Event Details

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.

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.

This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.

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.

This page from a defense filing (dated Dec 23, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell accurately disclosed her assets to Pretrial Services despite being in jail without records. The defense rebuts the government's claim that she is hiding wealth or has 'unrestrained funds' to flee, citing a negative pledge on her London property and the illiquidity of $4 million controlled by her spouse.

This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 103) dated December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The filing argues for Maxwell's release on bail, citing her ties to the U.S. (including a redacted spouse), the pledging of all assets, the weakness of the government's case relying on only three witnesses, and health risks due to a COVID surge at the MDC detention center.

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 103) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. The filing outlines arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell for bail, countering the government's case by highlighting her substantial ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her financial disclosures, and the unlikelihood of extradition refusal from France or the UK, while also citing a COVID surge at MDC as further justification.

This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.

This document is page 14 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that flight risk concerns regarding the UK and France are overstated and that the recent arrest of associate Jean-Luc Brunel in France diminishes her incentive to flee there. Additionally, the motion highlights a COVID-19 surge at the MDC (113 cases) and restrictive prison conditions, including mouth inspections and potential suspension of legal calls, as further justification for bail.

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.

This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 103) dated December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for Maxwell's release on bail, stating she and her spouse have pledged all assets and that her wealth suggests strict conditions rather than denial of bail. It refutes the government's claim that she is a flight risk or adept at hiding, and clarifies financial details regarding her spouse's assets and banking records.