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-00000647.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, concerning the Epstein case (1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The text details a legal argument regarding the 'rule of abatement,' debating whether proceedings/forfeiture should cease after a defendant's death, especially in light of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The speaker concludes that if abatement applies to convicted defendants (citing the Wright case), it applies even more strongly to Epstein, who died during the pretrial phase.
DOJ-OGR-00000620.jpg
This is page 9 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on August 6, 2019. The Judge (The Court) rules to exclude time from the Speedy Trial Act calculations to allow for extensive pretrial preparation and tentatively schedules a trial for June 8, 2020. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg requests oral arguments for motions, which the court schedules for October 28, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000608.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript (filed July 26, 2019) detailing a judge's rationale for denying bail to Jeffrey Epstein. The text highlights testimony from victims Annie Farmer and Courtney Wild regarding their safety, the seriousness of sex trafficking charges involving minors as young as 14, and evidence of witness intimidation. It also details Epstein's flight risk, citing his private planes, foreign residence in Paris, and items seized from his NYC mansion, including $70,000 cash, diamonds, and a fake Austrian passport.
DOJ-OGR-00000597.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a Protective Order filed on July 25, 2019, in the case USA v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). It outlines strict protocols for handling 'Discovery' materials, including requirements for encryption and password protection when sharing with defense staff or experts. It explicitly prohibits the Government, the Defendant, or Counsel from posting any discovery information on the Internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00000588.jpg
This document is page 3 of a protective order filed on July 25, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490). It outlines strict protocols for handling discovery materials, including requirements for encryption when sharing with staff and a specific prohibition against the Defendant, Government, or Counsel posting any discovery information on the Internet or social media. It also specifies that potential witnesses may view materials for trial preparation but cannot retain copies.
DOJ-OGR-00000584.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing dated July 24, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490 (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein). Courtney Wild addresses the court, identifying herself as a victim abused by Epstein starting at age 14 in Palm Beach, Florida. She urges the judge to deny Epstein bond and keep him in detention, citing public safety concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00000553.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that his client has meticulously complied with sex offender registration requirements for nine years, informing authorities in the Virgin Islands of travel to Paris, Florida, and New York. The Judge (The Court) questions Weinberg about the specific criteria for reporting presence (the 10-day rule) and questions the registration requirements in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00000524.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (dated July 24, 2019) in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller argues against bail, citing a strengthened investigation, the defendant's potential 45-year sentence, and the admission that the government can prove the defendant engaged in sex acts with minors. Rossmiller also criticizes the defendant's financial disclosure form as cursory and insufficient.
DOJ-OGR-00000500.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The Court rules Epstein's proposed bail package inadequate, primarily because the defense failed to provide audited financial statements or an affidavit from Epstein, submitting only a 'cursory' summary claiming assets of $559,120,954. The judge criticizes the defense's claim that they could not produce accurate financials quickly, calling the excuse 'disingenuous' for someone of Epstein's wealth and financial experience.
DOJ-OGR-00000498.jpg
This document is a page from a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The Court rules that Epstein presents a serious flight risk and a danger to the community, citing his alleged sex crimes with minors and witness tampering. The document references a statement by attorney David Boies regarding Epstein's history of contacting cooperating witnesses to stop their cooperation, and cites legal precedents (including a 2001 case also named United States v. Epstein) to justify denying release.
DOJ-OGR-00000493.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The court finds Epstein to be a flight risk based on factors including extensive foreign travel, international financial ties, unexplained assets, and his criminal history. The text also outlines the severity of the charges against him, specifically the sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach, allegedly facilitated by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00000460.jpg
This document is an email from Jeffrey Epstein to Deborah Anaya, copied to Darren Indyke, dated July 30, 2012. In the email, Epstein informs them that he has arrived in New Mexico and plans to be in and out of the state for the next month. The document is part of a larger court filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) filed in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000447.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 24) from July 16, 2019, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490). The text argues for the defendant's right to bail, contending that denying bail based on wealth violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It cites specific case law (Brinson, Afyare, Gardner) to argue that the presumption against release in § 1591 prosecutions is rebuttable.
DOJ-OGR-00000438.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman on July 16, 2019. The text argues for Epstein's release on bail, stating that despite intense media scrutiny (specifically mentioning The Miami Herald) and public outcry following November 2018 reports about his previous plea deal, Epstein traveled extensively but always returned to the United States, proving he is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000422.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) filed on July 16, 2019, concerning a bond hearing. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten argues that while there may have been prostitution, there was no violence, coercion, or trafficking involved. The Judge (The Court) counters this argument by noting that if the women involved were under 18, they were legally incapable of consent, making the acts rape.
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
This is page 14 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case of USA v. Epstein. The judge asks the prosecution (Mr. Rossmiller) if other defendants are anticipated; Rossmiller replies that no superseding indictments are imminent but are possible. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten then argues against current obstruction allegations by citing historical negotiations from 2007-2008, where federal and defense lawyers settled on a state statute plea deal rather than federal charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000389.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Epstein). The Judge questions prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller to ensure victims have been notified of the case. The discussion also covers Epstein's status as a Tier 3 sex offender in New York, originating from his 2008 Florida prosecution, classifying him as a high-risk individual for committing sex crimes with minors.
DOJ-OGR-00000378.jpg
This document is page 12 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. The dialogue involves a judge, prosecutor Ms. Gaffney, and defense attorney Ms. Musumeci discussing why Jeffrey Epstein must register as a sex offender in New York despite the specific acts (relations with a 17-year-old) not being registrable offenses under NY law; the requirement stems from reciprocity with his Florida offense. The Judge remarks that Epstein must register every 90 days or 'give up his New York home.'
DOJ-OGR-00000370.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing, filed in July 2019. The Judge expresses shock that the prosecution ('The People,' represented by Ms. Gaffney) is arguing for a 'downward modification' (reduced risk level) in a case the Judge finds 'troubling.' Ms. Gaffney explains that despite the unusual nature of the request, they are bound by board guidelines not to rely on unindicted conduct, and notes that her attempts to get clear evidence or interview notes from Florida authorities were unsuccessful because 'they never did' interview the women on their own.
DOJ-OGR-00000363.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Good Standing issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for attorney Martin G. Weinberg. It certifies that Weinberg was admitted to the bar on April 24, 1972, and remained in good standing as of July 11, 2019. The document was filed on July 15, 2019, as part of Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), likely to establish Weinberg's credentials to represent a party in that case.
DOJ-OGR-00000352.jpg
This document is the conclusion page (Page 10) of a legal filing by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, dated July 8, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The Government argues that the defendant should be denied bail because he poses an 'extraordinarily real' flight risk due to his vast wealth, private planes, and foreign contacts, and is a danger to the community due to his alleged abuse of dozens of underage girls and history of witness tampering. The document is signed by Assistant US Attorneys Alex Rossmiller, Alison Moe, and Maurene Comey on behalf of US Attorney Geoffrey Berman.
DOJ-OGR-00000351.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the government arguing that Jeffrey Epstein poses a danger to the community and has a history of obstruction. It details a July 2019 search of his Manhattan mansion which uncovered thousands of lewd photos and CDs labeled with references to young girls and nudes. The document also highlights a past incident where Epstein's private investigators forced a witness's father off the road.
DOJ-OGR-00000346.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal memorandum filed by the government on July 12, 2019 (dated July 8), arguing for the pre-trial detention of the defendant (Jeffrey Epstein, Case 1:19-cr-00490). It outlines the legal standards of the Bail Reform Act, citing case law regarding flight risk and danger to the community, and emphasizes that because the charges involve a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a statutory presumption favoring detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000328.jpg
This document is a letter dated July 11, 2019, from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Richard M. Berman in the Epstein case (1:19-cr-00490), requesting an adjournment of a bail hearing. The document includes a handwritten order by Judge Berman dated July 12, 2019, denying the application and noting it is 'Hard to imagine it would take the Govt extra time to review submission.' The letter is signed by AUSAs Rossmiller, Moe, and Comey, and copies defense counsel Weinberg and Weingarten.
DOJ-OGR-00000326.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal motion filed on July 11, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys (Weingarten, Weinberg, and Fernich) requested permission to file a supplemental financial disclosure under seal. Judge Richard M. Berman hand-wrote an order on the page granting the motion and requiring the materials be hand-delivered to chambers and opposing counsel by 9:00 AM the following day.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity