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-00021695.jpg
This legal document argues that the legislative history of a statute of limitations for child sex abuse offenses demonstrates Congress's clear intent for a 2003 amendment to apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. It cites a conference report and the 9th Circuit case United States v. Sure Chief to support its position. The document also refutes an argument by Maxwell that the statute's language is only "forward-looking," using a hypothetical offense from the year 2000 to illustrate the amendment's intended effect.
DOJ-OGR-00021693.jpg
This legal document argues that a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, which extended a statute of limitations, was properly applied to Maxwell's case under the 'Landgraf' legal framework. It contends that since the original limitations period had not expired when Congress passed the amendment, the charges against Maxwell are timely. The document also cites evidence from a separate case (United States v. Rutigliano) showing that an individual named Carolyn visited Epstein's residence through 2004, establishing a relevant timeline.
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the legal standard for retroactivity as established in the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products. It then introduces an argument from a claimant named Maxwell, who alleges that the District Court incorrectly applied a 2003 amendment to Section 3283 retroactively to her convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Six, which involved conduct predating the amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a government prosecutor is arguing for an above-guideline sentence for a female defendant. The prosecutor contends that the defendant's dishonesty, the severe and predatory nature of her sex-trafficking crimes, and the acknowledged inadequacy of the 2003 sentencing guidelines all justify a sentence longer than the calculated 188-235 months.
DOJ-OGR-00021586.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely United States v. Maxwell) regarding sentencing. The judge is ruling on the application of sentencing guidelines, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against enhancement 4B1.5(b) regarding public danger. The text also introduces enhancement 3B1.1(a), discussing the defendant's 'leadership role' as an 'organizer or leader' in criminal activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021443.jpg
This legal document details the Department of Justice's (DOJ) process of interpreting and revising the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) guidelines between 2010 and 2011. The central issue was the point at which victims' rights become active, with the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) maintaining that rights only vest after formal criminal charges are filed. This position was challenged in a November 2011 letter by CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl, who argued to Attorney General Eric Holder that the DOJ's 2011 revised guidelines conflicted with the law's plain language by not extending rights to victims before charges were filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021391.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the enumerated rights of crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically in the context of the federal Epstein investigation. It defines a "crime victim" and lists eight specific rights, including the right to be protected, notified of proceedings, and heard in court. The document also provides legislative background, noting the CVRA was a compromise measure presented by Senators following hearings on a victims' rights amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00021198.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of an analysis concerning the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), detailing a timeline of events from 2007-2011 involving victim notifications by the FBI and USAO, subsequent litigation, and an examination of whether officials violated standards by entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without consulting victims. The document focuses on statutory provisions, department policies, and professional conduct rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, particularly in the context of criminal law. It references several court cases and legal principles, arguing that statutes of limitations should not be applied retroactively unless Congress clearly states otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court's application of statute § 3283 is improper because it creates "impermissible retroactive effects" without explicit authorization from Congress. The author cites several legal precedents, including Landgraf and U.S. v. Richardson, to support the established legal principle against the retroactive application of statutes, particularly criminal statutes of limitations. The document contends that because clear congressional intent for retroactivity is absent, the District Court's decision must be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00021119.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court opinion or brief, dated February 28, 2023. The author argues against the retroactive application of a statute (§ 3283) by analyzing legislative intent, referencing Senator Leahy's remarks and Congress's rejection of a specific retroactivity provision in a 2003 bill. The argument is supported by comparing the rejected language to similar provisions in other statutes (Pub.L. 107-56 and Pub.L. 101-647) to conclude that applying the statute retroactively fails the legal test established in the Landgraf case.
DOJ-OGR-00021118.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues against the District Court's reliance on a floor statement by Senator Leahy regarding the PROTECT Act and the constitutionality of retroactive prosecution. The text contends that the court improperly applied the standards of 'Stogner v. California' (2003) to analyze Leahy's remarks, noting that Stogner was decided after the PROTECT Act was passed.
DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
This document is page 55 (PDF page 70) of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The text presents a legal argument regarding the 'Landgraf test' and statutory interpretation, specifically arguing that the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 (H.R. 1104) was not intended to apply retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a proviso that would have allowed it to cover conduct predating the enactment. The page relies on various Supreme Court and Circuit Court citations to support the argument that rejected legislative proposals are significant indicators of congressional intent.
DOJ-OGR-00021116.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses) applies only prospectively, not retroactively. The argument relies on the 'Landgraf' test and linguistic analysis of the words 'would' and 'shall' as future-tense indicators, citing various legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00021115.jpg
Page 68 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The text presents a legal argument citing 'Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.' regarding the retroactive application of statutes. It specifically argues that the 2003 amendment to § 3283 cannot be applied retroactively by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
This legal document argues that a District Court's interpretation of statute § 3283 is flawed because it relies on misinterpreted legal precedent. The author contends the court, following a Third Circuit opinion, improperly applied a quote from the *Dodge* case, which concerned a different statute (SORNA), to invent a legislative history for § 3283 that does not exist.
DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'Collateral Order Doctrine' and legal precedent, such as the final judgment rule from Title 28, Section 1291 of the U.S. Code, to support the argument that appellate review is generally not permitted until a final judgment is rendered. The context is a motion filed by Maxwell on September 10, 2020, to consolidate appeals, one of which relates to the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00019350.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'final judgment rule' from Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which generally prohibits appeals until a final decision is made on the merits of a case. The filing emphasizes that this policy against 'piecemeal' appeals is particularly strong in criminal law, referencing several Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00010558.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defendant's motions regarding sentencing. The prosecution asserts that the 2004 Sentencing Manual should apply, citing trial testimony that the conspiracy extended past 2004, and refutes the defendant's claim of having left the conspiracy and her association with Epstein in 2002. The document also notes that the government is prepared to present additional evidence, a message book seized by the Palm Beach Police Department, at the sentencing hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00010554.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2004 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual should be applied to the defendant's case. It refutes the defendant's objections, which are based on the Ex Post Facto Clause, by establishing that the criminal conduct continued until December 31, 2004, after the 2004 Manual became effective. The argument is supported by citations to the Guidelines and Second Circuit case law.
DOJ-OGR-00031277.jpg
This document, an excerpt from an Albuquerque Tribune Online article, details political contributions from several sources. It outlines donations from businessman Perenchio to California Governor Gray Davis and others, and focuses on the $87,417 in financial backing provided to a candidate named Richardson by the Maloof family. The article also notes a $50,000 donation from BGK Equities III LLC, a real estate firm that leases office space to state agencies.
DOJ-OGR-00010599.jpg
This is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 672) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 24, 2022. The defense argues that the upcoming sentencing proceeding should not be an 'open-mike forum' and contends that individuals who do not strictly qualify as 'crime victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should be barred from giving oral testimony or having their statements read. The filing asserts that allowing non-statutory victims to speak would trample Maxwell's rights and suggests some individuals may be motivated by financial reward or media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010481.jpg
This legal document argues that the harsh conditions of Ms. Maxwell's 22-month pretrial detention, described as 'supermax-type' and 'de facto solitary confinement', should be factored into her sentencing. Citing the principle of proportionality, the filing requests a 'hard-time credit' for this unusual hardship and references compensation laws for the wrongfully convicted to illustrate the severity of her confinement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity