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-00021560.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, in which a judge is ruling on defense objections to specific paragraphs (79 and 81) of a report. The judge discusses Virginia's testimony regarding interactions at Epstein's properties, specifically noting that trial evidence disproved claims that Virginia was unaware of other victims. The judge overrules an objection regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages performed by individuals brought by a woman named Carolyn, concluding that Maxwell's recruitment of Virginia set the broader scheme in motion.
DOJ-OGR-00021538.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on 02/25/22, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The court rejects Maxwell's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 violates her confrontation and due process rights, clarifying that Juror 50 is a factfinder, not a witness against her. The text cites various legal precedents to support the limitation on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021537.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the prosecution on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues against the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct (specifically regarding 'Juror 50' and a 'second juror' lying during voir dire). The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606 and the Supreme Court case Warger v. Shauers to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences is inadmissible and does not constitute 'extraneous prejudicial information.'
DOJ-OGR-00021530.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standards required to hold a 'McDonough hearing' regarding juror nondisclosure, citing Second Circuit precedents that set a high bar for post-verdict inquiries to prevent juror harassment and 'fishing expeditions.' The court notes that the Defendant (Maxwell) argues against this standard but fails to provide an alternative.
DOJ-OGR-00021529.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding 'Juror 50.' The document discusses the legal standards (McDonough standard, Rule 606) for post-verdict inquiries into juror misconduct, specifically addressing allegations that Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021520.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It certifies that Epstein understands and agrees to comply with clarifications made to the NPA. The document is signed by Epstein's attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez on October 29, 2007, and by a First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA) on behalf of A. Marie Villafaña on October 30, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021519.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. It certifies that Epstein understands and agrees to comply with clarifications to the agreement. The document is signed by Gerald Lefcourt (Epstein's counsel) on October 29, 2007, and by Jeffrey H. Sloman (FAUSA, signing for A. Marie Villafaña) on October 30, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021517.jpg
This document is an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, labeled Exhibit SA-341. It modifies the original agreement to establish a process where the United States appoints an independent third party to select an attorney representative for the victims, subject to the approval of Epstein's counsel. The addendum stipulates that Epstein will pay the customary hourly rates for this attorney representative, but his obligation to pay ceases if the representative files contested litigation against him.
DOJ-OGR-00021513.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein. While signature lines exist for Epstein, R. Alexander Acosta, A. Marie Villafaña, and Gerald Lefcourt, the only visible signature and date (9-24-07) belong to Lilly Ann Sanchez, an attorney for Epstein. The text certifies that Epstein has read, understood, and agreed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021512.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, dated September 2007. It contains the signatures of Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña and Epstein's counsel, Gerald Lefcourt, certifying the agreement terms. The document also lists R. Alexander Acosta as U.S. Attorney and Lilly Ann Sanchez as additional defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00021509.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal agreement (the Non-Prosecution Agreement) between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines sentencing dates (2007/2008), stipulations regarding 'gain time' in prison, and a confidentiality clause attempting to keep the agreement out of the public record. Crucially, it contains the controversial immunity clause stating the U.S. will not prosecute any potential co-conspirators (names redacted) and agrees to suspend the federal Grand Jury investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021499.jpg
This document is the first page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines five specific federal offenses Epstein is reported to have committed between 2001 and October 2005, focusing on conspiracy, interstate travel for illicit sexual conduct, and the sex trafficking of minors. The document cites specific violations of Title 18 of the United States Code.
DOJ-OGR-00021456.jpg
This document is a placeholder page from a court filing (Case 22-1426 and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It contains the text '[Page Left Intentionally Blank]' and bears the internal page number 254 and the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021456.
DOJ-OGR-00021370.jpg
This document is page 170 of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report evaluating Alexander Acosta's conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by prematurely resolving the federal investigation through a state plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) based on a flawed application of the 'Petite policy.' The report notes that Acosta failed to strengthen the federal case (e.g., by obtaining Epstein's missing computers) and that the crimes involved substantial federal interests including the sexual exploitation of children and interstate travel.
DOJ-OGR-00021332.jpg
This document is a placeholder page within a larger legal filing, explicitly marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]'. It contains header metadata referencing Case 22-1426 and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, along with a Bates stamp number DOJ-OGR-00021332.
DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
This document appears to be page 129 of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, filed within the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal precedents (such as *United States v. Marquez* and *State v. Frazier*) to establish that plea agreements involving promises of leniency toward third parties are generally valid and do not constitute an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It also establishes that the five attorneys subject to this OPR investigation were evaluated under the local rules of the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021165.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing from April 26, 2023, regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal (Case 22-1426). It summarizes the procedural history, noting her conviction on June 29, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan. Paragraph 4 details the eight counts of the Superseding Indictment filed in March 2021, which include conspiracy, enticement of minors, sex trafficking of minors, and perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00021157.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a Criminal Judgment against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 CR 330), filed on June 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Standard Conditions of Supervision' for her supervised release, including requirements to report to a probation officer, maintain employment, restrictions on travel and weapons possession, and prohibitions against interacting with known criminals or acting as a confidential informant. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp indicating it is part of a larger production.
DOJ-OGR-00021156.jpg
This document is page 4 of 8 from a judgment in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 CR 330 AJN), filed on June 29, 2022. It specifies the terms of her supervised release, which includes 3 years for counts 3 and 4, and a concurrent 5 years for count 6. The document also lists mandatory conditions, such as making restitution, cooperating with DNA collection, and complying with sex offender registration requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg
This document is page 73 of a legal appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the trial court erred regarding 'Juror 50,' claiming the juror had a bias regarding sexual abuse memories that should have disqualified them. It also argues 'Point IV,' stating the court constructively amended the indictment by allowing the jury to convict Maxwell on Count Four based on activity in New Mexico (testified to by 'Jane') that was not a violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
This document is page 55 (PDF page 70) of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The text presents a legal argument regarding the 'Landgraf test' and statutory interpretation, specifically arguing that the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 (H.R. 1104) was not intended to apply retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a proviso that would have allowed it to cover conduct predating the enactment. The page relies on various Supreme Court and Circuit Court citations to support the argument that rejected legislative proposals are significant indicators of congressional intent.
DOJ-OGR-00021116.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses) applies only prospectively, not retroactively. The argument relies on the 'Landgraf' test and linguistic analysis of the words 'would' and 'shall' as future-tense indicators, citing various legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00021114.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on Feb 28, 2023. It argues primarily against the retroactive application of the PROTECT Act (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse). The text cites legal precedents (Diehl, Coutentos) to argue that the District Court erred in its interpretation of the statute's retroactivity concerning the April 2003 amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00019648.jpg
This document is page 'i' of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, Document 94), dated October 8, 2020. It serves as the Table of Contents for a 20+ page document containing sections on Introduction, Jurisdiction, Argument, and Conclusion. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 82) filed on October 2, 2020. The text argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to use a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order, citing that such writs are 'extraordinary remedies' reserved for exceptional circumstances like judicial abuse of power. It references legal precedents (Cheney, Glotzer) to support the argument that pretrial discovery orders are generally not reviewable on direct appeal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity