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-00008425.jpg
This is a legal letter dated December 16, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter presents legal arguments concerning the impeachment of witnesses using inconsistent statements and '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures), citing specific case law to support the defense's procedural approach.
DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It features a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (defense) and the Court regarding hearsay rules. Menninger argues that testimony stating other accusers did *not* mention Ms. Maxwell is not hearsay (as it is an absence of a statement) and should be admissible if the government introduces evidence suggesting other victims exist without calling them to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and the admissibility of evidence concerning the thoroughness of the government's investigation. The Court rules to preclude the defense from introducing affirmative evidence attacking the investigation's thoroughness unless it is probative of the defendant's guilt, citing cases such as United States v. Figueroa and Kyles v. Whitley.
DOJ-OGR-00008359.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 3 of 3) of a legal filing (Document 539) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on December 12, 2021. It is submitted by Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach. The document indicates a copy was sent to Defense Counsel via ECF.
DOJ-OGR-00008349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The speaker (the Judge) is outlining logistics for the following Monday regarding jury management. The plan involves assembling jurors in two separate courtrooms connected by video feed, asking them two specific questions regarding their exposure to media about the case and their ability to remain impartial, and subsequently exercising peremptory challenges.
DOJ-OGR-00008299.jpg
Page 326 of a deposition transcript involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is questioned about a specific redacted female name appearing on a list under 'Florida massages.' Maxwell identifies the woman as a friend of Jeffrey Epstein rather than a masseuse, attributing her placement on the list to an 'input error,' and denies knowledge regarding whether the list represented individuals who had sex with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00008292.jpg
This page is a transcript from a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed in court on Dec 9, 2021). Maxwell is being questioned about a specific document bearing the Bates label 'Giuffre 001663' which contains a section titled 'Massage Florida.' Maxwell denies recollection of the document being on her computer, denies creating it, and claims not to know who did create it. Her attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00008287.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in court on December 9, 2021. Maxwell is questioned about whether she maintained electronic records of names and addresses for Jeffrey Epstein or if she could access such information on a computer. Maxwell denies that keeping track of Epstein's contact numbers was her job or responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00001895.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 10, 2020) detailing the government's efforts to notify victims regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines specific dates in July 2020 when notifications were sent regarding her arrest, presentment, and bail hearing. It explicitly mentions notifications sent to individuals identifying as victims of both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, even those not named in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001853.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated November 25, 2020, filed on December 4, 2020. The defense argues against the public identification of Ms. Maxwell's bail sureties (co-signers), citing significant privacy interests and fears of harassment for the sureties and their children. The defense requests an in camera conference and notes that the government consents to sealing the names of cosigners and confidential discovery materials but opposes the conference.
DOJ-OGR-00001816.jpg
This document is a Court Order filed on November 5, 2020, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The order formally reminds the prosecution (the Government) of its continuing legal obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence (Brady material) and impeachment evidence (Giglio material) to the defense pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f).
DOJ-OGR-00001802.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues against the defense's position that a co-conspirator committing similar crimes without the defendant constitutes exculpatory evidence under Brady. The Government cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that evidence of a defendant's non-participation in other criminal events or lawful conduct on other occasions is irrelevant to disproving specific charged crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00001794.jpg
This document is the conclusion page (page 8) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated October 7, 2020. Submitted by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz to Judge Alison J. Nathan, the text affirms the Government's commitment to its disclosure obligations following representations made at an initial conference.
DOJ-OGR-00001767.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 24, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues that Protective Orders can be modified as circumstances change and asserts that Ms. Maxwell did not waive her right to seek modification. The text claims the government circumvented Second Circuit processes regarding civil materials for grand jury use and cites various case laws supporting the court's power to modify protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00001702.jpg
This document is a Memorandum Opinion & Order filed on July 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Judge Alison J. Nathan addresses a dispute over a protective order, ultimately adopting the Government's proposed version over Maxwell's requests to publicly reference alleged victims and restrict Government witnesses' use of discovery materials. The document cites legal standards for protective orders under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
DOJ-OGR-00001701.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 12 of 12) of a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is an order signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020, in New York, stating that Defense Counsel may apply to the Court for modifications. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00001701).
DOJ-OGR-00001671.jpg
This document is the first page of a [Proposed] Protective Order filed on July 28, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan presides over the document, which outlines the Government's intent to produce discovery materials to the defendant while restricting their dissemination to protect privacy, ongoing investigations, and prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity due to the sensitive nature of the information.
DOJ-OGR-00001668.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Government filing from July 28, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues against a defense proposal that would allow them to publicly name victims and witnesses, stating that such a request is broad, unjustified, and contrary to the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The text highlights the distinction between the previous Epstein protective order and the current case, emphasizing that victims should not fear reprisal or shaming by having their identities broadcast by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001666.jpg
This is page 3 of a government filing dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government argues against the defense's request to publicly name victims/witnesses, calling the defense's argument 'absurd' and 'offensive' particularly regarding the suggestion that victims derive a 'benefit' from public identification. The document outlines the proposed protective order which would allow defense counsel to discuss identities privately but prohibits public dissemination to prevent harassment and intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001660.jpg
This document is an Affidavit of Certification filed on July 27, 2020, by Christian R. Everdell, defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Everdell certifies that the defense has conferred with federal prosecutors (Moe, Rossmiller, and Comey) regarding a protective order but remains in dispute regarding restrictions on government witnesses' use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001642.jpg
In this court order dated July 23, 2020, Judge Alison J. Nathan denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to explicitly prohibit the Government and witness counsel from making extrajudicial statements. The Court deems a specific order unnecessary at this time, citing the expectation that all parties will comply with existing Local Criminal Rule 23.1 regarding professional responsibility. However, the Judge issues a stern warning that the Court will take appropriate action if these rules are violated to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001632.jpg
This is a legal waiver filed on July 14, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Maxwell, through her attorney Christian R. Everdell, waives her right to be physically present at an upcoming conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided she can communicate privately with her counsel. The document is signed by Everdell on behalf of Maxwell and accepted by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00001631.jpg
This document is a 'Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding' filed in the Southern District of New York on July 14, 2020, for the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, signed on July 10, 2020, by her attorney Christian R. Everdell, Maxwell waives her right to appear in person for her arraignment, bail hearing, and conference, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for the bail hearing waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00001629.jpg
This document is the conclusion page of a legal filing (Document 22) dated July 13, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk and requests that any application for bail be denied. It is signed by Assistant US Attorney Alison Moe on behalf of Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and colleagues Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00001589.jpg
This is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 18) dated July 10, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell should be released on bail because the government failed to prove she is a flight risk and because the COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant health risk to her in detention, citing the precedent of United States v. Stephens. The document also highlights that detention would hinder her ability to prepare a defense due to restrictions on attorney access.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity