mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002227.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2 of 4",
    "document_number": "103-2",
    "date": "12/23/20",
    "document_type": "Addendum Opinion",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103-2 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 4\n\nIN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION\nON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES\n\nRE GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nADDENDUM OPINION\n\n1. This Addendum Opinion is provided in response to the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Release dated 16 December 2020, insofar as it pertains to matters of English extradition law and practice.\n\n2. The primary conclusions of the Opinion dated 8 October 2020 ('the Opinion') remain unchanged, namely: (a) in the majority of cases, proceedings in England and Wales in relation to US extradition requests are concluded in under two years; (b) it is virtually certain that bail would be refused in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested person had absconded from criminal proceedings in the United States prior to trial and in breach of bail; and (c) on the basis of the information currently known, it is highly unlikely1 that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding indictment dated 7 July 2020. In addition to those conclusions, the following three points may be made.\n\n3. First, as noted in the Opinion2, Ms Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be admissible in any extradition proceedings in England and Wales. While such a document cannot compel a requested person to consent to their extradition once in the United Kingdom, the document would be a highly relevant factor in any contested extradition proceedings. In particular:\n\n(a) If Ms Maxwell were to rely on such a waiver to secure bail in the United States and then, having absconded, renege on the undertakings in that\n\n1 The Government observes, at p.16 of the Motion, that this leaves open a \"possibility\" that extradition could be resisted. Absolute certainty in any legal context is rare but the practical effect of the conclusion in the Opinion is that, at this stage and on the basis of the information currently known, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which Ms Maxwell could successfully resist extradition, and her extradition would be a virtual foregone conclusion.\n\n2 Opinion, para. 39.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002227",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103-2 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION\nON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "RE GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nADDENDUM OPINION",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. This Addendum Opinion is provided in response to the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Release dated 16 December 2020, insofar as it pertains to matters of English extradition law and practice.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The primary conclusions of the Opinion dated 8 October 2020 ('the Opinion') remain unchanged, namely: (a) in the majority of cases, proceedings in England and Wales in relation to US extradition requests are concluded in under two years; (b) it is virtually certain that bail would be refused in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested person had absconded from criminal proceedings in the United States prior to trial and in breach of bail; and (c) on the basis of the information currently known, it is highly unlikely1 that Ghislaine Maxwell would be able successfully to resist extradition to the United States in relation to the charges in the superseding indictment dated 7 July 2020. In addition to those conclusions, the following three points may be made.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. First, as noted in the Opinion2, Ms Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be admissible in any extradition proceedings in England and Wales. While such a document cannot compel a requested person to consent to their extradition once in the United Kingdom, the document would be a highly relevant factor in any contested extradition proceedings. In particular:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(a) If Ms Maxwell were to rely on such a waiver to secure bail in the United States and then, having absconded, renege on the undertakings in that",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The Government observes, at p.16 of the Motion, that this leaves open a \"possibility\" that extradition could be resisted. Absolute certainty in any legal context is rare but the practical effect of the conclusion in the Opinion is that, at this stage and on the basis of the information currently known, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which Ms Maxwell could successfully resist extradition, and her extradition would be a virtual foregone conclusion.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Opinion, para. 39.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002227",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Ms Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "England",
      "Wales",
      "United States",
      "United Kingdom"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "16 December 2020",
      "8 October 2020",
      "7 July 2020",
      "12/23/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 103-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002227"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal legal opinion regarding extradition law in England and Wales, specifically in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes footnotes and references to specific paragraphs and pages of other documents."
}