#2’s
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00011383.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011383
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011365 | EFTA00011383 Q. 19 20 the Did building you attend closing when you solo at 21 A. No. 22 O. Did 23 closing 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Who was that? for the you authorize somebody to attend the you? DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166 YORK COUNTY CLERK 03 /05/2020 12:59 INDEX NO. 159224/: PX . 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/: Page 77 April 9, 2019 1 GHISLAINE MAXWELL A. 2 3 The lawyer that is on that. remember his name. 4 I don't Monte Albers De Leon. Q. Who is he? Is he your lawyer? A. He was a lawyer that I used. Sandra Perkins Borger Case Manager BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that. among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege. attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. lithe reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution. copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error. please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. (v.1 08201831859 EFTA00011383
February 12, 2026 at 7:28 AM
dallas-alerts.bsky.social
South Central Division, Beat: 734, 6X - Major Dist (Violence) at 48XX BLOCK S LANCASTER RD reported on 2/12/2026, 1:25 AM CST, Incident# 26-0251602 #dpdi-div-sc #dpdi-beat-734
February 12, 2026 at 7:27 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00011376.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011376
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011365 | EFTA00011376 IS Q. Referring to the bottom portion next to the 16 yellow label of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. 17 your attention to Page S of the tax return. 18 see this page? Directing Do you 19 A. I do. 20 0. Did you indicate in this tax return that 21 you worked 60 hours a week n the terramar Project? 22 A. Yes. 23 C. Did you have other officers at that time 24 25 that worked for the Terramar Project? A. Well. done 23 hours. 08172 Court KeportIng... A LexItas Company S00-678-0166 YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PR IMMIX NO. 159224/3016 RECEIVED NYSCEP: 03/05/3020 ?age 53 April 9, 2019 113 1 QMISLAINE MAXWELL 2 Q. Is that accurate? 3 A. I'm ours it is. Page 54-55 Claims only "contract contractors" who paid for work — but she and other board members did not receive compensation. EFTA00011376
February 12, 2026 at 7:27 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00011372.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011372
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011365 | EFTA00011372 April 9, 2019 GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 Q. Was there ever any other members? 3 A. 1 don't believe so. 4 Q. Could you tell me who Darren Indyke, Esq. New York. New York is? S a 6 you tell me who he is? Could A. He is a :awyer. O. What :r his connection with the LLC? A. Me helped create tt. IJ Q. Did you hire him to create it? 11 A. I don't recall how tt went down exactly. 12 How he came to do it. 13 •.a helped create tt. But, he was the lawyer. 14 Q. Was he referred to you by somebody? 15 A. Ho worked tor a friend of mine. 16 Q. Who is that? 17 A. A gent:Almon called Mr. Spinel:— Aryl Page 31 (Miami Beach address in 2014) What is the address at Miami Seach, Florida 33139? 11 12 A. That was a home that i rented !or a short while, and I stayed at the address. 13 0. When did you rent it? 14 A. I don't rota:: tne dates. 15 0. Was it in the year 2014. 16 A. I honestly don't remember. 1 am sorry. Page 32 (Douglas Elliman was broker for sale of NY home) EFTA00011372
February 12, 2026 at 7:27 AM
gagnepain.bsky.social
on s parle pas pendant 2 semaines et voilà l’effet qu’on fait
February 12, 2026 at 7:26 AM
mrmads.bsky.social
'Sitzgelegenheit' #FotoVorschlag
S/W Foto Auf einem Garagendach vor einem modernen Flachdach-Haus stehen 2 graue Kunststoffstühle parallel zur Hauswand, der Betrachterin abgewandt.
February 12, 2026 at 7:25 AM
ropunatsuneko.bsky.social
なにこれめっちゃ素敵

チャールズさんに聞いた40のこと Part 2【Q11～Q16】
#NintendoToday
nintendo.today/s/mUSYmtNk
チャールズさんに聞いた40のこと Part 2【Q11～Q16】 | Nintendo Today!
nintendo.today
February 12, 2026 at 7:24 AM
dolomitt.bsky.social
Vycistim kazdy den s revem zuby 2 detem. Vlastni uz jsou vlastne balzam na nervy 😁. Jinak rano cistim v aute, aspon ten neproduktivni cas vyuziju.
February 12, 2026 at 7:22 AM
infinitehench.mstdn.games.ap.brid.gy
#destiny2 It pains me to say this, but the fact that Destiny 2's store still cannot properly preview emotes says all I need to know about how abandoned this game is.
February 12, 2026 at 7:20 AM
ju1es.bsky.social
Kind 2 unterhält sich mit seinem Schulfreund

S: …Und Montag ist Karneval in der Schule, als was gehst du?
K2: Ich will mich nicht verkleiden, weil ich gerne ich bin. Außerdem sind Schwerter alle nur aus Plastik & das ist langweilig!

Ich kann ihm nichts mehr beibringen.
February 12, 2026 at 7:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011263.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011263
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011259 | EFTA00011263 records we received from David Rodgers. As to your inquiry about the Bates ranges on the Rodgers documents beginning with Bates number "28", I note that the folder containing the Rodgers subpoena returns in our August 5, 2020 production included two documents. The first (SDNY_GM_00005532-5649) is the document you referenced in your email inquiry. The second (SDNY_GM_00005650-5676) is 27 pages long, accounting for the first 27 pages of the production from Rodgers. We produced those two documents in the form in which we received them. 6. Our paralegals are working on the issues you identified with Bates ranges and metadata load files. I will reach back out to you once I have an update on the status of those issues. 7. We do not have a more detailed index of the November 9 and November 18 productions beyond what we have provided to you. 8. We are not aware of any legal basis for your request for copies of grand jury subpoenas. Nor are we aware of any legal basis for your request that we identify the date range of documents we requested in each subpoena. If you have any legal authority for those requests, we would be happy to consider it. 9. The court filings that appear to be referenced in the Daily Beast article you sent are an application for a search warrant and a search warrant filed in the District of New Hampshire. We produced both documents to you in discovery on August 5, 2020. The DNH judge issued a sealing order in connection with the warrant and application. As you can see at Bates No. SDNY_GM_00000621, the sealing order automatically expired on December 30, 2020. Our understanding is that the District of New Hampshire unsealed the filing of its own accord in conformity with the clear language of that sealing order. Our office took no affirmative steps to unseal or otherwise release these filings. Best, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York From: Christian Everdell Sent: Thursday, January 7, 20214:13 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: Mark S. Cohen >; 'Laura Menninger' < Subject: Discovery Requests > >; >; >; Bobbi Sternheim >; Jeff Pagliuca > We write to raise a number of discovery issues. Please let us know your position on these issues at your earliest convenience. 1. In our email correspondence on 11/18/2020, you agreed to create a new hard drive containing the entire discovery production. We provided you with a 4TB hard drive for that purpose on 11/20/2020. It is very important for Ms. EFTA00011263
February 12, 2026 at 7:16 AM
4gamer.net
4Gamer 🔗https://www.4gamer.net/s/G098111.260212048
「Poppy Playtime」第5章「Chapter 5: Broken Things」，公式ゲームプレイトレイラー公開。集団失踪事件の真相に迫る展開が明らかに

本チャプターは，2026年2月19日に配信予定
「Poppy Playtime」第5章「Chapter 5: Broken Things」，公式ゲームプレイトレイラー公開。集団失踪事件の真相に迫る展開が明らかに
www.4gamer.net
February 12, 2026 at 7:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011262.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011262
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011259 | EFTA00011262 We are still waiting to hear back from our vendor about the remaining issues you identified in point 6. Thanks, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York From: Sent: Sunday, January 17, 202110:05 PM To: Christian Everdell (LISANYS) Cc: Mark S. Cohen • 'Laura Menninger' Subject: RE: Discovery Requests ; Bobbi Sternheim c ) Jeff Pagliuca Chris, Below please find our responses. 1. As we have recently discussed, Ms. Maxwell now has access to the 4TB drive containing a full set of the discovery produced to date. It took a significant amount of time to create this copy due to the volume of discovery and delays on the part of our vendor, who assisted in creating the copy. 2. As we have recently discussed, Ms. Maxwell now has a drive containing the contents of the CD produced on November 18, 2020. 3. As I conveyed to you over the phone and in a recent email, the materials produced from the Subject Devices all contain metadata indicating the "NYC" CART Evidence Number of the device from which each document was extracted. In our November 18, 2020 discovery letter, we provided you with a chart setting forth which "NYC" CART Evidence Number corresponds with which Subject Device in our warrants. If you still need a detailed index of all 1.2 million documents with the specific Subject Device indicated, please let me know, and I will ask one of our paralegals to compile one. 4. We produced the FBI report bearing Bates number SDNY_GM_02050812-14 in the form in which it was recovered from one of Epstein's devices. In other words, we did not apply any redactions to that document; rather, the redactions existed on the document at the time the document was found during the FBI's search of Epstein's devices. We are not aware of any legal basis for your request for a log of redactions. If you have any legal authority on that point, we would be happy to consider it. As a courtesy, I will note that our office did not apply redactions to any material that was identified responsive during the searches of Epstein's devices. 5. We are aware of our discovery obligations, have complied with them, and will continue to comply with them. We are not aware of any legal basis for your request that we inform you of what, if any, documents have been withheld or the basis for their withholding. If you have any legal authority on that point, we would be happy to consider it. As a courtesy, I will note that we have provided you with all records we received from AT&T and all EFTA00011262
February 12, 2026 at 7:16 AM
gungibson.bsky.social
fuck this is why it feels like i’m by myself in rs3
Twitter post: ‘Some RuneScape player population stats for you as well.’ Image shows a graph with an OSRS weekly player peak of 212,611, RS3 at 33,161 as of 10/2/26 https://x.com/lawrunelarry/status/2021270127715492082?s=46
February 12, 2026 at 7:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00011259.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011259
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011259 | EFTA00011259 From: ' To: ' (USANYS) [Contractor]" •Tzl (USANYS) [Contractor]" Subject: RE: Discovery Requests Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 13:36:00 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg Good morning! If it's okay with everyone, I will be in the Office tomorrow and can load this drive (and the disc for MDC with the latest Ninth Production) then. Thanks very much! From: < Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:34 PM To: (USANYS) [Contractor] < (USANYS) [Contractor] Subject: FW: Discovery Requests FYI. • not going to be able to come into the office this week. Will someone be in and able to check the mail for this drive and get it loaded? From: Christian Everdell • Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 10:41 PM To: (USANYS) < E > Cc: Mark S. Cohen >, 'Laura Menninger' < Subject: RE: Discovery Requests >; Bobbi Sternheim )< >; Jeff Pagliuca Hi We will provide you with a drive to load the files. If our messenger service is functioning tomorrow (depending on the severity of the snow storm) we will drop it off tomorrow. If not, we will drop it off Tuesday morning. Thanks, Chris From: [mailto: Sent: Friday, January 29 2021 4:41 PM To: Christian Everdell; (USANYS) ); Cc: Mark S. Cohen; Bobbi Sternheim; Jeff Pagliuca; 'Laura Menninger' Subject: RE: Discovery Requests Chris, Our paralegals reminded me that we have produced the ranges you included in your most recent email twice: once in the third production (08-21-2020) and once in the reproduction with shortened file names (09-03-2020). We can certainly produce them a third time, but we would not be able to reproduce them again through your FTP link, as they are too large. Please provide us with a 64 GB drive if you would like us to reproduce those ranges. Best, EFTA00011259
February 12, 2026 at 7:16 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00011248.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011248
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011221 | EFTA00011248 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Docket No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) - against AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF EXTRADITION GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. 2. I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the abovecaptioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and French counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under French law on extradition, under the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and France signed 23 April 1996 (the "Treaty") , under the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed 25 June 2003 (the "USA/EU Agreement on Extradition"), under the Instrument Amending the Treaty of April 23, 1996 between the United States of America and France signed 30 September 2004 (the "Instrument Amending the Treaty"), and under the provisions of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. I understand that, in proceedings in France under the aforementioned provisions in respect of an extradition request by the United States EFTA00011248
February 12, 2026 at 7:15 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
EFTA00011213.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011213
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011213 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Docket No. 20-CR-330 (MN) - against AFFIDAVIT AND WAIVER OF EXTRADITION GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Ghislaine Maxwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. I am the named defendant in the above-captioned case. I am a citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. I have resided in the United States since approximately 1991. I am currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. 2. I have reviewed with my counsel, Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser, LLP, the charges contained in the superseding indictment in the abovecaptioned case (the "Indictment"). In addition, I have been informed by United States and United Kingdom counsel, with whom I am satisfied, of my rights under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act 2003 (the "Act"), which gives effect to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (the "Treaty"). I understand that, in proceedings in the United Kingdom under the Act in respect of an extradition request by the United States under the Treaty in connection with the Indictment, I would be entitled to argue that I should not be extradited to the United States. I understand that in the absence of my consent to extradition, I cannot be EFTA00011213
February 12, 2026 at 7:11 AM
agentredjackal.bsky.social
LP Tomodachi Life 2 is already on its way in the near future, so whether anything else happens is just an extra bonus. Im most excited for TL2 even over Resident Evil 9, because of TL2's creative potential that will extend the lifespan of the game for a while.
February 12, 2026 at 7:11 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011203.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011203
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011203 this as a weighty factor7s. Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the victims" would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the interests of victims's "will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be present, they can be so" 79. Third, Ms Maxwell's connections to the UK" do not appear to be of a type likely to be considered substantial in this context. Mental and physical condition 34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her81. In order to rely on her physical or mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to meet the statutory test. Most cases in the `unjust' category relate to the persons' fitness to plead to otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily surmountableR2 and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient83. Even in cases where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be providedTM, or an undertaking to return an individual if they are later found to be unfit to pleads', and thus ensure that extradition is possible notwithstanding the requested person's medical problems. 76 Love v United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28. n Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). n Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). 79 Shaw v United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that, at Ms Maxwell's bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 3840. 8° Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g). 81 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91. 82 Love v Government of the United States para. 122. 83 Dewani v Govenrment ofSouth Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73. 84 Miao v Government ofthe United States ofAmerica ss [2ino] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37. Dewani 1922623.1 11 EFTA00011203
February 12, 2026 at 7:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011201.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011201
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011201 Abuse ofprocess/political motivation 27. Extradition requests are rarely discharged on the basis that the case in the requesting state is politically motivated or abusive. It is well established that there is a presumption of good faith in relation to a requesting state, such as the US, which has a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and which has longstanding extradition arrangements with the United Kingdom". 28. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to establish that the US prosecutor had acted in bad faith, for example by seeking her extradition for a collateral motive in circumstances where they knew there was no real case against herb0. 29. It is also highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her extradition was sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing her on account of her political opinions, or that she might be prejudiced at her trial or punished, detained or restricted in her personal liberty by reason of those opinions61. Passage of time 30. Notwithstanding the date of the allegations in the superseding indictment, a judge is unlikely to conclude that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Ms Maxwell by reason of the passage 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 courts placed emphasis on the public interest in ensuring that extradition arrangements were honoured and in ensuring that serious allegations were tried63. 31. As to oppression, the graver the offence the higher the threshold for oppressionTM. Given the seriousness of the offences in Ms Maxwell's case, it is unlikely that she would be able to establish that any personal or 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 ofthe Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. 62 Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range for the offences in the superseding indictment is 1994-1997. 63 Short v Falkland Islands [2020] 1 WLR 1644, pants. 41.49 and Henderson v Government ofAustralia [2015] EWHC 1421 (Admin), pans. 19-26. " Kakis v Government ofthe Republic ofCyprus [1978] I WLR 779 at 784. " Oppression requires personal or family hardship greater than that inevitably inherent in the act of extradition when facing what is likely to be long criminal trial process in another country Ganes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038, para. 36- Norris v Government ofUnited States ofAmerica [2007] 1 WLR 1730. 1922623.1 9 EFTA00011201
February 12, 2026 at 7:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011200.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011200
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011200 In three of the five cases the applicant was either a British citizen or had significant community and family ties to the UKS1 but these were outweighed by the risk of flight, and in the other case, the lack of substantial community ties was cited as a factor in refusing bail". 23. As to the question in Peters and Peters' instructions, namely whether a person who absconded from US criminal proceeding in breach of bail would be likely to be granted bail in any subsequent UK extradition proceedings, such a person is extremely unlikely to be granted bail. While every bail application falls to be considered by reference to all the circumstances that are relevant at the time that the application is made, in practice evidence of both a clear desire to evade prosecution for the offences in the extradition request, and a previous history of failure to comply with bail conditions, would militate strongly against the grant of bail in almost all factual circumstances. D. The bars to extradition that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face extradition to the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020 24. The offences in the superseding indictment are extradition offences within the meaning of section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003". 25. On the basis of the information available, there does not appear to be any arguable basis upon which the bars of double jeopardys4; hostage-taking considerations95; death penalty56; speciality"; or earlier extradition or transfer could be engaged58. 26. On the information available, the remaining bars - abuse of process/political motivation; passage of time; forum; and mental and physical condition - would almost certainly fail in this case. Perry fn 44, (kidnapping); Ahdullah v Government ofthe United States ofAmerica [2018] EWHC 2609 (Admin) (fraud); Government ofthe United States ofAmerica v Panovas [2018] EWHC 921 (Admin) (fraud). 51 Abdullah. Panovas- Perry and Adeaebo. 52 Singh. 53 Had the conduct alleged occurred in the United Kingdom it would have amounted offences that include: (a) conspiracy to commit indecent assault contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1967; (b) aiding and abetting or inciting indecent assault contrary to common law; (c) indecent assault contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1957; and (d) perjury contrary to section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911. 53 Extradition Act 2003, s. 80. This bar is engaged "if (and only in it appears that [the person] would be entitled to be discharged under any rule oflaw relating to previous acquittal or conviction if he were charged with the extradition offence in the part ofthe United Kingdom where thejudge exercises his jurisdiction". 55 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83. One of the requirements of this bar is that the act or omission constituting the extradition offence also constitutes an offence under s. I of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 which prohibits the taking of hostages in the context of international terrorism. 55 Extradition Act 2003, s. 94. " Extradition Act 2003, s. 95. See fn 46 above for a definition of `specialty'. ss Extradition Act 2003, ss. 96 and 96A. 1922623.1 8 EFTA00011200
February 12, 2026 at 7:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011199.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011199
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011199 (c) The appropriate judge is required to send the case to the Secretary of State"; (d) The speciality bar to extradition no longer applies45. 18. In all extradition cases, a requested person who consents to extradition loses the right to appeal against either the decision to send the case to the Secretary of State or the order for extradition** . 19. The main effect of a decision by a requested person to consent to extradition is that the overall extradition procedure is substantially shortened. In the context of US extradition cases, this means that removal can take place within months, sometimes weeks, as compared to the longer timescales considered above. C. Bail in extradition cases 20. Where extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person for an offence, the person has the same right to bail as a defendant in domestic criminal proceedings, namely there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 appliesJ7. The three exceptions in Schedule 1 that most commonly apply in extradition proceedings are where there are substantial grounds to believe that the requested person, if released on bail, would: (a) fail to surrender to custody; (b) commit an offence while on bail; or (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course ofjustices. 21. In considering whether to grant bail in an extradition case, the appropriate judge must have regard to as many of the statutory considerations as appear to be relevantJ9. Those considerations are: (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence; (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the requested person; (c) the requested person's record as respects the fulfilment of their obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings; (d) the strength of the evidence against the requested person; and (e) any risk that the requested person may cause physical to mental injury to another person. 22. The approach taken by the High Court in a number of recent US bail appeals gives an indication as to the way in which the statutory considerations are approached in practice. In all five cases bail was refused". 44 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(4). 45 Extradition Act 2003, s.95(2). The principle of specialty is a rule of extradition law that is intended to ensure that an extradited person is not dealt with in the requesting state for any offence other than that for which they have been extradited. 46 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 100(2), 103(2) and 108(2). 47 Bail Act 1976, s. 4(2A). Them is no presumption of bail where extradition is sought in a conviction case: s. 4(2B). 4.8 Bail Act 1976, Schedule I, para. 2(1). 49 Bail Act 1976, Schedule I, para. 9. so Adeagbo v Government of the United States of America 5 August 2020 (unreported) (wire fraud, money laundering and identity theft); Singh v Government of the United States ofAmerica [2019] EWHC 1800 (Admin) (drug trafficking); 1922623.1 7 EFTA00011199
February 12, 2026 at 7:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011198.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011198
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011198 An overview ofthe timeframes in relation to US extradition requests 12. The timescales applicable to extradition proceedings are defined by statute and are set out in Annex D, along with the circumstances in which the time-limits can be extended. 13. There are few publicly available figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude37. In practice, contested US extradition cases can take longer than 10 months, although the majority conclude within two years. 14. These timescales are significantly reduced in cases such as this one where the requested person consents to his or her extradition at an early stage in the process. In those cases, extradition would be likely to take place within three months. B. Consent to extradition 15. At the initial hearing where a requested person is first produced before the court, the appropriate judge is required to give them "the required information about consent "38. This information is: (a) that the person may consent to extradition; (b) an explanation of the effect of consent and the procedure that will apply if consent is given; and (c) that consent must be given in writing and is irrevocable39. 16. Where consent is given before the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, it must be given at a hearing before the appropriate judge'10. Once the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, consent must be given to the Secretary of Staten. 17. Where consent is given before the case is sent to the Secretary of State, the consequences are as follows: (a) If the appropriate judge has not fixed a date for the extradition hearing, they are not required to do SOJ2; (b) If the extradition hearing has begun, the appropriate judge is no longer required to proceed with it43; HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 94. 37 3° Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(7Xb) and 74(7Xb). " Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(8) and 74(8). 4° Extradition Act 2003, s. 127(4), (6)-(7). d1 Extradition Act 2003, s.I27(5). d2 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(2). d3 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(3). 1922623.1 6 EFTA00011198
February 12, 2026 at 7:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011197.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011197
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011197 9. A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary of State, the decision of the Secretary of State to order extradition, or both28, except in consent cases where the person is deemed to have waived their rights of appealt9. Where the requested person is discharged at the extradition hearing or by the Secretary of State, the requesting government may appeal the decision to discharge30. Extradition appeals are heard by the High Court. An appeal may be brought on a question of law or fact and may not be brought unless the court grants leave to appeal which requires the Appellant to establish that there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal31. 10. Either party may appeal a decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court, but only where the High Court has certified that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court concludes that the point is one that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court32. Where leave is granted, the Supreme Court may either grant the appeal, or dismiss it33. In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case has been considered by the Supreme Court". 11. In some cases, a requested person may apply to the European Court of Human Rights and seek an injunction to prevent the extradition from taking place until the application is determined3s. Such applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECIIR36, are also very rare. 26 Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4). 23 The exceptions are: (a) that the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn (s. 93(4)(a)); (b) there is a competing claim for extradition from another state (ss. 93(4Xb), 126(2) and 179(2)); (c) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom (s. 93(4)(c) and 6(A)); or (d) extradition would be against the interests ofUK national security (s. 208). zg Extradition Act 2003, ss.103 and 108. " Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(2) and 108(2). " Extradition Act 2003, ss. 105 and 110. 31 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(4), 105(4), 108(3) and 110(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules ('CrimPR'), r. 50.17(4)(b). 32 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(4). 33 Extradition Act 2003, s. 115(1). "Norris v Government of the United States ofAmerica [2010] 2 AC 487. 33 ECHR, Art. 34 and European Court of Human Rights, Rules of the Court, r. 39. ECHR, Art. 34. 1922623.1 5 EFTA00011197
February 12, 2026 at 7:10 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00011196.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00011196
https://epsteinweb.org
EFTA00011192 | EFTA00011196 who must consider, amongst other things, whether to remand the person in custody or on bail''. In cases where the person appears before the court pursuant to a full extradition request, the judge must set a date for the extradition hearing to begin's. In provisional arrest cases, this date is set after the full request is served which, in US extradition cases, must be within 65 days of arrest16. 7. At the extradition hearing, the appropriate judge must decide: (a) whether the extradition request meets certain technical requirements''; (b) whether the person appearing before the judge is the person whose extradition is requested's; (c) whether the offence(s) specified in the extradition request are extradition offence(s)19; (d) whether there are any bars to extradition20; (e) whether extradition would be compatible with the person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR') within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 199821; and, where applicable, (f) whether extradition would be oppressive by reason of the person's mental or physical condition22. 8. If the appropriate judge decides all the statutory questions in favour of the requesting government, then they must send the case to the Secretary of State23 who must decide whether any of the bars to extradition that she must consider24 apply. These bars are different to those considered by the appropriate judge. The Secretary of State has no power to consider any human rights objections to extradition25. If she decides that no bars apply, she must order the person's extradition?' subject to very limited exceptions which are not applicable here27. " Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(7Xc) and 74(7)(c). 15 Extradition Act 2003, s. 75. " Extradition Act 2003, s. 74(11Xb) and Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003/3334, Art. 4. 12 Extradition Act 2003, s. 78(2). The request must contain: (a) the documents specified in s. 70(9) (the extradition request and the Secretary of State's certificate); (b) particulars of the offence(s) specified in the request; (c) an arrest warrant or a certificate of conviction and, where applicable, sentence. The judge must also decide whether the relevant documentation has been served on the requested person: s. 87(4)(c). IS Extradition Act 2003, s. 78(4)(a). 19 Extradition Act 2003, s. 78(4)(b). 20 The bars to extradition are: (a) the rule against double jeopardy (s. 80); (b) extraneous considerations (s. 81); (c) passage of time (s. 82); (d) hostage-taking considerations (s. 83); and (e) forum (s. 83A). The bars to extradition are considered further at pans. 26 to 35 below. 21 Section 87. The rights under the ECHR apply to every person within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: ECHR, Art. I. 22 Extradition Act 2003, s. 91. 23 Extradition Act 2003, s. 87(3). 24 The bars to extradition that the Secretary of State must consider are: (a) the death penalty (s. 94); (b) speciality (s. 95); (c) earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another territory (s. 96); and (d) earlier transfer to the United Kingdom from the International Criminal Court (s. 96A). 23 Extradition Act 2003, s. 70(11). 1922623.1 4 EFTA00011196
February 12, 2026 at 7:09 AM