Thanks again for your help. An additional question - Is the following accurate: Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has extradited a French citizen to the United States. Thanks, From: (USANYS) Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 12:53 PM To: Cc: (CRM) < (CRM) Subject: RE: SDNY case Thanks so much, We really appreciate you getting us this letter today. We will get the letter translated. We wanted to confirm that there is no issue with us referencing the open source articles regarding Peterson. If so, I don't think we need to ask the State Department for the declaration. I'm at if there is anything you would like to discuss. Thank you again for your help. From: Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 9:57 AM To: (USANYS) <IM > Cc: (CRM) < >; (CRM) <=I Subject: RE: SDNY case Dear, and Please find attached the letter from French MOJ I received last night. I think it's worth getting into translation and including in your response. The letter states in strong terms that France does not extradite its nationals outside the EU (regardless of the existence of double-citizenship), including to the United States, and has never derogated from that principal outside the EU. They did not touch on the issue of the validity of an advanced waiver as I had asked; but that is arguably unnecessary in light of the above statement. The State Department remains willing to draft a declaration for your use; it would essentially say the same thing, that France does not extradite its nationals, and it may reference the Peterson case...but may add that we do not request extradition of French nationals because we know they will say no (or, words to that effect). I don't know if that is still necessary in light of the attached. If you think it's still useful, we ask them to do it; but if you don't think it adds value, I'd just as soon spare them the effort. DOJ Attache/Magistrat de liaison am4ricain U.S. Embassy, Paris EFTA00086941