Department of Justice (DOJ)
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 opposition to proposed changes in Section 211, which would alter the victim certification pro... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 213, which would remove law enforcement from the in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 211, specifically changing 'and' to 'or' in the cer... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 213, which would remove law enforcement from the in... | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-11 | Legal communication | The French Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice explaining its nat... | Paris, France | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021085.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It contains legal arguments attempting to distance the current case from the precedent set in *U.S. v. Annabi*, arguing that *Annabi* is an outlier regarding whether a plea agreement in one district binds another. The text consists primarily of extensive footnotes citing various Second Circuit decisions (*Prisco*, *Ashraf*, *Salameh*, etc.) that limited plea agreements to specific US Attorney's Offices, supporting the government's position against the Appellant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00021071.jpg
This document is page 24 of an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) arguing two main points: first, that the statute of limitations had expired for the offenses charged because the 2003 amendment to §3283 cannot be applied retroactively to offenses committed before its enactment. Second, it argues for a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically that a juror lied on a questionnaire to conceal his own history as a victim of child sexual abuse, which the defense argues established bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021063.jpg
This document is a 'Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction' filed on February 28, 2023, detailing the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction. It summarizes her June 28, 2022, conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges under Judge Alison Julie Nathan, listing her prison sentence (concurrent terms up to 240 months) and financial penalties ($750,000 total).
DOJ-OGR-00021061.jpg
This page is a Table of Authorities (page xiii) from a legal filing in Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 28, 2023. It lists citations to various federal statutes and rules referenced in the main document, most notably 18 U.S.C. statutes related to sex trafficking (§ 1591), sexual exploitation of children (§ 2251), and transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity (§ 2423). The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021054.jpg
This document is page 'vi' (Page 7 of 113) of a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, bearing the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021054. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents referenced in the main brief, including cases such as 'Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S.' and 'Martin v. Hadix'. The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice filing, likely related to a FOIA case or appeal given the OGR marking.
DOJ-OGR-00021013.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discusses a dispute over a jury note regarding 'Count Four.' The argument centers on whether the jury could convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico versus the required New York law violation. The text details a debate over the placement of a comma in the jury's note and the Court's subsequent instruction to the jury to focus on New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00020988.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 45-page legal filing (Document 657) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on April 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Applicable law' regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicitous' indictments and how courts determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It cites various Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedents to establish the legal standard for reviewing such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020975.jpg
This document is page 32 of a 40-page court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standard for 'implied bias' regarding jurors, specifically rejecting the argument that a juror must be presumed biased simply for having personal experiences similar to the issues at trial. The court cites Second Circuit precedents (Daugerdas, Torres, Brown, Garcia) to support the conclusion that implied bias is a narrow category reserved for extreme situations, such as deliberate lying to get on a jury, rather than merely shared experiences.
DOJ-OGR-00020942.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Exhibit A-316) related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It displays a blank lined page assigned to 'Juror ID: 50', likely part of a verdict form, note-taking page, or questionnaire. The page contains no handwriting other than the Juror ID number.
DOJ-OGR-00020937.jpg
This document is a page from a jury questionnaire filled out by Juror ID 50 for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to Question 49 regarding whether they or a family member have ever been accused of sexual harassment or assault, and 'No' to Question 50 regarding any other experiences affecting impartiality. The document was filed on March 9, 2022, and later included in an appellate record on February 28, 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00020923.jpg
This document is page 9 of 29 from a juror questionnaire filed on March 9, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It belongs to Juror ID 50, who indicates they have no prior jury service, no experience as a witness, defendant, or crime victim, and no involvement in government investigations. The juror answered 'No' to all questions on this page regarding legal history and prior service.
DOJ-OGR-00020910.jpg
This document is a transcript page (p. 84 of 221) dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It captures a 'voir dire' or post-trial hearing where a witness (implied to be a juror) is being questioned by a judge ('Your Honor') about their attention span during jury selection, potential distractions regarding an 'ex,' and their decision to give press interviews about being a sexual abuse victim. The witness defends their accuracy in answering questionnaires and explains they did not believe their interview would garner significant news attention or alert their family to their abuse history.
DOJ-OGR-00020898.jpg
Pages 17 and 18 of a transcript from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal/post-trial hearings). A juror is being questioned about whether they intentionally provided inaccurate answers regarding a history of sexual abuse to get on the jury. The juror admits they did not fill out the questionnaire with diligence because they felt rushed and did not believe they would be selected.
DOJ-OGR-00020886.jpg
This document is a printout of a Reuters news article dated January 5, 2022, titled 'Some Ghislaine Maxwell jurors initially doubted accusers, juror says' by Luc Cohen. It was submitted as an exhibit in court cases (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN and Case 22-1426), as evidenced by the header stamps and the DOJ Bates stamp at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00020883.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 22-1426) which contains a printout of a Daily Mail article dated January 26, 2022. The page features a photograph entered as 'Government Exhibit 52' showing Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein standing together in a snowy environment. The caption references Maxwell's sex trafficking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically jury instructions) filed on February 28, 2023, as part of Case 22-1426 (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal). It details Instruction No. 18 and 19 regarding 'Count Four,' which charges transportation of a minor (under 17) in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity. The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a), specifically noting the requirement to prove Ms. Maxwell laid intent for the individual to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00020807.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It contains a statement certifying that Epstein understands the clarifications to the NPA and agrees to comply. The document is signed by Gerald Lefcourt (Epstein's counsel) on October 29, 2007, and by a representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office (marked FAUSA) on October 30, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00020777.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Court rejects arguments regarding missing witnesses, specifically noting that potential testimony from the Palm Beach investigation or Epstein himself would likely not have been credible or exculpatory. The Court also rules that pretrial publicity and delays in prosecution have not caused substantial prejudice to Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020760.jpg
This is an Opinion & Order filed on April 16, 2021, by District Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document outlines the procedural history, including the initial June 2020 indictment and subsequent superseding indictments regarding charges of facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, Mann Act violations, and perjury. The order states it resolves Maxwell's pending pretrial motions regarding the S1 indictment, excluding motions to suppress evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020758.jpg
This document is page 23 of 24 from a legal filing (Document 187) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 29, 2021. It details the 'Substitute Asset Provision,' outlining the government's intent to seize alternative property from the defendant if the original proceeds of the alleged crimes (specifically Count Six) cannot be located, have been transferred, or diminished in value. The document is signed by the Grand Jury Foreperson and United States Attorney Audrey Strauss.
DOJ-OGR-00020749.jpg
This document is page 14 of a superseding indictment (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on March 29, 2021. It details Count Three, charging Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with conspiracy to transport minors for criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 2004. It specifically alleges Maxwell coerced 'Minor Victim-1' to travel from Florida to New York to engage in sex acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020739.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on March 29, 2021. It outlines allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell, stating that between 1994 and 2004, she facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, sometimes participating in the abuse herself. The document lists four specific locations where victims were groomed and abused: Epstein's residences in Manhattan, Palm Beach, and Santa Fe, as well as Maxwell's residence in London.
DOJ-OGR-00020706.jpg
This document is a court docket report from the SDNY regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell between December 17 and 19, 2021. It details daily minute entries for the jury trial, orders regarding jury charges and verdict sheets, and various letters filed by both the defense and prosecution concerning jury instructions, testimony preclusion (specifically regarding Alexander Hamilton), and closing logistics. The document highlights specific judicial edits to legal definitions, such as defining a 'minor' as an individual under the age of 18.
DOJ-OGR-00020649.jpg
This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 24, 2021. It details a procedural order (Entry 172) regarding Maxwell's attempt to subpoena a law firm representing her alleged victims for confidential information, setting a schedule for objections and redactions. Additionally, it records Maxwell's filing of a Notice of Appeal (Entry 173) regarding a separate order, along with the associated fee and transmission of records to the US Court of Appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00020634.jpg
This document is a court docket report (SDNY) from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, generated in 2023 but detailing events from July and August 2020. It includes the conclusion of a judicial order regarding a protective order for discovery materials, balancing witness privacy against defense needs, and lists subsequent procedural filings including motions and responses between Maxwell's defense team (Everdell) and the Government (Rossmiller) regarding discovery disclosure. The text highlights the Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed protective order to safeguard witness privacy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity