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-00010435.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues against applying the sentencing guideline § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that the guideline is intended only for recidivist sex offenders who pose a continuing danger to the public, which they claim Ms. Maxwell is not. Applying the guideline would allegedly contradict the intent of Congress and the Sentencing Commission, improperly add over 10 years to her sentence, and lead to an absurd result.
DOJ-OGR-00010431.jpg
This document is a page from a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court should not apply a five-point sentencing adjustment for 'Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender Against Minors' (USSG § 4B1.5), stating that Maxwell poses no continuing danger to the public and that the relevant conduct ended nearly 20 years prior. The text also references Judge Posner regarding the standard of proof required for sentencing factors.
DOJ-OGR-00003182.jpg
This legal document outlines the aftermath of a November 2018 Miami Herald report concerning Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It details a February 2019 court ruling that found the government violated victims' rights, leading to the recusal of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The document then describes Epstein's subsequent federal indictment and arrest in New York in July 2019, and the resignation of government official Acosta following a press conference where he defended his role in the original NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00003001.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text contains legal arguments regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3283, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or 'fact-based approach' applies to defining offenses involving sexual abuse. The prosecution argues that the defendant's interpretation would contradict Congress's intent to broadly prosecute crimes against children.
DOJ-OGR-00003000.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues against using a 'categorical approach' to interpret the phrase 'offense involving' in Section 3283. It cites several legal precedents, most notably Weingarten v. United States, to counter an argument made by an individual named Maxwell. The document asserts that Congress intended a broad application of the statute and that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing or immigration contexts, is not appropriate here.
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument against a defendant's motion. The author contends that Section 3283, concerning sexual abuse offenses, should be interpreted broadly, citing precedents like 'Vickers' and 'Schneider'. The document argues that the defendant's reliance on the 'essential ingredients' test from 'Bridges v. United States' is misplaced because that case dealt with a different, more narrowly drafted statute (the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) and is therefore inapplicable.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002996.jpg
This document is page 35 (pacer page 62) of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is a legal analysis rejecting Maxwell's arguments to dismiss the indictment based on the statute of limitations. The court distinguishes the precedents cited by Maxwell (specifically Thom v. Ashcroft and Toussie v. United States), arguing that they do not prevent the retroactive application of the relevant statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002995.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and statutes of limitations. The author argues that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to retroactively extend a limitations period for prosecutions that are not yet time-barred, citing numerous legal precedents like Falter v. United States and Stogner v. California. The document concludes that applying Section 3283 retroactively in this case is lawful and dismisses the defendant's contrary assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
This page is from a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The text asserts that the Ex Post Facto Clause is not violated because the limitations period had not expired for Counts One through Four when it was extended in 2003. Footnotes address the specific ages of Minor Victims 1, 2, and 3 in relation to the 2003 extension and discuss the 'Landgraf' Supreme Court precedent regarding legislative retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that refutes a defendant's argument about the legislative intent of Section 3283. The author argues the defendant used a misleading, selective quote from Senator Patrick Leahy to claim Congress did not intend for an extended statute of limitations to apply retroactively. The document provides the full quotation to show that Congress removed the retroactivity provision due to constitutional concerns, not to limit the statute's application as the defendant suggests.
DOJ-OGR-00002989.jpg
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to the federal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse (18 U.S.C. § 3283) was expressly intended by Congress to apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. The document supports this claim by analyzing the text of the statute and citing legal precedent from the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, which have held that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges for live claims.
DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg
This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 16, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding the statute of limitations for sex crimes involving minors, specifically arguing that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 applies retroactively to crimes committed between 1994 and 1997. The text cites relevant case law (US v. Leo Sure Chief, US v. Jeffries) to support the position that the indictment is timely because the victims are still alive.
DOJ-OGR-00002986.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, outlines the legislative history of the federal statute of limitations for sex offenses against minors, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3283. It details how Congress progressively extended the period for prosecution through three key acts in 1994, 2003, and 2006. The statute evolved from allowing prosecution until the victim turned 25, to allowing it for the lifetime of the victim, and finally to its current form permitting prosecution for the victim's lifetime or ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.
DOJ-OGR-00002985.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 16, 2021. It outlines the statutory background regarding the statute of limitations for crimes against minors, arguing against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell. The document traces the history of relevant legislation, including the Crime Control Act of 1990, to counter Maxwell's claim that the charges against her do not involve the sexual or physical abuse of a child, and urges the court to deny her motion.
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
This document is page 23 of a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing against her motions to dismiss. The prosecution asserts that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida does not apply to the current indictment or district, and denies her request for discovery due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the document argues that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 because the statute allows prosecution for child sexual abuse offenses as long as the victims are alive, rejecting Maxwell's argument that the statute applies only prospectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002962.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from the U.S. Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 16, 2021. The Government submits this memorandum to oppose twelve pre-trial motions filed by the defendant on January 25, 2021. The statement outlines the Government's arguments for denying the motions, asserting that they lack support in fact or law and addressing specific points such as the irrelevance of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and the timeliness of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00004766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 15, 2021, in which a judge expresses profound frustration with the inhumane and mismanaged conditions at the MCC and MDC federal prisons in New York. The judge describes the facilities as being 'run by morons' and lurching from crisis to crisis, such as gun smuggling related to Jeffrey Epstein. While addressing an inmate, Ms. Days, the judge states that the conditions she endured were disgusting and inhuman, and wishes they could release her but is legally bound to a sentence of at least five years.
DOJ-OGR-00004607.jpg
This document is the conclusion section of an OPR report detailing an investigation into the USAO's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) authorized by R. Alexander Acosta. The report confirms that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by concealing the NPA from victims and sending misleading letters. It identifies five former USAO attorneys (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña) as subjects of the investigation due to their involvement in the NPA negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00002664.jpg
This page from a legal filing in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell argues against the retroactive application of extended statutes of limitations in criminal cases, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and cases like Landgraf and Stogner. A crucial footnote asserts that the government is barred from prosecuting Maxwell for offenses against Minor Victim-3 because the statute of limitations had already expired when the victim turned 25 (year redacted) prior to the 2003 Amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00002686.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 146) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that allegations regarding 'Accuser-3' are time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, and retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Furthermore, the defense contends that allegations involving Accuser-3 are irrelevant to the conspiracy charges, which should only pertain to Accuser-1 and Accuser-2.
DOJ-OGR-00005197.jpg
This handwritten legal note analyzes the legislative history of the statute of limitations for child abuse reporting, specifically concerning statutes §3509(k) and §3283. The author traces the relevant language from the Crime Control Act of 1990 to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, arguing that the provision was not merely moved but was part of a "Conforming Repeal". The document concludes by noting the oversight of Representative Jack Brooks of Texas.
DOJ-OGR-00005196.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, dated October 12, 2021. The author contends that certain federal statutes, like 18 USC § 3299 and § 3509, intentionally exclude child pornography and exploitation from the definition of sexual abuse, a fact the Justice Department has allegedly always known. The argument is supported by citing 1990 legislative history (VCAA) to claim that Congress intended these laws to apply specifically to federal enclaves.
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 12, 2021, that critiques a court's decision in a case referred to as "Schneider." The author argues that the Schneider court misinterpreted statute §3283 by failing to examine its legislative history, unlike the approaches in the cited cases of "Dodge" and "Bridges." The document contends that the Schneider court's failure led it to avoid creating a necessary "common" definition of sexual abuse.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity