{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "Case:de201c7-003130eAuN:Do6umen#01002File#0123/28PagReof 18o# 36",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "demonstrated ability to live in hiding—numerous courts have recognized that purported waivers of extradition are unenforceable and effectively meaningless. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court’s view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into [play] only after [the defendant] has fled the Court’s jurisdiction.”); United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013); United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960, 961 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); United States v. Stroeh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000); United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028, 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1985).4 For very good reason: Any defendant who signs such a purported waiver and then flees will assuredly contest the validity and/or voluntariness of the waiver, and will get to do so in \n4 The defense argues that several courts “have addressed concerns about a defendant’s ties to a foreign state that enforces extradition waiver by requiring the defendant to execute such a waiver as a condition of release.” (Mot. at 26). In the cases cited by the defendant, the courts approved the release of the defendants based on the particular facts, but did not address at all the question of whether a waiver of extradition is enforceable. See United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (noting, among other things, that the Government’s case was “novel,” and presented an “untried theory of liability” and that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland but that he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying Government motion to remand after trial where court found defendant not likely to flee); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (reconsidering pretrial release where case had “taken a number of surprising turns,” including the “suppression of video evidence, the indeterminate stay of proceedings, the overall uncertainty of the government’s evidence”); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); see also United States v. Georgiou, No. 08-1220-M, 2008 WL 4306750, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008) (distinguishing Cirillo on the facts and noting that “defense counsel concedes that a waiver of extradition may not be enforceable in Canada, a fact the court in Cirillo did not mention in its opinion”).\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00001160",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "demonstrated ability to live in hiding—numerous courts have recognized that purported waivers of extradition are unenforceable and effectively meaningless. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court’s view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into [play] only after [the defendant] has fled the Court’s jurisdiction.”); United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013); United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960, 961 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); United States v. Stroeh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000); United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028, 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1985).4 For very good reason: Any defendant who signs such a purported waiver and then flees will assuredly contest the validity and/or voluntariness of the waiver, and will get to do so in",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 The defense argues that several courts “have addressed concerns about a defendant’s ties to a foreign state that enforces extradition waiver by requiring the defendant to execute such a waiver as a condition of release.” (Mot. at 26). In the cases cited by the defendant, the courts approved the release of the defendants based on the particular facts, but did not address at all the question of whether a waiver of extradition is enforceable. See United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (noting, among other things, that the Government’s case was “novel,” and presented an “untried theory of liability” and that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland but that he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying Government motion to remand after trial where court found defendant not likely to flee); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (reconsidering pretrial release where case had “taken a number of surprising turns,” including the “suppression of video evidence, the indeterminate stay of proceedings, the overall uncertainty of the government’s evidence”); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); see also United States v. Georgiou, No. 08-1220-M, 2008 WL 4306750, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008) (distinguishing Cirillo on the facts and noting that “defense counsel concedes that a waiver of extradition may not be enforceable in Canada, a fact the court in Cirillo did not mention in its opinion”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001160",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Morrison",
      "Kazeem",
      "Young",
      "Cohen",
      "Bohn",
      "Stroeh",
      "Botero",
      "Khashoggi",
      "Salvagno",
      "Chen",
      "Karni",
      "Cirillo",
      "Georgiou"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Defense",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Utah",
      "California",
      "Tennessee",
      "Connecticut",
      "Florida",
      "Switzerland",
      "Canada",
      "Pennsylvania",
      "District of Columbia"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2019",
      "2016",
      "2015",
      "2013",
      "2010",
      "2004",
      "2000",
      "1985",
      "1989",
      "1992",
      "1999",
      "2008",
      "Dec. 23, 2016",
      "Aug. 3, 2015",
      "Aug. 27, 2013",
      "Dec. 20, 2010",
      "Nov. 3, 2000",
      "July 13, 1999",
      "Sept. 22, 2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case:de201c7-003130eAuN:Do6umen#01002File#0123/28PagReof 18o# 36",
      "425 F. Supp. 3d 306",
      "No. 16-MR-118",
      "No. 15 Cr. 172",
      "Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645",
      "No. C 10-00547",
      "330 F. Supp. 2d 960",
      "No. 396 Cr. 139",
      "604 F. Supp. 1028",
      "717 F. Supp. 1048",
      "314 F. Supp. 2d 115",
      "820 F. Supp. 1205",
      "298 F. Supp. 2d 129",
      "No. 99-1514",
      "No. 08-1220-M",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001160"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the enforceability of extradition waivers. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger legal brief or memorandum."
}