| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-08-22 | Legal decision | The Ministry of Justice provided a decision considering Peterson to be a French national and deny... | France | View |
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on December 18, 2020, in support of her renewed motion for bail. The defense argues that the government lacks significant documentary evidence, relies solely on witness testimony from decades ago, and that Maxwell has strong ties to the U.S. through her spouse (whose name is redacted) and friends who have pledged assets. The document also addresses flight risk concerns, arguing that extradition from France or the UK is possible or unlikely to be needed due to waivers, and cites a COVID-19 surge at the detention center as further justification for release.
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between prosecutors at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. They are coordinating the drafting of an opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's (GM) third bail application. The discussion involves verifying facts with the Office of International Affairs (OIA) and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in France and the UK, specifically regarding citizenship renunciation and a letter requiring translation.
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. JuliƩ 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.
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.
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the legal ambiguity surrounding the timing of nationality assessment for an extradition request under the U.S.-France Extradition Treaty. It presents conflicting interpretations, with the treaty and French law suggesting nationality is assessed at the time of the offense, while the Defendant's expert argues for the time of the request. This uncertainty complicates the Defendant's potential renunciation of French citizenship as a means to prevent extradition.
This page from a legal filing (Document 102) outlines arguments by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team refuting the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The defense argues that her use of a trust and pseudonym to buy a home was for protection against harassment, not to hide, and emphasizes her willingness to waive extradition rights to France and the UK. It also addresses conflicting expert opinions regarding whether France would extradite her, contrasting expert William JuliƩ's report with a general letter from the French Ministry of Justice.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity