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-00010142.jpg
This document is page 7 of Stephen Gillers' Curriculum Vitae, filed as Exhibit A-5859 in a legal case. It details his prior employment from 1968 to 1978, including roles at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and as a judicial clerk. It also lists selected testimonies he provided to legislative bodies regarding judicial nominations and legal reform acts between 1981 and 1988.
DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
This document page, filed on April 6, 2012, is part of a legal analysis discussing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers, specifically referencing New York Rules and Rule 11 sanctions. It cites case law (Pennie & Edmonds, Polk County v. Dodson) to establish the standards for 'bad faith' and the role of defense counsel in an adversary system. The text concludes by framing a specific inquiry into whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011.
DOJ-OGR-00010129.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 522, filed April 6, 2012) discussing legal ethics, specifically the standard of knowledge required for an attorney to report fraud or perjury to a tribunal. It cites a case involving an attorney named 'Doe' where discipline was reversed because 'actual knowledge' of perjury is required, not just strong suspicion. The author of this document identifies themselves in a footnote as the expert witness who testified for Doe in the underlying Connecticut disciplinary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009973.jpg
This document is an index (concordance) page from a court transcript in the case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.', dated February 15, 2012. It lists words alphabetically from 'petition' to 'product' alongside their frequency and specific page/line citations within the full transcript. The document includes references to legal terms (plaintiff, plead, probation), generic terms, and the acronym 'PMD' (likely referring to the defendant, Paul M. Daugerdas).
DOJ-OGR-00009853.jpg
This document is the final page (6 of 6) of a court exhibit filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains the conclusion of a news article, likely from 'The Independent,' which quotes an unidentified man asserting Maxwell's knowledge of illicit activities and notes that her sentencing schedule has not yet been determined. The page includes website navigation elements and a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009787.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing from Case 20-cr-00038-AEN, filed on March 24, 2022. The page identifies 'Juror ID: 50' and consists of blank lines, suggesting it may be a page for notes or a response from a juror questionnaire. A Department of Justice (DOJ) document control number is present at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00009786.jpg
This document is a single page from a court filing (Document 612-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It appears to be a blank lined page intended for notes or a questionnaire response for Juror ID 50, containing no handwritten content other than the Juror ID.
DOJ-OGR-00009749.jpg
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg
This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' made material misstatements by failing to disclose they were a victim of sexual abuse and misrepresenting their social media status. The defense contends that had this information been known, they would have exercised a peremptory challenge to remove Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009725.jpg
This document page is from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding juror misconduct and the standard for obtaining a new trial, citing the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*. The text quotes concurring opinions by Justices Blackmun and Brennan to argue that a juror's intentional dishonesty is not strictly required to order a post-trial hearing on bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009717.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022. It contains a screenshot of the Twitter profile for 'Scotty David' (Juror No. 50), showing tweets from Annie Farmer and Lucia Osborne-Crowley discussing the juror's disclosure of his own trauma during an exclusive interview. The text below the image notes that Juror No. 50 changed his handle to '@NycSsddd' and attempted to delete a tweet sent to Ms. Farmer shortly after sending it.
DOJ-OGR-00009704.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It specifically focuses on 'Juror No. 50', listing their responses to questionnaire items 13, 25, 42, 43, and 44, wherein the juror denied being a victim of a crime or having biases that would affect impartiality under penalty of perjury. The document notes that 694 individuals originally answered the questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009686.jpg
This document is the declaration page from a Jury Questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. On November 4, 2021, Juror Number 50 signed the document, declaring under penalty of perjury that their answers were truthful and completed without assistance. The document was officially filed with the court on March 9, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009633.jpg
This is a court order filed on March 7, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Judge Alison J. Nathan orders a redacted individual (referred to as 'he') to give testimony pursuant to immunity statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003). The order ensures that the compelled testimony cannot be used against the witness in criminal cases, acting as a compulsion order overcoming a Fifth Amendment privilege claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009627.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Southern District of New York, signed by US Attorney Damian Williams on March 7, 2022. It requests the Court to issue an order compelling a redacted individual to testify at a March 8, 2022 hearing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The request is made pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6003, which typically relate to granting immunity to witnesses to compel testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009626.jpg
This legal document is an application filed on March 7, 2022, by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The application requests a court order to grant immunity to and compel the testimony of a witness, whose name is redacted, for a hearing scheduled on March 8, 2022. The witness had previously refused to testify, invoking their privilege against self-incrimination.
DOJ-OGR-00009603.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 25, 2022. The text argues against the defense's claims regarding missing witnesses (Sally Markham, Fontanilla) and disputes the origin of the 'household manual' (Gov Ex 606), citing email evidence (Gov Ex 424) that proves Maxwell was involved in its creation alongside Markham, rather than it being solely the work of 'the Countess.' The prosecution asserts that the absence of these witnesses did not prejudice the defendant's ability to defend herself or impact the facts of the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00009588.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding 'Applicable Law' specifically concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause and the concept of 'multiplicity' in criminal charges. It cites various precedents to argue that charges covering different schemes under different statutes are not identical and that the Court should reject the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009568.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text presents legal arguments defining the differences between 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' regarding indictments. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Lebedev, Gross, McGinn, D'Amelio) to argue that minor factual divergences at trial do not invalidate a conviction as long as the 'core of criminality' remains the same.
DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It contains the 'Preliminary Statement' and 'Legal Standard' sections of the Government's opposition to the defendant's post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial. The text outlines the legal standards for Rule 29 (acquittal based on insufficient evidence) and Rule 33 (new trial in the interest of justice), citing various legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00009456.jpg
This document is a divider or cover page for 'Exhibit A' contained within a larger court filing. It displays header stamps for two separate legal cases: a 2022 civil filing (Case 1:20-cv-03300-ALC) and a 2012 criminal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP), indicating this exhibit was originally part of the 2012 case and resubmitted in 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00003187.jpg
This page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in 2021) summarizes findings regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The report concludes that while Alexander Acosta made the pivotal decision to defer to a state-based plea and approved the NPA, neither he nor the other subject attorneys committed professional misconduct under OPR standards, as Acosta had 'plenary authority' to resolve the case. The document also addresses the District Court's previous finding that the USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003182.jpg
This legal document outlines the aftermath of a November 2018 Miami Herald report concerning Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It details a February 2019 court ruling that found the government violated victims' rights, leading to the recusal of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The document then describes Epstein's subsequent federal indictment and arrest in New York in July 2019, and the resignation of government official Acosta following a press conference where he defended his role in the original NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00003148.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defense motion. The Government argues that it is not required to produce pages from a personal diary belonging to a third-party victim because the diary is not in its custody or control. Furthermore, the Government asserts that it has already inquired with the victim, who confirmed that no diary entries exist for the relevant time period in the spring of 1996 when she met the defendant while visiting Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00003112.jpg
This document is page 178 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00003112) of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 16, 2021. It is a legal memorandum discussing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 and the standards for the sufficiency of an indictment. The text cites various legal precedents (Alfonso, Resendiz-Ponce, Wey, Stringer) to argue that an indictment generally does not need to specify evidentiary details or how an offense was committed, provided it tracks the statutory language and protects against double jeopardy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity