United States Government
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Advisory policy recommendation |
7
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1954-01-01 | N/A | The U.S. Virgin Islands Organic Act was passed, officially granting territorial status to St. Tho... | US Virgin Islands | View |
| 1927-01-01 | N/A | U.S. citizenship was granted to the residents of St. Thomas. | St. Thomas | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015116.jpg
This document is the second page of a letter filed on August 6, 2025, by a victim in the Epstein/Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The author expresses deep frustration with the DOJ and FBI regarding the lack of transparency, the sealing of documents, and the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison. The victim demands access to evidence seized from Epstein's properties, supports Senator Wyden's financial investigation, and questions the official narrative of Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00014749.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. It lists the legal counsel present for both the government (Moe, Pomerantz, Comey, Rohrbach) and the defense (Sternheim, Everdell), as well as the defendant herself. The judge acknowledges reviewing preparatory documents, including a probation report and defense memoranda, prior to the sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00008451.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing from December 21, 2021, details a joint proposal by the prosecution ('the Government') and the defense regarding public access to trial exhibits. They propose releasing slides after closing arguments to balance the public's right to access with the defendant's right to a fair trial and victim privacy, citing the 'United States v. Graham' case. A footnote describes an alternative government proposal to provide redacted slides beforehand, which the defense opposes.
DOJ-OGR-00008431.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated December 15, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is a response to the government's motion to prevent a witness, Alexander Hamilton, from testifying about four specific topics related to an individual named 'Kate'. The defense argues that providing Hamilton's declaration to the government under Rule 26.2 does not obligate them to introduce all of its contents as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008394.jpg
This legal document is the second page of a filing by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The prosecution cites several legal precedents to counter the defense's anticipated arguments regarding the government's motives and the thoroughness of the investigation. The document concludes by stating that the government is not seeking any specific relief at this time.
DOJ-OGR-00008364.jpg
A letter dated December 13, 2021, from defense attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter informs the court of the defense's intention to question attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman and argues that these questions do not violate attorney-client privilege. The document cites legal precedents regarding the burden of proof for privilege claims.
DOJ-OGR-00008360.jpg
This is a legal letter dated December 12, 2021, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim informs the court of logistical issues with defense witnesses, including travel from abroad, and notifies the judge that three witnesses have requested to testify under pseudonyms. The letter states that the government opposes this request and warns that the court's ruling could compromise Maxwell's right to present her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001927.jpg
This is page 50 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020. The defense counsel is arguing for bail by citing legal precedents (Bodmer and Khashoggi) where foreign citizens with extradition concerns or significant wealth were granted bail. The lawyer argues that denying bail simply because France does not extradite citizens would effectively bar all French citizens from bail in the US.
DOJ-OGR-00001786.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing submitted on October 7, 2020, by the Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government argues against the premature disclosure of witness identities and sensitive materials to the defense, citing risks to the ongoing investigation and the potential to deter other victims from coming forward. They request the Court to approve a delay in disclosing these materials pursuant to Rule 16(d).
DOJ-OGR-00001735.jpg
The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the legal standards for pre-trial detention concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's dual burden to prove she is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance in court. The document also discusses the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption against release and how the defense can counter it, noting that unlike in the Epstein case, the government is not arguing that Ms. Maxwell is a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001259.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated March 23, 2021, arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail. The text argues that Maxwell's offer to renounce her French and British citizenship negates the flight risk concerns regarding extradition protection in France. It cites a Mr. Julié to interpret French Article 696-4, asserting that one who loses French nationality is not protected from extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00001240.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (dated Dec 28, 2020) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text outlines proposed conditions including home detention, renunciation of foreign citizenship, and asset monitoring by a retired judge and former US Attorney. It compares her situation to the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, noting that he was granted bail despite being a foreign citizen arrested while attempting to leave the country on serious sexual assault charges, whereas Maxwell faces 26-year-old claims.
DOJ-OGR-00001202.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a U.S. government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié critiques the U.S. government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing it misinterprets French extradition law by ignoring the supremacy of international treaties, such as the extradition treaty between the USA and France, over domestic statutes. The core argument is that France may indeed be able to extradite its own citizens under these treaties, contrary to the U.S. government's position.
DOJ-OGR-00001199.jpg
This document is a page from a defense filing (Reply Memorandum) dated December 28, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense counters flight risk arguments by noting Maxwell has not lived in the UK or France for 30 years and cites the recent arrest of associate Jean-Luc Brunel in France as a deterrent to fleeing there. Additionally, the filing argues that a COVID-19 surge at the MDC and potential suspension of legal communications threaten Maxwell's health and constitutional rights.
DOJ-OGR-00001198.jpg
This document is page 9 (filed as page 3 of 15 in a specific docket) of a legal memorandum in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that contrary to government claims, Maxwell could be extradited from France because international treaties supersede national legislation, and that she would likely face extradition and be denied bail if she fled to the UK, supported by expert opinions from Mr. Julié and David Perry. The text refutes the relevance of a 2006 French non-extradition case and asserts that Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be a significant factor in foreign courts.
DOJ-OGR-00001197.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense on December 28, 2020. It argues against the government's assertion that Maxwell is a flight risk, claiming her use of a trust and pseudonym to buy a home was for safety, not evasion. The defense also contends that Maxwell's waiver of extradition rights is significant and cites expert William Julié to counter claims that France would refuse to extradite her.
DOJ-OGR-00001190.jpg
This document outlines a preliminary statement arguing for the release of Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell on strict bail conditions. It highlights her substantial bail package, including a bond signed by her spouse and support from seven sureties, while contesting the government's opposition as being based on her association with Jeffrey Epstein rather than legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00001188.jpg
This document is page 3 of 15 from a legal filing (Document 103-2) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 23, 2020. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing two legal precedents: United States v. Chen and United States v. Orta. The document bears a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00001188).
DOJ-OGR-00001173.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court's analysis distinguishing the current defendant's case from several cited legal precedents regarding pre-trial detention. The court contrasts cases where defendants were released (Khashoggi, Bodmer) with cases where they were detained (Boustani, Ho, Epstein), focusing on factors that justify detention such as flight risk, substantial financial resources, dual citizenship, and ties to foreign countries without extradition treaties like Brazil.
DOJ-OGR-00001164.jpg
This is page 19 (Document 100-2) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The US Government argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because waivers of extradition are legally unenforceable in France and the UK. The prosecution cites advice from the OIA and legal precedents to demonstrate that extradition is uncertain and lengthy, justifying continued detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
This legal document outlines the statutory framework for pretrial detention in cases involving minor victims, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. It details the defendant's burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption and clarifies that the government retains the ultimate burden of proof. The document also specifies the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened, primarily requiring new, material information that was previously unknown to the moving party.
DOJ-OGR-00001113.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Defense Motion) dated December 14, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell is not a flight risk. It cites a letter from her spouse (whose name is redacted) describing their quiet domestic life in the U.S. and her character as 'wonderful and loving.' The text argues against the government's claim that she lived a 'transient' lifestyle and notes the impact of Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 arrest and death on her family.
DOJ-OGR-00000950.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely a memorandum from the prosecution ('the Government'), arguing for the pre-trial detention of a defendant. The document cites U.S. legal code, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3142, to assert that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and that a statutory presumption for detention applies due to the alleged offenses involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The argument focuses on the nature of the offense and the strength of the evidence as factors weighing in favor of detention.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity