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-00021870.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable. It details that Maxwell transported a victim named 'Jane' to New York for sexual abuse and that abuse also occurred at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. The document confirms Maxwell's sentence of 240 months imprisonment, which was slightly above the calculated guideline range of 188-235 months.
DOJ-OGR-00021865.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discusses a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' alleged erroneous responses during jury selection (voir dire). The text argues that the District Court correctly applied the 'McDonough' standard, finding the juror's errors were not deliberate and that accurate answers would not have led to a dismissal for cause. It also notes that Ghislaine Maxwell did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed histories of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
This document is page 17 (labeled page 40 of 56 in the header) of a legal brief, likely from the government (DOJ), arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It specifically addresses the District Court's denial of a new trial regarding 'Juror 50', who Maxwell alleges failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text cites legal precedents supporting the court's discretion to deny probing jurors post-verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
This page from a legal filing (stamped 2024 but discussing historical legal arguments) analyzes the scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the NPA and the actions of the USAO-SDFL (under R. Alexander Acosta) were limited to the Southern District of Florida and were not intended to bind other federal districts, citing the United States Attorney's Manual. A footnote quotes the specific language of the NPA where federal prosecution is deferred in favor of state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021849.jpg
This page is from an appellate court decision affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her sentence (concurrent terms totaling 240 months) for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The court rejects her five grounds for appeal, which included arguments about Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and jury impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021824.jpg
This is a formal Judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated September 17, 2024. The document affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant) following her appeal. The decision was rendered by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021796.jpg
This document is page 2 of an appellate court opinion affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the charges she was convicted of (sex trafficking, conspiracy), her sentence (concurrent terms up to 240 months), and rejects five specific arguments raised on appeal, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and claims of jury bias. The court concludes by affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022 judgment.
DOJ-OGR-00021789.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, dated March 10, 2024. It identifies Andrew Rohrbach of the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) as the attorney presenting argument for the Appellee-Respondent. The bottom half of the page contains a 'Notice to the Bar' outlining standard procedures for obtaining audio recordings of arguments, arranging court reporters, and requesting interpreter services.
DOJ-OGR-00021783.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 22, 2024, submitted by attorney Andrew Rohrbach of the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY). Rohrbach is identifying himself as the attorney presenting argument for the Appellee-Respondent. The document includes a 'Notice to the Bar' detailing procedures and costs for obtaining audio recordings of arguments, arranging court reporters, and requesting interpreter services.
DOJ-OGR-00021782.jpg
This is a 'Notice of Hearing Date' from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the appeal case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side. It provides instructions regarding in-person vs. remote attendance, health protocols, and procedures for withdrawing motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021771.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023. It argues that 'Juror 50' should have been excluded from the Maxwell case due to implied bias, specifically citing the 'average person test' and the juror's failure to disclose victimization during voir dire. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Smith v. Phillips, U.S. v. Burr) to support the claim that nondisclosure of sexual abuse victimization deprives the court of vital information.
DOJ-OGR-00021747.jpg
This document is page 5 (labeled 'iv') of a legal filing, specifically a 'Table of Authorities' listing case precedents. It belongs to Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2023. The page lists various United States v. [Defendant] cases along with their citations and the page numbers within the main brief where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021738.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief, dated June 29, 2023) argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that Judge Nathan failed to explain the upward variance in her sentencing. The text asserts that Maxwell's argument is waived due to being cursory, and further details that Judge Nathan provided an extensive explanation regarding Maxwell's 'pivotal role' in the abuse of minors and the need for deterrence.
DOJ-OGR-00021733.jpg
This page from a Department of Justice appellate brief argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding jury instructions. The document asserts that Judge Nathan correctly handled an ambiguous jury note concerning flight evidence and 'aiding and abetting' liability. It specifically references testimony by a victim named 'Jane' regarding flights on Epstein's private plane and commercial carriers to New York for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00021718.jpg
This document is page 58 (PDF page 71) of a legal filing from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal), dated June 29, 2023. The text outlines legal standards regarding post-verdict juror inquiries and Rule 33 motions, citing precedents that protect jurors from harassment and limit testimony regarding deliberations (Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)). It emphasizes that overturning a verdict based on juror non-disclosure during selection is rare.
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely by the Government) appearing in the appellate case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues that the statute of limitations for the charges against Maxwell had not expired due to the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. The text supports Judge Nathan's lower court ruling that applying this amendment was not an impermissible retroactive effect, distinguishing Maxwell's situation from the precedent set in United States v. Richardson.
DOJ-OGR-00021692.jpg
This page is from a 2023 legal filing (likely the government's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal) arguing against claims of retroactive application of the statute of limitations. It asserts that because the criminal conduct (conspiracy and sex trafficking involving Victim-4) continued through 2004, it post-dated the 2003 amendment to Section 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00021685.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. It contains legal arguments rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that a U.S. Attorney's Office in one district is bound by a plea agreement made in another, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent (San Pedro v. United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 547 regarding the limitation of a U.S. Attorney's authority to their own district. A footnote discusses and dismisses Maxwell's argument regarding an 'inter-circuit exclusionary rule.'
DOJ-OGR-00021684.jpg
Page 24 (PDF page 37) of a legal brief in Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal). The text argues against Maxwell's claim that Eleventh Circuit law should apply to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), asserting that the court should follow its own precedents (Annabi) and that the governing law is that of the forum state. It cites multiple cases to support the application of local circuit law over the law where a plea agreement was originally negotiated.
DOJ-OGR-00021670.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal filing detailing the sexual abuse of a minor named Carolyn by Jeffrey Epstein and the facilitation of that abuse by Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia (Giuffre). It describes how Virginia introduced 14-year-old Carolyn to the pair at Epstein's Palm Beach villa in 2001 and instructed her on how to perform sexual massages. The text details specific acts of sexual violence committed by Epstein against Carolyn between the ages of 14 and 18 and notes Maxwell's role in scheduling these encounters.
DOJ-OGR-00021662.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) summarizes the procedural history and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details her conviction on counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy, her acquittal on one count of enticement, and her sentence of 240 months imprisonment plus fines issued by Judge Nathan. The document also begins a 'Statement of Facts' noting that the government established Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein facilitated sexual abuse of minors from 1994 to 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021653.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' (page 'v') from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 79), dated June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents and case citations used in the main document, including Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. The document bears a DOJ-OGR (Office of General Review) footer, indicating it was likely released via FOIA or a similar transparency process.
DOJ-OGR-00021614.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring victim impact statements. It includes the conclusion of one statement promising vigilance against the perpetrator, followed by Ms. Ransome beginning her statement describing how she was recruited by a woman named Natalya after moving to New York to attend FIT. The text also acknowledges written submissions from other victims including Maria Farmer and Ms. Helm.
DOJ-OGR-00021612.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript containing a victim impact statement written by Virginia Giuffre and read by her counsel. The statement addresses Ghislaine Maxwell directly, recounting how Maxwell recruited Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2000 and procured her for Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre accuses Maxwell of being the 'door to hell' who used her femininity to betray victims, acting as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity