mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002146.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "document_number": "97-22",
    "date": "12/14/20",
    "document_type": "legal document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 22 of 30\nWilliam JULIÉ\navocat à la cour - attorney at law\n73. The Conseil d'Etat was once asked by the French government to deliver an opinion precisely on this point. It stated that the government's practice of refusing the extradition of nationals \"finds no basis in a principle of constitutional value. None of the rights and liberties of the citizen, as proclaimed by the Declaration of the Rights of Men and Citizens of 1789 and by the preamble of the Constitution of 1946, implies that nationals cannot be extradited [...] No doubt the laws adopted and the international conventions signed by France attest to the authority of the rule that nationals are not extradited. But, in support of this rule, there are no grounds for considering it as a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic, having constitutional value by virtue of the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.\"36.\n74. Therefore, the French Constitution does not prevent the executive from extraditing French citizens.\n75. It follows from this opinion and the above that the decision to apply the principle against the extradition of nationals is a matter for the executive, which could choose not to enforce it and thus choose to extradite a national without violating French constitutional law, European law or international law, taking into account the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France of 23 April 1996 which supersede French law and do not prohibit the extradition of French nationals.\nConclusion\n76. In the event that Ms Ghislaine Maxwell were to flee to France and become the subject of an extradition request, and where she has already executed an irrevocable waiver of her right to contest extradition, the Investigating Chamber would have to rule on the legality of the extradition request in accordance with the procedure described in Part I. Because the extradition of French nationals is not prohibited by the Constitution or the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, the Investigating Chamber would not be legally bound to oppose to the extradition request. It would then become a matter for the French government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms Ghislaine Maxwell.\n77. In the recent past, I am not aware that the French authorities have had to address the situation in which the United States sought extradition of a French citizen who was also\n36 \"Avis Consultatif, Conseil d'Etat, 24 November 1994, No. 356-641\", available at https://www.conseil-etat.fr/jadefile/avisadm/356641.pdf\n51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 - fax. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - palais C1652 21 DOJ-OGR-00002146",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 22 of 30",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "William JULIÉ\navocat à la cour - attorney at law",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "73. The Conseil d'Etat was once asked by the French government to deliver an opinion precisely on this point. It stated that the government's practice of refusing the extradition of nationals \"finds no basis in a principle of constitutional value. None of the rights and liberties of the citizen, as proclaimed by the Declaration of the Rights of Men and Citizens of 1789 and by the preamble of the Constitution of 1946, implies that nationals cannot be extradited [...] No doubt the laws adopted and the international conventions signed by France attest to the authority of the rule that nationals are not extradited. But, in support of this rule, there are no grounds for considering it as a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic, having constitutional value by virtue of the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.\"36.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "74. Therefore, the French Constitution does not prevent the executive from extraditing French citizens.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "75. It follows from this opinion and the above that the decision to apply the principle against the extradition of nationals is a matter for the executive, which could choose not to enforce it and thus choose to extradite a national without violating French constitutional law, European law or international law, taking into account the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France of 23 April 1996 which supersede French law and do not prohibit the extradition of French nationals.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Conclusion",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "76. In the event that Ms Ghislaine Maxwell were to flee to France and become the subject of an extradition request, and where she has already executed an irrevocable waiver of her right to contest extradition, the Investigating Chamber would have to rule on the legality of the extradition request in accordance with the procedure described in Part I. Because the extradition of French nationals is not prohibited by the Constitution or the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, the Investigating Chamber would not be legally bound to oppose to the extradition request. It would then become a matter for the French government to decide on whether or not to issue an extradition decree against Ms Ghislaine Maxwell.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "77. In the recent past, I am not aware that the French authorities have had to address the situation in which the United States sought extradition of a French citizen who was also",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "36 \"Avis Consultatif, Conseil d'Etat, 24 November 1994, No. 356-641\", available at https://www.conseil-etat.fr/jadefile/avisadm/356641.pdf",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 - fax. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - palais C1652 21 DOJ-OGR-00002146",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "William JULIÉ",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Conseil d'Etat",
      "French government",
      "USA government",
      "Investigating Chamber"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "France",
      "United States",
      "Paris"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/14/20",
      "23 April 1996",
      "24 November 1994",
      "1789",
      "1946"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "97-22",
      "356-641",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002146"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal brief or expert opinion regarding extradition law between France and the United States, specifically in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell."
}