← Back to home

Document 20-60083

AI Analysis

Summary: The document is a court filing discussing the bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell, including the relevance of her renunciation of French citizenship to extradition proceedings. The filing argues that the court has jurisdiction to decide on bail and that renunciation of citizenship is a valid condition of release. The document highlights the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of extradition law and treaty provisions between the US and France.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it discusses the conditions of bail for Ms. Maxwell and the implications of renouncing her French citizenship on extradition proceedings.
Key Topics: bail conditions and jurisdiction renunciation of foreign citizenship as a condition of release extradition law and treaty interpretation
Key People:
  • Ms. Maxwell - defendant in the case
  • William Jule - French legal counsel for the defendant
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
Unknown
Pages
2
Folder
IMAGES007

Full Text

instead guided by concerns of efficiency. Here, it is unclear whether interlocutory appeal of a district court's decision regarding bail "divests the court of its control over aspects of the case involved in the appeal." United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996). Were it so, a district court would have no authority to remand or modify bail conditions of a defendant released while the government appeals the grant of bail. Such a rule would detract from, rather than promote, judicial economy and would be unworkable in practice. Should the Court believe it does not have jurisdiction to decide the present bail motion, Ms. Maxwell will move the Circuit to withdraw her notice of appeal without prejudice and thereby remove any theoretical bar to this Court's jurisdiction over the present bail motion. Should the Court summarily deny the present motion on the merits, Ms. Maxwell will file a notice of appeal and request consolidation of both appeals. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship is a Valid and Significant Condition of Release Relying on a letter from the French Ministry of Justice, the government urges the Court to give no weight to Ms. Maxwell's agreement to renounce her foreign citizenship. But the letter is wrong on the law and should be disregarded. The letter asserts that the loss of French nationality subsequent to the criminal act which the person is alleged to have committed does not affect the rule against the extradition of nationals, as nationality must be assessed at the time of commission of the offense and not at the time of the extradition request. As discussed in the opinion from William Jule, French legal counsel (attached as Exhibit A), the government's assertion is entirely incorrect for the following reasons: - The government's argument goes against the letter of the law. - The government's argument goes against the spirit of the law. - The government's argument is contradicted by precedent and case law. (Julie Opinion 6-26). 3 DOJ-OGR-00020176 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case: 20-60083 Document: 2691 Filed: 03/22/2021 Page: 9 of 12 nationality is assessed at the time the offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality."1 Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. The Defendant, meanwhile, relies on the opinion of a French legal expert who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the extradition request. See Reply, Ex. A ¶ 11. The Defendant's expert concedes that there is no case law addressing this precise issue. Id. ¶ 21. Exacerbating the uncertainty is the fact that the relevant legal materials also lend themselves to multiple interpretations. For instance, Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France of April 23, 1996 provides that "[t]here is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed." See Reply, Ex. A ¶ 9 (emphasis added)). Article 694-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure similarly provides that "Extradition shall not be granted . . . [w]hen the person claimed has French nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested."2 Id. ¶ 10; see also Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty as to the relevance of the Defendant's offer of renunciation of her French citizenship to her ability to frustrate, if not entirely bar, extradition. The Court's assessment of the risks largely 1 The Court cites the translated version of the letter, though the original letter is in French. 2 Here, there are minor discrepancies between the two sides' respective translations. The translated letter from the Ministry of Justice cites Article 694-4 as reading, "When the individual claimed to have French citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being requested." Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. 9 DOJ-OGR-00020200

Individual Pages

Page 3 - DOJ-OGR-00020176
instead guided by concerns of efficiency. Here, it is unclear whether interlocutory appeal of a district court's decision regarding bail "divests the court of its control over aspects of the case involved in the appeal." United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996). Were it so, a district court would have no authority to remand or modify bail conditions of a defendant released while the government appeals the grant of bail. Such a rule would detract from, rather than promote, judicial economy and would be unworkable in practice. Should the Court believe it does not have jurisdiction to decide the present bail motion, Ms. Maxwell will move the Circuit to withdraw her notice of appeal without prejudice and thereby remove any theoretical bar to this Court's jurisdiction over the present bail motion. Should the Court summarily deny the present motion on the merits, Ms. Maxwell will file a notice of appeal and request consolidation of both appeals. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship is a Valid and Significant Condition of Release Relying on a letter from the French Ministry of Justice, the government urges the Court to give no weight to Ms. Maxwell's agreement to renounce her foreign citizenship. But the letter is wrong on the law and should be disregarded. The letter asserts that the loss of French nationality subsequent to the criminal act which the person is alleged to have committed does not affect the rule against the extradition of nationals, as nationality must be assessed at the time of commission of the offense and not at the time of the extradition request. As discussed in the opinion from William Jule, French legal counsel (attached as Exhibit A), the government's assertion is entirely incorrect for the following reasons: - The government's argument goes against the letter of the law. - The government's argument goes against the spirit of the law. - The government's argument is contradicted by precedent and case law. (Julie Opinion 6-26). 3 DOJ-OGR-00020176
Page 9 - DOJ-OGR-00020200
Case: 20-60083 Document: 2691 Filed: 03/22/2021 Page: 9 of 12 nationality is assessed at the time the offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality."1 Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. The Defendant, meanwhile, relies on the opinion of a French legal expert who argues that nationality is assessed at the time of the extradition request. See Reply, Ex. A ¶ 11. The Defendant's expert concedes that there is no case law addressing this precise issue. Id. ¶ 21. Exacerbating the uncertainty is the fact that the relevant legal materials also lend themselves to multiple interpretations. For instance, Article 3(1) the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France of April 23, 1996 provides that "[t]here is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed." See Reply, Ex. A ¶ 9 (emphasis added)). Article 694-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure similarly provides that "Extradition shall not be granted . . . [w]hen the person claimed has French nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested."2 Id. ¶ 10; see also Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty as to the relevance of the Defendant's offer of renunciation of her French citizenship to her ability to frustrate, if not entirely bar, extradition. The Court's assessment of the risks largely 1 The Court cites the translated version of the letter, though the original letter is in French. 2 Here, there are minor discrepancies between the two sides' respective translations. The translated letter from the Ministry of Justice cites Article 694-4 as reading, "When the individual claimed to have French citizenship, said citizenship having been assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being requested." Gov't Opp'n, Ex. A at 2. 9 DOJ-OGR-00020200