition Treaty and the French Code of Criminal Procedure. The text argues that extradition should not be granted if the person sought holds French nationality at the time of the offense.
DOJ-OGR-00001204.jpg
A legal opinion filed on December 23, 2020, by French attorney William Julié regarding the extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell. Julié argues that under French law and the Extradition Treaty (referencing a past interpretation by Senators Durbin and Obama), there is no absolute rule against extraditing nationals and that the French government would likely execute an extradition decree against Maxwell. The document also cites the 2010 EU-US extradition agreement as further justification for cooperation.
DOJ-OGR-00001202.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a U.S. government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié critiques the U.S. government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing it misinterprets French extradition law by ignoring the supremacy of international treaties, such as the extradition treaty between the USA and France, over domestic statutes. The core argument is that France may indeed be able to extradite its own citizens under these treaties, contrary to the U.S. government's position.
DOJ-OGR-00001184.jpg
This document is a formal statement from Philippe Jaeglé of the Office for the International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, explaining that under Article 3 of the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France refuses to extradite its nationals to the United States. It clarifies that while France extradites nationals within the EU due to political integration and shared human rights standards (European arrest warrant), it has never deviated from the non-extradition principle for countries outside the EU. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp and a court filing header dated December 18, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001163.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is invalid. It cites two main points: first, the precedent of France refusing to extradite its own citizens, as seen in the case of Peterson, a dual US-French national; and second, the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires that any consent to extradition be evaluated by a judge in real-time with legal counsel present, rendering any prior 'anticipatory waiver' meaningless.
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-00001161.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002225.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal opinion by French lawyer William Julié filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). Julié argues that French law does not absolutely prohibit the extradition of nationals and cites a past letter from Senators Durbin and Obama to support the interpretation that France has discretion to extradite. He concludes it is unlikely the French government would refuse to extradite Maxwell, especially given the 2010 EU-US extradition agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00002225(1).jpg
This document is the final page of a legal opinion by French lawyer William Julié filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). Julié argues that French law does not absolutely prohibit the extradition of nationals and cites a past letter from Senators Durbin and Obama to support the interpretation that France has discretion to extradite. He concludes it is unlikely the French government would refuse to extradite Maxwell, especially given the 2010 EU-US extradition agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00002224(1).jpg
This document is a page from a legal memorandum filed on December 23, 2020, by French lawyer William Julié regarding the extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell. Julié argues that the US-France Extradition Treaty allows France discretion to extradite its own citizens, countering the DOJ's reliance on the 2007 'Peterson case' precedent. The text analyzes the Peterson case, noting it was a discretionary decision by the Ministry of Justice rather than a court ruling, and references a 2007 letter from Senators Obama and Durbin regarding that matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002223.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum regarding a defendant's motion for release. Julié refutes the US government's interpretation of a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing that their analysis of French extradition law is incomplete. He asserts that under the French Constitution (Article 55) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 696), international treaties—such as the extradition treaty between the US and France—prevail over domestic law, meaning the key issue is the treaty's terms, not general French legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002223(1).jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié argues that the US government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice is misplaced, as it selectively quotes French law while ignoring the supremacy of international extradition treaties under the French Constitution. The core argument is that the extradition treaty between the USA and France should govern the case, not the specific article of the French criminal code cited by the Minister.
DOJ-OGR-00002203.jpg
This document is an exhibit filed on December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It is a formal statement from Philippe Jaeglé of the French Office for International Mutual Assistance, clarifying that under the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France systematically refuses to extradite its own nationals to the United States. The text distinguishes this policy from intra-EU extradition rules.
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable. It supports this claim by referencing France's strict policy against extraditing its own citizens to the U.S. and by citing the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires a judge to evaluate any such waiver in person with the defendant represented by counsel, rendering anticipatory waivers meaningless.
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-00002180.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002180(1).jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002152.jpg
This document is a sworn affidavit and waiver of extradition from Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 14, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Maxwell affirms her identity as the defendant, states her triple citizenship (US, UK, France), and confirms she is incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. She attests to having reviewed the charges and her extradition rights under various international treaties with her legal counsel from Cohen & Gresser, LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00002144.jpg
This legal document, authored by attorney William Julié, analyzes the legal framework surrounding the extradition of a country's own nationals, with a specific focus on France and its treaty with the USA. It contrasts different legal approaches under international law, noting that some countries constitutionally prohibit extraditing citizens while others, particularly common law jurisdictions, permit it. The document also examines European law, including the European Convention on Extradition and the European Arrest Warrant, which has different rules for member states.
DOJ-OGR-00002134.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, by attorney William Julié, outlines the fourth stage of the French extradition process. It details the procedure when a requested person consents to extradition, referencing specific articles of the French Code of Criminal Procedure and international agreements, such as the extradition treaty between the EU and the USA. The document explains how consent allows for a simplified and expedited surrender, including a potential waiver of the rule of specialty.
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-00002093.jpg
This document is a sworn affidavit and waiver of extradition from Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 14, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In it, Maxwell states her citizenship (US, UK, France), her current incarceration at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and confirms she has reviewed the indictment with her lawyers, Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell. She also acknowledges being informed of her rights regarding extradition under various treaties between the U.S., France, and the EU.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity