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-00000805.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court filing (Document 32) from July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein. The text details the Court's finding that Epstein is a 'flight risk' based on a Pretrial Services Report citing his extensive foreign travel, international ties, unexplained assets, and criminal history. It also outlines the seriousness of the charges against him, specifically the alleged sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach involving the facilitation by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00000795.jpg
This document is page 12 of a government legal filing from July 18, 2019, arguing for the pretrial detention of Jeffrey Epstein. It details evidence found during a July 6-7, 2019 FBI search of Epstein's NYC mansion, specifically a 'vast trove' of CD's containing thousands of nude photographs of underage girls and women, which the government labels as 'photographic trophies.' The prosecution argues this evidence, along with his 2008 conviction, demonstrates that Epstein poses an ongoing danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00000609.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 26, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The judge tentatively schedules a conference for the parties on July 31st and grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to exclude the intervening time under the Speedy Trial Act. The judge justifies the exclusion as necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure effective legal representation for all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00000409.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, detailing the arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). During this proceeding, the Court reads the charges of sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking to Epstein. Represented by Mr. Weingarten, Epstein pleads 'Not guilty' to the charges, and the Court moves the proceedings toward the question of bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000403.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019. In it, a judge grants a joint request from the prosecution and defense to adjourn proceedings and exclude the time until Monday, July 15th, from speedy trial calculations. The judge justifies the decision as necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to allow both sides adequate time to prepare, specifically mentioning a 'written bail submission'.
DOJ-OGR-00000274.jpg
This is a letter dated July 11, 2019, from attorney Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson LLP to Judge Richard M. Berman of the Southern District of New York. The letter argues for the pretrial release of his client, Jeffrey Epstein, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, proposing strict conditions to ensure his appearance and counter any perceived danger. Weingarten contends that the government's request to remand Epstein is unjust, citing a prior nonprosecution agreement (NPA) and Epstein's history of compliance with legal requirements, including never attempting to flee the country.
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
This document is page 45 of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the government must adhere to plea bargains and immunity agreements, specifically referencing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and arguing that 'Count Six' falls within the timeframe of that NPA. It cites case law (Harvey, Annabi) to support the argument that the government is held to a high standard regarding nationwide immunity promises and that new charges must be 'sufficiently distinct' from those covered by a plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated February 28, 2023, presents a series of case law citations to support the legal argument that a plea agreement made by an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) binds the entire United States government. The cited cases establish that the U.S. government is considered a single entity across all districts, and therefore, an agreement made by one of its attorneys in one location (e.g., West Virginia) is enforceable against federal prosecutors in another (e.g., South Dakota).
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.
DOJ-OGR-00020815.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023, rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that her prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court argues that because Maxwell herself was not previously prosecuted or punished in the Florida investigation, and because Epstein's previous plea deal does not confer immunity to his co-conspirators, the charges against her stand. The text cites various legal precedents to support the Government's position that co-conspirators are not automatically protected by another's non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00015606.jpg
This document is a photograph submitted as Government Exhibit 272 in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)). The image depicts a dimly lit bedroom featuring a large wooden (bamboo-style) four-poster bed with white linens, nightstands with lamps, and various items on the tables. The image includes a Department of Justice identification number at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00015590.jpg
This document is a photograph entered as Government Exhibit 252-R in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 Cr. 330). The image depicts a side table in a residence featuring a lamp and a collection of framed personal photographs. Five of the photographs in the foreground have been redacted with black boxes to obscure the subjects. The table is situated next to a blue and white striped sofa. A book spine is partially visible on the shelf below the table.
DOJ-OGR-00015574.jpg
A photograph submitted as Government Exhibit 233 in the case S2 20 Cr. 330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The image depicts the interior of a room featuring heavy wooden beams, pillars, and paneling, with numerous fabric or material swatches laid out on the floor. Through large glass sliding doors, an unidentified woman is visible standing on a patio area.
DOJ-OGR-00015566.jpg
This document is a photograph introduced as Government Exhibit 225-R in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. S2 20 Cr. 330 AJN). It depicts a collection of framed photographs sitting on a wooden surface. The central item is a black frame containing a photo that has been heavily redacted with a black box, leaving only a dark round object (possibly a helmet or light fixture) and curtains visible at the top.
DOJ-OGR-00015553.jpg
This document is a photograph introduced as Government Exhibit 212 in the case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The image depicts a serene swimming pool area surrounded by palm trees and white lounge chairs, with a white building visible on the right side. It bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00015553.
DOJ-OGR-00015547.jpg
This document is a photograph marked as Government Exhibit 206 for case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The image depicts the exterior back patio of a white two-story residence featuring large sliding glass doors, palm trees, blue planters, and a white patio table set. A tracking number DOJ-OGR-00015547 is printed in the bottom right margin.
DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a motion on behalf of a defendant named Maxwell. It argues that the government colluded with another party, starting in early 2016, to have Maxwell charged with perjury and that the government attempted to deprive her of due process through an ex parte request. The filing references a separate civil case where a similar government request was denied and calls for an evidentiary hearing to investigate potential collusion with the prosecutor's office.
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 103-2) dated December 23, 2020, analyzing UK extradition law in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that if Maxwell were to flee the US to the UK, she would likely be denied bail and her arguments against extradition (oppression, human rights) would fail due to 'bad faith' and the serious nature of the charges. It also clarifies the limited powers of the UK Secretary of State to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002227.jpg
This document is an Addendum Opinion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It analyzes English extradition law to support the argument that if Maxwell were to flee to the UK, she would almost certainly be denied bail there and her extradition back to the US would be a 'virtual foregone conclusion.' The opinion asserts that a waiver of extradition signed by Maxwell would be highly admissible and relevant in UK courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002223.jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum regarding a defendant's motion for release. Julié refutes the US government's interpretation of a letter from the French Minister of Justice, arguing that their analysis of French extradition law is incomplete. He asserts that under the French Constitution (Article 55) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 696), international treaties—such as the extradition treaty between the US and France—prevail over domestic law, meaning the key issue is the treaty's terms, not general French legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002223(1).jpg
This legal document, authored by French lawyer William Julié on December 18, 2020, is a response to a US government memorandum concerning a defendant's release. Julié argues that the US government's reliance on a letter from the French Minister of Justice is misplaced, as it selectively quotes French law while ignoring the supremacy of international extradition treaties under the French Constitution. The core argument is that the extradition treaty between the USA and France should govern the case, not the specific article of the French criminal code cited by the Minister.
DOJ-OGR-00002219.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 103) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 23, 2020. The text argues against the government's concerns regarding Maxwell's flight risk, utilizing expert opinions from Mr. Julié (French law) and David Perry (UK law) to assert that extradition from France or the UK would be legally permissible and likely, and that bail in the UK would be denied. It specifically refutes the relevance of a 2006 precedent where France refused extradition, arguing that international treaties prevail over French national legislation.
DOJ-OGR-00002211(1).jpg
This document is a preliminary statement arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail, detailing a proposed bond package secured by her and her spouse's net worth and backed by seven additional sureties. The defense argues that Maxwell is being held to an unfair standard due to her association with Jeffrey Epstein and contends that the government's evidence is weaker than represented.
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 100) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant represents a significant flight risk because extradition from the UK or France is legally complex, lengthy, and not guaranteed, even if the defendant currently waives her rights to challenge it. The prosecution cites case law (Namer, Cilins, Abdullahu) to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition supports continued detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002153.jpg
This document is page 2 of an affidavit proposed by Ghislaine Maxwell in December 2020 as part of a bail application (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). In the document, Maxwell acknowledges her French citizenship but voluntarily and irrevocably waives her right to contest extradition from France to the United States should she be released on bail and subsequently flee. She explicitly consents to extradition under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition to assure the court she will not use French citizenship to evade US justice.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity