{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "100",
    "date": "12/18/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 21 of 36\n\nJustice on August 22, 2007 which provides that the \"Ministry of Justice considers the American-born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied\"). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited a French citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 (\"[T]he principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union.\")). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83).\n\nThe defendant's supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant's bail where defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers, as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and concluding that such a waiver was not an \"enforceable undertaking\"). Under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, \"if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge.\" Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given\n\n18\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002182",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 21 of 36",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Justice on August 22, 2007 which provides that the \"Ministry of Justice considers the American-born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied\"). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited a French citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 (\"[T]he principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union.\")). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant's bail where defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers, as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and concluding that such a waiver was not an \"enforceable undertaking\"). Under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, \"if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge.\" Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002182",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Peterson",
      "Stanton"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Ministry of Justice",
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "United States",
      "France",
      "United Kingdom",
      "European Union",
      "British authorities"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States",
      "France",
      "United Kingdom"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 22, 2007",
      "12/18/20",
      "Feb. 4, 1992"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 100",
      "Ex. B",
      "Tr. 83",
      "No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS)",
      "1992 WL 27130",
      "§ 127(9)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002182"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to an extradition case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is page 21 of 36."
}