Expert Opinion/Legal Brief: 2016-08-03-Adj-Def-#110821, ECF#3187
Summary
The document discusses the UK's extradition law under the 2003 Act, highlighting exceptions and bars to extradition, and the rarity of the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition. It notes that extradition procedures are designed to be streamlined and typically conclude within two years. The author, David Perry QC, provides context for understanding the application of these laws in a specific case involving Ms Maxwell.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (5)
Related Documents (6)
Expert Opinion/Declaration: 201-07-003230-AdmitDocID010321
The document discusses the Secretary of State's exceptional power to bar extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 and notes that it has been exercised only once since the enactment of the Act. It also highlights the typical timescales for extradition proceedings arising from US requests. The author, David Perry QC, concludes that none of the bars or exceptions to extradition would arise in Ms Maxwell's case based on currently known information.
court filing: 20-cr-60838-AJNT Document 1032 Filed 06/23/23 Page 9 of 15
The document discusses the extradition of Ms. Maxwell, citing expert opinions from Mr. Julié and David Perry, which contradict the government's assertions on the likelihood of extradition from France and the U.K. It argues that extradition is legally permissible and likely under the relevant treaties and laws.
Expert Opinion: 103-2
The document is an addendum opinion by David Perry QC on the extradition law of England and Wales, specifically addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's case. It concludes that Maxwell's extradition to the US is highly likely due to her breach of bail and the unlikelihood of successfully resisting extradition. The opinion also clarifies the limited grounds on which the Secretary of State can refuse extradition.
Court Filing: 309
The US Attorney's office filed a letter with the court alleging that David Markus, appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, violated Local Rule 23.1 by making extrajudicial statements to the media, including an opinion piece in the New York Daily News. The government requests the court to order Markus to comply with the rule to prevent interference with a fair trial.
Court Filing: 315
The court rules that David Markus, as appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, is subject to Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and must comply with its provisions regarding extrajudicial statements. The court emphasizes that all lawyers associated with the case must avoid making statements that could interfere with a fair trial or prejudice the due administration of justice.
Court Filing: 338
David A. Diehl filed a motion to intervene in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, arguing that his interests were not adequately represented regarding the statute of limitations argument under 18 U.S.C. §3283. The motion was denied by Judge Alison J. Nathan. Diehl's filing includes a detailed analysis of the legislative history and interpretation of §3283.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.