Document 20-6800

The language of the extradition treaty between the United States and France and the applicable French statues are clear that anyone seeking to contest extradition on the basis of French citizenship must be a French national at the time of the extradition request. (Id. ¶ 11). The provisions on which the government relies were not intended to apply in cases where the person whose extradition is sought had lost French citizenship. To the contrary, it was designed to apply to individuals who had acquired French citizenship subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime “in order to avoid fraudulent nationality applications of offenders seeking to escape extradition.” (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). If the person is no longer a French national at the time of the request, the provision does not apply. The government cites no case where the relevant statute was applied to protect a formerly French national from extradition, and we have found none ourselves. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21). By contrast, there are numerous examples of French courts deporting individuals who have lost French nationality following the commission of an offense. (Id. ¶ 21). Accordingly, Mr. Julié concludes: “[I]t cannot have been the intention of French lawmakers that Article 696-4 be construed as meaning that a person who has lost French nationality would still be entitled to be protected from extradition.” (Id. ¶ 26). Ms. Maxwell’s agreement to give up both British and French citizenship and waive any and all right to contest extradition is a formidable challenge to the assertion that Ms. Maxwell would likely flee if released from custody and goes above and beyond the “reasonable assurances” that the Bail Reform Act requires to grant bail. While we maintain that Ms. Maxwell’s written waivers of the right to challenge extradition should suffice, her willingness to forfeit citizenship birthrights exceeds what is necessary and profoundly demonstrates her commitment to abide by conditions of release and appear at trial. 4 DOJ-OGR-00020177 --- PAGE BREAK --- deprivation, and other conditions adverse to her physical health and mental well-being, Ms. Maxwell responded appropriately and accurately to questions posed by Pretrial Services which were restricted to her personal assets. Since then, financial documents - collected and professionally vetted by a highly respected accounting firm - have been submitted to the government and the Court and provide full details and supporting documentation concerning Ms. Maxwell's personal assets and those jointly held with the spouse. Further, no valid challenge has been made to those submissions. The government challenges the Court by inanely stating that if "the only way to keep the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too great a risk to release." (Dkt.165 at 8.) This statement is fundamentally illogical as it undermines most conditions of release. For example, the same could be said of electronic monitoring - i.e., if the only way to keep a defendant from fleeing the jurisdiction is to place him on home confinement with electronic monitoring, then he is too great a flight risk to release.3 The Court should readily dismiss this frivolous argument. Under the Bail Reform Act, if there are appropriate conditions for release, bail should be granted. The conditions collectively proposed in the previous and present bail applications provide ample assurance that Ms. Maxwell will be present at trial. 3 Moreover, in an effort to further obfuscate the merits of Ms. Maxwell's bail application, the government desperately argues that funds for legal services, presently held in attorney escrow accounts, would be released and made available to support Ms. Maxwell as a fugitive. To suggest that defense counsel would become accomplices to a violation of a court order shows utter disrespect for Ms. Maxwell's defense team. In particular, New York counsel, who have spent the entirety of their legal careers practicing in this district and establishing well-respected reputations among the bench and bar, take umbrage at the government's callous assertion.