Department of Justice (DOJ)
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Congress
|
Advisory lobbying |
9
Strong
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
|
Inter agency collaboration |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
organization
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
|
Interagency collaboration |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
|
Interagency collaboration |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
|
Inter agency collaboration |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
|
Inter agency disagreement and deference |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Congress
|
Advisory legislative commentary |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Government
|
Advisory policy recommendation |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
|
Inter agency jurisdictional dispute collaboration |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
|
Inter agency policy disagreement and cooperation |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Congress
|
Adversarial collaborative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Hierarchical |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Congress
|
Adversarial collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
|
Inter agency coordination and jurisdictional negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Human Trafficking Task Forces
|
Funder and trainer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Proposed legislation (Mann Act expansion, Sections 222, 223)
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of State
|
Inter agency disagreement |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Non-government organizations (NGOs)
|
Potential conflict of interest |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
HHS and DHS
|
Collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
FBI, DOL, DHS
|
Inter agency collaboration jurisdiction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DHS/FBI/DOL
|
Inter agency coordination |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
|
Inter agency collaboration jurisdiction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
US States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
National Advocacy Center, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Human Trafficking Task Forces
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | DOJ analysis and opposition to subsection (d)(5) of a proposed Act, specifically the term 'shall ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to subsection (d)(6) which would create a guardian ad litem program, citing confli... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ recommendation to strike the 2% cap on funding for training and technical assistance under 22... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ recommendation to amend Section 203 of the 2005 version of an Act to ensure DOJ and DHS are i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ recommends adding 'endeavor to' after 'shall' in subsection (c)(3)(A)(ii) to avoid creati... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ analysis and response to proposed legislative changes in Sections 202 and 203 of a bill relat... | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Department of Justice's analysis and recommendations on proposed legislative changes in Secti... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ opposes extending continued presence for trafficking victims for the duration of a civil ... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ opposes language in Section 202(a) that would legislate the existence of the 'Trafficking... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ opposes the 120-day deadline in Section 202(f) as unreasonable. | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ opposes language in Section 203 that would remove the Attorney General's role in determin... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annual conferences where human trafficking laws are discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Annual conferences where human trafficking laws concerning minor victims are discussed. | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conferences where human trafficking laws are discussed. | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ training on human trafficking, including discussion on using various criminal statutes. | National Advocacy Center an... | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ training on using various criminal statutes in human trafficking cases. | Annual conferences, the Nat... | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ expresses opposition to expanding the Mann Act to federalize criminal prosecution of pand... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ opposes a proposed subsection (g) that would expand sex tourism offenses to include illic... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ states its belief that the addition of 18 U.S.C. § 2423A is unnecessary. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ opposes the expansion of jurisdiction over offenses involving non-Americans committed out... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The DOJ criticizes Section 223, which relates to 'pimping' an alien, for removing a requirement f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ analysis of and opposition to proposed legislative changes in Sections 205, 211, and 213 of a... | Not specified | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Department of Justice's analysis and statement of opposition/deference regarding proposed leg... | Not applicable | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifi... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017904.jpg
This document is page 31 of 228 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It features the direct examination of a clinical psychologist named Rocchio. The witness testifies to having 30 years of experience specializing in traumatic stress and interpersonal violence, specifically treating 'hundreds upon hundreds' of victims of childhood sexual abuse, including teenagers and adolescents aged 12 and up.
DOJ-OGR-00017755.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding a specific claim form (Exhibit J-18). The questioning focuses on whether Jane participated in prosecution against Epstein, her confirmation of filing litigation against Epstein or his Estate (Question 11), and begins to address whether she was trafficked (Question 12). Jane admits to signing the form but notes she 'didn't write this.'
DOJ-OGR-00017737.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on the late 2000s (2007-2008), establishing that Jane was aware of Epstein's arrest and investigation via the news but chose not to contact authorities at that time. It further establishes that Jane hired a lawyer only after seeing press coverage that mentioned her specifically.
DOJ-OGR-00015640.jpg
This document is a photograph, labeled as Government Exhibit 317 for case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sitting together and smiling. The image was likely used as evidence in legal proceedings to establish their close relationship. The document is also marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00015640.
DOJ-OGR-00015630.jpg
This document is a photograph entered as Government Exhibit 303 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 20 Cr. 330). It depicts the interior cabin of a private aircraft, showing a lounge area with beige sofas, folded blankets, and a view into a rear cabin with red seating. The image bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00015630.
DOJ-OGR-00015622.jpg
This document is a photograph presented as Government Exhibit 293 in a legal case, identified as S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). The image shows a downward view of a carpeted staircase inside a residence. The document is also marked with a Department of Justice identifier, DOJ-OGR-00015622.
DOJ-OGR-00015618.jpg
A photograph introduced as Government Exhibit 289 in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 Cr. 330). The image depicts the interior of a home featuring pink carpeting, a staircase, a white sofa with tropical-themed pillows (flamingos and fish), and a large framed photograph of palm trees.
DOJ-OGR-00015615.jpg
This is a photograph of a desk entered as Government Exhibit 285-R in case S2 20 Cr. 330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The desk features personal items including a notepad printed with 'Ghislaine Maxwell', a landline telephone, a silver-framed photo of a couple, a wicker basket, and a model airplane with the tail number N908GM. One picture frame in the background has been redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00015129.jpg
A legal letter dated August 6, 2025, from attorney Robert S. Glassman to the SDNY Victim and Witness Coordinator regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Glassman, representing a 'Jane Doe' victim, joins a previous letter submitted by Annie Farmer's attorney and strongly opposes the release of any information that identifies victims, requesting redactions if materials are released.
DOJ-OGR-00015113.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 18 of 27) of a legal filing submitted to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in Case 1:20-cr-00330. Attorneys Bradley Edwards, Brittany Henderson, and Paul G. Cassell argue for the protection of victim rights under the CVRA, specifically requesting privacy protections and victim participation regarding the release of grand jury materials. The filing date listed in the header is August 6, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00015109.jpg
A legal letter dated August 5, 2025, from Edwards Henderson (The Crime Victim Law Firm) addressed to Judge Engelmayer and the SDNY Victim and Witness Coordinator regarding the case USA v Maxwell. The firm represents numerous survivors of Epstein and Maxwell and writes to address the DOJ's request to unseal grand jury materials, urging the court to protect victims' rights under the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771). The document emphasizes the victims' reliance on the justice system and argues that their rights to be protected from the accused must be considered regarding any disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00015097.jpg
This document is the title page (Page 2 of 27) for a filing labeled 'August 6, 2025 Government Letter' in the case United States v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00015097. The date listed on the document is notably August 6, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00015096.jpg
This document is a Court Order filed on August 6, 2025, by District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order publicly dockets five letters submitted by victims and other individuals concerning the Government's request to unseal grand jury materials. The judge notes that the letters have been redacted to protect privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00015094.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing submitted on August 5, 2025, by the defense firm Markus/Moss in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, distinguishing Maxwell's case from *In re Biaggi* and rejecting a Florida public records case as irrelevant to federal Rule 6(e) protections. The defense concludes that there is no precedent for unsealing such transcripts in an ongoing matter and requests the motion be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00015080.jpg
This is a legal filing (Page 2 of 4) dated August 4, 2025, submitted by the Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of documents in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government addresses Court orders requiring them to identify specific grand jury exhibits and transcripts for public release, noting that trial exhibits are presumptively public. The Government requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to advise the Court on its position regarding the unsealing of grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00015060.jpg
This document is a letter motion filed on July 25, 2025, by National Security Counselors on behalf of MSW Media, Inc. to intervene in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The motion concerns the unsealing of grand jury transcripts, triggered by an instruction from President Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi. MSW Media seeks to ensure that while victim information is protected, the identities of the Defendant's 'partners in crime or clients' are not redacted under the guise of privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00015048.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 789) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2025. It outlines the legal standards and 'special circumstances' under which grand jury records may be released, citing precedents like *In re Craig* and *Laws. 'Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. v. Garland*. The text lists specific factors a district court must weigh when considering disclosure, such as the status of principals, privacy of families, and whether witnesses are still alive.
DOJ-OGR-00015034.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the testimony of witness Lisa Rocchio, detailing page numbers for direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz and cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca. It also lists Government Exhibits 1-5 and Defendant Exhibits A and B introduced during this testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014919.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the methodology of empirical studies regarding childhood sexual abuse, specifically addressing how professionals handle varying definitions of 'grooming' by looking for commonalities and overlaps between offender admissions and victim experiences. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00014889.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Jan 15, 2025) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony covers Rocchio's professional background, specifically their postdoctoral work at Butler Hospital in an eating-disorder research group and a trauma psychology group, followed by the founding of their own independent psychology and forensic practice.
DOJ-OGR-00014865.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief) concerning United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (statute of limitations for child abuse offenses) to the specific facts of the case, rejecting a 'categorical approach.' It specifically mentions witness 'Jane,' who testified to being sexually abused after being transported across state lines as a minor, and addresses Maxwell's argument that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00014853.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal opinion (likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her 2022 conviction. It lists the legal counsel for both the government (Appellee) and Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant). The text, authored by Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes, summarizes Maxwell's conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy related to minors, as well as her sentencing of concurrent prison terms.
DOJ-OGR-00014837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker (likely the judge) describes Maxwell's conduct as 'heinous and predatory,' detailing how she recruited and groomed vulnerable minors for Jeffrey Epstein. Specific testimony from a victim named 'Jane' is cited, describing how Maxwell befriended her at age 14, normalized sexual abuse, and instructed her on how to sexually touch Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014824.jpg
This document is page 77 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. It contains testimony from a victim describing severe long-term medical and psychological issues (CRPS, PTSD) resulting from trauma. The speaker notes that the arrests of Epstein (2019) and Maxwell (2020) allowed them to finally disclose the abuse to others and feel validated 25 years after the initial meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00014815.jpg
This document is page 68 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It contains the victim impact statement of an unnamed woman addressing Ghislaine Maxwell directly. The victim details the psychological trauma, nightmares, and trust issues resulting from the abuse and manipulation Maxwell facilitated and participated in. The victim asserts that Maxwell deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity