mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002141.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "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 17 of 30\nWilliam JULIÉ\navocat à la cour - attorney at law\n47. Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France provides that \"[e]xtradition shall not be granted by France when the offense for which extradition is requested is considered by France as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or as an offense inspired by political motives\".\n48. A political motivation claim requires the Investigating Chamber to examine, to some extent, the merits of the case. The Court is also required to look into the merits of the case where the requested person argues that there is a manifest inconsistency between the conduct and the legal offenses in respect of which the extradition is sought23.\n49. The conduct described in the indictment does not appear to be manifestly inconsistent with the offenses charged therein.\n50. As to political motivation, French courts have never opposed extradition requests from the USA on this ground24. In fact, in the past ten years, only one published decision of the Cour de cassation has denied an American extradition request, on the ground that the Investigating Chamber had not verified that the criminal conduct described in the request constituted a crime in France at the time of commission25. All other published decisions which have ruled on a request from the USA have granted extradition26.\n51. In light of the elements contained in the Superseding Indictment, Ms Ghislaine Maxwell could not oppose her extradition to the USA on the basis of a political motivation claim, that would have no serious ground, and therefore the Investigating Chamber would not look into the merits of the case against her.\nB. The protection of nationals from extradition under French law and the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France: Lack of an absolute protection\n23 Cass. Crim., 21 November 2007, No. 07-87540.\n24 See by contrast, a 2016 recent decision of the Conseil d'Etat to deny extradition to Russia of a prominent figure of the Kazakh opposition, Mouktar Abliazov, on the ground that the request was politically motivated (available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000033581187/).\n25 Cass. Crim., 14 October 2015, No. 15-84426.\n26 Cass. Crim., 11 March 2020, No. 19-84023 ; Cass. Crim., 21 February 2017, No. 16-87102 ; Cass. Crim., 23 February 2010, No. 09-88021 ; Conseil d'État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 15 April 2016, No. 390860 ; Conseil d'État November 2019, No. 19-80274 ; Conseil d'État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 1 June 2011, No. 342419 ; Cass. Crim., 21 June 2016, No. 16-81981 ; Cass. Crim., 4 October 2016, No. 16-84450 ; Cass. Crim., 11 May 2011, No. 11-80942, No. 11-80943 ; Cass. Crim., 10 May 2011, No. 11-80989 ; Conseil d'État, - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 7 May 2012, No. 352573 ; Cass. Crim., 13 February 2008, No. 07-88009 ; Cass. Crim., 3 March 2015, No. 14-88308 ; Cass. Crim., 11 June 2013, No. 13-81979.\n51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 - fax. 01 88 33 51 81\nwww.wjavocats.com - palais C1652\nwj@wjavocats.com - 16\nDOJ-OGR-0002141",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 17 of 30",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "William JULIÉ\navocat à la cour - attorney at law",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "47. Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France provides that \"[e]xtradition shall not be granted by France when the offense for which extradition is requested is considered by France as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or as an offense inspired by political motives\".\n48. A political motivation claim requires the Investigating Chamber to examine, to some extent, the merits of the case. The Court is also required to look into the merits of the case where the requested person argues that there is a manifest inconsistency between the conduct and the legal offenses in respect of which the extradition is sought23.\n49. The conduct described in the indictment does not appear to be manifestly inconsistent with the offenses charged therein.\n50. As to political motivation, French courts have never opposed extradition requests from the USA on this ground24. In fact, in the past ten years, only one published decision of the Cour de cassation has denied an American extradition request, on the ground that the Investigating Chamber had not verified that the criminal conduct described in the request constituted a crime in France at the time of commission25. All other published decisions which have ruled on a request from the USA have granted extradition26.\n51. In light of the elements contained in the Superseding Indictment, Ms Ghislaine Maxwell could not oppose her extradition to the USA on the basis of a political motivation claim, that would have no serious ground, and therefore the Investigating Chamber would not look into the merits of the case against her.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The protection of nationals from extradition under French law and the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France: Lack of an absolute protection",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23 Cass. Crim., 21 November 2007, No. 07-87540.\n24 See by contrast, a 2016 recent decision of the Conseil d'Etat to deny extradition to Russia of a prominent figure of the Kazakh opposition, Mouktar Abliazov, on the ground that the request was politically motivated (available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000033581187/).\n25 Cass. Crim., 14 October 2015, No. 15-84426.\n26 Cass. Crim., 11 March 2020, No. 19-84023 ; Cass. Crim., 21 February 2017, No. 16-87102 ; Cass. Crim., 23 February 2010, No. 09-88021 ; Conseil d'État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 15 April 2016, No. 390860 ; Conseil d'État November 2019, No. 19-80274 ; Conseil d'État - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 1 June 2011, No. 342419 ; Cass. Crim., 21 June 2016, No. 16-81981 ; Cass. Crim., 4 October 2016, No. 16-84450 ; Cass. Crim., 11 May 2011, No. 11-80942, No. 11-80943 ; Cass. Crim., 10 May 2011, No. 11-80989 ; Conseil d'État, - 2ème et 7ème SSR, 7 May 2012, No. 352573 ; Cass. Crim., 13 February 2008, No. 07-88009 ; Cass. Crim., 3 March 2015, No. 14-88308 ; Cass. Crim., 11 June 2013, No. 13-81979.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 - fax. 01 88 33 51 81\nwww.wjavocats.com - palais C1652\nwj@wjavocats.com - 16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-0002141",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "William JULIÉ",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Mouktar Abliazov"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Conseil d'État",
      "Cour de cassation"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "France",
      "USA",
      "Russia",
      "Kazakh"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/14/20",
      "21 November 2007",
      "14 October 2015",
      "11 March 2020",
      "21 February 2017",
      "23 February 2010",
      "15 April 2016",
      "1 June 2011",
      "21 June 2016",
      "4 October 2016",
      "11 May 2011",
      "10 May 2011",
      "7 May 2012",
      "13 February 2008",
      "3 March 2015",
      "11 June 2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "97-22",
      "07-87540",
      "15-84426",
      "19-84023",
      "16-87102",
      "09-88021",
      "390860",
      "19-80274",
      "342419",
      "16-81981",
      "16-84450",
      "11-80942",
      "11-80943",
      "11-80989",
      "352573",
      "07-88009",
      "14-88308",
      "13-81979"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal document related to extradition proceedings. It is written in a formal tone and includes references to various court decisions and legal codes. The document is from the law firm WJ Avocats."
}