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-00001228.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, filed Dec 30, 2020) arguing against granting bail to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that no conditions, including GPS monitoring or private security, can assure her appearance given her prior sophistication in evading detection. It cites the 'Boustani' precedent to argue against a 'two-tiered bail system' that allows wealthy defendants to create private jails using their own funds.
DOJ-OGR-00001189.jpg
This document is a Table of Exhibits from a court filing dated June 23, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists two exhibits: Exhibit A, an addendum opinion by Julié regarding France, and Exhibit B, an addendum opinion by Perry regarding the U.K.
DOJ-OGR-00001188.jpg
This document is page 3 of 15 from a legal filing (Document 103-2) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 23, 2020. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing two legal precedents: United States v. Chen and United States v. Orta. The document bears a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00001188).
DOJ-OGR-00001185.jpg
This document is a cover page labeled 'Exhibit G' for Document 103 filed on April 1, 2021. It identifies the contents as the 'Reply Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Renewed Motion for Bail' within Case 21-770.
DOJ-OGR-00001184.jpg
This document is a formal statement from Philippe Jaeglé of the Office for the International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, explaining that under Article 3 of the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France refuses to extradite its nationals to the United States. It clarifies that while France extradites nationals within the EU due to political integration and shared human rights standards (European arrest warrant), it has never deviated from the non-extradition principle for countries outside the EU. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp and a court filing header dated December 18, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001159.jpg
This is page 14 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00001159) of a Government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed December 18, 2020. The prosecution argues against bail, citing the defendant's flight risk, wealth, and ability to frustrate extradition from France or the UK. A critical footnote reveals that in 2018, the defendant and her spouse established a trust account where they both falsely listed their marital status as 'single' on bank forms.
DOJ-OGR-00001129.jpg
This document is page 33 of a legal filing (dated Dec 14, 2020) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she has executed waivers of extradition and obtained expert reports (specifically from U.K. barrister David Perry) concluding she could not successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France. The text cites various legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) to support the validity of extradition waivers as conditions of release.
DOJ-OGR-00001125.jpg
This document is a page from a defense motion filed on December 14, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell did not attempt to evade arrest or flee. Defense counsel claims the 'raid' on her New Hampshire home was unnecessary and theatrical, timed to the anniversary of Epstein's arrest. It addresses specific allegations, such as a cell phone wrapped in tin foil, explaining these were security measures against the press, supported by a statement from the (redacted) head of her security team.
DOJ-OGR-00001121.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell has been subjected to intense media harassment and threats following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death. It includes a graph showing a spike in media mentions between 2015 and 2020, specifically highlighting the Miami Herald 'Perversion of Justice' series, Epstein's arrest/death, and a bounty offered by The Sun. The text details abusive social media messages received by Maxwell, citing terms like 'pedophile' and 'pimp,' while noting she was not charged in the original Epstein indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001093.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, concerning United States v. Maxwell. The judge is ruling against Ms. Maxwell's motion for release, stating that unlike other cases, she has not argued specific health vulnerabilities to COVID-19. The court also rejects the argument that prison restrictions at the MDC prevent her from preparing her defense, noting the case is in early stages.
DOJ-OGR-00000905.jpg
This document is a notice from the court regarding Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021. It informs counsel Christian R. Everdell that a filing was defective because a motion to be relieved is required for substitution of counsel. The document sets a deadline of April 5, 2021, to cure the defect to avoid the document being stricken or the appeal dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000835.jpg
This document is a formal Notice of Case Manager Change from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Epstein, dated August 21, 2019. It lists Judge Berman as the District Court Judge and provides a phone number for inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00000795.jpg
This document is page 12 of a government legal filing from July 18, 2019, arguing for the pretrial detention of Jeffrey Epstein. It details evidence found during a July 6-7, 2019 FBI search of Epstein's NYC mansion, specifically a 'vast trove' of CD's containing thousands of nude photographs of underage girls and women, which the government labels as 'photographic trophies.' The prosecution argues this evidence, along with his 2008 conviction, demonstrates that Epstein poses an ongoing danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00000794.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Document 32) dated July 18, 2019, regarding the detention of Jeffrey Epstein. It details testimony from victim Courtney Wild, who requested Epstein remain in detention for public safety, and discusses the court's concern that Epstein poses an uncontrollable threat to young girls. The text contrasts the prosecution/court's view of Epstein's 'addictive sexual nature' with Defense Counsel's arguments that Epstein was disciplined and not an 'out-of-control rapist.'
DOJ-OGR-00000790.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Document 32) from July 18, 2019, detailing the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the charges of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of minors between 2002 and 2005 in New York and Florida. The text describes Epstein's method of paying victims cash for sex acts and paying them to recruit other underage girls, creating a 'vast network' of victims, some as young as 14.
DOJ-OGR-00000783.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from July 16-23, 2019, detailing the proceedings of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 19-2221). It documents the denial of Epstein's bail during a hearing on July 18, 2019, presided over by Judge Richard M. Berman, attended by FBI and NYPD representatives. Following the remand order, Epstein's defense team filed a Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2019, along with a sealed document placed in the vault.
DOJ-OGR-00000773.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing in the case regarding Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490), dated August 5, 2025. It argues for strict adherence to grand jury secrecy rules (Rule 6(e)) to protect the privacy of victims, many of whom were minors at the time of abuse. The filing outlines specific requested relief, including requiring the government to confer with victims' counsel, conducting judicial in camera reviews of materials, and allowing victims' counsel to review proposed redactions prior to any public release to prevent re-identification.
DOJ-OGR-00000765.jpg
A legal letter dated August 5, 2025, from Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (representing the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein) to Judge Richard M. Berman. The letter states that the Epstein Estate takes no position regarding the Government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, provided that victim identities are protected via redaction.
DOJ-OGR-00000758.jpg
This document appears to be the second page of a legal filing or correspondence dated August 4, 2025, related to Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. It contains a quoted excerpt from a DOJ/FBI memo stating that a review confirmed Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims. The document concludes that due to the sensitive nature of victim information, the DOJ and FBI have determined that no further disclosure of evidence is appropriate or warranted.
DOJ-OGR-00000737.jpg
A court order from the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 2025, addressing a government motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The court acknowledges the request to unseal the transcripts (subject to redactions for victims) but states it cannot rule without a Memorandum of Law from the government addressing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. The document cites legal precedents regarding the 'special circumstances' required to release such records.
DOJ-OGR-00000731.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Appearance' filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for Case 1:19-cr-490 (USA v. Jeffrey Epstein). It was filed on July 18, 2025 (notably a future date relative to the original 2019 case context) by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The filing requests that electronic notices for the case be sent to Jordan.Fox@usdoj.gov.
DOJ-OGR-00000728.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal document filed on September 4, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Epstein). Judge Richard M. Berman addresses an unnamed recipient regarding an opinion piece they wrote, criticizing it for potentially discouraging Ms. Giuffre and her attorney David Boies from speaking at an August 27, 2019 hearing. The document copies attorneys Maurene Comey, Martin Weinberg, Reid Weingarten, and David Boies.
DOJ-OGR-00000716.jpg
This document is page 78 of a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, containing victim impact statements. One victim details the psychological trauma caused by Epstein, including a near-suicide attempt, and expresses frustration that his death allowed him to escape sentencing. The page concludes with the beginning of a statement from a second victim who describes being raped by Epstein when she was a 16-year-old virgin.
DOJ-OGR-00000704.jpg
This document is page 66 of a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, related to Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein). It contains a victim impact statement where an unnamed survivor addresses Judge Berman, discussing the trauma of silence, the need for justice over money and power, and expressing gratitude to the judge, the public, and fellow survivors.
DOJ-OGR-00000686.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing dated September 3, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein. It concludes a victim impact statement expressing frustration over Epstein's suicide escaping justice, but gratitude for the handling of the current case compared to the past. Attorney Mr. Edwards then addresses the court, referencing a 2008 case filed under the Crime Victims Rights Act and introducing his co-counsel, former judge Paul Cassell.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity