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-00022092.jpg
This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00022085.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a brief or motion, dated April 24, 2020. It argues that the involvement of agents from a government agency in an investigation does not automatically make the entire agency part of the "prosecution team" for discovery purposes. The text cites several legal precedents (Stein, Pelullo, Locascio, Ghailani, and Middendorf) to outline the factors courts use to determine the scope of the prosecution team and its disclosure obligations under Rule 16.
DOJ-OGR-00021999.jpg
This document is page 2 of a government legal filing dated January 28, 2020, arguing against a defense request to adjourn the trial. The text references defendants 'Thomas' and 'Noel' (likely the guards on duty during Epstein's suicide), stating that the case revolves around a 'brief, fourteen-hour window' and is not complex enough to warrant a six-month delay. The government asserts it has already provided witness statements (3500 material) well in advance and notes that no search warrants were obtained nor did defendants make post-arrest statements.
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court given the 'we review de novo' language) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations. The text analyzes 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors and cites case law such as Weingarten v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that a plea agreement made by a United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district is generally binding on other USAOs and the federal government as a whole. It cites several court cases, such as Gebbie and Van Thournout, to support this majority view, while also acknowledging contrary or more limited rulings from circuits like the Seventh and Sixth in a footnote.
DOJ-OGR-00021168.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the U.S. Government on April 26, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The Government requests a 30-day extension to file its response brief to a party named Maxwell, citing the need to prepare for an upcoming trial in a separate case (United States v. Wynder & Brown) starting May 22, 2023. The document notes that Maxwell's counsel, Diana Samson, does not oppose the extension, provided Maxwell also receives an extension to file her reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues against the U.S. Government's position, refuting the claim that materials Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal are 'Confidential' or would compromise a 'secret' investigation. The filing cites legal precedent and states that the subpoena recipient is already aware of the information in question.
DOJ-OGR-00019552.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against a criminal defendant's request to use discovery materials in a civil case. The Government contends there is no precedent for such use and defends the secrecy of grand jury investigations and subpoenas against the defendant's accusations of impropriety. It cites several cases to support maintaining protective orders and separating criminal and civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019516.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 32) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues against the defendant's request to publicly name individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Epstein or the defendant, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedents (Paris, Corley, Kelly) regarding privacy and safety. The Government advocates for a protective order that requires the use of pseudonyms (e.g., 'Victim-1') in public filings while allowing the defense to use names in sealed filings and internal investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019365.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 22 internal, page 23 of PDF) of a legal filing submitted by Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey on September 16, 2020. The Government argues that Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, her motion to consolidate appeals should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00009166.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The defendant seeks to strike a motion to intervene filed by 'Juror 50', claiming it is inappropriate and not a 'judicial document' deserving public access. The author of this filing refutes these claims, arguing that the defendant's cited legal precedents are inapplicable and that Juror 50's motion is relevant to the judicial process and should not be struck.
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-00009134.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, is a discussion of the legal standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's potentially false statement during voir dire. The filing argues that, according to Second Circuit precedent established in cases like McDonough and Shaoul, the defendant must prove a juror's falsehood was a deliberate and dishonest act, not merely an honest mistake. While arguing the defendant has failed to meet this standard, the Government consents to a limited hearing on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019877.jpg
This document is the 'Table of Authorities' (page ii) from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), originally filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited within the main brief, including cases such as Hung v. United States, United States v. Boustani, and United States v. Dreier. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019877).
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the 2nd Circuit appeal). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be allowed to challenge the government's investigative methods before Judge Nathan and that deposition materials should remain sealed to preserve this challenge. The text references a dispute over a protective order and cites Rule 6(e) regarding grand jury witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated April 29, 2022, analyzes the legal distinctions between two conspiracy charges, Count Three and Count Five. The author argues that despite being charged under the same statute, the counts are not multiplicitous because they have different statutory objectives, legal definitions (e.g., of a 'minor'), and required elements of intent, citing precedents like Macchia, Estrada, and Villa. The document refutes the Government's claim that a single distinguishing factor is dispositive in this analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00010370.jpg
This legal document is a court order from April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. Following a jury conviction on three conspiracy counts, the defendant argued that the counts were multiplicitous and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court agrees that Counts One and Five are multiplicitous with Count Three and therefore grants the defendant's motion to not enter judgment on those two counts.
DOJ-OGR-00009831.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments citing case law (Gagnon, Moten, Calbas) regarding the standards for post-verdict jury inquiries. The Government argues that the standard for a hearing has been met specifically regarding 'Juror 50' due to inconsistencies between the juror's public statements about being a sexual abuse victim and their answer to Question 48 on the juror questionnaire. The Government consents to a hearing to determine if Juror 50 deliberately lied.
DOJ-OGR-00009770.jpg
This document is page 13 of a completed juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 24, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answered 'No' to questions regarding whether they or their family have been subjects of grand jury investigations, victims of crimes, or parties to legal disputes involving US government agencies like the FBI or NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00003125.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a government response in a criminal case. The prosecution argues that evidence concerning 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible to prove a conspiracy, even though a direct charge based on her testimony is time-barred because she turned 25 before 2003. The government asserts that the charges remain timely due to the involvement of 'Minor Victim-1' and 'Minor Victim-2' and distinguishes the current case from a cited precedent (*Hsia*) by stating the alleged conduct, grooming a minor for Jeffrey Epstein, is central to the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
This document is page 97 (filed page 124) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains legal arguments regarding the Fifth Amendment, citing case law to establish that the government is not required to inform a witness of the nature of an investigation or their status within it to avoid self-incrimination. The text also introduces the 'Act of Production Privilege' as a subset of Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00014601.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a jury instruction from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It outlines the legal elements the government must prove to find the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty of Count Four: knowingly transporting a minor named Jane across state lines for illegal sexual activity, as defined by Title 18 of the United States Code and prosecutable under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00005792.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for admitting expert testimony in court. It argues that a district court has broad discretion in determining the reliability of such testimony and that it must also be relevant, concerning matters beyond the understanding of an average juror. The document cites several precedents, focusing on cases where courts admitted expert testimony on the psychological dynamics between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes, such as the 'pimp-prostitute relationship' and 'trauma bonding'.
DOJ-OGR-00020117.jpg
This document is page 14 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that flight risk concerns regarding the UK and France are overstated and that the recent arrest of associate Jean-Luc Brunel in France diminishes her incentive to flee there. Additionally, the motion highlights a COVID-19 surge at the MDC (113 cases) and restrictive prison conditions, including mouth inspections and potential suspension of legal calls, as further justification for bail.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity