Epstein Secrets

Exhibit U EFTA00011192 --- PAGE BREAK --- IN THE MATTER OF AN OPINION ON THE EXTRADITION LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES RE GHISLAINE MAXWELL Overview 1. This Opinion is provided pursuant to instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP I dated 12 August 2020 in the context of bail

ting to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms Maxwell will execute a waiver of her right to extradition that could be exhibited to a future extradition request made by the United States and relied upon

States prior to trial and in breach of bail. I The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Manvell, dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defe

United Kingdom". 28. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to establish that the US prosecutor

family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public 59 Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. 62 Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range fo

ion is provided pursuant to instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP I dated 12 August 2020 in the context of bail proceedings relating to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms Maxwell will execute a waive

of time since the alleged commission of the offences62. The courts have upheld orders for extradition in cases with similar timescales to those in Ms Maxwell's case, including two cases involving historic allegations of sexual offending where the relevant time period was 20 and 33 years. In both cases, the

d States prior to trial and in breach of bail. The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defen

rior to trial and in breach of bail. The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defendant date

r family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public "Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. 62 Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range fo

ion is provided pursuant to instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP I dated 12 August 2020 in the context of bail proceedings relating to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms Maxwell will execute a waive

of time since the alleged commission of the offences62. The courts have upheld orders for extradition in cases with similar timescales to those in Ms Maxwell's case, including two cases involving historic allegations of sexual offending where the relevant time period was 20 and 33 years. In both cases, the

d States prior to trial and in breach of bail. The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defen

rior to trial and in breach of bail. The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defendant date

r family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public "Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. 62 Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range fo

ion is provided pursuant to instructions from Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP I dated 12 August 2020 in the context of bail proceedings relating to Ms Ghislaine Maxwell before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Subsequent instructions have confirmed that Ms Maxwell will execute a waive

of time since the alleged commission of the offences62. The courts have upheld orders for extradition in cases with similar timescales to those in Ms Maxwell's case, including two cases involving historic allegations of sexual offending where the relevant time period was 20 and 33 years. In both cases, the

d States prior to trial and in breach of bail. The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defen

rior to trial and in breach of bail. The following documents were annexed to the instructions: (a) Superseding Indictment United States v Ghislaine Maxwell dated 8 July 2020; (b) a transcript of the arraignment and bail hearing that took place on 14 July 2020; (c) the Motion to Detain the Defendant date

r family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public "Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. 62 Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range fo