Congress
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Advisory lobbying |
9
Strong
|
1 | |
|
location
China
|
Unknown |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
President Johnson
|
Political opposition |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
person
President Grant
|
Separation of powers |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
organization
Chinese government
|
Target of influence operation |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
Taiwan
|
Unknown |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Advisory legislative commentary |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
US congressional delegations
|
Visitor host |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Lobbying |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Jimmy Carter
|
Governmental executive legislative communication |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
|
Delegation of authority |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
President Obama
|
Political adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Adversarial collaborative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Administration
|
Political alignment on china policy |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Chinese government
|
Target of influence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
|
Correspondence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
John D. Rockefeller IV
|
Correspondence |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christine C. Quin
|
Guest of honor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Carter
|
Executive legislative conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Wilson
|
Executive legislative conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Eisenhower
|
Executive legislative conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The President
|
Institutional conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Grant
|
Constitutional opposition |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President (Executive Branch)
|
Constitutional separation of powers |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | The 'Blueprint' for tax reform was released by House Republicans shortly before Congress left for... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | US Election (Trump and Republican Congress win) | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Department of Justice's formal opposition to Sections 234 and 236 of a piece of proposed legi... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned discussions between the Administration (DHS, DOJ, HHS) and Congress regarding policies fo... | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | The 'fiscal cliff', a pending crisis involving the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts and automatic ... | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ objection to Section 107(a) of an Act, which would limit a country's time on the Tier II Watc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Passage of the Tenure of Office Act over President Johnson's veto. | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Tenure of Office Act was passed over President Johnson's veto. This act placed restrictions o... | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | The fiscal year for which the Trump administration's first budget proposal and congressional budg... | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | US Congress is in the midst of a major reevaluation of the American policy of 'engagement' with C... | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Expected timeframe for a focus on tax reform. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Chinese government used various entities (CCP, CAIFU, CAIFC) and individuals (Jimmy Wong) to ... | China, United States | View |
| 2018-03-05 | N/A | Start of the Party Congress session to change the Constitution and lift term limits. | China | View |
| 2018-03-01 | N/A | Meeting of the National People's Congress | China | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | The House China Working Group remained active, while the House Congressional China Caucus and the... | United States | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | The US Congress unanimously passed the Taiwan Travel Act, which encourages the Trump administrati... | United States | View |
| 2017-01-01 | N/A | Year in which trade legislative issues were expected to figure prominently under the new administ... | United States | View |
| 2016-10-01 | N/A | Passage of the 9/11 Saudi bill | USA | View |
| 2016-09-01 | N/A | US Congress passed JASTA legislation overriding Presidential veto. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2016-02-01 | N/A | Congress approved a customs reauthorization measure that made the Internet Tax Freedom Act perman... | United States | View |
| 2016-01-01 | N/A | 2016 lame-duck session of Congress, during which the fate of tax extenders would be decided. | N/A | View |
| 2015-01-01 | N/A | Passage of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) through Congress. | United States | View |
| 2015-01-01 | N/A | A bipartisan vote in Congress extended the Community Health Center Fund for two additional years ... | United States | View |
| 2014-02-13 | N/A | Military Times reported that the NSA informed Congress that Snowden had copied a co-worker's pass... | N/A | View |
| 2013-01-02 | N/A | Enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), which made permanent most of the tr... | United States | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021036.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the explanatory commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, when offered a chance to respond, declines to make a verbal argument and instead rests on her previously submitted written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00020817.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023, denying a motion filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court reaffirms its prior April 16, 2021 ruling, concluding that the statutes of limitations for sex trafficking of a minor (§ 3283 and § 3299) apply retroactively to her alleged conduct. The Court holds that this allows the prosecution to proceed on counts related to offenses committed before the statutes were enacted.
DOJ-OGR-00020816.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that charges of Sex Trafficking Conspiracy and Sex Trafficking are time-barred under the general five-year statute of limitations. The document outlines the history of relevant legislation, including the PROTECT Act of 2003 and 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which extended or eliminated limitations for such crimes. Maxwell contends these extensions do not apply to her specific charges, renewing a previously argued position, because the alleged conduct occurred between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00020775.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes whether a statute can be retroactively applied to prosecute the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that applying the PROTECT Act does not have impermissible retroactive effects because it did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights, as the original statute of limitations had not expired when the Act was passed. The document also dismisses Maxwell's fairness argument as a policy disagreement with Congress and affirms that the government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process, citing the statute of limitations as the primary safeguard against stale charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020774.jpg
This legal document argues that the PROTECT Act's statute of limitations applies to Maxwell's past conduct. It counters Maxwell's argument by explaining that Congress removed an express retroactivity provision from the bill due to constitutional concerns raised by figures like Senator Leahy, not to prevent its application to cases where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00020771.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the § 3283 statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving child sex abuse and war frauds. It examines arguments made by 'Maxwell' and contrasts interpretations from Supreme Court cases like *Bridges v. United States* with those from the Second Circuit in *Weingarten* and the PROTECT Act. The document concludes that the legislative history and plain meaning of the statute support a broader application rather than a narrow one.
DOJ-OGR-00020769.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in a criminal case against an individual named Maxwell. The court analyzes and ultimately rejects Maxwell's argument that a 'categorical approach' should be used to interpret the statutes related to the charges. The court relies on precedent from the Second and Third Circuits, particularly the reasoning in *Weingarten v. United States*, to conclude that the categorical approach is not applicable in this context.
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text addresses the timeliness of the indictment, specifically analyzing the Statute of Limitations under the Mann Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the charges are time-barred, concluding that the extended limitations period for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors applies to her case.
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, analyzes a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden of producing evidence (regarding financial conditions and family ties) to counter the presumption of being a flight risk. However, citing legal precedents like United States v. Mercedes and Martir, the court asserts that this presumption does not disappear and must still be weighed, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination regarding release conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00002240(1).jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a court filing dated December 30, 2020, analyzes the legal standards for a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden to provide evidence against the presumption of being a flight risk, citing her financial conditions and family ties. However, citing precedents like *United States v. Mercedes* and *Martir*, the court maintains that the presumption of flight does not disappear and must still be given weight, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination.
DOJ-OGR-00022057.jpg
A printout of a Government Executive article dated November 19, 2019, filed as a court document. The article details testimony by BOP Director Hawk Sawyer regarding staffing shortages ('augmentation') and the fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein suicide, including the indictment of two guards for falsifying records. Sawyer agrees with Senator Ted Cruz that the event was a 'black eye' for the agency but defends the majority of the staff.
DOJ-OGR-00021893.jpg
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to federal statute § 3283, enacted as part of the PROTECT Act, applies retroactively. The document asserts that the clear text of the amendment, which eliminates the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, shows Congress's intent to cover past conduct, and therefore applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021892.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court opinion, addresses arguments made by a defendant named Maxwell. The court rejects a 'categorical approach' for determining if offenses involved sexual abuse, citing testimony from a victim, 'Jane', about being abused as a minor across state lines. The document then introduces Maxwell's second argument: that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations because a 2003 amendment to § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00021891.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal ruling filed on December 2, 2024 (Case 22-1426), likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirms the District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of her indictment. The court rules that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and that the 2003 amendment to this statute was correctly applied retroactively.
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-00021810.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (via the PROTECT Act) regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses was intended by Congress to apply retroactively. The document specifically asserts that this amendment applies to Ghislaine Maxwell's conduct as charged in her indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021809.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses two key arguments. First, it affirms that charges involving the sexual abuse of a minor ("Jane") transported across state lines fall under § 3283. Second, it addresses an argument by Maxwell that certain counts are time-barred because a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations in § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court's test in 'Landgraf v. USI Film Products'.
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021708.jpg
This document is page 61 of a legal brief filed on June 29, 2023 (Case 22-1426), likely by the government in response to an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that case law cited by Maxwell regarding the 'essential ingredient' test and statutes of limitations (specifically Bridges, Scharton, and Noveck) is distinguishable and inapplicable to her case involving sexual abuse of a child (18 U.S.C. § 3283). It asserts that Congress intended a broader application for child sexual abuse statutes compared to the fraud statutes discussed in the cited cases.
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
DOJ-OGR-00021704.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the statutory definitions of "sexually explicit conduct" and "sexual contact" under 18 U.S.C. § 3509. It cites the 2012 Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Carpenter, to establish that the legal definition of "sexual abuse" is broad, encompassing not only physical contact but also acts of persuasion, inducement, or coercion.
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely by the Government) appearing in the appellate case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues that the statute of limitations for the charges against Maxwell had not expired due to the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. The text supports Judge Nathan's lower court ruling that applying this amendment was not an impermissible retroactive effect, distinguishing Maxwell's situation from the precedent set in United States v. Richardson.
DOJ-OGR-00021697.jpg
This legal document page discusses the second step of the Landgraf analysis, a legal test to determine if a statute can be applied retroactively. It cites Supreme Court precedent from the Landgraf case to explain that a statute is impermissibly retroactive if it impairs rights, increases liability, or imposes new duties for past conduct, but clarifies that changes to procedural rules are generally not considered retroactive. The document also references the case of Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist. as an example of the court considering a new statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on June 29, 2023. It argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the statute of limitations under the PROTECT Act. The text asserts that Congress rejected a specific retroactivity clause not to limit the Act's scope entirely, but to avoid unconstitutional results (reviving time-barred crimes), while still intending to cover past conduct where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity