Peterson
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
France
|
Citizenship |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Directorate of Criminal Affairs and Pardons, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (France)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| 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 |
| 2007-08-22 | Legal decision | The French Ministry of Justice provided its position that it considers Peterson a French national... | France | View |
| 2007-08-22 | N/A | French Ministry of Justice denies extradition of Peterson. | France | View |
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-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-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-00002182(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against the defendant's bail release by highlighting the risk of non-extradition. The Government asserts that France does not extradite its citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and that any anticipatory waiver of extradition to the UK provided by the defendant is unenforceable under the UK Extradition Act of 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00020081.jpg
This document is page 18 of a government filing (Document 102) from June 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues against bail by highlighting flight risks, specifically noting that France does not extradite its own citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and arguing that any 'anticipatory waiver' of extradition the defendant might sign regarding the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable under UK law (referencing the Extradition Act of 2003 and U.S. v. Stanton). The prosecution asserts that such waivers are meaningless until a defendant is physically present before a British judge.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity