mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002107.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12 of 29",
    "document_number": "97-21",
    "date": "12/14/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 29\nthis as a weighty factor76. Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the victims77 would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the interests of victims78 “will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be present, they can be so”,79. Third, Ms Maxwell’s connections to the UK80 do not appear to be of a type likely to be considered substantial in this context.\n\nMental and physical condition\n\n34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her81. In order to rely on her physical or mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to meet the statutory test. Most cases in the ‘unjust’ category relate to the persons’ fitness to plead to otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily surmountable82 and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient83. Even in cases where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be provided84, or an undertaking to return an individual if they are later found to be unfit to plead85, and thus ensure that extradition is possible notwithstanding the requested person’s medical problems.\n\n76 Love v United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28.\n77 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).\n78 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).\n79 Shaw v United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that, at Ms Maxwell’s bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 38-40.\n80 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g).\n81 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91.\n82 Love v Government of the United States, para. 122.\n83 Dewani v Goverrnment of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73.\n84 Miao v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37.\n85 Dewani.\n\n1922623.1\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00002107",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "this as a weighty factor76. Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the victims77 would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the interests of victims78 “will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be present, they can be so”,79. Third, Ms Maxwell’s connections to the UK80 do not appear to be of a type likely to be considered substantial in this context.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Mental and physical condition",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her81. In order to rely on her physical or mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to meet the statutory test. Most cases in the ‘unjust’ category relate to the persons’ fitness to plead to otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily surmountable82 and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient83. Even in cases where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be provided84, or an undertaking to return an individual if they are later found to be unfit to plead85, and thus ensure that extradition is possible notwithstanding the requested person’s medical problems.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "76 Love v United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28.\n77 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).\n78 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).\n79 Shaw v United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that, at Ms Maxwell’s bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 38-40.\n80 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g).\n81 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91.\n82 Love v Government of the United States, para. 122.\n83 Dewani v Goverrnment of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73.\n84 Miao v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37.\n85 Dewani.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1922623.1\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00002107",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms Maxwell",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "High Court",
      "United States of America",
      "Government of the United States",
      "Government of South Africa"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States",
      "UK",
      "South Africa"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "14 July 2020",
      "12/14/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "97-21",
      "1922623.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002107"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell to the United States. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a legal brief or memorandum."
}