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-00014813.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing a victim impact statement directed at Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker describes Maxwell as a manipulative and cruel person who used kindness to exploit others. The statement emphasizes the speaker's solidarity with other victims ('sisters'), their refusal to remain afraid, and their determination to model empowerment for their daughter.
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is issuing a ruling regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically overruling the defendant's objection to an 'undue influence' enhancement. The judge argues that applying the enhancement does not constitute 'double counting' because it addresses the specific harm of using influence to coerce a commercial sex act, distinct from the base offense of the victim being a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00008636.jpg
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 10 from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, summarizing the first five counts of the indictment against her. The charges include conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sexual activity, enticing a specific victim named 'Jane', and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors between 1994 and 2004. The document outlines specific timeframes and victim categories (multiple victims vs. Jane) for each count.
DOJ-OGR-00008626.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 1: Role of the Court,' which explains the judge's responsibility to define the law and the jury's sworn duty to follow those legal instructions regardless of personal opinion or opposing statements by attorneys. The text emphasizes that the jury must consider the instructions as a whole during deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00008624.jpg
This document is page 86 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a table of contents for Jury Instructions 24 through 48, outlining legal parameters for charges including Sex Trafficking of a Minor, Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws, Aiding and Abetting, and procedural instructions regarding witness credibility and evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008610.jpg
This document is page 72 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 50, which directs the jury not to draw inferences from uncalled witnesses who were mentioned during the trial but did not testify. It further emphasizes that the defendant bears no burden to call witnesses or produce evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008601.jpg
This document is page 63 (internal page 62) of a court filing dated December 18, 2021, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains specific jury instructions regarding the burden of proof and 'guilt by association,' explicitly instructing the jury that they cannot convict Maxwell solely based on her association with other criminals or her knowledge of their wrongdoing.
DOJ-OGR-00008588.jpg
This document is page 50 (internal paging 49) of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions explaining the legal standards for establishing 'guilty knowledge' and participation in a conspiracy. The text clarifies that Maxwell does not need to know every detail or member of the conspiracy to be found guilty, and that a single act can establish membership, making her liable for the conspiracy's activities.
DOJ-OGR-00008565.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions regarding Count Two, specifically addressing the Violation of New York Criminal Law (Penal Law Section 130.55) concerning Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree. The text defines sexual contact and consent, emphasizing that individuals under seventeen are legally incapable of consent, and instructs that for a conviction based on age, the jury must find Maxwell knew 'Jane' was under seventeen.
DOJ-OGR-00008556.jpg
This document contains Instruction No. 10 from the jury charge in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2021. It summarizes four counts of the indictment: conspiracy to entice travel for illegal sexual activity, enticing an individual (specifically 'Jane'), conspiracy to transport a minor under 17, and transporting a minor (specifically 'Jane'). The text includes markup (colored underlines and strikethroughs) indicating revisions to the legal language regarding interstate and foreign commerce and the specific identification of the victim 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00008554.jpg
This document is page 16 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains 'Instruction No. 8,' which defines the legal concept of 'Reasonable Doubt' for the jury, explaining the standards required to either convict or acquit Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008548.jpg
This document is page 10 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 3, which strictly prohibits jurors from using social media, the internet, or electronic devices to communicate about the case or conduct outside research during deliberations. The instruction emphasizes that the verdict must be based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00008536.jpg
This document page contains the final jury instructions from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on December 17, 2021. The judge instructs the jury that their verdict must be unanimous, explains the role of the foreperson in filling out the verdict form and notifying the marshal, and urges courtesy during deliberations. The transcript concludes with the judge pausing proceedings for a brief sidebar conference with counsel and the court reporter before officially submitting the case to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008524.jpg
This document is page 68 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 49, which explicitly instructs the jury that Ms. Maxwell exercised her Constitutional right not to testify, that the burden of proof rests solely with the Government, and that no adverse inference can be drawn against her for not taking the witness stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008518.jpg
This document is page 62 of a court filing (Document 562) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 44 regarding the 'Credibility of Witnesses,' advising jurors on how to evaluate testimony based on demeanor, consistency, potential bias, and common sense. The text outlines the jurors' right to accept or reject testimony if they believe a witness has lied or is mistaken.
DOJ-OGR-00008517.jpg
This document is page 61 of a court filing (Document 562) from December 17, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the standard of proof, specifically warning jurors not to infer guilt based solely on association with others who committed wrongdoing or knowledge of others' wrongdoing. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00008517.
DOJ-OGR-00008515.jpg
This document is page 59 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains Jury Instruction No. 42, which explains the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence using an analogy about rain and umbrellas. The instruction concludes by reminding the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00008510.jpg
This document is page 54 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 38, which explains the legal standard for holding a defendant liable for the acts, declarations, and omissions of co-conspirators committed in furtherance of a conspiracy. The instruction notes that such acts can be used as evidence against the Defendant even if they occurred in her absence or without her knowledge, provided the conspiracy is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00008505.jpg
This document contains page 49 (marked as page 48 internally) of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 17, 2021. It outlines jury instructions regarding the legal definition of conspiracy participation, clarifying that 'mere presence' or 'knowledge' is insufficient for conviction without intent and participation. It also notes that receiving a financial benefit is not required to prove conspiracy, though it can be a factor.
DOJ-OGR-00008490.jpg
This document is page 34 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 26 regarding 'Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor – First Element,' specifically instructing the jury on the requirement to prove that Maxwell knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00008471.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court filing (Document 562) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 9: The Indictment,' in which the judge instructs the jury that the indictment is merely an accusation, not evidence, and that Maxwell retains the presumption of innocence.
DOJ-OGR-00008470.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 562) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 8: Reasonable Doubt,' providing legal definitions and instructions to the jury regarding the burden of proof required to convict or acquit the defendant, explicitly named as Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines the standard of 'reasonable doubt' versus 'possible doubt' and instructs jurors on their duty based on their abiding belief of her guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008466.jpg
This document is page 10 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The text contains standard jury instructions where the judge explains that the jury should not interpret any court actions as an opinion on witness credibility or evidence weight, affirming that decision-making is solely the jury's role.
DOJ-OGR-00008455.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing, so-ordered by a judge on December 19, 2021. In it, the Government outlines agreements with the defense regarding redactions for trial exhibits and requests the court's permission to submit certain exhibits into evidence and release others to the public before the jury begins deliberations. The filing details specific exhibit numbers and the rationale for their handling, such as protecting the privacy of third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00008445.jpg
This document is page 2 of 4 from a court filing (Document 559) dated December 19, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It consists of a list of Government Exhibit (GX) identifiers, ranging from GX-2-H-R to GX-3-R-R. The suffix '-R' likely indicates these are redacted versions of the exhibits.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity