DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
BOP
|
Organizational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Sessions
|
Leadership |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OLC
|
Advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew FINKELMAN
|
Liaison |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cassell (Author)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted Traveler]
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A.
|
Investigator |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
D. JOHN SAUER
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SSA [Redacted]
|
Liaison |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's office
|
Limits plea agreements to |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Professional investigative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
John Ashcroft
|
Leadership |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement)
|
Non involvement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew FINKELMAN
|
Professional liaison |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lyeson Daniel
|
Employment alleged |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
William Barr
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Institutional independence |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Traveler
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Interview | The subject must agree to meet with and be interviewed by the USAO-SDNY, the Federal Bureau of In... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Dr. Loftus consulted with various government agencies involved in the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search warrants served on RRA offices; 40+ boxes obtained by DOJ | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice seized 40+ boxes of documents from RRA offices | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Investigative work conducted by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice sequestered about 13 boxes of documents related to the Epstein case from RR... | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Investigative work conducted into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Witness Loftus consulted with various government agencies at different points in their career. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Department of Justice's practice of limiting plea agreements to specific USAOs ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-25 | Legal notice | The Department of Justice sent a notice advising that the Court was seeking letters from victims ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-18 | Legal filing | The Department of Justice filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Ghi... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-07-18 | N/A | Filing of United States' Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Memorandum issuance | The [DOJ] and [FBI] issued a memorandum describing a review of investigative holdings relating to... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-06 | N/A | Issuance of Memorandum regarding Epstein investigation review | Unknown | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Publication | The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum about their inv... | N/A | View |
| 2021-07-02 | N/A | Anticipated production of Epstein FOIA documents to The Times. | New York | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 204 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Release of OPR investigation report concerning Epstein investigation | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Release of DOJ OPR report on Epstein investigation. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-08-14 | N/A | Legal hold distributed by counsel regarding inmate death. | N/A | View |
| 2019-03-05 | N/A | Just days before a Friday deadline, the Justice Department reassigned the Epstein victims' rights... | Atlanta | View |
| 2018-05-10 | N/A | Department of Justice agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Publication revision | The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual (USAM) was revised and renamed the Justice Manual. | N/A | View |
| 2017-07-26 | Document production | This document is page 1 of a 95-page set produced in response to Public Records Request No. 17-295. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019295.jpg
This document is page 8 (filed as Page 9 of 15 in Document 17) of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020. It argues for the consolidation of two appeals involving Ghislaine Maxwell: one regarding the unsealing of deposition material in her civil case (Judge Preska) and another regarding a protective order in her criminal case (Judge Nathan). The text asserts that consolidation is required for efficiency and fairness.
DOJ-OGR-00019273.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket for Case 20-3061, detailing filings between July 28 and July 30, 2020, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes an affidavit by Alex Rossmiller, correspondence regarding a protective order, and a detailed Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan establishing the terms of that protective order. The order addresses disputes over Ms. Maxwell's ability to publicly reference alleged victims and restrictions on the use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019255.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, listing entries from late July 2020. It includes an affidavit filing, correspondence regarding a protective order, the order itself, and a lengthy Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan resolving disputes over the protective order's terms regarding public references to victims/witnesses and the use of discovery materials. The court ruled in favor of the Government's proposed language, prioritizing the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00019231.jpg
This document is a 'Commitment to Another District' order filed on July 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-mj-00132 (related to Ghislaine Maxwell). United States Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone orders the U.S. Marshal to transport the defendant from the current district (New Hampshire) to the charging district (SDNY) and to notify the U.S. Attorney upon arrival.
DOJ-OGR-00019192.jpg
This document is the final signature page (Page 19 of 19) of an indictment filed on July 2, 2020, in the Southern District of New York against Ghislaine Maxwell. It lists the charges under 18 U.S.C. codes (including conspiracy, perjury, and sex trafficking statutes) and bears the name of Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss and the signature of the Grand Jury Foreperson.
DOJ-OGR-00019183.jpg
This document page, filed on July 2, 2020, details allegations that Ghislaine Maxwell groomed a minor (Minor Victim-3) in London between 1994 and 1995, facilitating sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Maxwell encouraged the victim to perform massages knowing they would lead to sexual acts. Additionally, it introduces a count regarding Maxwell providing false statements under oath during a 2016 civil deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00019176.jpg
This document is page 3 of an indictment (Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ) filed on July 2, 2020. It outlines the 'Factual Background' of the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging she knowingly participated in the grooming of minors for sexual abuse and lied under oath about it in 2016. The text details her intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 and notes she was a paid employee managing his properties.
DOJ-OGR-00016815.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Young. The questioning focuses on FBI interview protocols, where Young testifies that the FBI records interviews with individuals in custody but does not record witness interviews unless the witness is a minor. An attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to a question about whether recording is an option under FBI protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00016672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the redirect examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning establishes that Loftus has worked as a consultant for multiple U.S. federal agencies, including the Secret Service, DOJ, FBI, and IRS, while also having a history of testifying for the defense in criminal cases. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, makes several objections to the line of questioning on grounds of mischaracterization and foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00016602.jpg
This document is a single page (page 119 of 246) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It features a brief snippet of direct examination testimony from a witness named 'Loftus' (likely memory expert Elizabeth Loftus). The witness confirms they have testified 'many times' regarding the impact of post-event information on memory. The testimony cuts off at line 5 to continue on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00016592.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus. Loftus testifies about the funding sources for their scientific research, identifying the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health as supporters. They also list several U.S. government agencies they have consulted for, including the Department of Justice, CIA, FBI, and IRS.
DOJ-OGR-00016528.jpg
This document is page 45 of a court transcript from the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness, identified as Espinosa, testifies about their time working at the office, initially as an admin for lawyers who were 'important' to Jeffrey Epstein. Espinosa describes rapidly transitioning (within a month) to become Ghislaine Maxwell's executive assistant, detailing a daily routine of receiving task lists and shipping instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00013248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, who explicitly denies ever having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness also corrects the record regarding a previous statement, clarifying that 'he did four times' rather than 'I did four times'.
DOJ-OGR-00013081.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the authentication of Government Exhibits 421/421B and 422/422B. Specifically, Exhibit 421 is identified as a 'Help wanted' ad for a massage therapist in Palm Beach, and the digital metadata (Exhibit 421B) links the document's creation and saving on September 17, 2001, to a user named 'gmax'.
DOJ-OGR-00009247.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Daugerdas, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a former juror who is a suspended lawyer) regarding her financial status, specifically establishing she had approximately $14,000 in assets versus her claim of indigence for legal counsel. The questioning highlights discrepancies between her court testimony and a sworn affidavit submitted to the Bar disciplinary committee regarding her tax returns and income.
DOJ-OGR-00009174.jpg
This document is the final page of a court exhibit filed on February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains the end of a news article (likely from The Independent) quoting an unidentified man stating Maxwell knew what was happening, and notes that her sentencing schedule had not yet been set.
DOJ-OGR-00009157.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from February 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues against the defendant's claim that Juror 50's questionnaire responses prevented proper voir dire, comparing the situation to Jurors 189 and 239, who also answered 'yes' to Question 48 (regarding sexual abuse) but were qualified without objection after brief questioning. The filing asserts that the record disproves the defense's theory that they were deprived of the opportunity to examine Juror 50's views.
DOJ-OGR-00009152.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing by the U.S. Government, likely a motion or memorandum. It cites various legal precedents to establish the standards for conducting a post-verdict inquiry into potential juror misconduct. The Government argues that these standards have been met with respect to 'Juror 50' due to an inconsistency between his public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer on a juror questionnaire, and therefore consents to a hearing to determine if the juror lied.
DOJ-OGR-00009122.jpg
This document is the Preliminary Statement from a legal memorandum filed by the US Government on February 24, 2022, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The Government argues that Maxwell has not met the heavy burden required to prove that a juror deliberately lied during voir dire or that the juror would have been struck for cause, citing legal precedents such as McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The filing requests that the Court deny the defendant's motion based on the present record.
DOJ-OGR-00009114.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 614) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that 'Juror 50' provided untrue answers during jury selection (voir dire) by denying past sexual abuse and claiming impartiality, facts which were later contradicted by the juror's own press statements. The text cites the 'McDonough test' to argue that these false answers prevented the defense from challenging the juror for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009112.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 614) submitted on February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text, likely from the NACDL, argues that high-profile trials create pressure on jurors to convict for fame or to avoid public scorn, citing the 'stealth juror' phenomenon. It specifically alleges that 'Juror 50' in the Maxwell trial used social media to express appreciation for gratitude received for convicting Maxwell, and compares the situation to historical cases like O.J. Simpson and Rodney King.
DOJ-OGR-00009111.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 614) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues that modern jurors in high-profile trials are incentivized to lie during voir dire to gain fame and profit, contrasting this with historical adherence to oaths. It cites interviews with jurors from the Derek Chauvin and Harvey Weinstein trials as evidence of jurors seeking media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00009094.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. It is a blank supplemental answer sheet for Juror ID 50, likely part of a juror questionnaire, instructing the juror on how to provide answers that did not fit in the provided spaces. The page is also marked with a Department of Justice identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00009078.jpg
This document is page 12 (filed as page 11 of 30) of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror marked 'No' to questions asking if they or any close friends/relatives have ever been subpoenaed for an investigation or arrested/charged with a crime.
DOJ-OGR-00009061.jpg
This is page 60 of a legal filing (Document 613) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against providing 'Juror No. 50' with advance access to a questionnaire, suggesting it would allow him to manipulate his testimony regarding potential misconduct. The document mentions potential charges against the juror such as perjury or criminal contempt and cites case law regarding 'standing' and the striking of filings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity